Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


View Poll Results: Who's side are you on?
The Central Powers 138 29.18%
The Triple Entente 186 39.32%
Neither one of them 149 31.50%
Voters: 473. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 12th, 2012, 10:57 AM   #341

Perix's Avatar
Golan&Imbarligator
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Romania
Posts: 9,811

Quote:
Originally Posted by Opinion View Post
The manipulation and fanatisation of the illiterate balkan masses was easy for the Orthodox Church.
I guess orthodox priests could't hear hungarians prayers, if they pray in reformat churches. Not success guarantee, but praying in orthodox church is a step forward
Perix is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 12th, 2012, 11:23 AM   #342

Perix's Avatar
Golan&Imbarligator
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Romania
Posts: 9,811

Quote:
Originally Posted by Opinion View Post
Germans had more role in the occupation of Kingdom of Romania rather than the defence of Transylvania in 1916.
all the romanians memmories were full of germans, and almost no hungarians
Perix is offline  
Old July 12th, 2012, 11:34 AM   #343

Perix's Avatar
Golan&Imbarligator
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Romania
Posts: 9,811

Quote:
Originally Posted by mofli87 View Post
you're right but it had nothing to do with Romania...it was 99% great power's interest...Remaining neutral till 1918, Romania could have got the same borders.
i doubt! probably not all transylvania would been romanian, but most of it
Perix is offline  
Old July 12th, 2012, 12:12 PM   #344

Perix's Avatar
Golan&Imbarligator
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Romania
Posts: 9,811

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ficino View Post
It is a well-known fact that some Romanian footballers are of Gypsy ancestry
there is no gypsy ancestry in that photo, but four of the fooballer, if they'd be not shorted haired, they'd be blonds, so, is four to three
Perix is offline  
Old July 12th, 2012, 12:13 PM   #345

Perix's Avatar
Golan&Imbarligator
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Romania
Posts: 9,811

Quote:
Originally Posted by Opinion View Post
And romanians haven't (average) high stature.
not because the hungarians would be giants...
Perix is offline  
Old July 12th, 2012, 12:23 PM   #346

Perix's Avatar
Golan&Imbarligator
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Romania
Posts: 9,811

Quote:
Originally Posted by sturm View Post
"Balkanoid look"

How do you guys even come up with such statements
the national sport in hungary is to wash clothes in public. romanian clothes
Perix is offline  
Old July 12th, 2012, 05:24 PM   #347

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 6,101

Quote:
Originally Posted by Opinion View Post
Without USA , the allies were weak. It was well known for the Germans after the war! Therefore they have never admired GB FR ITA as real victors. Germans saw GB FR ITA as crying children who want that the enormous Uncle-SAM save them.

Without USA ,the entente hadn't enough factory capacity technology (mass production with production lines) and war-materials to win the war against the Germans. German industry & factories had at least 10 years advance in technology organizational advance etc. over UK. and Germany had at least 15 years advance over France.
I don't deny that America made the final "push" that convinced Germany to surrender, BUT France and Britain won the war in 1914 with the victories on the Marne and in preventing the Germans from winning the race to the sea. Once that was done, the war of stalemate in the West was achieved and Germany had to endure under the British naval blockade. And at first, the German manufacturing advantages were apparent. Lloyd George, not yet UK's PM complained heavily on the antiquated nature of Britain's manufacturing system, but by 1918, the improved system Lloyd George wanted was largely in place...

So, by the end of Ludendorf's Spring Offensive, the British replaced all of the Guns they lost in the offensive. And not all of the replacement guns were manufactured in the USA.

And one has to remember that the French and British fought hard against the Germans, as did the Russians, though to my knowledge most of Russia's successes in WWI were against Austria. Despite sufferring horrendous losses and gaining little ground, the British did achieve some of their stated goals in the Battle of the Somme in 1916. They tested the use of tanks for the first time, and proved that the tank would be the battlefield weapon of the future. And above all, they drew German attention away from Verdun, allowing Phillipe Petain and Robert Nevielle to win that battle by holding onto the city, although again at heavy loss of French lives...

Shoot, even the 1917 French Nevielle Offensive could be considered an Allied victory. The problem was that it had been sold as the bringer of the all deciding blow that would win the war in one fell swoop... and what they got was gaining only a mile or so at most and paying for it dearly. It was a pyrrhic victory, which the French didn't want and weren't hoping for.

And under all of this, the Germans were starving at home. The German Navy was never able to defeat the Royal Navy. While they sank more ships at Jutland, many German ships were heavily damaged. It took the German economy months to repair the ships damaged in the battle. Britain's fleet was repaired, ressupplied, and re-coaled in a matter of weeks. This kept the seige of Germany going, and made their situation even more desperate, particularly as it become more and more likely that America might enter the war. They needed to get Russia out and get a superiority in forces in the West before America could enter.

Ultimately, Germany's dealing with Russia was to send Lenin to unleash the Bolshivik Revolution, which would unleash its own nightmare that is a seperate matter altogether. But by this time, America had joined the war and the British blockade continued. In addition, strong German forces had to be left in the East to get the Ukranians to grow wheat and make bread for the German army.

And it is into this picture, that the US Army begins to enter, with the German Spring Offensive. Ludendorf wanted to use it to destroy the British before America could enter, figuring that once Britain surrendered, France would collapse, and America would have to evacuate because the front lines weren't in Germany. And while the German push was rapid, and gained a lot of ground, it ultimately failed. It lacked the staying power, it lacked the resources, and ultimately it lacked the overall numbers to win. Before the Spring Offensive began, Foch had established strong reserve armies, mostly French units as well as the bulk of the American units (in training areas).

As the Spring Offensive began to approach a point of Crisis, Foch committed his French reserves to support the British lines. This ground the offensive to a halt, short of what was the principle supply line in the region. Ludendorf tried the tactic again further north, again aimed at the British and Belgians, but again, total British strength, with French reserves blunted the bulk of the German thrust. Ludendorf needed to draw Foch's reserves away from the British...

His solution, make a feint in the general direction of the area around Paris. Ludendorf figured that Foch would be obliged to defend his capital, and would withdraw his reserves to protect Paris. However, Foch saw through this, and French reserves were never committed. His reasoning? Germany didn't hold the key cities it would need to make a real drive on Paris, and the bulk of the German offensive south actually MISSED both cities. The result was that while the Germans advanced, they did little to truly threaten any thing. Foch never moved his French reserves, forcing Ludendorf to continue the southern attack...

To make matters worse for Germany, was that the forces attacking were generally troops Germany used to defend trenches. The troops Germany used to take opposing trenches, the Stormtroopers, were further north, waiting for France's reserves to leave the British sector. This meant that the Germans attacking toward the Marne river were of second rate (by German standards), and without the two main supply cities, Compiegne and Reims, it would be doomed to run out of steam.

The only reserves Foch sent to confront the German thrust, Operation Blucher, was the relatively small American force, including US Marines and the 2nd Infantry Division. And this is where America's real fighting began on June 5, 1918. The AEF would counter attack the Germans at Belleau Wood around Lucy-Le-Boscage running to the Marne river. And in the course of five days, the counter attack stopped the German offensive and gained back a little over a mile of ground.

However, it is not without myths. The great myth is that a lone US Marine Corps Brigade stopped the entire German advance, which is not true. The US 2nd Division and French units were also invovled. The second myth was that the Marine Corps got its "Devil Dog" knickname from the engagement, which linguistic experts believe to be false. The myth was that the Germans called the Marines "Teufel Hunden" for "Devil Dogs". Marine Corps historians have since pointed out that it is unlikely that the Germans gave the Corps the knickname as the grammatically correct German word for Devil Dogs is Teufelshunde.

The bravery of the Marines was real, but they were not alone in the victory, and based off of the advance, and Ludendorf's own objectives, Paris was never in any danger (despite how close the lines were). Without the supply lines, the German offensive ran out of gas and they were forced to fall back onto defensive warfare, which had served Germany fairly well...

But by this time, the seige of Germany, conducted by the Royal Navy was taking full effect. The German people were starving. They were tearing up their own sewers to get the metals needed to make bullets. They were beginning to draft old men and boys to serve. They could not go on for long... and Foch saw to it to provide the pressure, with the 100 Days Offensive. The offensive would drive the German army back and would see to the diposal of the Kaiser and the German request of an Armistice on November 11. Much of the gains made in the 100 Days involved American action, but again no true decisive blow was attained. The German army was forced to pull back because of a lack of supplies, not because of American victories...

And in reality, as American units first entered the lines, German officers had nothing but for contempt for the Americans. Raids on American positions to get prisoners often proved that the Americans, while eager, had little training, little equipment, and no knowledge of where they even were. This did not create a good image, and was only reversed by the 100 Days offensive, which came later when the Americans had more training and had gotten over the initial "just declared war" excitement.

And to a great extent, the French and British did understand America's contribution to the war effort. Jeff Shaara, who's done a lot of research for his novels (going through historical papers, diaries, and reports) includes a quote in "To the Last Man" from a French officer praising American help in WWI.

However, I would also be warey of relying on many stated German opinions on the actions of the British and the French. One of the chief propogators of the "we didn't lose to the British and French" myth in Germany was Erich Ludendorf, the General who's offensive failed to take the principle objective: Amiens and destroy the BEF. And it found an eager audience among many ultranationalist groups in Germany, including Adolf Hitler and the Nazis.

Read "The US Marines' Mythic Fight at Belleau Wood" in Military History magazine Volume: 28 Number: 6, pages 40-49 for some insight into what I'm trying to get at with all of this.
Sam-Nary is offline  
Old July 12th, 2012, 09:42 PM   #348
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 275

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perix View Post
there is no gypsy ancestry in that photo, but four of the fooballer, if they'd be not shorted haired, they'd be blonds, so, is four to three
Blond word have different meanings in a northern European country and in a balkan country, becuase there are diferent standards for blonde hair color in these countries. (Romania is not located on the Balkan peninsula, but due to its culture history society anthropology, it is part of the Balkan )

Last edited by Opinion; July 12th, 2012 at 11:22 PM.
Opinion is offline  
Old July 12th, 2012, 10:02 PM   #349
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 275

It is enough to travel to modern Wallachian and Transylvanian cities, and it is obvious the majority of romanians belong to the so called east mediterranean and east-alpid type. Around 90% of the Romanian people have brown eyes and around 80% have black hair.

Look the facial types & structures in this video:


Last edited by Opinion; July 12th, 2012 at 10:38 PM.
Opinion is offline  
Old July 12th, 2012, 10:56 PM   #350
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 275

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perix View Post
the national sport in hungary is to wash clothes in public. romanian clothes
No, it is american urban sport. Have you ever been in some big cities/metropolises of the United States?

Don't forget that majority of people of romania hadn't even washing machines in the Ceaușescu era.

There weren't western products in the shops of romania in 1980s. The first plazas were built in Romania only in the 2000s!

Only 50% of the people have bath rooms in present-day romania. (for a comparison, it is legally not allowed to build a new house/flat without bath room in Hungary since 1938. )

The automatic telephone exchanges were very rare in Romania in 1980s! 90% of the villages hadn't Water pipe systems in 1990s!

These were very strange and shocking things for a Hungarian tourist in contemporary Romania ( Wallachia and Transylvania)


Romania is not worse and not better by the means of development of infrastructure than other balkan countries.

Last edited by Opinion; July 12th, 2012 at 11:18 PM.
Opinion is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
war



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A great history, a great advance, a great book! TasteOfTorment Art and Cultural History 7 January 29th, 2011 08:48 PM
The human side of war diddyriddick War and Military History 4 March 29th, 2010 08:37 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.