3 generals KIA while personaly leading attacks at Stalingrad

that is according to Osprey's "Germany's Eastern Front Allies" but I found a similar case in "Hitler's War" by David Irving... 4 killed in "enemy bayonet charges". Does anyone have their names and their respective units??

If this was true they should have received the Mihai Viteazul Order 3rd class post-mortem, but they do not show up.

The only Romanian general I know of that died in action at Stalingrad was Ioan Sion, the CO of the 15th Infantry Division.

But there were colonels that apparently led desperate bayonet charges.

I do not read Romanian.
I request that readers of Romanian research Romanian documents for deeds of valor and maneuver by Romanian combat leaders.

Such information could be thrown in the face of..."Romanians melted away,"...rhetoric. Nes Pa?

MEN-AT-ARMS SERIES 131 GERMANY'S EASTERN ALLIES 1941-45

by Peter Abbot, Nigel Thomas, Mike Chappell.

Rumania page 20 - 25.

Page 22:- "Apart from these deficiencies, the Rumanian officer corps had certain weaknesses. The senior commanders were competent enough, even when allowance is made for the presence of a strong German liaison staff, and the officers were brave - three generals were killed leading bayonet charges at Stalingrad; but the Germans found them as a whole to be unpunctual, negligent and not infrequently corrupt, They. . . .
continued on page 23. . . . . showed little regard for the welfare of their men, and maintained rigid social barriers. Nothing for instance, could induce a Rumanian officer to follow the example of his German colleague and lie down beside his men to correct their aim. . . . . .

Kevin in Deva.

This post has been edited by New Connaught Ranger on October 03, 2008 07:42 pm

If you read the material at the Romania in World War II site, including the personal reports, it refutes what you say. (That is my source)

There were some bad officers but they did not predominate. If they had, Romania would not have fought so well in 1941 through 1943.
By 1943, communist infiltration within the officer corps was rampant. Then it influenced it.

Kevin only quoted a paragraph from a book. He did not "say" anything.
Romanians fought well between 1941 and 1943? Well... in fact all the Axis forces made some gains within that period. After 1943, when things turned bad, they turned bad for any of the members of the Axis, whether it was on the Eastern Front, on the Western Front, in Africa or in the Pacific.
So, that is not really a good example.
As for the caliber of Romanian officers, somehow it seems to me that you did not serve military service. That description from the book quoted by Kevin can describe a Romanain officer today, ten years ago or twenty years ago.
Communism has nothing to do with it and I doubt it very much that in 1943, the officer corps decided to "go bad" just because they were "infiltrated" by "communists". A large number of officers ended up as POWs of the Russians exactly because of that reason, respectively they refused to follow the doctrine of the communists. Somehow, saying that the officers allowed the Romanian army to be trampled over by the Russians because they "turned communist" is significantly more slanderous than saying that they were corrupt and class-obsessed. One makes them traitors, the other makes them poor managers. I hope you can see the difference.
Radu

Thanks for pointing out to "warhunter" the facts about my post,

and yes the Romanian Officer Corp had developed a bad habit of considering

themselves far above the common N.C.O.'s and Soldiers of the Romanian Military

not only before WW1 but after it into WW2 and post WW".

This mentality of class superiority was created because the affluent families

who provided Romanian officers came from from a background where servants and

working class farm workers were little

better than slaves there to be used and abused.

To a certain point prior to WW1 and into WW2 American officers carried the same

attitude to coloured soldiers in the military, so much so that during the time of the

attack on Pearl Harbour, coloured people could only be employed in the Navy in low

menial positions such as mess waiters, laundry workers and kitchen staff,

many had no weapons training.

Kevin in Deva.

While we we are digressing from the original topic, two pieces of information presented here are definitely wrong and should be challenged:

1. Romanian officers en mass were "corrupted" by "Communism" starting from 1943 onwards.

There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. The career officer corps was educated from the very beginning to stay out of politics while in uniform. Furthermore, the huge number of officers that were imprisoned or sent ostracized after the Communist take over points put the exact opposite

2. Romanian officers were part of the higher classes of the society

Actually there were probably fewer career officers from the higher classes than sons of peasants. The military offered free education and a way out of the rural community. At that time many Romanians could not afford to have their children study more than the basic four years, as high-school, which unlike now stretched from the 5th to the 12th grade, was not free.

As a personal example, both my grandfathers (and their brothers) were from the lower classes and both went through military education, because their parents could not afford their studies.

Off-topic posts were deleted.

warhunter has been permanently banned.

Hallo Victor,

first thanks for taking out the Rubbish

with regards the Romanian officer class, (by that I mean those who were schooled, trained, and commissioned) is it known, if there was any favoritism showed to those from a long line of military officers, and the rich with regards promotion and position?

With the onset of WW1 the British Military were ran along the traditional lines that Officers were from the noble born and bred Gentlemen section of society, it was only with the onset of the tremendous casualties that the officer ranks suffered in the early years of the war, which saw the way for members of the middle-class in some instances working class, though most of those were battlefield commissions.

I recall reading somewhere, in the not to distant past, accounts by a Romanian WW2 veteran, that it was not uncommon for lower ranks to receive a blow or kick from an officer, this type of action would not be tolerated in the British Military of the pre-World War 1 era. And, if it did occur and was reported to the Commanding Officer the officer could face losing his commission.

Even in my time in the Irish Defence Forces 1976 - 1997 it was not uncommon to encounter officers who came from affluent backgrounds looking down their noses at the other ranks, affluent here could mean a very rich farmer, father was an officer, middle-class shop-owners etc.. etc..

Kevin in Deva.

Hallo Victor

Is there any possibility that the original written Romanian ranks

have been mis-identified by the authors from their sources?

Kevin in Deva.

I just skimmed through this thread and I must add my 2 cents:

I do not agree with the assertion that WWII Romanian higher officers came from wealthy families as a trend.

A statistical study would be needed to definitively settle this issue, but until then, one can convince themselves of the contrary by reading the biographies of some of Romania's most prominent generals.

Some quick examples from memory: Dumitrache, Manoliu - modest origins. Mociulschi, Avramescu, Dascalescu - rural peasant families (all 3 from N. Moldova - Suceava/Botosani/Piatra Neamt area). Steflea - Saliste village, Sibiu County; Stavrescu and Mihail - modest families from Braila.

They excelled in their studies at various Military Schools, and afterwards at the War Academy. Some went out of their way to complete further non-military degrees while operating as active officers, such as Leoveanu and Avramescu, who both obtained law degrees from the Iasi University of Law.

However, I think the following are true:
1. Distinguished officers were in "high demand" for marriage proposals from wealthy families who were seeking to marry their daughters to them. Many such officers became well-off financially by marrying into large land-owning families.
2. Some officer families from well before WWI passed on their tradition to their children, who in turn became capable senior officers (if they survived their campaigns).
3. I believe there was a spirit of true comraderie and friendship between senior officers, and many of them treated each other with mutual respect and saw each other more or less as equals irrespective of rank (at least among colonels and generals). The same applied to junior officers (the captain to lt-colonel segment).

With the above in mind, you address how the officers treated one another only, is it still possible that Romanian officers were taught to regard the common men under them, NCO's and privates as being in the position of "servants" to be used and treated as they saw fit.

Kevin in Deva

I think that when "class awareness" was brought into discussion, it was in relation to the hyerarchies that existed (and still exist today) in Romania.
There are obvious divisions and levels of "perceived superiority" across the entire society.
In Romania, for example, a peasant is "beneath" a doctor. Even the fact that the word "peasant" (with connotations of "dirty" and "simple") is still in use, instead of "farmer" speaks volumes. A construction worker is "beneath" an engineer, a street cleaner is "beneath" a councillor.
In that context, a soldier is "below" an officer, either commissioned or non-commissioned. In fact, even among the conscripts, there are "class" levels with "pifani", "veterani" and some in-between. Breaking such class divisions is sometimes close to impossible.
This is another very Byzantine thing just like concepts such as "backshish" or the "head of the state is close to God".
Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on October 07, 2008 11:47 am

I see how you might be inclined to form that opinion, but I do not think it is necessarily accurate.

Obviously, (as RaduB also mentions), there was never a classless society anywhere on Earth (Thank God, by the way, because it would completely eliminate ambition, competition, and the spirit of bettering oneself through hard work).

But I digress...getting back to the WWII Romanian Army, of course there was a hierarchy, and orders had to be obeyed. But I do not think Romanian generals saw their troops as "inferior" or as their "servants". Soldiers had to obey orders of their superiors, to be sure. But at the same time, many Romanian generals were well-known for chatting with the troops, asking them if they were fed ok, taking meals with them, and commanding from the front line.

So, in my opinion - structure and expectation of obeying orders down the chain of command - Yes!

- viewing soldiers as "inferiors" and treating them as servants or objects - No! I don't think that was the prevalent atmosphere.

Also, think about it, so many generals came from poor or modest peasant families - if they viewed their soldiers as "inferior", they would implicitly see their own parents, brothers, and families as "inferior" - since they came from similar backgrounds.

One specific example: Gen. Avramescu left his modest peasant family to enroll in the Military School. As a 2nd lt, he sent most of his salary back home to his family to help them manage with their small farm. In the meantime, he did everything he could to excel at his military studies, but also to develop his general culture, attend the War College, and later to obtain a law degree. Do you think he ever forgot his roots, or that he looked down on them? No way! His dream was to farm, hunt, and fish on land he bought near (and within) Braila and spend time with his family once the war ended. The way his soldiers looked up to him also demonstrates that he took care of them.

Same thing applies to other generals - Dascalescu, Mociulschi (who bought farm land adjacent to Avramescu's land near Braila), and others....


All the best, guys!

This post has been edited by mabadesc on October 07, 2008 08:27 pm