Austria's WWI Chances without the Italian Front

Discussions on all aspects of Austria-Hungary. Hosted by Glenn Jewison.
User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3901
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Post by Victor » 16 Apr 2003 09:47

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.

User avatar
Victor
Member
Posts: 3901
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:25
Location: Bucharest, Romania

Post by Victor » 16 Apr 2003 09:47

dead-cat wrote: it looks to me like 1917/1918 was a typo.


Yes, I know. But after that it was only 1917 there, 1917 that. Even the title shows that is about 1917. Most of the people that read the thread got it.

dead-cat wrote: maybe Victor can correct me on this but there was no larger combat activity on the romanian front after the treaty of brest-litovsk


No there was not. There were some clashes in Bessarabia, but that is another story.

dead-cat wrote: although Victor might question some of the figures


And I did. There is a thread about this subject. I will try to find it and give the URL. Anyway the number of mobilized personnel for Romania is too low.

dead-cat wrote: while it is true that romanian schoolbooks used to


The info was not taken from a schoolbook.

User avatar
dead-cat
Member
Posts: 435
Joined: 04 Mar 2003 22:06
Location: Mainz, Germany

Post by dead-cat » 16 Apr 2003 11:08

Yes, I know. But after that it was only 1917 there, 1917 that. Even the title shows that is about 1917. Most of the people that read the thread got it.


yes. and my remark was for joel pacheco.

The info was not taken from a schoolbook.


didn't say that either. i said that the schoolbooks contain inaccurate informations. it wasn't about this topic specifically.

User avatar
Balrog
Member
Posts: 1234
Joined: 17 Feb 2003 15:09
Location: USA, North Carolina/Manchukuo/Dominican Republic

Post by Balrog » 21 Apr 2003 20:57

at the suggestion of my romanian fan club here on the forum, i decided to research "overrun" in relation to romania in ww1. i have found several history web sites which all use the term "overrun" to describe romania's situation in ww1, even in 1916! here are some of the sites, so that you can view the evidence for yourself. http://www.bartlby.com/65/vo/romania.html
http://www.trussel.com/stamps/smoking/c ... nia.htm/3k
http://www.romania kingdom.com. i could go on, but simply scaning the internet, or even the local public library, you can find the same description of romania's military disasters the way i described. i assumed that the romanian school taught a deifferent view of history, well, the last web site i listed, "romania kingdom.com" is king micheal of romania's monarchist supporters web page, they describe the situation for romania in ww1 as "being overrun from all sides". so apparently king micheal's romanian monarchists agree with my use of the word "overrun" to describe the situation in romania. the only reason i really used the term "overrun" was because that is the only adjective i have ever seen used in history books or even of most web pages i have seen. the only time "romania" was EVER discussed in my entire university career was by one of my history professors, and he used the term "overrun", and even mentioned that the germans and austrians "got everything they needed to supply thier armies for the next 6 months."(from the collapse of romania) his words. that was the only time we ever discussed your country in any of my classes, ever. i think that i used the term "overrun" was entirely fair and accurate. romania was thrashed by the central powers, the country was looted of grain and oil, and romania's army fled the capital bucharest less resistence that saddam's boys used to defend baghdad. "dead cat" mentioned that there are sources to confirm all of the historical arguments"thank God", so that is what i have done. i think that it is in the interest of everyone if historical arguments are based on the facts anbd not whitewashings to make people feel some misplaced pride in fantasy achievements.

User avatar
Daniel S.
Member
Posts: 145
Joined: 26 Apr 2002 15:43
Location: Bucharest,somewhere in old Wallachia,now Romania

Post by Daniel S. » 22 Apr 2003 02:40

joel pacheco wrote:i have found several history web sites which all use the term "overrun" to describe romania's situation in ww1, even in 1916! . i assumed that the romanian school taught a deifferent view of history, well, the last web site i listed, "romania kingdom.com" is king micheal of romania's monarchist supporters web page, they describe the situation for romania in ww1 as "being overrun from all sides". so apparently king micheal's romanian monarchists agree with my use of the word "overrun" to describe the situation in romania.


I searched too and,sorry but none of the sites you listed didn't work.Correct spelling for the last site is http://www.romaniankingdom.comAnd this is what I found here:
Romania enters the First World War joining the Antante – the alliance between Russia, Great Britain, Italy and France. By the end of 1916 Romania is in trouble, with over half of its territory (Dobrodja and Valacchia) under occupation of German, Turk and Bulgarian troops.

I saw another Romanian monarchist sitehttp://trident.mcs.kent.edu/~amarcus/Mihai/english/cronologieen.html
and this is what I found:
August 14, 1916 - The Crown Council decided to enter the war joining the Triple Entente. It declared war on the Austro-Hungarian empire and Romanian troops entered Transylvania. The Central Powers responded with overwhelming force.

November 1916 - As the tide turned against Romania, the King and the government moved north to Iasi in Moldavia. Bucharest and most of Wallachia were occupied by German forces.

Summer 1917 - Romanian troops put up a heroic defense at Marasesti, Oituz, and Marasti, and obtained memorable victories that stopped the occupation of the entire country.


joel pacheco wrote: the only reason i really used the term "overrun" was because that is the only adjective i have ever seen used in history books or even of most web pages i have seen.

As you can see not all the web pages use the term "overrun".

joel pacheco wrote: the only time "romania" was EVER discussed in my entire university career was by one of my history professors, and he used the term "overrun", and even mentioned that the germans and austrians "got everything they needed to supply thier armies for the next 6 months."(from the collapse of romania) his words. that was the only time we ever discussed your country in any of my classes, ever. i think that i used the term "overrun" was entirely fair and accurate.

I'm sorry to say that but the version of history you learned in University about Romania is simplistic and inacurate.It is true what you learned but not all the truth.I don't know why your teacher forgot to remind the victories that Romanians obtained to avoid the occupation of the entire country.I know there is a lot of ignorance about countries like Romania and this could be one of the reasons.
joel pacheco wrote:romania was thrashed by the central powers, the country was looted of grain and oil, and romania's army fled the capital bucharest less resistence that saddam's boys used to defend baghdad.

You have a preconception about all that happened and this is why you commit an error in thinking.The retreat of Romanian army and guverment in Moldova was DELIBERATELY because it was the only strategic movement possible,to avoid the occupation of the entire country.The proof it was a good movement is that Romanians obtained great victories at Marasti,Marasesti and Oituz halting the German and A-H advance and avoiding to disappear like Poland in 1939.

Regards

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002 13:18
Location: Australia

Post by Peter H » 22 Apr 2003 02:54

From Arthur Banks..A Military Atlas of the First World war.
Looks like two thirds of Rumania was overrun in 1916.The remnant hold out sector was mountainous.Moldavia held out but the core population,resources was under Central Powers control.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002 13:18
Location: Australia

Post by Peter H » 22 Apr 2003 12:22

Some good pics of the Romanian Army,circa Balkan wars can be found here:

http://www.geh.org/ar/chus/romania/chusseau-rom_idx00001.html


Image

User avatar
Daniel S.
Member
Posts: 145
Joined: 26 Apr 2002 15:43
Location: Bucharest,somewhere in old Wallachia,now Romania

Post by Daniel S. » 22 Apr 2003 15:46

Moulded,thank you very much for the map and esp. for the pics you posted.8)
Indeed,about two thirds of Romania was conquered in 1916.I never denied this.I wanted to show both the empty and the full part of glass.And the full part is that Romania was never entirely overrun because of resistance in 1917 on a line between Carpathian mountains,Focsani and Galati(see on the map).By the way,Moldavia isn't mountainous just hilly most part of it.The mountain region was in the Russian 9th Army sector where Carpathian mountains form the border between the provinces of Transsylvania and Moldavia.If you look at the map you'll see that Romania was attacked in 1916 both from north(Falkenhayn-a german army and Franz Jozef-an austrian-hungarians army) and from south(Mackensen-an army of german,bulgarian and turkish troops).Thus capital Bucharest risked to be encircled and the only rational movement was to retreat towards Moldavia where a much narrow front line can be organized.

Regards.

User avatar
Daniel S.
Member
Posts: 145
Joined: 26 Apr 2002 15:43
Location: Bucharest,somewhere in old Wallachia,now Romania

Post by Daniel S. » 22 Apr 2003 17:12

Although I saw a few Romanian movies about WWI period I never noticed this type of uniform and that is why I consider interesting this picture.

Image

User avatar
Balrog
Member
Posts: 1234
Joined: 17 Feb 2003 15:09
Location: USA, North Carolina/Manchukuo/Dominican Republic

Post by Balrog » 22 Apr 2003 20:36

i couldn't get the links to work either when i "clicked on them" but when i punched them in by hand they DID work. if you go to King micheal of rumania's web site is does say, "overrun on all sides", it does say that. punch in the website manually and they should work, they worked for me.

User avatar
Balrog
Member
Posts: 1234
Joined: 17 Feb 2003 15:09
Location: USA, North Carolina/Manchukuo/Dominican Republic

Post by Balrog » 22 Apr 2003 20:48

ok, go to the romanian kingdom website(use daniel's link, it works), then click on" king micheal I" under the "history" link and it will say this. "romania was hardly a world power and after a brief invasion of hungary the nation was swiftly OVERRUN from all sides by the germans, austro-hungarians, and bulgars." so even in romania some romanians do share my opinion. as for the map, thank you molded, it does show that victor and dead cat were wrong about the amount of territory lost to the central powers. i was able to manually type those web sites in a see the pages i tried to link too. i don't know why the links will not work properly, i guess just type them in manually. the professor who gave the lesson(on romanian in ww1) was named douglas porch. he has written several books on military history and has an award winning book on the french foreign legion. i belive his books can still be purchased on amazon.com. he is an extremely able instructor and credible historian.
Last edited by Balrog on 23 Apr 2003 14:10, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002 13:18
Location: Australia

Post by Peter H » 23 Apr 2003 01:16

Daniel S,
That pic could be the of the Royal Bodyguard Regiment.The French influence is obvious,in their uniforms etc.

Otherwise they could be 'Chasseurs',The Corps of Mountain Infantry Regiment,but this wasn't formed until 1915.

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002 13:18
Location: Australia

Rumanian Army 1917

Post by Peter H » 23 Apr 2003 01:26

From Osprey,'Armies in the Balkans 1914-18'.Rumaian gunners 1917.The French Berthelot mission revamped the Rumanian Army with French uniforms,equipment and reorganised it into 15 infantry and 2 cavalry divisions,more attuned to Western ideals and not the ponderous 27,000 man Divisions of 1916.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
dead-cat
Member
Posts: 435
Joined: 04 Mar 2003 22:06
Location: Mainz, Germany

Post by dead-cat » 23 Apr 2003 16:41

joel pacheco: Be assured that my "thank God" remark wasn't sarcasm directed towards you, but an expression of relief that now, quoting different sources from the "state approved" ones is now possible without being labeled as a reactionary, counterrevolutionary or revanchist, something which i, having experienced the former, don't take for granted.

User avatar
Daniel S.
Member
Posts: 145
Joined: 26 Apr 2002 15:43
Location: Bucharest,somewhere in old Wallachia,now Romania

Re: Rumanian Army 1917

Post by Daniel S. » 23 Apr 2003 19:26

Moulded wrote:From Osprey,'Armies in the Balkans 1914-18'.Rumaian gunners 1917.The French Berthelot mission revamped the Rumanian Army with French uniforms,equipment and reorganised it into 15 infantry and 2 cavalry divisions,more attuned to Western ideals and not the ponderous 27,000 man Divisions of 1916.


This explains somewhat the poor performance in 1916 and the better one in 1917.The mission led by the French general Berthelot had a crucial rol in setting up a much more effective Romanian army.

Best regards,
Daniel

Return to “Austria-Hungary 1867–1918”