joel pacheco wrote: you wrotein your first post on the thread you sent me, that small scale fighting continued up until the armistice november 1918! 1918!
Common, it clearly says that
The fighting continued, but on a small scale up until the armistice in November
Where did you see 1918?
joel pacheco wrote: as for me claiming there was no fighting in 1917, i never said that. the peace of buchsreast was in march 1918. so, there must have been fighting before that.
Permit me to refresh your memory:
romania was defeated and overrun.(i think in afew months!)
It's from page two of this thread.
I will not waste more server disk space quoting you saying that I invented my version of history.
joel pacheco wrote: so, there must have been fighting before that
That is exactly what is shown in the other thread.
joel pacheco wrote: the rumanian army in 1917, by your own account, and rommels account, was propped up/heavily supported by russian troops. when the russian troops left, romania started to lose again.
Actually the fighting in 1917 was done mainly by the two Romanian armies (as pointed out in the other thread). The front line was too longto be held only by these two armies, so the Russians were needed. In late 1917, Romanian forces also had to deal with Russian deserters that were causing much trouble behind the lines.
Romania was dependent on supplies sent by the Western Allies through Russia. Without them the fighting was not possible, as there was only a limited industrial base. The Entente came up with fantasy plans, like retreating the two armies around Iasi and creating a "triangle of death" in which to draw as many German troops as possible. However, this was suicidal and the government refused.
Romania did not "start losing again after the Russians left" as you said, simply because there was no fighting after that. The Romanian forces available were not numerous enough to man the entire front line. Also take into consideration, that without Russian forces on the Eastern Front, the Germans could march into Ukraine and encircle Romania, without a fight. There was no point in continuing the war.
BUT, the Romanian army in 1917 was not defeated in battle, as you want to believe. All the units were still there, the Germans and Austrians only advance a few kilometers and suffered heavy casualties.
joel pacheco wrote: lost it's capital bucharest with barely a rifleeshot of resistence, and and only managed to survive in the jassy and the north with a massive influx of ruusian troops.
There was the attempt called the Battle of Neajlov-Arges (25 November – 3 December), but because there were not enough forces available it failed.
If the Russians had sent these troops as agreed before Romania entered the war and not when the front reached Moldavia, probably Wallachia would not have been lost in 1916. But that is only speculation
joel pacheco wrote: whenever rumania stood on its own, it was not minor losses, they were huge
I suspect you are referring to 1916. The Romanian army, which had 658,088 first line troops had to man a line longer than the Western front. The machine-guns, heavy artillery, modern aircraft lacked in 1916. Both the Germans and Austrians had more.
Before it entered the war, Romania had signed an agreement with the Entente through which they engaged to sent the quantity of munitions and equipment the Romanian troops needed, to start an offensive at Salonik (to tie down Bulgarian forces) and to send Russian troops to man parts of the front (mainly the static ones). None of these were respected. It was difficult to do more than was done in 1916 under the circumstances.
But in 1917, when the army had been reequipped and reorganized, the Germans and Austrians met a very powerful resistance from the two Romanian armies. Before the offensive in 1917 von Mackensen told his officers as he was getting aboard the train in Bucharest: See in Jassy in two weeks. Two weeks later he was still trying to brake through.
joel pacheco wrote: so, my point, once again. the rumanians did poorly. even in the rommel book descriptions left on the 1917 thread, rommel desrcibes the russian army encircling him, attacking, and being defeated. he took the romainans that day without a shot. they were asleep.
So? The Romanian Mountain Battalion took over 400 Austrian prisoners, while losing 2 dead and 19 wounded. This without counting the Austrians killed in battle.
As for the fighting spirit showed in 1917, by the Romanian soldiers, I prefer to quote general von Morgen, the CO of the 1st Corps:
Enemy's resistance, especially the Romanians, was unusually strong and it manifested through 61 counter-attacks (in my sector) within the 14 days of fighting. They led mostly to bayonet fighting and caused us considerable losses.
joel pacheco wrote: that you DID know the details of the peace of bucharest makes me think that the post you made on the 1917 thread was deliberatley misleading.
You can believe whatever you like, for what I care. I already explained to you what was the purpose of that thread.