raharris1973
Well-known member
Romania in WWI was an Entente combatant. It gained alot from the war, but it's combat career was short and inglorious, consisting of its initially successful offensive in fall 1916 that was thrown backand countered with the CP counter-invasion and occupation of Wallachia, Bucharest, and Dobruja, forced surrender after Brest-Litovsk, and then a last-minute revival after Bulgaria's collapse in the final weeks of the war.
Obviously the most disadvantageous situation for the CP was when Romania was an active, hostile belligerent. But for longer stretches of the Great War it was a neutral trading partner and then a CP occupied territory. In comparing the periods of Romanian neutrality versus Romanian occupation, which of the two periods were more advantageous for the Central Powers in terms of trade and military efficiency?
The CPs had momentary panicked thoughts when the Romanians joined the war (even though, on the Entente side, the Russians weren't thrilled either) and Romania's entry was treated publicly like a setback and used to justify the dismissal of Falkenhayn. So should we assume the CPs would have been better off if the Romanians just stayed neutral for the rest of the war? Or, considering the Romanians were defeated, occupied, and exploited quickly, was Romanian entry into the war a net benefit to the CP, turning their frown upside down?
Obviously the most disadvantageous situation for the CP was when Romania was an active, hostile belligerent. But for longer stretches of the Great War it was a neutral trading partner and then a CP occupied territory. In comparing the periods of Romanian neutrality versus Romanian occupation, which of the two periods were more advantageous for the Central Powers in terms of trade and military efficiency?
The CPs had momentary panicked thoughts when the Romanians joined the war (even though, on the Entente side, the Russians weren't thrilled either) and Romania's entry was treated publicly like a setback and used to justify the dismissal of Falkenhayn. So should we assume the CPs would have been better off if the Romanians just stayed neutral for the rest of the war? Or, considering the Romanians were defeated, occupied, and exploited quickly, was Romanian entry into the war a net benefit to the CP, turning their frown upside down?