WWI in Romania

It looks I am the only "defender" of Mr Negrea in this issue.
I read the article once more, but he never says that this is the only explanation of Romania defeat in 1916. Neither I don't think this is a conspiracy theory, it never looks like that in this article.
@Victor: You said you don't read this article entirely. If you do that, you will see that it is not only Comnene book, he give many quotations from many people who were "in bussines" on those times.
Let me put them here: Pavel Miliukov,Anton Denikin, Charles Rivet, Dumitru Iliescu, Saint-Aulaire, Maurice Paleologue, Henri Berthelot, Alexei Brusilov, Arthur Evans, Stephen Pichon, general Malterre, general Zaioncikovski.
Those quotations must be read before put a conclusion, if this is a conspirationist theory or not. We must remember that between ww1 and ww2 were debated many unanswered questions until today.

Contras, the aspect that bothered me personally of that quoted text is not "the exclusivity of responsibilities of the Russian leaders" (especially the Prime Minister) (my quotation) but the induction to the uninformed public of the feeling that "Russia did us again" (in the sense of the traditional stab in the back, military aggressions, territorial raptures a.o.) which in this case was not justified! I don't think that the cause of failure of the 1916 campaign must be seached in the direction of Russia but rather in our own High Command strategic mistakes! Surely they should be considered in the general context of the Eastern Front but I don't think the emphasis on Russia help us see the real causes of 1916 campaign defeat! Is just my opinion, no offense!

Sorry, ANDREAS, but I never judge a movie, a book or an article on what others could think or believe about it. For it is more important what I really think or believe about it. No offence too.

Contras I agree with what you wrote, it is a normal remark and understandable! Obvious that not bothering me at all, I also told my point of view! We agree to disagree as it sounds a saying!

Don't shot the messenger!

http://www.cristiannegrea.ro/?p=455

If you don't want to be shot at, why are you keep posting these questionable blog entries?

Gen. Dénes

Another point of view, not treason but capital strategic errors (at the begining ?)

A.A.Kersnovsky
The History of the russian Army … The defeat of Romania
(ИСТОРИЯ РУССКОЙ АРМИИ… Разгром Румынии)

The leader of the russian strategy, General Alexeev in person, did not really notice the benefits of the Romanian Theater of war…
Never his lack of creative intuition was not so tragic apparent than in the days of August 1916. The fate gave him a key to victory, and he did not take it and did not even notice…
Stavka wanted to see only one side of the coin - the inconvenience and disadvantages of the entry of Romania, expressed mainly in the danger stretching to the Black Sea and the already huge front from Riga to Kyrlibaba…
Seeing that his objections were completely ignored by Gen. Joffre, Gen. Alekseev took a strange, indifferent stance offended, and at his turn he decided to ignore the new imposed ally…
Supported by France, Romania initially asked for a 250,000 russian troops in Balkans. Alekseev, in February intended to sent here 16 Corps, but in August flatly rejected this. He promised 50,000, but later regretted it and sent only 30,000…
The Convention of Aug. 4th left open the most important question: the coordination between the Russian-Romanian armies. Stavka withdrew from any participation in the development of this issue of capital importance and declared that is not interested and the romanian offensive is not his problem.

Interesting. I don't find those blog entries in any way more questionable than other (or the majority of) internet sources - especially that last entry.

This post has been edited by Agarici on January 27, 2013 08:30 pm

I apologize but need to reaffirm: b...sh..! The man has his firmly fixed ideas and I fear that he becomes an "taliban" about Russia (and victimization of Romania)! The problem starts when you (as analyst) lose credibility, and you are no longer believed, not even when you tell the truth! But it don't bothers me at all the fact that Contras post the links of this articles, is his right to believe them ... and mine to don't!

But now, do you think he tells the truth or not? And, those people who were quoted (Ludendorff, Petin, Briand, Polivanof) they tell the truth, or are the ones who just were put there to victimize Romania? This is the problem, not what we think about it. We can say anything, but those people said at those time what they said. They told the truth or not?

Contras, I have no doubt that they (Ludendorff, Petin, Briand, Polivanof) said what they believed then, and on many, the events confirm them! But the author's conclusions are wrong and I would even say intentionally wrong! His tone and words are also illustrative and in perfect agreement with his conclusions: "Russian betrayal", "we Romanians were the victims", "Russia agreed with Austro-Hungary to divide Romania between them", "Russians were treacherous from start to finish", "Bulgarians attacked in Dobrudja without declaration of war", "The only thing that was not missing to Romanians was bravery, recognized even by opponents" a.o.. If he were a politician I'd say that it is more populist than D... but he is not ...yet! Essentially the problem was: did our leadership (the upper political and military leadership of the Romanian state) knew or not from the beginning (1916) who would be the essential ally of not? I speak here about Russia, because Russia was going to provide us directly and immediately military support and not France or the British Empire! And as long as coordination with Russian troops did not take place (our Northern Army with the Russian Front from Bukovina) what was expected? It was not the fault of Russia it was our mistake so...

ANDREAS, I looked back about your quotations, and it was not easy. I find something in Mr Negrea articles about this issue, and I will answer only with what he writes, but not with his words, but with the ones who are quoted there.

But look what said Charles Rivet, journalist, in his book "The last Romanov" 1917.
"Cu venirea lui Sturmer la guvern interveni planul machiavelic a cărui victimă trebuia să fie România. Escomparea înfrângerii sale trebuia să conducă în mod fatal, în gândul autorilor acestui complot, la o pace ruso-germană. Pacea aceasta avea și un caracter profitabil: Rusiei i se alipea Moldova, iar Austriei i se da Muntenia."

I'll try to translate, aproximately, as I can. Please someone corect me if I'm wrong.
"With Sturmer's reach to power came the machiavelic plan and the victim will be Romania. Avoiding the defeat, the complot will be profitable on one Russian-German peace: Moldavia would come to Russia, Walachia to the Austrians."

It was a declaration of war before or after the Bulgarians attack on Dobroja? (like at Pearl Harbour in 1941, and this day is called Day of Infamy by American historians just because the declaration of war arrived latter that the attack).
About others quotations, about treason and bravery, there were many reports, I'm sure you know many of them.

No offence, ANDREAS, for my curiosity, if other person (not the one in question) put those quotations in some blog entry, you would said about those as b...sh..?

The first Rumanian troops had also crossed the border into Hungary (Transylvania) before the official declaration of war was handed over to the attacked.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on January 30, 2013 06:42 am

This post has been edited by Petre on January 30, 2013 10:03 am

Hungarian sources tell otherwise.

"1916. augusztus 27-én este 9 órakor Edgar Mavrocordat, Románia bécsi nagykövete átnyújtotta Berchtold osztrák-magyar külügyminiszternek a hadüzenetet, viszont a román csapatok már fél órával korábban megrohanták a Kárpátok hágóit és szorosait, a Tölgyesi-, Békási-, Gyimesi, Uz- és Ojtozi-szoroson hatoltak be Erdélybe. Magyar részről az ellenállás minimális volt. Az Erdélyben állomásozó osztrák-magyar erők nem is vehették fel a harcot a román hadsereggel, mindössze az előrenyomulás lassítására törekedtek."

Here is an excerpt from the memoirs of an eye witness:
"Boér János, az akkori gyimesbükki lelkész az 1916 augusztusában történt eseményekről a következőket jegyezte fel az utókornak: „A lelkészlak és kápolna a községen kívül, illetve annak keleti végén, de nem az út mellett, hanem a kontumáci patakban elrejtve fekszik, és ez volt a szerencsénk, hogy a románok 1916. augusztus 27-én este nem kerestek fel. Amint a határszéli kapun betörtek, este fél 10 órakor, és a pénzügyőri laktanyát nagy lövöldözés közt elfoglalták, a pénzügyőröket elfogták, felfelé tódultak az úton, a korcsmákba, vendéglőkbe, kávéházakba és kereskedésekbe, magánházakba behatoltak, enni, inni, rabolni kezdtek egész reggelig. Ez alatt mi is, főleg Boér Krisztina tanítónő, testvére, Erzsi és az édesanyja az értékesebb tárgyakat összeszedték, kézitáskába tették, és menekülni akartak, de már nem lehetett."
[http://www.szekelyhon.ro/archivum/offline/cikk/126681/az-1916-os-roman-betores-gyimesben]

Another source:
"1916. augusztus 27-én 20 óra 30 perckor, fél órával a hadüzenet átadása előtt a román haderő a keleti és a déli Kárpátok valamennyi hágójában átlépte Magyarország határát."
[http://hadtorteneti.blog.hu/2012/08/27/a_roman_betores]

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on January 30, 2013 11:23 am