200 days shorter?!?!, Romania after 23.08.1944

Well, that still is a question in debate - some say the decision was made before the A-bomb(s), even after the ultimatum in july... but we're far off-topic by now!
Still, not as causality, but as time-frame, the SU invading Japanese-controlled territory fits the idea. And it was a complete and fast defeat, much different from the grim fighting on the islands with the US Army.

Hallo MMM,
If we talk about the romanian contribution in the shortening of the WWII, than we have to consider:
-the strategic opening of the Balkans and Hungarian plaines for the soviet forces,
-the incapacity of the german forces and their hungarian allies to build a strong front prior the soviet entering Transylvania and Banat,
-the destruction/weakening of several german divisions on the Moldavian front f.i. 10th PanzerGrenadier Division with romanian contribution,
-the human contribution /for those who believe that our troops efficiency was low/ at the western front -Hungary, Czechoslovakia- was important enough
-the economic loss for Germany -oil, nutriments, grains, etc.
-Hitler's obsession for romanian oil -even in march 1945!
and others I forget right now. And the 200 days shortening the war is plausible, even if unnecessary. Not for us anyway!
And tell this : you actually don't believe our contribution to shortening the war was so important, or it could not be 200 days? Please explain!

What Romanian contribution? Except for the several ad-hoc units created by some of the Soviet commanders, which fought in the Eastern Carpathian passes, the 2nd and 3rd Ukrainian Fronts were responsible for the destruction of the 6th and 8th Armies.

Re: Victor - maybe the German units surrounded and destroyed in Bucharest and Ploiesti
Re: Andreas - you're right, I don't believe that Romania's contribution did that, because even without the coup at 23.08, the country would have been occupied by the Red Army. I didn't believe much in the strength of FNB Line... Later I will answer to each of your points, except Hitler's obsession: he didn't worth explaining!

Those weren't first line troops, with the exception of the 5th Flak Division. The 10th Panzergrenadier Division mentioned above was part of the German 8th Army, which was on the front in Northern Moldavia.

Who said anything about frontline troops? The Romanians DID destroy some German troops directly and I guess that was the idea...
When looking at the bigger picture, we must see both the liberation/occupation of Paris and the Bagration operation, which ended with the destruction of Army Group Center. What was the importance of FNB line and/or the Balkan flank for the SU then, compared with the victory in the Polish sector of the front?
Regardless King Michael's coup d'etat and regardless the participating (bloody, nevertheless) of the Romanian divisions to the war against Germany, the war was won in the north, not in the south. The war was maybe LOST in the south due to the lack of fuel, but that's another thing.

This post has been edited by MMM on April 05, 2009 08:41 am

Hello Victor,

The 10. Panzer Grenadier Division together with 153.Feldausbildungs Division /*despite his name in 08.1944 he was a strong Infantry Division/ were frontline units destroyed in Baragan by romanian army units. Info from several books, including Armata romana in al doilea razboi mondial (1941 - 1945) : dictionar enciclopedic - Dutu, Alesandru / Dobre, Florica / Loghin, Leonida - If this is wrong please tell! It is trough that these were before beaten by soviets but the complete destruction was our troops work! It's also trough I do not know other german units with the same faith...but still.

That's the problem. You guess. Try first to read carefully what Andreas wrote.

He-he-he! It seems that we have a close tie in the polls - 5-4-4! At a second look, though, it's not quite so, because essentially the two final oppinions are quite similar in disagreement. I am sorry that not everyone who "participated" also argumented his oppinion. Feel free to do so