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



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

> 'Untold Chapters of Rumania’s Tragic Story', 'the War Illustrated' 17th March, 1917.
New Connaught Ranger
Posted: March 13, 2007 04:43 pm
Quote Post


Colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 941
Member No.: 770
Joined: January 03, 2006



Hallo Gentlemen. :D

Surfing the net I came across this "GREAT WAR" website:

And wonder if its known to the members of this Forum?

http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Great_War.../Rumania_01.htm

Some very interesting reading and pictures.

Kevin in Deva. :D
PMEmail Poster
Top
mateias
Posted: December 08, 2007 10:42 am
Quote Post


Sergent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 169
Member No.: 1704
Joined: December 02, 2007



Hi, Kevin
Yes, I know the site. However, I am disappointed that it shows only the first stage of the war (1916). I wonder if there are any war correspodents doing the same job in Romania in 1917-1919.
Best regards
PMEmail Poster
Top
razu
Posted: January 21, 2009 02:42 am
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 64
Member No.: 2132
Joined: May 22, 2008



Hi !I've red the articles about Romania.They are very good.It is incredible that after fighting so fiercely against Germany with so many sacrifices, of men especialy,
Romania allies with Germany in the second world war.Not to mention the sacrifice made by King Ferdinand ,to fight against his own blood,what could have gone so wrong with the romanians so that after some twenty years they .....no comments.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Dénes
Posted: January 21, 2009 06:44 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

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



QUOTE (razu @ January 21, 2009 08:42 am)
what could have gone so wrong with the romanians...

It did go wrong, and stayed as such until the war's end, when the armies of the Central Powers disintegrated from within.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on January 21, 2009 01:41 pm
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted: January 21, 2009 09:06 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

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



QUOTE (razu @ January 21, 2009 02:42 am)
Hi !I've red the articles about Romania.They are very good.It is incredible that after fighting so fiercely  against Germany with so many sacrifices, of men especialy,
Romania allies with Germany in the second world war.Not to mention the sacrifice made by King Ferdinand ,to fight against his own blood,what could have gone so wrong with the romanians so that after some twenty years they .....no comments.

Hi!

An answer could be that in WW1 France didn't succomb and Russia didn't join sides with Germany (Brest-Litovsk came towards the end).

This post has been edited by Imperialist on January 21, 2009 09:06 am
PM
Top
razu
Posted: February 14, 2009 04:06 am
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 64
Member No.: 2132
Joined: May 22, 2008



QUOTE (Imperialist @ January 21, 2009 09:06 am)
QUOTE (razu @ January 21, 2009 02:42 am)
Hi !I've red the articles about Romania.They are very good.It is incredible that after fighting so fiercely  against Germany with so many sacrifices, of men especialy,
Romania allies with Germany in the second world war.Not to mention the sacrifice made by King Ferdinand ,to fight against his own blood,what could have gone so wrong with the romanians so that after some twenty years they .....no comments.

Hi!

An answer could be that in WW1 France didn't succomb and Russia didn't join sides with Germany (Brest-Litovsk came towards the end).

Hi Imperialist,
Well this answer does not convince me.The Romanaian Army was reformed by the French Army in 1916,during the desastrous campaign of that year of Romania.Some 300000 Romanian Soldiers died,at least, in WW1,giving some real heavy blows to the Central Powers.Basicly the German Army was wiped out by the Romanians in 1917 Campaign.Mackensen 's Army was defeated by the Romanian Army in the Battle of Marasesti and other places as well...
By joining the axis in WW2 ,Romania would destroy everything they acomplished in WW1.....so keep tryin'....
razu

This post has been edited by razu on February 14, 2009 04:09 am
PMEmail Poster
Top
dead-cat
Posted: February 14, 2009 04:30 am
Quote Post


Locotenent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 559
Member No.: 99
Joined: September 05, 2003



which german army was "wiped out"?
PMYahoo
Top
21 inf
Posted: February 14, 2009 06:23 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

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



QUOTE (Dénes @ January 21, 2009 06:44 am)
QUOTE (razu @ January 21, 2009 08:42 am)
what could have gone so wrong with the romanians...

It did go wrong, and stayed as such until the war's end, when the armies of the Central Powers disintegrated from within.

Gen. Dénes

What did gone wrong with romanian army until the end of the war? Was romanian army favorised only by the disintegration of enemy armies?

With this kind of statement, it seems that great romanian victories from Mărăşti, Mărăşeşti and Oituz never existed! It seems that romanian army was never reborn in 1917 after the defeat from 1916. Probably because romanian army was weak and lost every single battle is the reason why germans never reached Iaşi, as von Mackensen wanted at the start of the campaign of 1917.

Romanian army was beated in 1916, but in 1917 won every single battle in Moldova. Stating that romanian army had luck only with the disintegration of her enemies at the end of the war is a denial of great romanian victories in Moldova and the denial of tens of thousands romanian heroes who felt on the 1917 battle fields, stoping the german-austro-hungarians armies from entering Moldova.

The poorest performance in 1917 romanian campaign was from the part of the austro-hungarian army who couldn't penetrate Carpathian mountains in front of the romanian army defending it.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Dénes
Posted: February 14, 2009 08:58 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

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



Bogdan, what you're describing here is the romanticised version of history, taking events out of context, enlarging certain, positive aspects, while belittling, or outright denying other, negative aspects. This particular approach to history is reflected in a certain category of Rumanian publications. Believe me, I read many
of those, so I am aware of this view.

That's why I keep repeating here that one should not rely only on locally published books and articles and try to widen his/her horizons, to get a more balanced view. Did you read how the Germans and Austrians regard the same events you described only from the Rumanian point of view?

Returning briefly to the topic, if the Rumanian victories were so brilliant and overwhelming as you describe, why didn't the army liberate the occupied area of Rumania (or at least the capital, Bucharest)? And most importantly, why did Rumania sign the Bucharest peace treaty of May 7, 1918, which was so disadvantageous (to say the least) to them?

And please, do not attempt to paint me, or anyone else who does not adhere to your point of view, as guilty of "denial of tens of thousands romanian heroes who felt on the 1917 battle fields". This is outrageous. Argue instead, based on reliable and varied sources, and don't get personal, please.

Listening more to your heart than to your mind does not help in objectively studying history and getting as close to the actual historical truth as possible...

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on February 14, 2009 09:00 am
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
dead-cat
Posted: February 14, 2009 09:43 am
Quote Post


Locotenent
*

Group: Members
Posts: 559
Member No.: 99
Joined: September 05, 2003



perhaps i shall dwell a bit on "wiped out" or "heavy blows".

according to Victor's excellent article about the Marasesti battle, the german army involved, (the 9th) numbered 11 divisions, which is confirmed in Nigel Thoms' "German Army in World War I, 1917-18 (3)" from Osprey.

Taken from Victor's article, the 9th army had 102 infantry batallions , 10 cavalry squadrons, 1135 MGs, 223 field guns, 112 heavy pieces and 356 mortars.

A german division had a theoretical strength of 12.300 men in late-war.
A force of 11 divisions thus would have around 130.000 men. If no replacements reached them during the entire battle, then at 47.000 men casualties, the rate would be around 35%, which is quite normal (a bit below the average of around 65% of men mobilized for the entire war).
I fail to see the "wiped out" effect in the figures.
It was a "heavy blow" to Mackensen's pride at best, but the military efect wasn't all that pronounced.

According to David Zabecki's "Steel Wind" the german late-war division has following TOE

light guns: 36
heavy guns: 12
mortars: 56

and from Randal Gray's "Kaiserschlacht 1918", Osprey, 144 light MGs and 78 heavy MG08.
therefore a division should field 48 guns, 56 mortars and 222 MGs, therefore the 9th army should have at her disposal, if properly outfitted, 528 guns (of which 132 heavy), 616 mortars and 2442 MGs.
only the number of heavy pieces comes close to the TOE specification. and even this is a bit misleading, because corps artillery added 2 heavy batallions with 8 guns as well. as there were at least 2 corps formations (1st and 18th reserve), the full-strength number of heavy pieces should be at least 148.
One would expect divisions to be undestrength in artillery at this stage of the war, due to wear if nothing else, however the 9th army has only the heavy artillery over 60% of nominal strength, this while conducting an offensive.

Since the front in Moldavia has not been regarded as a primary theatre of operations, the rather understrength equipment numbers reflect this.
during mid-august 1917 the preparations for the Riga offensive began (around Aug. 16th) and all available artillery was collected into the OHL reserve.
As a comparision on Sept. 1st. von Hutier's 8th army attacked Riga.
The stregth of the 8th army was 15 infantry and 2 cavalry divisions.
Before the offensive, the 8th army received artillery even from the western front to a total of 251 heavy pieces.
Here the aim was to resume the advance towards St. Petersburg, thus putting pressure on the russian government to force Russia out of the war.
This is reflected in the resource allcation.

This post has been edited by dead-cat on February 14, 2009 09:45 am
PMYahoo
Top
21 inf
Posted: February 14, 2009 12:51 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

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



Denes, you just supose that I didnt read any other foreign sources. Romanian sources are as good and reliable as the foreign sources are, and as you are aware, i read and speak both romanian and hungarian languages, so i read writings in both languages, being able to compare and draw an idea from it. Also, as one can see, i am educated well enough to understand a little bit english language, also.

I had the oportunity to read the hungarian sources, but i will not make any remarks about their reliability and truth. Just a clue: try to compare romanian documents about 1919 campaign and hungarian documents about the same campaign. One will see the same diference as regarding 1917 campaign.

21 inf dixit.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
razu
Posted: February 14, 2009 09:31 pm
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 64
Member No.: 2132
Joined: May 22, 2008



QUOTE (21 inf @ February 14, 2009 06:23 am)
QUOTE (Dénes @ January 21, 2009 06:44 am)
QUOTE (razu @ January 21, 2009 08:42 am)
what could have gone so wrong with the romanians...

It did go wrong, and stayed as such until the war's end, when the armies of the Central Powers disintegrated from within.

Gen. Dénes

What did gone wrong with romanian army until the end of the war? Was romanian army favorised only by the disintegration of enemy armies?

With this kind of statement, it seems that great romanian victories from Mărăşti, Mărăşeşti and Oituz never existed! It seems that romanian army was never reborn in 1917 after the defeat from 1916. Probably because romanian army was weak and lost every single battle is the reason why germans never reached Iaşi, as von Mackensen wanted at the start of the campaign of 1917.

Romanian army was beated in 1916, but in 1917 won every single battle in Moldova. Stating that romanian army had luck only with the disintegration of her enemies at the end of the war is a denial of great romanian victories in Moldova and the denial of tens of thousands romanian heroes who felt on the 1917 battle fields, stoping the german-austro-hungarians armies from entering Moldova.

The poorest performance in 1917 romanian campaign was from the part of the austro-hungarian army who couldn't penetrate Carpathian mountains in front of the romanian army defending it.

Hi
It seems they only stopped the Germans,not the Austro-Hungarians and the Russians.... ;)
razu

This post has been edited by razu on February 14, 2009 09:46 pm
PMEmail Poster
Top
21 inf
Posted: February 14, 2009 09:40 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

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



Yes, they couldn't stop russians from running home and leaving us alone! :)

And the germans had to help AH army because AH army was very good at war. The serbians stoped AH army long before romanian army made an habbit from this.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
21 inf
Posted: February 15, 2009 05:31 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

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



A hungarian book about ww1, including a short description of Marasesti and Oituz battles. The book is written by a hungarian writer, Julier Ferenc, and the author says about those two battles the same thing that romanian says. Lucky me I speak hungarian so I was able to read a foreign source of information, not only the local romanian ones. ;)

Here is the link: http://www.bibl.u-szeged.hu/bibl/mil/ww1/j.../5_6.html#5resz

Scroll down to OKNA-FOCSANY (Ocna-Focşani) chapter. The text is in hungarian language.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
razu
Posted: February 15, 2009 07:39 am
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 64
Member No.: 2132
Joined: May 22, 2008



Hi 21inf

Well, it was a bloodbath...fighting four armies it is not an eay thing.Even for the Romanians.Well,let us say just three armies...
razu

This post has been edited by razu on February 15, 2009 10:29 am
PMEmail Poster
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

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

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0349 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]