Romanian Army in the Second World War · Forum Guidelines | Help Search Members Calendar |
Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) | Resend Validation Email |
Pages: (6) [1] 2 3 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post ) |
Paulus |
Posted: August 27, 2003 11:42 am
|
Soldat Group: Members Posts: 15 Member No.: 89 Joined: August 26, 2003 |
Just about the Romanian switching of side, I've read in a book that the war would have been at least 6 months longer if Romanian troops continued the battle against the Soviets, and I'm quite sure this would have been, as far as Axis still had lots of Oil and Industry capacities in Romania and Hungary, who were immediately threatened and loosed afted September ...
However they were still considered as a looser (as the Axis side) country at the end of the war ... |
C-2 |
Posted: August 27, 2003 07:10 pm
|
General Medic Group: Hosts Posts: 2453 Member No.: 19 Joined: June 23, 2003 |
I'd say 6 weeks not months!
|
Dénes |
Posted: August 28, 2003 12:53 pm
|
||
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4368 Member No.: 4 Joined: June 17, 2003 |
That's the official point of view of Rumanian historiography, intended to boost the importance of the Rumanian about-face. However, if one seriously weighs the actual situation of the German forces in South-Eastern Europe in late August 1944, can easily reach the same conclusion that 'Dr. C-2' reached, namely that the war would have been longer not 6 months but 6 weeks, the most. The most important defece line that would somewhat delay the Red Army's advance would have been the Carpathians, which could have been defended by a joint German-Rumanian-Hungarian force. However, this did not happen due to the coup of Aug. 23. Therefore, the Soviets could easily penetrate the Carpathians with the help of Rumanian soldiers and local Rumanians. Dénes |
||
dragos |
Posted: August 29, 2003 08:21 am
|
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 2397 Member No.: 2 Joined: February 11, 2003 |
I believe the Romania's changing of sides had a stronger influence in the shortening of the war. The prompt opening of the Focsani "gate" cleared the way to the central and southern sectors of the eastern front. The following advance was one of the fastest in the history of ww2: between 200 and 700 km in two weeks. Otherwise, even if Focsani "gate" was forced sooner or later by the Soviets, the Axis troops defending the Transylvanian perimeter would have been prepared for a better defense. So I go for somewhere between 6 weeks and 6 months.
|
mars |
Posted: August 29, 2003 02:00 pm
|
Soldat Group: Members Posts: 43 Member No.: 70 Joined: August 05, 2003 |
I do not mean any dis-respect to those brave Rumanian soldiers, but I have to say for Soviet red army, the Rumania-Transylvanian -Hungary-Austria was only a secondary-rate direction. Just remember that at the direction (Warsaw-Berlin), each Soviet Red army Front had 2 tank army, each had at least 3 sometimes 4 tank/Mechanic Corps, about 700-900 most modern Russian tanks. At Rumania-Hungary direction, 2 Soviet Front together only had 1 tank army, which only had 2 tank/Mechani Corps, 50% of them were lend-lease American tanks
|
Geto-Dacul |
Posted: August 29, 2003 03:41 pm
|
||||
Plutonier adjutant Group: Members Posts: 383 Member No.: 9 Joined: June 18, 2003 |
mars wrote :
Think so? In 1944-45, it was a race between the US and Soviets for influence in Europe. Taking Berlin was only a matter of time... Consolidating Soviet Union's positions in the Balkans was of the greatest importance, because it was part of the Russian imperialist dream of controling the Danube, and the straits.
The Axis forces of Romania & Balkans were not of the importance of those defending the gateway to Berlin. |
||||
Paulus |
Posted: September 03, 2003 01:02 pm
|
Soldat Group: Members Posts: 15 Member No.: 89 Joined: August 26, 2003 |
If Romanian army fought bravely some months more (suppose January 1945) I think the Reds Wouldn't have avdanced more than southern part of Romania and would have taken serious losses.
I think Romania's army was still a powerful element of Axis forces, it had an important number of soldiers, am I wrong ? So when the Germans lost all those divisions, they probably had another big lack of troops for the continuation of the war, besides numerous romanian divisions were now fighting 'em ... |
C-2 |
Posted: September 03, 2003 06:03 pm
|
General Medic Group: Hosts Posts: 2453 Member No.: 19 Joined: June 23, 2003 |
In 44 many Romanians had enough of the war.Especialy after Stalingrad.
They felt it's not their war.And they were forced in it. It was imposible to hold on ,especialy with the USAF bombing! Glad you like the site! |
inahurry |
Posted: September 06, 2003 02:28 am
|
Sergent Group: Banned Posts: 191 Member No.: 61 Joined: July 28, 2003 |
Hmmm, and I thought (I didn't but let's pretend I did) this site could allow some Romanian historiography information to be accesed by other than Romanians and maybe those can judge by themselves. Guess the Hungarian vigilance never ends. Anyway, the "6 months" was a statement first made in the west, "hot", right after August 23, 1944. [ I forgot, there's always Boia (Lucian nu ardei), when is he going to "de-myth-ize (or how's spelled) the Romanian participation in WW2? ]
|
dragos |
Posted: September 06, 2003 09:55 am
|
||
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 2397 Member No.: 2 Joined: February 11, 2003 |
It was France, I believe, on a radio broadcast. |
||
Victor |
Posted: September 06, 2003 10:05 am
|
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4350 Member No.: 3 Joined: February 11, 2003 |
It was radio station Paris and the message was:
France considers that the Romanian contribution made the war 6 months shorter |
Paulus |
Posted: September 06, 2003 08:06 pm
|
Soldat Group: Members Posts: 15 Member No.: 89 Joined: August 26, 2003 |
What revolted me most is that Romania was treated if it was one of the countries who lost the war ... isn't it right ?
However, in which proportions did romanian sldiers were motivated for the war to the West ? |
C-2 |
Posted: September 06, 2003 09:45 pm
|
General Medic Group: Hosts Posts: 2453 Member No.: 19 Joined: June 23, 2003 |
At the first part of the campain ,motivation was high.
There were Basarabia and Bucovina,which were taken after the Ribent.-molot. pact. After it there were voices which asked not to cont.the campain far into Russia,but the army was still motivated and moral was high. The decline came after Stalingrad,and as the losses became enorm and the front line was coming toward the Romanian borders ,teh soldiers felt they are involved in a war that wasn't theirs. So many felt that the 23/8/44 came as a miracle since all expected an unconditional surrender in the next few Weeks/months... |
Victor |
Posted: September 07, 2003 06:44 am
|
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4350 Member No.: 3 Joined: February 11, 2003 |
Paulus was asking about the anti-Axis campaign. He said West, you know, where Hungary, Slovakia and Austria are.
During the fights in Transylvania motivation was high, but after that it started to decline, as they got further and further from home and as the Red Army treated them more badly. How would you feel if you knew that your "ally" is taking away your supplies and even your victories (see Budapest for example)? |
Paulus |
Posted: September 07, 2003 08:27 am
|
||
Soldat Group: Members Posts: 15 Member No.: 89 Joined: August 26, 2003 |
I was interested by both posts :wink: In effect, I've heard about problems with the Red Army ... When I read articles about the campaign to the west in the ancient website I saw they (romanian force) also took as heavy losses as they took on the East ... Am I right ? |
||
Pages: (6) [1] 2 3 ... Last » |