Romanian contribution to the shortening of the war

[inahurry]

QUOTE

How would you feel if you knew that your \"ally\" is taking away your supplies and even your victories (see Budapest for example)?

Very true. I wouldn't like to find myself in the place of Romanian commanders then, it was furiously humiliating. If at least history would do them (and the men who fell there) justice.

[Victor]

Paulus,
there were fewer casualties than in the Eastern Campaign (169,822 vs. 624,720). Only one unit was surrounded and captured (4th Infantry Division, which lacked any AT weapons, thanks to the Soviet allies, who had confiscated it :| ). Generally the Romanian units were used, after Transylvania had been reoccupied, in difficult terrain and weather conditions in the Slovakian Mountains (which were very favorable for the defense) or in Operation Budapest (which was yet another Hell on Earth). They were expandable in the eyes of the Soviet marshals and, anyway, the Royal Army needed to be destroyed, one way or the other.

[dragos]

I found that:

By opening widely the "Focsani Gate" - and, through it, the gates of whole Central Europe along the Danube River Valley - also, those of the Balkans - the Romanian volte face gave to the Red Army the possibility to use what Sir B.H. Liddell Hart considered to be "the widest open flank ever known in the history of modern wars".

[Geto-Dacul]

dragos wrote :

QUOTE

By opening widely the \"Focsani Gate\" - and, through it, the gates of whole Central Europe along the Danube River Valley - also, those of the Balkans - the Romanian volte face gave to the Red Army the possibility to use what Sir B.H. Liddell Hart considered to be \"the widest open flank ever known in the history of modern wars\".

And should we be proud of it?

[dragos]

I try to expose facts and emphasize the contribution of Romanian army on this front, in the conditions that Romania was refused the co-beligerant status at the end of the war. This is the history either you like it or not. To give you something for your taste: the defensive operation of the 4th Army during September 1944, fulfilled exclusively by Romanian troops and under Romanian command, was a materpiece of military strategy.

[Geto-Dacul]

dragos wrote :

QUOTE

To give you something for your taste: the defensive operation of the 4th Army during September 1944, fulfilled exclusively by Romanian troops and under Romanian command, was a materpiece of military strategy.

Yep, but the whole campaign in Northern Transylvania cost us the huge losses of 62.000 men. Compare it with the liberation of Bessarabia...

Getu'

[Bernard Miclescu]

Yes the difference between the Bessarabian- N Bukovine campaign and Transylvanian campaign is similar to the quality between the Wermacht and USSR army.

bm

[Dénes]

[quote]Yes the difference between the Bessarabian- N Bukovine campaign and Transylvanian campaign is similar to the quality between the Wermacht and USSR army.[/quote]
More than half of the Axis troops fighting in Transylvania were Hungarians, not German.

Dénes

[Bernard Miclescu]

Ok major, understood.
bm[/quote]

[C-2]

QUOTE

QUOTE Yes the difference between the Bessarabian- N Bukovine campaign and Transylvanian campaign is similar to the quality between the Wermacht and USSR army. More than half of the Axis troops fighting in Transylvania were Hungarians, not German. Dénes

Yes but the Rom.army that fought in the early tays of the war was better than the Rom army that ended the war!
That's also a criterium to the hight nr of losses in the western front.

[Geto-Dacul]

Dénes wrote :

[quote]More than half of the Axis troops fighting in Transylvania were Hungarians, not German.
[/quote]

That is to show that the Hungarians inflicted heavy losses to Romanian troops... But the Romanians had virtually no armour, in comparison with Hungarian/German (Horthyst-Szalasist-Fascist troops ) troops.

And the Soviet attitude was very "determinant"... See Oarba de Mures...

C-2 wrote :

[quote]Yes but the Rom.army that fought in the early tays of the war was better than the Rom army that ended the war!
That's also a criterium to the hight nr of losses in the western front.[/quote]

That is not exactely true... Romanian Army of 1944 was better equiped and trained than in 1941.

[Dénes]

[quote]the whole campaign in Northern Transylvania cost us [Rumanians] the huge losses of 62.000 men.[/quote]
The most bloody battles between Axis (i.e., Hungarian and German) and Allied (i.e., Rumanian and Soviet) troops were in southern Transylvania. See, for example, the battle in and around Turda/Torda/Thorenburg, between Sept. 5-Oct.8.

Dénes

[Dénes]

[quote]Dénes wrote :

[quote]More than half of the Axis troops fighting in Transylvania were Hungarians, not German.
[/quote]

That is to show that the Hungarians inflicted heavy losses to Romanian troops... But the Romanians had virtually no armour, in comparison with Hungarian/German (Horthyst-Szalasist-Fascist troops ) troops.[/quote]
Indeed, the Rumanian troops did not have effective armour assistance in Sept. 1944. However, the Soviets did. For example, in the battle in and around Turda/Torda/Thorenburg, the Soviet 6th Guards Tank Army played a determinant role.

As for the "Horthyst-Szalasist-Fascist" epithet, what can I say... Should we call then the Rumanian troops 'Mihailist-Sanatescist-Pro-Communist"? :roll:

Dénes

[Geto-Dacul]

Dénes wrote :

[quote]However, the Soviets did. For example, in the battle in and around Turda/Torda/Thorenburg, the Soviet 6th Guards Tank Army played a determinant role.
[/quote]

Yes, but only the Soviets... Few Romanian units were subordinated to Soviet armour formations.

[quote]As for the "Horthyst-Szalasist-Fascist" epithet, what can I say... Should we call then the Rumanian troops 'Mihailist-Sanatescist-Pro-Communist"?
[/quote]

It was only to show how absurde can propaganda be with the "Horthyst-Fascist epitet, when Horthy no more in power!!! ... :wink:

Getu'

[Dénes]

[quote]Dénes wrote :

[quote]However, the Soviets did. For example, in the battle in and around Turda/Torda/Thorenburg, the Soviet 6th Guards Tank Army played a determinant role.
[/quote]

Yes, but only the Soviets... Few Romanian units were subordinated to Soviet armour formations.[/quote]

It appears that the 4th Rumanian Army had an armoured element integrated in it in Sept. 1944, namely 'Detasamentul Blindat' (Armoured Detachment), under command of Lt.-Col. Gh. Matei. This unit was equipped with 16 tanks.

[quote]As for the "Horthyst-Szalasist-Fascist" epithet, what can I say... Should we call then the Rumanian troops 'Mihailist-Sanatescist-Pro-Communist"?
[/quote]

It was only to show how absurde can propaganda be with the "Horthyst-Fascist epitet, when Horthy no more in power!!! ... :wink:[/quote]
Of course such labels were/are absurd, I know.
However, it's interesting to read that current Rumanian historiography continues to use such labels (horthyst, or fascist), used extensively during Communism (Remember Gen. dr. Ilie Ceausescu's "history" books?)

Dénes