Romanian Army's contribution in Crimea

[Dr_V]

I saw today a TV documentary (Discovery Channel) about the war in Crimea. When analyzing the strength of the German forces that attacked Crimea, the speaker said that the Romanian forces that were part of this force were fightin without any entusiasm because, after the Moldavian provences were conquered, the Romanians lost their interest in fighting on the East front. He also said that the fighting value of the Romanian division was insignificant, as the men were not motivated enough and they were poorly trained. The Romanians were described as one of the weeknesses of the Axes force.
This contradicts most of what I know about this subject. Discovery Channel often tends to alter the historical truth to mach the western point of view of the events in WW2. But I'm starting to have some doubts about the accuracy of the things I've read so far, maybe Romanians also tend to overestimate their contribution. Can you point me a book that covers this domain with an impartial point of view?

[Victor]

Discovery Channel is not a reliable source of detailed information about WWII. I really doubt that the people who made the documentary actually researched the subject beyond von Manstein's Lost Victories, which is not a really accurate source. Probably they did not even bother to read Third Axis, Fourth Ally
The best book on the subject is by far Romanii in Crimeea by Adrian Pandea and Eftimie Ardeleanu, Ed. Militara, 1995. It is 3 quarters original documents. I do not feel that the authors exaggerated the Romanian contribution, as you think, but have kept a really professional and impartial attitude.

The fact that for 50 years the Western historians had access mainly to German archives and memoirs had created a very German view on the Eastern Front, leaving no room for the military accomplishments of the other players. Read the articles on Crimea 1941-42 on this site. I assure you I tried to be as impartial as I could and show the things how they happened.

[Bernard Miclescu]

Please Victor tell me what do you think about the book "Antonescu-Hitler Caucazul si Crimeea" by Jipa Rotaru, L Moise, T Oroian V Zodian???
Ed Paideia . Maybe it is written in the nationalist way by some army historians?

Yours,
BM

[mabadesc]

Does someone know where I can buy "Romanii in Crimea"? I've been looking for it everywhere. Any help appreciated....

[Victor]

QUOTE

Please Victor tell me what do you think about the book \"Antonescu-Hitler Caucazul si Crimeea\" by Jipa Rotaru, L Moise, T Oroian V Zodian??? Ed Paideia . Maybe it is written in the nationalist way by some army historians?   Yours, BM

The book is pretty balanced, IMHO. But it refers to the 43-44 period.

[dragos]

QUOTE

I saw today a TV documentary (Discovery Channel) about the war in Crimea.

I saw almost all "Battlefield" documentaries about WW2, and the two about Crimea were some of the last I've seen. I think I was expecting a different approach however. IIRC in the "Kerch-Feodosiya" Operation (read about it here), Romanian troops are only stated once or twice.
I believe in the second part authors used as video material, sequences from black/white Soviet movies instead of original footage. There are also little footage with Romanian troops. I've seen 2nd part only once, but I have the impression that gunners firing the medium AT gun (50 or 75mm) at the landing Soviets are Romanians. But again, images are too dramatic to be real.

[Benoit Douville]

Victor,

Manstein "Lost Victories" not a accurate source??? Huh? How can you say that?

Regards

[Victor]

Simply becauseit comits many mistakes (I am refering here to the Crimea chapter) and leaves out a lot some information. As all memoirs, it is subjective.

[septimiu]

"Simply becauseit comits many mistakes (I am refering here to the Crimea chapter) and leaves out a lot some information. As all memoirs, it is subjective."

It is interesting your point of view. How you can prove? I am speaking about mistakes and the fact that he leaves out a lot of information. Other books maybe?

[petru]

QUOTE

It is interesting your point of view. How you can prove? I am speaking about mistakes and the fact that he leaves out a lot of information. Other books maybe?

Check the link Dragos posted. You will find something in there.

[Victor]

QUOTE

It is interesting your point of view. How you can prove? I am speaking about mistakes and the fact that he leaves out a lot of information. Other books maybe?

Reports of Romanian units, commanders to the General Staff etc. Do not consider Manstein as infailable, because he was not. He wrote the book 10 years aftyer the war, IIRC, without having access to Romanian documents.

For example, he mentions gen. Lascar as commander of the 1st Mountain Division during the second siege of Sevastopol, when the man was CO of the 6th Infantry Division. Read the text first.

[Indrid]

QUOTE

Discovery Channel often tends to alter the historical truth to mach the western point of view of the events in WW2.

this is weird. all documentaries i have seen on the discovery channell present hitler not as a lunatic ,stupid, mad, drooling , etc etc...which i think is the western view...

[C-2]

Adolf Galland said the same :!:

[ragewolf]

QUOTE

Reports of Romanian units, commanders to the General Staff etc. Do not consider Manstein as infailable, because he was not. He wrote the book 10 years aftyer the war, IIRC, without having access to Romanian documents.   For example, he mentions gen. Lascar as commander of the 1st Mountain Division during the second siege of Sevastopol, when the man was CO of the 6th Infantry Division. Read the text first.

Agree.

Manstein rate german army above anyothers. I remeber in his memoir,
he mentioned sometimes that Don't trust the hope with other Axis troops.
He also said, although romanian had a little battle effectiveness, but like
other East Europe people, they were naturally fear of russian.

So, this is the bias.

[Dan Po]

QUOTE

Manstein rate german army above anyothers. I remeber in his memoir, he mentioned sometimes that Don't trust the hope with other Axis troops. He also said, although romanian had a little battle effectiveness, but like   other East Europe people, they were naturally fear of russian.

In some ways german army was above anyothers. Manstein said too, in his book that the romanian army was the best allied of Germany in east and also, said that the romanian army do her best at eastern front (in ed romana " si-au facut datoria cat de bine au putut"). He talk about the weak quality and training of romanian NCO corp - in opposition with the traditional high quality of german NCO s; about poor motorization etc.

He said also that the romanians was weak in offensive operations ... Antonescu said that romanian soldiers can fight better in offensive than in deffensive ...

If I remember well Manstein have good words about romanian mountain troops who fought at Sevastopol s siege.

Anyway we have to considerate the difference of equipment and weapons between Werhrmacht and romanian army. At least like a retorical question ... Could fought the germans better with a romanian equipment and with a romanian weaponary ?

Is true that romanaians and another east europe peoples had a kind of naturaly fear of russians -? I don t think so ... :ro: