| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > WW1 and Regional Wars (1912-1919) > Romania and the Brusilov offensive |
| Posted by: Carol I November 23, 2003 08:59 pm |
| A couple of years ago I have read an article by a J. H. Cockfield regarding the WWI activity of the Russian general A. Brusilov and especially his very successful offensive in the summer of 1916 (suggested to be the only Allied success of the period). In this article I found a rather offending view on Romania and the Romanian army.
Basically, it was said that Romania has entered WWI after seeing the success of the Brusilov offensive and “lured by the prospect of easy territorial pickings in Transylvania” (this latter view is surprisingly still agreed by Anglo-Saxon historians to the extent that I had recently had to write to BBC to correct similar falsities stated on their homepage about the modern history of Romania; the BBC complied within a couple of days, but I do not doubt that they did their own research to check my statements). In the article I mentioned it was also stated that the Russian generals, including Brusilov, have resented or even opposed Romania’s entry into the war for fear that they will be forced to support what the author of the article considered to be “the worst army in Eastern Europe”. Indeed he also quotes the opinion of a conveniently anonymous Russian commander who said that “asking the Romanian army to fight is like asking a donkey to perform a minuet”. The article continued more or less within the same lines to the extent of attributing the eventual failure of Brusilov’s offensive and even the defeat of Russia to Romania’s entry into the war. While I do not deny that Romania had rather poor equipment in 1916 (in fact it was promised better equipment by the Entente after the entry into the war), I found Cockfield’s view to be at least unfair if not simply rude and offending. I would therefore like to hear your opinion and if you have information on Romania’s entry into WWI in the end of August 1916 and its relation to the successful Russian offensive in the summer of 1916. Without knowing very much of the events of the period, I personally found the conclusions of the article to be rather farfetched. My impression from the article was that the Brusilov offensive in which the Russians suffered more than 450000 casualties (and thus bringing the total of Russian casualties to more than 5.5 million) was already out of breath by August 1916. Indeed the momentum of the offensive was severely diminished after the transfer of German troops to the help of the Austro-Hungarian army against which the Russian offensive was mainly directed. Furthermore, I found surprising the overlooking of the factors that led to the Russian revolution (though mentioned in the article) in explaining the fall of Russia on the Eastern front. In this light I find a gratuitous act to blame Romania for the failure of an offensive already out of breath and for the fall of a country with deep social and political problems. I would also like to find out more about the quality of the Romanian army of the period. I bring to your attention the activities in Moldova in the summer of 1917 when the Romanian army had to fight not only the German troops under the command of Mackensen, but also the rebellious Russian troops that were inciting to revolution and civil war. Furthermore, the huge desertion rate in the Russian army in the spring of 1917 of more than 35000 per month (and much more afterwards) meant that Romania had to outstretch its forces beyond its possibilities and therefore it is more likely that the fall of Romania was brought by Russia and not vice versa as it was suggested in the article I mentioned. So, resuming my questions, what is your opinion on the real events that led to Romania’s entry into WWI and the true quality of the Romanian army of the period? Carol I |
| Posted by: Victor November 23, 2003 09:24 pm |
| Brusilov's offensive was already dead when Romania entered the war in August 1916. In fact this is one of the things the Western Entente marshals regretted most and resented Bratianu's stuborness to negotiate every last detail.
But the author of article is basically wrong. Romania entered the war, because the Entente said: "Now or never!" And this entry did provide the breathing space they needed in the west and on the Salonik front. The Russians were not too happy with the Romanian entry, as they had to provide some assistance (as agreed through the treaty), but acted dubiously slowly and interfered even the transiting of the supplies sent by the Western Allies. There is even a theory that Sturmer was planning to split Romania with Austria-Hungary. The bad opinion the Russians had about the Romanian army was mostly unfounded, as seen in 1917/18, when Romanian regiments disarmed entire Russian corps. |
| Posted by: Chandernagore November 23, 2003 09:45 pm | ||
I admit my lack of knowledge on this subject. What was the deciding factor (s) in pushing Rumania into WWI ? There must have been powerfull incentives.
Well they could have said "never" it's not like England was going to invade Rumania for not complying... |
| Posted by: Carol I November 23, 2003 10:39 pm |
| One major factor deciding Romania’s entry into the war on the side of the Entente has been the situation of the Romanian population in Austro-Hungary-held Transylvania (lack of rights and general oppression).
In fact both the Central Powers and the Entente pressed Romania to enter war on their side, the Central Powers promising a substantial improvement in the situation of the Romanian population in Transylvania and the return of Russian-held Bessarabia to Romania, while the Entente was promising the return of Austro-Hungary-held Transylvania and Bukowina to Romania. I therefore guess that the “now or never” ultimatum referred to the Allied support for Romania’s claim to Transylvania and Bukowina. The public opinion sympathetic to France also played an important role in deciding Romania’s alliances. The fact is that in 1914 Romania had an old treaty with Austro-Hungary of reciprocal military assistance in case any of the countries was attacked. Austria has asked Romania to enter war in 1914 on its side according to the terms of the treaty, but Romania has refused the request because Austria was in fact the aggressor as it initiated the war by attacking Serbia. Carol I |
| Posted by: Carol I November 24, 2003 09:09 am |
| Thank you Victor for your reply, it strengthens my own impressions on the events. But as I said in my original message, the facts were quite clear in the article and therefore I cannot imagine how the author has reached the strange conclusions I mentioned. It seemed as if overlooking the facts, he tried to look for a suitable scapegoat for the Russian failure in WWI. In order to clarify the things for the enthusiasts on this forum, could you please give some more details about the real events of the period?
On the other hand, it is not the first time Romania’s contribution to a war is minimised if not completely neglected. Romania’s war for independence is absent for most foreign authors as it is mentioned only as the “Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878”. At most one can read about a minor expeditionary corps sent by Romania, while the desperate cry for help of the Russian High Command is conveniently forgotten. Carol I |
| Posted by: Chandernagore November 24, 2003 12:21 pm | ||
Ouch. I understand they where not too happy to find the "military assistance" suddenly moving into Transylvania & Bukovina ! 8) |
| Posted by: Carol I November 24, 2003 04:27 pm |
| Yes, I think they were quite unhappy. And probably this is why they tried to impose some humiliating conditions in the May 1918 treaty. Fortunately, King Ferdinand did not sanction it and Romania was back to war later in 1918 and then on the winning side.
Carol I |
| Posted by: Victor November 24, 2003 06:26 pm | ||
Actually the conditions they were preparing much worse conditions for France and England, as one of the German negotiators said, when one of the Romanian delegates burst into tears after seeing the terms.
Could you be more specific? |
| Posted by: johnny_bi November 24, 2003 08:57 pm | ||
Carol I said:
Actually it is treated (if not completely forgotten) as a minor detail of the 8th Russo-Turkish War... |
| Posted by: Chandernagore November 24, 2003 10:25 pm |
| I was thinking that it was not a bad deal from the Franco-English point of vue. They would give away what was not theirs in exchange for Rumania's help in the war. Rumania would have to live with close neighbors bearing serious grudges while none of that would ever bother far away Buckingham palace. I can tell you at a glance who took the most of the risks :roll: |
| Posted by: johnny_bi November 25, 2003 12:37 pm | ||||
johnny_bi said:
Not to mention that during this war a lot of Romanians were killed by the English Remingtons... Pretty ironic... |
| Posted by: Carol I November 25, 2003 05:34 pm | ||
I was thinking about the real circumstances and the succesion of events in the summer of 1916, like the situation on the Western front and that in Salonika/Thessaloniki, more details about the negotiations regarding Romania's entry into war etc. You seem to know quite a lot of facts. Thanks. Carol I |
| Posted by: johnny_bi November 26, 2003 03:32 pm | ||
I understand the frustration that Carol I experienced because I feel the same way now... I'm reading a book "The first World War 1914-1918" written by Robin Prior and Trevor Wilson... This book is one of the total of 24 books (it is a war collection) that try to depict the military strategy and war conflicts beginning with the ancient times... These books "try" to enlight us in regard with some aspects of the warfare... But if I read some excellent books belonging to this collection (especially about wars before 1900), now I experienced a strange feeling... You will understand now when I qoute a fragment from this book - it is about the entrance of Romania in WWI: "Nothing, taking in consideration the situation of Romania, did not justify such extreme measures (to declare war against Central Powers). The Romanian regim had neither resources nor the motivations or military advisors to enter this war; Romania wouldn't delay its capitulation in the front of the Germans. Brousilov, [...], is forced to intervene in the Romanian operations and he is involved in the defeat... " To end such a seriuos statement made by such respectable historians I will quote you another sentence: "Romania surrender (capitulate) to Germans in 9 (nine) weeks." You didn't know that Romania fought in WWI only for 9 weeks... from August to November 1916... No other comment. Just a remark... How could we expect some fair comments from "ordinary people" when even such historians that write such books could make such hilarious (and also sad) statements. I have to say that I was waiting for this book 2 months to "catch" it in a public library in a Western country... |
| Posted by: Carol I November 26, 2003 04:07 pm | ||
I do not know if we should laugh or cry to such a statement. The really sad thing is that they were referring to a period when we were allies and to deeds for which the Americans bestowed in 1923 the Medal of Honor to the Unknown Soldier of Romania “... in a desire to add all that is possible to the imperishable glory won by the soldiers of Rumania who fought as comrades of the American soldiers during the World War ...”. Carol I |
| Posted by: dead-cat November 26, 2003 04:08 pm |
| i found the claim that the romanian army was absorbed by the russians after 1916 campaign in various books as well. they didn't detail though. |
| Posted by: Victor November 26, 2003 08:46 pm |
| Yes, I found that the Romanian participation in WWI, just like in WWII, is little known in the West. Dead-cat and johnny should remember our discussion with a certain joel pacheco on TRF some while ago. |
| Posted by: johnny_bi November 27, 2003 12:18 pm |
| Victor, I remember the discussions with many others... But, if for "ordinary people" this is just ignorance, for some other "specialised historians" it is ... well, let's say, at least unacceptable. |
| Posted by: Victor November 27, 2003 08:01 pm |
| At the beginning of 1916 France and Britain bought most of the Romanian wheat in order to prevent the Central Powers from getting it. This resulted in a violent diplomatic response of Germany. However Bratianu turned to the Entente asking what support Romania might get if Germany gave an ultimatum. Talks started mainly with the Russians, who would have been directly implicated. But the views of the two general staffs were totally different. While the Russians wanted Romania to secure their flank as they attacked in Bukovina, the Romanians wanted the Russian help to defend Dobruja, while the main forces marched into Transylvania. So the talks continued and by the end of June it seemed that most of the Romanian requests will be fulfilled. It was also the moment of the Brusilov offensive and an intervention then (before the Germans transferred 50 divisions from the West) would have been a terrible blow to the Central Powers. The battle of Verdun was closing its end in the West and the other 1916 carnage, Somme, was just beginning. But Bratianu still negotiated every single detail, bringing the Entente generals and politicians to desperation and probably loosing the moment. On 17 August the Bulgarians launched an offensive on the Salonik front and took Florina. The same day Romania signed the secret alliance with the Entente. Then days later Romania declared war on Austria-Hungary. The rest you know. |
| Posted by: Carol I November 27, 2003 08:32 pm |
| Thanks Victor, this is exactly what I asked for.
Carol I |
| Posted by: dead-cat December 01, 2003 12:23 pm | ||
i disagree partially. Verdun was becomming more and more pointless after may 1916. after that german casualties began to mount. forcing the germans to end the offensive which was kept alive only to satisfy Falkenhayns ego (who was not a iota better than Haig or Nivelle) would actually do them a favour. especially since the bulk of heavy artillery was concentrated around Verdun and could be used somewhere else. and since Brussilov only made progresses in the southern area of the front, the reinforcements could have been doing something actually usefull as early as june, which gives them 1-2 months of action in the east before any reinforcement has to be shifted to reclaim lost areas on the Somme in mid-july. especially since counter-battery fire would have been much more effective than it actually was, since all the heavy artillery concentrated around Verdun would be available now. |
| Posted by: Florin January 15, 2004 04:06 am |
| [quote]I admit my lack of knowledge on this subject. What was the deciding factor (s) in pushing Rumania into WWI ? There must have been powerfull incentives........[/quote]
Many folks discussed here about the Brusilov offensive. It is confirmed today that Rasputin was a paid agent of Germany. You know that he had influence over Romanov family. He obtained that the Brusilov offensive should start in that area were it seems a lot of bad land and swamps were ideal to bog down an offensive. But my intervention here is because Chandernagore is surprised about why Romania was pushed to enter in war. The German leadership, realizing that Germany has more men under arms than France, more human resources and the German industry was more powerful than the French, decided to engage the French army in a life or death catastrophic battle, considering that the expected losses will be equal, thus the French will collapse. So they decided to attack a psychological objective that France would not afford to lose: Verdun. (The history repeated in WWII with Stalingrad, but on the other front). The idea was not bad, and almost succeeded. At least once the French high command asked their soldiers to abandon Verdun, but the local French commander refused. The French army was close to collapse. So the German idea almost succeeded. But when you read "almost", this means it did not succeed. Because: 1. The German army was usually in offensive during Verdun battle, so their losses were higher than the French entrenched in defensive. 2. There also British soldiers in France, taking a part of the burden on the Western front. Also the important British industry did her best to help France to counterbalance the formidable Germany. 3. The Germans had to support their Austro-Hungarian allies, like during the Brusilov offensive. There was also a direct front line between Germany and Russia in the East. But I hope now, Chandernagore, you'll understand that the Western allies were looking for anything, anything, anything that may relieve the formidable German pressure on the Western front. The Entente told to the Romanians that the Central Powers were at the end of their reserves, and if Romania will enter in war only 7 divisions will face her. Well, the Romanians entered in action, and soon 40 divisions of the Central Powers were ready to counterattack :!: According to what do I read here, it seems it was not mentioned that the Russian troops in Romania retreated very often and left the Romanian flanks unprotected, forcing also the Romanians to retreat. [quote].........Well they could have said "never" it's not like England was going to invade Rumania for not complying... [/quote] Oh... The good mannered British guys could not bear in their nice souls the idea to invade Romania.:? Because they needed to invade Germany and Austro-Hungary first! 
But everybody knew that Romania dearly wants Transylvania, even more than Bessarabia, so the guys from the Entente simply said something like: "If you want Transylvania, enter now. If you'll enter later, merci beaucoup, but forget about Transylvania." By the way, the United States were neutral in that moment. Otherwise maybe the Western guys wouldn't beg us so much. And also, as far as I know, the landing in Greece (under the French general Sarrail) had the main objective to stab Bulgaria and Turkey, but also to lure Romania to enter in combat. Shame to all who dare to laugh about the Romanian performance in 1916! Some people seem to forget that in addition to the Transylvanian front, Romania had to defend itself alongside Danube and the southern part of Dobrogea. This second front was longer than that in Transylvania, and the length of the 2 fronts combined was double the length of the Western front! And for whoever doesn't know: the first problem of Romania in 1916 was not in Transylvania, but at Turtucaia (southern Dobrogea), were the Bulgarian army, in cooperation with some Turkish and German units, stabbed strategically from back! The Bulgarians even tried a landing over Danube, but the bridgehead was smashed. Florin PS: By the way... Are you still curious to read what do I think about what happened in Yugoslavia in the 90's? 8) :keep: |
| Posted by: Florin January 15, 2004 04:14 am |
| Sorry, guys, I couldn't edit my previous message.
I saw Victor and Dead-Cat also mentioned about the battle of Verdun, and Victor even referred briefly about the defense of Dobrogea. |
| Posted by: dead-cat January 16, 2004 05:55 pm |
| i'll comment on a few inexactities.
germany neverd had numerical superiority on the western front. they were close to 1:1 during operation Michael in 1918. pre-war: Germany 761 000 France 790 000 in aug. 1914 Germany 1.6 million France 1.7 million add the BEF with 250 000 - 300 000 in 1914. also the german industry was cut off from overseas raw materials since 1914. they had an edge in steel production. Verdun was the idea to bleed the french dry. so far it's correct. the 5th army was exceptionally strenghtened with heavy artillery (taken from other armies). until early april 1916 they never planned to take Verdun. the aim was, to have to force the french to commit a large part of their manpower to a theatre where the german army had an edge in artillery. the germans initially didn't plan to take the city and the french didn't intend to hold it at all costs. but after the german attack showed promising results in march the prestige thing kicked in. Falkenhayn now suddenly wanted to take Verdun and the french, carefully watching the morale of the army, decided they have to hold it at all costs. military, the loss of verdun would have been nothing more than a prestige blow. there were other fortresses south and a breakthrough couldn't be expected anyways. so, in early april, focuses shifted and the 5th german army commited more and more men to conquer and hold some ground which was military worthless. by early june, when it showed that taking verdun would be prohibitive, it was too late allready. prestige reasons prevented Falkenhayn from calling off this allready useless offensive. eventually, the somme offensive, brussilov and the entry of romania provided falkenhayn with the face-saving reasons to finally call off the whole thing. ironically, the original german plan worked. even being the attcker, the german army suffered less losses than the french, but only marginally (the most often quoted figures are 337 000 german and 353 000 french), while the bulk of the german casualties occured in the late stage of the offensive, when they tried to take the forts around verdun. the german army fired 8.2 million tonnes of shells from 1500 heavy pieces during the battle. or with other words, the load of 820 000 railcars. the french losses were eventually replaced 2 years later by the americans, but the german losses forced the german army to think of a new strategy for 1917: the siegfried line. after the battle of verdun died away, it became clear that the war couldn't be won by the central powers before 1918, that they would be on the defensive throughout 1917 and that the focus has to shift to the eastern front to knock out russia. on another topic brussilow tried to limit his attacks on the austrian section of the front, the larger part of the german front remained silent. |