Let's talk about the Romanian army

[Morar Andrei]

I heard many times that the army of Romania during time was very weak, and they are blamed for many military defeats of the 20th century. How true is it? And how can be considered in fact the capability and performance in the most important wars it was involved from 1860 onwards (The Russo-Turkish War of 1877, The Great War, the involvement of the Romanion legions from Italy, France and USA, the Hungarian-Romanian War of 1919 and the Second World War)? I would like to get an honest opinion, accompanied by facts.

For example at Stalingrad: was it totally the fault of the Romanians that the northern and sounthern flanks fell, or they were also used as a scapegoat?

Edited October 8, 2018 by Morar Andrei

[Bayern]

Hello Morar Andrei . Your request is not easy to answer . The Romanian Army was able to fight well when it have good High Commands . for example during the Russian Turkish war of 1877. during the second Balkan War the Romanian Army althoug not much involved in battle contributed much to win the war .During the ww1 the Romanian Army first fought well but later was defeated by a combination of political motives linked to Russia . During the war with Hungary of 1919 the Romanians beated easily the Hungarian Red Army .in the Second world war the Romanians fought well at the side or at the front of the Germans and HUngarians . In Stalingrad It was not the total responsability of the Third and Fourth Romanian Armies . both fight well with their scarse resources . the Soviets chose well the target. the two Armies were overextended ,underpowered and undermanned.

[Morar Andrei]

Thank you very much!

[Bayern]

Servitore ! The Romanian Army is usually bad known or treated with contempt .by historians inclusive . Romanian Cavalry and Vanatori de Munte fought very well in WW2 .the Romanian Artillery of WW2 was good but insuficient . The Romanian Armed Forces were in 1939 at the beginning of a period of modernization , not fully eficient due to the bad politicians . 

[Morar Andrei]

Indeed. The Romanian army has been always affected by national politics, corrupt politicians, incompetent generals (problems that can still be seen). One thing I do not agree for example is that after WW1, marshall Averescu became a politician, with his results being quite mediocre.

Also, how can you not build even one factory to produce armoured vehicles but rely solely on exports? There are many things that contributed to the lack of equpment in the Romanian army, since there not even so many factories that could build goods for the army.

 

My big point is that in time I heard different versions about how useful were the Romanians in wars. Some of them are ranging from "they fought bravely, with a lot of skill against an outnumbering enemy", or by citing generals like Manstein and Rommel who they clain to have said about us that " we were the best allied soldiers of the Axis" (mostly Romanian sources), while others say we were complete cowards and traitors (WW1 because we were initially part of the 1883 secret treaty and WW2 because we switched sides on August 23rd 1944).

I can still remember the comment of a guy who claims that his grandfather was a German reconaissance plane pilot at Stalingrad. He also said that from his grandfather's stories, the Romanians just ran from their positions without firing even a shot, even if they had the weapons needed to repel that attack, and thus lost his respect on us as allieds.

 

Where can we get a definite balance, and maybe solve this issue once and for all?

[Bayern]

Andrei, Without serious and well documented studies of each war the Romanians had fought not a definitive balance will take place

[Morar Andrei]

I agree with you. Someone really needs to make a serios, unbiased documentation. At least I would like to keep this thread open to discussion.

Thank you anyway, gentleman, and have a great weekend!