Romania and the Brusilov offensive

[Carol I]

A couple of years ago I have read an article by a J. H. Cockfield regarding the WWI activity of the Russian general A. Brusilov and especially his very successful offensive in the summer of 1916 (suggested to be the only Allied success of the period). In this article I found a rather offending view on Romania and the Romanian army.

Basically, it was said that Romania has entered WWI after seeing the success of the Brusilov offensive and “lured by the prospect of easy territorial pickings in Transylvania” (this latter view is surprisingly still agreed by Anglo-Saxon historians to the extent that I had recently had to write to BBC to correct similar falsities stated on their homepage about the modern history of Romania; the BBC complied within a couple of days, but I do not doubt that they did their own research to check my statements). In the article I mentioned it was also stated that the Russian generals, including Brusilov, have resented or even opposed Romania’s entry into the war for fear that they will be forced to support what the author of the article considered to be “the worst army in Eastern Europe”. Indeed he also quotes the opinion of a conveniently anonymous Russian commander who said that “asking the Romanian army to fight is like asking a donkey to perform a minuet”. The article continued more or less within the same lines to the extent of attributing the eventual failure of Brusilov’s offensive and even the defeat of Russia to Romania’s entry into the war.

While I do not deny that Romania had rather poor equipment in 1916 (in fact it was promised better equipment by the Entente after the entry into the war), I found Cockfield’s view to be at least unfair if not simply rude and offending. I would therefore like to hear your opinion and if you have information on Romania’s entry into WWI in the end of August 1916 and its relation to the successful Russian offensive in the summer of 1916.

Without knowing very much of the events of the period, I personally found the conclusions of the article to be rather farfetched. My impression from the article was that the Brusilov offensive in which the Russians suffered more than 450000 casualties (and thus bringing the total of Russian casualties to more than 5.5 million) was already out of breath by August 1916. Indeed the momentum of the offensive was severely diminished after the transfer of German troops to the help of the Austro-Hungarian army against which the Russian offensive was mainly directed. Furthermore, I found surprising the overlooking of the factors that led to the Russian revolution (though mentioned in the article) in explaining the fall of Russia on the Eastern front. In this light I find a gratuitous act to blame Romania for the failure of an offensive already out of breath and for the fall of a country with deep social and political problems.

I would also like to find out more about the quality of the Romanian army of the period. I bring to your attention the activities in Moldova in the summer of 1917 when the Romanian army had to fight not only the German troops under the command of Mackensen, but also the rebellious Russian troops that were inciting to revolution and civil war. Furthermore, the huge desertion rate in the Russian army in the spring of 1917 of more than 35000 per month (and much more afterwards) meant that Romania had to outstretch its forces beyond its possibilities and therefore it is more likely that the fall of Romania was brought by Russia and not vice versa as it was suggested in the article I mentioned.

So, resuming my questions, what is your opinion on the real events that led to Romania’s entry into WWI and the true quality of the Romanian army of the period?

Carol I

[Victor]

Brusilov's offensive was already dead when Romania entered the war in August 1916. In fact this is one of the things the Western Entente marshals regretted most and resented Bratianu's stuborness to negotiate every last detail.

But the author of article is basically wrong. Romania entered the war, because the Entente said: "Now or never!" And this entry did provide the breathing space they needed in the west and on the Salonik front.

The Russians were not too happy with the Romanian entry, as they had to provide some assistance (as agreed through the treaty), but acted dubiously slowly and interfered even the transiting of the supplies sent by the Western Allies. There is even a theory that Sturmer was planning to split Romania with Austria-Hungary.

The bad opinion the Russians had about the Romanian army was mostly unfounded, as seen in 1917/18, when Romanian regiments disarmed entire Russian corps.

[Chandernagore]

I admit my lack of knowledge on this subject. What was the deciding factor (s) in pushing Rumania into WWI ? There must have been powerfull incentives.

QUOTE

Romania entered the war, because the Entente said: \"Now or never!\"

Well they could have said "never" it's not like England was going to invade Rumania for not complying...

[Carol I]

One major factor deciding Romania’s entry into the war on the side of the Entente has been the situation of the Romanian population in Austro-Hungary-held Transylvania (lack of rights and general oppression).

In fact both the Central Powers and the Entente pressed Romania to enter war on their side, the Central Powers promising a substantial improvement in the situation of the Romanian population in Transylvania and the return of Russian-held Bessarabia to Romania, while the Entente was promising the return of Austro-Hungary-held Transylvania and Bukowina to Romania. I therefore guess that the “now or never” ultimatum referred to the Allied support for Romania’s claim to Transylvania and Bukowina.

The public opinion sympathetic to France also played an important role in deciding Romania’s alliances. The fact is that in 1914 Romania had an old treaty with Austro-Hungary of reciprocal military assistance in case any of the countries was attacked. Austria has asked Romania to enter war in 1914 on its side according to the terms of the treaty, but Romania has refused the request because Austria was in fact the aggressor as it initiated the war by attacking Serbia.

Carol I

[Carol I]

Thank you Victor for your reply, it strengthens my own impressions on the events. But as I said in my original message, the facts were quite clear in the article and therefore I cannot imagine how the author has reached the strange conclusions I mentioned. It seemed as if overlooking the facts, he tried to look for a suitable scapegoat for the Russian failure in WWI. In order to clarify the things for the enthusiasts on this forum, could you please give some more details about the real events of the period?

On the other hand, it is not the first time Romania’s contribution to a war is minimised if not completely neglected. Romania’s war for independence is absent for most foreign authors as it is mentioned only as the “Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878”. At most one can read about a minor expeditionary corps sent by Romania, while the desperate cry for help of the Russian High Command is conveniently forgotten.

Carol I

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

The fact is that in 1914 Romania had an old treaty with Austro-Hungary of reciprocal military assistance in case any of the countries was attacked. Austria has asked Romania to enter war in 1914

Ouch. I understand they where not too happy to find the "military assistance" suddenly moving into Transylvania & Bukovina ! 8)

[Carol I]

Yes, I think they were quite unhappy. And probably this is why they tried to impose some humiliating conditions in the May 1918 treaty. Fortunately, King Ferdinand did not sanction it and Romania was back to war later in 1918 and then on the winning side.

Carol I

[Victor]

Actually the conditions they were preparing much worse conditions for France and England, as one of the German negotiators said, when one of the Romanian delegates burst into tears after seeing the terms.

QUOTE

In order to clarify the things for the enthusiasts on this forum, could you please give some more details about the real events of the period?

Could you be more specific?

[johnny_bi]

Carol I said:

QUOTE

Romania’s war for independence is absent for most foreign authors as it is mentioned only as the “Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878”.

Actually it is treated (if not completely forgotten) as a minor detail of the 8th Russo-Turkish War...

[Chandernagore]

I was thinking that it was not a bad deal from the Franco-English point of vue. They would give away what was not theirs in exchange for Rumania's help in the war. Rumania would have to live with close neighbors bearing serious grudges while none of that would ever bother far away Buckingham palace. I can tell you at a glance who took the most of the risks :roll:

[johnny_bi]

johnny_bi said:

QUOTE

QUOTE Carol I said:   Romania’s war for independence is absent for most foreign authors as it is mentioned only as the “Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878”.   Actually it is treated (if not completely forgotten) as a minor detail of the 8th Russo-Turkish War...

Not to mention that during this war a lot of Romanians were killed by the English Remingtons... Pretty ironic...

[Carol I]

QUOTE

Could you be more specific?

I was thinking about the real circumstances and the succesion of events in the summer of 1916, like the situation on the Western front and that in Salonika/Thessaloniki, more details about the negotiations regarding Romania's entry into war etc. You seem to know quite a lot of facts. Thanks.

Carol I

[johnny_bi]

QUOTE

A couple of years ago I have read an article by a J. H. Cockfield regarding the WWI activity of the Russian general A. Brusilov and especially his very successful offensive in the summer of 1916 (suggested to be the only Allied success of the period). In this article I found a rather offending view on Romania and the Romanian army.

I understand the frustration that Carol I experienced because I feel the same way now... I'm reading a book "The first World War 1914-1918" written by Robin Prior and Trevor Wilson... This book is one of the total of 24 books (it is a war collection) that try to depict the military strategy and war conflicts beginning with the ancient times... These books "try" to enlight us in regard with some aspects of the warfare... But if I read some excellent books belonging to this collection (especially about wars before 1900), now I experienced a strange feeling...

You will understand now when I qoute a fragment from this book - it is about the entrance of Romania in WWI:

"Nothing, taking in consideration the situation of Romania, did not justify such extreme measures (to declare war against Central Powers). The Romanian regim had neither resources nor the motivations or military advisors to enter this war; Romania wouldn't delay its capitulation in the front of the Germans. Brousilov, [...], is forced to intervene in the Romanian operations and he is involved in the defeat... "

To end such a seriuos statement made by such respectable historians I will quote you another sentence:

"Romania surrender (capitulate) to Germans in 9 (nine) weeks."
You didn't know that Romania fought in WWI only for 9 weeks... from August to November 1916...

No other comment.

Just a remark... How could we expect some fair comments from "ordinary people" when even such historians that write such books could make such hilarious (and also sad) statements. I have to say that I was waiting for this book 2 months to "catch" it in a public library in a Western country...

[Carol I]

QUOTE

To end such a serious statement made by such respectable historians I will quote you another sentence:   \"Romania surrender (capitulate) to Germans in 9 (nine) weeks.\"   You didn't know that Romania fought in WWI only for 9 weeks... from August to November 1916...   No other comment.

I do not know if we should laugh or cry to such a statement.

The really sad thing is that they were referring to a period when we were allies and to deeds for which the Americans bestowed in 1923 the Medal of Honor to the Unknown Soldier of Romania “... in a desire to add all that is possible to the imperishable glory won by the soldiers of Rumania who fought as comrades of the American soldiers during the World War ...”.

Carol I

[dead-cat]

i found the claim that the romanian army was absorbed by the russians after 1916 campaign in various books as well. they didn't detail though.