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

Everyone knows what I am talking about. "The few"? "We stand alone"? Do these terms remind anyone of the Luftwaffe? Sheesh!
Radu

I don't see why the pact of 23.08.1939 surprised so many, not after Rapallo 1922.
Should I say that my initial reaction to Suvorov was the same during college, but then things became a little less clear - he could be right in some of the matters!
I am not sure 100%, so we'll keep discussing! Perhaps this should be a new thread, how about it?

That isn't exactly correct. Romania was trying to be friendlier towards Germany since the late 30s after Titulescu was sacked and the Anglo-French guarantees against Germany were not exactly a good news for the Romanian diplomacy, which was seeking protection against the SU, rather than Germany. There is a good book on this, also a PhD thesis, by Rebecca Haynes published by Polirom a couple of years ago.

Getting back to the core subject, like I previously stated, Romania did not have the industrial and human ressources to significantly increase its army's motorization from september 1939 onwards over what was actually done.

Most of the machines were to be imported, since we lacked serious production capacities and, given the international situation, there weren't many extra trucks/tanks/motorcycles etc. to go around and noone was selling licenses and assembly lines.

Another problem was the general lack of civilian motorization in the country and consequently the limited possibility to train competent drivers and maintenance personnel for the motor vehicles employed by the army.

Also to be taken into consideration was the fact that the inventory was extremely diverse (mainly because we bought whatever was available for sale) and this put a lot of strain on logistics and maintenance.

I think that the time to take measures that would improve the situation of the army was in the 20s and early 30s. By 1939-40 it was just improvisation and this time things didn't turn out well like they did before.

I wish you good luck with your endeavour and we will try to help you with information if we can.

Thanks for the observations, Victor! I must notice,however, that in the 20's, and also after the crisis between 1929-1933, just few countries were thinking on re-arming, and even less countries really did something (Germany, SU, UK). Thus, we just followed the thread.

MMM, a different approach would be to ask yourself if Romania is prepared for a large war today. I believe the mentalities and the behaviour towards issues of war are not much different than the ones in 1930s Romania (but add ~60 years of peace - in the 1930s the memory of war was fresher). Look at the fighter jet deal for example. They're trying to make up their minds for years now... and no decision has been taken yet. No sense of urgency. (by "they" I mean the politicians)

This post has been edited by Imperialist on December 08, 2008 09:12 pm

And how many romanian generals or military teoreticians are thinking today (like Fuller in 1920, Guderian in 1930, or Antonescu in 1941) that it's important to have a mass production of satellites and intercontinental nuclear rockets to win a war. and how to convince politicians to invest people money in those military factories to produce these important weapons for the safety of their future.

And speaking of war prepardness at any times relevant are the words from a famous song lyrics (author Peter Seeger )

Sag mir, wo die Blumen sind,
wo sind sie geblieben?
Sag mir, wo die Blumen sind,
was ist geschehn?
Sag mir, wo die Blumen sind,
Mädchen pflückten sie geschwind.
Wann wird man je verstehn,
wann wird man je verstehn?
Sag mir, wo die Mädchen sind …
Männer nahmen sie geschwind.
Sag mir, wo die Männer sind …
Zogen fort, der Krieg beginnt.
Sag, wo die Soldaten sind …
Über Gräbern weht der Wind.
Sag mir, wo die Gräber sind …
Blumen wehn im Sommerwind.
Sag mir, wo die Blumen sind …
Mädchen pflückten sie geschwind.

I should be overwhelmed, right?
1. Imperialist: nope, we ain't ****ing prepared! The climate reminds me somehow of the 1930's, only instead of Skoda we have the fregates Other than this, look at the casualties we have in the "peace-keeeping" missions. Figure out what would we have done in a real modern war...
2. Cantacuzino: none of the above. We are just a small country with average politicians and so on. Perhaps in the field of illegal bussiness we're above average (not compared w/ Bulgaria, Albania or ex Yugoslavia, however)
My idea - and I repeat it ad nauseam is that we could have done more. That is not really arguable, but the question like "What should we have done more?", that's all!

This post has been edited by MMM on November 26, 2012 05:58 pm

I think that we should not mix in modern politics in this topic. Different times, different strategies, different possible outcomes.

As for the what-if's, we should also be very careful. History is not made of what-if's, but actual facts, which we attempt to reconstruct as much as possible. Also, using hindsight in judging history is a very commonly made error, we should not fall in this trap.

Just my 2 cents, as they say.

Gen. Dénes

I suppose I wasn't the one to whom you said that. I like counter-factual history, but not that much. As for the judging part, I can only guess that historians should do that - and since am an historian (young one, after the "standards")...
Isn't it so, general?

BUT that is the nub of the problem and you seem to ignore it every time it is asked.
"What should we have done more?" about WHAT?

All we get is inuendos, hints and allegations http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT3_UCm1A5I

Get to the point!
Radu

PS Your obsession with "ranks" makes it look like a bad case of debilitatingly low self esteem. If it makes it any better, there are well-respected writers and researchers on this forum that hold "low ranks". It means nothing.

I wasn't trying to start a modern politics debate per se, though the political factor is inevitable since military preparedness depends on political will. But even if the times and strategies are different, mentalities could be largely similar. MMM asked why was Romania unprepared for war. Well, were we ever? Are we now? I think they are related questions.

Romanians were overjoyous with the military service being eliminated in 2003 and the political leaders have created the perception that our major security or military problems have disappeared because we have joined NATO and the Americans have come.

I think our mentality was not very martial in the first place and has recently been even more "de-martialised".

Antonescu did not expect (in the short time from coming to power until being told about Barbarossa) the Germans to invade the SU just as we don't expect a war between Russia and NATO. Maybe like today, back then there was no sense of urgency under the umbrella of a big powerful ally.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on December 09, 2008 07:26 pm

I wasn't talking about mentality, but about material preparations for war. And I agree with you in the matter that politics determin the military, both in democratic and in dictatorial regimes: after all, even if the leader IS a general, he's firstly a politician: at least, I think so.
Prepared for war? Maybe prepared to win easy a short war, but not to be a part of gruelling battles fought in the Kalmuk Steppe or in Caucasus - and to lose, finally, the lands for which we entered in the war in the first place! For that, NO Romanian was prepared; no more than the Serbs were in 1990 (I hope it's a bad example, but it was the first to come).
The same w/ the martial mentallity: it's all ok, as long as we're in the upper side. And we weren't...

Well, NO ONE was prepared for any of that. The Germans thought that they would win easily in Russia like they did in France, and for a while they did. They were not prepared for a prolonged war either. And they were far better equipped than the Romanian army. Hindsight, as Denes said already, clouds our vision of those events.

As for "the lands for which we entered in the war in the first place!", ... that is a hard to figiue out. Romania lost Bessarabia and Transylvania. Bessrabaia was won back for a short while from 1941 and lost again in 1944. Transylvania was won back only in 1944. Which one did Romania entered the war for, really? At the end of the day, at least we got one back. It could have been worse.

Radu

So as a general conclusion to give the answer to MMM question .

1. Was Romania military prepared in 1941 to take back his lost teritories ?

The answer is Yes but only for half of them (Bassarabia,Bucovina ) .

2. Was Romania military prepared to keep the regained teritories after 1941 for a long period ?

The answer is No.

How comes that you wrote Seeger's poem in German and not in English? Do you hate Americans, by any chance?
I mostly agree with your conclusions - Romanians were prepared for a small fight, as a rather unimportant partner. But when "push came to shove", we did... what we did!
As for the

part, this was not a question for Romania, but for the neighbor of almighty USSR, which really gave a damn about treaties, understandings etc. We didn't have anything to say, much like 1940!