Talk:Romania in World War I

Untitled

The name of the country is Romania. IMO all instances of Rumania should be changed to Romania (at least to avoid unnecessary redirect) and article should be moved to Romanian Campaign (WW I) AdamSmithee 08:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved and changed. Ronline ✉ 11:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

POV

To say that we had poor officers is not only POV, but also insultive. This whole article clings with an anti-Ro tone. --Candide, or Optimism 13:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I have corrected some of that, but the article still maintains a cynical and quite negative view of the Romanian role in WWI. Ronline ✉ 13:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, the article contained a lot of errors and inconsistencies, e.g. Along the way Mackensen's army defeated a Romanian force that crossed the Danube behind his line of advance. The defeat of this Romanian force demoralized the garrison of the fort at Turtucaia, which surrendered on September 6. How could the Turtucaia garrison be demoralized by an event (i.e. the Flămânda Maneuver) happening 3 weeks later? Or Russian reinforcements under General Zaionchovsky arrived in time to halt Mackensen's army before it cut the rail line that linked Constanţa with Bucharest. AFAIK, the slow advance of the Russian reinforcements (not 200,000 men-strong, as promised by the Russian High Command) and Zaionchkovsky's indecisiveness made possible the swift advance of the Mackensen Army Group. The troops under Zaionchkovsky's command fought half-heartedly (at best) on the Dobruja front (with the notable exception of the Serbian Division), but they're portrayed as some kind of superheroes coming to the rescue of the poorly-trained and poorly-led Romanians. Also there were suspicions (I have to look up more sources to confirm this, I read it in Constantin Kiritzescu's "History of the War for Romania's Reunification" ("Istoria Războiului pentru reîntregirea României (1916-1919)") that the Russian High Command withheld some of the ammunition supplies and deliveries from France and most of them didn't arrive on time or not at all. However, it must be underlined that the Romanian High Command made tremendous mistakes, both strategically (coordination with the Russian High Command) and operationally (not sticking to the original plan, moving troops between the 2 fronts so they were on the road when needed on either front etc.) and the Romanian Army was not prepared (neither materially nor regarding the training) for the war. The Romanians had to learn the hard way that this was not the happy joyride of the 2nd Balkan War. Mentatus 07:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know which source inspired this (brilliant) POV: "Clearly, Romania chose a bad time to enter the war. Entry on the Allied side in 1914 or 1915 could have saved Serbia from conquest. Entry in early 1916 might have allowed the Brusilov Offensive to succeed. Instead, they joined late, and a mutual distrust was shared by them and the one major power that could directly help them: Russia." Romania did choose a bad time to enter the war, but only because they had no military treaty signed with France, Britain, or Russia. In the summer of 1914 they were still bound by their 1883 secret treaty with Germany and Austria-Hungary (or rather, a secret clause of the 1883 treaty, that very few people in Romania, apart from the king Charles I, knew about). Practically the entire parliamentary body was favorable to Romania's entering the war on the Allies' side, because everybody there was Francophile and everybody wanted Transylvania, with the notable exception of Constantin Stere, who was Bessarabian and a former political prisoner in Tsarist Russia. Romania COULD have entered the war in 1915, after Charles I's death, but the negotiations with the Allies didn't go as easily as hoped, which is, after all, alluded to in the article. In 1916, France sent considerable ammounts of guns and cannons, as well as trainers under the command of General Berthelot, so that the Romanian Army, although inferior to Central Powers troops, was not that poorly equiped. Anyway, as I said, they did join the Allies rather late, and the Bolshevik Revolution (which allowed them to gain Bessarabia and Bukovina, and kept Romania's territory free of the presence of Russian troops) was a sheer luck (at least temporarily). To make a long story short, the paragraph I quoted is pure speculation. One cannot know what would have happened if Romania had joined the Allies sooner. Moreover, one might ask what would have happened if Romania HAD entered the war in 1914, but on Germany's side, as it should have, according to the 1883 treaty. Probably nothing much, except that it would have never gained new territories. Possibly a lot, since the outcome of the war ultimately hung on a thread; in the early fall of 1918, Germany and Austria-Hungary still looked like they could win the war, but too many divisions had been lost on the Eastern Front (where Romania could have helped), and civil unrest in German major cities (influenced by the Bolshevik Revolution, which might never have happened) played a final, crucial, role in Germany's surrender. This is, again, speculation, which looks a whole lot better on this page than in the article proper. Quatrocentu 07:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"If Romania had sided with the Allies earlier in the year, before the Brusilov Offensive, perhaps the Russians would not have lost" and "Entry in early 1916 might have allowed the Brusilov Offensive to succeed". The Brusilov Offensive articles list it as a (decisive) Russian victory. Am I missing something ? To me, the article entertains the possibility of Romania joining the Allies, so the above quotes make no sense. (Dante, 01 Dec 2006 13:08:33 GMT)

True but misleading

In the article, the last phrase of "Romanians made up the largest ethnic group in Transylvania, though the territory, located on the western side of the Transylvanian Alps, had been part of the Kingdom of Hungary for much of the last 900 years" was changed to "…had been part of the Kingdom of Hungary since 1867". This is technically correct, in that there was a period before that in which there was no Kingdom of Hungary (it was part of the Austrian Empire before the establishment of the Dual Monarchy, but for all but some brief intervals in that 900 years, Transylvania had been included in whatever understanding of "Hungary" existed at the time. While I acknowledge that the rewritten statement is technically true, the other statement (possibly with "Kingdom of" struck) homes in on something far more important in terms of understanding the historical stakes. - Jmabel | Talk 05:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Transylvania was ruled as part of Hungary from 1000 until the 16th century, after which it became an independent principality. From then onwards, it was under Ottoman, and some Habsburg, suzerainty, after which it was under direct Austrian rule. It was only in 1867 that it became a province under direct Hungarian control (since the 16th century, it had always had special, semi-independent status). In the context of World War I, I think it's important because we should be looking at modern history, from the 1600s onwards, when Transylvania's fate was very uncertain and it was ruled by a multitude of powers, rather than saying that it had historically been ruled mostly by Hungary, which is somewhat inaccurate (technically, Hungary did rule Transylvania for the majority of the time since 1000). Ronline ✉ 06:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, after several changes, this is still problematic: "…Transylvania, which had been controlled by Hungarians in most of the 2nd millennium…" with "Hungarians" linking to Kingdom of Hungary. As Ronline notes above, much of this time Transylvania was independent (dominated by Hungarians, but not by the Kingdom of Hungary), etc. - Jmabel | Talk 06:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Not easily found?

We need more links to this page, it doesn't show up in the searches, and its hard to find otherwise. What's up? I think I'm too much of a newbie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.128.51 (talk • contribs) May 1, 2006.

Which general?

An anonymous, uncited, edit with no summary changed "the recently promoted General Averescu" to "the recently promoted General Prezan". I'd appreciated comment. I'd really appreciate sourcing. - Jmabel | Talk 05:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Add chart with Entente and Romanians losses

Romanian losses

Can we add this chart somewhere in the article? Thanks. Man with one red shoe (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dates

Given that Romania reentered the war in 1918, shouldn't we mention it in the infobox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainFugu (talk • contribs) 20:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

ROMANIA LOST THE WW1

According to English Britannica and German Brockhaus Romania Serbia Russia lost the ww1. Moreover the wikipedia article about the eastern front of ww1 stated the Romanian defeat. The events of 1919 don't belong to the concrete WW1 operations. WW1 was fought between 1914-1918 (look ww1 article!!!). It was an other, newer different war after the ww1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.143.236 (talk • contribs)

Unjustified removal of edits.

Hello, I'm a Romanian, new on the page, that brought some modifications to give more details, about both the combattants and their forces, using reliable sources, both from the Wiki and from outside. Yet, despite me doing true and sourced modifications, there's this guy, Avidius, who keeps reverting the article back how it was. I don't know what's his problem, but I'd really be greatful if he'd stop. Every modification I made was true, benevolent, and sourced! Please, just let me give Romania what is Romania's!

Romanian-and-proud (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Your source is anything but reliable. Regarding army strength numbers, it initially claims, for example, that the Bulgarian army had 300,000 men and was led by general von Delmensingen and a few paragraphs latter that on September 2, 1916 general Mackensen moved swiftly into Dobrudja with an army of 400,000 Bulgarians, Germans and Turks. It is obvious that both of these claims have little to do with historical fact which in turn casts a shadow of serious doubt on the credibility of the source as a whole.--Avidius (talk) 10:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's the same source used on the Greek, Polish and Japanese Wikis, so I didn't just pull it out of my ass. Okay, maybe you're right about that, but what's your beef with the Transylvanians and Bukovinians? Look, I know that this is not important to you, but the day after tomorrow is our National Day, a day that symbolizes the unity of our people, the joint effort by all Romanians to create a unified, single and independent Romanian state. Would it really hurt you to acknowledge them? Yes, they were few in numbers, but they were! And fought just as hard! And the source for them is from the Wiki, from an article that explains both the combatants and the number of casualties that they suffered. I promise I won't change the number of the German-Austro-Hungarian force, but PLEASE, let me put the Transylvanians and Bukovinians back! I BEG you if you want! For the love of God, for the sake of our National Day, just let us all be Romanians! They deserve it!

Military analysis

I modified it because it was severely biased. It was praising the Germans, even though there is nothing to praise. They were going against a Balkan country, that had to defend the longest front in Europe, against ALL of the Central Powers, with poorly trained, equipped and unexperienced army and with almost negligeable help. Like what do you expect? Really! The Germans were 22% of the total force...do you even know what that means? That they were little over 110,000. And, according to this article, their losses until December 1916 were of 60,000 casualties, so over half of their forces! Tell me, what is impressive here? Huh? Besides, the early defensive Romanian victories on the Jiu and Prahova Valleys only show that it was actually the sheer length of the front and numerical and technical superiority of the enemies that actually led to Romania's defeat. Romanian forces performed very well in places of adequate concentration, often managing to repel the enemy. They were just too strained to put up effective resistence, and thus were forced to withdraw. Moreover, the general objective of the Central Powers failed: taking Romania out of the war. The country remained in the war for one more year, tying down 1 million Central Powers forces and inflicting them their worst defeat in the East in 1917 and probably the whole war! The Germans had difficulty beating back Romania in 1916, it's obvious that they didn't stand a chance in front of a properly trained, equipped and experienced Romanian Army. You should praise the Romanians, who took on all of the Central Powers and managed to remain on the map, inflicting heavy losses in the process. Praise their bravery when everything seemed to be lost (Prunaru Charge is a pretty good example), and their never-ending hope. Not the Germans, because this isn't about them, and they didn't even do anything worth praising.

Casualties

Avidius It seems that we're in and editing conflict here. Let me explain myself: those 340,000 are 220,000 killed & missing and 120,000 wounded, only military! The rest up to 335,000 killed are civilians, and so is for the surplus of wounded, and why even listing the captured? The Central Powers casualties are all killed, wounded and missing, all MILITARY, and none captured, ore negligeable amounts of captured! Why "inflating" Romanian casualties by adding extra categories not available for the Central Powers? Please, let it be on the same categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.133.78 (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The figures that i have cited are military only. You can check the source in google.books. Also the Romanian Army lost a lot of soldiers as prisoners and that should be listed.--Avidius (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Avidius What's the matter? I find a new source for the Bulgarian casualties! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.122.171 (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You are manipulating numbers! The source clearly states that 51,000 are the combined casualties for Germany and Bulgaria.--Avidius (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Avidius Really? I must not have been paying attention...Anyways, I was thinking to increase German casualties to 125,000. I know that Marasesti cites between 60,000 and 65,000, and I went with the lower, but think about it: there were German casualties at Oituz and Marasti as well.

You can't make a reliable conclusion about the German casualties because significant Austro-Hungarian forces also took in these battles and their casualties are part of the total.--Avidius (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Avidius Dang...I honestly was expecting more from the Germans! They, not knowing their own casualties?...Part of me thinks they're more like undisclosed than unknown.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.122.171 (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Try checking some German or Ausrian sources, if possible.--Avidius (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

AvidiusI tried the German Wiki, nothing...I really don't like and don't understand why both Germans and Bulgarians place the end of the campaign in January 1917. The Germans probably refuse to accept the fact that we eventually kicked their butts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.122.171 (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Subsequent operations (after January 1917) are probably regarded as part of the Russian front (Eastern Front).--Avidius (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Avidius Pffft, why would anyone see them like that? And why this "regarding" has to exist anyway? Can't just people take a fact for a fact? No, you don't regard it as you want, you regard it as it WAS! That's what history, means! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.122.171 (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact is that after January 1917 the Romanian Army was part of the Russian "Romanian Front".--Avidius (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Lies! The Romanian Army was agreed to not be subordinated to Russian command! And besides...it was the Russians who were subjected to Romanian command during the 3 great battles! People just cobble us with Russia because they're lazy, they consider us, our army, our great victories!...As unnecessary detail...Can you believe it? And then, in their ignorance, they wonder how we got so big after the war! 1 word: MĂ-RĂ-ȘEȘTI!

Reception of Romanian troops in Transylvania

Szajci added on September 11, 2015, the following dubious statement "(only popas and nationalist people)" after "In Romanian populated areas, the Romanian troops were warmly welcomed by the population". First of all, what does "popas" mean, "Romanian Orthodox priests"? Second of all, the source is a Hungarian POV source, are there any other sources concerning how the Romanian army was received by the local Romanian population in Transylvania? Mentatus (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Yes, there are: Romanian publications such as Gazeta de Transilvania from the time mentioned Romanian families running away from the Romanian army to escape their fury and thieving. This entire article is hugely biased in favor of ethnic Romanians, and it is highly nationalistic in tone.

Propagandist, nationalistic tone

A few of the statements in this article are obviously nationalistic, chauvinist, and they need to be sourced. Is there a neutral observer in charge of this page...?

Statements such as "The Romanian soldiers were supported everywhere by the civil population; during the Battle of Târgu Jiu, the town was defended by its inhabitants, men, women and children, young and old" sound like they came out of a Romanian middle school history textbook and they smack of nationalist sentiment.

"There, a conspicuous figure was cut by Ecaterina Teodoroiu, who was to enter the consciousness of all Romanians as the "Heroine of the Jiu". What does "to enter the consciousness of all Romanians" mean? Aside from the phrase sounding awkward in the first place, this obviously needs rephrasing. It smacks of nationalistic rhetoric.

"The operation for the defense of the Carpathians holds a prominent place in Romanian military history not only because it was one of the most difficult operations waged by the Romanian army until then, but also because it was one of the most important as regards the complexity of the actions carried on and the highly valuable lessons... " Who deems whether an operation holds a prominent place, whether it is important, and for whom? There is not objectivity here. As for learning lessons, this again sounds like military training talk, but I feel it comes out of the same middle school textbook again. Where are this guy's sources? And why is an article allowed to exists on solely one-sided sources? This needs re-sourcing to hedge the obvious pro-Romanian, uber-nationalistic ethos of the piece.

"The three great battles, decisive for the Romanian nation's destiny, delivered at Mărăști, Mărășești and Oituz, represented a turning point in the war on the Eastern front." This sentence uses a highly propagandist tone, and multiple citations needed. Moreover, it has been extensively argued these battles changed little in the destiny of any nation. This has been, however, highly utilized by the later jingoistic Romanian state. That much is definitely true, and the source of this sentence should be attributed.

"There, despite their precarious situation, they managed to reform, retrain and resupply their Army, which resulted in them winning the greatest victories for the Allies on the European Front in 1917." Why capitalize "army" in a neutral article? Where does this come from? It smacks of nationalist propaganda of the 'poor but heroic' type.

And on and on it goes... The entire article is written with a strong, even preposterous pro-Romanian nationalistic bias and it is a shame for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tionfiul (talk • contribs) 16:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed.

"The three great battles, decisive for the Romanian nation's destiny, delivered at Mărăști, Mărășești and Oituz, represented a turning point in the war on the Eastern front." So the Romanians won the battles "decisive for the Romanian nation's destiny", yet they had to accept the German armistice and allow Germany to control its oil fields and requisition their food (in other words, Romania surrendered). This page sounds a lot like the old joke "We went from victory to victory until the final defeat!" Everywhere (except for a brief comment about Romanian's army lack of materiel and training) the Romanian Army is perfect and the failures are always "someone else (not Romanian)'s fault". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.39.140.199 (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Romania was part of Balkans Front and not of the Eastern Front

Geography places Romania within the Balkans states .Romanian Campaigns of 1916, 1917 and of 1918-1919 are therefore Balkans Campaigns at most. 2003:CF:BF2F:6424:39F8:D667:9DCE:A9E0 (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Razu2003:CF:BF2F:6424:39F8:D667:9DCE:A9E0 (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Razu

Requested move 14 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved - Consensus to move supported in WP:CRITERIA. Minor comment that possibly not every country that we have an article about "during" WW1 needs to be changed to "in" since some were neutral, and hence arguably not "in" the war, so I advise caution about opening similar discussion for other "COUNTRYNAME during WW1" articles. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC) FOARP (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Romania during World War I → Romania in World War I – Per Talk:Romania in World War II#Requested move 2 May 2021. We need consistency between this article and Romania in World War II and the use of "in" was agreed to be preferred over "during" for countries that participated in the war in the discussion I linked. Super Ψ Dro 09:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:CONCISE amd WP:CONSISTENT, though there may be some additional ones that need during → in moves.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Romanian Front - January 1917.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 1916 - Austria - Luptele din Dobrogea 19 octombire-11 noiembrie 1916.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Latest edit

Just made this section to finish what I wanted to say with my latest edit. Besides removing the lead section of an article section, the contents of which are already detailed at the end of the section, the last source cited [1] also doesn't say that "in the month of December 1916, around 300.000 Romanian soldiers were killed in action". Also removed the section "Battles in Transylvania" as some of the battles listed in that section did not take place in Transylvania, and renamed "Battles on Wallachian territory" to "Battles on the Wallachian Plain". Alin2808 (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2022 (UTC)