World War II viewed from Romania's Perspective

[FulmenTheFinn]

Soviets at least were giving to the same nations their OWN republics as parts of the Union, with pretty wide cultural autonomy.

It is meaningful in the way that a lot of nations with all their cultural features, customs and simply languages do exist just because Soviets invested into all that. Locals in the local governments, subsidies on infrastructure development, quotas on education in central universities, hard work of ethnographers to preserve local heritage.

In the 1920 Treaty of Tartu, that ended the state of war between Finland and Soviet Russia, the Russians promised the East Karelians in the Karelian ASSR (Karelo-Finnish SSR in 1940-56) and the Ingrians in Ingria autonomy, or IIRC in the case of Ingria, at the very least cultural autonomy. Ingria never really received any kind of autonomy, and what little cultural autonomy East Karelia, which was promised much more, might have had mostly only as a result of Red Finns who escaped there, was ripped away by Stalin in the 1930s. Instead, those regions were extensively, or in the case of Ingria, totally Russified. Other regions, such as the Baltic SSRs, Eastern Ukraine, Kazakhstan, etc. were also very extensively Russified. I'm pretty sure Belarus and Crimea goes on that list too, as well as much of the Caucasus and various non-Russian (Finno-Ugric, Tatar, etc.) ASSRs.

Alternative way, presented by Romanians, just as Poles, and Baltic peoples, and Finland, meant that in the long perspective there would have been no such minorities at all, just Romanians, Poles and etc.

Interesting that you include Finland in this, when the only sizable minority in Finland at the time were the Swedish-speaking Finns, numbering then only at 10% of the country's total population. And yet, even with such a low population, the entire country was made officially bilingual, and indeed by law basically everything had to be and still must be also available in Swedish. This, in spite of the fact that an overwhelming portion of native Swedish-speakers in the country even back then spoke good or impeccable Finnish. Actually I'm certain Finland was then, and is now, one of the most minority-friendly countries in the world.

 

[Iskulya]

If you actually believe that is meaningful in any way, I refer you to the second line of my signature.

Zombie actually has a point on this one.

The Soviet Union was founded on the principal of cultural-territorial autonomy. It's true that basically all of the non-Russian nationalities were dragged kicking and screaming into Bolshevik control through violent conquest, with a few exceptions which also pose a problem. Essentially a series of revolts and civil wars were kicked off in Central Asia in 1916 after the Imperial government mandated labor conscription of non-Russian Central Asians. After the October Revolution, these conflicts were still going on. The White Army sided with the Russian settlers who were minorities in these regions(like Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan), and the indigineous forces arrayed against the settlers fell in with the Bolsheviks by default. They needed their military support.

Even so, following their military victory, Lenin insisted that the new territories be federated on the basis of national-territorial autonomy. All nations would have the right to administer themselves by people of their own culture, for business and education be conducted in their national language, and for the instruments of government to promote the culture and the language of the said nationality. Although we usually think of the big republics like Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Armenia, etc; these also existed on much smaller, local levels as well. There were even such local Polish republics. Initially, these were intended to form the kernel of a future administration that would govern all of Poland following the success of revolution or conquest there. This scheme was later given up by Stalin, on the grounds that incorporating Poland into the Soviet Union would be too upsetting to the international order diplomatically.

For some of these countries, mainly the Central Asian ones, they had no modern written language. The Uzbeks, for example, used Chagatai, a very archaic script used by the Mongol Empire that was more or less unsuited for modern purposes. In such cases, the Soviet government sponsored efforts to create a modern, written form of national languages that had no written equivalent. It is also as zombie said, that the study and preservation of indigenous cultural practices of indigineous cultures became an important goal for the Soviet government. Works of literature and artwork that were centered around the given national culture and identity were also promoted.

Although we should say that as far as Central Asians went, there was definitely an issue of Eurocentrism, perhaps what might even be called racism. The Soviets launched campaigns against traditional ethnic clothing in Uzbekistan on the pseudoscientific pretext that it was "unhygienic" and promoted European clothing. In an interesting episode of history that has basically been forgotten outside the most esoteric Soviet historians, the Soviets actually banned the full body veil in the 1920's on the grounds of it being sexist. This paradoxically resulted in the veil becoming extremely popular and women wearing it as a sign of defiance. However, the anti-veiling campaign had achieved complete success by the 1960's.

When the Russian Civil War was concluded, people known for being examplars of the national culture, even when they had previously been anti-Soviet, were invited to return. This was especially so with Ukraine.

Where things get more complicated is with Stalin and the power dynamics of the country. Stalin first sided with Bukharin and the "rightists" in the mid 1920's to defeat the left, and then the united oppositions. Once they had been dealt with, Stalin turned on Bukharin and his supporters, and had won out by late 1928. It was only then that we can speak of Stalin as the unchallenged leader of the country, but even then we have to say that he didn't truly consolidate his power until the wake of Kirov's murder. That's going into a bit of a tangent, but the point is this: after the left, united, and right oppositions were defeated, there was a bit of a reversal with the policy of cultural-territorial autonomy. The most vocal proponents of national culture(needless to say, those of the non-dominant nationalities, not the Russians), including those who had been promoted by Lenin, were denounced as "bourgeois nationalists". They suddenly found themselves censured, and fired. Within a few years many of them would be imprisoned, and within a few years of that, executed. Additionally, policy in the national republics which previously had been solidly against the Russian settler communities and for the indigenous peoples, were partially reversed.

Yet, it still has to be said that even during the worst of Stalin's crimes and breaking of national autonomy, it was still always the case that the national language had to be used, and the national culture promoted. If you were a Russian in Ukraine, you had to learn Ukrainian, and you had to conduct official business in Ukrainian, not Russian. Likewise across all the national republics. After World War 2, things began swinging back more in favor of the non-Russian nationalities.

It is definitely a complicated issue, but it has to be said that Soviet policy on minority nationalities was essentially unthinkable in any other country on the planet, and in the end, it worked. At the end of the day, when the Soviet government finally was replaced by a non-communist one, the non-Russian republics did have the power and ability to secede. If national autonomy truly was a pure and complete fiction, it's very difficult to imagine this could have happened at all, let alone happen as peacefully as it did.

I recommend reading Terry Martin's Affirmative Action Empire whose subject is entirely the history of the Soviet nationalities policy. There is a lot of literature out there on more specific national policies such as Matthew Pauly's Breaking the Tongue: Language, Education, and Power in Soviet Ukraine, 1923-1934. I was fortunate enough to be able to study under him when I went to university, it's a great book.

 

[Iskulya]

In the 1920 Treaty of Tartu, that ended the state of war between Finland and Soviet Russia, the Russians promised the East Karelians in the Karelian ASSR (Karelo-Finnish SSR in 1940-56) and the Ingrians in Ingria autonomy, or IIRC in the case of Ingria, at the very least cultural autonomy. Ingria never really received any kind of autonomy, and what little cultural autonomy East Karelia, which was promised much more, might have had mostly only as a result of Red Finns who escaped there, was ripped away by Stalin in the 1930s. Instead, those regions were extensively, or in the case of Ingria, totally Russified. Other regions, such as the Baltic SSRs, Eastern Ukraine, Kazakhstan, etc. were also very extensively Russified. I'm pretty sure Belarus and Crimea goes on that list too, as well as much of the Caucasus and various non-Russian (Finno-Ugric, Tatar, etc.) ASSRs.



Interesting that you include Finland in this, when the only sizable minority in Finland at the time were the Swedish-speaking Finns, numbering then only at 10% of the country's total population. And yet, even with such a low population, the entire country was made officially bilingual, and indeed by law basically everything had to be and still must be also available in Swedish. This, in spite of the fact that an overwhelming portion of native Swedish-speakers in the country even back then spoke good or impeccable Finnish. Actually I'm certain Finland was then, and is now, one of the most minority-friendly countries in the world.

This is some interesting information. As you probably know, the Soviets had ambitions of the total annexation of Finland and its incorporation as an SSR. There is a fiction you're probably well aware of that Lenin "allowed" the Finns to become independent, which supposedly proved the Bolsheviks devotion to national autonomy. In reality, this was a face saving fiction adopted in face of military defeats by the White Finns and the Germans.

The thing to note about Russification in a lot of cases, especially in places like Kazakhstan and Ukraine is that the local Russians themselves resisted. The Soviet government attempted to enforce Ukrainization, but this was often consciously subverted by the Russian minority.

In practice it's true that the minor nationalities, etc those that did not have their own fully fledged SSR like the Ukrainians, Uzbeks, Georgians, etc, were largely assimilated. In the case of Central Asians there was a policy of trying to create some commonalities with Russian. For example, when Lenin was still alive he decreed that the new Uzbek language use the Latin alphabet; actually he advocated that Russian itself be reformulated to use the Latin alphabets in preparation of an eventual move to a single, universal language based on the latin alphabet that would be adopted by all of humanity. Obviously impractical in many ways, for Russian at least, but following Stalin's rise to power he decreed that the new Uzbek language be based on Cyrillic.

 

[hkrommel]

snip

The thing is that his "point" there is not in response to anything I was saying. If you go back in the thread you'll notice, in typical fashion, he only responds to a small portion of what I said. That's how we got from "it wasn't viable for Romania to seek the USSR as an ally" to here. My last post was simply to comment on how what he was saying re: cultural "autonomy" was irrelevant to what I was discussing from the beginning: self-governance and political autonomy (which only towards the very end reached the point where secession was possible). Hence my original point:

Nobody in Eastern Europe had the possibility of being a Soviet ally, only a Soviet puppet.

 

[Cavalry]

Ion Antonescu had 2 main objectives:
1. Keep USSR away from Romania. -> After the annexation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, USSR didn't want to stop there. USSR requested that Nazy Germany and Fascist Italy give up their guarantee on Romania, Nazi Germany refused. USSR requested that Nazy Germany and Fascist Italy allows USSR to take Southern Bukovina as well, Nazi Germany refused. USSR occupied a few Romanian islands on the Black Sea to test Romania's reaction. At the same time, the relationships between USSR and Nazi Germany were getting colder, suspicions were rising, and Nazi Germany took the decision to attack USSR as fast as possible to make it easier to invade Britain afterwards.
.......
Some see Romania as being sold by the Allies, but I don’t see what the Allies could have done after Germany defeated France. The only thing the Allies can be blamed is not attacking the Soviet Union in 1945 as Churchill urged them to do.

Ion Antonescu is controversed. He was definetly a patriot, had integrity and was a good strategist. But some see him as a villain who allied with Nazi Germany taking part in stuff that must not be named, although reluctantly; others see him as a hero trying to recover Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia, while others see him as a pragmatic leader who didn’t care for the fascist ideology but was confident Germany will win and wanted to be on the winning side.

There was no way World War II could have ended well for Romania, the choice was either Communism or Nazism. Romania was positioned between the Fascist hammer and the Communist anvil.

Diplomacy research in not simple, because there are too many facts and many was hidden behind the view. After digging the WW2 diplomacy books here https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...y-during-1930s-40s-pdfs.994799/#post-22321448 I found some conclusions:

Germany interest in Romania oil was well talked to the Soviet, so no way the Soviet can get Romania Main. Romanian leaders should know that, if Germans didn't tell them already. Any Soviet talk about that after the Fall of France 1940 is just a Soviet delay tactics.

After the Fall of France, Germany got the huge IC of Western Europe, the balance of power changed and every power from Soviet to the US will stop wait and see, and take extraordinary measures to limit the gain of Germany/Japan but still stay in the safety themselves. The Soviet offer help and guarantee to Yougoslavia, Bulgaria, Turkey, and (probably) Romania too, ... to keep them stay neutral. But in the end most of them refused Soviet help and fold into Germany by force or volunteerly.

Soviet in 1939-40 was in great danger and was in no position to invade any country unless for defense against two front war with German and Japan (both were on the same Anti Communist Pact). At the time of Soviet-Germany Non Aggression Pact (Aug 1939), the Japanese already fired the shots against Soviet in the East. Recovering lost territories is good goals but the Soviet refrained from doing that to the last minute. They only started getting Western Poland after the fall of Warsaw, and annex Baltics and Bessarabia after the fall of Paris. The facts later showed that every land on Soviet western border that they didn't take, will be used against them!

On Ion Antonescu, it is hard to judge him on his thoughts. But if we judge him on his works on Romanian people, Soviet people, and Jew people; then he should be called one of the most effective Nazi!

 

[PeterX7]

@Zeprion I have to disagree, translyvania in the 1910s, still had 3 million hungarians living there, which is a great number for a 9 million country. In my honest opinion, Romania wanted too much, there were talks that the river Tisza should be new romanian border, and also every major city close to the current border had hungarian majority, they were given to romania for their infrasturcture (train, roads etc) like Oradea, Arad, Satumare. Hungary was punished by the Entente just like Germany after WW1, which had the flame to ignite during WW2. I think every single country wants no more then to protect their own citizens (look at hungarian foreign policy now) and if the 1941 hungarian borders were accepted maybe nowadays there wouldnt be a bloodbath at every hungarian-slovakian-serbian-romanian sport event etc, Hungary (which was also a new state after ww1) just after getting out from the monarchy had 2/3 of its territory taken just because the Entente promises to the czech, romanian and serb movements to weaken the monarchy, and this is it. To this day there are 2 million hungarian living outside the current borders and it is an issue just like every other territorial changes just like the case of south tyrol and others.

 

[CrazyZombie]

Interesting that you include Finland in this, when the only sizable minority in Finland at the time were the Swedish-speaking Finns, numbering then only at 10% of the country's total population. And yet, even with such a low population, the entire country was made officially bilingual, and indeed by law basically everything had to be and still must be also available in Swedish. This, in spite of the fact that an overwhelming portion of native Swedish-speakers in the country even back then spoke good or impeccable Finnish. Actually I'm certain Finland was then, and is now, one of the most minority-friendly countries in the world.

In Finnish case I speak more about local Russians in Finland, who found themselves in not the most minority-friendly country after revolution. Then same story was repeated during "Continuation war" in the areas, occupied by Finns.

 

[Zeprion]

Wow, I did not expect this post to get so popular. I've only described the diplomatic history until 1943 as I'm still studying years 1944 and 1955, and I don't want to offer half baked information. After I finish researching those years I might make a reply or edit the original post to add them. In my opinion, these are the most interesting years, especially the inner workings of King Michael's Coup from 23rd August 1944.

Feels a bit sad about last Romanian king. Michael participated in the Victory Parade in Moscow in 2010 as the only living Supreme Commander-in-Chief of a European State in the Second World War. The name of Michael I is listed on the memorial in the Grand Kremlin Palace as one of only 20 recipients of the Order of Victory.

Btw, @Zeprion , how is Michael and his role seen in Romania today?

Same here, I feel sad about the fate King Michael I of Romania and King Peter II of Yugoslavia, they were both moral people who lived up to the kingly virtues of honor, integrity, dignity. King Carol II would go hunting and if he wasn't the one to kill the most animals he would tell his hunting friends to tell everyone that he killed the most animals, he was also quick to anger, he had dictatorial dreams (wanted an absolute monarchy long before 1938) and a hedonist.

Although I find the degree of his hedonism highly exaggerated today in order to justify his incompetence and failure to protect Greater Romania during 1940 (even in Hearts of Iron IV you get some drawbacks due to him being a hendonist), he wasn't a hendonist to the point where that would get in the way of governing his country. In my opinion, he wasn't an incompetent ruler and he did his best to protect Greater Romania during 1940, it's just that the task at hand was too difficult, as I said in the original post, Romania was caught between the fascist hammer and the communist anvil.

People are rarely just one thing but generalizing them makes it easier for us to understand them so we prefer that simple-minded version, I love it when I read about a certain person in history only to find out that the supposedly good person had some bad parts and the supposedly bad person had some good parts, this is what people are, a grey area in between.

For example, this is rarely mentioned because it doesn't fit King Carol II's narrative as a hendonist and incompetent king, Romania had a huge economic prosperity during the peace years with King Carol II. The years 1936 -1937 represent the years of maximum economic development both in terms of production and exports from the entire interwar period of Romania, this growth was halted by the outbreak in 1939 of the Second World War.

Today, King Michael I of Romania is seen rather tragically for the reasons mentioned above. There are some who view him as a traitor because they bought into communist propaganda, few people in comparison with the rest and mostly old people.

As the king himself stated here: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...uotes-for-a-new-update.1218348/#post-25681120

LOADING_TIP_395:0 "Many think I'm a millionaire. Communist propaganda said that I left with dozens of cars full of gold and riches. And that has caught some people.\n- King Michael I of Romania"

This is a fact pretty known in Romania but not so known abroad, the 1989 revolution wasn't a revolution as much as it was a coup d'etat. After the 1989 revolutions countries like Poland included lustration, this means that politicians from the old system of government aren't allowed to hold any public functions anymore, basically whiping the whole political class clean to start anew.

This didn't happen in Romania, it was attempted in point 8 of Timisoara Proclamation but didn't come to pass as the next "interim president" was Ion Iliescu, a former Communist Party high ranking member. There were protests against him as well in 1990, but he called coal miners to attack the protesters calling them terrorists. The coal miners really thought they were attacking former communist supporters, when in fact those were the ones they were defending. Which is why to this day there is corruption in Romania. The old communist system didn't fall, it just changed its name, former communists became part of Partidul Social Democrat (PSD - the Social Democratic Party) and continued to function as usual.

During the 1990 protests people were shouting "Sa vina regele!" meaning "Let the king come!" but due to Ion Iliescu's intervention this wasn't to pass. Using a Danish visa for 24 hours, he tried to come back to Romania but was stopped by the police force at the airport under the orders of Ion Iliescu and forced to leave Romania.

King Michael I was allowed to come to Romania to visit in 1992 but not allowed to stay. The social democrat government denied his request to give a speech from the Royal Palace but his speech from a hotel room drew over a million people to Bucharest to see him, during his visit the streets were full with people cheering him and begging him to stay. King Michael's popularity alarmed the government of President Ion Iliescu, and he was forbidden to visit Romania, being denied entry twice in 1994 and 1995. In 1997 after Ion Iliescu lost elections, the Romanian government restored Michael's citizenship and again allowed him to visit the country.

King Michael neither encouraged nor opposed monarchist agitation in Romania and royalist parties have made little impact in post-communist Romanian politics. He took the view that the restoration of the monarchy in Romania can only result from a decision by the Romanian people. "If the people want me to come back, of course, I will come back," he said in 1990. "Romanians have had enough suffering imposed on them to have the right to be consulted on their future." King Michael's belief was that there is still a role for, and value in, the monarchy today: "We are trying to make people understand what the Romanian monarchy was, and what it can still do [for them]."

According to a 2007 opinion poll conducted at the request of the Romanian royal family, only 14% of Romanians were in favour of the restoration of the monarchy. Another 2008 poll found that only 16% of Romanians are monarchists. Michael himself, however, was shown to be much more popular personally with the Romanian people: In a July 2013 survey, 45% of Romanians had a good or very good opinion of Michael, with 6.5% thinking the opposite. The royal family also enjoyed similar numbers, with 41% having a good or very good opinion of it, and just 6.5% having a poor or very poor one.

In old age, Michael enjoyed a strong revival in popularity. On 25 October 2011, on the occasion of his 90th birthday, he delivered a speech before the assembled chambers of the Romanian Parliament. An opinion poll in January 2012 placed him as the most trusted public figure in Romania, far ahead of the political leaders.

@Zeprion I have to disagree, translyvania in the 1910s, still had 3 million hungarians living there, which is a great number for a 9 million country. In my honest opinion, Romania wanted too much, there were talks that the river Tisza should be new romanian border, and also every major city close to the current border had hungarian majority, they were given to romania for their infrasturcture (train, roads etc) like Oradea, Arad, Satumare. Hungary was punished by the Entente just like Germany after WW1, which had the flame to ignite during WW2. I think every single country wants no more then to protect their own citizens (look at hungarian foreign policy now) and if the 1941 hungarian borders were accepted maybe nowadays there wouldnt be a bloodbath at every hungarian-slovakian-serbian-romanian sport event etc, Hungary (which was also a new state after ww1) just after getting out from the monarchy had 2/3 of its territory taken just because the Entente promises to the czech, romanian and serb movements to weaken the monarchy, and this is it. To this day there are 2 million hungarian living outside the current borders and it is an issue just like every other territorial changes just like the case of south tyrol and others.

According to Austro-Hungarian population census in 1910 the population in Transylvania was: 53.8% Romanian, 31.6% Hungarian and 10.7% German of a total population of 5,262,495 people. This means almost 3.000.000 Romanians and about 1.600.000 Hungarians.

According to Austro-Hungarian population census in 1910 the population in the Kingdom of Hungary (excluding Croatia and Slavonia) was: 54.5% Hungarian, 16.1% Romanian and 10,4% German of a total population of about 20.900.000 people. This means about 11.300.000 Hungarians and about 3.350.000 Romanians. If we include Croatia and Slaviona as well, the Hungarians stop being an absolute majority in the Kingdom of Hungary.

According to Romanian population census in 1919 the population in Transylvania was: 57.1% Romanian, 26.5% Hungarian and 9.8% German of a total pulation of 5,259,918 people. This means about 3.000.000 Romanians and about 1.400.000 Hungarians.

While each nation favors their side, the numbers tend to stay relatively constant and in both cases Romanians held the absolute majority in Transylvania. In my opinion, and I'm not saying this because I'm Romanian, the Kingdom of Hungary was nothing short of an empire, it was what Austria-Hungary was on a larger scale, an amalgamation of people from different ethnicities ruled by a single foreign government.

I understand that the Treaty of Trianon is seen in Hungary as a tragedy and I respect that, by respect I mean I won't make fun of it or use it for bragging rights, but at the same time I cannot but accept that it was a just treaty. As none of the territories taken away from Hungary had a Hungarian majority, and this wasn't overnight, those territories had a Hungarian minority ever since the Hungarian conquests in the early medieval ages. In my opinion, they were not "de jure" party of Hungary.

I can compare the Treaty of Trianon with the Treaty of London 1913 after the First Balkan War. It is seen as a tragedy in Turkey and they lost a lot of territory, but it was not rightfully theirs to being with.

I agree that Romania wanted too much, though Romania's claim up to Tisza river was based on historical claims, same as Romania's claim of all of Banat, including the territories with a Serbian majority. The region up to Tisza river used to be part of the Voivodship of Menumorut before the Hungarian conquest and before that part of the Kingdom of Dacia, thus the Romanians viewed is as "originally theirs".

Infrastructure and defense played a great part. Cities like Oradea, Arad, Satu Mare had a railway connecting them and were good defensive points in case of Hungarian aggression. While the city themselves had a Hungarian majority, the rural areas around them had a significant number of Romanians.

Of course you cannot draw the border completly separating all Romanians from all Hungarians, even after the Treaty of Trianon 350.000 Romanians remained in Hungary. But given that Romania was the winner of World War I, the new borders were drawn in favor of Romania.

Hitler couldn't make clean borders either, according to the Romanian census from 1940 the population in Northern Transylvania had 50,2% Romanians and 37,1% Hungarians of a total population of about 2.600.000 people. This means 1,304,903 Romanians and 978,074 Hungarians. While according to the Hungarian census from 1941 the population from Northern Transylvania had 53.5% Hungarians and 39.1% Romanians of a total population of about 2.600.000 people. This means about 1.378.000 Hungarians and about 1,051,026 Romanians. It is possible that one of them is lying or there was a population transfer between 1940-1941. Regardless, this is why, beside historical claim, this couldn't be accepted in Romania. Ion Antonescu prefered not to take as much as he wants from Russia, in order to have a chance at taking Northern Transylvania back.

Historian Keith Hitchins summarized the situation created by the award:

Far from settling matters, the Vienna Award had exacerbated relations between Romania and Hungary. It did not solve the nationality problem by separating all Magyars from all Romanians. Some 1,150,000 to 1,300,000 Romanians, or 48 percent to over 50 percent of the population of the ceded territory, depending upon whose statistics are used, remained north of the new frontier, while about 500,000 Magyars (other Hungarian estimates go as high as 800,000, Romanian as low as 363,000) continued to reside in the south.

Concerning the sport events, do you notice a constant? Hungarian-Slovakian, Hungarian-Serbian, Hungarian-Romanian? There's no bloodbath at Romanian-Bulgarian, Romanian-Serbian or Romanian-Slovakian sport events. The fanatic fans don't speak for the whole country, but I can understand their anger.

To this day there are 1.200.000 Romanians living in Italy, 850.000 Romanians living in Spain, 650.000 Romanians living in Germany, 450.000 Romanians living in the United States, 400.000 Romanians living in the United Kingdom. This pose no territorial issue, people can coexist as long as they don't force their will on the country they are in.

 

[PeterX7]

I understand that the Treaty of Trianon is seen in Hungary as a tragedy and I respect that, by respect I mean I won't make fun of it or use it for bragging rights, but at the same time I cannot but accept that it was a just treaty. As none of the territories taken away from Hungary had a Hungarian majority, and this wasn't overnight, those territories had a Hungarian minority ever since the Hungarian conquests in the early medieval ages. In my opinion, they were not "de jure" party of Hungary.

I do have to argue about this since I think you misunderstood my point, the (current) trianon borders of Hungary especially close around the edges had a large Hungarian minority overall, just check etnicity maps from 1910's. The map was drawn unfair, and not in respect either Romanian nor Hungarian ethnic groups, it was all about a political decision. I understand that it would be hard to draw a border that respects every town, rural area, city but did you know that the only reason Czechoslovakia got land approx. 30km away from Budapest to have the capitil city within artillery fire? This is just a bad, nonsense and political deicison making without any respect of a nation. I am very sury the Carpathian nations want to live peacefully and build a better world around them but how can this be accomplished without hurting the wound every single time? (check out yesterdays Slovakian-Hungarian football match). I said that the 1949 borders where better since they atleast incorporated the majority of Hungarian poeaple living in the pre ww1 borders. Northern Transylvania in my honest opinon was a better compromise since both country wanted too much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Hungary#/media/File:Hungary_1941_ethnic.svg
This img shows that I am talking about the "green area" that had Hungarian majority. and yes that 20km line from the border would have helped the relationships between the carpathian country by a lot in my honest opinion.

Concerning the sport events, do you notice a constant? Hungarian-Slovakian, Hungarian-Serbian, Hungarian-Romanian? There's no bloodbath at Romanian-Bulgarian, Romanian-Serbian or Romanian-Slovakian sport events. The fanatic fans don't speak for the whole country, but I can understand their anger.

Uhm, because they don't have territorial disputes, nor political actions or even atrocities against each other (apart from the "usual"? Many Transylvanian Hungarians (and those from Carpathian Ruthenia aswell) feel like they are second class citizens usually. The saddest part is that most cases feature a Slovakian/Serbian/Romanian/Ukranian agressor and an innocent Hungarian whose only spoke Hungarian in public (look up the Malina Hedvig case).

 

[Zeprion]

I do have to argue about this since I think you misunderstood my point, the (current) trianon borders of Hungary especially close around the edges had a large Hungarian minority overall, just check etnicity maps from 1910's. The map was drawn unfair, and not in respect either Romanian nor Hungarian ethnic groups, it was all about a political decision. I understand that it would be hard to draw a border that respects every town, rural area, city but did you know that the only reason Czechoslovakia got land approx. 30km away from Budapest to have the capitil city within artillery fire? This is just a bad, nonsense and political deicison making without any respect of a nation. I am very sury the Carpathian nations want to live peacefully and build a better world around them but how can this be accomplished without hurting the wound every single time? (check out yesterdays Slovakian-Hungarian football match). I said that the 1949 borders where better since they atleast incorporated the majority of Hungarian poeaple living in the pre ww1 borders. Northern Transylvania in my honest opinon was a better compromise since both country wanted too much.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Hungary#/media/File:Hungary_1941_ethnic.svg
This img shows that I am talking about the "green area" that had Hungarian majority. and yes that 20km line from the border would have helped the relationships between the carpathian country by a lot in my honest opinion.

Giving land based on infrastructure and defense alone was a sound political decision for those times, when war was common and expected. I don't agree with it, I favor self-determination and historical right, but at the same time I understand why they did it. People in football cannot speak for the majority, there have always been extremists and will always be. In my honest opinion, Hungary is at fault for this present-day conflict, Hungary is hurt by Trianon in 1920 in the same way that Romania is hurt by the fall of Greater Romania in 1940 but that was in the past and we must get over it. Romanians still fondly remember the time when all Romanian speaking people were under a single nation but they don't make claims over Ukraine's territory and don't want a union with Moldova without Moldova's concent, at least when you ask a random stranger on the street. Which cannot be said for Hungarians when it comes to the regions lost in 1920, I have seen T-shirts with Trianon, the old empire is lost, people should get over it. Your (not you personally) life won't get any better if Greater Hungary suddenly re-becomes a thing, my life won't get any better if Greater Romania suddenly re-becomes a thing, a country is made by its people and it's the people's quality of life that counts, not some nationalistic fervor.

By 1949 Romania already had Northern Transylvania back, you probably mean 1947. Compromises like these never work, look at India and Pakistan in Kasmir, look at Israel and Palestine in West Bank, historian Keith Hitchins said it the best: The Vienna Award had exacerbated relations between Romania and Hungary. It did not solve the nationality problem by separating all Magyars from all Romanians. Some 1,150,000 to 1,300,000 Romanians, or 48% to over 50% of the total population, depending upon whose statistics are used, remained in Northern Transylvania, while about 500,000 Hungarians continued to reside in Southern Transylvania in Romania.

The population aside, the fact that Ion Antonescu refused to take more of Russia in order to have a chance to take Transylvania back speaks volumes of how much Transylvania means to Romania. Transylvania is where the Dacian capital Sarmisegetuza was located, it was part of the Dacian Kingdom between 1st-2nd century and part of Roman Dacia between 2nd-3rd century. Gelou is described as "a certain Vlach" and a leader of the Vlachs and Slavs in Transylvania before the Hungarian conquest, etc. The point is, it was not only the population but also the history that Romanians had in Transylvania, it is considered an integral part of the country and giving half of it to Hungary would have only made relation worse. It's like USA gives half of California to Mexico or Italy gives Sicilia to France.

Uhm, because they don't have territorial disputes, nor political actions or even atrocities against each other (apart from the "usual"? Many Transylvanian Hungarians (and those from Carpathian Ruthenia aswell) feel like they are second class citizens usually. The saddest part is that most cases feature a Slovakian/Serbian/Romanian/Ukranian agressor and an innocent Hungarian whose only spoke Hungarian in public (look up the Malina Hedvig case).

That's why I said that the government, more specifically the minister of education in Hungary should get over it. This is where it all starts in my opinion, of course other nations will be pissed when you claim their current territory, especially when they are also your "old oppressors". I don't know the Hungarian - Slovakian history but Romanians don't remember fondly the time they were under Hungary. From history class to folklore songs there are instances of Hungarians mistreating Romanians, especially in the medieval ages. Imagine if you learn that and then hear from those people that used to oppress your people that they want their land back, kind of difficult not to get defensive.

I've been to Szekelyland in Transylvania 4 times so far, I spoke with Hungarians, made friends with them, nice people. Most of them don't care about the Hungarian - Romanian conflict, if anything they told me that "In Romania they are treated like Hungarians, in Hungary they are treated like Romanians". They have a lot of minority rights including learning in their own language, learning the literature of the Hungarian language and in the 3 counties with a significant number of Hungarians everything is written in both Hungarian and Romanian. Maybe they had some drawbacks because I am Romanian, but none of them complained about the way they were treated by Romanians. What you see on TV are only the extremes, not the normal, most people just want to live their life in peace and understanding.

 

[ASPGolan]

@Zeprion
Good first post, there's something crucial missing and I think it would be relevant for people in the thread that still don't understand why Romania joined the Axis.

You talk about the impact of the changes in Central Europe had on Romania, but not exactly why and it's not just a psychological thing. And it comes down to (tl; dr version if you will): when Czechoslovakia fell under nazi control and Italy also joined the Axis, Romania had no alternative because it depended on arms imports and joint industrial endeavours with these countries. After that point, it couldn't actually fight a war against the Axis in order to protect itself. You can't fight long after your logistical/supplies line are cut off. It basically comes down to this.

In the 1930s, Romania was quite vocal against nazi Germany's ambitions, one of the first nations to bring up the topic at the League of Nations. Unfortunately, they did little to prepare for the eventuality that their predictions came true. Their industry depended on licenses from abroad, while the military government and private industrialists didn't have access to the actual technological process and much of their equipment was imported (I can provided some sources for this, unfortunately, they're all in Romanian). Because of this, the decision was made for them.

One of the main suppliers for arms for the Romanian military was Czechoslovakia. Romanian army tanks, some of the artillery depended on imports from there. The game makes it seem simple for any small country to build its own heavy equipment, restricting only the numbers it can build based on industry (medium/heavy armoured tanks, all but light artillery, even late war firearms). It wasn't like that in real life, most countries wouldn't have been able to build some of the advanced weapons even they had more industry (it's a question of quality as much as quantity and also access to strategic resources). Romanian industry was very inexperienced when it came to metallurgy, specifically casting advanced steel molds (required to build their own artillery barrels, tank armour, etc). Even for a large precentage of small arms they depended on imports. With Italy there were some deals when it came to the auto and aeronautic industry. Everything produced in Romania was under a strict license. We were able to at least develop our own fighter, but lacking access to several innovations (engine was air cooled only, not allowing the pilots to push it too hard), it was bound to eventually fall short.

Romania approached its former allies from WW1 during the 1930s for an alternative to its current suppliers by they delayed taking a decision as the situation in the Balkans was too volatile for their own taste and they couldn't afford taking sides. France eventually gave in, but a little too late (it shipped some 40 R35 tanks to Romania by the end of 1939, then stopped realising that they can end up in German hands). Polish army also shipped a lot of its equipment to Romania before capitulating to the Germans in order to let them continue the fight. The point is that, before it was pressured to join the Axis, the Allies failed or did not want to establish a logistical line to Romania. At the same time, everything in the first post happened. Romania was literally surrounded on all sides, without having the capability of producing enough equipment in order to properly fight back. As I said, the decision was made for them.

When it comes to Carol II's failings, it all boils down to this. Sure, Romania saw some pretty good years, economically. The 1930s crisis didn't affect it as much. But on the other hand they utterly fail to properly prepare its military for what was going to happen.

So there it is, I don't understand how anyone thinks Romania had any other alternative.

 

[Cavalry]

So there it is, I don't understand how anyone thinks Romania had any other alternative.

No one blame Romania for not fighting against Germany , but go from a victim to the most contributor is not a small thing.
There are other example like Sweden or even Spain.
Of course the choice to go the farcist way is not made by every Romanian, not by the King too. It is Antonescu's choice; not necessary a Romania choice.

 

[hkrommel]

No one blame Romania for not fighting against Germany , but go from a victim to the most contributor is not a small thing.
There are other example like Sweden or even Spain.
Of course the choice to go the farcist way is not made by every Romanian, not by the King too. It is Antonescu's choice; not necessary a Romania choice.

Do you think Romania could have stayed neutral like Sweden or Spain though?

 

[PeterX7]

Giving land based on infrastructure and defense alone was a sound political decision for those times, when war was common and expected. I don't agree with it, I favor self-determination and historical right, but at the same time I understand why they did it. People in football cannot speak for the majority, there have always been extremists and will always be. In my honest opinion, Hungary is at fault for this present-day conflict, Hungary is hurt by Trianon in 1920 in the same way that Romania is hurt by the fall of Greater Romania in 1940 but that was in the past and we must get over it. Romanians still fondly remember the time when all Romanian speaking people were under a single nation but they don't make claims over Ukraine's territory and don't want a union with Moldova without Moldova's concent, at least when you ask a random stranger on the street. Which cannot be said for Hungarians when it comes to the regions lost in 1920, I have seen T-shirts with Trianon, the old empire is lost, people should get over it. Your (not you personally) life won't get any better if Greater Hungary suddenly re-becomes a thing, my life won't get any better if Greater Romania suddenly re-becomes a thing, a country is made by its people and it's the people's quality of life that counts, not some nationalistic fervor.

The thing is, there is a difference between the 1918 border and the 1941 borders and I am only saying that if the 1941 territory (or something a little bit more "fair" )redrawing would have happened things wouldnt be as bad as it is right now, because just like you said it is slowing down our progress to build ourselves a better world. I think we can both agree that the time spent on hating converted into time spent on other things it would be a lot better in terms of nearly everything. I see an analogy between the fall of greater Romania and greater Hungary since both countries had a large number of minorities (dobrudja, moldavia, transylvania,bucovina) but decreasing your territory by 2/3 just because you were blamed to be on the losing side and the country forming minorities taking a lot more territory (Slovakia, Yugoslavia) then it is sane (Yugoslavia wanted to claim an extra 100% Hungarian populated strip down near Pecs).

The population aside, the fact that Ion Antonescu refused to take more of Russia in order to have a chance to take Transylvania back speaks volumes of how much Transylvania means to Romania. Transylvania is where the Dacian capital Sarmisegetuza was located, it was part of the Dacian Kingdom between 1st-2nd century and part of Roman Dacia between 2nd-3rd century. Gelou is described as "a certain Vlach" and a leader of the Vlachs and Slavs in Transylvania before the Hungarian conquest, etc. The point is, it was not only the population but also the history that Romanians had in Transylvania, it is considered an integral part of the country and giving half of it to Hungary would have only made relation worse. It's like USA gives half of California to Mexico or Italy gives Sicilia to France.

To my knowledge the "Daco-Roman" theory(which says the Dacians were the same people as Romanians) was just a propaganda creation and it doesn't have any actual bases, When Hungarians took the Carpathian basin (several theory from around 700-900AD) the territory was 100% (or close to it) Hungarian, and to this day Hungarians are still living in that area, and if you check some maps from the 19th century the main cities have 70-80% Hungarian majority therefore I do think there is also (if not the only ) historical claim or by simply looking at the architecture, castles, buildings etc. (Just imagine how great it would be if the Hunyadi family (sources say that they could have been of Slavic origin) would be celebrated in both countries)

That's why I said that the government, more specifically the minister of education in Hungary should get over it. This is where it all starts in my opinion, of course other nations will be pissed when you claim their current territory, especially when they are also your "old oppressors". I don't know the Hungarian - Slovakian history but Romanians don't remember fondly the time they were under Hungary. From history class to folklore songs there are instances of Hungarians mistreating Romanians, especially in the medieval ages. Imagine if you learn that and then hear from those people that used to oppress your people that they want their land back, kind of difficult not to get defensive.

The sad thing is that now we have songs that are trashing our neighbors, but come on folklore songs about 100 year ago? Its like if we would be hating the mongols for the tatar invasion. In the medieval ages i think everybody had a pretty bad life if you were a peasant but who knows. We have families now that were separated during Trianon, then during the cold war another border was built separating cities (look at Komárom, Sturovo, or other cities in Carpathian Ukraine) There are many reports in the TV from a citizen who had 4-5-6+ citizenships from 1900's to 1999).

I've been to Szekelyland in Transylvania 4 times so far, I spoke with Hungarians, made friends with them, nice people. Most of them don't care about the Hungarian - Romanian conflict, if anything they told me that "In Romania they are treated like Hungarians, in Hungary they are treated like Romanians". They have a lot of minority rights including learning in their own language, learning the literature of the Hungarian language and in the 3 counties with a significant number of Hungarians everything is written in both Hungarian and Romanian. Maybe they had some drawbacks because I am Romanian, but none of them complained about the way they were treated by Romanians. What you see on TV are only the extremes, not the normal, most people just want to live their life in peace and understanding.

I agree that this is sadly our reality because Hungarians are very judgemental and not really welcoming especially if you are from our "Trianon enemies" and even if you speak the Hungarian language in a different accent you are an "intruder". The minority rights are also given in Hungary to every minority, but that is not what I am talking about, Autonomy is important because it lets a special "territory/minority" govern itself, such as lets say that you want to have the Transylvanian flag on every government building within Transylvania, then the central government says it is against their ideas/laws. I think if we accept the fact that the Translyvanin Romanins wanted to join Romania because they have the right to self-government, The Hungarian Seklers should have it too, because that is fair. Just imagine for a second if the Transylvanians have "some kind of" autonomy, the Hungarians would be happy, the Transylvanians would be a happy and nothing really would change, Transyalvnia wouldnt "join" Hungary or anything, Is there a real reason why Romania is against the autonomy? Like a 10 million Hungary could do anything against a 20 million Romania while both countries member of the EU and NATO.

I honestly just wish that at some point in the future this situation comes to a (happy) end.

 

[ASPGolan]

No one blame Romania for not fighting against Germany , but go from a victim to the most contributor is not a small thing.
There are other example like Sweden or even Spain.
Of course the choice to go the farcist way is not made by every Romanian, not by the King too. It is Antonescu's choice; not necessary a Romania choice.

Well I'm not talking about assigning blame, you are. This thread is about the perspective of the Romanians. Which is the only angle I'm going to approach this discussion FYI.

But since it was brought up and because I see a lot of people doing some sort of soviet apologetic in the thread, let me make it clear, the Romanians at that time had no doubt that the soviets would be trouble regardless what Romania does. Period. Romania, prior to 1938, wasn't even sure that it's allegiance to France or Britain would even keep them safe from the soviets. You might not believe this considering Romania's participation on the Eastern front, but then you have to address why did the soviets mistreated the Polish as badly as they did Romanians after ww2! What was the reason for that since they did absolutely nothing to the soviets? On the contrary, they were the ones that were attacked without provocation. Not only that, but the soviets agreed to the Allies that they would allow them actual autonomy and then they imposed a puppet regime as soon as they could. And continue to persecute them as they did with all other nations in Central Europe under their influence.

You have to understand the pre-ww2 political situation in both Poland and Romania to understand why that is. The short version is that the only way Romania would have survived under soviet rule was by renouncing everything about its own cultural identity (Iskulya has no idea what they are talking about, there's no easy/polite way of saying that what they wrote is absolute non-sense). Romanians were mostly anti-communists. Just like the Polish. And the soviets knew it - which is the real reason why they persecuted both nations similarly after the war.

Let's cover Romania's contribution. By far, the most important contribution to the nazi war effort was Romania's oil and food production capability, not their military participation (Romania committed only 15% of its active personnel to the Eastern front and its contingent represented less than 10% of the total forces deployed there, even if it was one of the largest non-german contingents). And Romania knew very well that their contribution would be considered large regardless of its military involvement. You're either in or out.

However, these pragmatic considerations didn't truly matter, as there was only one thing that the pro-Allies and pro-Axis camps agreed upon. That they need to make sure the soviets go down in flames if Romania was to survive. The Russians were seen as an existential threat long before they subcumbed to communism. And it's the current policy to this day, not only because of the historic baggage but also because the Russians have essentially threatened with nuclear retaliation against Romania, Poland, Denmark and a few others on several occasions. The secret pact that Romania had with Poland was meant as a defensive pact against the soviets, if I remember correctly. They didn't think at the time that the nazis would attack because they wrongly assumed that France/Britain would contain any such aggressive expansion. However, Romanian and Polish leadership couldn't rely on support if the soviets attacked. So, the decision to attack the soviets has nothing to do with Antonescu being a fascist. He was an authoritarian (or predisposed to it) long before the rise of fascism. But most importantly, he's entire military career, just like many of the Romanian officers was focused on figuring out ways to defend against a soviet attack.

There's one more aspect that needs to be addressed. And it's relevant to the initial points raised in the thread - that Romanians felt that they were abandoned by the Allies long before they had to make any hard choices. The pro-Axis camp would have never gained so much traction if the Allies could have provided more help. The pro-democratic forces lost the electorate due to this and one other main factor (their own incapacity to mobilize the economy and the military properly). This is why Antonescu took over, because the people wanted someone to take charge and lead, there was no time for debates and it was obvious that the promises of the pro-Allied camp were not going to come to fruition in time. Everything else was for show or done for political reasons. I have no doubt that Antonescu appreciated the nazi political system better than what he had to deal with in Romania, but I'm not sure he would have become a fascist if the events since 1938 wouldn't have occurred. Everything else is kind of a myth. For example the jewish genocide, Romanians never really agreed to it, but I doubt the nazis left room for alternatives - it was probably imposed. Romania -even during Antonescu- made sure that many Jewish people could flee from Europe in secret, which is one of the main reasons it was able to establish a good standing relationship with the Israeli state after WW2 and why it maintained that relationship even when all other members of the communist bloc severed diplomatic ties (short primer on the history of diplomatic relations) . I'm not saying that it had no role in the genocide of Jews, but I doubt the Jewish-Romanian community in Israel would care to preserve this mixed heritage identity if they felt betrayed entirely by Romania, or that Romanians didn't assume responsibility for the attrocities committed against them (on the other hand Romania still has holocaust deniers to this day). So, the issues are quite complex, it's hard to say what was imposed and what was done intentionally, but it's not unreasonable to assume a certain level of duplicity after a sudden political shift.

The more important point is that if the Allied option fell, attacking soviets was seen and is still seen as a natural option. There are some voices that would claim it was a mistake, but I doubt that in 1942 there were many in Europe or Romania for that matter that thought HItler would be stopped by the soviets. And I hope I explained quite in detail that Romania had a vested interest and a powerful motivation to see this through (especially after it was forced into that camp by external factors).

 

[Michael Gladius]

The way Romania views World War II is different from what you may expect.

Being an Axis power you’d think that Romanians views World War II with shame, similary to Germany or Japan, but the Romanians’ view World War II is more similar to that of the Finns, Cezchs and Polish. In some ways, it is seen as a western betrayal. To understand why, we must explore that time in history from Romania’s perspective.

Romania was traditionally an ally of France ever since it was established in 1859, joined the Entente in 1916 and won World War I in 1918. In the aftermath of World War I Romania took territory from Austria- Hungary (Transylvania and Bukovina) and what became the Soviet Union (Bessarabia).

It is very important (at least to Romanians) how and why those territories were taken because it wasn’t just a simple land grab. Those territories had a long history with the Romanians and already had a Romanian majority, although also significant minorities of other nationalities.

This was the territory Romania took in 1918:

View attachment 511844

And this was the population census in 1930:

View attachment 511845

No population exchanges were made between 1918 and 1930. Out of 18 million people, 13 millions (72%) were Romanian.

Considering the historical background as well, that Bessarabia and Bukovina used to be part of Moldavia ever since its founding in 1346 before being annexed by the Russian and Austrian Empires, while Transylvania was part of Dacia and later the Voivodeship of Gelou, Glad and Menumorut before the Hungarian conquest, it’s no wonder that Romania views those territories as rightfully theirs (except for Southern Dobruja - Durostor and Caliacra, those are another story).

At the end of World War I Romania already achieved its national dream. Every territory with a Romanian majority was now under a single Romanian state. As such Romania lost interest in warfare. It was a founding member of the League of Nations in which it had an active implicaiton and focused more on economy.

But it’s neighbours who lost World War I (Hungary and Bulgaria) weren’t as content with the current state of affairs, as such Romania joined the Little Entente and later the Balkan Entente to protect against revanchism.

In the intewar period, Romania’s fascist party was the Iron Guard, which in the last year with free election, 1937, only won 15% of the votes.

View attachment 511846

Things weren’t going well, the current King, Carol II, was a less than competent hendonist that is hated to this day by many.

But at least Romania was a democracy (constitutional monarchy) and western-aligned (which at that time only meant France, UK didn’t really care about Romania and USA was isolationalist).

Since 1920s, Romania's system of security was based on the goodwill of England and France and a web of alliances against neighbours that claimed Romania's territory.
1. The defense against Hungary was based on the "Little Entente" with Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.
2. The defense against Bulgaria was based on the "Balkan Entente" with Yugoslavia, Greece and Turkey.
3. The defense against USSR was based on wased on the "Polish - Romanian Alliance" with Poland.

In 1938, Nazi Germany annexed Austria under the pretext of a voluntary unification. Then Nazi Germany annexed Czechoslovakia. For Romania the most worrisome part was Hungary's share of Czechoslovakia as Hungary remained hostile towards Romania after they lost Transylvania in World War I. And Romania in order to prevent Hungarian revanchism made an alliance "The Little Entente" with Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. But after Czechoslovakia was annexed and Hungary expanded its borders, Romania found itself exposed. Romania wasn't only worried about Hungarian aggression, but also about German aggression, with or without Hungary's claims.

Under the justification to protect the country against from the Iron Guard led by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, King Carol II established a personal dictatorship in 1938. He had the last word when it came to Romania's external policy, but he would often consult with his ministers and royal counselors: Slavescu, Armand Calinescu (the pirate!), Urdareanu, Gafecu, Nicolae Iorga, Malaxa (the industrialist!).

In 1939, following the Italian invasion of Albania, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French Premier Edouard Dadadier announced a joint Anglo-French "guarantee" of the independence of Romania and Greece. Carol promptly accepted the guarantee. On 5th of May the French Marshal Maxime Weygand visited Bucharest to meet with Carol to discuss Romania's possible participation in the "Peace Front". King Carol II was supportive, but evasive, saying that he would welcome having the Soviet Union fight against Germany, but would never allow the Red Army to enter Romania even if Germany should invade. King Carol II told French Marshal Maxime Weygand: "I do not wish to let my country be engaged in a war which would result, in a few weeks, in the destruction of its army and the occupation of its territory. We do not wish to be the lighting conductor for the coming storm."

At the outbreak of World War II Romania had an alliance with Poland and was ready to assist them. But Poland declined Romanian military assistance because it expected to receive assistance from its British and French allies through Romanian ports, the Romanian Bridgehead Plan.

When the Soviet Union also attacked, the Polish high command abandoned the plan and ordered its units to evacuate, many units went through Romanian borders, to the Black Sea ports and then to France. King Carol II was so concerned about Romania's safety that he didn't apply the "Polish - Romanian Alliance" against the Soviet Union that was established with Poland in 1921.

The guarantees from England and France made in 1939, seemed impossible to fulfill, so Romania's strategy switched in 1939 from western protection to German appeasement in order to improve relations with Germany. The government of Romania turned to Germany in hopes of a guarantee, unaware of the secret Ribbertrop-Molotov Pact between Germany and Russia who would also split Romania. King Carol II reasoned that a oil trade agreement between Romania and Germany should make Germany more concerned about Romania's safety. With Germany's trust won due to the oil trade, Romania adopted a "neutral benevolent" position towards the invaded Poland. Giving Germany insurance that Romania will stay neutral while allowing British shippments of weaponry to Poland from its Black Sea ports.

When Poland's defeat seemed inevitable, Romania allowed Poland to evacuate their gold reserves, tens of thousands of civillians, 60.000 Polish soldiers, the Polish president and the Polish government through their shared border in Bukovina. While the Polish government was in exile in Romania, Romania's prime minister Armand Calimanescu (the pirate!) was assassinated by the fascist Iron Guard party.

This wasn't because Romania allowed Poland to take refugee or because the Iron Guard was pro-Hitler, but because Armand Calimanescu helped the authorities suppress the Iron Guard a year earlier. The assassin's didn't have time to explain their motives because they were executed on sight.

Eventually, the Polish government left Romania through the Black Sea port in Constanta for England. From there, the new Polish government in exile continued the fight with Nazi Germany. After the double-invasion of Poland, Romania started to suspect a secret German-Soviet agreement. After USSR attacked Finland and the Baltic States, Romania became wary of USSR's next hit.

In 1940, after Nazi Germany got half of Poland and became well-armed, it went to strike France and England as well as the Northern States to prevent an eventual British landing. After Germany defeated France Romania found itself in a dangerous position: It was a winner of World War I, the war whose outcome Nazi Germany hated, it was an western-aligned country and it helped the Polish escape.

But the USSR was equally worried seeing Nazi Germany's power rising and hurried the occupation of their influence zone established in the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. While France got its coup de grace from Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union invaded Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

The next day after the French armistice, Stalin informed Hitler that he will demand Romania to immediatly give up Bessarbia and Bukovina and in case of a refusal he will use force. Nazi Germany didn't like that USSR also wanted to demand Bukovina as it wasn't part of the agreement, and determined USSR to take a step back and only take Northern Bukovina.

Romania got the Soviet ultimatum on 26 June 1940 where it was asked to give up Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. King Carol II wished to fight back, but the Romanian army was under underequipped and less numerous than the Soviet Union. Besides, nobody could guarnatee that Hungary wouldn't attack Romania as well.

Nazi Germany rejected the idea of military help and advised King Carol II to accept the Soviet ultimatum. In that moment, Nazi Germany didn't simply please USSR, they were interested not to make Romania a theater of war so that they ensure the Romanian oil keeps flowing. After Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina were given, King Carol II gave up the English and French guarantees, considering them useless, and started seeking protection from Nazi Germany requesting a "German military mission".

To please Nazi Germany, he made a new pro-Nazi government where he included the Iron Guard. But Hitler knew Romania's weakness and conditioned the "German military mission" on solving the differences with Hungary and Bulgaria. Hungary and Romania met at Turnu Severin to solve their disputes but it became clear that their expectations were completly opposite. While Romania was only willing to accept a small border modification, Hungary wanted all of Transylvania except for Banat region. King Carol II hoped that he will gain Hiter's good will by giving up Southern Dobruja to Bulgaria, but Hungary had better relations with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy alike.

Because the Hungarian - Romanian negiciations failed and the German spies reported Soviet troops massed on the Romanian border. Hitler decided to take Transylvania's problem into his own hands and established the Second Vienna Award. Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy proposed to Romania a slightly modified version of Hungary's demands. A southern part of Transylvania will remain part of Romania but the rest will become part of Hungary. This was the end of Greater Romania. King Carol II accepted the dictate in hopes that the agreement will ensure Romania's independence, or what was left of it.

The other political leaders and the public were against accepting the agreement, but they didn't know that in the event that Romania doesn't accept the Second Vienna Award, Nazi Germany had prepared an expeditionary corps to occupy the petroleum region of Romania before USSR. After the agreement Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy guaranteed Romania, discouraging further USSR's aggression.

As such in a few months Russia took Bessarabia with Northern Bukovina, Bulgaria took Southern Dobruja and Hungary took Northern Transylvania. One third of Romania's 1939 area was taken in 1940 and with it Romania's population shrank from 20 million to 13 million, half of the lost population was ethnically Romanian.

View attachment 511847

Inside Romania, these territorial losses caused the popularity of Romania’s king and the government to plummet, further reinforcing the fascist and military factions who eventually staged a coup that turned the country into fascist dictatorship under Marshal Ion Antonescu and forced King Carol II to abdicate in favor of his son, King Michael I. When he took the throne, King Michael I was merely 18 years old and was more passionate about cars than politics.

The real leader of Romania was Marshal Ion Antonescu (the in-game fascist leader) that King Carol II himself named him "Prime minister with complete power". Immediatly after he was named "Prime minister with complete power", Ion Antonescu forced King Carol II to leave the country and established a fascist regime where he shared the power with the Iron Guard led by Horia Sima.

Ion Antonescu assured Nazi Germany that he will stand by Hitler who promised Romania's security and finally agreed for the "German military mission" in Romania. Ion Antonescu and the Iron Guard merely continued King Carol II's external politics, but their similar ideology to Nazi Germany couldn't take them in another direction anyway.

The new regime firmly set the country on a course towards the Axis, Romania officially joined the "Tripartite Pact" on 23 November 1940. Led by: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan and with: Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and now Romania as well.

Ion Antonescu had 2 main objectives:

1. Keep USSR away from Romania. -> After the annexation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, USSR didn't want to stop there. USSR requested that Nazy Germany and Fascist Italy give up their guarantee on Romania, Nazi Germany refused. USSR requested that Nazy Germany and Fascist Italy allows USSR to take Southern Bukovina as well, Nazi Germany refused. USSR occupied a few Romanian islands on the Black Sea to test Romania's reaction. At the same time, the relationships between USSR and Nazi Germany were getting colder, suspicions were rising, and Nazi Germany took the decision to attack USSR as fast as possible to make it easier to invade Britain afterwards.

2. Take back Northern Transylvania from Hungary, via German arbitration. -> This is why, throught the war, Ion Antonescu tried to show Nazi Germany that Romania was more cooperative than Hungary. But Nazi Germany used this Romanian - Hungarian competition in his interest and didn't rush to fulfill Romania's wish.

Inside Romania, the Iron Guard's crimes and desire for power determined Ion Antonescu to get rid of them after he made sure Hitler was on his side. A coup attempt of the Iron Guard on 23 Jannuary 1941 was the right moment for Ion Antonescu to get rid of the Iron Guard, who eventually seeked asylum in Germany.

In spring, Nazi Germany occupied Yugoslavia and Greece to get avoid the danger of a British naval landing and secure his southern flank in his next campaign in USSR. On 12 June 1941 when Nazi Germany troops came to Romania, Hitler told Ion Antonescu his big secret, he was about to invade USSR. But Ion Antonescu anticipated this and already had a plan, he already made battle plans to get back Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia as well as occupy Transnistria. Thus Ion Antonescu offered to join the war in June 1941 against the Soviet under the pretext of recovering northern Bukovina and Bessarabia.

Hitler gave Ion Antonescu the command of German troops in Romania called "Army Corps General Antonescu".
- The 3rd Romanian army was to attack in north, in Northern Bukovina.
- The 4th Romanian army was to attack in south, in Southern Bessarabia.
- The 11th German army was to attack in the center, in Northern Bessarabia.

Nazi Germany attacked USSR on 22 June 1941 on the whole eastern front. The Romanian advance in Northern Bukovina and Bessarbia was pretty easy, on 5th of July the city of Cernauti was liberated, on 15th of July the city of Chisinau was liberated and on 17th of July Northern Bukovina and Bessarbia were completly liberated.

Ion Antonescu was 100% certain to continue the war, even if the leaders of the democratic parties Iuliu Maniu and Dinu Bratianu warned him that Romania's mission was over and this aggression will anger both USSR and England. At that moment, USSR was already in agreement with England and USA's lend-leaseing the Allies was a clear message against the Axis.

But being completly confident in Nazi Germany's victory, Ion Antonescu promised Hitler that we will fight the war to the end against USSR and didn't ask any conditions for collaboration. In reality, Ion Antonescu hoped that his loyality will be rewarded with Northern Transylvania.

While the 3rd Romanian army and 11th German army advanced in Ukraine, the 4th Romanian army remained under Ion Antonescu's command and at Hitler's request attacked Odessa. The siege of Odessa was extremly bloody, after 2 months of fighting and 90.000 casualites the 4th Romanian army captured Odessa. After taking back Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia in July 1941, Ion Antonescu ordered the occupation of the Soviet territory between rivers Dnister and Bug.

According to his understanding with Hitler, this territory named Transnistria will be administrated by Romanian autorities. Antonescu wanted this territory before the invasion of the Soviet Union and when the opportunity came the told the new governor: "Govern there like Romania was installed there for 2.000 years". The fact that Antonescu wanted the colonization of Transnistria was proven by the colonization of the territory by 150.000 Romanian peasants from east of Bug river.

Transnistria became an agricultural reserve for Romania and the troops in the east. The over 2 million people, mostly Ukrainians, were forced to work in a regime of economic exploitiation similar to what the Germans were doing in the rest of Ukraine. Ion Antonescu said: "Take as much as you can from Transnistria, but without doccuments, so that the Russians won't be able to take the doccuments and use them on the peace table." The governor of Transnistria, Gheorghe Alexianu, thought and acted similary to Antonescu and had free hand from Antonescu to "romanize" the former Soviet territory where less than 10% of the population was romanian.

It didn't take long until Ion Antonescu realised that Transnistria could be used by Hitler as compensation for Northern Transylvania that may remain forever as part of Hungary. Indeed, Hitler wanted to defuse the conflict between Romania and Hungary by offering Antonescu as much territory as he wanted in the east. Hitler offered Ion Antonescu to take as much as he wants from Russia. As an answer, the Romanian diplomacy declared that they won't give up their claims on Northern Transylvania. Ion Antonescu reached the conclusion that Transnistria should be only temporarly occupied and be used as a trade for Northern Transylvania at the end of the war.

Ion Antonescu was certain that 1942 is going to be the decisive year as far as the military opperations were concerned and offered Hitler the same number of divisions that he offered in 1941. The size of the Romanian army on the eastern front was second only to that of Germany and during the Battle of Stalingrad had over 350.000 troops.

But not every general agreed with Antonescu's volunteering. General Iosef Iacobici, commander of the 4th Army, who knew how bloody was the victory at Odessa, anticipated the failures on the eastern front and resigned as a sign of protest. According to a deal from Jannuary 1942, the Romanian troops were to be equipped with weapons from Germany, but during every provision crysis the Romanian troops were left behind.

The victories at Sevastopol and Kerci caused 18.000 losses. The blocking of the Russian offensive at Harkov caused other 14.000 losses. And the advancement in Caucas added 14.000 more losses. Meanwhile, not only the perspective of a new Russian winter made the Romanians worry, but also the realisation that the Romanian Anti-Tank equipment could not penetrate Russian T-34 tanks.

The vulnerability of the Romanian troops was seen at its height during the Battle of Stalingrad. While the 6th German army assulted the city, the Romanian divisions had the task of protecting the flanks. Autumn was about to end and everybody expected a Russian offensive during winter.

The reports of Romanian commanders stated the following:
- Their troops were obligated too cover a territory too large for their numbers.
- They had no anti-tank.
- They had no gas.
- The defensive workings were incomplete.
- They had no protection from aviation or artilery
- There were still Russian troops over the Volga river.

When Stalin started opperation Uranus, the Soviet tank focused on the center of the Romanian army, where no German units were present. Due to the lack of tanks and anti-tank guns, most Romanian troops were routed, only a few tens of thousands of people died and the connection with the German army in Stalingrad was cut. Yet the remains of the 3rd Romanian Army now under the command of General Mihail Lascar were encircled early on and fought well for 4 days before being slowly defeated. Even Hitler himself noted the bravery of these troops. The Soviet Offensive afterwards causesd a total of 110.000 deaths. Half of all soldiers that saw action.

By the end of 1942, the German and Romanian commanders were busy to blame each other for the failure at Stalingrad, while morale of the army was 6 feet below. Ion Antonescu promised Hitler that he will remake the Romanian Army and will continue to fight side by side with Germany. But this time, the Axis was on defensive. At the end of Winter 1942, 6 Romanian divisions under the command of the German Army could barely hold the region of Kuban that was supposed to be the starting point for a new German offensive. The 3rd and 4th Army were on the Don river and 2 other divisions were defending Crimeea.

While the Germans tried to regain the initiative with the Battle of Kursk, the Soviet Union continued to push the Axis until they reached the Dniper river that splits Ukraine. In the autumn of 1943, the troops from Kuban had to retreat to Crimeea, leaving behind 10.000 deaths. Now, 75.000 Romanian troops were in Crimeea, but the Soviet Union pushed in October from Dnister to Perekop, cutting off the Romanian troops from the main frontline. Hitler told the commanders not to retreat and to keep holding so that the Axis would win some time and keep the Soviet bombers away from the Romanian oil fields.

But where the Soviet planes couldn't reach, the American and British planes reached. Romania was at war with the United Kingdom ever since 6th of December 1941 when the Romanian troops crossed over Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina and started advancing in Transnistria. The Romanian declaration of war to the United States came on 12th of December 1941 right after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, but US President Roosevelt deemed it as a forced declaration due to subordination to Germany and didn't retaliate. That was until 6th of June 1942, where after insistence from the Soviet Union, the United States also declared war to Romania. One week later, the first American bombers attacked Poliesti but the mission was a failure. In 1943 however, the Americans came to take their revenge with opperation "Tidal Wave".

On 1st of August 1943, 177 American bombers attacked from Lybia the oil refinery in Poliesti, destroying half of the production capacity. USA's objective wasn't to cripple Romania's economy, but to destroy everything that could be used in the German war machine. The oil from Romania represented 25% of Germany's total use of oil.

For Ion Antonescu, the United Kingdom and United States were unwanted enemies, his goal being only the destruction of the Soviet Union. This is why, in the spring of 1943 he tried to present to both Hitler and the Allies, the danger of the Soviet Union in Europe. Arguing that a peace in west would ensure a complete concentration of forces in east and the defeat of the Soviet Union. Whether is was just a pretext to start negociating peace with the Allies without alerting is unknown. What is certrain in that Ion Antonescu tried to convince Benito Mussolini to ask for peace in the name of Germany's allies, which Mussolini refused, and that Hitler got mad when he found out that Romanian diplomats were talking with the Allies through neutral countries such as Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and Turkey.

While the eastern front was getting closer and closer to Romania, Ion Antonescu tried to encourage an Allied landing in Greece. In Ankara, Turkey, the Romanian diplomats told the Allies that Ion Antonescu was ready to cooperate with the Allies and offer them gold, food, oil and the Romanian Army should they land in the Balkans and reach Romania before the Soviet Union. But the Allies had an agreement not to make separate treaties and that for any captulation to be made towards all 3 powers at the same time, including the Soviet Union. More than that, at the Tehran Conference the Allies gave up on the idea of a Balkan landing and agreed to a French landing, fact that the Romanians were unaware of.

Meanwhile, Italy has left the Axis and became a theatre of war for the Allies and the Axis, while the Soviet Union managed to break the defense at Dniper worring the Romanians even more. Hitler demanded Ion Antonescu to bring all his available units to the frontline, but Ion Antonescu refused stating the reason that the troops were not equipped yet. In reality, Ion Antonescu refused to send troops because the Hungarian army was well conserved and armed, while the Romanian army was tired and partially destroyed. And because everyone fearted that a theatre of war on Romanian territory was inevitable.

By 1944, when the Soviet Union reached the Romanian borders, discontent among the elite and the populace had grown which led to Prince Michael leading a coup against Marshal Ion Antonescu and Romania switching sides to the Allies.

After that the Romanian army continued fighting on the allied side in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. After the war they gained back Northern Transylvania, but not Southern Dobruja, Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia.

View attachment 511848

In 1947 King Michael was forced to abdicate by the communists and Romania became a communist state.

As such World War II is viewed by Romanians as a great injustice and as a war that they were forced into.

Romanians today usually blame the king for being incompetent and giving up that territory. He had his flaws, but I don’t think there’s anything he or the government could have done trapped between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union who both didn’t like Romania due to its previous western stance. Fighting back would have only ensured that more territory is lost. It's not like Hearts of Iron 4 where you can turn fascist or communist and they will suddenly be friendly.

Some see Romania as being sold by the Allies, but I don’t see what the Allies could have done after Germany defeated France. The only thing the Allies can be blamed is not attacking the Soviet Union in 1945 as Churchill urged them to do.

Ion Antonescu is controversed. He was definetly a patriot, had integrity and was a good strategist. But some see him as a villain who allied with Nazi Germany taking part in stuff that must not be named, although reluctantly; others see him as a hero trying to recover Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia, while others see him as a pragmatic leader who didn’t care for the fascist ideology but was confident Germany will win and wanted to be on the winning side.

There was no way World War II could have ended well for Romania, the choice was either Communism or Nazism. Romania was positioned between the Fascist hammer and the Communist anvil.

Were it not for nationalist rivalries of the era, one wonders what could have happened if the Austrians, Hungarians,and Romanians had chosen to cooperate and either arrange population exchanges or even reunite the Austrians and Hungarians, coupled with a royal marriage between Romania's royal family and the Hapsburgs. Imagine a new Austro-Hungarian-Romanian Empire, stretching from the Adriatic to the Black Sea!

 

[Cavalry]

Do you think Romania could have stayed neutral like Sweden or Spain though?

Not sure. There is Turkey that can also keep neutral.
There is one thing may prevent the Germans from direct invading, the safety of oil wells. The Germans already warned the Soviet that they don't want to see any fighting in Romania land near the oil wells. If the Germans invaded, Romania could destroy the oil wells themselves.

 

[hkrommel]

Not sure. There is Turkey that can also keep neutral.
There is one thing may prevent the Germans from direct invading, the safety of oil wells. The Germans already warned the Soviet that they don't want to see any fighting in Romania land near the oil wells. If the Germans invaded, Romania could destroy the oil wells themselves.

Turkey was also more defensible and didn't have the oil. It's certainly something that we can't know for sure but I don't think Romania could have stayed neutral, I think Germany would have invaded for the oil sooner or later.

 

[Cavalry]

There is also Bulgaria example.
They are pro German before the war and received German weapon.
They are invited to Axis in 17 Oct 1940 but not join yet until German troop began to appear on the border with Romania, they joined on 1 Mar 1941.
On 24 Nov 1940, the USSR invite Bulgaria to conclude a mutual assisance pact to try to keep Bulgaria neutral, but Bulgaria didn't accept.
In them, the USSR proposed to Bulgaria [2] :

• " Support in the implementation of its national aspirations, not only in Western , but also in Eastern Thrace ", where Bulgaria recently lost vast territories in the Allied and World War I;
• “All kinds of assistance, including military assistance, in the event of a threat from a third power or group of countries ” - here we had in mind Turkey and the British-French-Turkish military alliance of October 19, 1939 [3] on mutual assistance in case of transfer of hostilities to the Mediterranean region ;
• “All kinds of help with money, food, weapons and raw materials ”;

In response to its proposals, the USSR asked Bulgaria only about one thing: " to provide assistance to the USSR in the event of a real threat to the interests of the Soviet Union in the Black Sea or in the area of the Straits " - the Bosphorus and Dardanelles .

When Germany invade Soviet, Bulgaria didn't join and still keep diplomatic relation with Soviet. At the end of WW2 Bulgaria join Soviet to declare war to all Axis. They are the only Axis country that expand territory after WW2, keeping South Dolbrugia from Romania.

 

[Zeprion]

The thing is, there is a difference between the 1918 border and the 1941 borders and I am only saying that if the 1941 territory (or something a little bit more "fair" )redrawing would have happened things wouldnt be as bad as it is right now, because just like you said it is slowing down our progress to build ourselves a better world. I think we can both agree that the time spent on hating converted into time spent on other things it would be a lot better in terms of nearly everything.

Today, only Hungarians are mad about Transylvania, imagine if both Romanians and Hungarians were mad about Transylvania, it wouldn't be as bad as it is right now, it would have been twice as bad, both sides would see it as an injustice and would want the other side's share. Just because the Hungarians would possibly be content with splitting Transylvania it doesn't mean Romanians would, like the case of Solomon and the two women.

One day two women came to King Solomon, 17 and one of them said: Your Majesty, this woman and I live in the same house. Not long ago my baby was born at home, 18 and three days later her baby was born. Nobody else was there with us. One night while we were all asleep, she rolled over on her baby, and he died. Then while I was still asleep, she got up and took my son out of my bed. She put him in her bed, then she put her dead baby next to me. In the morning when I got up to feed my son, I saw that he was dead. But when I looked at him in the light, I knew he wasn’t my son. “No!” the other woman shouted. “He was your son. My baby is alive!” “The dead baby is yours,” the first woman yelled. “Mine is alive!” They argued back and forth in front of Solomon, until finally he said, “Both of you say this live baby is yours. Someone bring me a sword.” A sword was brought, and Solomon ordered, “Cut the baby in half! That way each of you can have part of him.” “Please don’t kill my son,” the baby’s mother screamed. “Your Majesty, I love him very much, but give him to her. Just don’t kill him.” The other woman shouted, “Go ahead and cut him in half. Then neither of us will have the baby.” Solomon said, “Don’t kill the baby.” Then he pointed to the first woman, “She is his real mother. Give the baby to her.” Everyone in Israel was amazed when they heard how Solomon had made his decision. They realized that God had given him wisdom to judge fairly.

I see an analogy between the fall of greater Romania and greater Hungary since both countries had a large number of minorities (dobrudja, moldavia, transylvania,bucovina) but decreasing your territory by 2/3 just because you were blamed to be on the losing side and the country forming minorities taking a lot more territory (Slovakia, Yugoslavia) then it is sane (Yugoslavia wanted to claim an extra 100% Hungarian populated strip down near Pecs).

I don't think the analogy completly holds up. Both countries had a large number of minorities, but in Greater Hungary those minorities were >50% of the total population while in Greater Romania those minorities were 28% of the population. Being on the losing side, the borders were drawn in favor of the winning side, if there was a region with mixed population that region would go to the winning side, strategic defense positions also played a part as Hungary was sure to retaliate, as shown in 1940.

To my knowledge the "Daco-Roman" theory(which says the Dacians were the same people as Romanians) was just a propaganda creation and it doesn't have any actual bases, When Hungarians took the Carpathian basin (several theory from around 700-900AD) the territory was 100% (or close to it) Hungarian, and to this day Hungarians are still living in that area, and if you check some maps from the 19th century the main cities have 70-80% Hungarian majority therefore I do think there is also (if not the only ) historical claim or by simply looking at the architecture, castles, buildings etc. (Just imagine how great it would be if the Hunyadi family (sources say that they could have been of Slavic origin) would be celebrated in both countries)

To my knowledge that's what Hungarian propaganda says. The most worldwide accepted theories are the Daco-Roman continuity and the immigrationist theory. The Daco-Roman continuity argues that Romanians are mainly descended from the Daco-Romans, a people developing through the cohabitation of the native Dacians and the Roman colonists in the province of Dacia Traiana (primarily in present-day Romania) north of the river Danube. The immigrationist states that Romanians commenced in the provinces south of Danuble with Romanized local populations (known as Vlachs in the Middle Ages) spreading through mountain refuges, both south to Greece and north through the Carpathian Mountains. Both theories pinpoint Romanians' ancestry to Daco-Romans.

Hungary argues that Romania isn't the descendent (cultural descendent, genetically we're all mixed, sorry Hitler, Mussolini was right on this one -> Race? It is a feeling, not a reality.) the Roman Empire and Dacian Kingdom but of Cumania and other Turking tribes. This is to get a claim on Transylvania based on the "we were first" argument. This theory has many gaps which is why you will barely hear it outside Hungary, the largest gap is then how come Romania speaks a latin-based language? Cuman kids being forced to learn latin in schools isn't too plausible.

The irony is that it was Hungarian themselves who contributed to the Daco-Roman theory long before the Romanian-Hungarian dispute started. The most famous Hungarian Chronicler, Simon of Keza, stated in 1282 that "the Vlachs (Romanians) used to be Romans who elected to remain in Panonia when the Huns arrived" (given that the Huns arrived before the Magyars). Italian scholar Poggio Bracciolin stated that "the Vlachs' (Romanians) ancestors had been Roman colonists settled by Emperor Trajan". Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini stated that "Romanians are an Italian race". There are many writers pointing out the Vlachs' ancestry to former Romans while nobody pointed out the Vlachs' ancestry to the Cumans or other Turkic tribes, not even the Hungarians.

There is no cultural connection between Romania and Cumania or other T,urkic tribes, while there were and still are many connections between Romania, the Roman Empire and the Dacian Kingdom beside language. For example, the common clothes Romanians in middle ages that were identic with that of the Dacians and celebrations such as "Mărţişor" that were the Roman Empire's praise to the god of war Mars then it changed into a praise of the coming of spring as the Roman Empire converted to christianity.

When Hungarians took the Carpathian basin, also known as the Hungarian Conquest, it's called conquest for a reason. Hungarian Chronicler Simon of Keza listed the "Slavs, Greeks, Germans, Moravians and Vlachs (Romanians)" as the people already living in the Carapathian basin during the conquest. The earliest written reference of Romanians in an official doccument is a royal charter of the Kingdom of Hungary from 1223, which confirms a former grant of land. It transfers land previously owned by Vlachs (Romanians) to the monastery of Carta, which proves that the territory was inhabited by Romanians before the monastery was built in 1202. There are other Hungarian royal charters attesting the presence of Romanians in more counties, for instance in Zarand in 1318, in Bihor and in Maramures in 1326, and in Turda in 1342. The only thing that is an actual debate, as opposed to Hungarian propaganda, was the existance of the 3 Romanian counties conquered by Hungarians, the voivodships of: Gelu in Transylvania proper, Glad in Banat and Menumorut in Crisana. If Anonymous from Gesta Hungarorum is to be believed.

Of couse the majority of the population in the cities was Hungarian, Transylvania was then part of the Kingdom of Hungary, the same argument goes for hy most of the architecture is Hungarian, but most of the rural area and most of the population was Romanian. Romanians were second-class citizens in the Kingdom of Hungary, we have folklore songs in Transylvania about these, histoircal doccumentation on how Romanians were treated in the Kingdom of Hungary, rebellions that ended up in a bloodbath such as Horea, Closca and Crisan. For example, if a Romanian was accused of a crime against a Hungarian he was considered gulty until proven innocent and had to have 3 Hungarians root for him in order to even have a fair trial, this was the law.

The Kingdom of Hungary was throught the course of its medieval existance a multinational state, not even in the modern epoch have the matters stood differently, the official data of the 1910 census indicate the fact that the minorities accoutned for 52% of the total population of Hungary.

Hungarian Nicolaus Olahus wrote in 1536 that "The entire Hungarian Kingdom comprises within itself different nations: Hungarians, Germans, Bohemians, Slavs, Croats, Saxons, Szekelers, Romanians, Serbs, Cumans, Iaziges, Ruthenians and Turks". Nicolaus Olahus further wrote more speicifically about his birthplace, Transylvania: "There are 4 nations of different origin: Hungarians, Szekelers, Saxons and Romanians, of which the least warlike are considered to be the Saxons, the Hunarians and the Szekelers speak the same language, the Saxons are colonists from Germany, the Romanians are colonists of the Romans. Proof of this is the fact that they have numerous words in common with the speech of the Romans, a people whose coins are to be found in vast numbers in these places".

Croatian Anton Verantius (1504 - 1573) wrote in that: "It is inhabitated by a triple nation: Szekelers, Hungarians and Saxons, I should also mention the Romanians, who, although they easily equal all of the others in number, have no freedoms, no nobility, no right of their own, apart from a small number living in the Hateg district where the capital of Decebalus is believed to have stood and who, during the days of Ioan of Hunedoara (John Hunyadi), a native of those places, gained nobility status for having always participated in the fights against the Turks. The rest of them are common people, serfs of the Hungarians, having no places of their own, spread all over the territory in the whole country and leading a wretched life."

The first population census in Transylvania was made in 1842 under the Austrian Empire by Hungarian Fényes Elek and shows a population of 62% Romanians and 23% Hungarians. While there are contradictory estimations made by modern historians about the population before 1842, with Romanian historians such as Ioan-Aurel Pop or Vlad Georgescu naturally arguing that Romanians were a majority while Hungarian historians such as Károly Kocsis or Tamás Lajos naturally arguing that Hunarians were a majority, there's no official document or census prove that Hungarians were a majority at anytime. Some impartial sources could include American Jean W. Sedlar who argues that in 1241 Romanians made >66% of the population or Canadian George W. White who argues that in 1600 Romanians made about 60% of the population.

Pastor Stepah Ludwig Roth said in 1842 that: "The gentlemen from Cluj want to see the birth of a language and now they are glad that the child has been brought into the world. It is not necessary to declare a language as the official language of the country. Because we already have a language of the country. It is not German, neither Hungarian, but Romanian. No matter how much we suck and spin, we cannot change anything. This is the reality. This reality cannot be challenged. As soon as two citizens of different nationalities meet and neither of them knows the language of the other, the Romanian language serves them as talents. When you go on a trip, when you go to the market, everyone knows the Romanian language. Before testing whether one knows German or the other Hungarian, the conversation begins in Romanian. You can't talk to a Romanian anyway, because he usually speaks only in his grace. It is explainable: in order to learn Hungarian or German, you need school courses; while you learn Romanian alone, on the street, in daily contact with people. The ease of her teachings is not only in the large number of Latin words, which this people adopted with the merge or with the Roman colonists and which we, the Transylvanians, are known to us, because of our education in Latin spirit, but also by the fact that life itself puts us in contact with these numerous people daily. Today one word comes to you, tomorrow another and after a while you notice that you can speak Romanian, without actually learning. Even if someone would not find it easily to learn it, it is advisable to do so, for thousands of different reasons. You want to talk to a Romanian, you have to use his language, if you do not want to get an 'I do not know!' shrugged."

There are also other rumors in Hungary that have no historical value, such as that the name "Romania" was invented at the Little Union in 1859 and the name didn't exist before that, they were called "Vlachs". This Hungarian myth argues that the Vlach renamed themselves Romanians especially to get a claim on Transylvania. This argument is ironic considering that the word "Vlach" comes from old Germanic and means Roman. Beside that, the Romanians never called themselves "Vlachs", that's what they were called by other people but they called themselves Romani, Romei, Rumani and Români as the language evolved, derivatives of Latin adjective "Romanus" which meant "Citizen of the Roman Empire". They called Wallachia "the Romanian Land" ("Țeara Rumânească" in old Romanian, "Țara Românească" in modern Romanian. Țeara/Țara = Latin Terra = Land).

There is also the Hungarian rumor that Romanians didn't speak a latin language but made a whole new language in the 19th century then forced everyone to learn it, besides how ridiculous and impossible this sounds, it was only the chyliric alphabet changed to latin and some words were imported from France, most of the language remained the same. Hungarian Stephan Szántó stated about Vlachs that "their language would be understandable by real Italians" in the 16th century. But don't take his word for it, if you look at the oldest written text ever found in Romanian which is Nascu's letter from 1521, you'll find that out of 190 words (excluding substantives), 175 have latin origin, and is mutually intelligible with modern Romanian. Sample - Old Romanian: "dau stire domnietale za lukrul turcilor kum ami auzit eu ku ipuratul au esit den Sofie si aimintre nue si seu dus i sus pre dunure"; Modern Romanian: "dau stire dumitale de lucrul turcilor cum am auzit eu ca imparatul a iesit din Sofia si aimintrea nu e și s-au dus in sus pe Dunare". Even if you don't understand Romanian you can't help but notice that it's similar.

You are not the first Hungarian to come up with exaclty these historical arguments. This is another problem in the way of peace, divergences in the interpretation of History if I can call them that way. A lot of Hungarians are unaware of the facts mentioned above and continue their Hungarian version of history. This is no problem in areas where there's an actual debate, such as in the case of Gesta Hungarorum, the problem is in the areas where the Hungarian version is a complete fabrication. I am not under the illusion that the Romanian version of history is pure and unbiased, which is why I tend to use neutral sources, usually British or American, but there are undeniable facts that support the Romanian version, which are ignored by the Hungarian version. If we cannot agree on the state of the past, what chance do we have to agree on the state of the present?

I agree that this is sadly our reality because Hungarians are very judgemental and not really welcoming especially if you are from our "Trianon enemies" and even if you speak the Hungarian language in a different accent you are an "intruder". The minority rights are also given in Hungary to every minority, but that is not what I am talking about, Autonomy is important because it lets a special "territory/minority" govern itself, such as lets say that you want to have the Transylvanian flag on every government building within Transylvania, then the central government says it is against their ideas/laws. I think if we accept the fact that the Translyvanin Romanins wanted to join Romania because they have the right to self-government, The Hungarian Seklers should have it too, because that is fair. Just imagine for a second if the Transylvanians have "some kind of" autonomy, the Hungarians would be happy, the Transylvanians would be a happy and nothing really would change, Transyalvnia wouldnt "join" Hungary or anything, Is there a real reason why Romania is against the autonomy? Like a 10 million Hungary could do anything against a 20 million Romania while both countries member of the EU and NATO.

I honestly just wish that at some point in the future this situation comes to a (happy) end.

The problem and reason why Romania is hesitant to give autonomy to the 2 counties with a Hungarian majority from Transylvania is because of Hungary and their revanchist desires. Autonomy or annexation? Viktor Orbán offered citizenship to all Hungarians in Romania, this further discouraged Romanians from offering autonomy. You give them autonomy and the next thing you know they want independence. Those regions even though they have a Hungarian majority also have a singnificant Romanian minority.

The problem wasn't made over the Transylvanian flag.

This is the Transylvanian flag:

This was not placed on the government building.

This is the Hungarian-Szekely flag:

This was placed on the government building.

And the Hungarian flag was also placed on the government building.

I too wish this situation would come to a happy end.

Were it not for nationalist rivalries of the era, one wonders what could have happened if the Austrians, Hungarians,and Romanians had chosen to cooperate and either arrange population exchanges or even reunite the Austrians and Hungarians, coupled with a royal marriage between Romania's royal family and the Hapsburgs. Imagine a new Austro-Hungarian-Romanian Empire, stretching from the Adriatic to the Black Sea!

One could argue the same thing about today's state of affaris with legal & illegal immigrants. To most right-wingers the problem is not the immigrants themselves, the problem is that they want to impose their culture on the country they migrated to, a culture that is deemed by the right-winger more inferior and brutal. I don't want to turn this topic into a political discussion, just to make a point that division based on different culture is a natural state of affairs because it's a natural state of human beings, culture is like "tribes". Austria-Hungary was already shattering before the warshattering before the war, too many different nationalities wanting independence.

Another reason why an Austrian-Hungarian-Romanian empire wouldn't work was Transylvania. Both Hungary and Romania wanted Transylvania. Splitting it up like Hitler did in 1940 would have only ensured more hate.