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



Pages: (9) « First ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> We should be proud of Eastern Front victories?, about the romanian victories 1941/42
 
Are you proud of Romanian Army victories from Nov.1941-Nov.1942?
-Yes, I am proud for our Army victories from November 1941 onwards! [ 25 ]  [78.12%]
-No, from moral point of view I have no reason to be proud! [ 2 ]  [6.25%]
-There are no "pure" Romanian victories but only in cooperation with the Germans, so... [ 5 ]  [15.62%]
Total Votes: 32
Guests cannot vote 
Imperialist
Posted on February 02, 2013 07:32 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

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



QUOTE (Cantacuzino @ February 02, 2013 05:00 pm)
No I don't agree with you. I don't think that Stalin and a great power like USSR would forgive Romania just because we stopped at Dnester border ( what a good guys we were should gave us candies )
In my opinion nobody could stop URSS to force Romania to continuu the war after Tisza border with all army (if we wanted to keep Transilvania for us)

Yes teoretically Romania would have better relation with USA and UK but URSS had different goals and the western allies could not change that by contary they helped.

In my view the question is not if there was anything the leaders could have done to obtain a better outcome. I don't think there was. We were caught between a rock and a hard place. One way or the other we were going to lose territory and people and fall under the order of one of the great powers.
The question is - in what way would we lose them?

The thread is talking about pride and morality. Emotional elements that may change with time. But I know for sure that since I joined the forum I maintained one opinion all the way through, since the beginning. And that is that we should have fought in 1940.

That would have made me really proud. The rest - our moves in the East and then in the West can be admired for the effort and respected for the sacrifices, but they don't spark pride in me. Because in both cases we were allied with the enemies who humiliated us in 1940 and were ready to invade us if we refused to bow to their ultimatums, and we were fighting way beyond our legitimate borders.
PM
Top
Florin
Posted on February 03, 2013 12:18 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1870
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (MMM @ February 02, 2013 06:52 am)
QUOTE (sebipatru @ February 02, 2013 12:07 pm)
i'm talking about clausewitz theory and the fact that only romania actualy suported germany on eastern front  accordingly this theory
finland hungary croatia sent initialy only simbolic forces on eastern front or never get on soviet soil
maybe if all the axis countries would have used all their military power in the summer of 41 maybe the axis would have won the war
only romania really get in this war alongside germany

Well, you're quite wrong regarding the facts in here.............First of all, Romania has always maintained strong forces (1-st Army) at the Hungarian border; obviously, those forces did not go to the Eastern Front! ;)
Second, neither Finland, nor Hungary have participated only with "token forces" - and, above all data, the number of casualties acknowledgerd by them is quite relevant. Neither country participated with all its forces, not even Germany - until it was too late, anyway!
..........

Romania had on the Eastern Front more military personnel than the rest of the Axis Allies combined. If I am wrong with this one, this is a good opportunity to get enlightened.

Of course Germany did not participate with all her forces on the Eastern Front - the reason is too obvious to remind it. But by 1942 Germany had thrown all available men into military service. In early 1944 it was very common to see conscripted teenagers - 16 years old. Later that year, it had become standard practice. In early 1944 you could be in service even at 15 years old, but as volunteer (Hitlerjugend - 12 SS division, for example).
Maybe Germany should push more women into the military service - but this is not up to me to decide or comment. As you know, Soviet Union did it.
Something interesting happened at the end of 1944: many thousands of German soldiers were re-oriented from the frontlines back into the German industry, to avoid the collapse of the industrial manufacturing.

This post has been edited by Florin on February 03, 2013 01:47 am
PM
Top
MMM
Posted on February 03, 2013 11:48 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

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



QUOTE (Florin @ February 03, 2013 03:18 am)

Romania had on the Eastern Front more military personnel than the rest of the Axis Allies combined. If I am wrong with this one, this is a good opportunity to get enlightened.

Of course Germany did not participate with all her forces on the Eastern Front - the reason is too obvious to remind it. But by 1942 Germany had thrown all available men into military service. In early 1944 it was very common to see conscripted  teenagers - 16 years old. Later that year, it had become standard practice. In early 1944 you could be in service even at 15 years old, but as volunteer (Hitlerjugend - 12 SS division, for example).
Maybe Germany should push more women into the military service - but this is not up to me to decide or comment. As you know, Soviet Union did it.
Something interesting happened at the end of 1944: many thousands of German soldiers were re-oriented from the frontlines back into the German industry, to avoid the collapse of the industrial manufacturing.

Indeed, but except for Italy, the other Reich-allied countries had small populations: even after all the territorial gains, Hungary was still smaller than Romania; Finland as well; the "puppet-states" (Croatia and Slovakia) didn't exactly matter in the big picture. However, as the war was decided by the technological advance, I see no point in having 10 or 20 or 30 extra infantry divisions (from any ally) without AT or AA support.
What you say about HJ and Volkssturm (respectively the young and the old) begun in Germany only after the catastrophe at Stalingrad and the "gearing" towards total war of the economy and especially of the military production begun only under Speer's leadership.

This post has been edited by MMM on February 27, 2013 09:34 am
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
ANDREAS
Posted on February 03, 2013 12:09 pm
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 814
Member No.: 2421
Joined: March 15, 2009



QUOTE
Romania had on the Eastern Front more military personnel than the rest of the Axis Allies combined. If I am wrong with this one, this is a good opportunity to get enlightened.

Florin, from my point of view this fact is completely irrelevant! Or, if applicable, is only relevant for us, Romanians! I want to be well understood: although strong in expressing my pride for the efforts and sacrifices of our Army (and Nation as well) for the war of liberation of Bessarabia and Bukovina in summer 1941 I do believe that at some point general Antonescu "let himself took with the flow" ("s-a lasat luat de val") and entered, also of personal pride (considering his obvious belief that Hitler will reward him with Northern Transylvania) in the "Crusade against Bolshevism". In other words put his personal ambition above the interests of the country, this is why I also think he doesn't deserve to be appreciated by the Romanian Nation as Mannerheim is by the Finns! Which does not mean I condemn him, but merely I can't appreciate him!
Returning to topic, what is relevant for the contribution of Germany's allies in 1941 campaign in Russia is their contribution to the destruction of enemy combat units, and not the occupation of ennemy territory that for the USSR is not important! What USSR had plentiful were the people and vast territory, but relevant was finally the abundance of people and war materiel! So please tell me how many large Soviet units were destroyed by the Romanian Army (without German contribution) in 1941, how many were destroyed by Hungarian/Finn/Italian/Slovak/Croatian/Spanish Armies (Units) to talk about their contribution, important or not?
PMEmail PosterYahoo
Top
sebipatru
Posted on February 03, 2013 01:10 pm
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 53
Member No.: 2990
Joined: January 26, 2011



QUOTE (ANDREAS @ February 03, 2013 12:09 pm)
QUOTE
Romania had on the Eastern Front more military personnel than the rest of the Axis Allies combined. If I am wrong with this one, this is a good opportunity to get enlightened.

Florin, from my point of view this fact is completely irrelevant! Or, if applicable, is only relevant for us, Romanians! I want to be well understood: although strong in expressing my pride for the efforts and sacrifices of our Army (and Nation as well) for the war of liberation of Bessarabia and Bukovina in summer 1941 I do believe that at some point general Antonescu "let himself took with the flow" ("s-a lasat luat de val") and entered, also of personal pride (considering his obvious belief that Hitler will reward him with Northern Transylvania) in the "Crusade against Bolshevism". In other words put his personal ambition above the interests of the country, this is why I also think he doesn't deserve to be appreciated by the Romanian Nation as Mannerheim is by the Finns! Which does not mean I condemn him, but merely I can't appreciate him!
Returning to topic, what is relevant for the contribution of Germany's allies in 1941 campaign in Russia is their contribution to the destruction of enemy combat units, and not the occupation of ennemy territory that for the USSR is not important! What USSR had plentiful were the people and vast territory, but relevant was finally the abundance of people and war materiel! So please tell me how many large Soviet units were destroyed by the Romanian Army (without German contribution) in 1941, how many were destroyed by Hungarian/Finn/Italian/Slovak/Croatian/Spanish Armies (Units) to talk about their contribution, important or not?

QUOTE

So please tell me how many large Soviet units were destroyed by the Romanian Army (without German contribution) in 1941, how many were destroyed by Hungarian/Finn/Italian/Slovak/Croatian/Spanish Armies (Units) to talk about their contribution, important or not?

how many soviet units were destroyed by germans in southern sector with out romanian contribution?
how many ofensives could germans launch in southern sector with out relieing on romanian help?
PMEmail Poster
Top
MMM
Posted on February 03, 2013 03:23 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

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



@sebipatru:
1. most of them
2. all
Explanations:
1. The Romanian Army did not fight alone with the Red Army when it had the opportunity (1940), but after the Wehrmacht attacked the USSR. Remember when our units crossed the Prut river (12 days after the main attack). Why was that?
2. Our troops were used because they were there. If they weren't, the Wehrmacht would have used some other troops, possibly Hungarian... :P
The Romanian participation was more or less "a crime of opportunity": we did it because we were in the right place at the right time, IMO.

This post has been edited by MMM on February 03, 2013 08:45 pm
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Florin
Posted on February 03, 2013 05:48 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1870
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



Germany could carry on alone the war with Soviet Union if there would be no need for occupation troops in Western Europe and the Balkans, no need for air defense of Europe and no war in Northern Africa. Germany built in 2 years an empire of a size that for other countries required centuries to reach - with the benefits but also with the problems resulting from this.
To make it short, because this overstretching Germany could not carry on alone the war with Soviet Union - from the first day it started. Germany needed any help available on the Eastern Front. The more troops from any ally, the better.
Something neglected under this topic is the huge mistake made by the Germans as "public relations" with the local populations. The Ukrainians hated bitterly everything Stalin and Soviet Union stood for. For them, the Axis troops were liberators. And what was the German response? "Untermensch".
Nazi Germany could easily employ 2-3 million soldiers from Soviet citizens hating Communism. If that would become real, they would not need allies like the Romanian, Italian or Hungarian Armies, and they could win that war.

This post has been edited by Florin on February 03, 2013 11:40 pm
PM
Top
sebipatru
Posted on February 03, 2013 06:06 pm
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 53
Member No.: 2990
Joined: January 26, 2011



QUOTE

Explanations: The Romanian Army did not fought alone with the Red Army when it had the opportunity (1940), but after the Wehrmacht attacked the USSR. Remember when our units crossed the Prut river (12 days after the main attack). Why was that?
2. Our troops were used because they were there. If they weren't, the Wehrmacht would have used some other troops, possibly Hungarian... tongue.gif
The Romanian participation was more or less "a crime of opportunity": we did it because we were in the right place at the right time, IMO.

not agree with that
yes romania didn't fight aloane against USSR in 1940 wich is our big shame
but in 1940 the germans need us
operatioan munchen started 2 weeks later because of strategically reasons
soon after invansion germans realised that they simply dont have enough men to fight ussr and requested military support from their allies because of this romanian 4th army sieged odessa, because of this 3rd and 4th romanian armies fought at stalingrad, as well 8th iatlin army and 2nd Hungarian army
yes they could have used other troops but the fact is that we fought in that battles so haw many units destroyed the germans with out romanians asistance
how many operations launched germans on southern sector with out our suport

This post has been edited by sebipatru on February 03, 2013 06:17 pm
PMEmail Poster
Top
MMM
  Posted on February 03, 2013 08:11 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

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



QUOTE (sebipatru @ February 03, 2013 09:06 pm)
QUOTE

Explanations: The Romanian Army did not fought alone with the Red Army when it had the opportunity (1940), but after the Wehrmacht attacked the USSR. Remember when our units crossed the Prut river (12 days after the main attack). Why was that?
2. Our troops were used because they were there. If they weren't, the Wehrmacht would have used some other troops, possibly Hungarian... tongue.gif
The Romanian participation was more or less "a crime of opportunity": we did it because we were in the right place at the right time, IMO.

not agree with that
yes romania didn't fight aloane against USSR in 1940 wich is our big shame
but in 1940 the germans need us
operatioan munchen started 2 weeks later because of strategically reasons
soon after invansion germans realised that they simply dont have enough men to fight ussr and requested military support from their allies because of this romanian 4th army sieged odessa, because of this 3rd and 4th romanian armies fought at stalingrad, as well 8th iatlin army and 2nd Hungarian army
yes they could have used other troops but the fact is that we fought in that battles so haw many units destroyed the germans with out romanians asistance
how many operations launched germans on southern sector with out our suport

@sebipatru, I kinda fail to understand your message, but from what I did understand, you might want to say that Germans needed our help in 1941, not in 1940! Also false, because they actually needed (and requested) a lot of help (in troops) only in 1942. At the beginning, they considered Barbarossa to be a little more than a "walk to Moscow", thus they little needed anyone to share the glory of victory.
Romanians sieged Odessa because they wanted to (Antonescu wanted that, actually, but the reasons for that belong to another thread); the number of operations launched by Germans in the Southern Sector (perhaps you mean "Army Group South" or "Heeresgruppe Süd") was not reduced to the area of the Romanian divisions. Remember the conquest of Kiev, for example? Were there Romanian troops involved there? Please, check your sources better... as well as your English... ;)
@Florin: their "PR" was bound to fail, because of their "race superiority", "Ubermensch/Untermensch" crappy theories. As for the 2-3 millions of "turned" soldiers, they eventually had some hundreds of thousands of "hiwis", alongside cossacks and Vlasov's troops and so on. Remember the fact that in the last year of the war, the SS were little more than a colection of foreign nationals who wanted to fight alongside the Reich...

This post has been edited by MMM on February 27, 2013 09:36 am
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
sebipatru
Posted on February 03, 2013 08:59 pm
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 53
Member No.: 2990
Joined: January 26, 2011



sorry for my english
actually as far as i know germans requested antonescu on 27 july to cross Dniester and take odessa and antonescu agreed on 31 july
third axis fourth ally page 49
PMEmail Poster
Top
Florin
Posted on February 03, 2013 11:55 pm
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1870
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (MMM @ February 03, 2013 03:11 pm)
@Florin: ....... they eventually had some hundreds of thousands of "hiwis", alongside cossacks and Vlasov's troops and so on. Remember the fact that in the last year of the war, the SS were little more than a colection of foreign nationals who wanted to fight alongside the Reich...

It is almost unbelievable how Waffen SS evolved in few years. In 1939 there was only one regiment, where all volunteers had to be at least 6 feet (1,80m) tall and a bad looking frontal tooth could turn a membership application into a failure. The genealogy (ancestry) was searched into the 1700's.
In 1944, Waffen SS had 1 million people - and literally many of them could not understand German.
They even had Muslim, Hindu and Sikh soldiers - in addition to the guys you know better. The latter were lured from Commonwealth war prisoners.

This post has been edited by Florin on February 03, 2013 11:56 pm
PM
Top
MMM
  Posted on February 04, 2013 02:57 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

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



QUOTE (Florin @ February 04, 2013 02:55 am)
It is almost unbelievable how Waffen SS evolved in few years. In 1939 there was only one regiment, where all volunteers had to be at least 6 feet (1,80m) tall and a bad looking frontal tooth could turn a membership application into a failure. The genealogy (ancestry) was searched into the 1700's.
In 1944, Waffen SS had 1 million people - and literally many of them could not understand German.
They even had Muslim, Hindu and Sikh soldiers - in addition to the guys you know better. The latter were lured from Commonwealth war prisoners.

So, in dire needs, they "let go" the Untermensch theory, but by then it was too late already, because:
1. The Slavic people have already witnessed (and paid with their lives) the racial policy of the Reich
2. They were almost expelled from USSR, so there wouldn't have been any other volunteers to fight for a lost cause.
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
contras
Posted on March 16, 2013 09:57 am
Quote Post


Maior
*

Group: Members
Posts: 731
Member No.: 2693
Joined: December 28, 2009



I don't know if it was posted earlier here. An article about Romanian contribution in Eastern Campaign:

http://www.historynet.com/forgotten-army-i.htm

and another one published in NY Times in October 1942:

http://kingofromania.com/2012/10/02/october-1-1942/

PMEmail Poster
Top
MMM
Posted on March 16, 2013 07:03 pm
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

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



QUOTE (contras @ March 16, 2013 12:57 pm)
I don't know if it was posted earlier here. An article about Romanian contribution in Eastern Campaign:

http://www.historynet.com/forgotten-army-i.htm

and another one published in NY Times in October 1942:

http://kingofromania.com/2012/10/02/october-1-1942/

Contras, the first story is nice, yet not very accurate: we didn't actually start going east on 22.06, but a little later...

This post has been edited by MMM on March 16, 2013 08:15 pm
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
dragos
Posted on March 16, 2013 10:52 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

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



QUOTE (MMM @ March 16, 2013 09:03 pm)
Contras, the first story is nice, yet not very accurate: we didn't actually start going east on 22.06, but a little later...

The start of military operations was indeed 22.06.1941 and not later. The fact that the a major offensive was launched later is another matter, but military operations and the first casualties started on 22.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (9) « First ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... Last » Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0335 ]   [ 17 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]