WorldWar2.ro Forum [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

WorldWar2.ro Forum > Romanian Army > 200 days shorter?!?!

Posted by: MMM March 25, 2009 02:37 pm

How do you feel about the affirmation made by communist historians that the participation of the Romanian Army after 23.08.1944 at the fight against Hitler shortened the war with two hundred days?

Posted by: MMM March 25, 2009 04:54 pm

I was talking about the well-known affirmation, established and demonstrated with figures and facts (by historians of the late communist era, in the 1980's) that by changing sides in 23.08.1944 and actively contributing on the Eastern front (instead of resisting on the Focşani-Nămoloasa line) have shortened the war with 200 days! Even now, I spoke to some old professors (Thank God, they're retired) that still consider the theory to be true. How about it?

Posted by: dragos March 25, 2009 05:32 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ March 25, 2009 05:37 pm)

How do you feel about the affirmation made by communist historians that the participation of the Romanian Army after 23.08.1944 at the fight against Hitler shortened the war with two hundred days?

So are you asking if the participation throughout the entire war, or the changing of sides and the participation thereafter against Axis, shortened the war?

Posted by: MMM March 25, 2009 05:50 pm

I was just asking how big of a misinformation is that univocal theory...
It is clear to me that trying to quantify in days the contribution of the Romanian Army on the west front (btw, from aug. 23 to may 12, when all our units ended fighting are a little more than 200 days in all) is pointless if one doesn't take into account Odessa, Crimeea, Stalingrad, Kuban, Don etc. (with a big minus, this time...). Oh, the disculpatory communist idea was that the participation between aug. 24 and may whatever

did shorten the war - probably, I guess, not prolonging it by resisting on the FNB line. Stoopid, if you look at a map on which to see the main thrust of the Red Army through Poland!

Posted by: Alanmccoubrey March 25, 2009 07:56 pm

Forget the politics of the people making the assertion and look at the facts of the matter. The Germans only had two natural oil sources and Romania was one of them. If Romania had stayed in the fight against the Soviets then the Germans would have had some oil from the Romanians for just a little longer which in turn would have allowed them to draw oil from Hungary for that much longer too. I can't say that 200 days is correct but Romania changing sides did cost the Germans an awful lot.

Posted by: MMM March 25, 2009 08:54 pm

True, but the lack of oil has had only limited consequences by that stage of the war. The only episode I know in which a German offensive suffered by the lack of fuel was the Ardennes offensive in dec. 1944 (prety much the only important offensive in the last months of war), so if they lacked something, it was the material (planes, tanks, not at last quality men), not fuel.

Posted by: Dénes March 25, 2009 09:24 pm

That's incorrect. Fuel (actually the lack of it) did play a significant role in the last stage of the war. There are many German reports stating that scores of brand new airplanes and tanks were available without the fuel to power them (along with the shortage of qualified manpower).

As for the topic, a while back (a couple of years ago?) I have already challenged this 'slogan'-like statement, very much emphasised in the Communist era, noting that's improbable that Rumania's about-face shortened the (European) war with more than 6 months. It's indisputable that this unexpected move had a significant impact on German's military capabilities, but the Red Army would have anyhow broken through Rumania, or even more probably it would have outflanked Rumania through Poland and the Southern Balkans, respectively. But this is already a historical what-if, which I am not fond of at all. History is (should be) a precise science.
My thoughts.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: MMM March 26, 2009 09:40 am

QUOTE

scores of brand new airplanes and tanks

So what would have done those planes/tanks when the superiority on the both main fronts was increasing in a geometrical rate in favour of the allies? I doubt it would have prolonged the war. Maybe more important was the second capturing/destruction of the Sixth Army... In what post did you challenge this slogan? I haven't read it yet.
My regards,
M3

Posted by: dead-cat March 26, 2009 10:26 am

keeping the front in the east in poland.

statistically the afirmation that the capture/destruction of the 6th army was a decesive blow to the ostheer does not hold. in june '43, 5 months after stalingrad, the ostheer was 500.000 men stronger than 1 year before and the number of tanks was higher than ever.

the "265 days"(?) is nothing more than a "what if" scenario.

QUOTE

True, but the lack of oil has had only limited consequences by that stage of the war.

it had a very serious consequence. training in all areas dropped, the number of missions dropped (especially air combat, as high octane fuel availability was seriously compromised). lack of fues also means lack of mobility for the ground forces, which had a seriously reduced capacity to conduct a mobile defence.

the allies was also plagued by fuel shortages until the port facilities in Antwerp were restored, which explains why the wehrmacht could recover in the west in sept. '44.

also, the number of aircraft, tanks and such available was higher than ever before in the fall of '44, simply because in '44 the effects of the war footing switch of the german industry kicked in to a large degree.
in '44 the german armed forces numbered around 9 million men in all branches, significantly higher than the aproximative 7 million (later edit, i checked) at the start of Barbarossa.

Posted by: MMM March 26, 2009 10:35 am

Higher than ever, but not enough

I know about the biggest Luftwaffe operation in december 1944, with over 1.000 planes - huge number, isn't it?
Hint: the Allied had over 10.000 planes available at that time.
The outnumbering of the German Army both in men and in material should be the subject of yet another thread, because figures kept on evolving from '39 to mid- and late '44. Let's not forget about the destruction of the Army Group Center in 1944 - that WAS a decisive blow, wasn't it?!

QUOTE

nothing more than a "what if" scenario.

Of course it's a "what if" scenario! That's all there is to it - and not even a plausible one, if I may say so...

Posted by: MMM March 27, 2009 02:29 pm

Oh, I just had a very irreverentious idea: perhaps the positive contribution of the Romanian Army was seen as such: it was a very poor army and by being defeated at Stalingrad and with other occasions, it made the Germans more vulnerable as well... But no sane Romanian would dare to assert that and survive the onslaught of nationalist historians

Posted by: MMM March 28, 2009 09:52 am

Then, again, AFAIK no allied of the Germans remained allied after the enemy (be it Red Army, be it Anglo-Americans) entered their territory. I mean, Finland, Italy - changed sides; only Hungarians "bit the bullet", so to say! However, they were under military occcupation - for real, this time, not in the way Romania was supposed to be since the arrival of the German Military Mission in oct. 1940!

Posted by: dead-cat March 28, 2009 11:29 am

QUOTE

Then, again, AFAIK no allied of the Germans remained allied after the enemy (be it Red Army, be it Anglo-Americans) entered their territory. I mean, Finland, Italy - changed sides; only Hungarians "bit the bullet", so to say!

Japan

Posted by: MMM March 28, 2009 11:59 am

Somehow Japan's war was slightly different, as

IIRC

they DIDN'T attack SU, but WERE attacked in august 1945!

Posted by: dead-cat March 28, 2009 12:08 pm

Japan was an ally of Germany until the end of the war.
perhaps you should've said "european allies".

Posted by: Dénes March 28, 2009 12:59 pm

You forgot Croatia.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: MMM March 28, 2009 01:41 pm

Ok, then, european allies - states that had an independent government - to rule out Croatia and Slovakia, good?

Posted by: Florin March 30, 2009 05:16 pm

As usual, this "what if" scenario is linked by other "what if".
Combined with few others "what if", if Romania would remain in the Axis the war could be longer with 200 days. Even with 200 additional days, the outcome would be the same. With German industry under daily bombing, all kind of exotic projects of jet fighters, stratospheric missiles and futuristic submarines would be issued in small numbers.
America would have the atomic bomb in July 1945, anyway.

There are countless "what if" regarding this subject.
If Romania would remain in the Axis and the Soviets would break the fortifications and advance just as little as to occupy Ploiesti and the petroleum pits, it would not make much difference from that moment.

Or if the Germans would advance in December 1944 up to the Atlantic shore and cut the Allies in Belgium and Holland, those Allies could be supplied by air and by navy, and the Germans would be still vulnerable toward the Soviets.

Posted by: MMM March 30, 2009 06:48 pm

An observation: there would have been no need for the Soviets to physically occupy Ploieşti. The FNB line was at a few dozen kilometres from Ploieşti - like 5 minutes flying! Anyway, nobody ever said the final result could have been different - not to my knowledge, at least!

Posted by: dragos March 30, 2009 09:34 pm

An interesting issue raised by MMM, were Ploesti oilfields bombed by Soviet airforce during 1944, and with what consequences?

Posted by: Florin March 30, 2009 10:43 pm

QUOTE (dragos @ March 30, 2009 04:34 pm)

An interesting issue raised by MMM, were Ploesti oilfields bombed by Soviet airforce during 1944, and with what consequences?

The passenger trains around Ploesti were machine gunned by Soviet airplanes.
Somebody living now in the U.S. survived to such an attack.
However, this does not answer to your question, if their airplanes attacked refineries and industrial installations.

If I would be Soviet Union back then in 1944, I would not do it, considering the secret negotiations between the Romanians and the Soviets.
It could be argued that it would make sense for Soviet Union to capture the area instead of bombing it, but they did not need that much the Romanian petroleum.

Posted by: Victor March 31, 2009 06:20 am

QUOTE (dragos @ March 30, 2009 11:34 pm)

An interesting issue raised by MMM, were Ploesti oilfields bombed by Soviet airforce during 1944, and with what consequences?

No, but they did bomb cities in Moldavia IIRC.

Posted by: MMM March 31, 2009 03:46 pm

Did they? I don't remember reading that. Anyway, Suvorov/Rezun claimed in one of his undoubtedly true

books that on june 26-th 1941 the VVS launched a raid on Ploieşti that crippled the industry, halving the capacity of refineries for a couple of weeks. I found no other source on that - have you?
Getting back to 1944, it is unclear why didn't the Soviet bomb Romania earlier on in the war - only because of the peace talks? They did have the capacity...

Posted by: Dénes March 31, 2009 06:00 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ March 31, 2009 09:46 pm)

...on june 26-th 1941 the VVS launched a raid on Ploieşti that crippled the industry, halving the capacity of refineries for a couple of weeks. I found no other source on that - have you?

Yes, I have. The VVS did bomb Ploesti several times in 1941, occasionally causing significant damage.
If truly interested, you can find details elsewhere in this forum, and also in my aforementioned book.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Victor April 01, 2009 06:01 am

QUOTE (MMM @ March 31, 2009 05:46 pm)

Did they? I don't remember reading that. Anyway, Suvorov/Rezun claimed in one of his undoubtedly true

Read carefully dragos' post to which I replied. It is clearly mentioned there the year 1944.
In 1941 there were ideed VVS raids over Ploiesti. Just do a forum search.

Posted by: MMM April 01, 2009 10:29 am

So, the Soviets DID bomb cities in Moldova in 1944! Which cities and when? What Moldova (left or right of Pruth River)?

Posted by: MMM April 02, 2009 02:01 pm

QUOTE (dead-cat @ March 28, 2009 11:29 am)

Japan

Japan WHAT?!?! They did capitulate immediately after the Red Army entered thier territory of Manchuria in august 1945, at more than three entire months from Adolf's suicide!

Posted by: dead-cat April 02, 2009 02:29 pm

Japan was an axis member (to the end) and an ally of Germany after the war moved on german soil. scroll back. this is what you asked.

Posted by: MMM April 02, 2009 02:47 pm

I stick to my oppinion: Japan capitulated after being invaded by SU - at least, Manchurian territories held by Japan. And at that time, there was no more axis, thus no more tri-partite pact, right?!

Posted by: dead-cat April 02, 2009 03:46 pm

when the US landed on Okinawa, there was still an "axis".
Manchuko was never annexed to Japan, so the occupation of Manchuko is pretty much the same thing as the red army invading Ukraine or the Baltic states.
also, Japan didn't surrender because of the soviet attack on Manchuko, but because of the atomic bombing.

Posted by: MMM April 02, 2009 04:20 pm

Well, that still is a question in debate - some say the decision was made before the A-bomb(s), even after the ultimatum in july... but we're far off-topic by now!
Still, not as causality, but as time-frame, the SU invading Japanese-controlled territory fits the idea. And it was a complete and fast defeat, much different from the grim fighting on the islands with the US Army.

Posted by: ANDREAS April 04, 2009 10:11 pm

Hallo MMM,
If we talk about the romanian contribution in the shortening of the WWII, than we have to consider:
-the strategic opening of the Balkans and Hungarian plaines for the soviet forces,
-the incapacity of the german forces and their hungarian allies to build a strong front prior the soviet entering Transylvania and Banat,
-the destruction/weakening of several german divisions on the Moldavian front f.i. 10th PanzerGrenadier Division with romanian contribution,
-the human contribution /for those who believe that our troops efficiency was low/ at the western front -Hungary, Czechoslovakia- was important enough
-the economic loss for Germany -oil, nutriments, grains, etc.
-Hitler's obsession for romanian oil -even in march 1945!
and others I forget right now. And the 200 days shortening the war is plausible, even if unnecessary. Not for us anyway!
And tell this : you actually don't believe our contribution to shortening the war was so important, or it could not be 200 days? Please explain!

Posted by: Victor April 05, 2009 05:54 am

QUOTE (ANDREAS @ April 05, 2009 12:11 am)

-the destruction/weakening of several german divisions on the Moldavian front f.i. 10th PanzerGrenadier Division with romanian contribution,

What Romanian contribution? Except for the several ad-hoc units created by some of the Soviet commanders, which fought in the Eastern Carpathian passes, the 2nd and 3rd Ukrainian Fronts were responsible for the destruction of the 6th and 8th Armies.

Posted by: MMM April 05, 2009 08:08 am

Re: Victor - maybe the German units surrounded and destroyed in Bucharest and Ploiesti
Re: Andreas - you're right, I don't believe that Romania's contribution did that, because even without the coup at 23.08, the country would have been occupied by the Red Army. I didn't believe much in the strength of FNB Line... Later I will answer to each of your points, except Hitler's obsession: he didn't worth explaining!

Posted by: Victor April 05, 2009 08:15 am

QUOTE (MMM @ April 05, 2009 10:08 am)

Re: Victor - maybe the German units surrounded and destroyed in Bucharest and Ploiesti

Those weren't first line troops, with the exception of the 5th Flak Division. The 10th Panzergrenadier Division mentioned above was part of the German 8th Army, which was on the front in Northern Moldavia.

Posted by: MMM April 05, 2009 08:41 am

Who said anything about frontline troops? The Romanians DID destroy some German troops directly and I guess that was the idea...
When looking at the bigger picture, we must see both the liberation/occupation of Paris and the Bagration operation, which ended with the destruction of Army Group Center. What was the importance of FNB line and/or the Balkan flank for the SU then, compared with the victory in the Polish sector of the front?
Regardless King Michael's coup d'etat and regardless the participating (bloody, nevertheless) of the Romanian divisions to the war against Germany, the war was won in the north, not in the south. The war was maybe LOST in the south due to the lack of fuel, but that's another thing.

Posted by: ANDREAS April 05, 2009 01:09 pm

Hello Victor,

The 10. Panzer Grenadier Division together with 153.Feldausbildungs Division /*despite his name in 08.1944 he was a strong Infantry Division/ were frontline units destroyed in Baragan by romanian army units. Info from several books, including Armata romana in al doilea razboi mondial (1941 - 1945) : dictionar enciclopedic - Dutu, Alesandru / Dobre, Florica / Loghin, Leonida - If this is wrong please tell! It is trough that these were before beaten by soviets but the complete destruction was our troops work! It's also trough I do not know other german units with the same faith...but still.

Posted by: Victor April 06, 2009 06:01 am

QUOTE (MMM @ April 05, 2009 10:41 am)

Who said anything about frontline troops? The Romanians DID destroy some German troops directly and I guess that was the idea...

That's the problem. You guess. Try first to read carefully what Andreas wrote.

Posted by: MMM April 08, 2009 11:21 am

He-he-he! It seems that we have a close tie in the polls - 5-4-4! At a second look, though, it's not quite so, because essentially the two final oppinions are quite similar in disagreement. I am sorry that not everyone who "participated" also argumented his oppinion. Feel free to do so