Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Romania vs. Hungary, 1940

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by revans View Post
    With that scenario, do you think that Romania would move against Hungary with the Russians right on their doorstep demanding territorial concessions and threatening the oil fields? I really do see them asking Hitler to keep Hungary in line, so they could concentrate on what the Russians were doing.
    The Russians were no longer demanding concessions, they got those before August 1940. The revisionist country was Hungary, so it would be the one to move.

    There were Romanian-Hungarian negotiations on August 16 but the differences were profound and the talks broke without result a week later. Tensions were rising. USSR was favourable to Hungarian demands and Soviet troop movements were reported on August 25 and 26, opposite the Romanian border.

    Hitler was worried that USSR would intervene if war broke out. And besides the 10 divisions he moved mentioned earlier, he was apparently preparing blitz units (land and airborne) around Vienna.

    What a conundrum it would have been.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by The Purist View Post
      Romania, whilst miffed over the lose of Transylvannia, Lower Bukovina and Bessarabia, was not going to go to war with Hungary thus alienating Germany. After the defeat of their Polish ally, Rumania's sole support against further aggression by the USSR was Germany, there would be no war.
      Transylvania was not yet lost, the "what if" is about war over it.
      The idea about German support and concessions for it is certainly true, but there were political forces that advocated no concessions and fight for Transylvania. The "what if" is about those forces getting their point and war breaking out.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Imperial
        ...The "what if" is about those forces getting their point and war breaking out.
        Yes, I figured the war would be over Transylvannia and my argument is still the same. If the Rumania persisted in opposing the transfer of territory to the point of armed resistance the "war" would have lasted until the Germans declared it over. It would have only taken a transfer of a handful of divisions from France to decide the issue,...and the choices for Rumania are brutally stark. Accept the loss of Transylvannia, etc. or risk being submerged by the USSR,...there is not really any debate here.
        Last edited by The Purist; 13 Jun 07, 14:11.
        The Purist

        Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by The Purist View Post
          Yes, I figured the war would be over Transylvannia and my argument is still the same. If the Rumania persisted in opposing the transfer of territory to the point of armed resistance the "war" would have lasted until the Germans declared it over. It would have only taken a transfer of a handful of divisions from France to decide the issue,...and the choices for Rumania are brutally stark. Accept the lose of Transylvannia, etc. or risk being submerged by the USSR,...there is not really any debate here.
          Partypooper! It's hard to argue a What If.
          Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by The Purist View Post
            Yes, I figured the war would be over Transylvannia and my argument is still the same. If the Rumania persisted in opposing the transfer of territory to the point of armed resistance the "war" would have lasted until the Germans declared it over. It would have only taken a transfer of a handful of divisions from France to decide the issue,...and the choices for Rumania are brutally stark. Accept the loss of Transylvannia, etc. or risk being submerged by the USSR,...there is not really any debate here.
            You probably mean "risk being submerged by Germany"? Or are you saying Germany and USSR would have partitioned Romania?

            Even like that it would have put the Soviets closer to the oil fields and would have knocked out Romania as an ally in Barbarossa. The Soviets would probably have secured a better line of defense along the Carpathians and the Danube bend at Galati. Army Group South would probably have to be made up of more German units, given the lack of Romanian divisions and the new Soviet defense line.

            Also the oil fields could have been sabotaged by us or by British agents.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
              Hmm...the war in the east starts by accident in the autum of 1940. I see the need to set a larger game map on the table!
              Wouldn't that be a tragedy for the Russians, though?

              Germany invades Russia, while many Russian armies are in Rumania. German armies circle south to the black sea, cut them off, and millions are forced to surrender.

              Add that to what Germany was able to achieve historically, and the Russians would face some serious problems.

              Comment

              Latest Topics

              Collapse

              Working...
              X