World´s bloodiest battle ever?

[Karl Heidenreich]

RF:

The 510 K is the overall figure of those killed during the Badget Mouth Campaign. During the battle for the mouth itself Genghis killed some 250,000 in one day! Now, of course the Japanese did such a masacre but in the course of several years. I think Nangking took several months if I'm not mistaken.

[RF]

Six weeks.

[alecsandros]

There is a significance in analysing the Axis casualties because of the political as well as military fallout from the Stalingrad battle. The losses suffered by the Romanians - more than half their army - started the moves that led to Antonescu being removed from power and Romania changing sides, similary the Italian losses overall undermined Mussolini's position.

I don't think that's accurate.
Romania changed sides 2 years later, on the fear of Soviet invasion. The change of side was purely political and not supported by the people.
THe 1946 ellections were massively frauded by the COmunists, which won them for a staggering 99% of the votes.

[RF]

Romania changed sides in August 1944 when it was invaded.

The process, based on the fears of invasion you mention, started December 1942 onwards as the huge losses incurred then were irreplaceable and showed that in supporting Hitler they may not be on the winning side. Romania wanted out from Stalingrad onwards, as did the Finns, Hungarians and some Italians, but the presence of German forces, particulary in the oilfields, prevented any action until the Soviets were on their border.

[neil hilton]

510K killed, 250K in one day
Are those figures realistic. all I can find is the Wikipedia article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Badger_Mouth

It says the Jin had 400K to 500K at the battle itself and it says all were lost but no figures. Surely the mongols took plenty of slaves from the POWs?
Even so that is an horredous casualty rate to inflict with muscle powered weapons. I'm not sure those numbers could actually be killed in a single days battle, with swords and bows!

[Karl Heidenreich]

Before the Badger Mouth's Campaign the Mongols already took several cities and herded tens of thousands of slaves. As a tactic against superior numbers at Badger Mouth they put some 30 K of slaves in front of them so they will serve as human shields against the shots from enemy's bows. The Mongols were not able to take care of more slaves and it was dangerous for them, also. So they killed those they were not going to use. Remember that the Mongols were not city buiders.

[alecsandros]

Romania changed sides in August 1944 when it was invaded.

The process, based on the fears of invasion you mention, started December 1942 onwards as the huge losses incurred then were irreplaceable and showed that in supporting Hitler they may not be on the winning side. Romania wanted out from Stalingrad onwards, as did the Finns, Hungarians and some Italians, but the presence of German forces, particulary in the oilfields, prevented any action until the Soviets were on their border.

I am amused, somewhat, of your confidence regarding events which you don't realy know.
There was no direct link between Stalingrad and the abdication of the King Mihai on the 23rd Aug 1944.

The political turmoil was something normal and evident 1938-1947 in Romania. It did not start in 1942 at all. The 2 main political parties, lead by Bratianu and Maniu, were constantly fighting each other AND, after Antonescu seized power, constantly attacked and defaimed him. The main reason was the drastic budget restructurings under Antonescu, which let the 2 parties under-funded. Worst still, their political clientele was cut out of the payrolls.

Romania did not want out of Stalingrad. There is a thick correspondence between Antonescu and several political leaders, amongst which Maniu and Bratianu, which clearly indicates a military will to stand and fight at Stalingrad. This military will lasted until June-July 1944, when the last victories against the russians were obtained, in battles such as Targu Frumos.

The general public's orientation was democratic-liberal, with a growing support for right-wing liberals and tacit, implicit and complicit acceptancy of a dictatorial state. Reading the press and novels of the time, and listening to filmings of great men of the time, one can't help but think "it wasn't bad at all... at least not for the general public"

The communist movement was extremely poorly developed, even in 1944, with ~ 15-20.000 members NATIONWIDE.

The idea that the Romanian's, as a nation or as a military power, wanted out of the battle after 1942 is false and was mainly spread by soviet post-war propaganda, which wanted to depict a communist-filled country, which didn't surrender, but actualy followed it's people's desires and ideatic aspirations.
This is extremely false, but is still rooted in the western-europeans psyche, as your post suggests.
Romanian youth was right-oriented, or even extreme-right.
Partisan fightings lasted from 1944 to 1954, groups of up to 500 armed Romanians resisting the militia and military.

Communism was only inserted here by force, by torture and fear.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Alex:

Communism was only inserted here by force, by torture and fear.

There and everywhere else. No one will embrace comunism on his free will or because it's "better". Many people have never questioned why so many countries bordering comunist Russia decided to side with Hitler, despite basically they considered the austrian corporal bad suited or a compromised ally. It was because it was better to have the nazis than the commies, and if so, make your math.

[RF]

I am amused, somewhat, of your confidence regarding events which you don't realy know.

Don't be cheeky, it isn't clever.

Romania lost over half its army defending the flanks at Stalingrad for Hitler, losses that would be irreplaceable. Whatever the domestic political infighting it is clear that the Romanian government was aware of the exposed position that country was left in as events developed in 1943. That was why the Romanians secretly encouraged the Italian Foreign Minister Ciano to propose to Hitler that Germany negotiated a unilateral peace deal with Stalin, so that the Romanians, amongst other issues, would retain Bessarabia. Hitler of course and predictably refused point blank. It is clear from the diplomatic exchanges that the Romanians, along with the Italians, realised that the Axis could not ftght the USSR as well as in the West and win. Romania was left trapped in the receding tide, as the Russian Front came ever closer to their borders.....and the Americans bombed the oilfields.

I never suggested that communism had any significant support in Romania either before or during WW2. It was as you say imposed by force of Soviet occupation, as it was in all the other Balkan countries save Yugoslavia and Greece. No, the Romanian leadership was trying to look after its own interests and after Stalingrad wanted to get out of the fighting by returning to neutrality. Only when the Soviets invaded were they obliged to declare war on Germany - which didn't save them.

[alecsandros]

Romania lost over half its army defending the flanks at Stalingrad for Hitler, losses that would be irreplaceable.

That's a historical fact. I was pointing out that Antonescu had a popular support in fighting against the bolsheviks, as most of the population was strongly opposing communist views.
The blow at Stalingrad was extremely hard, and came mostly because of the incompetence of the ARmy's high command and the lack of funds 1933-1942.

Nevertheless, the fighing spirit survived, both in the steppes and at home, as the memory of bolshevik Bassarabian massacres was very fresh.

That was why the Romanians secretly encouraged the Italian Foreign Minister Ciano to propose to Hitler that Germany negotiated a unilateral peace deal with Stalin, so that the Romanians, amongst other issues, would retain Bessarabia. Hitler of course and predictably refused point blank.

As a matter of fact, a meeting between Ribbentrop and Molotov actualy took place in June 1943. They negotiated piece in the East. They did not came to terms regarding borders, and the matter was left to be decided on the battlefield (Kursk).
The details of the meeting are sketchy - I have a brief 1 page presentaion on Lidell Hart's 1971 "The History of the Second World War". I've talked to Byron about this, and he also has complementary sources... It's a most interesting event, of which I'll look more details.

It is clear from the diplomatic exchanges that the Romanians, along with the Italians, realised that the Axis could not ftght the USSR as well as in the West and win.

Maybe after Kursk.

No, the Romanian leadership was trying to look after its own interests and after Stalingrad wanted to get out of the fighting by returning to neutrality.

There was NO Romanian leadership. Only political in-fighting between at least 4 powerfull groups (Liberals, Legionaries, Taranists, Antonescu's regime).
The far-right leadership, represented by the Legionaries and Antonescu's supporters were in favor of mantaining an alliance with Germany, no matter the cost. The others, indeed, constantly blattered and trashed around, flamed and accused the far-right political powers...

[RF]

Not being overfamiliar with the two battles at Targu Frumos I have looked them up for more info.

These indeed were Axis victories, but apparently achieved by the Germans with only a supporting infantry role by the Romanians; there has been critiscism of the German account for downplaying/ignoring the Romanian involvement. Overall it was a small scale action, insufficient to attract the Fuhrer's gaze and the inevitable order ''no retreat'' - the lack of Fuhrer interference and the use of a mobile armoured defence enabled the Germans to secure victory. And also because it was a small scale action, it did nothing to alter the overall strategic position Romania faced, with the Soviet armies now on its borders.

In a way it does remind me of another war which ended with a degree of irony - the American Civil War, where the last battle ended in Confederate victory.....

[Bgile]

In a way it does remind me of another war which ended with a degree of irony - the American Civil War, where the last battle ended in Confederate victory.....

What battle are you referring to? I just finished reading Gen Chamberlin's account of the last few weeks including the pursuit of Lee to Appomattox. I don't think anyone there thought the Confederates won the last battle.

[RF]

The Battle of Palmetto Ranch, near Brownsville, Texas on 13th May 1865.

There were also the operations of the Confederate maritime privateer commerce raider Shenandoah in the North Pacific Ocean during the summer of 1865, effectively the last shots of a war that ended about three months before her crew had proof of Confederate capitulation and honourably surrendered.

[Bgile]

The Battle of Palmetto Ranch, near Brownsville, Texas on 13th May 1865.

There were also the operations of the Confederate maritime privateer commerce raider Shenandoah in the North Pacific Ocean during the summer of 1865, effectively the last shots of a war that ended about three months before her crew had proof of Confederate capitulation and honourably surrendered.

OK, you are correct! It's name gives one an idea of it's importance, and it's size compares to a minor skirmish during any of the campaigns East of the Mississippi, so maybe I can be excused for overlooking it. I'm sure if you were there, it would have been very significant as are pretty much all battles of whatever size.

[RF]

This was my point over the Targu Frumos battles, they were victories within the definition of that word, but on too small a scale to have any influence on the run of events. In that way, the point I was making to alecsandros, Targu Frumos hardly compensated the Romanians for their losses at Stalingrad.