Russian ordeal 1914-1917....

[SMSKaiser]

There was always a rivalry betwenn the two Allies. But I would not get so far, especially in view of a general common strategy. There were many diagreements between Falkenhayn and Baron Conrad, which led to the fact that two offensives were fought during 1916 without commom coordination.

The reason for the hatred between Falkenhayn and Conrad was the internal struggle for power in the German Army.

Falkenhayn was strongly opposed to Hindenburg, mostz likely because he feared to be replaced by the latter, the "hero of Tannenberg".

As It was Conrads and Hindenburgs commom interest to defeat Russia first, they were in the way of Falkenhayn, the beginning of rivalry between Falkenhayn and Conrad.

An interesting side effect :

August von Mackensen stood high at Falkenhayn, thus he, instead of Hindenburg, received the "better" field commands during the time when Falkenhayn was in chief of the German General staff.

[razu]

In 1917 Romania and Russia were a rather unimportant theatre for the Allied armies as it was in early 1916. The final strategic goal of our armies was to have the "back free" for their main adversaries in the west.

Many of the forces allocated to Romania by Germany and its allies were drawn away in 1917.

In numbers, for example Austria lost more than a million soldiers during 1916 on the Eastern front (about 500,000 of which recorded as sick, e.g. no combat casualties), compared to 570,000 in 1917 (of which 425,000 were recorded as sick).

As you can see there is a difference of 500,000 to 145,000 as real combat losses, and only a small amount of them ocurred on the Romanian front.

When you speak of the "success" of the peace treaty fpor Romania, you should not forget that the sole aim of thoses treaties was to annihilate Austria and Germany as major powers. Thus it was in British/French own interest to give such a huge territory to Romania.

It has not much to do with the countries performance in the war.

Well, apparently king Carol died during the war, and he was not the one to betray his Allies.

When the Romanian armies reentered the war, Austria-Hungary was nearing its final end, hundred-thousands of soldiers were captured in the final Italian offensive...who could have been there to defend the Bukowina?

First of all is H M King Carol of Romania to you.

Second;he died before we entered the War,August 1916 .

Third ;he had an treaty signed with Russia before our entering in the War.

As about the performance:well if you say so you probably know best.

But you would agree that moving troops from West to East and back from East,climbing the Carpathians several times ,losing some of the best divisions in Romania,Bavarian ones, to West for Germany was a considerable loss of time and resources .As time is always of the essence in a war.

Also his named successor H.M King Ferdinand ,trained by H.M King Carol for many years,joined the Entente.Both of them knew the Germans well enaugh. And that Austria was a rotten Monarchy.

And although they were both Germans ,they had their own country ,they had nothing to do with Germany any more.But only trouble.

Andrei

[razu]

Hallo Andrei,

Actually documented facts, with regards the start of WW1 and history revisionism will not fit into this Forum.

Also fact, whereas most Romanian WW1 military history has been written post WW1,

(long after the Romanian Force early successes in 1916, have been subject to renovation for the want of a better word.)

and the Romanian forces were remorsefully pushed all the way back and up into Moldova, (there in some cases being protected by Russian forces,) and having had their capital city captured, by combined Austro-Hungarians, Prussians and other associated German States, Bulgarians & Turkish Forces.

Yes the Romanians won a few battles, and many sacrifices were made, but, the Romanian military of WW1 period were of a very poor quality, and poorly equipped and poorly trained to take on the combined forces from the aforementioned countries.

To try and suggest that Russian Communism and its rise are a result of Prussian Germany and her actions in WW1 is a joke.

Connaught Stranger.

Is hallo how you greet yourselves in Ireland?

Yes that is exactly what I'm suggesting .Germany pushed Russia into communism.Possibly/or certainly with the complicity of Switzerland.After all ther 's no real difference between Germany/Bavaria and Zurich now is it?They read the same books in the same language printed both in Germany and Switzerland.

Just a thought.

[James Blonde]

Is hallo how you greet yourselves in Ireland?

Yes that is exactly what I'm suggesting .Germany pushed Russia into communism.Possibly/or certainly with the complicity of Switzerland.After all ther 's no real difference between Germany/Bavaria and Zurich now is it?They read the same books in the same language printed both in Germany and Switzerland.

Just a thought.

Yes "Hallo" is a common greeting in Ireland and the U.K., I belive in Romania its used for telephone conversation mainly, but, as we are on a British Forum, its use here is normal in daily greetings.

As for your thoughts:-

Point 1: Germany did NOT push Russia into Communisum, it was heading that way all by itself,

mainly as and answer to the way the Imperialist Russian Monarchy and RussianUpper Classes were treating those at the lower end of the social system.

Point 2: There is a a very big difference between Bavaria and Switzerland, obviously, you have never lived in Bavaria where I had the pleasure of living there for well over 5 years and I was visiting the Allgäu region for 15 years before that.

Point 3: while the German language is in use in Switzerland so is the Italian and French language so that knocks your argument on the head with regards a Swiss conspiricy in turning Russia communist.

Connaught Stranger.

[razu]

Strange when I was in Bavaria everybody said hallo ,and imediatelly "when do you leave?"while in UK they said allright mate or cheers mate or hello etc.

If you think 300 000 Romanian soldiers dead for a rather small country ,is poor performance...fighting with the bayonet the German artillery.

[SMSKaiser]

First of all is H M King Carol of Romania to you.

Second;he died before we entered the War,August 1916 .

Third ;he had an treaty signed with Russia before our entering in the War.

As about the performance:well if you say so you probably know best.

But you would agree that moving troops from West to East and back from East,climbing the Carpathians several times ,losing some of the best divisions in Romania,Bavarian ones, to West for Germany was a considerable loss of time and resources .As time is always of the essence in a war.

Also his named successor H.M King Ferdinand ,trained by H.M King Carol for many years,joined the Entente.Both of them knew the Germans well enaugh. And that Austria was a rotten Monarchy.

And although they were both Germans ,they had their own country ,they had nothing to do with Germany any more.But only trouble.

Andrei

Well, to the first: It was not my intention to offend your king, but in Germany it is common to shorten things up, like king instead of His Majesty King ... of ... .

Second: He died before Romania joined the war, but as the genral war started already in July 1914, and he died on October 10th, 1914.

From my point of view, this is during the war, seen as a whole.

Third: Yes, Romania signed a treaty, but well after the dead of king Carol. My sources suggest that he himself was friendly to Germany and Austria. If you have other information, please post them.

Back to the performance: Bavarian units were not generally the Elite of the Imperial Army, but I have not enough knowledge on their actual value, so you might be right.

On the other hand, german casualties were light in Romania compared to other theatres, so I do not agree with the loss of full divisions in the Carpathians.

Lastly, the fact that Germany could bring Divisions from West to East and back was considered as a huge advantage, in Germany it is calles Innere Linie (inner line); there was not much time lost for transport, and Germany could at any time reinforce any front that needed reinforcements. The Allies were not that lucky.

Of course, Romania caused a lot of trouble for Germany and its allies, and no one had the intention to lower the effort of your country, but nevertheless the fact remains that Romania had a great chance in Fall of 1916 and they failed.

That was what I meant with a bad performance.

Austria was never a rotten monarchy, it had a least a strong stability, which was lost in Central Europe after the war.

[egbert]

Strange when I was in Bavaria everybody said hallo ,and imediatelly "when do you leave?"while in UK they said allright mate or cheers mate or hello etc.

If you think 300 000 Romanian soldiers dead for a rather small country ,is poor performance...fighting with the bayonet the German artillery.

Razu your postings are inflaming and you like to polarize here. But you must understand that Romania is too unimportant for Germans to take your kind of type serious. And - maybe the Bavarians asked you to leave soon, because you did not behave well as a guest there?

[razu]

Razu your postings are inflaming and you like to polarize here. But you must understand that Romania is too unimportant for Germans to take your kind of type serious. And - maybe the Bavarians asked you to leave soon, because you did not behave well as a guest there?

Well if you want to know the Bavarians think that the American Military Bases there is an unjustice for them;also after they plundered Romania big time twice they think if you're from Romania you must not stay there but rather leave;they also think that they have lower living standards because of that and I quoute : "damned Eastern Germans" .So it is my conclusion that it is a state that should look for some guidance/advices no offense

Andrei.

[razu]

Well, to the first: It was not my intention to offend your king, but in Germany it is common to shorten things up, like king instead of His Majesty King ... of ... .

Second: He died before Romania joined the war, but as the genral war started already in July 1914, and he died on October 10th, 1914.

From my point of view, this is during the war, seen as a whole.

Third: Yes, Romania signed a treaty, but well after the dead of king Carol. My sources suggest that he himself was friendly to Germany and Austria. If you have other information, please post them.

Back to the performance: Bavarian units were not generally the Elite of the Imperial Army, but I have not enough knowledge on their actual value, so you might be right.

On the other hand, german casualties were light in Romania compared to other theatres, so I do not agree with the loss of full divisions in the Carpathians.

Lastly, the fact that Germany could bring Divisions from West to East and back was considered as a huge advantage, in Germany it is calles Innere Linie (inner line); there was not much time lost for transport, and Germany could at any time reinforce any front that needed reinforcements. The Allies were not that lucky.

Of course, Romania caused a lot of trouble for Germany and its allies, and no one had the intention to lower the effort of your country, but nevertheless the fact remains that Romania had a great chance in Fall of 1916 and they failed.

That was what I meant with a bad performance.

Austria was never a rotten monarchy, it had a least a strong stability, which was lost in Central Europe after the war.

Well again you are missinformed:

"At 18th of September/1st of October 1914 ,Bratianu (Romanian Prime Minister) ,signed the Secrete Convention with Russia ,after he requested and obtained from Russia the addition of two new stipulations:

1) To Romania is guaranteed by Russia the territorial stau-quo in the actual frontiers

2) The frontiers between Russian part and Romanian part of Bocovina would be Prut River,obtaining in this way a resistant frontier between both states.

The Convention will be kept secret until the date when it will be acomplished ;Russia obliges to make that the Convention to be approved by France and Great Britain.

By "neutrality of good will" Russia understood that Romania will help the replenishing of Serbia and will not permit that the Central Powers to use the railways and deposits of Romania.....etc

About the closing of this Convention England and France found out about latter -it was especially a success for Romania.

Convention made by Sazonov ,Bratianu,Pklevsky, Diamandy in which "Russia obliges to give to Romania the Austro-Hungar Monarchy territories lived by Romanians "

by Constantin Kiritescu 1921

Andrei

[SMSKaiser]

The USA are in our country for almot 65 years now. And Eastern Germany had a huge impact on West German standard of living.

Both is more statement than prejudice, while your arguments are only insulting prejudices.

Romania was not as much plundered as Germany after both wars, and Romania was responsibly for its fate in the first of these wars solely.

You cannnot compare one crime to the other, like "eye for eye" in the bible.

I am sorry to tell you this, but if you behaved that anti-German in Bavaria as you do in this forum, it is obvious why they asked you to leave there.

I never heard of that agreement, but its really interesting, as many others states at first only observed the course of the war, while they made no clear front for one of the belligerents.

[razu]

Furtheremore before this Secrete Convention:

"Faithful to the expectative policy dicided by the Crown Council of Romania,H.M. King Carol gave even a hesitant ,but negative answer ,to the proposals ,personal,made by the two Emperors of Germany and Austria "

Constantin Kiritescu 1921

Andrei

[razu]

The USA are in our country for almot 65 years now. And Eastern Germany had a huge impact on West German standard of living.

Both is more statement than prejudice, while your arguments are only insulting prejudices.

Romania was not as much plundered as Germany after both wars, and Romania was responsibly for its fate in the first of these wars solely.

You cannnot compare one crime to the other, like "eye for eye" in the bible.

I am sorry to tell you this, but if you behaved that anti-German in Bavaria as you do in this forum, it is obvious why they asked you to leave there.

I never heard of that agreement, but its really interesting, as many others states at first only observed the course of the war, while they made no clear front for one of the belligerents.

And they will stay there 200 more.No offense.

You don't understand ;evryone you meet there says Hallo! and when do you leave? to anyone not just me in particular.If you are an outlander or whatever you call it.

Also I have to admit to my shame that I saw former Romanians/possibly of German origin or not , there who when they hear you are from Romania they give you the looks.It is an atmosphere ,unbelievable.

Andrei

[egbert]

Razu you are living in the past: there is no US base in Bavaria. Facts, facts, facts and please no inferiority waffle

[SMSKaiser]

From wikipedia, king on Carol I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_I_of_Romania

The long rule of Carol helped the quick development of the Romanian state. But, towards the end of his reign and the start of the World War I, the German-born king wanted to enter the war on the side of the Central Powers, while Romanian public opinion sided with the Triple Entente. Carol had signed a secret treaty in 1883 which had linked Romania with the Triple Alliance (1882) and although the treaty was to be activated only in case of attack from Imperial Russia towards one of the treaty's members, Carol was convinced that the honourable thing to do was to enter the war supporting the German Empire.

An emergency meeting was held with members of the government where Carol told them about the secret treaty and shared his opinion with them. The strong disagreement he faced is said to have brought on his sudden death on 10 October [O.S. 27 September] 1914. The future King Ferdinand, under the influence of his wife, Marie of Edinburgh, a British princess, was more willing to listen to public opinion.

I do not know the political views of Kiritescu, but there is no reason why the king should from one day to the other have changed his political views.

Possibly, Kiritescu wanted to hide that king Carol did not share the views of his son?

[razu]

Beg you pardon,What son?

[razu]

Razu you are living in the past: there is no US base in Bavaria. Facts, facts, facts and please no inferiority waffle

Only American cities like Bamberg with Military Base...etc.

[SMSKaiser]

I meant, the son of king Carol, king Ferdinand.

[razu]

I meant, the son of king Carol, king Ferdinand.

Again you haven't made your homework.

H.M King Ferdinand of Romania was not the son of H.M. King Carol of Romania.

Do your homework first.

Anymore questions?

[egbert]

Only American cities like Bamberg with Military Base

......in Oberfranken

[James Blonde]

Strange when I was in Bavaria everybody said hallo ,and imediatelly "when do you leave?"while in UK they said allright mate or cheers mate or hello etc.

If you think 300 000 Romanian soldiers dead for a rather small country ,is poor performance...fighting with the bayonet the German artillery.

Maybe it was your own attitude that brought about this remark

I was visiting Bavaria for 15 years before moving there to live in 1997 until 2003

I found the Bavarians, like many other Germans, to be very hospitable and accomodating.

After the intial greeting of "Gruss Gott" it was normally follwed by "Wie Ghets" that means how are you?

You tend to post opinions and inflamatory comments that have a very personal slanted view, you also seem to consider everybody, no matter of what nationality are involved in some great plot against you, and you certainly consider that Romania has been very shabily treated by all other nation in her past history.

When discussing history one needs to stand back and view it from the cold hard facts, not from stories handed down as fact over the course of a few generations.

Fact: Romania performed very poorly in WW1, despite winning a few battles, they were NOT able to stop the Austro-Hungarians, Prussians and associated German states, Bulgarians and Turks from advancing onto and capturing the Romanian capital city of Bucharest.

Fact: Romanian soldiers were poorly equiped and in some cases poorly lead by their officers.

Fact: Romanian soldiers died for there country,

and may they and all the dead of that great terrible conflict +Rest In Peace +

By the way all Romanians fighting in WW1 did not die in bayonet charges against German artillery.

Connaught Stranger.

[razu]

Yes I agree that just as Galipoli Campaign was a failure also the Romanian Campaign was a failure .

We lost the battles of 1916 by score if you please 0-1 for us , there was equal "at the break" in 1917 1-0 for us but we won the War in 1919 at the retour 1-0 for us again .How is that?

Chess Mate.

[SMSKaiser]

Again you haven't made your homework.

H.M King Ferdinand of Romania was not the son of H.M. King Carol of Romania.

Do your homework first.

Anymore questions?

Well, his nephew then.

It makes no difference in any way.

What political interest had Kiritescu? Was he a nationalist?

[James Blonde]

Yes I agree that just as Galipoli Campaign was a failure also the Romanian Campaign was a failure .

We lost the battles of 1916 by score if you please 0-1 for us , there was equal "at the break" in 1917 1-0 for us but we won the War in 1919 at the retour 1-0 for us again .How is that?

Chess Mate.

Your assesment of Romanian performance in WW1 is very flawed,

as is your comparason to Romania's performance in its own country and the ill-fated Gallipoli Campaign

which (not casting any slur on the men involved in Gallipoli) was, in essence

a very small effort, when compared to the over-all grand scheme of military events

under took by the British & Colonial Armies and their Allies,

there is nothing similar in the style or method of the Allies establishing a beachead on the coast

of an enemy country (Turkey) and penetrating a couple or so kilometers inland,

before being completely blocked by the Turkish military and the German advisors,

to the Austro-Hungarian, Prussians - Bavarians, Bulgarian's & Turks campaign,

which effectively swept through

Romania, with an occassional defeat in battle, but besides which, still caused the Romanians to retreat and hide in Moldova,

(even with and without the help of the Imperial Russian forces, before they decided to return to Russia)

only coming out as the situation in the West, caused the removal of those forces in retreat, back to their homelands

Unfortunatly, the perceived notion that the Romanian Military covered itself in glory during the latter period of WW1

is also false.

By re-tour, I think you are making reference to W.W.2, (off-topic) where Romania started off on the side of the Axis, then under mounting assualt and preasure from the Soviets, switched sides, and were then used as cannon fodder by the Soviets, as they pushed forward into Hungary, Czechaslovakia , etc..etc.. Romania then had its monarchy disbanded and remained under Soviet influence, until the Soviets saw that the Romanian Communist Party hada firm grasp on the people and country.

Connaught Stranger.

[razu]

Your assesment of Romanian performance in WW1 is very flawed,

as is your comparason to Romania's performance in its own country and the ill-fated Gallipoli Campaign

which (not casting any slur on the men involved in Gallipoli) was, in essence

a very small effort, when compared to the over-all grand scheme of military events

under took by the British & Colonial Armies and their Allies,

there is nothing similar in the style or method of the Allies establishing a beachead on the coast

of an enemy country (Turkey) and penetrating a couple or so kilometers inland,

before being completely blocked by the Turkish military and the German advisors,

to the Austro-Hungarian, Prussians - Bavarians, Bulgarian's & Turks campaign,

which effectively swept through

Romania, with an occassional defeat in battle, but besides which, still caused the Romanians to retreat and hide in Moldova,

(even with and without the help of the Imperial Russian forces, before they decided to return to Russia)

only coming out as the situation in the West, caused the removal of those forces in retreat, back to their homelands

Unfortunatly, the perceived notion that the Romanian Military covered itself in glory during the latter period of WW1

is also false.

By re-tour, I think you are making reference to W.W.2, (off-topic) where Romania started off on the side of the Axis, then under mounting assualt and preasure from the Soviets, switched sides, and were then used as cannon fodder by the Soviets, as they pushed forward into Hungary, Czechaslovakia , etc..etc.. Romania then had its monarchy disbanded and remained under Soviet influence, until the Soviets saw that the Romanian Communist Party hada firm grasp on the people and country.

Connaught Stranger.

Well we were a small country in 1914 ,not as well trained and equiped as Great Britain Empire so I think thaere is room for comparison.

300 000 dead at Galipoli

300 000 dead at Romanians/at least.

Ofcourse Galipoli is just a place as Romania was a Kingdom if that is what you mean.

As about the beachhead thing have you ever climbed to 1000- 2000 meters,where you are sick all the time because of the altitude and tired all the time because of the ups and downs,bears woolves etc with the Army to figth a greatly superior enemy,going to a battle that you know you are going to lose and trying to invent possibly all kinds of things to gain time? Also in Romania in winter there are sometimes -20 with winds in the mountain area which makes -25 or -30 Celsius.

I don't know what you mean by hide ;are you refering to the strategical retreat manoeuvre of the Romanian Army ,well what was left of it after was melted by the German artillery?figthing on a 800 Km Front?

As about WW2 ,romania begun peace negotiation i think when 200 B-24 Liberators bombed the raffineries at Ploiesti(Tidal Wave ,the greatest air raid in USAF history).Some people say that it was better defended than Berlin.I think they were negociating with USA not with URSS.

Well who's fault is that nazism raise to power in Romania,Italy ,France I think ?well beats me .Possibly to those fat politicians ,diplomats and cultural attaches who drink too much and spend their time in restaurants and hotel rooms?

[SMSKaiser]

300.000 dead at Gallipoli would even for both sides combined be the biggest myth I ever came across

Sounds like one of those historybook comments like 700.000 dead at Verdun...

You are trying all the time to get Romanias defeat into some kind of victory from another point of view.

But there was no victory in any way, even recapture of the lost territory plus parts of Austria-Hungary are no real military victory, as the one in front of your ancestors was already defeated by that time.

By the way, the initial aim of this thread was not to discuss on Romania.

If it is that improtant for you, please open another thread for it.