'Untold Chapters of Rumania’s Tragic Story', 'the War Illustrated' 17th March, 1917.

does anyone know the russian casualties for this operation?

This post has been edited by dead-cat on February 15, 2009 09:05 am

As Imperial Russia was facing internal meltdown, do you really think that there could be any effective chain of command, from the top down to the officers on the ground whether in Russia or to those on campaign in Romania?

The Russian Forces, first and foremost would feel that their main concern was to their country (regardless of which side of the Revolution their sympathies were on.)

Secondly Russian Forces in Romania were not under any obligation to follow Romanian Orders, especially in this time of crisis.

If you are going to be so childish as to state that they "could not stop the Russians from running home and leaving us alone", then the Romanian Army could be viewed in the same light as post 1916 victories, they commenced a program of falling back from all the ground won along all fronts till they arrived in Moldova. (in effect running away)

Certainly there were some great victories achieved by brave Romanian men, but, it must be remembered that winning only some of the battles, does not equate to winning a war, and victory.

More correctly the Prussian Kaiser, choose to help his Austrian cousin Emperor Franz-Josef, there was no "had to help" in fact Kaiser Wilhelm II advised against FJ going against Serbia in retaliation for the death of the Crown-Prince and his wife in Kosovo.

Serbia, too had to rely on Allied help there were quite a few British & Greek soldiers in Serbia to help the Serbs against the Bulgarians.

Please do elaborate on where the Romanians "made a habit" of stopping the A-H Forces, by this, do you mead holding them up, but, that's not quite the same as defeating them continually and winning the war.

Connaught Ranger.

This post has been edited by New Connaught Ranger on February 15, 2009 11:27 am

I start to point out that there is not white and black in romanian campaigns in ww1, because I readed here some unbalanced opinions, both romanian and foreign. There cant be B/W for western campaigns, too.

I myself was recognising the romanian 1916 campaign to be a disaster, both in Transylvania and in southern front. It is to be recognised by most people that the common romanian soldier fought bravely, but he entered war poor equiped and with weak leadership. In southern front romanian had no reason to loose the battle in terms of number of combatants compared to the bulgarian ones. Romanians did little to defend themselves and even the ocupation of so called Cadrilater was a political error made after the second Balkan war. In southern front was no such thing as real enemy superiority, romanians were beaten because their own failure to prepare themselves for battle in term of weapons and fortifications, even if they had enough time to do it. In Transylvanian front the situation was the same in terms of lacking proper equipment and leadership, the number of romanian troops involved was suficient to face AH army when she was to be recovering from the surprise. Romanians didnt wanted to defeat AH monarchy by their own, they were hoping great help from the planned offensive of allied armies, which never came. Because Romania had a secret treaty with Germany in order to be allied with it and did not respected it by the will of new king Ferdinand I, Germany actually made a punishment expedition in 1916 when they charged in the help of AH monarchy, who was already recognised to have a weak army, not able to face even the serbians. Romanian army had to face an overwhelming power in terms of equipment, and in some sectors an overwhelming number of enemy german troops, too. Combined with the very poor leadership, training and equipment of the romanian army, it was an almost sure receipt for failure of romanian army in 1916.

But 1917 came with the total reorganisation of romanian army. The simple rebuilding of romanian army was a succes after the disastrious winter retreat, when romanians lost great numbers of men, artilery and equipment, not to talk about the low morale after almost 6 months of constant defeats and withdrawals.

Romanian strategists were aware that they cant liberate by themselves the national ocupied teritory, but they draw plans to liberate at least what they were thinking they were able to do.
1917 was a succes for the romanian army, even if there was not an offensive victories, but defensive ones. They managed to stop the advancing german-AH which planned to take out Romania from the war in 1917.

1918 came with the previously collapse of russian army and Romania, left alone in this part of the world had no other chance to survive against combined german-AH armies. Queen Mary of Romania wanted to continue the fight, but the odds were totaly inadquate for Romania with no other ally in this area. Romania was in the situation to accept any peace treaty in order to save what was still to be saved. If one say that the german-AH armies were so powerfull, why dont they just crushed romanian army in 1917 or 1918? They were so eager to sign peace treaty with Romania in order to take her out of the war, one can answer himself why signing a treaty and not wiping out Romania if they were so powerfull?

1919 campaign came Romania facing alone Hungary in the first phase. In later phases, hungarians awaited help from bolshevic russian army and romanians from the ex-AH nations as czehs, slovacs and others. Finally, romanian army dismembered alone the hungarian army and entered Budapest in early august, even if her former allies didnt wanted to see the romanians in the capital of Hungary.

This is widely the real info about 1916-1919 campaign, with the recognised pluses and minuses of romanian battles, victories and defeats. This are the infos from different sources (romanian, hungarian, english, american, french), relevant in numbers, which I readed in several past years. Of course that I found other type of info in foreign languages (hungarian, english), but the common sense show to the reader what is the reality, and that the reality is grey, not black and white.

The fact that a book has from preface the words "Nem, nem, soha" (in hungarian, which means "No, no, never") as a revisionist slogan used since Trianon treaty, is not a sign that the writer is objective. Unfortunatelly, i found too many books like this in hungarian electronic libraries, both in hungarian and english languages.

By November 1918 when the Armistice was signed, I doubt very much if there would have been any Allied interest in getting involved in a new war with Hungary, as most countries had had their fill of war, it would have been very hard for Romania to convince the Allies that Hungary was any real threat. Or convince the people at home that continuing a military campaign so far away was justifiable.

Immediately after the Armistice November 1918, Czech, Serbian, and Romanian troops invaded a weakened Hungary to lay claim to the territory they occupied. On the 27th of December 1918, Romania formally annexed Transylvania; bur during the spring of 1919, a communist government under the leadership of Bela Kun came to power in Budapest and declared war on the invaders. In response Romanian troops moved on Budapest on the 31 July 1919 and occupied the capital until 13th of November 1919 when allied demands to evacuate were finally met.


With reference the above in italics, where is a good source of information on the battles / combat that Romania fought in Hungary, including lists of units, casualties, both on their way to the capital of Budapest and in the 100 odd days they remained there.

As for supplying Romania in WW1 there were extreme shortages of equipment, and great difficulty in getting supplies to Romania, once the primary route into the Port of Constanza was lost, when captured by Mackensen on October 23rd, it severely restricted the amount of re-supply that could be sent.

Connaught Ranger.

Yes, in 1918 all nations were enough about the war.

Allied interest in Hungary was little as regarding a new war with this country, but unfortunatelly for romanians Allied also lowered interests towards romanians, too, even if they had some obligations towards romanians, gived by the treaty sign with them before Romania entered ww1.

Romanian army remobilised troops in november 1918 and in the same month crossed Carpathiasn mountains in Trasylvania, from Moldova. They went forward in the depth of Trasnylvania, but were stoped by the demarcation line draw by the former Allies. The Allied nations confirmed by the 1916 treaty that Romania will gain Transylvania if enter war against Central Powers. The demarcation line from 1918 didnt gave Romania all Transilvania, but almost half of it. Transylvanian romanians declared all Transylvania united to Romania, by a national gathering, in 1 december 1918. Not all this transylvanian teritories were in this line of demarcation, half of them remained to Hungary.

In early 1919 Hungary moved troops to atack romanian demarcation line to get back tha half now romanian of Transylvania, while romanian atacked in almost the same time to gain the half of Transylvania which remained to Hungary. The rest is history...

Hi!

An answer could be that in WW1 France didn't succomb and Russia didn't join sides with Germany (Brest-Litovsk came towards the end).

Hi Imperialist,
Well this answer does not convince me.The Romanaian Army was reformed by the French Army in 1916,during the desastrous campaign of that year of Romania.Some 300000 Romanian Soldiers died,at least, in WW1,giving some real heavy blows to the Central Powers.Basicly the German Army was wiped out by the Romanians in 1917 Campaign.Mackensen 's Army was defeated by the Romanian Army in the Battle of Marasesti and other places as well...
By joining the axis in WW2 ,Romania would destroy everything they acomplished in WW1.....so keep tryin'....
razu

France was still in the war in 1916. Two years after the start of WWII France was no more, having lost to Germany.

Hi!

An answer could be that in WW1 France didn't succomb and Russia didn't join sides with Germany (Brest-Litovsk came towards the end).

Hi Imperialist,
Well this answer does not convince me.The Romanaian Army was reformed by the French Army in 1916,during the desastrous campaign of that year of Romania.Some 300000 Romanian Soldiers died,at least, in WW1,giving some real heavy blows to the Central Powers.Basicly the German Army was wiped out by the Romanians in 1917 Campaign.Mackensen 's Army was defeated by the Romanian Army in the Battle of Marasesti and other places as well...
By joining the axis in WW2 ,Romania would destroy everything they acomplished in WW1.....so keep tryin'....
razu

France was still in the war in 1916. Two years after the start of WWII France was no more, having lost to Germany.

Hi Imperialist,
And in 1945 Germany and its allies..... was no more
razu

This post has been edited by razu on February 15, 2009 08:34 pm

Yes, that's why Romania changed sides in 1944.
In 1939 and 1940 Romania figured out the power balance in Europe and allied with Germany.

Yes, that's why Romania changed sides in 1944.
In 1939 and 1940 Romania figured out the power balance in Europe and allied with Germany.

Hi Imperialist

Well considering that :Uk[=(USA+Australia +New Zeeland+Canada+India)]+URSS+France+other countries

Take a look at the map of Earth
Do you really think that Romania which has already beaten Germany in WW! thought that they have a chance?
So the question is why did Romania allied with Germany?I think this allience was made more for personal business goals of some parties(i don t mean political parties) ,without thinking about the country they sacrifice in the process.I mean Marsall Antonescu was brought up on the battlefields of WW1.He was chief of staff at General Prezan.By joining the axis he would betray his fellow officers,all those 300000 that died in WW1,the French who taught us everything about army.....
I think he wanted a "shoot at the title" just like evrybody else who joined him,regardless of consequences.Or let us say he was silly person and he thought he would pull this through.But a man who has military education and have seen what happened with the Germans in WW1.But it is true he was not alone in this.Others were involved too.Many more others....It was a Big plot.A lot of petrol an a lot of money to be made....
And the punishment for this double-crossing(because let us face it this is the name for what Romania has done) were in roman style.
We became over night from Kingdom...RSR...like URSS
Well now we joined Russia ,about which we were laughing in WW1.
And about changing sides....165 B-24 Liberators were pretty convincing.They were already beaten...when they begun negotiations for changing sides.No more Petrol.
razu

This post has been edited by razu on February 17, 2009 11:08 pm

If we are talking of summer 1940, then the situation in Europe was like this: Germany and Italy versus UK and France, with France defeated and UK expelled from the continent. Moreover, there was the non-aggression pact between Germany and USSR. A new European order was being established, and nobody could predict what would happen in one, two or five years. So Romania was being caught between an unfriendly URSS and the Axis bloc, and staying neutral was not an option.

I don't agree Romanian officers in 1940 felt betrayed of Romania joining the Axis. This was seen as the best option in the national interest at that moment.

What could be the reason behind Romania joining the Entente in WW1 if France would not offer recognition of Romanian rights in Transylvania? The same Germany and Italy in 1940 offered guarantees and support for recovering the lost territories.

This is quite a childish statement. The fact that Romania won several battles in 1917 does not mean we have "beaten" Germany. Looking at the bigger picture, it's the other way around.

poland did no "double crossing" and ended up as commie. nor the so called czechoslovakia and they ended up as commies too. even in yugoslavia the communist side won.

now you're jumping a bit overboard with enthusiasm. the military successes against some parts of the army rather half understrength equipmentwise, because to the OHL it was no primary theatre, hardly qualifes as "beaten germany". what happened was, they stopped the offensive. which is what the german army did throughout 1915-1917 on the western front. does that mean that the german army beat england or france? i don't think so.
if i properly recall, the peace of bucharest wasn't quite a victor's peace, was it?
th rest was decided by others (US), elsewhere (France), at a different time (1918), completly without romanian influence. actually, the source of the success was the US. no US, no victory.
Romania wasn't completly occupied like Serbia, who also did all it could, and managed to hold off 1 offensive. held off offensives happened all the time throughout ww1.

This post has been edited by dead-cat on February 17, 2009 02:35 am

Hi,

If seeing French officers and soldiers dying on Romanian soil,Russian soldiers and officers doing the same(especialy when they were in a disperate situation with the revolution.....probably bad food for the soldiers or not at all...) for a country which was not theirs.....

300 000 romanians dead ,fighting 3 armies :Germano-Austro-Hungarian+the Russians which were running=4 armies

I think it takes a lot of "courage" to get over all these things and join the axis.And say "well it was in the best interest of the country".And then to say it was not double crossing.And then triple croosing....Or crossing back....Quite an athletic activity for a country
Like i said...It was a lot of oil and a lot of money to be made....And this explains the facts,ofcourse, not taking God into account,Martyr,Frendship,Honor.....
razu

This post has been edited by razu on February 16, 2009 10:59 am

....And about the Romanain Officers.....imagen what an Officer like General Aristide Razu was feeling when he saw that one of the boys from the troops(Marshall Ion Antonescu) has crossed to the enemy.Sorry double -crossed.I think in 1945 he was thinking"....now they will shoot us all!"....the romanian officers...

This post has been edited by razu on February 16, 2009 11:44 am

nobody was "running"
the fighting in the Marasesti sector died down in sept. 1917 when both sides assumed a defensive posture.

Dead-Cat,
Are you implying that our big brother from the east is a nobody?I mean he was fighting with us and for us.Also the ratreat plan of the Romanain Army was into Russia ,in case the German offensive was a succes.
Qoute:"The German Alpine-ers ,starting from Straoane de Jos,Crucea de Sus, Panciu si Crucea de Jos, haste to attack at the Russian troops on Chicera Hill.The Russians are not resisting at all.they break the front,and start to run away in disorder, between grape-growings ,they downhill the slopes of the hill, towards Zabrautu Valley.The whole front line occupied till now by the 56th Russian Regiment ,with dominant high 334 point,is now emptied by the defenders and on the ridge start to show the German Alpine-ers, advancing in pursue of the Russians.
The consternation is profound in the lines of the Romanians, which were gazing at the depressive show”The Russians are running away! The Russians are running away! Were shouting the soldiers of the 10th Romanian Division,just as they shouted few days ago, the soldiers of the 5th and 9th Romanian Divisions. Fatal shout, characteristic of the strange brotherly collaboration of the Russians with the Romanians, which has become the repetition-motive of the Marasesti battle."
Or you refer to the Germans,qoute"But the Russians retreat becomes generalized; a breach is made to the right of the Hunters Battalion.The second Battalion joins the fight and now the whole Regiment is forming up for advance in line,which advances ,impetuous and brave, dragging with her the remains of the Russians, which did not catch to spread into the valley ,yet. Surprised by the unexpected apparition of the Hunters,the Germans,which thought they have in front only runaway Russians ,are folling back,followed zealously by the Romanian troops ,till the ridge of the hill.
or you refer to the Austro-Hungarians,qoute"the 62nd Austro-Hungaran Division was advancing as well,almost without will,thus occupying the villages Oltesti and Tifesti,left by the Russians.In the afternoon however, the Russians started a counterattack from the direction of Poiana,with four battalions of the 13th Division.The Austrians have given thus to the Russians the possibility of a cheap success; they quickly withdrew from the conquered positions ;a whole regiment have given up their weapons double-crossing thus to the enemy, together with all their material(military gear)."
razu

This post has been edited by razu on February 16, 2009 03:04 pm