Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
WorldWar2.ro Forum > Eastern Front (1941-1944) > Allies of Germany


Posted by: Alexandru H. September 22, 2003 11:48 pm
Who was the most important ally of WWII Germany? Militarily speaking, of course.

Please explain your answer

Posted by: PanzerKing September 23, 2003 12:53 am
I'd say Romania first, then Finalnd and Hungary. Germany couldn't rely on Italy to do accomplish anything. I think Romania and Finland did the most, and Hungary too.

Posted by: Führerul September 23, 2003 02:44 am
JAPAN
user posted image

I think Japan should be number 1, first Japan was a real world power, with an incredibly strong Navy. (That should have kept the Americans bussy in the event of war) 2nd - Japan is a very Militaristic country...perhaps more than Germany is... it is 'expansionist', it likes to conquer...it has little resources..so it must conquer to survive. Romania has plenty of resources, we don't need Oil, and we don't need Lebensraum in the East, so from that perspective we would not have been a usefull ally for Germany except if things had turned out the way they did...with the USSR invading Romania in 1940 and taking what did not belong to them...

Japan would have been usefull if they had made war on Russia, and attacked America later... Also the way they used their navy was not entirely decisive...first at Pearl Harbour they not only missed the Carriers, but failed to launch a 2nd Bombing followed by a ground landing... and later...ohh no.. at Midway...big shit...4 Carriers sunk, not good...and that was the turning point in the pacific war.

Romania could have been more usefull and the Germans would have had a better oppinion of us today had we not betrayed them. :roll:
In Theory Japan would have been a greater asset to Germany then Romania, but the way things turned out...Romania proved more usefull *
* if it was not for that shamefull act on the 23 August, and the events that followed.

Posted by: inahurry September 23, 2003 04:07 am
Japan is in another league, another continent, fighting an almost independent war.

From the European allies Romania comes first. The Finns put up a great performance and their efforts compared to the manpower base were more important but the Romanian army impact was more important through the overall course of the war. Well, against the Germans too.

Posted by: Victor September 23, 2003 08:13 am
QUOTE
Romania could have been more usefull and the Germans would have had a better oppinion of us today had we not betrayed them.


Here we go again!
1. What betrayal? There is no such thing as loyalty in politics. Only interest. Common interest brought us together, not love of each other.
2. How could Romania had been more useful? Germany was already defeated and could provide the necessary military force to guarantee our status quo. Dying together with Germany and its Fuhrer was not an option. Especially since NW Transylvania belonged to Hungary and to get it back we needed to fight. Nobody would have given it for free.
3. The Germans opinion of us today has nothing to do with WWII, but rather more with the inefficiency of our leaders and the acts of some of our citizens.

Now, back to the main topic. IMO, Germany had no Allies. Only satellites. Japan, the only power that can qualify as an Ally, fought its own war and there was almost no cooperation between the two. Italy tried to act like an Ally, but failed on several occasions.

Posted by: Dénes September 23, 2003 02:40 pm
QUOTE
1. What betrayal? There is no such thing as loyalty in politics. Only interest. Common interest brought us together, not love of each other.

Besides vested political interests - which may shift during time - there are inter-governmental contracts, or pacts, officially signed by a certain country's representatives and legally binding.
'Führerul' probably refers to the Aug. 23, 1944 breach of the Tripartite Axis Pact Rumania had adhered to in 1940. If the unilateral move was a proper one from the political interests of that period, that's another matter.
QUOTE
3. The Germans opinion of us today has nothing to do with WWII.

I am not so sure about this. Although I do not have any direct proofs in this regards, I can tell you that several German persons (true, of the older generation) told me that they never forgot that Hungary stuck to Germany in hard times (this includes reference to the de facto opening of the Iron Curtain by Hungary for East Germans in early 1989 IIRC, which later on lead to the crumbling of the entire Wall).
However, most young Germans probably don't give a damn about history in general, as a result of the intense unhistorical education they get, including the feeling continuously propagated that they are the ‘guilty nation’ and their fathers/grandfathers were ‘sinners’. One pertinent example is that Germany is probably the only country in the world to have an army, where no decorations exist, as not to promote "militarism". But this is already off topic.

Dénes

Posted by: Geto-Dacul September 23, 2003 03:45 pm
Führerul wrote :

QUOTE
Romania could have been more usefull and the Germans would have had a better oppinion of us today had we not betrayed them.


"We"??? "We", referring of course to the entire Romanian people... I have to remind you that those who did the act of 23 August were not representents of the Romanians. They were simply a bunch of irresponsible conspirators. So please do not blame an entire people for the crimes of a minority.

And BTW, Romania had to break one day or another with Germany, because Germany was unable to help us defend efficiently our country... And I don't think that the crumbling Reich would have been able to develop and produce the promised secret weapons.

Posted by: C-2 September 23, 2003 07:17 pm
I think it was Italy!
First Mussolini help Hitler in the early days,then they fought together in Spain,North Africa,Russia,and Italy.
Yes Italy had no Oil like Rom.but they had a better industry and colonies.

Posted by: Alexandru H. September 23, 2003 09:15 pm
Maybe I should have said that Japan has nothing to do with the current poll! Actually, the competition is among Finland, Romania and Italy. I chose Finland, btw.

Posted by: Geto-Dacul September 23, 2003 10:11 pm
Against USSR, I chose Romania... The Axis war in 1941-1944 was mainly against USSR, and Romania played a major role by sending much troops and delivering precious oil for the common cause... In higher measure than Finland. Finland fought more a war on her own, and did not conquer much foreign territory.

Getu'

Posted by: Victor September 24, 2003 10:47 am
QUOTE
Besides vested political interests - which may shift during time - there are inter-governmental contracts, or pacts, officially signed by a certain country's representatives and legally binding.


I was always curious to know what exactly did Antonescu sign. What was written in that treaty? I heard several historians say that Romania did not have a military pact with Germany, which would have prevented some of the German abuses.

Posted by: Csaba Becze September 24, 2003 11:18 am
C-2 you are wrong. Spain was a different situation. A real military alliance and cooperation in WW II started just in summer, 1940 between Italians and Germans.

After September, 1943 the Italians fought in both sides (but they had more efforts against the Germans) Hard to estimate their efforts after this date.

Actually, Italy had the longest continually wartime period (between Oct 1935-May 1945).

The Rumanian betrayal, as the Germans says, was not a lonely event - it was in 1916 also(and both were popular actions among the Rumanian people - actulally, in political view, both were good actions for the Rumanians).

BTW, you have spoken just about the 1941-1944 period. In fact, the eastern war lasted till May, 1945. The Rumanians and Finns left Germany in summer, 1944 and later attacked them (especially the Rumanians had important wartime efforts against Germany under heavy Soviet pressure).

Only Hungary fought till May, 1945 with Germany, and a part of Italy (amongt the significant nations). So, IMHO you must choose between this two countries, but this topic was discussed on the thirdreichforum before.

Posted by: Dénes September 24, 2003 12:45 pm
QUOTE
Only Hungary fought till May, 1945 with Germany, and a part of Italy (amongt the significant nations).

Actually, Croatia also held on until the very end. In fact, remaining Croatian units fough throughout May 1945, well after VE-Day, they being the last organized armed forces to fight the Allies in Europe in W.W. 2.

Dénes

Posted by: inahurry September 24, 2003 01:16 pm
Romania couldn’t accept indefinitely the situation arisen after the Vienna diktat. Germans were well aware of this fact, Antonescu discussed the issue bluntly with Hitler.

As long as unconditional German surrender was the only way to end the war from an allied viewpoint, Germans and to a certain extent its allies were left with very few choices.

Extreme situations produce radical overthrows. Each nation follows, or should follow if honestly represented by its leaders/politicians, its own interests. Within reason. First and foremost is the survival as a state within a territory. Romanian state, its sovereignty and territorial integrity were threatened in such a way (not to mention potential human losses) other long term strategic goals couldn’t be followed.

The Germans should understand, imo, there was and still is a certain sympathy for them, as a people, in Romania. There is appreciation for their qualities which Romanians view as representative for the whole, generalizing for the better, which is rare. This happening in a country who fought against them in 2 Wwars and was/is usually playing the French card (when Europe is concerned). While Romanians look upon French and Italians with sympathy and identify to a point with them through the closeness of common origins (Geto-Dacul will skin me alive for this, hehe) and cultural affinities, they also notice a lot of their flaws where Germans, as I mentioned, are idealized. Of course, in case we are dealt with like it happened in the summer of 1940 the reaction will be to defend ourselves.

If it is to look beyond WW2, Romania is the first eastern country to establish diplomatic relations with West Germany, for example.

Posted by: Csaba Becze September 24, 2003 02:45 pm
Dénes, do you know, what does SIGNIFICANT mean? Croatia's role is evidently important for the Croats, but not at all for the other ppl tongue.gif

Posted by: Führerul September 24, 2003 03:10 pm
In the European war it was Romania definately, not just militarily but..think of the Oil, the petrol without which German'y Military could not function.
1/3 of Germany's oil came from Romania, vital for it's tanks and planes and ships. It was of very strategic importance, also it's leader Antonescu was a very good ally and maybe friend of Hitler...much more then Horthy of Hungary or Mannerheim of Finnland. Perhaps equal in importance to mussolini, and Hitler regarded the Romanian Soldier as better then the Italian counterpart.

After August 23, there was no more oil for the Reich, and the Germans begun using synthetic fuels which limited engine performance...and finally there was no fuel left and the Luftwaffe was grounded..
So Romania was of very strategic importance, both in military, location, and resources. :idea:

Posted by: tempesta September 24, 2003 03:29 pm
I voted for Italy. Romania, Finland and Hungary all had signifiant contributions, but only on one front. Italy was the other end of the Axis and could be considered a major power in Europe (although their leaders involved them in war too big for Italy).

Posted by: Florin October 06, 2003 07:05 pm
[quote]Who was the most important ally of WWII Germany? Militarily speaking, of course.

Please explain your answer[/quote]

Hi Alexandru,

I think Romania. Not because I am Romanian.

Italy's military strength was bigger than that of Romania, of course. Their aerial force and their fleet were also forces to be considered, and both stronger than the Romanian equivalents of Air Force and Navy. Their manufacturing industry and their design ability was stronger than that of Romania, even though a serial production aviation motor stronger than 1000HP was always a big problem, and Italian aviation motors giving 1700HP remained only as prototypes. We shouldn't forget that Caprini-Caproni designed and built in 1943 a turbojet in the same "family" with Me-262, not copied from the Germans.

However... :!:

When you have an ally, it is more important what he can do for you, than what you can do for him (Of course, for the record, is an unconditional love at first site, and you have to wait 50 years to see what stains were on a shiny alliance.)

So, from the beginning, Italy meant for Germany trouble... trouble... trouble.

They did not declare war to France and the UK until it was crystal-clear who is going to win in the West. They lost thousands of soldiers in 3 days of war, against a France already dying and humiliated. But that wouldn't mean too much for our topic. They asked to Germany, in September 1939, many anti-aircraft batteries, coal and some other help. From a Germany who in September 1939 couldn't afford to offer too much.

Then from bad to worse... Mussolini was stupid enough to attack a country whose leader was an open and sincere admirer of Nazism-Fascism: general Metaxas of Greece. A country who could become an Axis ally turned into a stubborn foe. Moreover, the Italians were humiliated and pushed into Albania.
By far worse, the Italians lost Somalia-Eritreea-Abisinia in the summer of 1940. That was not only the first blow for the Axis and the first push for the British morale and pride, chronologically speaking. I always considered the lost of that area more important than usually mentioned. The fate of the Suez channel and the Arabian peninsula was played this way.
Returned to the Balkan Peninsula, like in a nightmare, after seeing the laughable failure of Italy against Greece, the anti-Axis Yugoslavian elements dare to overthrow the pro-Axis Yugoslavian ruling government.
And the British started their landing and advancing into Greece.

And now we start to talk business 8) Remember: in an alliance, it is important what he can do for you, not what you can do for him. :!:

Germany is forced to drain her resources into an unexpected and unwanted campaign, and to delay the invasion of Russia from middle of May to the end of June. If you consider that the Germans were near Moskow when in October the rains transformed the roads into mud rivers, you start to get what Italy did to mess the German effort. Germany was also forced to leave occupation troops in a Greece and Yugoslavia. As I just said, both Yugoslavian and Greek were pro-Axis in early 1940!

Because Marshal Graziani was stupid enough to don't push his successful troops another 70 km in Egypt to reach the end of a railroad, the British gained momentum in the breath break allowed and soon forced Germany to send Rommel and OTHER precious German resources there.
Germany just entered in another mess, transformed from time to time in reasons of joy and pride just because the German officers and soldiers of Afrika Korps were so skilled.
Many people neglect that a lot of Axis supply: people, gasoline and weaponry were lost on the sea even before reaching North Africa, and that was in the very good days of Afrika Korps. Sometime this was a half of supply, and Rommel had to rely on what was captured from the British.

And then, in a turning point of the war, Hitler is sending direct essential military units which may, or may not, stabilize the Russian break-through at Stalingrad, to Africa! Including one the first Tiger units to be used in combat! (Maybe was quite the first, if we don?t consider the prototypes used near Leningrad.)

Germany kept sending troops in North Africa, then in Sicily. Then they had to spread their soldiers to fill the gap in Italy and the Balkan peninsula, in September 1943.
So, comparing with Romania, Italy was a big pain for Germany, FROM THE BEGINNING and ALWAYS.

Japan worth few words... It was by far stronger than Italy. Its brute strength was comparable with that of Germany. But its scientific, design and manufacturing potential lagged far behind. What Japan really did for Germany? Along the whole war, they supplied Germany with few thousand tones of rubber, tin, wolfram and other materials. It was easier when Japan was neutral, it could still be done up to 1943, then it was worse and worse. The last Japanese submarine trying to bring raw materials to Germany was destroyed by an American airplane in July 1944.
And else did Japan for Germany? They offered to Germany a new, mighty, reliable enemy: The United States of America. Thank you very much, Japan!

Now, about Romania involvement. Not spectacular, I agree, but always reliable, and without sucking too much German equipment all time long. And above the skeptical German expectations from the first days of the war with Soviet Union.
Always the German supply of equipment was below needs, so the Romanians managed their tasks with what they had: made in Romania, or made in Czechoslovakia, France and Great Britain before the war.
Usually, they fulfilled the assigned objectives, and some post-war German attempts to blame them for common German-Romanian failures are at least unfair.

There will always on the table the Stalingrad matter. We have a subject under Eastern Front about it. The Romanian generals warned for weeks the German leadership about the Russian build up.
I mentioned in this post that Hitler sent essential supplies to Africa in those crucial days. When von Mainstein started to plan his counter-offensive at Stalingrad, in the first days he had available more Romanians than Germans? equipped as you know.
As Stalingrad was a mixed German-Romanian failure, and the Germans kept the 4th tanks army around the city, instead of sending it against the Soviet bridgeheads, I don't see why many consider only the Romanians responsible of that mess.

Also, the Romanians were much more reliable than the Italians in the winter period, because the stupid Italian leadership sent their soldiers without winter clothing.
The Romanians fought pretty well during the retreat period: 1943-1944. Of course, Romania could never keep the Eastern Front alone, but that was not in the topic. The matter was: who was Germany?s most important ally.

Well, I'll vote for Romania without blinking.

Even though Hungary was very helpful to Germany in a very difficult moment: end of August - beginning of September 1944. Maybe Germany would collapse for good at the Fall/Autumn of 1944, without that.


Florin

Posted by: Florin October 06, 2003 07:41 pm
Hi,

This is just to vote. I couldn't after my long post.
Florin

Posted by: Florin October 06, 2003 07:42 pm
QUOTE
Hi,

This is just to vote. I couldn't after my long post.
Florin


... And I still can't. It's not fair! :evil:

Posted by: Florin October 06, 2003 07:51 pm
QUOTE
.....IMO, Germany had no Allies. Only satellites.....


An Ally is still an Ally, even when it is much weaker than you. As I mentioned in my long post, it is better a small Ally who doesn't bother you and even helps you a little, instead of strong Allies who mess your long term plans, and put in jeopardy the victory in war.

Florin

Posted by: Florin October 07, 2003 01:43 am
QUOTE
The Germans should understand, imo, there was and still is a certain sympathy for them, as a people, in Romania. There is appreciation for their qualities which Romanians view as representative for the whole, generalizing for the better, which is rare. This happening in a country who fought against them in 2 Wwars and was/is usually playing the French card (when Europe is concerned). .....................
If it is to look beyond WW2, Romania is the first eastern country to establish diplomatic relations with West Germany, for example.


Hi,

As you know, since the XIXth century the Romanian intellectuals were always divided in pro-French and pro-German. (As engineer, and as a person who esteem smart technical design and accuracy in execution, and esteem also discipline, required in the manufacturing environment and also in the daily life, I have been pro-German, generally speaking.)

It is interesting to see that in a an important moment of our history both France and Germany supported Romania, but only France remained in the memory of the common folk as the benevolent helper.
I am talking about the international recognition of the union between Moldavia and Tara Romaneasca. ("Tara Romaneasca" means "The Romanian Country" = Muntenia + Oltenia)

Regards,
Florin

Posted by: Florin October 07, 2003 01:48 am
QUOTE
.......
It is interesting to see that in a an important moment of our history both France and Germany supported Romania, but only France remained in the memory of the common folk as the benevolent helper.
I am talking about the international recognition of the union between Moldavia and Tara Romaneasca.


... And even Imperial Russia was on our side in that situation, even though for their own interests.

Florin

Posted by: Dénes October 07, 2003 04:04 am
QUOTE
\"Tara Romaneasca\" means \"The Romanian Country\"

In English, the region is known as Wallachia.

Dénes

Posted by: zarull October 18, 2003 10:37 am
Italy was the most important ally of Germany in WWII!

Posted by: Reazzurro90 October 19, 2003 10:38 am
QUOTE
I'd say Romania first, then Finalnd and Hungary. Germany couldn't rely on Italy to do accomplish anything. I think Romania and Finland did the most, and Hungary too.



I disagree, you haven't really seen what the Italian Armed Forces have donr in World War II. Please check comandosupremo.com

Posted by: Chandernagore October 19, 2003 12:10 pm
QUOTE
And then, in a turning point of the war, Hitler is sending direct essential military units which may, or may not, stabilize the Russian break-through at Stalingrad, to Africa!


Germany hardly had more than 2 divisions equivalent at any time in north Africa. A drop of water compared to what was engaged in Russia. What few replacements were send to the Africa Korps could hardly have a deep impact on the Russian front. On the other hand, the consequences of not sending any would have been disastrous to the whole mediterranean situation and relations with Italy. I don't think the Germans botched anything here.

Posted by: PanzerKing October 19, 2003 10:39 pm
Here's the deal...

Italy had a large military...but they couldn't do a damn thing with it! Romania had a smaller, but more efficient force. I mean you really couldn't count on Italy to do anything without German help. I know that sounds mean, because every once in a few years they did something productive, but I'd be much more confident knowing that Romanians were fighting next to me rather than Italians. And it's not the average Italian soldiers' falt, for they were good men, but I think the Romanians proved far better allies.

Posted by: inahurry October 20, 2003 03:26 am
QUOTE


It is interesting to see that in a an important moment of our history both France and Germany supported Romania, but only France remained in the memory of the common folk as the benevolent helper.



Probably because Germany tried to impose its will. Bismarck was Bismarck. The replacement of Cuza with a German didn’t help either and for those who care more about long term consequences, for the Berlin treaty’s obligations we have to “thank” Bismarck a lot. There is also the way the German minority here was used, often a spearhead for grossly exaggerated demands. French have their flaws but they were mostly interested in economic advantages and in maintaining a balance of power and were the least eager to trade parts of our territory, in fact their interest was in a strong Romania. It seems they lost again, as we are clearly heading for disintegration. True, they don’t count much anymore and they should have some worthy politicians, which is not the case.

Posted by: Indrid November 15, 2003 06:12 pm
my vote goes to Romania. Too bad it changed sides too quickly. laugh.gif

Posted by: C-2 November 15, 2003 07:47 pm
I'd rather say"too late" :roll:
Btw,what's the avatar?
cheers!

Posted by: boonicootza November 16, 2003 03:55 pm
Romania.
and just for the precious oil...

Posted by: Bernard Miclescu November 23, 2003 06:05 pm
I chose Italy. The relationship between Germany and Italy started very early, and I think that Mussolini's attitude towards Germany and his chancelor in the "Societé des Nations" helpped Hitler to be stronger and stronger in Europe. I think Mussolini was a true Ally, unfortunately most of the Italiens were against the war.

At least for Romania the politicians were obliged to became a so called "ally" of Germany trying not to become a satellite state, or even a conquerred country. I don't forget that the only dream of the Romanians was the "big Romania". So they fought for this dream either with Germany either against it.

And a fact: I think it is a similitude between the North Italian republic of 1943/1945 and Hungary 1944/1945 both were occupied by german forces so they struggled till the end.

Yours,
Bernard

Posted by: Geto-Dacul November 23, 2003 10:31 pm
B. Miclescu wrote :

QUOTE
So they fought for this dream either with Germany either against it.


Very idealistic ; it was impossible to re-create a Greater Romania by fighting with the Soviets against the Germans. Germany had no territorial claim on Romania.
There was no hope for Greater Romania ; only for N.Transylvania.

Getu'

Posted by: Korne November 25, 2003 08:12 pm
I have chosen Japan. If they had attacked the Soviet Union instead of the United States, they would have changed the outcome of the war (no other Axis country would have been able to do that).
Even if they made huge mistakes, they were the most powerful and loyal German ally.

Posted by: dragos November 26, 2003 09:54 am
If we refer strictly to European theater, on the Eastern Front the second Axis army as strength, casualties and operations involved, after Germany, was Romania. I am a supporter of the idea that the fate of the war was decided on the Eastern Front.

QUOTE
And a fact: I think it is a similitude between the North Italian republic of 1943/1945 and Hungary 1944/1945 both were occupied by german forces so they struggled till the end.


It is ironically that even if only a part of Italian people supported United Nations, Italy was considered a co-beligerant state at the end of the war, while Romania, fully commited against Axis, was refused this status. But we can say this is the price for our contribution on the Eastern Front. sad.gif

Posted by: Victor November 26, 2003 10:00 am
QUOTE
If they had attacked the Soviet Union instead of the United States, they would have changed the outcome of the war (no other Axis country would have been able to do that).


Sure and in the same time sacrifice the feeble chances they had at establishing their Empire at the expense of the UK and USA. :roll:

QUOTE
Even if they made huge mistakes, they were the most powerful and loyal German ally.


That is the problem. They did not actually act as allies.

Posted by: Bernard Miclescu November 26, 2003 10:47 pm
QUOTE
If we refer strictly to European theater, on the Eastern Front the second Axis army as strength, casualties and operations involved, after Germany, was Romania. I am a supporter of the idea that the fate of the war was decided on the Eastern Front.


Of course, I agree with You for this point.

For the other point, Stalin knew that the Romanian people was for democracy and he never accepted Romania like "winner" like Yougoslavia for exemple. I even dare telling that the difference between Italy and Romania after the war is the difference between URSS and US&UK policy. It was the fate, fate that Churchill didn't knew better Romania and its potential. Not speaking about Roosvelt.

Yours,
BM

Posted by: mihai November 29, 2003 02:50 am
>Mr,inahurry

QUOTE
fighting an almost independent war.


It's wrong,Because Japan didn't conquest by anyone.
Please tell me the means of the word "independence war"?

Posted by: Bernard Miclescu November 30, 2003 01:52 pm
independence war = making real the dream of centuries that one day Japan will be the Asia 's "boss" ???

BM

Posted by: Korne November 30, 2003 02:04 pm
QUOTE
QUOTE
If they had attacked the Soviet Union instead of the United States, they would have changed the outcome of the war (no other Axis country would have been able to do that).


Sure and in the same time sacrifice the feeble chances they had at establishing their Empire at the expense of the UK and USA. :roll:


Their chances weren't feeble. If Japan hadn't acted harsher and more ruthless in the occupied territories than their Western predecessors and had granted more freedom to the peoples in these territories, they would have succeeded in establishing a sphere of influence in South-East Asia. It is the same mistake the Germans made in Europe by conducting an extermination policy vis-á-vis the so-called "inferior peoples" (let's not forget that the German troops were welcomed in 1941 by the Ukrainian peasants holding crosses, but soon they changed their mind).

QUOTE
QUOTE
Even if they made huge mistakes, they were the most powerful and loyal German ally.


That is the problem. They did not actually act as allies.


There is a difference between being an ally and a satellite. An ally would put its national interests first. This is what Japan did in 1941 and Romania in 1941 and 1944.
The main Japanese goal was to secure a constant flow of resources so badly needed by the Japanese industry. This was the reason why Japan chose to attack the US instead of the Soviet Union in 1941 (among other, such as the defeat of the Kwantung Army in the 1938 border skirmishes with the Soviets and the threat posed by the Chinese troops), which proved to be a bad decision on long term.
I have to rephrase my previous statement, and namely "Japan was [..] the most loyal ally". Loyalty goes as long as it serves the national interests. But Japan was Germany's most powerful ally (militarily speaking). Too bad (for both of them) that they didn't coordinate their actions and strategies.

Posted by: Victor November 30, 2003 04:03 pm
QUOTE
Their chances weren't feeble. If Japan hadn't acted harsher and more ruthless in the occupied territories than their Western predecessors and had granted more freedom to the peoples in these territories, they would have succeeded in establishing a sphere of influence in South-East Asia.


No. Their chances were minimal. In order to maintain such an empire, they would need a powerful Navy that could have kept the US Navy at bay. You cannot enforce your power on an ocean, without a navy. The war in the Pacific was won on the sea.


QUOTE
There is a difference between being an ally and a satellite. An ally would put its national interests first. This is what Japan did in 1941 and Romania in 1941 and 1944.


Allies still need to collaborate in some way to actually be called allies. Bringing the US officially into the war was not the help Germany needed.

Posted by: Korne November 30, 2003 06:35 pm
QUOTE
No. Their chances were minimal. In order to maintain such an empire, they would need a powerful Navy that could have kept the US Navy at bay. You cannot enforce your power on an ocean, without a navy. The war in the Pacific was won on the sea.

That's true, the war in the Pacific was won at sea. But I wouldn't say Japan's chances were minimal and their Navy not powerful. It took the US almost 4 years (and two A-Bombs) to make the Japanese kneel.
If the Japanese had had the peoples of South-East Asia on their side (and hadn't acted as an empire), the Allies would have faced a war of attrition.
However, speculating is pointless here. The Japanese gambled and lost.

QUOTE
Allies still need to collaborate in some way to actually be called allies. Bringing the US officially into the war was not the help Germany needed.

The US would have entered the war on the British side sooner or later.
De jure Japan was Germany's ally. It is arguable, as you pointed out, if they can be considered a de facto ally as well (maybe a subject for a new topic? :wink: )
On the other hand, Germany was not a better ally - Hitler didn't inform Japan of the Barbarossa plan either. However, after the attack on Pear Harbor, Hitler hurried (on 8th of December) to order the Kriegsmarine to open fire on US warships and the declaration of war on US followed shortly (on 11th of December). In fact, Hitler acknowledged that a situation of war had already been created by actions of the United States.

Posted by: Victor December 01, 2003 12:39 pm
QUOTE
That's true, the war in the Pacific was won at sea. But I wouldn't say Japan's chances were minimal and their Navy not powerful. It took the US almost 4 years (and two A-Bombs) to make the Japanese kneel.  
If the Japanese had had the peoples of South-East Asia on their side (and hadn't acted as an empire), the Allies would have faced a war of attrition


The fact that the Japanese were very resilient does not mean their chances were more than minimal. The 4 years are in fact about 2. After the Japanese lost the strategic initiative and most of their naval power it did not matter that they held on to that or that island. SE Asia was not the main battlefield of the war, so having the Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians, Thais etc on their side would not actually help them too much.

Posted by: dead-cat December 01, 2003 04:31 pm
QUOTE

No. Their chances were minimal. In order to maintain such an empire, they would need a powerful Navy that could have kept the US Navy at bay.


1941 roster:

CVs: 7
BBs: 11 (counting the Kongos as BB here)
CAs: 18
CLs: 20 (counting the Tenryu class as well)
DDs: 79

why didn't the japanese use the Yamatos and more than 2 of their Kongos in support of their troops at Guadalcanal. one shore bombardament by 2 Kongos took Henderson Field out of action for quite a few days and wrecked most airplanes, especially since only the Washington, North and South Dakotas were available and even that later in dec. '42 if i remember well?
why no more CA support and the extensive use of DDs?

well the answer is fuel. ALL japanese operations during WW2 were affected by rigid fuel consumption quotas, because the japanese fleet consumed more fuel than reached japan every month. thus, the navy could not be as effective as it should, especially since patrolling had to be kept at a minimum level, much to the delight of american submarines.

Posted by: Chandernagore December 01, 2003 06:48 pm
QUOTE
well the answer is fuel


Fuel and the reluctance to engage main battleships inside the radius of enemy land based air forces. After sinking the Repulse & Prince of Wales the Japanese were well placed to ponder the risks. When your future hangs on the presence of your fleet you are wary of throwing it into the fire for a strategically doubtfull and non essential objective.

Posted by: Korne December 01, 2003 08:09 pm
QUOTE
well the answer is fuel. ALL japanese operations during WW2 were affected by rigid fuel consumption quotas, because the japanese fleet consumed more fuel than reached japan every month. thus, the navy could not be as effective as it should, especially since patrolling had to be kept at a minimum level, much to the delight of american submarines.

In fact, the American (partial) embargo of oil was one of Japan's reasons to go to war with the US.

Posted by: Curioso April 15, 2004 08:17 am
Greetings.
I have read that the original poster stated that Japan should not be considered for this poll. Then the most important German ally was clearly Italy.

I know, many readers have voted for other countries. I'm under the impression they have not stuck with the actual wording of the question.

"Important" means relevant, significant, momentous, etc. Italy had the biggest impact on Germany's war. It had more troops involved than any other ally. It significantly enlarged the theaters of war. It contributed to Germany's effort and, much more, needed German contributions for its own efforts.

But, was that importance of Italy a positive thing for Germany? A previous poster wrote that Italy meant, for Germany "trouble". While that post contains some inaccuracies, the gist is right.

So I suspect a more significant question would be: "What was the most *useful* ally for Germany?". If this is the question, then the answer is Romania. Followed by Finland, and Italy only a third (we are always excluding Japan here).

Romania had the most integrated military cooperation with the German armed forces (as war went on, to the increasing detriment of the Romanians, but always to the advantage of the Germans). All of its contribution was committed to the main German war objective. It expended its troops in German campaigns, both successful offensives and hard-fought defensive operations. It provided a largely irreplaceable raw material.

Yes, it switched sides in the end. That's irrelevant, everybody did that. Yes, some did that later than others; but that doesn't depend upon greater loyalty or such concerns, it depended upon when the Allies came knocking at the German allies' doors.

If "useful" had been the question, I would have voted for Romania.

Posted by: Dénes April 15, 2004 12:41 pm
QUOTE
Yes, it switched sides in the end. That's irrelevant, everybody did that. Yes, some did that later than others

Just a small note: Hungary and Croatia did not change sides, they fought alongside Germany to the bitter end.

Posted by: Victor April 15, 2004 12:45 pm
QUOTE

Just a small note: Hungary and Croatia did not change sides, they fought alongside Germany to the bitter end.


Hungary tried to do it in March 1944, but was occupied and a "more friendly" regime was installed. In Romania it did not succeed, although it was tried.

And Croatia was not even recognized as a state by the Allies (only by the Axis).

Posted by: Curioso April 15, 2004 01:58 pm
QUOTE
QUOTE

Just a small note: Hungary and Croatia did not change sides, they fought alongside Germany to the bitter end.


Hungary tried to do it in March 1944, but was occupied and a "more friendly" regime was installed. In Romania it did not succeed, although it was tried.


Besides, when Budapest fell on February 13, 1945, the armistice between Hungary and the Allies had already been signed. OK, now one could argue which was the legitimate Hungarian government. But that's not of much consequence. Yes, the Germans established puppet governments for most of their allies. These ranged from fairly if briefly effective (Szálasi) to so-and-so, if a bit longer-lived (Mussolini) to ineffective... and in exile (Sima). That's not the point: those who could, did break away.
Croatia... with all due respect for the Croatians' bravery, I'm afraid it was more of a puppet state from the very beginning, as opposed to states that entered the war alongside Germany on a footing of full sovereignty.

Posted by: Dénes April 15, 2004 03:21 pm
QUOTE
QUOTE

Just a small note: Hungary and Croatia did not change sides, they fought alongside Germany to the bitter end.


Hungary tried to do it in March 1944, but was occupied and a "more friendly" regime was installed. In Romania it did not succeed, although it was tried.

And Croatia was not even recognized as a state by the Allies (only by the Axis).


Hungary did not try to do anything concrete in March 1944, when German troops occupied the country. Of course, more or less legitimate attempts to ask for separate from the Western Allies peace did happen, but nothing imminent. The only faint attempt to break away from the Axis camp was on October 15, 1944, when Horthy proclaimed in his radio speech a cease fire. However, most Honvédség units did not follow his order and kept fighting against the Red Army.

As for Croatia, during the war it was recognised by many states, not only Axis (including the USSR, IIRC). Moreover, wartime Croatia is considered as the de jure predecessor of the current State of Croatia, therefore it has to be regarded as a "true" country, not just a puppet state.

Posted by: Dénes April 15, 2004 03:31 pm
QUOTE
Besides, when Budapest fell on February 13, 1945, the armistice between Hungary and the Allies had already been signed. OK, now one could argue which was the legitimate Hungarian government. But that's not of much consequence.

Historically speaking, it has importance. Until the end of war, the legitime Hungarian Government, still recognized by the Western Allies, was acting at the Parliament, which continued to exercise power until late April, IIRC, even after Budapest fell.

The provisory "people's democratic" Hungarian government was a puppet government established by the Soviets, not recognised by anyone else, without any de facto power. It became the actual Government - after being re-formed - only in the second half of 1945 (I have to check my sources for concrete dates).

QUOTE
Yes, the Germans established puppet governments for most of their allies. These ranged from fairly if briefly effective (Szálasi) to so-and-so, if a bit longer-lived (Mussolini) to ineffective... and in exile (Sima). That's not the point: those who could, did break away.
Croatia... with all due respect for the Croatians' bravery, I'm afraid it was more of a puppet state from the very beginning, as opposed to states that entered the war alongside Germany on a footing of full sovereignty.

There is a marked difference between "puppet governments" and "puppet states". While I agree that some pro-Berlin governments were German puppets, the countries you're referring to were not "puppet states", they were real states. See my above answer to Victor regarding Croatia.

Posted by: Curioso April 16, 2004 08:02 am
QUOTE
QUOTE
Besides, when Budapest fell on February 13, 1945, the armistice between Hungary and the Allies had already been signed. OK, now one could argue which was the legitimate Hungarian government. But that's not of much consequence.

Historically speaking, it has importance. Until the end of war, the legitime Hungarian Government, still recognized by the Western Allies, was acting at the Parliament, which continued to exercise power until late April, IIRC, even after Budapest fell.

The provisory "people's democratic" Hungarian government was a puppet government established by the Soviets, not recognised by anyone else, without any de facto power. It became the actual Government - after being re-formed - only in the second half of 1945 (I have to check my sources for concrete dates).

QUOTE
Yes, the Germans established puppet governments for most of their allies. These ranged from fairly if briefly effective (Szálasi) to so-and-so, if a bit longer-lived (Mussolini) to ineffective... and in exile (Sima). That's not the point: those who could, did break away.
Croatia... with all due respect for the Croatians' bravery, I'm afraid it was more of a puppet state from the very beginning, as opposed to states that entered the war alongside Germany on a footing of full sovereignty.

There is a marked difference between "puppet governments" and "puppet states". While I agree that some pro-Berlin governments were German puppets, the countries you're referring to were not "puppet states", they were real states. See my above answer to Victor regarding Croatia.


Don't get me wrong; of course everything is of historical consequence. I meant that this thing is of little consequence in dealing with the matter at hand. In other words, there is enough evidence, or at least clues, that just like other allies of Germany, Hungary wanted to break away, too, as shown by the March 1944 openings, the ceasefire proposed by Horthy, the armistice of January 1945 and, of course, the Germans' behavior in itself.

As to the difference between allies and satellites, and between puppet governments and puppet states. Interesting point. You state there is a difference. Why don't you explain your views?
In my opinion, a state that is established by a foreign power and can only subsist as long as the foreign power upholds it is a puppet state. For instance, WWII Croatia or Slovakia.
IN my opinion, a government that is established by a foreign power and only exists because the foreign power wants it to exist is a puppet government. For instance, Germany's Sima government and the USSR's Kuusinen government.

However, what can we say of a government that is unable to do its own country's interests and can only act as long as it acts in the interests of a foreign power, even when they are contrary to its own country's interests? Isn't it a puppet government? Which Hungarian government in 1945 was acting more in the interests of Hungary, the German-controlled one or the Soviet-controlled one?

Posted by: Curioso April 16, 2004 08:10 am
QUOTE
QUOTE
QUOTE

Just a small note: Hungary and Croatia did not change sides, they fought alongside Germany to the bitter end.


Hungary tried to do it in March 1944, but was occupied and a "more friendly" regime was installed. In Romania it did not succeed, although it was tried.

And Croatia was not even recognized as a state by the Allies (only by the Axis).




As for Croatia, during the war it was recognised by many states, not only Axis (including the USSR, IIRC). Moreover, wartime Croatia is considered as the de jure predecessor of the current State of Croatia, therefore it has to be regarded as a "true" country, not just a puppet state.


A sort of retroactive legitimation? A unusual concept in international law, as far as my limited knowledge goes.

Posted by: Brotherhoodofthecross April 16, 2004 11:04 am
It is true that the Germans had no true ally as well as the fact that they did not want any true ally because ally means someone thats equal to you whilst they allways thought about themselves as being the 'one and only', the "Ubermensch".

However, in my opinion the Germans had diferrent approaches for diferrent nations and these may be correlated with how important they considered those nations. And it seems that amongst all these allies, the Romanians got the best treatment. No terrorised civillians, no SS/Polizei crimes etc. And by the way NO ROMANIAN PARTISAN RESISTANCE or even public protests :wink: . And whatever some may say, the jews that lived in Romania were far more lucky than those living in Hungary, Italy or anywhere else (Finland excepted). The Germans were very well aware that the average Romanian would never had endorsed a savage jew hunt in their country. Probably this is why they preffered to deal with a millitary man (Antonescu) rather than with the Iron Guard. Romanians back then as well as now trusted most 'The Army' and 'The Church' and sometimes 'The King'

"What if" Hitler had decided to support the Legionar Rebellion and have them leading the country? I think that he was aware that that would had created many problems and destabilised the situation in Romania and thus create unafordable problems on the Eastern Front.
Probably somewhere at the back at his mind Hitler had his clear intentions about the Romanian Jews, Gypsies and maybe even native Romanians once the Russians were defeated. The secret Third Reich documents uncovered by the Russians show clearly that Hitler and his henchmen's intentions were clearly defined: wipe off the whole population in the eastern Lebensraum. Not just to make them slaves or "rule" them as the Romans or Macedonians or even Turks!!! did in the past but to extermine them completely. This is what they hoped to be achieved by the Ersatz-Gruppen to "work". A plan not only monstruous but also unrealistic.
Not only that the Germans treated Romania and the Romanians as an ally but they also tried to gain sympathy and in my oppinion they were pretty successful in some areas. And this shows that for them Romania was very important as an ally and not as a occupied country (as much as they could see another nation as an ally given their nazi propaganda brain-wash)
And since most Germans regarded Romania an ally, of course that they considered the "switch of sides" a traitory and not as 'survival' decision as the Romanians like to call it. And here is where the average Romanian (and especially those that did not have much contact with Germans) cannot understand their way of thinking. One should maybe try and read Umberto Eco's "Baudolino" and see the problems Friedrich II had with his Holly Roman-German empire (Struto-Camila) 8-900 years ago!!!. In many aspects things are still the same, it is very hard for a German/arian to understand mediteranean/balkanik/midd-eastern so called "flexibility/versatility/survivability" that Romanians (as well) are so proud of.

Try and get to know some Germans, some real ones. Once you will get to know them better you will love their way and also you will see how 'gypsy' the Romanians became in the past 50 years. sad.gif

Posted by: Stephen November 02, 2004 06:38 am
Romania was the most important ally to Germany during World War Two. Romanian Oil made it possable for Germany to conquer much of Europe and have early success against the Soveit Union. The Romania Army was the most relaible Germen ally on the Eastern front, were the War was really decided. In many campaigns, Romanian Divions such as the 1st Armored Division in Stalingard were amongst the best axis units at the front. The Royal Romanian Air Force, disspite having some obsolete aircraft fought quite well against the Red Air Force, shooting down at least 1,500 Russian aircraft. The Romania Navy served axis well and saved thuosands of axis troops, trapped in Odessa. Without Romanias support, Germany would have had far more difficult time waging the war.


Thank You

Posted by: Chandernagore November 28, 2004 12:49 am
QUOTE (Brotherhoodofthecross @ Apr 16 2004, 11:04 AM)
Try and get to know some Germans, some real ones. Once you will get to know them better you will love their way

I certainly love their way better today than 60 years ago tongue.gif

But it's a warped suggestion. There is no reason Germans shouldn't be respectable and friendly people. Germany never had a monopoly on fascism in history.

Posted by: Mareşal Boboescu December 02, 2004 08:19 pm
The matter is interesting.
The thing is that The III Reich used what he could get out of every ally.
As a patriot that I sure am I must speak for the cause of my own country. Romania supplied a great deal of petrol and cereal for the german war machine, so I concider we had a great role in the war on the Axis side as well as on the Allied side (this matter is a bit questionable).

HONOR ET PATRIA

Ml. B.


Posted by: Michi December 04, 2004 02:53 pm
QUOTE
Who was the most important ally of WWII Germany? Militarily speaking, of course.


From my point of view: (Military impact)
1. Romania
2. Italia
(3a. Finland)
3. Hungary
4. Croatia
5. Slovakia
(6. Bulgaria)

If we take combined German-Croatian units (Inf Rgt 369) Croatia is 1st.
But all others Nation units combined with German will bring one or two places upwards.

A special case is Finland, as it was not a German allied as the others.
It continued it's lost Winter War, nothing else.


Did Bulgaria made any active assitance for the Germans??




MfG Michi






Posted by: Victor December 04, 2004 08:20 pm
Bulgaria participated in the invasion of Greece in the spring of 1941 and provided some security forces for some of the occupied areas in the Balkans. Against the Soviet Union it only participated with several transport (Varna, Czar Fredinand) ships and with its small navy (only in territorial waters). It was also the subject of several US 15th Air Force raids.

Posted by: Lysimachus December 08, 2004 02:32 pm
I voted Romania not because this is a forum concerning the Romanian military history but because I feel that Romania gave to the Germans fuel and men. Without the Ploesti oil fields, the war would have been very different. wink.gif

Posted by: Benoit Douville December 15, 2004 09:14 pm
I know that this is a Romanian Forum but I am surprised so far by that poll, only 1 vote for Croatia??? To me Romania and Croatia were the best Allies to the Germans on the Eastern Front. The Croatian were pretty effective at Stalingrad.

Regards

Posted by: Iamandi December 16, 2004 07:04 am

Please say some details about croatian at Stalingrad.

Iama

Posted by: Victor December 16, 2004 01:55 pm
Divisioner, if you want to post something in a topic, please do so only if it is related to the subject. If you want t odicuss with Iamandi use the Private Message system (click the PM button on Iamandi's post or click the messages text right of the "My controls" label)

Posted by: Benoit Douville December 16, 2004 09:02 pm
Here is some info about the Croatian in the Wehrmacht written by Allen Milcic. You will find som info about their performance at Stalingrad in that article:

http://www.feldgrau.com/croatia.html

Regards

Posted by: Iamandi December 17, 2004 06:36 am

Thanks! Good link!

Iama

Posted by: 88mm December 17, 2004 09:25 am
Having the fights in the Caucas in my mind I'll say Romania!

Posted by: Michi January 02, 2005 09:00 am
For Benoit!

QUOTE
I know that this is a Romanian Forum but I am surprised so far by that poll, only 1 vote for Croatia??? To me Romania and Croatia were the best Allies to the Germans on the Eastern Front. The Croatian were pretty effective at Stalingrad.

Regards

Once more:
If we take combined German-Axis units (like InfRgt 369 (kroat.)) Croatia is 1st.
But all others Nation's units combined with German will also bring one or two places upwards.
But Croatian units (I speak of of the units of the Independent State of Croatia [NDH]) were at the last but one place.


MfG Michi

Posted by: Chandernagore January 04, 2005 01:05 am
QUOTE (Michi @ Jan 2 2005, 09:00 AM)
If we take combined German-Axis units (like InfRgt 369 (kroat.)) Croatia is 1st.

1st of what ? Problem with this sort of poll is that it is never explained by what criteria things should be judged. For example 'best ally" could be the ally contributing 1) the more manpower ; 2) the more ressources ; or 3) staying the longer on Germany's side. Depending on the choosen criterium I can reach each time a different classification result.

Posted by: Le_Conducator January 17, 2005 11:59 pm
It's very clear that Romania was the most important - we gave the germans: oil, grain, 20 divisions (or more)!
Need I say more?

Posted by: mihai January 23, 2005 01:48 pm
QUOTE (Führerul @ Sep 23 2003, 02:44 AM)
JAPAN
user posted image

I think Japan should be number 1, first Japan was a real world power, with an incredibly strong Navy. (That should have kept the Americans bussy in the event of war) 2nd - Japan is a very Militaristic country...perhaps more than Germany is... it is 'expansionist', it likes to conquer...it has little resources..so it must conquer to survive. Romania has plenty of resources, we don't need Oil, and we don't need Lebensraum in the East, so from that perspective we would not have been a usefull ally for Germany except if things had turned out the way they did...with the USSR invading Romania in 1940 and taking what did not belong to them...

Japan would have been usefull if they had made war on Russia, and attacked America later... Also the way they used their navy was not entirely decisive...first at Pearl Harbour they not only missed the Carriers, but failed to launch a 2nd Bombing followed by a ground landing... and later...ohh no.. at Midway...big shit...4 Carriers sunk, not good...and that was the turning point in the pacific war.

Romania could have been more usefull and the Germans would have had a better oppinion of us today had we not betrayed them. rolleyes.gif
In Theory Japan would have been a greater asset to Germany then Romania, but the way things turned out...Romania proved more usefull *
* if it was not for that shamefull act on the 23 August, and the events that followed.

Thank you for your vote of JAPANEmpaire.
Mihai

Posted by: Chandernagore January 23, 2005 03:34 pm
I think this poll should be "who was the most important ally of Rumania".

Who cares who was the biggest help for the nazis....

Posted by: Alexandru H. January 24, 2005 01:12 pm
This is about most important European Germany ally... Japan, of course, would be no.1, even if Pearl Harbour might be viewed as a mistake in the eyes of Germany at that time (making US join the war effort with all its forces is nothing to joke about)

QUOTE
I think this poll should be "who was the most important ally of Rumania".

Who cares who was the biggest help for the nazis....


I care and many more do. This is history not propaganda, it's Germany not the nazis, it's Hitler not the Devil. The westerners have a problem with this, unlike us, who learned to adapt to the various threats that appeared at the borders. The most important ally of Romania is the lack of conviction. This is why the Romanian Principalities resisted in the Middle Ages (from the 16th Century, at least, but the situation resembles all our history): we were blessed with the gift of being the friend of everyone without knowing the proper meaning of the word. In other words: a friend but not a welcomed guest...

QUOTE
Free men are not equal. Equal men are not free.

Posted by: Chandernagore January 24, 2005 02:48 pm
QUOTE
I care and many more do.


There are many forums dedicated to Germany which would be good or better places to develop such trends. But maybe that's just me.

QUOTE
This is history not propaganda, it's Germany not the nazis,


Given that 95+ % voted Hitler into power so that he could take their voting rights away, one might conclude there is some uncomfortable level of overlap. It's your right to make a difference between the Germans and the nazis (and I certainly do) but, to the foreign victims of the nazi political regime, or those fighting desperately for their survival, they were less inclined to make such a fine distinction.

QUOTE
it's Hitler not the Devil.


Ah. Did I say that ? Or are you just putting into my mouth whatever it takes to beat a dead horse. ?

QUOTE
The westerners have a problem with this, unlike us, who learned to adapt to the various threats that appeared at the borders.


Yes. Westerners were never invaded and could not adapt. Darwin would say that they should have disappeared...

Posted by: Dénes January 24, 2005 04:31 pm
QUOTE (Chandernagore @ Jan 24 2005, 08:48 PM)
QUOTE
This is history not propaganda, it's Germany not the nazis,


Given that 95+ % voted Hitler into power so that he could take their voting rights away, one might conclude there is some uncomfortable level of overlap. It's your right to make a difference between the Germans and the nazis (and I certainly do) but, to the foreign victims of the nazi political regime, or those fighting desperately for their survival, they were less inclined to make such a fine distinction.

Is this valid for the Russians/Soviets, too? Namely, since the Communist Party's approval was close to 100%, all who voted (not only the Russians, but all ethnics from the former USSR) were Communists?

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Chandernagore January 24, 2005 05:35 pm
QUOTE
Is this valid for the Russians/Soviets, too?


When you have only one party you have no elections you have only a farce.

The NSDAP conquest of power was a regular democratic process as they started almost from scratch and constantly progressed until 1933. The best exemple hisory can give of a democracy torpedoed from inside. The republic of Weimar had insufficient defenses. Tolerance has a limit and a price.

Posted by: Alexandru H. January 27, 2005 04:53 pm
Why not blame the democratic process? If democracy allowed a non-democratic party to ask for votes, maybe it's not the problem of the germans but more of a political system...

QUOTE


Yes. Westerners were never invaded and could not adapt. Darwin would say that they should have disappeared...


Oh, yes, Darwin, the mother of all monsters biggrin.gif

Posted by: Chandernagore January 27, 2005 06:51 pm
QUOTE (Alexandru H. @ Jan 27 2005, 04:53 PM)
Why not blame the democratic process? If democracy allowed a non-democratic party to ask for votes, maybe it's not the problem of the germans but more of a political system...

There are several democratic processes, many variants. The Republic of Weimar certainly had weaknesses.

However you have very peculiar ideas when it come to attributing responsibilties.

A thief break in your house during the night. He shots you dead, rape your children and dog, burn everything and run away with your mothers' jewels.

Your culpability order would perhaps be something like this.

1. The architect for not making a more solid house
2. The police, for failing to catch the thief in time
3. The weather, for 3m snow would have prevented the murderer from
reaching the house.
4. The alignment of Venus with Mars
5. The ether
6. Negative waves
7. ....
....
....
958. The thief, well, but that's far from sure, we need to investigate more. Wait, maybe he's a victim too.

As far as I am concerned I still place the thief as number 1.

Posted by: Stephen Dabapuscu February 12, 2005 05:02 am
1. Romania- of course was Germany's greastest ally durring the Second World War. No other nation contributed so either economically or militarially to the Axis cause. Romania Troops fought bravely against the Red Army and the Romanian Air Force out fought the Red Air Force through out the war. If Germany had allowed Romania to be better armed; Romania's armed force's would have had a far greater effect on the course of the war, then they did. The Romanian Air Force also fought well against the US Air Force in 43 & 44. Without Romanian Oil Germany would have lost the much earlier then it did.

2. Japan- the strongest axis ally both economcally and militarially, was far too distant, to be of any direct aid to Germany, during the course of the war in Europe. Japan did not attack the USSR in 1941, which may have caused the fall of the Soviet Union. Instead Japan foolishly attacked the US!!... which brought the US into the war and only hurt Germany greatly.

3. Italy- was on paper, Germany's strongest ally in Europe. They had a hard time conquering lowly Ethiopia, got beat up by the French in1940, then completly humbled by the Greeks. Then the British, (who were badly out-numbered by the Italians) completly humilated them in North Africa. The only Italian arm that fought with any skill was their Air Force. On the Eastern Front Italian troops were barely able to deal with partizan's.

4. Finland- what can I say except that the Finnish Air Force and Army were a model of excellence and skill. Only the small size of the Finnish armed forces and Finlands refusal to invade the USSR prevent Finland from ranking maybe second!!!

5. Hungary- weaker then Romania or Finland, Hungary refused to send its army against the USSR for most the war. Their Air Force fought well against the Soviets.

6. Slovakia- Air Force fought well against the Red AF, claiming more then 250 Red aircraft downed. Sent a fast division to the Eastern Front.

7. Croatia- Air Force fought well against the Red AF, army pre-occupied with Partizens for entire War.

8. Bulgaria- refused to fight the Soviet Union, help invade Yugoslavia and fought the RAF and USAAF in 44.

Posted by: Victor February 12, 2005 11:01 am
QUOTE (Stephen Dabapuscu @ Feb 12 2005, 07:02 AM)
3. Italy- was on paper, Germany's strongest ally in Europe. They had a hard time conquering lowly Ethiopia, got beat up by the French in1940, then completly humbled by the Greeks. Then the British, (who were badly out-numbered by the Italians) completly humilated them in North Africa. The only Italian arm that fought with any skill was their Air Force. On the Eastern Front Italian troops were barely able to deal with partizan's.

Stephen Dabapuscu, I have edited your post. National insults will not be tolerated here.

As for the your analyzis of Italian participation into WW2, I suggest you do more research on the subject and you will see that the oversimplifications you posted aren't exactly correct. Both the Regia Marina and the Regian Aeronautica fought bravely against a numerical and sometimes technically superior foe. In North Africa people forget that the bulk of Rommel's forces was made up of Italians and fought quite well under his leadership. In Russia, the Italian Alpini fared very well during the 1942/43 Soviet offensives.

Posted by: Chandernagore February 17, 2005 11:57 am
QUOTE (Stephen Dabapuscu @ Feb 12 2005, 05:02 AM)
The only Italian arm that fought with any skill was their Air Force.

To Victor's remarks I will also add the Italian artillerymen. That arm was the real Italian backbone in the desert war. At Sidi Barani, and despite the havoc wreaked by the British heavy tanks, the Italian artillery groups distinguished themselves with a show of skill and uncommon courage that can only be admired.

It's not all "run away" stuff rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Curioso February 17, 2005 02:06 pm
QUOTE (Chandernagore @ Jan 24 2005, 02:48 PM)

Given that 95+ % voted Hitler into power

make that 35% and you'll be closer to the truth. Still a big percentage, but a far cry from 95%.

Posted by: Chandernagore February 17, 2005 03:22 pm
QUOTE (Curioso @ Feb 17 2005, 02:06 PM)
QUOTE (Chandernagore @ Jan 24 2005, 02:48 PM)

Given that 95+ % voted Hitler into power

make that 35% and you'll be closer to the truth. Still a big percentage, but a far cry from 95%.

That must be 1932. I stand corrected.

After entering Rhineland it must have been 150 %

Well I know no voting occured by then tongue.gif

Posted by: Jeff_S February 17, 2005 06:10 pm
QUOTE (Victor @ Feb 12 2005, 11:01 AM)
Both the Regia Marina and the Regian Aeronautica fought bravely against a numerical and sometimes technically superior foe.

I tend to think of the Regia Marina's impact as being limited by limited more by poor warship design choices before the war than by lack of skill or bravery in battle. Overestimating the tactical value of speed compared to guns and armour, and the impact of true (carrier-borne) naval aviation come to mind. They were hardly alone in this, but Italy's industrial limitations made the mistakes hard to correct after the war started.

This is hardly my strong subject... I would be interested in what the assembled wisdom of the forum's readers has to say.

Posted by: Indrid February 18, 2005 11:36 am
QUOTE (Jeff_S @ Feb 17 2005, 08:10 PM)
QUOTE (Victor @ Feb 12 2005, 11:01 AM)
Both the Regia Marina and the Regian Aeronautica fought bravely against a numerical and sometimes technically superior foe.


This is hardly my strong subject... I would be interested in what the assembled wisdom of the forum's readers has to say.

you may find that the combined wisdom of the members not being so high biggrin.gif

also, it is interesting to see the data about hitler's democratic victory, varying from 35 to 95 percent....

the truth may be in the middle... laugh.gif

Posted by: Jeff_S February 18, 2005 04:34 pm
QUOTE (Indrid @ Feb 18 2005, 11:36 AM)
you may find that the combined wisdom of the members not being so high biggrin.gif

True! I was trying to be complimentary. tongue.gif But seriously, I am consistently impressed by some member's posts. It's obvious some of the members are very knowledgeable in some areas.

QUOTE
also, it is interesting to see the data about hitler's democratic victory, varying from 35 to 95  percent....

the truth may be in the middle... laugh.gif


I do not have my best sources on this close at hand, but 35 percent does strike me as correct or close to correct. I think we need to be very careful in judging popular support for the Nazis by looking at one electoral result. The opposing parties had all discredited themselves (to some extent) and were hardly united against the Nazis. While its true that Hitler made his intentions clear in Mein Kampf, the Nazis did not emphasize the nastier parts of their program. If I had been a middle-class German, economically ruined by inflation and resenting the Versailles treaty, some parts of the Nazi message could have been appealing.

Then there is the problem of electing a government that makes no secret of its contempt for democracy. Do you vote for a party, knowing it is likely to be the last vote you will cast? ohmy.gif

But this is getting well off topic.

Posted by: Curioso February 18, 2005 05:17 pm
QUOTE (Indrid @ Feb 18 2005, 11:36 AM)
[
also, it is interesting to see the data about hitler's democratic victory, varying from 35 to 95 percent....

the truth may be in the middle... laugh.gif

No. The truth is 35%. 95% was a totally subjective assessment made by the poster, referring to a time when no fre elections were held. 35% is, to a +/-2%, the actual result of the last democratic elections held in Germany.

Posted by: Curioso February 18, 2005 05:19 pm
QUOTE (Jeff_S @ Feb 17 2005, 06:10 PM)

Overestimating the tactical value of speed compared to guns and armour, and the impact of true (carrier-borne) naval aviation come to mind.

You mean overestimating speed and _under_estimating aircraft carriers.

Posted by: Jeff_S February 18, 2005 05:31 pm
QUOTE (Curioso @ Feb 18 2005, 05:19 PM)
QUOTE (Jeff_S @ Feb 17 2005, 06:10 PM)

Overestimating the tactical value of speed compared to guns and armour, and the impact of true (carrier-borne) naval aviation come to mind.

You mean overestimating speed and _under_estimating aircraft carriers.

True. I stand corrected.

Posted by: Imperialist February 23, 2005 09:42 am
QUOTE
2. Japan- the strongest axis ally both economcally and militarially, was far too distant, to be of any direct aid to Germany, during the course of the war in Europe. Japan did not attack the USSR in 1941, which may have caused the fall of the Soviet Union. Instead Japan foolishly attacked the US!!... which brought the US into the war and only hurt Germany greatly.


Several things come to mind:

1. Supply lines. Very long.
2. Fuel use. Intense.
3. Infrastructure. None.
4. Speed. Slow.
5. Distance + Weather.

That campaign would have taken a lot of time and planning and effort. It would have probably been possible after Japan conquered South East Asia.
But that would have meant war with the US...

From their point of view, I think that the Japanese in turn think that Germany foolishly attacked the USSR instead of eliminating Britain. Which would likewise be an incomplete assessment.

QUOTE
Instead Japan foolishly attacked the US!!...


I think that was the least foolish thing she could have done, compared with a Siberian campaign in 1941.

take care

Posted by: Dénes February 23, 2005 08:48 pm
Earlier I posted a note regarding priorities of Germany regarding its alleies on a different sub-forum: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=1793&st=75
I think it's appropriate to cross-post it here, too.

We have been discussing earlier about Berlin's priority in armament deliveries for Rumania and Hungary, namely which was a more important destination for Germans arms.

While looking for some info, I found the following note in a German document, related to the priority list of aircraft deliveries to Germany's allies, in 1942.
The document speaks for itself (Rumania first, Hungary last).
It has to be noted that priorities did somewhat modify later on.

Gen. Dénes

user posted image

Posted by: Der Maresal February 26, 2005 12:07 am
Bulgaria had priority over Hungary~!
ohmy.gif

rolleyes.gif


Posted by: Max March 15, 2006 09:00 pm
Hello,
choosing between Romania, Italia and Finland it's kind of hard in my opinion, too different situations.
I think that all of them had a big part in the fight against Soviet Union.
By the way, Italy after 1943 become officially allied of the USA & Co. but with a very low efforts.
The RSI side (still allied with Germany) had a very big part in the fighting and not only in Italy.
Few weeks after the 8th september 1943 on the way to Rome, the allies fought hard against many Germans but also with the Xa Mas (Barbarigo battallion), Italian Parachutist and other Italian forces.
Till the end of the Third Reich Italy was ïn action even in the Baltic sea with their "pioneers".

I know it's not to compare with Romania, Finland and Italia but Holland gave also a big help, indeed, the Netherlands gave the biggest amount of volounteers to the Waffen SS then other European Countries.

regards,

Max

Posted by: yogy March 16, 2006 06:40 pm
I think Italy is the most important "ally".

They influenced the war much stronger then any other ally by

1. opening a front on their own two times, and both times the Germans had to come to help
2. being the first of all partners to leave the Axis.

So, beware your friends.. they might be your enemy soon rolleyes.gif .


PS: I can full yunderstand that Italy chose to end thewar pretty early. And I feel sorry that their country became a battlefield so long. ALso, I am happy that not so much was estroyed there, potentially, desaster could have struck european legacy when it comes to buildings, arts etc. unsure.gif .


Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu March 16, 2006 08:16 pm
Also a very good thing is they did not come udner comunist rule smile.gif

Posted by: sid guttridge April 03, 2006 01:24 pm
Hi Guys,

Italy was without doubt the most important German ally militarily.

For a start it had a navy that was, in theory, at least as powerful as Germany's. None of Germany's other Eurpean allies could match that.

Italy also had a significant self sufficient air force and aircraft industry that outweighed those of all Germany's other allies put together. All Germany's other allies produced or imported Italian aircraft.

Only the Italian Army was matched by any other of Germany's allies, and that was Romania in 1941-1942. At the time of Stalingrad there were at least as many Romanian divisions on a main battle front as there were Italian divisions in North Africa and Russia combined. However, if Italy's occupation forces in Yugoslavia, Albania and Greece are included, the Italians had for more Army troops on foreign service than Romania.

Italy without question.

Cheers,

Sid.




Posted by: Chutzpah June 02, 2006 09:29 am
It goes without saying that the best ally of Germany was the White Rose.

Now if you ask me who was the best allies of the Nazis I might come up with a different answer rolleyes.gif

PS Yeah Italy, hands down.

Posted by: sid guttridge June 02, 2006 02:27 pm
Hi Denes,

Do you think that the fact that Hungary and Germany had entered into an arrangement for joint production of the Bf109 and Me210 in Hungarian factories might account for the low Hungarian priority in terms of deliveries direct from Germany? Unlike the others, Germany was giving Hungary major assistance to produce fighters and bombers in country, thereby reducing the need to supply them from Germany. In short, Hungary's aircraft industry was included in RLM production planning, whereas Romania's, for example, remained largely independent.

It is also worth pointing out that in 1942 Turkey arguably did better than any of Germany's allies in negotiating aircraft deliveries of modern aircraft from Germany. It alone got FW190s.

Cheers,

Sid.

Posted by: Dénes June 07, 2006 12:03 pm
QUOTE (sid guttridge @ Apr 3 2006, 07:24 PM)
Italy was without doubt the most important German ally militarily.

Excerpt from the overleaf text of the book 'Germany and the Axis Powers' by Richard L DiNardo (we discussed about this book, I just received it):
"It seemed that whenever Mussolini acted on his own, it was bad news for Hitler."

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: saudadesdefrancesinhas June 08, 2006 08:54 am
Perhaps 'important' does not necessarily mean useful or advantageous to the Germans, only playing a significant role of some kind.

The Italians would rank as highly important for the reasons Sid outlined, as well as the fact that the defects and short comings in their conduct of the war led to large scale problems and diversions for the Germans.

For this reason Mussolini and his erratic direction of the Italian war effort could be considered as a useful asset to the United Nations countries, helping boost their morale at times of crisis (eg. the successes gained by the British and Empire forces in North and East Africa in 1940-41), and throwing spanners into the works of Hitlers plans at vital points.

Italy was also significant in limiting the scope of German diplomatic efforts in Western Europe and Africa; the Italian alliance complicated relations with Vichy France, and also made sure it was difficult to convince General Franco to enter the war on the Axis side.

In terms of which ally was most important in terms of being useful to the Third Reich, I would say Romania. I agree with Chutzpah that Germany's best allies were the people who resisted Nazi rule in anyway, and perhaps, later when rebuilding a better Germany after the war, the United States and France.

Posted by: sid guttridge June 08, 2006 10:37 am
Hi saudad...........,

I would suggest that Romania only becomes a serious competitor to Italy as the most valuable ally to Germany when oil is factored in. Subtract Romania's oil imports and Germany would have been hard pushed to launch any major blitzkrieg operations after France in 1940 and the Italian fleet would have been quickly paralysed.

Cheers,

Sid.

Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu June 09, 2006 07:45 am
Substract romanian troops and germans wouldn't have entered Crimea when they did smile.gif

Posted by: mabadesc June 14, 2006 02:44 pm
QUOTE
Substract romanian troops and germans wouldn't have entered Crimea when they did


I would also add, it's doubtful whether the Germans could have held on to Crimea in December '41 - January '42, after the Soviet landings at Feodosya and Kerch.

Posted by: D13-th_Mytzu June 14, 2006 03:13 pm
Indeed - extract the romanian units found in Feodosia area and the germans would have been in big trouble.

Posted by: nuklik July 02, 2006 03:43 pm
I think it depends on battlefield.

Here is my minilist

War against Poland - Slovakia /can´t help myself/
War on Balkan - Croatia
War against Russia - Romania

Posted by: Helmut Von Moltke August 27, 2006 11:27 am
Hungary, for the Eastern front. The Hungarian army was more loyal and anti Soviet. Even though the Bolsheviks set up a puppet government, they still fought loyally on the side of their German comrades. They were valuable troops in the Siege of Budapest which slowed down the Red Army's march throught Eastern Europe and tied down large numbers of Soviet troops that could have been used elsewhere.

K

Posted by: Valium April 20, 2011 11:20 am
QUOTE
Hungary did not try to do anything concrete in March 1944, when German troops occupied the country.

It reveal clearly that Hungarian regime was regarded by germans more loyalless than romanian regime, at the time

QUOTE
The only faint attempt to break away from the Axis camp was on October 15, 1944, when Horthy proclaimed in his radio speech a cease fire. However, most Honvédség units did not follow his order and kept fighting against the Red Army.

This show rather helplessness and non-fonctionality of the hungarian state, than pro-german loyalty



Posted by: Valium April 20, 2011 01:59 pm
QUOTE (Helmut Von Moltke @ August 27, 2006 02:27 pm)
Hungary, for the Eastern front. The Hungarian army was more loyal and anti Soviet.

kind of nonsense...

Posted by: New Connaught Ranger April 20, 2011 04:49 pm
You do realize you are commenting on a comment made in 2006?

Kevin in Deva. laugh.gif

Posted by: Valium April 20, 2011 04:57 pm
yes, true- unfortunatelly there are not too much recent ones

Posted by: ANDREAS April 20, 2011 07:01 pm
If somebody believe me, I vote only today... of course for Romania! Although I do not think that Romania had the most effective army of those of the Germany's allies, still it was the most important as a contribution to Germany's war effort in the East! I immediately noted, however, Finland and Hungary's contribution, which, although reduced as military forces, fought more vigorously (it is my impression true!) than Italians f.i.
Japan was not for any real use to Germany, the only time that she could be useful winter 1941 -against Soviet Union, the military leadership looked impassively at the soviets retreating their armies from the Far East and sending them to defend Moskow.

Posted by: Florin April 21, 2011 03:48 am
QUOTE (ANDREAS @ April 20, 2011 02:01 pm)
..................
Japan was not for any real use to Germany, the only time that she could be useful winter 1941 - against Soviet Union, the military leadership looked impassively at the soviets retreating their armies from the Far East and sending them to defend Moskow.

Exactly in the moment when the Germans and the Soviets were signing their treaties in Moskow, the Imperial Japanese Army was engaged in bloody battles with the Red Army in Mongolia, and the Japanese lost this unofficial war. Not surprisingly, when Hitler made his worst mistake ever by declaring war to the United States, Japan did not return the favor, and did not attack Soviet Union.

The text above is with "Copy" and "Paste" from my only post into the Japanese forum www.jref.com. I wrote more interesting information into that post, which is the last (most recent) in topic
http://www.jref.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8504&page=2

Posted by: Valium April 21, 2011 05:40 am
QUOTE (ANDREAS @ April 20, 2011 10:01 pm)
I immediately noted, however, Finland and Hungary's contribution, which, although reduced as military forces, fought more vigorously

Everybody knows the vigorous reply of finns, but when is about german allies on eastern front(hungarians, romanians, italians...), I generally have the impression that, except some partial contributions, they were all under german controll, and hardly could claim a success as being of their own. Also, in generall they were regarded as poor equiped, insuficiently trained, bad staff...(with few isolated exceptions). Specific for hungarian army on the west we could pick the wiki text:
QUOTE
During the Battle of Stalingrad, the Hungarian Second Army suffered terrible losses. The Soviet breakthrough at the Don River sliced directly through the Hungarian units. Shortly after the fall of Stalingrad in January 1943, the Hungarian 2nd Army was crushed by the Soviets at the Battle of Voronezh. Ignoring German orders to stand and fight to the death, the bewildered Hungarian troops, most of whom had no clue what exactly they were fighting for, turned and fled. Harassed by partisan bands and Soviet air attacks, and having to endure the Russian winter weather, they tried in vain to retreat. Most of the survivors were taken prisoner by the Soviet army, and total casualties numbered more than 100,000 men. The Hungarian army ceased to exist as an effective fighting force, and the irate Germans pulled them from the front.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary_during_World_War_II
It would be very interesting if we'd have another sources about hungarian army, figting in east

Posted by: New Connaught Ranger April 21, 2011 08:46 am
You seem determined to carry on with a very anti-Hungarian theme to your posts
here on this thread and has been noted on another thread, also "WIKI" is not the most reliable source for information out there, as anything can be added or subtracted from it.

With regards the following:-

"Ignoring German orders to stand and fight to the death, the bewildered Hungarian troops, most of whom had no clue what exactly they were fighting for, turned and fled. Harassed by partisan bands and Soviet air attacks, and having to endure the Russian winter weather, they tried in vain to retreat. Most of the survivors were taken prisoner by the Soviet army, and total casualties numbered more than"

The above could equally be valid if one were to substitute the words Romanian, Bulgarian, for the word Hungarian.

Out of many of the nationalities fighting on the Russian Front the Spanish Blue Division for their size made a very big contribution in the effort to defeat / halt the Soviets, and took large casualties yet they are not even listed so far on this thread.

Kevin in Deva.

Posted by: Valium April 21, 2011 09:41 am
QUOTE
You seem determined to carry on with a very anti-Hungarian theme to your posts

It is just curiosity. Of course, you could take advantage about you're older here and complain to moderators to ban me, ignoring in the same time ANDREAS post
QUOTE
I immediately noted, however, Finland and Hungary's contribution, which, although reduced as military forces, fought more vigorously


But is not fair, IMHO

QUOTE
The above could equally be valid if one were to substitute the words Romanian, Bulgarian, for the word Hungarian



absolutely agree!
well, I'll never reply something to touch hungarian sensibility on this forum: I'll completely forget I'm romanian, and I'll force myself to think I'm polinesian or something smile.gif

Posted by: Florin April 21, 2011 05:17 pm
It is known how ill prepared were the German troops for cold weather in 1941. According to what do I know, their clothing was again quite non satisfactory for winter at the end of 1942. I don't know how good was the clothing of the Romanian and Hungarian soldiers to cope with cold.
I added this post to remind that the clothing of the Italian soldiers was by far the worst to deal with frost, because of their irresponsible leaders back home. The Italian soldiers were almost defenseless against frost, so no surprisingly they could not matter too much during the winter battles.

Posted by: ANDREAS April 21, 2011 06:37 pm
Because I don't want to stain the memory of the Italian soldiers who fought on the Eastern Front, perhaps good (I don't know), have to say that I always stuck with the image of the Italian Army from North Africa which was almost destroyed by the British (much smaller) Forces from Egypt in 1940-1941 (and other episodes like the Greek Army who defeated the Italians in Albania in 1940-1941).
That's what I talked about, hope to be well understood...

Posted by: sebipatru April 21, 2011 07:16 pm
i've choosed romania
why

1 Romania sent more man against USSR than the all other Germany's allies together
2 Romania was the only country on the eastern front that actually understood that axis interest is her interest
3 Romania was the only country that actually tried to fight a major battle against soviets on soviet soil. The results weren't the best but no one even tried to do this
4 many will say that hungary was the last allie of germany in 44 and 45 but what did hungary until 44 when the odds of war were still even, in 44 the war was lost
5 for all who consider finland the best german allie , i ask them what did finland on soviet soil?
6 italyy maybe was better than romania but it main efforts were in north africa while in europe they had huge problems, and in USSR they were quite poor

Posted by: Imperialist April 22, 2011 08:43 am
QUOTE (Florin @ April 21, 2011 03:48 am)
Exactly in the moment when the Germans and the Soviets were signing their treaties in Moskow, the Imperial Japanese Army was engaged in bloody battles with the Red Army in Mongolia, and the Japanese lost this unofficial war. Not surprisingly, when Hitler made his worst mistake ever by declaring war to the United States, Japan did not return the favor, and did not attack Soviet Union.


Hitler declaring war on the US is hyped as a mistake when in fact it was only "o simpla formalitate".

Posted by: New Connaught Ranger April 22, 2011 10:04 am
QUOTE (Valium @ April 21, 2011 09:41 am)
QUOTE
You seem determined to carry on with a very anti-Hungarian theme to your posts

It is just curiosity. Of course, you could take advantage about you're older here and complain to moderators to ban me, ignoring in the same time ANDREAS post
QUOTE
I immediately noted, however, Finland and Hungary's contribution, which, although reduced as military forces, fought more vigorously


But is not fair, IMHO

QUOTE
The above could equally be valid if one were to substitute the words Romanian, Bulgarian, for the word Hungarian



absolutely agree!
well, I'll never reply something to touch hungarian sensibility on this forum: I'll completely forget I'm romanian, and I'll force myself to think I'm polinesian or something smile.gif

1. I am not seeking to ban anybody, but, your own posts are clearly anti.Hungarian yet you offer very little in the way of evidence to back them up, and wiki does not count as a source in my honest opinion. Forums are for discussion and not promoting flame wars with regards race.

2. Your replies are more than are welcome, if, they contribute something to discussion and not flaming / trolling.

3. Even a Polynesian coming on here posting inflammatory comment would be noticed.

I am not Romanian I am Anglo-Irish with a keen interest in military history as opposed to military history hysterics. laugh.gif

Kevin in Deva.

PS Happy Easter to all.

Posted by: New Connaught Ranger April 22, 2011 10:11 am
QUOTE (sebipatru @ April 21, 2011 07:16 pm)
i've choosed romania
why

1 Romania sent more man against USSR than the all other Germany's allies together
2 Romania was the only country on the eastern front that actually understood that axis interest is her interest
3 Romania was the only country that actually tried to fight a major battle against soviets on soviet soil. The results weren't the best but no one even tried to do this
4 many will say that hungary was the last allie of germany in 44 and 45 but what did hungary until 44 when the odds of war were still even, in 44 the war was lost
5 for all who consider finland the best german allie , i ask them what did finland on soviet soil?
6 italyy maybe was better than romania but it main efforts were in north africa while in europe they had huge problems, and in USSR they were quite poor

For Number 5:- look up the Finnish Winter War.

The Winter War proved a costly victory for the Soviets. In the fighting, they lost approximately 126,875 dead or missing, 264,908 wounded, and 5,600 captured. In addition, they lost around 2,268 tanks and armored cars. Casualties for the Finns numbered around 26,662 dead and 39,886 wounded. The Soviet's poor performance in the Winter War led Hitler to believe that Stalin's military could be quickly defeated if attacked. He attempted to put this to the test when German forces launched Operation Barbarossa in 1941. The Finns renewed their conflict with the Soviets in June 1941, with their forces operating in conjunction with, but not allied to, the Germans.

http://militaryhistory.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=militaryhistory&cdn=education&tm=70&f=00&tt=11&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.winterwar.com/mainpage.htm

http://militaryhistory.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=militaryhistory&cdn=education&tm=70&f=00&tt=11&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.winterwar.com/mainpage.htm

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/514007/Russo-Finnish-War

Kevin in Deva. biggrin.gif

Posted by: Valium April 25, 2011 03:48 pm
QUOTE (New Connaught Ranger @ April 22, 2011 01:04 pm)
.... as opposed to military history hysterics.

good for you!
I'm not anti-hungarian: I've spoken the same about romanian army. Is simply the truth I know.
by the way: I've asked in my "incendiar" post for sources about hungarian army in eastern front-I think it would be very interesting, if you have any

Posted by: sebipatru April 25, 2011 05:19 pm
[QUOTE]For Number 5:- look up the Finnish Winter War

I don't want to be disrespectful with finnish army but i was talking about finish actions on soviet soil!!!!!!!!!
everyone knows the big problems of axis in term of logistics during the advance of USSR, and still romanian army perfmormed enough good, actualy romanians received 18 Knight's Crosses
in all this time the finnish army didn't fight on soviet soil, never had the huge logistics problems caused by over extended suplly lines, from 41 to 44 they stayed out of any major battles invested they resouces to upgrade theyre army to build 3 fortified lines and still in 44 they weren't able to hold
and in all this time the finnish army received 2 Knight's Crosses

Posted by: Imperialist April 25, 2011 07:34 pm
QUOTE (sebipatru @ April 25, 2011 05:19 pm)
[QUOTE]For Number 5:- look up the Finnish Winter War

I don't want to be disrespectful with finnish army but i was talking about finish actions on soviet soil!!!!!!!!!
everyone knows the big problems of axis in term of logistics during the advance of USSR, and still romanian army perfmormed enough good, actualy romanians received 18 Knight's Crosses
in all this time the finnish army didn't fight on soviet soil, never had the huge logistics problems caused by over extended suplly lines, from 41 to 44 they stayed out of any major battles invested they resouces to upgrade theyre army to build 3 fortified lines and still in 44 they weren't able to hold
and in all this time the finnish army received 2 Knight's Crosses

I think the Romanian army was completely dependent on German logistics for most of the campaign in the East.

Posted by: New Connaught Ranger April 25, 2011 08:38 pm
QUOTE (sebipatru @ April 25, 2011 05:19 pm)
[QUOTE]For Number 5:- look up the Finnish Winter War

I don't want to be disrespectful with finnish army but i was talking about finish actions on soviet soil!!!!!!!!!
everyone knows the big problems of axis in term of logistics during the advance of USSR, and still romanian army perfmormed enough good, actualy romanians received 18 Knight's Crosses
in all this time the finnish army didn't fight on soviet soil, never had the huge logistics problems caused by over extended suplly lines, from 41 to 44 they stayed out of any major battles invested they resouces to upgrade theyre army to build 3 fortified lines and still in 44 they weren't able to hold
and in all this time the finnish army received 2 Knight's Crosses

In all reality you cant use the amount of 18 Knights Crosses v. 2 Knights Crosses as a legitimate scale for who was doing better as an ally for the Third Reich rolleyes.gif

When in all reality, the situations for the two, Romania and Finland were completely different. Finland had been invaded by the Soviets and with her small military had been mainly involved in a defensive campaign, a campaign in which she gave the Soviets a bloody nose and made them pay for every meter of Finish ground taken, however, the Finns were wise enough to know, that with enough time and the size of the military available to the Soviets, they alone could not hope to defeat the Soviet Union.

Even when the Finns were brought into the fight during the Siege of Leningrad their actions were carefully measured, preferring to hold their side of the encircling line and limit the amount of action directed to wards the city, because the knew that come the day the Nazis were finally defeated, then Uncle Joe Stalin would exact a heavy price from Finland for the actions they were involved in while allied to the Nazi military.

Kevin in Deva.

Posted by: Imperialist April 25, 2011 09:27 pm
QUOTE (New Connaught Ranger @ April 25, 2011 08:38 pm)
In all reality you cant use the amount of 18 Knights Crosses v. 2 Knights Crosses as a legitimate scale for who was doing better as an ally for the Third Reich rolleyes.gif

Even when the Finns were brought into the fight during the Siege of Leningrad their actions were carefully measured, preferring to hold their side of the encircling line and limit the amount of action directed to wards the city

Those carefully measured actions is what makes them not that of a good ally compared to Romania. From Germany's perspective, of course.

Posted by: Alex30cag April 26, 2011 07:32 am
I think Romania was the most important allied of Germany in ww2 for oil resources and war power

Posted by: Dénes April 26, 2011 02:47 pm
QUOTE (Valium @ April 25, 2011 09:48 pm)
by the way: I've asked in my "incendiar" post for sources about hungarian army in eastern front-I think it would be very interesting, if you have any

This book will hopefully give you the answer you're looking for:
http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=5738&st=0&#entry81038

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: sebipatru April 26, 2011 05:38 pm
QUOTE
Finland had been invaded by the Soviets and with her small military had been mainly involved in a defensive campaign, a campaign in which she gave the Soviets a bloody nose and made them pay for every meter of Finish ground taken


actually all this happend because the war was The Winter war, i wonder what would had happend if the war would have been The Summer War

the finns fought well, but they fought a defensive war with good suplly lines in harsh conditions of winter near polar circle in a hard terrain, all these had a major impact on the battlefield.

PS soryy for my english i was never good at grammar

Posted by: cnflyboy2000 May 30, 2011 04:14 pm
QUOTE (Alex30cag @ April 26, 2011 12:32 pm)
I think  Romania was the most important allied of Germany in ww2 for oil resources and war power



And at least one other big thing: food. Has anyone mentioned that?

I've read that Hitler viewed Romania as an important bread basket, and had long coveted the rich agricultural lands, well beyond the traditional Saxon footprint in Transylvania!

Posted by: YAN June 23, 2011 10:13 am
I would go for the nation who was the first to support German and who was the last to opt out and join the allies, does Hungary fit the bill, was Hungary the last one in Europe to still fight side to side with Germany, I dont consider Japan because they fought there own war and they never fought on the same soil with the Germans.

Posted by: Dénes June 23, 2011 10:37 am
QUOTE (YAN @ June 23, 2011 04:13 pm)
I would go for the nation who was the first to support German and who was the last to opt out and join the allies, does Hungary fit the bill, was Hungary the last one in Europe to still fight side to side with Germany...

Hungary certainly was not the first one to support Hitler's resurgent Germany. Also, it was not the last one either (it was Croatia).

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: YAN June 23, 2011 03:02 pm
Thanks Dénes, you learn something new every day.
Regards Yan.

Posted by: son of wisdom June 29, 2011 06:39 am
japan was most important ally of germany.
of course that s years iran had very important role but iran was ataccked by england.
in reality iran was the bridge of victory for allies.

Posted by: YAN June 29, 2011 10:29 am
Yes the British did invade Iran in 1941, because in was feared that Reza Shah Pahlavi was moving closer to Germany, so Britain and Russia took over the Country to secure the oil fields, and the rest is history.

Posted by: cristianaliatul August 07, 2011 07:48 pm
i voted ROMANIA cool.gif cool.gif cool.gif cool.gif
[COLOR=yellow]

Posted by: cristianaliatul August 08, 2011 11:15 am
vote romania NOW
mad.gif mad.gif mad.gif mad.gif smile.gif smile.gif THANX

Posted by: cristianaliatul August 08, 2011 11:18 am
go axis biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

Posted by: cristianaliatul August 08, 2011 11:21 am
[FONT=Geneva][SIZE=14][COLOR=purple] romania must win

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)