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



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

> Romanian Army's contribution in Crimea
Dr_V
Posted: October 11, 2003 12:09 am
Quote Post


Caporal
*

Group: Members
Posts: 146
Member No.: 71
Joined: August 05, 2003



I saw today a TV documentary (Discovery Channel) about the war in Crimea. When analyzing the strength of the German forces that attacked Crimea, the speaker said that the Romanian forces that were part of this force were fightin without any entusiasm because, after the Moldavian provences were conquered, the Romanians lost their interest in fighting on the East front. He also said that the fighting value of the Romanian division was insignificant, as the men were not motivated enough and they were poorly trained. The Romanians were described as one of the weeknesses of the Axes force.
This contradicts most of what I know about this subject. Discovery Channel often tends to alter the historical truth to mach the western point of view of the events in WW2. But I'm starting to have some doubts about the accuracy of the things I've read so far, maybe Romanians also tend to overestimate their contribution. Can you point me a book that covers this domain with an impartial point of view?
PM
Top
Victor
Posted: October 11, 2003 06:23 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4330
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



Discovery Channel is not a reliable source of detailed information about WWII. I really doubt that the people who made the documentary actually researched the subject beyond von Manstein's Lost Victories, which is not a really accurate source. Probably they did not even bother to read Third Axis, Fourth Ally
The best book on the subject is by far Romanii in Crimeea by Adrian Pandea and Eftimie Ardeleanu, Ed. Militara, 1995. It is 3 quarters original documents. I do not feel that the authors exaggerated the Romanian contribution, as you think, but have kept a really professional and impartial attitude.

The fact that for 50 years the Western historians had access mainly to German archives and memoirs had created a very German view on the Eastern Front, leaving no room for the military accomplishments of the other players. Read the articles on Crimea 1941-42 on this site. I assure you I tried to be as impartial as I could and show the things how they happened.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Bernard Miclescu
Posted: October 11, 2003 08:43 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier major
*

Group: Members
Posts: 334
Member No.: 53
Joined: July 22, 2003



Please Victor tell me what do you think about the book "Antonescu-Hitler Caucazul si Crimeea" by Jipa Rotaru, L Moise, T Oroian V Zodian???
Ed Paideia . Maybe it is written in the nationalist way by some army historians?

Yours,
BM
PMMSN
Top
mabadesc
Posted: October 13, 2003 03:53 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 802
Member No.: 40
Joined: July 11, 2003



Does someone know where I can buy "Romanii in Crimea"? I've been looking for it everywhere. Any help appreciated....
PM
Top
Victor
Posted: October 13, 2003 05:34 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4330
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE
Please Victor tell me what do you think about the book \"Antonescu-Hitler Caucazul si Crimeea\" by Jipa Rotaru, L Moise, T Oroian V Zodian???
Ed Paideia . Maybe it is written in the nationalist way by some army historians?  

Yours,
BM


The book is pretty balanced, IMHO. But it refers to the 43-44 period.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
dragos
Posted: October 16, 2003 11:19 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2395
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE
I saw today a TV documentary (Discovery Channel) about the war in Crimea.


I saw almost all "Battlefield" documentaries about WW2, and the two about Crimea were some of the last I've seen. I think I was expecting a different approach however. IIRC in the "Kerch-Feodosiya" Operation (read about it here), Romanian troops are only stated once or twice.
I believe in the second part authors used as video material, sequences from black/white Soviet movies instead of original footage. There are also little footage with Romanian troops. I've seen 2nd part only once, but I have the impression that gunners firing the medium AT gun (50 or 75mm) at the landing Soviets are Romanians. But again, images are too dramatic to be real.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Benoit Douville
Posted: October 19, 2003 01:57 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 43
Member No.: 16
Joined: June 22, 2003



Victor,

Manstein "Lost Victories" not a accurate source??? Huh? How can you say that?

Regards
PM
Top
Victor
Posted: October 19, 2003 06:27 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4330
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



Simply becauseit comits many mistakes (I am refering here to the Crimea chapter) and leaves out a lot some information. As all memoirs, it is subjective.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
septimiu
Posted: February 24, 2004 03:22 pm
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 3
Member No.: 183
Joined: January 05, 2004



"Simply becauseit comits many mistakes (I am refering here to the Crimea chapter) and leaves out a lot some information. As all memoirs, it is subjective."

It is interesting your point of view. How you can prove? I am speaking about mistakes and the fact that he leaves out a lot of information. Other books maybe?
PM
Top
petru
Posted: February 24, 2004 04:38 pm
Quote Post


Caporal
*

Group: Members
Posts: 117
Member No.: 149
Joined: November 27, 2003



QUOTE
It is interesting your point of view. How you can prove? I am speaking about mistakes and the fact that he leaves out a lot of information. Other books maybe?


Check the link Dragos posted. You will find something in there.
PM
Top
Victor
Posted: February 24, 2004 08:22 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4330
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE
It is interesting your point of view. How you can prove? I am speaking about mistakes and the fact that he leaves out a lot of information. Other books maybe?


Reports of Romanian units, commanders to the General Staff etc. Do not consider Manstein as infailable, because he was not. He wrote the book 10 years aftyer the war, IIRC, without having access to Romanian documents.

For example, he mentions gen. Lascar as commander of the 1st Mountain Division during the second siege of Sevastopol, when the man was CO of the 6th Infantry Division. Read the text first.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Indrid
Posted: February 25, 2004 06:20 am
Quote Post


Sublocotenent
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 425
Member No.: 142
Joined: November 15, 2003



QUOTE
Discovery Channel often tends to alter the historical truth to mach the western point of view of the events in WW2.


this is weird. all documentaries i have seen on the discovery channell present hitler not as a lunatic ,stupid, mad, drooling , etc etc...which i think is the western view...
PMICQ
Top
C-2
Posted: February 25, 2004 09:38 pm
Quote Post


General Medic
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 2453
Member No.: 19
Joined: June 23, 2003



Adolf Galland said the same :!:
PMUsers Website
Top
ragewolf
Posted: February 27, 2004 06:32 am
Quote Post


Soldat
*

Group: Members
Posts: 10
Member No.: 230
Joined: February 26, 2004



QUOTE

Reports of Romanian units, commanders to the General Staff etc. Do not consider Manstein as infailable, because he was not. He wrote the book 10 years aftyer the war, IIRC, without having access to Romanian documents.  

For example, he mentions gen. Lascar as commander of the 1st Mountain Division during the second siege of Sevastopol, when the man was CO of the 6th Infantry Division. Read the text first.


Agree.

Manstein rate german army above anyothers. I remeber in his memoir,
he mentioned sometimes that Don't trust the hope with other Axis troops.
He also said, although romanian had a little battle effectiveness, but like
other East Europe people, they were naturally fear of russian.

So, this is the bias.
PM
Top
Dan Po
Posted: February 29, 2004 02:40 pm
Quote Post


Sergent major
*

Group: Members
Posts: 208
Member No.: 226
Joined: February 23, 2004



QUOTE
Manstein rate german army above anyothers. I remeber in his memoir,
he mentioned sometimes that Don't trust the hope with other Axis troops.
He also said, although romanian had a little battle effectiveness, but like  
other East Europe people, they were naturally fear of russian.


In some ways german army was above anyothers. Manstein said too, in his book that the romanian army was the best allied of Germany in east and also, said that the romanian army do her best at eastern front (in ed romana " si-au facut datoria cat de bine au putut"). He talk about the weak quality and training of romanian NCO corp - in opposition with the traditional high quality of german NCO s; about poor motorization etc.

He said also that the romanians was weak in offensive operations ... Antonescu said that romanian soldiers can fight better in offensive than in deffensive ...

If I remember well Manstein have good words about romanian mountain troops who fought at Sevastopol s siege.

Anyway we have to considerate the difference of equipment and weapons between Werhrmacht and romanian army. At least like a retorical question ... Could fought the germans better with a romanian equipment and with a romanian weaponary ?

Is true that romanaians and another east europe peoples had a kind of naturaly fear of russians -? I don t think so ... :ro:
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

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

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0742 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]