Russian ordeal 1914-1917....

[razu]

As far as I know against H.M.King Ferdinand wish ,King Carol II ,his son was send away from the throne succession by his father,but with the help of some politicians took power.After that the outcome is the known one.

[razu]

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.

It says here

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

total casualties 336 000

[razu]

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.

smskaiser

If you say so you probably know best

By the way did you know that the Kaiser when he found out that Romania joined the Entente wanted to surrender?When he found out that he is attacked by a member of his family?

Why do you wanna separate them ?Isn't the defection of the Russians triggered by the German communist propaganda who led to both Romanian and Russian catastrophe?

Question ?did the Germans assassinated the Russian Royal family or they put someone else to do it?

Cause for Romania they had the same plan to away the Romanian Monarchy.

[AlanCurragh]

300 000 dead at Galipoli

I would hope most of us know the difference between the number of casualties and the number of deaths

Anyway, the discussion about the Russian Front has become a bit swamped by matters Romanian - can we please get back on topic

Thanks

Alan

[James Blonde]

OFF TOPIC!

It says here

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

total casualties 336 000

That links shows the combined total casualties including those of the Turkish enemy

You claimed in your post the following:

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

Again, it can be argued many Romanian casualties were caused by the ineptitude of the Romanian Officer Corps, poor equipment, poor supply lines, so on and so forth etc.. etc..

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?

Come on Razu, post something sensible, the entire Romanian Army was NOT fighting in the mountains continualy, and even if they were so were the enemy.

And yes I have spent times in the mountains when I lived in Bavaria, here is some information about:

Oxygen Deprivation:

While each person's sensitivity to oxygen deprivation is unique, most will feel little below 2,000 m. However, a headache and stomach discomfort to a varying degree may be common symptoms above that. And for many, along with heavy breathing, this may be all they will experience up to 6,000 m.

To combat these symptoms people are advised to drink more than they feel they need. In situations of declining oxygen, blood tends to thicken making oxygen dispersal in the body less efficient. Where one to two litres of water per day may be adequate at sea level four litres might be optimum at 5,000 m. As breathing through the mouth eliminates water, nose breathing is recommended. Rather than stopping regularly to pant, maintaining a pattern of one breath per step provides a better method of air intake.

In addition, eating more than one wants is also helpful. While nausea reduces the desire to eat, the body has an increasing need for nourishment. High calorie meals are recommended, supplemented with sweets.

A slow ascent offsets the negative symptoms of altitude such as nausea and headache. This may involve adopting a pace that seems 'too easy'. While it may seem too easy for the muscles, it is necessary to allow the body time to adjust to declining oxygen levels.

An alternative to a slow climbing / decending pace, is repeated and frequent stops.

The truly dangerous conditions are pulmonary edema and cerebral edema, with the latter the most dangerous. These terms refer to an excessive amount of water building up in the lungs in the first case and around the brain in second. If these should happen an immediate descent to a lower altitude is required. While some people may experience symptoms of acute mountain sickness at 3,000 m., for most it won't occur until 4,500 m. or higher.

While the hiker may notice little effect at 1,000 m. his body is actually making its first adjustment and that is an increase in rate of respiration. The body will continue to make adjustments to compensate for lack of oxygen. There will be an increase in the pressure in the pulmonary arteries supplying blood to the lungs. At the same time capillaries retrieving oxygen from the lungs will become more perfused with blood. Over time, at altitude, there will be a gradual increase in the concentration of oxygen-carrying red blood cells.

Although respiration increases, possibly somewhat unexpectedly, there is no corresponding stress put on the heart. In fact, the heart is more likely to be strained with heavy exercise at sea level than at altitude. At sea level the amount of blood that can be supplied to the muscles by the heart is the limiting factor in exercise. Where at high altitude the amount of oxygen that can be taken in by the lungs is the limiting factor, not the heart's pumping.

As such the capacity for exercise decreases with altitude. The effective oxygen available at 5,500 m. is about half that at sea level.

At sea level only three per cent of the body's intake of oxygen is required for the muscles involved in breathing. At high altitude the oxygen required for the breathing process becomes a severe limiting factor to exercise capacity. In colloquial terms, you seem to be using most of your strength just breathing.

Again oxygen deprivation stress varies with the individual and acclimatization and to a lesser extent cardio-vascular fitness. However, for many new to altitude, but fit, this may become apparent above 5,000 m. People may have to stop and catch their breath going down as well as up.

About 80 per cent of a body's acclimatization occurs within 10 days and 95 per cent within six weeks at altitude. This acclimatization seems to decline at about the same rate it had increased. So if the plan is to ascend several mountains, it is best to start with the smaller ones and progress to the higher ones.

Somewhat ironically, youth and fitness provide no advantage in acclimatizing and avoiding high altitude sickness. There is anecdotal evidence suggesting that those over 25 years of age adapt more readily than those under. Fitness may allow a person to climb more efficiently, the body will only acclimatize to the oxygen available up to about 7,500m. Height above that in mountain climbing lore is called the 'dead zone'. Above that height body condition only deteriorates, even at rest. Limiting time at that level is the only solution.

Bears and wolves yes they do live in the mountains but are as equally dangerous to Romanian and enemy troops.

The same for the wind, try reading up on the casualties of the Italian - Austro-Hungarian Campaign in the Dolomites, more men died from exposure and avalanches than actual combat

You really do need to stop dragging this thread, off topic, with wild unsubstatiated claims, (and by the way Wikipedia sources need to be taken with a pinch of salt as anybody can post anything on Wiki without verification,) and post a thread about the Imperial Romanian Army in WW1 and its performance in a seperate location, I am sure many here, will gladly offer contributions to it.

Connaught Stranger.

[razu]

Ofcourse yo're right

I give you a tip,there are no more bears in Bavarian woods/mountains .They removed them alltogether.Well if the Bavarian who told me that is lying then I'm lying too.

[AlanCurragh]

Final warning - any more discussion of bears in the Bavarian woods and the thread is being closed.

Alan

[razu]

Roger!

Andrei