Gundula Gahlen
Experiences of German Combatants in Romania in the First World War
For the Germans,Romania was the military deployment in the Balkans in which the most troops
were used and the most sustainable successes were achieved. The Romanian campaign of 1916
led to the conquest of 2/3 of Romanian national territory. Afterwards, it turned into static
warfare at Sereth, which still went on throughout the year of 1917. The German-Austrian
military administration in occupied Romania exploited the petroleum and crops supplies of the
country. It was notable reason for the economic capability of the German Empire up to 1918,
despite the English blockade.
The explanations that follow serve the purpose of outlining some theses about the war
experiences of German soldiers in Romania. Forthat matter I understand experiences in the
sense of sociology of knowledge, i.e. not as a specific expression of immediate-individual
experience but rather as a coping process. Experience in this sense is first constructed on the
basis of a socially conveyed state of knowledge and in the framework of a socially prestructured
horizon of experience, which is subject to change. As sources I use German soldiers’ diaries,
letters and memoirs. Moreover, I investigate the stories of divisions and regiments as well as
newspapers and the themes of postcards from the front, all of which were also connected to the
soldiers’ interpretations.
I will divide my talk into two parts: In the first part, I want to take a look at the form of German
deployment against Romania in World War I. In the second part, I want to sketchwhich
perception and interpretation patternscan be identified in the German soldiers both in terms of
fighting and with respect to the area of Romania and the people living there. It will conclude by
taking a look at the self-image of German soldiers in Romania.
I
In 1916 previously neutral Romania was convincedto join the war by the Entente’s generous
promises of the expansion of its dominion at the expense of Austria-Hungary. OnAugust 27th,
1916, Romaniadeclared waron Austria-Hungary. The Romanian Army crossed the Carpathian
Mountains without finding any noteworthy resistance and invadedTransylvania. There, in the
following weeks, the 9thArmy was formed from the German and Austria-Hungarian formations
under the order of the infantry general Erich von Falkenhayn.In Bulgaria, the German, Bulgarian
and Turkish troops at the Danube and the Dobrujan border concentratedunder the supreme
command of Field Marshal August von Mackensendirectly after Romania‘s entry into the
war.Mackensen moved with the Danube army into Dobruja and there brought the Romanian-
1
Russian formations to the brink of destruction. In Transylvania, Falkenhayn successively
shattered the Romanian formations standing in the area of Sibiu and Brașovwith his 9 th Army.
He crossed the Carpathians and began the march forward into Bucharest. At the same time
Mackensen also advanced with the Danube Army in the direction of Bucharest.After
consolidating their troops the Romanian formations were decisively beaten back in the battle at
Arges at the beginning of December. Hereby, the Romanian capital could be taken on December
6th, 1916 with almost no struggle.
In mid-January 1917, two thirds of Romanian national territory, up to the line of Sereth, was
occupied by troops of the Central Powers. Afterwards, at this line and in the Eastern Carpathian
Mountains, the battles switched over to static warfare. The peace treaty of Bucharest,which was
signed with Romania on May 7th, 1918, still left the country under the military administration of
the Central Powers. Romania contrived to delay the ratification of the peace treaty and maintain
part of its army. This led to fighting retreats with Romanian formations at the end of the war in
1918. As compensation for its participation in the war, Romania received, among others,
Transylvania, parts of Banat, Bukovina and Bessarabia and was consequently able to more than
double its territory.
II
Now I come to the second part, to the evaluation of the battles in Romania, to the perception of
land and population and the self-image of the German soldiers:
In German wartime memoirs, the Romanian campaign belongs to the so called “fine” campaigns.
This view was summarized by a chief of staff officer of the 12th Bavarian infantry-division, who is
quoted in the division chaplain Jakob Weis’s memoir with the following words: “Everyone who
had been on duty in Romaniawas lucky.” The rash military successes and the fact, that mobile
warfare was waged made this campaign seem particularly successful.
Next to the unarguable operative achievements of the military leadership, however, this
appraisal contrasts with the extraordinary trials and atrocities of this theater of war. During the
Romanian campaign, the advancing winter, which brought snow, sleet and icy cold with it, wore
the soldiers out. In addition to this they suffered from physical burdens caused by the long
marches, bad accommodation and the daylong logistical shortages. Especially burdensome here
was the war in the Carpathians, which was waged at the height of 2000 m and meant weeks of
bivouacking in ice and snow.Also, the situation of provisions in the mountains was problematic
and could often only be surmounted using pack animals and human porters.
Due to the nature of ethnic mixture, in particular in Transylvania, loyalty conflicts and distrust
were also fed on in a milder form in Romania. The Romanian minority in Transylvania was in
many cases viewed as potential spies, who were to be treated with extreme severity. The result
2
was a kind of warfare that blurred the lines between military and civilian. Here, one sees the
particularity of the war in the Balkans as a whole.
Despite the hard trials and brutality of the conduct of war, the motivation and readiness to
combat of the German soldiers in the Romanian campaign was generally high. Compared with
the warfare on the Western Front, characterized by mass deployment with artillery, war in the
Southeast was preferred by most of the soldiers. The fact that the majority of the German
divisions deployed here were also active in Somme and Verdun cannot be underestimated. In
their testimonials, the soldiers expressed their relief at having evaded these material battles.
Yet, the element of adventure was not completely missing in the war waged against Romania.
The mobile war in the Carpathian Mountains led to the mass deployment of heavy artillery
running up against huge logistical problemsdueto the underdeveloped infrastructure.
Correspondingly, military handwork prevailed. There were few limits placed on the
independence of the soldiers in the Romanian campaign. The companies, reconnaissance patrols,
and enforcement commandos were given minimal objectives whose exact execution was left to
those who were to carry out the orders. The soldiers and their lower leaders were ready to carry
out special assignments even after long and hard stresses and strains. After all, these
assignments held the possibility of improving one’s own situation via one’s own activity. Only at
the end of the campaign and in particular starting with Christmas, which brought no pause in the
fighting, but rather was spent in battling Romanian-Russian troops at Rimnicul-Sarat, did the
soldiers show increasing signs of exhaustion.
Even if the German readiness to combat in Romania, at least until Christmas 1916, can be
estimated very highly, the significance of the deployment for the individual combatants is not to
be universally estimated as high. As on the Eastern front, the Romanian campaign opened up a
glance into an unknown world for the German soldiers, one which they previously had hardly
had any idea of or any reference to. With Romania’s entry into the war, the military members
came into direct bodily contact with a large number of imperial Germans in this area for the first
time.
Many described the arrival in the new country of deployment based on the local rural primitive
conditions as a real culture shock. Others drew comparisons to the Russian front and to Serbia,
to which the current area was often given preference. Central impressions were of
backwardness, neglect and filth, diseases that were not present at home, notable social contrasts
and a population whose language, customs and traditions the conquerors were u nacquainted
with. A key aspect of the experiences of the German soldiers in Romania was consequently one
of disorientation in unknown surroundings. Dispatches in testimonials about the point of the
sojourn were in many cases mixed with homesickness.
3
Yet, the spatial experiences of the German military members in Romania expressed themselves
in ambivalence. For instance, the abundant offer of groceries and goods in Romania was
imprinted on the soldiers’ memories. The landscape was described as beautiful and varied, the
Carpathian Mountains reminded many Germans of their native Alps. Further, the wealth of cattle
and the fecundity of the soil in Romania were highlighted. At the same time, the soldiers made
many comparisons with the homeland, which in 1916 was short of everything.
As a basic principal, German soldiers expressed a feeling of military and cultural superiority visà-visthe population in Romania. The discrepancy in the appraisal ofthe enemy powers in the
West cannot be overlooked. The British and French, despite their presumed “degeneration”,
were felt to be equal. With the Romanian population, however, the German soldiers saw a clear
civilization declinewhich was generally linked to the Balkans and also to the East as a whole.
Besides the general feeling of superiority, the perception of the native population in Romania
among German soldiers was in no way homogeneous. On the one hand, the feeling of superiority
sometimes led to ridicule and partially promoted ruthless exploitation as well. On the other
hand, it could also be completely compatible with a fascination with the foreign, well-meaning
intentions and sympathy.
This is shown by a simple look at the themes of German picture postcards from Romania which
were produced by the German military administration in Romania in 1917-1918. Here we find
pictures in which poverty was ridiculed, for instance in the above picture which is furnished
with the subtitle “Soldiers in uniform and their dainty quarter providers”. The other two picture
postcards with the titles “Romanian ethnic groups” and “Romanian beauties in folk costume“ are
examples of a whole series of postcards from the field in which the Romanian rural population
was represented in an exotic, romanticized way.
The perception of the population was not limited to thinking in ethnic categories. Aside from
these, German combatants noted the contrast between the rural and the urban population and
constantly emphasized the decline of civilization between the capital and the surrounding area.
They described Bucharest as a modern, markedly European city. Only sometimes did the
German soldiers raise the criticism circulating in the press of an imposed, foreign and noninternalized culture regarding the representative buildings, the style of clothing and the
lifestyles of the inhabitants. In particular, though, the soldiers’ perceptions were aimed at the
direct satisfaction of their basic needs, where a positive image of Bucharest prevailed by far.
In closing, looking at the self-perception of German soldiers shows that via the stay in Romania,
the national self-perception of many German soldiers was enhanced. To be German now meant
for them to live in a nation state with due process, without extreme social contrasts and without
epidemics. The emphasis on the superiority of Germans is also frequently found in the soldiers
4
during the period of static warfare at Sereth and in the occupying soldiers. Here, it also served as
the moral legitimation of the occupation. In this view, Romania was not only to be economically
exploited, but also culturally proselytized. For German soldiers, possessing culture at the same
time was commonly equated with a German order, work ethic and cleanliness.
5