Romania - unprepared for war; why?, Why was Romanian army NOT ready?

The situation in China was already very bad at the time of Japanese invasion as it was in the middle of a civil war and divided in factions. Not to speak of the abysmal infrastructure and lack of industry. Nevertheless, due to inevitable logistic problems and rough countryside, the Japanese never managed to gain control of inland, only of some coastal cities. In the stalemate which followed time was running in China's favor, so it didn't lost the war either.

He meant czar.

See this topic: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=3400

Yes , armored vehicles were british invention (all technical things were british inventions -engineer is a british word)

but as I said

Obsolete design of armored vehicles doesn't help in the field, nor british (matilda,stuart etc)) nor american (Lee, Grant etc) even if are built in great numbers. So why Romania (or Antonescu) should have more armoured vehicles industry in 1938,1940,1941. Czechoslovakia (small country like Romania) had a great armoured vehicles industry and built in bigger quantity tanks (armoured vehicles) but that doesn't help in defence against Germany.

Why do you ask? You want to be promoted Marschal for this stupid question

This post has been edited by Cantacuzino on December 06, 2008 04:35 am

Well, if you put it like that, I guess I should un-register, right? Or should I be executed for going AWOL? For your personal information, this "stupid" question is the title of my PHD! So, you can promote yourself Field-Marshall until you are tired of it! Get yourself a star also for self-sufficience and another one for being rude: these are probably the manners of a well-trained instruction sergeant! Congrats!

Gentlemen,

I believe everyone has a place on this forum, no matter how knowledgeable, or less-knowledgeable the person is. None of us is the holder of the ultimate truth, hence everyone can learn something from the other.

As for the stupid question issue, there are no stupid questions just stupid answers - as the saying goes. However, the better and less ambiguous a question is formulated, the better and on-the-topic the answers will be.

So, let's carry on, to everyone's benefit (and let's have more Generals here, i.e. persons with several thousand posts).

Gen. Dénes

MMM,
No one was ready for the kind of war that was coming. World War 2 turned all military tactics and strategies upside down.

I will give you an example. Occasionally, I find myself having conversations with older Romanians about what they perceive as "world affairs". Very often I hear things like "we must defend our borders against invading troops". I tried many times to tell them that horizontal defence is no longer the primary objective, because troops can be delivered vertically straight into the heartland, be it by helicopter or parachute. You can even see movies featuring this kind of delivery of troops - see the use of helicopters in Vietman for example. The reply is usually very dismissive, "bazaconii", "prostii", etc. Try to tell them that you do not need to see the white of the eyes of the enemy to know you are in trouble, that a bomb can arrive by high-flying plane or even by Tomahawk fired from the middle of the ocean. The reply is again dimsissive.
Here is another example: you still see in train stations a sign with a crossed out bellows camera indicating that you cannot tale photographs in the train station. Try to explain to these people that you can see the train station in far betterdetail in Google Earth. Bazaconii!

What am I trying to say with this? Well, this is exactly what happened in those days. When the French were told that the Germans in Poland used unprecedented tactics whereby they combined fast moving armoured vehicles, land troops and aircraft all co-ordinated by radio (Blitzkrieg), the French generals said "bazaconii" and preferred to rely the Maginot line, Chauchat machine guns, cavalry charges and horse-drawn artillery. See how that worked!

No one was ready for that kind of war. Everyone had to change their doctrine, no matter how advanced or how ready they were. Whoever changed and adpted prevailed. Furthermore, no one actually expected a full-blown world war. Neville Chamberlain got a promise from Hitler that there would be "peace in our times", Molotov and Ribbentrop agreed that they would not fight each other and so on. You see, everyone thought that all those torubles would be solved diplomatically. When the war came, and it came in a completely different way than before, no one was ready, even those that had a massive arsenal (which was soon to become obsolete).

Very little of the equipment in existence in 1939 was still relevant by 1941 when Romania entered the war. Look at the advances in armoured vehicles, aircraft, weapons, communicattion, etc that took place in those 2 years.

Radu

re: Radub: I knew all that, but my initial "stupid" question was intended to be like :"Why didn't Antonescu prepare better for what was to come AFTER he saw what happened to France" or something like that.

This post has been edited by MMM on November 26, 2012 05:53 pm

Radu, I don't think either side actually believed what they said or signed. Parallel to smiling broadly to the cameras while signing the non-agression pact, they had actually prepared to attack the other party.
For details, please see my thesis published earlier: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...indpost&p=59110

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on December 06, 2008 01:15 pm

The question is not "stupid", it may just be "irrelevant".

Maybe Antonescu was not in any position to do anything. Maybe Antonescu is not Acarul Paun in this.

- In September 1939 Romania was in the same situation as Sweden or Spain, neutral but friendly to Germany. Antonescu was not in power.

- In August 1940 when Transylvania and Bessarabia were lost, Antonescu was not in power. This was possibly the only time when Romania was in a situation similar to that of France in the sense that they suffered territorial losses. Antonescu was in no position to prepare against it.

- When Romania joined the war in 1941 when Barbarossa started, Antonescu was not on his own. Romania was part of a coalition including Germany, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary, Italy. It is safe to assume that each of these forces were deployed according to their capabilities. Therefore it is irrelevant whether those capabilities were "not good enough" because all shortcomings were going to be compensated.

- After August 1944 when Romania turned against the Germans, again Antonescu was not on his own, he allied himself with the Red Army. It is safe to assume that each of these forces were deployed according to their capabilities. Therefore it is irrelevant whether those capabilities were "not good enough" because all shortcomings were going to be compensated.

This reliance on "compensation for shortcomings" is proven by the fact that at all times Antonescu fared as well as his allies. When his allies did well, Romanian army did well too and the same trend happened when things started to go bad.

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on December 06, 2008 02:39 pm

Radu, I don't think either side actually believed what they said or signed. Parallel to smiling broadly to the cameras while signing the non-agression pact, they had actually prepared to attack the other party.
For details, please see my thesis published earlier: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...indpost&p=59110

Gen. Dénes

Hi Denes,
You are right, I read your book.
Radu

Wow! Radu, be careful what you're saying! Romania wasn't friendly towards Germany in Sept. 1939, but towards Poland. The term was "neutralitate binevoitoare", and the Polish government and refugees were sheltered in Romania, ok? Plus the Anglo-French guarantees for Romania were given against Germany; this is one of the reasons for which we were in a "bad spot" in the Molotov-Ribbentropp treaty.
And there is a mistake for which the respected Mr. Cantacuzino would most certainly call you names:

Antonescu NEVER allied w/ SU. He got arrested in the evening of 23.08.1944, as you surely know. My question is irrelevant for what?

MMM,
you are right, Antonescu never allied himself with the Russians. And yes, in 1939 Romania was friendlier towards Poland.

I agree, I was wrong about the two things that actually do not concern Antonescu's involvement in the war, so that makes no difference to your question anyway.

I think that the question is irrelevant because it is hard to figure out what you are trying to find out. In as far as I understand, your question is "why Antonescu did not prepare for war?". If not relevant, then that question is vague to say the least.
In order to make it relevant, you need to put it into context:
- what timeframe are we talking about?
- what happened during that timeframe outside and inside Romania?
- prepare for war with whom?
- what does one need to have to be considered "prepared"?
- how do we measure "prepardness"?
- if we have a means to measure "preparedness", then how prepared/unprepared was Antonescu? Was he severely unprepared, mildly unprepared or fully pepared (including any levels in-between).
- what minimum level of preparedness is acceptable?
- if we figure out the degree of preparedness, what was the outcome of this preparedness and how do we measure that?

I am not trying to pick fights, but you seem very beligerant. There are people here who wrote theses (me included, although mine was in Social Studies) and we will help you if you allow us to.

Radu

Mayby I was to harsh with you MMM. Sorry for "the stupid" put it.
Some of us doesn't have time or nerve for what Radub (waisting his precious time) tryed to explain in the above sentences.
I also considered your question "irrelevant" until you clarify better what do you want to know ?

This post has been edited by Cantacuzino on December 07, 2008 10:47 am

Let's consider it done, Cantacuzino. You were annoyed and "fired at once"; I managed to duck.
Regarding Radu - I was not looking for "help", but for an exchange of (I hoped friendly) oppinions. The question itself WAS vague, as I didn't want to be sooo specific from my first post. Beligerant? Hmmm... maybe... My intention was to underline that Antonescu should (and - I think, at least, could) have done more for those divisions involved in the campaign; at least in the first phase, until summer 1942. I speak in terms of war materials and instruction etc.
I wasn't talking (yet) about Stalingrad and the six batallions instead of nine per infantry division... That should have followed, provided it wasn't already talked about in this forum; in which case, please give me the address.

OK, let's pick a timeframe, let's say 1941 to 1942.
Why do you assume that the army was not prepared then?
If the army was not prepared, what exactly do you think should have been done about it?
How much of that was the responsibility of Antonescu personally and how much of it was the responsibility of Government Ministries, quartermasters, industry?
If you clarify these parameters first, you may get your answer.
What is the subject of your thesis?
Radu