Which was the most iportant thing the Romanian Army did?

[Ghita Razvan]

I trully want to know what was the most important thing the Romanian Army. I found about their positions( being the best of the german allies in the East) and that they were used extencevly in the battle for Crimeea and Stalingrad.

But are these the most important things the Romanian Army in the entire Second World War?' border='0' alt='user posted image' /> :smg:

[petru]

According to my boss, the most important Romanian contribution to the allied cause was the defeat around Stalingrad (it was a joke of course).

[C-2]

A bad joke.

Actually my grandfather is MIA at Don’s river bend, and I didn't tase the joke too much.

[Dr_V]

My answer is for mr. Ghita Razvan, regarding the topic he started:


During WW2 the Romanian armed forces were engaged mostly together with their allies, rarely (if ever) alone. But in some cases they were the main player and made a real difference. In my oppinion, those cases were:

1. The liberation of Basarabia and Bucovina (at the very beginning of Romanian involvement in WW2)

2. The bloody battle in Tatra mountains, against Germany. There the exhausted, but experienced and battle-hardened Romanian army, driven by dispear and criminally pushed foreword by the Soviets, fought bravely and made true history. They did what the mighty Red Army was afraid to do: directly face a well prepared German defence and penetrate it at all costs!

In Crimea the Romanian army was envolved alongside the Germans and was following the German strategy in the area. But the Romanian aid in Crimea was essencial in German strategy and our troops faught many bloody battles. There the Romanians were not the main actors and suffered much because of the flauds in German strategy.

[Dr_V]

petru:

The defeat of the Romanian forces at Stalingrad was the direct result of the mistake made by the Germans in the units deployment strategy. The Romanian forces weren't by far ineffective, as many often suggest, but they were employed in a situation they weren't equipped for. No army in the world at that time could resist the well prepared Russian assault with the equippment (and manpower) that the Romanians had there.

If we look at the problem in a more phantezist way, the Soviet victory wasn't by far a fortunate result for the history, as if the Germans would have delayed the Red Armys brakethrough long enough we wouldn't have suffered the post-war iron courtaine and communist era. At least for Romania, it would have been much better if the Western allies would have defeated Germany alone and the Soviets would have remained in their territory...

[C-2]

At Stalingrad,at least the Romanian army hold for a while against the hords of T-34,without tanks or anti tanks weapons.
Like dr V said ,nobody could stand there.

[dragos]

Guest is Petru

[petru]

QUOTE

The defeat of the Romanian forces at Stalingrad was the direct result of the mistake made by the Germans in the units deployment strategy. The Romanian forces weren't by far ineffective, as many often suggest, but they were employed in a situation they weren't equipped for. No army in the world at that time could resist the well prepared Russian assault with the equippment (and manpower) that the Romanians had there.

You don?t have to convince me. But this shows how Romanian contribution is sensed in the west. Except the bombing campaign on Ploiesti nothing is really known about the rest. And even the campaign is often presented biased.

QUOTE

If we look at the problem in a more phantezist way, the Soviet victory wasn't by far a fortunate result for the history, as if the Germans would have delayed the Red Armys brakethrough long enough we wouldn't have suffered the post-war iron courtaine and communist era. At least for Romania, it would have been much better if the Western allies would have defeated Germany alone and the Soviets would have remained in their territory...

You know very well that the Russians couldn?t have stayed out of the war. Secondly, even if Germany would have defeated the Russians there was no way to defeat the Americans. What makes you think the Americans wouldn?t have used a nuke on Berlin if the situation had been critical. This was the only weapon that could have made Germany win the war and they didn?t have it.

QUOTE

Guest is Petru

What does it mean?

[dragos]

Aren't you the one which wrote:

QUOTE

Actually my grandfather is MIA at Don’s river bend, and I didn't tase the joke too much.

?

[petru]

Now I see. I don't understand why I appeared as guest. I thought it was not possible to post a message if you are not loged on.

[dragos]

(I forgot again to set permissions) :offtopic:

[Dan Po]

QUOTE

According to my boss, the most important Romanian contribution to the allied cause was the defeat around Stalingrad (it was a joke of course).

:cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :keep: IMAO IMAO


I agree that is really a black joke ... but .... it s a good one.


In my oppinion the main contribution of romanian army in WW2 was the battle for Tatra mountains as Dr_V said. See what was happened in north of Italy in the winter of '44 - '45. The german troops wans t defated there ...

[mabadesc]

Unfortunately, I'm not as familiar with the Romanian's Army Western Campaign (the books referring to it don't go into too much detail). Still, I do agree that the Tatra Mountains offensive ranks high on the list of the army's military achievements, I just don't know what sets it apart in valor from Romania's other Western battles: Debrecin, Budapest, Banska-Bystrica, etc...

I'd be very interested if someone could clarify my confusion and shed some light on this issue.

Otherwise, in terms of great military contributions by the Romanian Army, I agree with Dr. V's list, with a few clarifications:

1. N. Bukovina and Bessarabia.
Exception: The Odessa episode (though not technically part of the Bessarabian campaign), which was, in my opinion, poorly planned and executed with great disregard for loss of human life, mainly because of Antonescu's stubornness and blind anger.
Also, I would include in this offensive the battles all the way down to the Stalin line and up to Perekop.

2. The Crimeean Campaign.
There should be no doubt that Romania's troop contribution in Crimeea was crucial and essential in assuring the success of that campaign. Unfortunately, in the majority of cases this has been neither acknowledged nor publicized by Western historians, due to a variety of reasons, such as: assigning Romanian divisions to the command of various German Army Corps; the assignment of Romanian troops to duties such as elimination of partisan resistance and guarding portions of the Coast (duties perceived as somehow inferior to combat, although not the case); and last, but not least, the omission of German commanders, all the way up to Manstein, to mention significant Romanian participation in various battles and operations.

It is interesting to note that Lt-Colonel Theodor Tautu's report, filed on Jan. 12, 1942, shows an incredible sense of intuition on his part. To quote a brief passage from this report, Colonel Tautu goes on to accurately predict the future by saying:
"Atunci cand se va scrie istoricul operatiunilor din Crimeea, eforturile si grelele sacrificii de sange facute de trupele romane de aici vor aparea foarte palide in ansamblul operatiunilor, intrucit romanii n-au aut posibilitatea sa-si lege numele de nici o actiune importanta conceputa si dusa la bun sfarsit de comandamentul si trupele romane. Din aceasta cauza istoria va fi poate nedreapta cu noi si cu sacrificiile noastre, fara sa avem vreo alta vina decit ca am fost obligati a consimti la aceasta fragmentare a comandamentelor noastre".
[Taken from "Romanii in Crimeea", Pandea & Ardeleanu]

Sorry, no time to translate in English. Briefly, the passage states that "History will misjudge the Romanian contribution in Crimeea simply because Romanian troops were forced to agree to being broken up and divided among German hierarchicaly superior units".

[Stealth3]

Hi, im new here

QUOTE

You know very well that the Russians couldn?t have stayed out of the war. Secondly, even if Germany would have defeated the Russians there was no way to defeat the Americans. What makes you think the Americans wouldn?t have used a nuke on Berlin if the situation had been critical. This was the only weapon that could have made Germany win the war and they didn?t have it.

First of all, without the defeat of the german forces at Stalingrad, d-day would have most lickely ened in a failure. One of the reasons the allies landed succesfuly was because many panzer divisions were wiped durning the battle of Stalingrad.

Second, were talking from the period of 1942, so the Amercans did not had nuclear capabilities at that time. One reason they developed the a-bomb at the time they did was because of the captured uranium from a german u boat. The allies did not had the strength to deal with the germans if it wasnt for the eastern front. The battle of Stalingrad was a major turning point in ww2, followed by the last German offence on the eastern front, the battle of Kursk.

By the way, I was bored in Hateg living in Chicago.