Allies of Germany

QUOTE

well the answer is fuel

Fuel and the reluctance to engage main battleships inside the radius of enemy land based air forces. After sinking the Repulse & Prince of Wales the Japanese were well placed to ponder the risks. When your future hangs on the presence of your fleet you are wary of throwing it into the fire for a strategically doubtfull and non essential objective.

QUOTE

well the answer is fuel. ALL japanese operations during WW2 were affected by rigid fuel consumption quotas, because the japanese fleet consumed more fuel than reached japan every month. thus, the navy could not be as effective as it should, especially since patrolling had to be kept at a minimum level, much to the delight of american submarines.

In fact, the American (partial) embargo of oil was one of Japan's reasons to go to war with the US.

Greetings.
I have read that the original poster stated that Japan should not be considered for this poll. Then the most important German ally was clearly Italy.

I know, many readers have voted for other countries. I'm under the impression they have not stuck with the actual wording of the question.

"Important" means relevant, significant, momentous, etc. Italy had the biggest impact on Germany's war. It had more troops involved than any other ally. It significantly enlarged the theaters of war. It contributed to Germany's effort and, much more, needed German contributions for its own efforts.

But, was that importance of Italy a positive thing for Germany? A previous poster wrote that Italy meant, for Germany "trouble". While that post contains some inaccuracies, the gist is right.

So I suspect a more significant question would be: "What was the most *useful* ally for Germany?". If this is the question, then the answer is Romania. Followed by Finland, and Italy only a third (we are always excluding Japan here).

Romania had the most integrated military cooperation with the German armed forces (as war went on, to the increasing detriment of the Romanians, but always to the advantage of the Germans). All of its contribution was committed to the main German war objective. It expended its troops in German campaigns, both successful offensives and hard-fought defensive operations. It provided a largely irreplaceable raw material.

Yes, it switched sides in the end. That's irrelevant, everybody did that. Yes, some did that later than others; but that doesn't depend upon greater loyalty or such concerns, it depended upon when the Allies came knocking at the German allies' doors.

If "useful" had been the question, I would have voted for Romania.

QUOTE

Yes, it switched sides in the end. That's irrelevant, everybody did that. Yes, some did that later than others

Just a small note: Hungary and Croatia did not change sides, they fought alongside Germany to the bitter end.

QUOTE

Just a small note: Hungary and Croatia did not change sides, they fought alongside Germany to the bitter end.

Hungary tried to do it in March 1944, but was occupied and a "more friendly" regime was installed. In Romania it did not succeed, although it was tried.

And Croatia was not even recognized as a state by the Allies (only by the Axis).

QUOTE

QUOTE Just a small note: Hungary and Croatia did not change sides, they fought alongside Germany to the bitter end. Hungary tried to do it in March 1944, but was occupied and a "more friendly" regime was installed. In Romania it did not succeed, although it was tried.

Besides, when Budapest fell on February 13, 1945, the armistice between Hungary and the Allies had already been signed. OK, now one could argue which was the legitimate Hungarian government. But that's not of much consequence. Yes, the Germans established puppet governments for most of their allies. These ranged from fairly if briefly effective (Szálasi) to so-and-so, if a bit longer-lived (Mussolini) to ineffective... and in exile (Sima). That's not the point: those who could, did break away.
Croatia... with all due respect for the Croatians' bravery, I'm afraid it was more of a puppet state from the very beginning, as opposed to states that entered the war alongside Germany on a footing of full sovereignty.

QUOTE

QUOTE Just a small note: Hungary and Croatia did not change sides, they fought alongside Germany to the bitter end. Hungary tried to do it in March 1944, but was occupied and a "more friendly" regime was installed. In Romania it did not succeed, although it was tried. And Croatia was not even recognized as a state by the Allies (only by the Axis).

Hungary did not try to do anything concrete in March 1944, when German troops occupied the country. Of course, more or less legitimate attempts to ask for separate from the Western Allies peace did happen, but nothing imminent. The only faint attempt to break away from the Axis camp was on October 15, 1944, when Horthy proclaimed in his radio speech a cease fire. However, most Honvédség units did not follow his order and kept fighting against the Red Army.

As for Croatia, during the war it was recognised by many states, not only Axis (including the USSR, IIRC). Moreover, wartime Croatia is considered as the de jure predecessor of the current State of Croatia, therefore it has to be regarded as a "true" country, not just a puppet state.

QUOTE

Besides, when Budapest fell on February 13, 1945, the armistice between Hungary and the Allies had already been signed. OK, now one could argue which was the legitimate Hungarian government. But that's not of much consequence.

Historically speaking, it has importance. Until the end of war, the legitime Hungarian Government, still recognized by the Western Allies, was acting at the Parliament, which continued to exercise power until late April, IIRC, even after Budapest fell.

The provisory "people's democratic" Hungarian government was a puppet government established by the Soviets, not recognised by anyone else, without any de facto power. It became the actual Government - after being re-formed - only in the second half of 1945 (I have to check my sources for concrete dates).

QUOTE

Yes, the Germans established puppet governments for most of their allies. These ranged from fairly if briefly effective (Szálasi) to so-and-so, if a bit longer-lived (Mussolini) to ineffective... and in exile (Sima). That's not the point: those who could, did break away. Croatia... with all due respect for the Croatians' bravery, I'm afraid it was more of a puppet state from the very beginning, as opposed to states that entered the war alongside Germany on a footing of full sovereignty.

There is a marked difference between "puppet governments" and "puppet states". While I agree that some pro-Berlin governments were German puppets, the countries you're referring to were not "puppet states", they were real states. See my above answer to Victor regarding Croatia.

QUOTE

QUOTE Besides, when Budapest fell on February 13, 1945, the armistice between Hungary and the Allies had already been signed. OK, now one could argue which was the legitimate Hungarian government. But that's not of much consequence. Historically speaking, it has importance. Until the end of war, the legitime Hungarian Government, still recognized by the Western Allies, was acting at the Parliament, which continued to exercise power until late April, IIRC, even after Budapest fell. The provisory "people's democratic" Hungarian government was a puppet government established by the Soviets, not recognised by anyone else, without any de facto power. It became the actual Government - after being re-formed - only in the second half of 1945 (I have to check my sources for concrete dates). QUOTE Yes, the Germans established puppet governments for most of their allies. These ranged from fairly if briefly effective (Szálasi) to so-and-so, if a bit longer-lived (Mussolini) to ineffective... and in exile (Sima). That's not the point: those who could, did break away. Croatia... with all due respect for the Croatians' bravery, I'm afraid it was more of a puppet state from the very beginning, as opposed to states that entered the war alongside Germany on a footing of full sovereignty. There is a marked difference between "puppet governments" and "puppet states". While I agree that some pro-Berlin governments were German puppets, the countries you're referring to were not "puppet states", they were real states. See my above answer to Victor regarding Croatia.

Don't get me wrong; of course everything is of historical consequence. I meant that this thing is of little consequence in dealing with the matter at hand. In other words, there is enough evidence, or at least clues, that just like other allies of Germany, Hungary wanted to break away, too, as shown by the March 1944 openings, the ceasefire proposed by Horthy, the armistice of January 1945 and, of course, the Germans' behavior in itself.

As to the difference between allies and satellites, and between puppet governments and puppet states. Interesting point. You state there is a difference. Why don't you explain your views?
In my opinion, a state that is established by a foreign power and can only subsist as long as the foreign power upholds it is a puppet state. For instance, WWII Croatia or Slovakia.
IN my opinion, a government that is established by a foreign power and only exists because the foreign power wants it to exist is a puppet government. For instance, Germany's Sima government and the USSR's Kuusinen government.

However, what can we say of a government that is unable to do its own country's interests and can only act as long as it acts in the interests of a foreign power, even when they are contrary to its own country's interests? Isn't it a puppet government? Which Hungarian government in 1945 was acting more in the interests of Hungary, the German-controlled one or the Soviet-controlled one?

QUOTE

QUOTE QUOTE Just a small note: Hungary and Croatia did not change sides, they fought alongside Germany to the bitter end. Hungary tried to do it in March 1944, but was occupied and a "more friendly" regime was installed. In Romania it did not succeed, although it was tried. And Croatia was not even recognized as a state by the Allies (only by the Axis). As for Croatia, during the war it was recognised by many states, not only Axis (including the USSR, IIRC). Moreover, wartime Croatia is considered as the de jure predecessor of the current State of Croatia, therefore it has to be regarded as a "true" country, not just a puppet state.

A sort of retroactive legitimation? A unusual concept in international law, as far as my limited knowledge goes.

It is true that the Germans had no true ally as well as the fact that they did not want any true ally because ally means someone thats equal to you whilst they allways thought about themselves as being the 'one and only', the "Ubermensch".

However, in my opinion the Germans had diferrent approaches for diferrent nations and these may be correlated with how important they considered those nations. And it seems that amongst all these allies, the Romanians got the best treatment. No terrorised civillians, no SS/Polizei crimes etc. And by the way NO ROMANIAN PARTISAN RESISTANCE or even public protests :wink: . And whatever some may say, the jews that lived in Romania were far more lucky than those living in Hungary, Italy or anywhere else (Finland excepted). The Germans were very well aware that the average Romanian would never had endorsed a savage jew hunt in their country. Probably this is why they preffered to deal with a millitary man (Antonescu) rather than with the Iron Guard. Romanians back then as well as now trusted most 'The Army' and 'The Church' and sometimes 'The King'

"What if" Hitler had decided to support the Legionar Rebellion and have them leading the country? I think that he was aware that that would had created many problems and destabilised the situation in Romania and thus create unafordable problems on the Eastern Front.
Probably somewhere at the back at his mind Hitler had his clear intentions about the Romanian Jews, Gypsies and maybe even native Romanians once the Russians were defeated. The secret Third Reich documents uncovered by the Russians show clearly that Hitler and his henchmen's intentions were clearly defined: wipe off the whole population in the eastern Lebensraum. Not just to make them slaves or "rule" them as the Romans or Macedonians or even Turks!!! did in the past but to extermine them completely. This is what they hoped to be achieved by the Ersatz-Gruppen to "work". A plan not only monstruous but also unrealistic.
Not only that the Germans treated Romania and the Romanians as an ally but they also tried to gain sympathy and in my oppinion they were pretty successful in some areas. And this shows that for them Romania was very important as an ally and not as a occupied country (as much as they could see another nation as an ally given their nazi propaganda brain-wash)
And since most Germans regarded Romania an ally, of course that they considered the "switch of sides" a traitory and not as 'survival' decision as the Romanians like to call it. And here is where the average Romanian (and especially those that did not have much contact with Germans) cannot understand their way of thinking. One should maybe try and read Umberto Eco's "Baudolino" and see the problems Friedrich II had with his Holly Roman-German empire (Struto-Camila) 8-900 years ago!!!. In many aspects things are still the same, it is very hard for a German/arian to understand mediteranean/balkanik/midd-eastern so called "flexibility/versatility/survivability" that Romanians (as well) are so proud of.

Try and get to know some Germans, some real ones. Once you will get to know them better you will love their way and also you will see how 'gypsy' the Romanians became in the past 50 years.

Romania was the most important ally to Germany during World War Two. Romanian Oil made it possable for Germany to conquer much of Europe and have early success against the Soveit Union. The Romania Army was the most relaible Germen ally on the Eastern front, were the War was really decided. In many campaigns, Romanian Divions such as the 1st Armored Division in Stalingard were amongst the best axis units at the front. The Royal Romanian Air Force, disspite having some obsolete aircraft fought quite well against the Red Air Force, shooting down at least 1,500 Russian aircraft. The Romania Navy served axis well and saved thuosands of axis troops, trapped in Odessa. Without Romanias support, Germany would have had far more difficult time waging the war.


Thank You

This post has been edited by Stephen on November 02, 2004 06:52 am

I certainly love their way better today than 60 years ago

But it's a warped suggestion. There is no reason Germans shouldn't be respectable and friendly people. Germany never had a monopoly on fascism in history.

The matter is interesting.
The thing is that The III Reich used what he could get out of every ally.
As a patriot that I sure am I must speak for the cause of my own country. Romania supplied a great deal of petrol and cereal for the german war machine, so I concider we had a great role in the war on the Axis side as well as on the Allied side (this matter is a bit questionable).

HONOR ET PATRIA

Ml. B.

From my point of view: (Military impact)
1. Romania
2. Italia
(3a. Finland)
3. Hungary
4. Croatia
5. Slovakia
(6. Bulgaria)

If we take combined German-Croatian units (Inf Rgt 369) Croatia is 1st.
But all others Nation units combined with German will bring one or two places upwards.

A special case is Finland, as it was not a German allied as the others.
It continued it's lost Winter War, nothing else.


Did Bulgaria made any active assitance for the Germans??




MfG Michi