A question on Romania in WWI

[raharris1973]

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?

 

[ATP]

i read stories from WW1 - romanians in 1916 tried surrender to russians thinking,that they are germans.Russians showed them where germans are to slow them with prisoners.
I think,that quick victory was not better then neutrality.True disaster for CP would be Romanians fighting for them,especially if Bulgary supported Allies then.
In that case - Bulgary would take their part of Romania and part of Turkey.Turks get hammered after WW1/Greek army almost done so alone,with bulgarian they win/
Smaller Turkey,greek state in Anatollia.

During WW2 - Turkey support germany,lost with them,soviets take most of country.

 

[Buba]

I do not know the details of how thoroughly the CP looted Romania, but I assume that the costs of invading Romania, occupying it and a longer Ostfront were higher than simply trading with it.
Just my gut feeling

 

[stevep]

I do not know the details of how thoroughly the CP looted Romania, but I assume that the costs of invading Romania, occupying it and a longer Ostfront were higher than simply trading with it.
Just my gut feeling

I know they got a lot of loot, especially food and oil - although by some sources Britain was able to block the use of the Danube for the latter. Whether it was worth the cost of the invasion as oposed to Romania staying neutral I don't know. The other plus for the CPs was that after Romania fell it greatly extended the front the already faltering Russians had to defend and opened up shorter routes to parts of Ukraine.

 

[raharris1973]

although by some sources Britain was able to block the use of the Danube for the latter [oil]

How was Britain able to do that for Romanian oil bound towards Austria-Hungary and Germany? It would be going upriver, not downriver, so not subject to naval interdiction even by RN task forces penetrating the Black Sea. The only other interdiction approach for Britain would have been aerial bombing or SOE-style sabotage (& mining), but I don't think any of those technologies, tactics or institutions had the sophistication or range in WWI that they had in WWII.

 

[Buba]

SOE-style sabotage (& mining)

I believe you maybe be on the right track with this line of thinking.
IIRC the British Military Attache helped - before the CP arrived - with demolitions of infrastructure related with oil making and/or oil moving. The story could had got warped at some point or other.
But as this is something I half remember reading - caveat emptor!

 

[WolfBear]

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?

The CPs would have been better off had Romania remained neutral for the very simple reason that this would have meant that Falkenhayn would have remained in charge of the German military, USW would NOT have been resumed in early 1917, and thus the Entente would have had severe difficulties with their war effort by late 1917 due to them being incapable of securing unsecured loans from the US. IMHO, such a deep analysis more than outweighs any military benefits or drawbacks that Romania's continued neutrality would have had for the CPs.