| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > Romanian Army at War > Romania in WW 1 |
| Posted by: feic7346 January 18, 2008 08:50 pm |
| The performance was a disaster! No doubt there was some bravery and many lost their lives but Romania (600k men) was defeated by 1 mixed Austro-German Army and the Bulgarians! There is much pride amongst Romanians for this effort and I dont know why? I am sure that sacrifice was made but then respect the sacrifice and not the performance! The Romanians had the Carpathians and many rivers as defense lines and could hold none of them! |
| Posted by: mateias January 18, 2008 09:19 pm |
| You forgot the Turks. |
| Posted by: feic7346 January 18, 2008 09:43 pm |
| The Turks did not have alot of troops in this sector. Probably because things were going so well that they did not need them. |
| Posted by: 21 inf January 19, 2008 12:30 am |
| to feic... You should read more about romanian army in ww1! If you'll learn about training, equipment and conditions (on 2 fronts) romanian troops fought in comparison with german troops, you'll find the performance of romanian army. The same austro-german army was beaten by romanians at Marasti, Marasesti and Oituz in 1917, less than 1 year after the events you call desaster. But it seems you dont rem (or know) this. I'd call this victories a performance  |
| Posted by: dragos January 19, 2008 12:36 am | ||||
Who said he did not respect the sacrifice?
Unfortunately the owners of this site (us) did not have time to write comprehensively the chain of events that lead to the disaster of 1916, but the failure along the Carpathians came after Romanian offensive in Transylvania was stopped and all the effort was shifted in the south, for the offensive at Flamanda, against the mixed Central Powers amassed there. Not a brilliant maneuver, but you can think of it like the cancellation of operation Zitadelle (Kursk) by Hitler in order to deal with the Allied forces that threatened the "soft unterbelly" of Europe. |
| Posted by: Victor January 19, 2008 06:16 am | ||
Romania emerged from WW1 with more than it hoped to gain from it and untouched by Communism. That was a performance. There is much more to Romania's participation in WW1 than a footnote in Western front-centric WW1 histories. Now, if you are interested in learning more about this participation, I am sure the members will help you with information. There is some information about WW1 battles on the website. My advice is to read it. |
| Posted by: mateias January 19, 2008 11:41 am |
| 1. Romanian front was longer than the one in the West, defended by MILLIONS. Our allies made lots of promises and kept none (Sarrail in the south, Russian divisions coming too late in Dobrudja, weapons and ammunitions bogged in Russia, etc.). In hand-to-hand battles, Romanians were superior and Germans were quite frightened and preferred to mow them down with machine-guns. In Transylvania, Romanian forces made the mistake of delaying their advance to Mures river and thus making the front shorter and easier to defend before 40 experienced German divisions come from the Western front to reinforce the demoralized AH armies. Romanian army kept German and AH armies at bay in the Carpathian passes till half of November 1916, but due to a very long front and lack of reserves, it was very easy for Germans to build up a huge superiority in a low area and break the front. From there, it was easy to advance in columns and cross the Danube. Interestingly enough, Arges-Neajlov battle might have been a success due to lack of communication between all these columns, but Germans were lucky enough to capture R. plans and change theirs. However, in 1917 Germans and AH armies were unable to repeat the scenario after heavy battles between equal forces. 2. Not always natural obstacles decide wars. Look how easy was for Romanian army to crush Bela Kun's and enter Budapest as the only allied power able to do so in WW1. And it happened being under pressure from the East and North. 3. Same in WW2. When Romania changed sides (23 Aug. 1944), combined Russian-Romanian forces needed just 2 months to cross the Carpathians, Mures river and push German-Hungarian forces out of Transylvania. |
| Posted by: Dénes January 19, 2008 12:30 pm | ||
The post-W.W. 1 achievements by Rumania had nothing to do with the performance of the Rumanian Army. They were the result of a turbulent era, cleverly exploited by the Rumanian politicians and military, with the tacit help of the French. Gen. Dénes P.S. An old German historian whom I had a casual chat with several years ago mentioned that the defeat of the Rumanian army in a combined attack (a so-called 'pincer manoeuvre'), and it's cornering in the northern part of the country in 1916/1917 was reportedly tought in the German military academy as a case study. I cannot back his claim, so don't ask me for further details. |
| Posted by: Dénes January 19, 2008 12:52 pm | ||||||||||||
There was a crucial difference between Western and Rumanian fronts. Rumania was defended by two formidable obstacles for any attacking army: the Carpathian mountains in the North and West and the Danube in the South. Both of these obstacles were eventually successfully crossed by the joint Central Powers' armies.
This single phrase is full with clichés and myths. What do you mean by "preferred'? What are you basing your allegations on?
Yet another misinformation. The AH armies, if we can call the few border guards and second-line units present in Transylvania, bordering Rumania - supposedly an ally - were not demoralised, but actually overwhelmed. They were not anticipating the Rumanian attack and were not prepared to repell it. That's why the relative ease the Rumanian troops could knife into Transylvania in the early stages of the cross-border offensive. And "40 experienced German divisions"?
Experienced German mountain troops actually crossed the Carpathains where the Rumanians did not anticipate it, and surprised them, turning their defence upside down.
Again, the two scenarios cannot be compared by any means. In late 1918, the Rumanian forces could penetrate and advance into Transylvania with little opposition, as there was no regular army left to face them.
The Soviet forces crossed the Carpathian passes aided by local Rumanians (villagers, shepherds). Despite this assistance, where German-Hungarian forces could build up reinforced defence lines in time, the Soviet troops were kept at bay for days, or even weeks, until the defenders were forced to retreat due to the (to them) unfavourable situation on other areas of the front, and the risk of being attacked from the flanks. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: dead-cat January 19, 2008 03:16 pm | ||||
that is exactly the way a soldier is supposed to fight a modern war. bayonet attack is a skill suited to the horse&musket era, which is why nobody emphasized on it anymore. also the success or failure of a bayonet attack is completly hostage to the tactical situation. there are numerous examples of successful small scale bayonet attacks on the western and eastern front, performed by all sides involved. insistence on blank steel when other means are available are in fact a sign of incompetence and failure to adapt to modern warfare. not that there wouldn't be enough examples on all sides for this (1st Ypres, Somme, East Prussia and so forth). I've even heared the hand-to-hand fighting argument brought forward in a WW2 conext where it is even more wrong. the cause for about 60% of all ww1 combat casualties goes to artillery, while about 25% is accounted by machine guns. this leaves precious little for small arms fire or even blank steel.
could you please source the affirmation? because 40 divisions would mean well over 400.000 men, and by 1916 there were around 650.000-700.000 german soldiers on the entire eastern front . we have discussed this in past allready. there were several alternatives of offensive actions for the romanian army, ranging from defending the carpathinas and attacking south to link with the allied "army" in Saloniki, to attack simultaneusly with Brussilov. the decision taken was the worst of all possible options. |
| Posted by: mateias January 19, 2008 10:02 pm |
| I wonder how many divisions means 400,000 troops. That's what commanded Falkenhayn and Mackensen when defeating the Romanian army in 1916. I remember I read about this huge number of divisions brought altogether, mostly from the Western front, even in Queen Maria's diary. And she was in a position to know plenty of such details. |
| Posted by: dead-cat January 19, 2008 11:28 pm |
| that's the combined austro-hungartian, german, bulgarian and turkish force. these however, would not come from the western front, except some german units. |
| Posted by: Imperialist January 20, 2008 09:41 am | ||
Because the goal of the effort was achieved. You should ask the Austro-Hungarians if they are proud of their effort. Wait, there are no Austro-Hungarians anymore.  |
| Posted by: Victor January 20, 2008 12:05 pm | ||||
I beg to differ. The Romanian Army played a crucial role, as the politicians could not have acted without the help of an armed force to back them up. Have it not been for the defeats suffered by the 1st Austro-Hungarian and 9th German Armies in 1917 on the Moldavian front, there would not have been a Romania to talk about. Furthermore, the Romanian Army showed discipline and a formidable resistance to Bolshevism at a time when most of the military forces in the region were on the virge of dissolution. |
| Posted by: Dénes January 20, 2008 12:22 pm | ||
I also beg to differ. Just check the examples of states that either did not exist prior to 1919 (Czechoslovakia, for example), or were occupied during the war (Poland in WW2, for example). Both countries emerged more powerful after the war than they hoped for. Therefore, I assume that no matter if Rumania was fully occupied during WW1 or not, the eventual outcome (i.e., the state's territory was not only restored, but also greatly enlarged) would have been the same. As for the bolshevisation, this phenomenon occured in weak or collapsed states (Russia, Hungary, Austria, etc.), with no or very weak government. However, in 1919 Rumania was exactly the opposite. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Victor January 20, 2008 01:59 pm |
| Regarding the length of the front, it was about 1350 km, more than the length of the Western front. This meant that a much smaller number of troops was stretched thin. It is true that numberwise, the Romanian Army was in advantage, but this is hardly an advantage when the enemy has the superiority in artillery, machine-guns and equipment. The natural obstacles and fortifications had little importance when the firepower was so disproportionate. And speaking of numbers, out of the 23 infantry divisions mobilized, only the first 10 were relatively well manned and equipped. The following 5 divisions were formed during the neutrality and had fewer troops and artillery and manned by reservists. The last 8 divisions were formed at mobilization, had the oldest artillery pieces and no machine-guns. In my opinion it is wrong to consider that the Central Powers were taken completely by surprise by the Romanian intervention. It had already become clear that Romania was going to enter the war on the Entente side. See Falkenhayn's memoirs in this respect. On 29 July a convention was signed between himself, Hoetzendorf and colonel Gancev, the representative of the Bulgarian general staff, regarding operations in the case of a Romanian intervention. A week later the Turks adhered to the convention. On 21 July, when the German Southern Army, the 12th and 7th Austro-Hungarian Armies formed the Archduke Charles Army Group, it was decided that the 7th Army take over the troops in Transylvania and prepare defensive positions until a new command structure was going to be formed at Cluj. The Mures and Tarnava Mica Rivers were t obe fortified as the main line of defense in case of a Romanian invasion. measures were taken to enlarge the transportation capabilities in present-day Southeastern Hungary and Transylvania, as well as in Northern Bulgaria. On 8 August the 1st Austro-Hungarian Army was formed from the 61st Infantry Division, the 11th Cavalry Division, 9 battalions, 2 Landsturm battalions, one gendarme battalion, 7 batteries and various frontier guard and gendarme units. As "reinforcements" came the 51st Honved Division, reduced to a brigade after teh fighting at Kolomea, the 82nd Infantry Regiment, also decimated in Galicia, 3 Honved battalions, 4 Bosnian battalions, 4 dismounted cavalry squadrons, 4 artillery batteries and 2 aviation companies. The commands of the 71st and 72nd Divisions and of the 143rd and 144th Brigades were also brought to Transylvania. Obviously the forces facing the Romanian troops at the momment of the attack were small and were overwhelmed in the first phase. But the Central Powers were not exactly surprised, they were just unable to free up more troops from the other fronts. Another issue brought up was how the Carpathian front was broken. It was more than experienced German mountain troops crossing at a point where the Romanian command did not expect it. There were in fact four German infantry divisions, two of which freshly brought from the Baltic region (and a fifth in reserve), and two cavalry divisions, supported by a lot of artillery against one Romanian infantry brigade. |
| Posted by: 21 inf January 20, 2008 04:09 pm |
| It is true what was said about the Romania's join to war that: "never such a small country had a so much influence in a modern war as Romania in ww1"? (niciodata o tara atit de mica nu a influentat atit de mult cursul unui razboi ca si intrarea in razboi a Romaniei in razboiul modial) |
| Posted by: mateias January 20, 2008 04:46 pm |
| 1. Yes. Hindenburg said that. And he mentioned in his memoir that never in history a state so small could have decide fate of two super-powers at that time. Romania, a country of just 1:20 ratio of population for combined Germany and Austrian-Hungary. But Romania lost that MOMENTUM due to very slow, painful advance in Transylvania, and Germany could bring fast enough from the West war-experienced divisions. 2. Victor is again right. Germany and AH expected to be attacked in Transylvania. For them it was a question of months (In his memoirs, Falkenhayn said he expected attack to start AFTER HARVEST. He was mistaken for less than a month and it shows his readiness to fight - and did it brilliantly - after being humiliated by Hindenburg and Ludendorff). 3. As regards Romania's performance in WW1, 1916 cannot be compared with 1917. Better prepared (machine guns, grenades, French instructors, cannons and planes, young and healthy conscripts), better motivated (promise of land reform, young officers promoted instead of old-fashioned ones). Everyting lead to a stalemate in 1917 and only Russia's defection (Brest-Litovsk) forced Romania to exit the war. And 8 divisions left to us were enough to pacify both Bessarabia and Hungary. |
| Posted by: feic7346 January 21, 2008 08:39 pm |
| The Romanian was performance was bad! Romania had been preparing for war since in 1914. It could have named the moment to enter the war. It could have armed to the teeth for the right moment. it could have picked where to fight and where to defend. It had the advantage of numbers. It was a disaster. The fact the the Romanians held well (maybe 1/8 of Romanian land) in 1917 while Germany exploited Romanian resources does not make up for 1916! That Romania did well politically after the war was more a function of general disintegration around her. 3 empires went bust in less than a year so someone had to profit. But didnt Bratianu see that once those powers regained their strenght, Romania could never retain what was won politically, not militarily in 1919! |
| Posted by: Imperialist January 21, 2008 09:44 pm | ||
Romania could not arm to the teeth. Check a map. Romania did pick where to attack and where to defend, but war is fluid. Romania could only have won politically. Its entry in the war was a political decision. We couldn't win militarily against 2 great powers, this was a collective effort and after each member did its part, the spoils were split. It was not pomana. |
| Posted by: feic7346 January 22, 2008 02:19 am |
| The Romanians being proud of their WW1 PERFORMANCE is like the Arabs being proud of their 1973 Yom Kippur war performance! Bottom line is they were soundly defeated in 1916. They held in 1917 then surrendered in 1918! Reminds me of Nasser bragging about Egypt crossing the canal in 1973. It was as if a miracle occured when in fact the Egyptians were surrounded and soundly defeated! But Romanians learned the wrong lesson from the war. Instead of realizing how weak theri performance was they mistook their political gains as military gains whein in fact that never happened. This is not to impugn Romania sacrifices. Proportionally Romania lost more men in 18 mos. of war than France did in 48 months! |
| Posted by: 21 inf January 22, 2008 04:39 am | ||
Did you ever heard the saying that "one could loose a battle, but is important to win the war?"  |
| Posted by: Imperialist January 22, 2008 07:50 am | ||
Your comparison is inappropriate. Having a mixed performance or even losing militarily but winning politically is called a good result. The US never lost militarily in Vietnam yet it lost politically. On what do you base your claim that the wrong lessons were learned? Learned by whom? The military, the politicians, the regular Romanian citizens? Finally, are you a Romanian? |
| Posted by: feic7346 January 22, 2008 01:16 pm |
| Romania won politically in 1919. But even a fool could have seen that unless France remained more powerful than Germany and/or Russia, Romania could never hold those gains. The wrong lesson was: IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT YOU WIN POLITICALLY IF YOU CANT DEFEND THOSE GAINS MILITARILY! |
| Posted by: dragos January 22, 2008 02:40 pm |
feic(  ), Romania was able to defend these gains against her neighbors with territorial claims (except USSR), however no minor nation could defend on its own politically or militarily against the play of great powers.So your statement "IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT YOU WIN POLITICALLY IF YOU CANT DEFEND THOSE GAINS MILITARILY!" is wrong. Romania could defend these gains militarily against Hungary and Bulgaria. |
| Posted by: Victor January 22, 2008 03:56 pm | ||
First of all, do not use Caps Lock when writing on the forum, because it can be interpreted as shouting. You should try to bring forward arguments to support your opinion. Shouting harder than the other guy only works if you are 6 or younger. I assume we are all adults here, so let's act accordingly. My initial impression that your knowledge on the events is limited seems to have been correct and unfortunately it doesn't seem you took the time to document yourself on the issues, not even by reading the posts in this very topic. This makes me think that you aren't really interested in a discussion and learning and you just have an agenda. If this is the case, then we are wasting our time here. Now, let's discuss the ideas you put forth. 1. Romania could not have armed itself to the teeth as you claim in the two years it had at its disposal simply because it lacked the capabilities to produce the weapons and munitions it needed and it was very difficult to buy it from foreign suppliers with the war waging all around Romania. 2. Romania could not have named the momment to enter the war because it first had to obtain the written assurance that its demands will be met by the Entente (obligations which the Entente only partially and belatedly fulfilled). 3. The numerical superiority with much poorer equipped troops has little value in WW1. One should compare the number of heavy artillery pieces and of machine-guns, not to mention the quality of the troops. Like already mentioned, only 10 of the 23 infantry divisions could have been considered adequate. And the numerical superiority disappeared slowly as the Romanian units suffered heavy losses when fighting a techinically and tactically superior enemy. 4. True, Romania could have picked were to fight and were to defend. IMO it should have attacked southwards and not into Transylvania. Another factor which you seem to ignore is geography. Practically the Romanian Army had to defend a bulge inside the enemy front, longer than the Western Front. And unlike the Central Powers it could not afford to lose territory before reinforcements arrived. 5. It was more than 1/8 of the territory: about 1/3. In 1918 Romania had to sue for peace, because Russia sued for peace. Without the supply routes through Russia, Romania was completely isolated. One cannot fight without ammunition. Especially since in the same time the Romanian Army was fighting and disarming Bolshevized Russian troops behind the front line. The Romanian front drew Central Powers' troops and ressources, which could have otherwise been used on other fronts. Would you please explain how you reached the conclusion that the losses of 1916 outweight the resistance in 1917? Regarding the 1918-1919 period, without military action and force it is doubtful the political victory would have been of similar magnitude. The Romanian state remained untouched by Communist anarchy in those years thanks mainly to its army. This was the basis on which everything else was later built. The same Army later occupied Transylvania and made its way to Budapest, toppling the Bela Kun regime, and defended the Eastern frontier against Bolshevik intrusions. Wecan go into details if you are itnerested. Regarding the idea of defending militarily the gains, you should not expect a country the size of of Romania to win alone a war against a major power like the Soviet Union. |
| Posted by: feic7346 January 22, 2008 04:02 pm |
| Hungary was always a German friend. Romania was more Machiavellian. It would be a German friend when it suited Romania to be a German friend. So Germany would support Hungary against Romania. Similarly Russia would support Bulgaria as against Romania. Romania became dependent on French support after WW1! And that was worth what? Bratianu was very short sighted in NOT seeing this. Anyway my comment were directed against the Romanian military efficiency not the political situation. The Romanians were basically defeated in 4 mos., despite having substantial defensive barriers aiding them. And remember this was WW1: the king of all defensive wars. In WW1 almost all battles were won by the side on DEFENSE. |
| Posted by: dragos January 22, 2008 04:24 pm | ||
This is rather naive. Actually Hitler and Stalin supported whoever suited their interests, I would not call friendship any relationship between Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Soviet Union with any other country. You should take time to read a bit more about these dictators, as Machiavellian is an adjective better suited to their kind of policy. |
| Posted by: guina January 22, 2008 04:28 pm |
| "in the ww1 almost all battles were won on defence" It seems to me that hatered clouded your reasoning. |
| Posted by: 21 inf January 22, 2008 04:39 pm | ||
feic( ) i'm so happy that you said that!it gives me the oportunity to remind you that to have a mountain on your back doesnt mean you got a defensive position, when the battle is fluid and one is engaged with enemy, fighting from motion. when the romanian position were prepared for defense, no one passed thru them: it is the case of Oituz. Let me rem you the romanian troops motto from Oituz: "No tresspasing here!" (sounds silly in my english "Pe aici nu se trece!" ) As for defensive battles (if you want to see, which is obvious you dont), there are Marasti and Marasesti battles, where Mackensen broke his back, in open plain!!! Their oponents, surprise for you , the Romanians!!! So another defensive battle, won by romanians It is seems that you dont like Romania and romanians, but no one ask this from you. Dont be afraid, you are not alone, but all of you have to live with that: romanians are here and they will stay here as they was from the begining . Even Machiavellic as you said so nice Have a nice day! |
| Posted by: dead-cat January 22, 2008 04:54 pm | ||||
that was the case on heavily manned front lines like the western front or the italian front. on the eastern front and the balkans the situation was more fluid. a defensive position was difficult to overcome only when adequately manned. however the discrepancies in equipment and combat experience of the central power forces negated any advantage in numbers the romanian army had.
lets not go overboard with that. it's not like the casualties were verdun or somme style, it's not like the commitment was "Michael" style and it's not like Mackensen wasted the cream of the imperial german army in an all-out decesive push. the main goal of the central powers in the east was to take russia out of the war, which is why Riga was attacked with pretty much the entire available artillery of the eastern front instead of commiting those reserves on other theaters, like Moldavia. |
| Posted by: feic7346 January 22, 2008 04:56 pm |
| victor I will address all your points by turn: 1-there was alot going on in the world between 1907-1914! WW1 could really have broken out at any time. There were at least half a dozen crises that could have sparked the powderkeg. Romania could have done a better job arming, especially since it was provisionally a German ally and could import German weapons. Not arming from 1908-1914 then blaming equipment deficiencies for poor performance is bush league. 2-Romania could have chosen the moment to enter. It tried to squeeze every last possible concession from the Entente powers. Then blamed the Entente for delaying their entry into the war. 3- WW1 was the king of defensive wars. The side on defense won most of the battles. And numbers of troops dont matter? Dont blame it on weapons because if they could have done a better job in point 1 addressed above. All else being equal I'd rather have more troops than less troops. Especially in a static defensive war like WW1. WW2 was not the same. In WW2 the side on offense almost always won. 4-There was a bulge in the Romania lines that Romania had to defend. But the Carpathians were strong defensive line to North. The Danube to the South and West. And in Western Romania, there are how many rivers running North to South that provided easy, natural defensive obstacles to an attacker? 6 or so? Jiu, Oltul Argesul! 5-I think Romania held about 1/8 of its territory. Most of the vast resources of the country were German held though. The agricultural South and Ploesti! 6-There were very few numerical German resources in Romania. The generalship was good but how many division did the Germans have at most in Romania? 60k/ In terms of importance it was the sixth front for Germany and AH: France, belgium, Russia, Galicia, Italy and then ROMANIA |
| Posted by: guina January 22, 2008 04:59 pm |
| Hear,hear !21 inf. |
| Posted by: 21 inf January 22, 2008 05:12 pm | ||
nice try, guina feic is saying this and that. I wonder what achieved HIS country in ww1. |
| Posted by: dragos January 22, 2008 05:40 pm |
| Let's try not turn this into a flame war. About the failure of the Romanian Army in 1916: the First World War was the first war of this kind, it was a new experience for all countries involved in the conflict. All countries share their part of defeats, but the big players like France, Germany or UK had the power to recover after a sound defead. Romania had not. |
| Posted by: guina January 22, 2008 07:08 pm |
| Hear,hear is a sign of aproval,i just wanted to say that i agree with you,21. |
| Posted by: Imperialist January 22, 2008 07:51 pm | ||
The Romanian defense budget for 1913-1914 represented 15% of the general budget. By 1916 that grew to 17%. War material was contracted abroad, but only 2% of the heavy war material and munitions ever reached Romania. |
| Posted by: feic7346 January 22, 2008 08:21 pm |
| You give credit for every little accomplishment make excuses for every significant failure. Every advantage is minimized while every disadvantage is magnified. |
| Posted by: Imperialist January 22, 2008 09:26 pm | ||
You have said "Not arming from 1908-1914 then blaming equipment deficiencies for poor performance is bush league." I gave you some data that refutes your claim that Romania did not arm, so I did not excuse failure, I pointed out your failure in not knowing that! If you claim that Romania could have done more to arm before the war, then that's debatable and would fall under a "what if" scenario anyway. Would a massive 30% of the budget allocated for defense in the expectation of a future war suffice? How would that have affected the economy? And so on. Once Romania saw that the war started, it did contract weapons deliveries, but the fact that the war already started and Western nations prioritized their war production for their war effort, and the realities of geography, led among other things to only a puny 2% of contracted heavy war material and supplies reaching Romania. |
| Posted by: feic7346 January 22, 2008 09:51 pm |
| Considering the political aims Bratianu had, the military resources needed for such ambitious aims needed to be PARAMOUNT. Romania was either unprepared or oblivious to the parlous task at hand. In light of how ambitious those political aims were, Romania might have had to fight first rate powers on day 1 of a European war and not 1 and 1/2 powers 24 mos. into a world war and blockade! |
| Posted by: Imperialist January 22, 2008 10:33 pm | ||
Military resources were given importance. Read the previous thread. Romania was unsufficiently prepared, unexperienced in wars against great powers and aware of the huge task. Others were ill prepared too. What's your point with all this, apart from your dislike of Romanians being proud of the army in WWI (was there a recent poll or something, where did you get this from anyways?). EDIT - btw, "feic" is the Romanian pronunciation of "fake". |
| Posted by: dead-cat January 22, 2008 11:41 pm |
| everybody was ill prepared for what ww1 turned out to be. it proved once again that the military tend to equip themselves for the pervious war. the reluctance to learn and adjust was formidable and i'm hard pressed to find a general staff that wouldn't fit in that category. |
| Posted by: 21 inf January 23, 2008 04:24 am |
| What did A-H empire for as preparation of ww1? When they started that war, they had to be helped by Germany, cos they stuck in ... Serbia, a small country in comparison with A-H. Would you call that a performance? Start a fight and then need help? |
| Posted by: feic7346 January 23, 2008 04:38 am |
| 21inf: you are right about AH! But I dont see Austrians PROUD of their performance! Romanians are prous as if they accomplished anything on the battlefield. Yet the Austrians had one HUGE disadvantage the Romanians DID NOT HAVE: the AH empire had an army of soldiers from 12 nations in their ranks? Austrians, Hungarians, Slovaks, Czechs, Romanians, Croatians, Italians, Poles! In a nationalist conflict, what was the true worth of these soldiers? Their performance told the story! I mean come on. The Romanian army was 100% Romanian no? Ok 5 % gypsy 95% Romanian! Much better in a war of nationalism than the motley crew of the AH army. |
| Posted by: Iamandi January 23, 2008 08:18 am |
Mhmmm... Nice one!  So, in your opinion, in Romanian Army in ww2 only fought romanian and gypsy... Wrong! Believe me! Iulian IAMANDI |
| Posted by: Imperialist January 23, 2008 08:30 am | ||
It seems you still don't get it - what happens on the battlefield is considered a success if you obtain the political goals you set. Romania was part of a coalition and it played its part. The coalition won and the political goals of its bloodied members were accomplished. As long as you dismiss this fact or ignore it, you cannot understand the big picture. Your whole thread is based on unproven assertion. You assert that Romanians are proud in the "battlefield performance". That's a general statement that has to be based on something relevant - a poll maybe. Do you have anything to prove that or are you just fooling around? |
| Posted by: mateias January 23, 2008 11:46 am |
| It's commendable to know that also Jews fought in Romanian army and for their merits were awarded lots of medals. Also Turks, Tartars, Russians and Ukrainians. I still do not understand what is this all about ethnicity. Who cares if in the German army of WW1 fought also Jews ? Even Hitler's first racial laws protected Jews who were awarded medals for bravery ! |
| Posted by: dead-cat January 23, 2008 12:19 pm | ||
the austrian armies of the 17th, 18th and 19th century were all multi ethnic. however in no other war, not even the one of 1866 the performance of the army was so abysmal. and by no means every component nation was unreliable. had the A.-H. army fought successful engagement from the start, the mood would have been better. contrary to other wars, where austria started more or less prepared, ww1 was started with big insufficiencies in terms of everything. the equipment as such was not bad but there was never even remotely sufficient. |
| Posted by: feic7346 January 23, 2008 02:01 pm |
| The Romanian army in WW1 had maybe 5% gypsies among them. These were given given land in the land reform after the war. |
| Posted by: feic7346 January 23, 2008 02:07 pm |
| imperialist: I bet you are proud of the performance no? mateias: the ethnic component is important because in a war of nationalism like WW1 when the shit would hit the fan, multi-ethnic armies folded like cheap suits! |
| Posted by: Imperialist January 23, 2008 05:57 pm | ||
Answering with questions... I hope you're basing your allegation on more than a bet, a gut feeling or a 1-person sample. Still waiting a clear answer. |
| Posted by: feic7346 January 23, 2008 09:16 pm |
| I have yet to hear a Romanian call the military performance what it was: NOT GOOD! Every excuse is made. Every advantage Romania had is minimized. |
| Posted by: 21 inf January 23, 2008 09:27 pm |
| feic, you said this before. do you have anything else to say, based on proofs, instead still acusing on this way? you expressed repeatedly your opinion on romanian army in ww1, so i believe all around here get your point. why dont you tell what your country did in ww1, just to know your opinion on that? |
| Posted by: Imperialist January 23, 2008 09:57 pm | ||
It seems you are unable to differentiate between explaining reasons behind a military outcome and "making excuses". We offered you some info to better understand the context and the causes of the outcome. You shot them down as "excuses". From this attitude of rejecting info and your lack of more in-depth knowledge about the subject, it's obvious you're not on a crusade to educate Romanians about WWI military. I'd say you're on a crusade against Romanians that are proud of their country's performance in WWI, like you state in the first post. Given this, I think we've given you more attention than you deserved. |
| Posted by: 21 inf January 23, 2008 10:09 pm |
| I agree with Imperialist. Too much attention we paid for "opinions" sustained with nothing from part of one who came from nowhere just to acuse Romania. 21 inf dixit! |