Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (5) 1 2 [3] 4 5   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Romania 1940 - the Possible War: Romanian Army, Romanian Army (land forces) in 1940
Victor
Posted: January 20, 2009 05:39 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4349
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



I fail to see what is so hilarious in that statement.

You may be surprised to find out that the "Tiger tamers" also used FT-17s for the same purpose the Romanians were using them in the 40s: security missions.

I am not sure, but in 1940 Romania still had more and stronger tanks than Hungary did. The Turans entered service later.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Dénes
Posted: January 20, 2009 07:12 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4365
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



The two countries' armament in 1940 cannot really be compared.
Don't forget, Hungary was forbidden to have any tanks, military airplanes, cannon, etc. until Sept. 1938, while Rumania had all the time to keep and even develop its military force from 1919 on. Therefore, Hungary had only less than a couple of years to try to catch up with its antagonistic neighbour(s) until the possibility of the first real armed conflict with Rumania emerged in Aug. 1940.

Gen. Dénes
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
MMM
Posted: February 06, 2009 02:49 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



I must point out that Hungary's situation was not unlike III-rd Reich's in what concerns the tanks: they began late, but they had the time to get themselves just the latest equipment, not the obsolete Romanian tanks of the time. Even if they entered in service at a later time, as Hungary didn't have the the slightest intention to attack Romania on themselves, but only as a satellite of Germany.

This post has been edited by MMM on February 09, 2009 04:47 pm
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Victor
Posted: February 06, 2009 03:44 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4349
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (MMM @ February 06, 2009 04:49 pm)
I must point out that Hungary's situation was not unlike III-rd Reich's in what concerns the tanks: they began late, but they had the time to get themselves just the latest equipment, not the obsolete Romanian tanks of the time. Even if they entered in service at a later time, as Hungary didn't have the the slightest intention to attack Romania on themselves, but only as a stellite of Germany.

Like I already said, in 1940 Romania had the edge over Hungary in terms of armor. I would also like to see you support the opinion that Hungary had the "latest" in terms of tanks compared to Romania.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Dénes
Posted: February 06, 2009 07:38 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4365
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



QUOTE (MMM @ February 06, 2009 08:49 pm)
...Hungary didn't have the the slightest intention to attack Romania on themselves, but only as a stellite of Germany.

That's false.
Hungary did have the intention to recover Transylvania, or a larger part of it, even by force, if peaceful means would not have succeeded - without the assistance of Germany. She became emboldened by the success of the Soviet ultimatum addressed to Rumania in regards of Bessarabia and Bukovina.

Another misconception is that in the late 1930s Hungary was a staunch ally of Germany. False again. At that period, relations between Germany and Hungary were lukewarm, at best (for example, Horthy - a seasoned, high ranking commanding officer of the "old school" - had no respect whatsoever for the "Caporal". Hitler did not look at the Hungarians with much empathy either). Relations with Berlin "warmed up" only from mid-1941 on, with the anti-Soviet attack (BTW, Hungary was not part of Hitler's original attack plans in June 1941, only Rumania and Finland were).
A couple of years earlier it was Italy who was Hungary's most important ally (see, for example, the origin of most of the Hungarian army's foreign weaponry). I leave the comparison of the tank forces and their striking capacity to Victor. All I would only like to state that there are no comparison grounds between Hungary and Germany of the late 1930s, from the arming point of view (be it armour, aviation or anything else).

Finally, as I stated earlier, Hungary started to arm de jure only from Sept. 1938 on (de facto from the mid-1930s), while Rumania had all the time from 1919 on (it's another point how well did she use this time); moreover, Rumania had an anti-Hungarian military alliance with other countries surrounding Hungary, which clearly exceeded the combat value of the Hungarian armed force.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on February 06, 2009 08:10 pm
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
dragos
Posted: February 06, 2009 11:48 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE (Dénes @ February 06, 2009 10:38 pm)
Hungary did have the intention to recover Transylvania, or a larger part of it, even by force, if peaceful means would not have succeeded - without the assistance of Germany. She became emboldened by the success of the Soviet ultimatum addressed to Rumania in regards of Bessarabia and Bukovina.

Did Hungary elaborate a military plan of invasion of Transylvania in the case you mentioned (without the assistance of Germany) ?
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
21 inf
Posted: February 07, 2009 04:45 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Retired
Posts: 1512
Member No.: 1232
Joined: January 05, 2007



As is stated in "Politica de aparare a vestului României 1930-1940" by col. r. C-tin Mosincat, Hungary has made plans to atack Romania without german aid in late '30's. Romanian strategists also took into consideration a hungarian atack without warning (atac bruscat) in the same period. A very posible time for an early hungarian atack was in 1939, but it seems hungarian strategist made the decision to wait because in the same period was made a mobilisation exercise by romanian army. Hungarian evaluation of the situation had to be reevaluated because they were surprised by the high response of romanian recruits to the mobilisation. The romanian mobilisation plan was to call one contingent, but two more contigents presented to the baracks without being called, showing the high state of spirit in romanian population ranks. Calculating also the strenght of the newly build "Carol II" fortified line, hungarian strategist decided not to atack.

As it usually happen with the "fog of war" the reality was that the two contingents presented by free will to the baracks actually embaraced the movement of romanian army, causing dificulties in housing, feeding and equiping the great number of recruits. Also the "Carol II" fortified line was not ready and capable to stop an atack, giving the fact that a lot of armament was not instaled in the bunkers, the field mines were not available, the barbed wire was far from suficient, there was not even by far enough AT guns and specialised troops for manning the bunkers. If hungarian strategists would know entirely the real situation, it is probable that the hungarian atack was to be launched in 1939.

In the book is not detailed what were exactly the hungarian atack plans, it is stated only that the troops were in the position for the atack toward Transilvania and that the plans existed.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Dénes
Posted: February 07, 2009 05:39 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4365
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



There was no reality in the Hungarian attack to happen in 1939. Remember, Hungary officially started to arm herself only in Sept. 1938. It's certain that any possible attack was not called off by the high number of enthusiastic Rumanian recrutes (BTW, Hungarian recrutes were similarly enthusiasts on the prospect of recovering Transylvania). However, by mid-1940, a military attack was a reality, and would have broken out in August 1940, had the Vienna arbitrage not came in effect.
It is also worth to mention that a military attack was the last resort, as the official Hungarian policy was peaceful territorial revision through diplomacy.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on February 07, 2009 06:23 pm
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
dragos
Posted: February 08, 2009 12:07 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



It would be interesting to know the grand battle plan of the Hungarian side, because military actions against Romania, without foreign intervention in view, in 1939 and even 1940, would not advantage the Hungarian side in my opinion.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Agarici
Posted: February 08, 2009 12:10 am
Quote Post


Maior
*

Group: Members
Posts: 742
Member No.: 522
Joined: February 24, 2005



QUOTE (Dénes @ February 07, 2009 05:39 pm)
There was no reality in the Hungarian attack to happen in 1939. Remember, Hungary officially started to arm herself only in Sept. 1938. It's certain that any possible attack was not called off by the high number of enthusiastic Rumanian recrutes (BTW, Hungarian recrutes were similarly enthusiasts on the prospect of recovering Transylvania). However, by mid-1940, a military attack was a reality, and would have broken out in August 1940, had the Vienna arbitrage not came in effect.
It is also worth to mention that a military attack was the last resort, as the official Hungarian policy was peaceful territorial revision through diplomacy.

Gen. Dénes


Sure, “admiral" Horthy despised “corporal” Hitler, and that was the focal point of the relations between the two states, regardless the fact that (according to the same corporal and his friends, capt. Goring and J. Ribbentrop) Hungary didn’t stand the slightest chance in a conflict with Romania, not only without German support but even without direct German intervention. But wait, I’ve just heard the gossip that corporal Hitler and that Mussolini guy didn’t get along well too… so I wonder why some idiots persists in saying that Italy and Germany were allied?!?

And of course, 1939 German official policy was diplomatic negotiations and the peaceful (re)incorporation of Gdansk/Danzig. What a shame that the Poles have initiated their gangster-like aggression and forced the Reich to defend and punish the aggressors… If only the Romanians would have been wise enough (as could have been reasonably expected from their part) and accept the transfer of Transylvania to the Hungarians, after the bilateral negotiations, allowing the peace-loving Hungarian government to avoid resorting to violence (oh wait, but in fact they have reserved the use of violence for after the occupation of the province, against the civilians). And perhaps if they would have included, say, Oltenia too as a bonus/compensation, they could have put the corner stone for a new partnership alliance with the government of the friendly admiral.

Seriously now, Denes, could you please make an effort to cut short this kind of pseudo-mythical propaganda and not to consider us all as being entirely ignorant or idiots? Let’s move on from the level of debating the holiness of the Hungarian kings and their mission on earth in the name of God (or that of the Steven the Great of Moldavia), moving preferably upwards.

PMEmail Poster
Top
dragos
Posted: February 08, 2009 12:37 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



Agarici, please do not flame the topic.

I, too, do not believe that Hungary made plans to invade Romania alone, without foreign intervention, like a concomitant attack of Soviet Union in Bessarabia, because alone the chances of success would be slim. It is of the essence to know the details of the Hungarian grand battle plan.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Dénes
Posted: February 08, 2009 07:19 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4365
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



QUOTE (Agarici @ February 08, 2009 06:10 am)
Denes, could you please make an effort to cut short this kind of pseudo-mythical propaganda and not to consider us all as being entirely ignorant or idiots?

With this sentence you only characterised yourself, Agarici.

For the sake of the integrity of this forum I will not call you (indirectly) idiot and ignorant, so not to add fuel to the fire you just started.
All I am suggesting you is to try to open a bit your mind, read as many different sources as possible, and don't believe everything that is written in certain category of Rumanian books (which is entirely valid for Hungarian books, too). Otherwise you will keep playing the same old, by now well worn vynil: those bloodthirsty hortists wanted to tear Transylvania from Rumania's body, and so on...

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on February 08, 2009 07:33 am
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
21 inf
Posted: February 08, 2009 08:02 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Retired
Posts: 1512
Member No.: 1232
Joined: January 05, 2007



I just cited what the book above mentioned said about the situation in 1939. It is posible that the same "fog of war" happened with the romanian historian from XXI century when he worte the book.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Dénes
Posted: February 08, 2009 08:31 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4365
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



That's very good. Properly identified sources are always a good basis to start a particular discussion from. However, we should take a further step and comment on the topic, perhaps draw some conclusions, too (without calling others names during the process, of course).

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on February 08, 2009 08:42 am
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
MMM
Posted: February 09, 2009 04:47 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1463
Member No.: 2323
Joined: December 02, 2008



QUOTE
peaceful territorial revision through diplomacy
still comprises the war threats, doesn't it?
The hungarian military forces did not forget 1919, so they would never have attacked alone Romania; neither in 1919 were they suppoosed to do that, but the Soviets (or future Soviets, at that time...) were too busy in their own backyard.
And both for Denes and Agarici: the historians in both countries produced mostly partisan works, but the truth can sometimes be seen between the lines - provided one really wants to do that AND is able to (i.e. has the intellectual capability to discern the historical truth from the historical myth)

This post has been edited by MMM on March 11, 2009 03:14 pm
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (5) 1 2 [3] 4 5  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0380 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]