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



Pages: (6) « First ... 3 4 [5] 6   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Romanian contribution to the shortening of the war
Imperialist
Posted: May 10, 2005 08:12 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (dragos @ May 10 2005, 07:42 PM)
This is based on a statement in the yesterday show on OTV. In the balance of the post war negociations, Romania was refuted the contribution for shortening the war with 200 days, as having lengthening the war much more in the previous three years. But someone stated (sorry, I can't remember the name) that the shortening of the war with 200 days in the end was much more important, because the Americans were initially preparing the A-bombs for Germany, and if the war in Europe was a little longer, Germany would have been the test grounds for the Atomic bombs, thus turning the center of Europe into a nuclear wasteland with the horrendous consequences in the years to follow.

I disagree with that nuke assessment.
Lets remember that the main reason/justification for nuking Japan was the high cost of landing on the islands.
By August 23rd 1944, the Allied main military effort was already 2 and 1/2 months after a successful landing on Festung Europe.
Besides, I;ve started to think that the number of days Romania would have been able to resist is overstated anyways.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on May 10, 2005 08:13 pm
PM
Top
dragos
Posted: May 10, 2005 09:11 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Imperialist)
Lets remember that the main reason/justification for nuking Japan was the high cost of landing on the islands.


AFAIK, this evaluation has been made after the capitulation of Germany. While I have found only reliable references on the assessments of using the A-bomb against Japan, there is none I know about not using it against Germany.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Imperialist
Posted: May 10, 2005 09:24 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (dragos @ May 10 2005, 09:11 PM)
QUOTE (Imperialist)
Lets remember that the main reason/justification for nuking Japan was the high cost of landing on the islands.


AFAIK, this evaluation has been made after the capitulation of Germany. While I have found only reliable references on the assessments of using the A-bomb against Japan, there is none I know about not using it against Germany.

Yes, but I mean the main Allied military effort was in Europe.
British, American, Russian forces were on the ground.
In comparison, the nuke was an important force replacement on the secondary theater. Plus, it saved them a landing.
I do agree that a nuke attack would have been possible against Festung Europe, but only against an intact fortress. The fortress was breached before August 23rd '44, so I dont think Romania hanging on for 100-200 days more would have had any impact on an already penetrated continent.

As for Romania hanging on, for a while I too thought about the famous FNG line, but I started to think that it could have been outflanked through Transylvania anyway.

p.s. what is AFAIK?
PM
Top
dragos
Posted: May 10, 2005 10:20 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Imperialist)
In comparison, the nuke was an important force replacement on the secondary theater.


At the time the A-bombs were used, the Pacific theater was no longer a secondary theater.

QUOTE (Imperialist)
I do agree that a nuke attack would have been possible against Festung Europe, but only against an intact fortress.


This is only speculation in my opinion.

QUOTE (Imperialist)
As for Romania hanging on, for a while I too thought about the famous FNG line, but I started to think that it could have been outflanked through Transylvania anyway.


A totally different topic, feel free to open it.

QUOTE (Imperialist)
p.s. what is AFAIK?


As far as I know
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Imperialist
Posted: May 10, 2005 10:24 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (dragos @ May 10 2005, 10:20 PM)


At the time the A-bombs were used, the Pacific theater was no longer a secondary theater.



In terms of importance, no.
In terms of force levels there, it retained its secondary character from the previous period. As stated on another thread by somebody else, a lot of force redeployments were required to deal with Japan, mostly from the other theater.

QUOTE
This is only speculation in my opinion.


True, but them OTV guys saying Europe was going to be nuked if Romania held on in august '44 is speculation too.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on May 10, 2005 10:25 pm
PM
Top
dragos
Posted: May 10, 2005 10:28 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

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



QUOTE (Imperialist @ May 11 2005, 01:24 AM)
QUOTE (dragos @ May 10 2005, 10:20 PM)


At the time the A-bombs were used, the Pacific theater was no longer a secondary theater.


In terms of importance, no.
In terms of force levels there, it retained its secondary character from the previous period. As stated on another thread by somebody else, a lot of force redeployments were required to deal with Japan, mostly from the other theater.

But you miss the main clause, of main theater of war still in action, unless in your opinion the A-bomb would have been used only in a secondary theater (for which cause?)
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
dragos
Posted: May 10, 2005 10:31 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

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



QUOTE
True, but them OTV guys saying Europe was going to be nuked if Romania held on in august '44 is speculation too.


Of course, but the possibility of using the A-bomb over Germany in case of an extended war in Europe deserves attention IMO.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Alexandru H.
Posted: May 10, 2005 10:33 pm
Quote Post


Sergent major
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 216
Member No.: 57
Joined: July 23, 2003



As Far As I Know

Just consider it my small contribution to this thread:)
PMUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: May 10, 2005 10:43 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (dragos @ May 10 2005, 10:28 PM)

But you miss the main clause, of main theater of war still in action, unless in your opinion the A-bomb would have been used only in a secondary theater (for which cause?)

No, what I'm trying to say is that because Europe was chosen the main theater, forces of all Allies were converging on the center of German power, while in the Far East Japan was an island fortress.
So I think the thought process was that if they were to test the bombs, they would do it somewhere where the effect would have been greater. Afterall, for Germany they still had the city-busting bombers...
PM
Top
Imperialist
Posted: May 10, 2005 10:44 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Alexandru H. @ May 10 2005, 10:33 PM)
As Far As I Know

Just consider it my small contribution to this thread:)

Thanx Alex, but Dragos already answered... thank you both.
PM
Top
dragos
Posted: May 10, 2005 10:45 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

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



The first test of the A-bomb was on 16 July 1945. The second test was on 6 August 1945 (Hiroshima)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_project
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Florin
Posted: May 12, 2005 03:46 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1872
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (Imperialist @ May 10 2005, 03:12 PM)
By August 23rd 1944, the Allied main military effort was already 2 and 1/2 months after a successful landing on Festung Europe.
Besides, I;ve started to think that the number of days Romania would have been able to resist is overstated anyways.

Since the war started for U.S.S.R in June 1941, the Oriental Carpathian Mountains was the first real chain of mountains the Russians encountered during their offensive period.
In such a place their superiority in armor (tanks) and artillery would not make their effect. Remember, later in Tatra Mountains they called the Romanian mountain units any time they were not able to advance in the Czech territory.

I think the weak link in the Romanian-German defense was the part along Siret river. Also, the Soviets could pass over Danube, but it wouldn't make sense, because they would face Danube again, and if they would go ahead for Bulgaria, they could face counterattacks in the rear.
PM
Top
Imperialist
Posted: May 12, 2005 04:12 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Florin @ May 12 2005, 03:46 AM)

Since the war started for U.S.S.R in June 1941, the Oriental Carpathian Mountains was the first real chain of mountains the Russians encountered during their offensive period.
In such a place their superiority in armor (tanks) and artillery would not make their effect. Remember, later in Tatra Mountains they called the Romanian mountain units any time they were not able to advance in the Czech territory.

I think the weak link in the Romanian-German defense was the part along Siret river. Also, the Soviets could pass over Danube, but it wouldn't make sense, because they would face Danube again, and if they would go ahead for Bulgaria, they could face counterattacks in the rear.

For Romania the passes were more of a reliability than an asset.
In WWI it was obvious that holding those mountain passes in the face of a superior enemy is not that easy. And secondly, the main question would be one of overstretch.
Romania could have faced a combination of the 3 Ukrainian Fronts.
Ofcourse, I'm not saying all these would have converged on Romania, but they offered plenty of assets for a two pronged assault on Romania.
I think the 1st and 2nd Ukrainian Fronts would have deployed forces in Transylvania while other forces of the 2nd and 3rd would have attacked the FNG line. Then the question would be what and where was Romania to deploy its remaining forces (about 20 divisions?).
PM
Top
Iamandi
Posted: May 12, 2005 05:54 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1386
Member No.: 319
Joined: August 04, 2004



Was real chances to obtain more than 200 days, if Romania don't switch the sides?

Iama
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Imperialist
Posted: May 12, 2005 05:59 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Iamandi @ May 12 2005, 05:54 AM)
Was real chances to obtain more than 200 days, if Romania don't switch the sides?

Iama

IMO no.
Also the question is, 200 days for whom? For the collapsing German army? To do what? The russian hammer was already advancing at great speed, the allies landed, the bombings continued, Italy, etc.
PM
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (6) « First ... 3 4 [5] 6  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0253 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]