Germany invades Romania (before, after, instead of Poland?)

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Germany invades Romania (before, after, instead of Poland?)

#16

Post by thaddeus_c » 24 Feb 2015, 02:12

Sid Guttridge wrote:Hungary achieved almost all its territorial claims by June 1941. It never needed, or wanted, to occupy Romania proper. Neither did the Bulgarians evince any interest in occupying Romania. Hungary was never going to be a wholehearted member of the Axis if that meant war with a USSR against which it had absolutely no territorial claims, because it had already largely got what it wanted without fighting by May 1941.

Not only would occupying Romania cost Germany the support of the third most important Axis army, navy and air force in Europe, it would require Germany to find occupation forces potentially as large as those that were eventually built up in Yugoslavia. (The differential in divisions is of the order of up to 45 - minus some 30 Romanian divisions and an occupation force of perhaps 15 Axis divisions). On top of that, oil production was likely to be severely disrupted and put at permanent risk of sabotage, and Britain and France, which guaranteed Romania at the same time as they guaranteed Poland, would presumably have been brought into the war.

Your plans for an invasion of Romania, as opposed to Poland, largely ignore historic context. They are also counterproductive for the Axis on military and economic levels.
Hungary was forced into Axis when Germans were invading Yugoslavia? the same would be effected here with Romania being invaded.

again this scenario does not envision an invasion of Poland OR an invasion of USSR, the goal is stable or improved relations with Poland and non-aggression pact with USSR (similar to their pact with Japan.)

how counterproductive were those two invasions?

(this leaves the Polish army intact, would the Soviets try to attack Germany THROUGH Poland? OR would Poland take action against Germany during (any) invasion of France with Soviets at their back?)

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Germany invades Romania (before, after, instead of Poland?)

#17

Post by thaddeus_c » 24 Feb 2015, 05:48

brief mention of subject in a Wiki section on Chamberlain (under 1939 the guarantee of Poland )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Ch ... ean_Policy


Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Germany invades Romania (before, after, instead of Poland?)

#18

Post by Sid Guttridge » 24 Feb 2015, 12:14

Hi Thaddeus,

You ask, "Hungary was forced into the Axis when Germans were invading Yugoslavia?" No. Where did you get that idea from? The Yugoslav campaign marked the point at which Hungary achieved almost all its territorial aims designed to reintegrate heavily Hungarian-populated territory into the country. If it went further in any direction thereafter, it would have to absorb unwilling majorities of other peoples. (Indeed, it had already done so in Ruthenia).

You write, "again this scenario does not envision an invasion of Poland OR an invasion of the USSR, the goal is stable or improved relations with Poland and non-aggression pact with USSR (similar to their pact with Japan.)[/I"] I am sorry, but I have absolutely no idea what your point is.

Indeed, I cannot see the point of your whole proposition.

If there is to be no war with Poland, there would be no war with France or the UK and no common border with the USSR requiring a non-agression pact. If there is to be no war, then Germany has no need to invade remote Romania, whose oil, in peacetime, it could buy on the commercial market anyway.

A deeply mystified Sid.

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Germany invades Romania (before, after, instead of Poland?)

#19

Post by thaddeus_c » 25 Feb 2015, 02:15

Sid Guttridge wrote:Indeed, I cannot see the point of your whole proposition.

If there is to be no war with Poland, there would be no war with France or the UK and no common border with the USSR requiring a non-agression pact. If there is to be no war, then Germany has no need to invade remote Romania, whose oil, in peacetime, it could buy on the commercial market anyway.
the point of the whole proposition is to seize Romania as they seized Czechoslovakia, they could not afford to buy or easily barter for Romanian oil (and in fact never received the share of total production desired for that reason.) a secondary motivation is to enlist Hungary in Axis, they did not participate in invasion of Poland but certainly would have with invasion of Romania.

after the invasion there would be war with France and Great Britain (IMO a version of Phoney War that occurred after OTL invasion of Poland.) some type of pact would have been signed with USSR to divide Romania (whether formally called non-aggression pact or not.)

an invasion of Romania was considered very plausible at the time, a brief summary on Wiki

"In mid-March 1939, Chamberlain's government was rocked by the so-called "Romanian War Scare" (also known as the "Tilea Affair"). The Romanian minister in London, Virgil Tilea reported falsely to the British government that his country was under the verge of an immediate German attack, which led to a U-turn on British policy of resisting commitments in Eastern Europe.[85] In fact, there was no German attack planned on Romania in March 1939, but major delays within the German synthetic oil program had vastly increased the importance of Romanian oil, and the German delegation from Hermann Göring's Four Year Plan organisation conducting talks in Bucharest was applying strong pressure on the Romanians to essentially turn over control of the Romanian oil industry to Germany.[86] Faced with troops from Romania's arch-enemy Hungary concentrating on the border, and German efforts to secure control of their country's oil industry, the Romanian government had concluded that there was a danger of a Hungarian-German invasion, and had exaggerated the danger level in order to secure British support.[87] Whether Tilea was deliberately exaggerating the German threat to Romania as a way of gaining British support against the German demands to surrender the control of their oil industry as claimed by the British historian D.C. Watt, or if the Romanians genuinely believed that their country was under the verge of a German invasion in March 1939 as claimed by the American historian Gerhard Weinberg is still unclear.

From Chamberlain's point of view, it was desirable to keep Romania and its oil out of German hands; since Germany had hardly any natural supplies of oil, the ability of the Royal Navy to successfully impose a blockade represented a British trump card both to deter war, and if necessary, win a war."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Ch ... o-Slovakia

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Germany invades Romania (before, after, instead of Poland?)

#20

Post by Sid Guttridge » 25 Feb 2015, 12:32

Hi Thaddeaus,

I still cannot see your point.

Germany had claims on Czechoslovakia and Poland. It didn't even have a common border with Romania, let alone claims on it!

For this reason, your proposition is ahistorical and entirely contrived.

Germany had the power to take all Romanian oil any time it wanted between late 1940 and mid 1944, yet it never tried. Have you wondered why this was?

You seem to assume that Hitler was operating to some sort of long term, well calculated plan. He wasn't. He was an opportunist. He grabbed what he could, when he could.

The Romanians mobilized in 1939 and used the fear of a German attack to get French weaponry. Had such an attack occurred with Romania fully mobilized it is highly unlikely that the oil fields could have been taken intact.

However, by operating the way they really did, the Germans got access to Romanian oil, use of the Romanian armed forces, did not have to go to the expense in men and resources of occupying the country and virtually eliminated the threat of sabotage.

Your proposition promises to destroy all these plus points simply in order to give the unreliable Hungarians a small amount of second rate, additional German weaponry. It makes no sense.

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. In 1940 the British actually send an undercover naval team to block the Danube with sunken barges to disrupt the flow of oil upriver to the refineries in Germany. The Romanians found out and prevented it. Later in the war the RAF dropped magnetic mines in the river to greater effect.

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Germany invades Romania (before, after, instead of Poland?)

#21

Post by thaddeus_c » 26 Feb 2015, 02:00

Sid Guttridge wrote:Germany had the power to take all Romanian oil any time it wanted between late 1940 and mid 1944, yet it never tried. Have you wondered why this was?

You seem to assume that Hitler was operating to some sort of long term, well calculated plan. He wasn't. He was an opportunist. He grabbed what he could, when he could.
do not wonder why from late 1940 onwards Germany did not seize Romanian oil production, because as you have pointed out by that time they had forced the country (aided by willing leader Antonescu) into an alliance. but as you have already pointed out, this was AFTER they had successfully invaded Poland and France (how could they have resisted?)

but both of those invasions were gambles (Poland had twice the population and much larger army than Romania and French army was considered strongest in Europe.) they could not know, AT THE TIME, that either would not bring Romania into the war on Allied side OR that success would bring them into the Axis willingly.

an opportunist might grab what he could, when he could (from the weakest target) it would deprive France of an oil supplier and close off Romanian Bridgehead to Poland.

at the time an invasion was NOT considered farfetched (even if Romanians hyped chances to gain support) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_Ch ... ean_Policy

(only link to Wiki but there are other articles about German designs on "Rumania")

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Germany invades Romania (before, after, instead of Poland?)

#22

Post by Sid Guttridge » 11 Mar 2015, 12:54

Hi Dennis,

The fundamental problem with your proposition is that it costs Germany much more than it gains. To repeat:

".....by operating the way they really did, the Germans got access to Romanian oil, use of the Romanian armed forces, did not have to go to the expense in men and resources of occupying the country and virtually eliminated the threat of sabotage.

Your proposition promises to destroy all these plus points...... It makes no sense.
"

Cheers,

Sid.

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Germany invades Romania (before, after, instead of Poland?)

#23

Post by thaddeus_c » 12 Mar 2015, 17:58

Sid Guttridge wrote:Hi Dennis,

The fundamental problem with your proposition is that it costs Germany much more than it gains. To repeat:

".....by operating the way they really did, the Germans got access to Romanian oil, use of the Romanian armed forces, did not have to go to the expense in men and resources of occupying the country and virtually eliminated the threat of sabotage.

Your proposition promises to destroy all these plus points...... It makes no sense.
"
"to repeat" (myself) your "plus points" occur AFTER invasions of Poland and France, and could not be KNOWN at the time.

their need for "use of Romanian armed forces" also could not have been known at the time and quite frankly if they have to enlist Romania in any invasion of USSR to insure its "success" that should be a good indication the invasion should not be attempted.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Germany invades Romania (before, after, instead of Poland?)

#24

Post by Sid Guttridge » 13 Mar 2015, 14:48

Hi Thaddeus,

The "plus points" are known to you now, yet you are still not only proposing Romania (with the third largest army, navy and air force and most of its natural oil) being lost to the Axis as a major asset, but that its hostility should add yet another burden to Axis occupation resources.

It makes no sense, given 20/20 hindsight, to continue proposing this damaging course.

Cheers,

Sid

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10055
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Germany invades Romania (before, after, instead of Poland?)

#25

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 13 Mar 2015, 16:38

The proposal on the OP here can work on the game board. I've seen it & similar gambits done in the Third Reich game. Doubt it is one of those things that would translate very well to the real world of 1939-41.

One of the problems is it requires very precise play of the game. German military power is actually very limited in 1939. Experienced players can pull these tricky gambits off, practice and detailed planning is required. In 1939 the Germans & everyone else were still novices at the 'game'. They did not even have all the rules in front of them so to speak. Such a demanding & complex series of operations would have been at the far edge of capabilites. Failing at just one of these operations would have screwed the Germans for at least a year or more.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Germany invades Romania (before, after, instead of Poland?)

#26

Post by ljadw » 13 Mar 2015, 19:48

There is also the "little" point that the importance of the Romanian oil for Germany is much exaggerated .

Besides,after the fall of France,Romania had no other choice than to sell its oil to ..Germany .To whom else ? The fall of France left Romania helpless against Germany and the SU .

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Germany invades Romania (before, after, instead of Poland?)

#27

Post by thaddeus_c » 13 Mar 2015, 19:55

Carl Schwamberger wrote:The proposal on the OP here can work on the game board. I've seen it & similar gambits done in the Third Reich game. Doubt it is one of those things that would translate very well to the real world of 1939-41.

German military power is actually very limited in 1939. Such a demanding & complex series of operations would have been at the far edge of capabilites. Failing at just one of these operations would have screwed the Germans for at least a year or more.
was considering the limits of German military, and the relative strengths of Romania and Poland. (and the Polish refusal to allow Soviets transit to aid Czechoslovakia)

Romania (with almost guaranteed Hungarian support) might look the easier and more advantageous target and Poland a useful foil against the Soviets.

my thinking is that Poland is trapped into defensive posture? (especially during a rapprochement between USSR and Germany?) obviously their ability to strike any deal with Soviets is limited? ("we'll provide the army, you provide the battlefield?")

whether Germany can turn from their Balkan gambit to invade France (in the real world) with the same success as they did after invading Poland is to me the question. and whether the white hot hatred for Poland among the military (and population) can be contained.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Germany invades Romania (before, after, instead of Poland?)

#28

Post by Sid Guttridge » 14 Mar 2015, 20:19

Hi Thaddeus,

Germany wasn't casting around for random opponents that weren't Poland and against which it had absolutely no war aims or claims.

Poland was on Germany's target list for a reason. Romania simply wasn't.

If you want to concoct a wargame in which historical context counts for nothing, then you might as well invent the participating countries.

Cheers,

Sid.

thaddeus_c
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 22 Jan 2014, 04:16

Re: Germany invades Romania (before, after, instead of Poland?)

#29

Post by thaddeus_c » 15 Mar 2015, 06:46

Sid Guttridge wrote:Germany wasn't casting around for random opponents that weren't Poland and against which it had absolutely no war aims or claims.

Poland was on Germany's target list for a reason. Romania simply wasn't.

If you want to concoct a wargame in which historical context counts for nothing, then you might as well invent the participating countries.
not concocting anything, quoted and linked to one brief summary of invasion hysteria at the time (prior to invasion of Poland.) Romania was also considered a target as follow on to invasion of Poland, but one Poland asked them to remain neutral to serve as supply conduit, second they gave up large chunks of territory peacefully, and third a pro-German regime took power.

as pointed out Germany had no claims on Romania (though Hungary and USSR, and to lesser extent Bulgaria did) but they would have the aim of secured oil production (at least it was considered POSSIBLE at the time if not probable.)

tried to make the point (maybe poorly) that invasion of Poland would not, of course, have been precluded or its success compromised. the Romanian Bridgehead would have been eliminated. movement of German troops through Hungary would almost certainly be allowed, even if they refuse to attack Poland themselves.

(even though my proposition is to try to turn Poland into co-belligerent or counterweight against the Soviets)

Post Reply

Return to “What if”