200 days shorter?!?!, Romania after 23.08.1944

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

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

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

I was just asking how big of a misinformation is that univocal theory...
It is clear to me that trying to quantify in days the contribution of the Romanian Army on the west front (btw, from aug. 23 to may 12, when all our units ended fighting are a little more than 200 days in all) is pointless if one doesn't take into account Odessa, Crimeea, Stalingrad, Kuban, Don etc. (with a big minus, this time...). Oh, the disculpatory communist idea was that the participation between aug. 24 and may whatever did shorten the war - probably, I guess, not prolonging it by resisting on the FNB line. Stoopid, if you look at a map on which to see the main thrust of the Red Army through Poland!

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

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

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

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

Gen. Dénes

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

keeping the front in the east in poland.

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

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

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

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

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

This post has been edited by dead-cat on March 26, 2009 10:34 am

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

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

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

This post has been edited by MMM on March 28, 2009 08:17 am

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

Japan

Somehow Japan's war was slightly different, as IIRC they DIDN'T attack SU, but WERE attacked in august 1945!

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