Causes of the 1916 defeat on the Romanian fronts

[Korne]

I would like to hear your opinions about the factors which led to the failure of the offensive in Transylvania, then of the defense in Dobruja, in the Carpathians and the loss of the whole Wallachia and Dobruja. Lessons learned?
Thanks.

[dragos]

The causes of disaster in 1916 are complex. They start from the political class, which placed pesonal beliefs (francophiles and philo-germans) or party interests above the national interest. The blind confidence in the allies made that the defeat not to be taken into consideration as a possibility. The moment of involvement in the war was not too fortunate. More favorable moments were September 1916 (the defeat of Germans at Marne), May 1915 (Italy joining Entente in the war), June 1916 (start of the Brusilov offensive). Finally, the Army was not prepared for a world war. In 1914, the level of modernization was not far from the other beligerents, but in two years of war a lot of progress in technology and strategy was made. Romanian commaders lacked vision regarding the capabilities of the enemy, and the vanities and incompetency were met in the entire chain of command.

[Florin]

The length of the frontlines, compared with the available Romanians to be used along them, was an important factor. The shape of the Romanian Kingdom, as it was on the map in 1916, was very inappropriate for carrying a long war, unless you would have an army comparable with Germany or France.

I just learned recently that an unexpected and fast flood of the Danube leaded to the failure of the encirclement Romanian manoeuvre at Flamanda, in September 1916, which proved very costly for the Romanian ability to continue an efficient strategic defense.

[dragos]

However, the hard lesson of 1916 was learned and the Romanian Army of 1917 was a different one, better trained, equiped and motivated, the battles in the summer of 1917 reflecting this.

[Korne]

I agree with both of you, the causes are multiple and it's not easy to select the most important ones.
In my opinion, the source of all evils lies in Carol I's foreign policy and the blind alliance with Germany (easy to understand, taking into account his nationality and relatives - plus the threat of the Russian expansionism which was not to be ignored) which DIDN'T PREPARE Romania for a war with the Central Powers. Betting everything on the 1883 treaty would prove counterproductive when the war started. Carol I should be one to bear the consequences of the ill-fated 1916 campaign, as commander in chief of the army till 1914.
The dependency on the German military supplies was one important factor. I'm sorry to contradict you, Dragos, but in 1914, from the point of view of the military equipment, the Romanian Army was not at the same level as Austro-Hungary or Germany. The lack of artillery and machine guns made a difference in 1916 and I don't think that in 1914 the number of the above-mentioned items was adequate.
Moreover, the 2nd Balkan War was a bad strategic option: it brought overconfidence in the abilities of the Romanian military and made a vindictive enemy out of Bulgaria, which would prove important in the balance of forces in the autumn of 1916. What did we gain then? The Southern Dobruja, inhabited mainly by Turks and Bulgarians. This territory brought no extra security to the strategic port of Constanta and the bridge over the Danube at Cernavoda. The behavior of the indigenous population in regard to the Romanians authorities was hostile and that was an important factor, too.

[Korne]

QUOTE

More favorable moments were September 1916 (the defeat of Germans at Marne), May 1915 (Italy joining Entente in the war), June 1916 (start of the Brusilov offensive).

A small typo: the battle of Marne took place in 1914, not 1916.

[Korne]

QUOTE

However, the hard lesson of 1916 was learned and the Romanian Army of 1917 was a different one, better trained, equiped and motivated, the battles in the summer of 1917 reflecting this.

True. The battles of 1917 showed a different Romanian Army, able to repulse the enemy even if the Russian fronts started to disintegrate. However, Romania could not win the war alone.
The lessons of 1916 were learned and forgotten quickly. In 1940, Romania was again not prepared for war.

[dragos]

QUOTE

The dependency on the German military supplies was one important factor. I'm sorry to contradict you, Dragos, but in 1914, from the point of view of the military equipment, the Romanian Army was not at the same level as Austro-Hungary or Germany. The lack of artillery and machine guns made a difference in 1916 and I don't think that in 1914 the number of the above-mentioned items was adequate.

I was speaking of the fact that during the years 1914-1916 the equipment and tactics of the belligerents improved, while Romania remained at the level before the war.

QUOTE

A small typo: the battle of Marne took place in 1914, not 1916.

You are right.

[Carol I]

QUOTE

... In my opinion, the source of all evils lies in Carol I's foreign policy and the blind alliance with Germany (easy to understand, taking into account his nationality and relatives - plus the threat of the Russian expansionism which was not to be ignored) which DIDN'T PREPARE Romania for a war with the Central Powers. Betting everything on the 1883 treaty would prove counterproductive when the war started. Carol I should be one to bear the consequences of the ill-fated 1916 campaign, as commander in chief of the army till 1914. ...

I would not call the 1883 treaty a "blind alliance". Up to WWI, Romania was between a rock and a hard place (Austria-Hungary and Russia) and therefore there was not very much space for diplomatic manoeuvres. But the alliance with Germany has proved beneficial both for the existence and the economical and social development of Romania. Indeed, the 1883 treaty allowed Romania to direct some of her efforts to other areas where they were badly needed. This was indeed done on the expense of the military, but the 1883 treaty filled to a certain extent the gaps. Furthermore, the family relationships between the Romanian Hohenzollern House and the ruling German Hohenzollern House have helped sometimes (even though not always) to moderate the expansionist tendencies of the neighbour states.

[Korne]

I don't deny that the 1883 treaty did not serve Romania's national interests (up to a point) and permitted the country to modernize to a certain extent (although the majority of the population lived off the land they didn't even own - a major handicap of Romania). But it was a blind alliance because Carol I couldn't imagine Romania fighting against the Central Powers. I blame him (and the politicians who supported him) for not preparing Romania for the alternative, for not having an appropriate strategy regarding Transylvania. Do you think that if Carol I had lived longer, Romania would have ever entered the war on the Allies' side?
And the relationship between the two Royal Houses (of Romania and Germany) didn't stop a bit the Magyarization and the hardships of the Romanians in Transylvania.

[Carol I]

QUOTE

...But it was a blind alliance because Carol I couldn't imagine Romania fighting against the Central Powers.

I guess Carol I could not have imagined Romania fighting against Germany, not the Central Powers in general. I do not think Austria was very dear to him, as Prussia and Austria had been to war as late as 1866 (one of Carol's brothers died in that war). The main reason for Romania adhering to the alliance of the Central Powers was Russia (who was even named as the potential attacker in the first versions of the treaty).

QUOTE

I blame him (and the politicians who supported him) for not preparing Romania for the alternative, for not having an appropriate strategy regarding Transylvania.

The king was responsible only for the foreign policy of Romania and Carol I did the best he could under the circumstances. The internal policy (including the development of the military) was the responsibility of the government. Thus, the politicians in charge of the various governments up to WWI were the only ones to blame for the lack of preparedness of Romania in 1914/1916.

QUOTE

Do you think that if Carol I had lived longer, Romania would have ever entered the war on the Allies' side?

Probably yes, as there are some reports which suggest that following the result of the 1914 Crown Council, Carol I was thinking to abdicate (in his name and that of his successors).

QUOTE

And the relationship between the two Royal Houses (of Romania and Germany) didn't stop a bit the Magyarization and the hardships of the Romanians in Transylvania.

The family relationship was with Germany, not with Austria, and the relations between these two latter countries were not quite easy. But the situation of the Romanians in Transylvania was very well known both in Romania and in Germany. It was a source of permanent tensions between Romania and Austria that threatened the stability of the 1883 treaty. Furthermore, Bismarck, the German chancellor, repeatedly criticised Austria on this particular issue. Anyhow, the family relationship with Germany may have also played a deterrent role that is quite difficult to quantify now in palpable results.

[Carol I]

I agree with Dragos that the 1916 disaster had multiple causes. Personally I think that the causes are under options 1, 2, 3 and 5 in the poll (not necessarily in this order). Probably Korne should have had more options added to the poll where two or more of the options that are already listed there could have been grouped together.

To add one more detail to what has already been written, in 1916 the Romanian politicians thought that it would have been possible to carry war with Austria only. Thus, no declaration of war was initially submitted to Germany, Turkey or Bulgaria. These countries however quickly reacted and forced Romania into the extremely difficult situation of carrying war on two fronts.

[petru]

There are multiple causes for the defeats in 1916. I don’t think one cause alone could have brought such a disaster, no matter which one you pick, but in combination were pretty awful. The only one that would have save the situation was the Russian help, if they really had wanted to help us. It is worth mentioning that in some western diplomatic circles the Russians were considered guilty of our failures in 1916. This is not entirely true, because, at a better moment, with good leadership and with a better preparation the disaster could have been averted, regardless of Russian attitude.

[dead-cat]

how was Russia supposed to help? they were just after a 4 months campaign with about 1 million losses. artillery was often down to 2 shots/day. they had massive supply problems themselves.

[Dan Po]

QUOTE

I would not call the 1883 treaty a \"blind alliance\".

You are right. As is well known, after the independence war, in 1878 Romanian kingdom was very close to have an open conflict with the (always! :mad: ) great allied, Russia. The rememberance of that hard and dangerous situation for romanian state existence was a very important reason for an alliance with the Germany. Sure, Carol I was german ...

Anyway, this alliance forced romanian army - in fact, romanian government - to buy weapons and military technology from Central Powers who was always very iritated when romanian experts was close to buy some armament from France (especial artilery). In terms of field artilery
France has better cannons than Germany and the romanian experts was temtated to buy french cannons not germans ... but finely the decision was political - Romania buy a lot of Krupp cannons. I think that will be usefull to read the memories of g-ral Vasile Rudeanu who was involved - as artilery expert officer - in some weapon transactions before and in time of WW1.

In 1916 the romanian weapons, infantry and artilery had - mainly- the Central Powers calibres. Was difficult for french and british factories to produce amunition with a different calibre, in war time ... for romanian army.


That Cadrillater was a classical example about how bad could be the vanity in political and strategical problems. After the cadrilater was anexed - Bulgaria was - automaticly - a small but very unpleased enemy who force Romania to have 2 fronts. If we look at the old Romanian kingdom map we can easely see what a nightmare was to defend that borders.


Anyway I have a very bad opinnion about romanian politicians, almost in all our history. But nobody was punished for the 1916 disaster. :nope: .

I read that in times of 1914-1916 debates in romanian parliament somebody (a politician) was there with a very good looking artilery shield maded from a CFR (romanian raiways) rail. Of course some of them (politicians) was very enthusiasted about this new example of romanian gumption :ro: ... till somebody, cruely said that artistic shield is completely nedless for the romanian ill furnished artilery ....