Allies of Germany

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

But is not fair, IMHO

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

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.

Kevin in Deva.

PS Happy Easter to all.

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?...om/mainpage.htm

http://militaryhistory.about.com/gi/o.htm?...om/mainpage.htm

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

Kevin in Deva.

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

This post has been edited by Valium on April 25, 2011 04:18 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.

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

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.

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

I think Romania was the most important allied of Germany in ww2 for oil resources and war power

This book will hopefully give you the answer you're looking for:
http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...t=0&#entry81038

Gen. Dénes

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

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!

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.

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

Thanks Dénes, you learn something new every day.
Regards Yan.

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.