World War II viewed from Romania's Perspective

[aare]

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.

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.

Wow, these points are just so wrong and away from facts. It only manages to reflect the effectiveness of propaganda of the Soviet regime.

 

[hkrommel]

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!

I'm not sure that would actually work though. You would need some sort of unifying goal or principal beyond raw power, and that wouldn't be present in an imperial monarchy. You could try something like the United States with a federal or confederal system, but it's doubtful that would work either without a long series of strong, dynamic leadership that is able to bring different cultures together in common cause.

 

[Michael Gladius]

One could argue the same thing about today's state of affairs 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 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.

I'm suggesting that Austria, Hungary, and Romania merge together like Yugoslavia (call it the "New Holy Roman Empire"). That way, Transylvania wouldn't be split, and the mixed demographics wouldn't be as big of an issue.

You're right about the fragmentation due to nationalism, but the Hungarians and Austrians were on good terms and could have reunited if not for the threat of external intervention. Dumping the Balkan nations that became Yugoslavia for Romania would be a dramatic shift, but only involve one nation.

I'm not sure that would actually work though. You would need some sort of unifying goal or principal beyond raw power, and that wouldn't be present in an imperial monarchy. You could try something like the United States with a federal or confederal system, but it's doubtful that would work either without a long series of strong, dynamic leadership that is able to bring different cultures together in common cause.

Monarchies can provide stability in the long-term, and two attempts to restore the monarchy in Hungary were foiled by the threat of external intervention. The Hapsburgs marrying into the Romanian monarchy would be a shrewd move, and the two dynasties could make secret agreements to merge the nations in order to not split Transylvania. Karl I was a strong supporter of federalism and his heirs still are a major voice in favor of European integration today. Without foreign intervention, a lot could have happened.

 

[him_15]

Just had a great history lesson.

 

[MaReDioa]

Just had a great history lesson.

Same for me. And just a weak after I managed to do "Death or Dishonor or Cake"

 

[Zeprion]

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!

From my knowledge, the Soviets wanted to take as much from Romania as they could, if it wasn't for the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact they would have claimed all of Moldavia. Even with the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact the Soviets pushed every boundry they could, the original deal with Germany was that the Sovet Union only takes Bessarabia, but the Sovet Union requested at the last minute to all take Bukovina as well, Nazi Germany was surprised by this request and eventually agreed that the Soviet Union only takes a small piece of Bukovina. But the Soviet Union didn't stop there and kept advancing, the Romanian army was in shock and didn't know what to do so they continued retreating, when the Romanian government saw that the Russian army didn't stop at the agreed borders they had a conference.

Before the conference was over, on the frontline, Major Valeriu Crap gave the following order "From here we do not retreat anymore! They shall not pass over Putna! Go to your units, organize defensive positions and if the Russians make one step forward, on my order and at my own risk open fire!". The Russian advanced, Major Valeriu Crap's battalion started shooting and the situation was about to escalate, both Nazi Germany and the Allies were angry at the Soviet Union for this advance and Stalin was forced to back down and give up his further push in Romania in order to avoid interantional outrage. However, with this trick form a small piece of Bukovina the Soviet Union ended up with half of Bukovina. After Romania switched sides in 1944, Major Valeriu Carp was declared a war criminal by the Soviet Union.

After the Soviet Union took Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina they requested Germany to be allowed to take Southern Bukovina as well, but it was refused. Then the Soviets occupied the Snake Island in the Black Sea.

There was no Soviet offer help and guarantee to Romania as far as I know, and given the events previously described, that seems very unlikely.

The facts later would have been different had the Soviets not taken Bessarabia and Northern Bukvoina. The reason Romania joined the Axis and entered World War II was to recover Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina from the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union wouldn't have taken Bessarabia and Northern Bukvoina Romania would have had no reason to join the war. Ion Antonescu's advance in Transnistria was very unpopular in Romania and even then it was made in hopes that Nazi Germany would reward Romania with Northern Transylvania for their contribution to the eastern front. If the Soviets would not taken Bessarabia and Northern Bukvoina, there would be no coup against Carol II, and most likely Romania would have stayed neutral or joined the Allies to take back Northern Transylvania in 1944.

Funny you say that, considering that Ion Antonescu wasn't a nazi. He worked with the nazi but wasn't buying into their ideology. The irony is that the Romanian Nazi, the Iron Guard, attempted a coup against them but failed, it is explained in the original post. Romanian people? He was no nazi but he was a nationalist, the Romanian people would have benefited from living under him. Soviet people? They forced them to work for the war effort, but this was nothing compared to what the Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union was doing. Jew people? While he didn't like the Jews, he was against the idea of killing them, being a Nazi Germany ally he eventually but reluctantly took part in the Hollocaust after having some resistance: "The Jews from Romania are my Jews. Solving the Jewish problem is a Romanian problem that will not be decided in Berlin!", "I won't wait for the German decision and their madness to destroy the European Jews". And during his trial by the defense comitee: "If the Jews from Romania still live, they live due to Marshal Antonescu".

It is hard to judge you on the diplomacy research you claim to have made. But if we judge you on the conclusions you have found; then it should be called one of the most ignorant comments on the subject ever!

 

[krios41]

And then thay say gaming is good for nothing
HAH! If it wasn't for gaming i wouldn't have known this about Romania. It was intresting to read

 

[PeterX7]

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.

Well, this is not an argument really, why would the "winning side" complain, the Italians in south tyrol doesn't really voice that they want even more ski parks/territories right?

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 Danube 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.

Sad as it is but there are a lot of theories, and not much proof, but I do know that many (current) historians say that there is a weak and debate relation in connection to the Roman Empire, this could be said about the Hungarians-Finnish or Hungarian-Steppe connection (that way we could claim parts of mongolia/china/ural right? The past is the past and I am talking about the current Hungarian minority and their options.

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 existence 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.

So this is just as debatable like your counterpoint against my argument. There are 2 main different theories about the "conquest" and one of them wasn't really "that kind of conquest" and more like assimilation in 600-700AD and even before with the Hunnic tribes in 300-400AD, sadly just like before, there are highly debatable and to me its not really relevant in the current world. if the question is who was here first then we supposed the go back to Asia? you do understand my argument right? So the "not just conquest theory" about how did we "captured" the territory has some answers to this. I also never argued that Hungary was a multinational state (but this could be applied to 99% percent of the European kingdoms), but it did have one big connection and that is the connection between the Hungarian lands and the Hungarian Crown, the Crown represented the lands and the chain between the Kingdom and the land with all people living on them.

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 Hungarians 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.

Let me say something else, during the 18th century (after the Ottoman occupation) there were a lot of settling and during the 19th century it also repeated, and this mainly because under the Ottoman occupation of Hungary a big chunk of the country was more or less empty and undeveloped, so therefore many Romanians got settled by the Austrian Empire to tranyslvanian as well as Slovakians etc. This is one of the reasons why Hungary became more "fragmented" in ethnicity after the 15th century.

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.

I dont really want to talk about how nationalizing politics work, but let me say this, is it bad to let them have this option? Getting another citizenship is that wrong if they want to have an opportunity with connection to their ancestry/ethnicity? Even today in Hungary there are battles over why should the "non-belligrent" Hungarians vote in our national election.

Those regions even though they have a Hungarian majority also have a significant Romanian minority

So you defender the Romanian minority but what about the Hungarian majority? You do see that there is an analogy between this issue and the issue after 1918 Transylvanian snap. Did the Romanians care about Hungarian minority? Not really, Stalin even enforced to create the Szekler Autonom Region which was then quickly abolished after his death. You do understand that there is fear in the Hungarian government about the whole issue. The question is if there were talks between the government wouldn't be the Romanians happier to have autonomy rather than the current dual citizenships? Im not saying that this is a solution to the problem but you do have to understand why our politicians have annual visits to Transylvania, and angering the "currently less powerful" Hungarians isn't a good decision from the "currently winner Romania". I also doubt that a Transylvanian autonomous region would even want to join Hungary, from my point of view this is just a fear from the Romanian government.

Regarding the flag issue, I think that "Hungarian-Szekely flag" represents a political thought and also symbolize the "Hungarian-Transylvanian origins". It's not like there is "Greater Hungary" on it that want to reclaim the area is it? Also has historical origins according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Székely_Land But again, I dont understand why a flag would danger a country if it's not symbolizing hostility (like a greater Hungary flag or swastikas etc).

I also want to say thank your answering and keeping a civil conversation, I never had any similar experience.

 

[marcelo r. r.]

great OP post.. but as a non-european, i will admit that these small countries in Europe all seems the same to me, "we are the people of the happy bouncing gazelles that lived at the end of the rainbow, we just wanted to live in peace until we were crushed by quarrelsome and angry neighbors.". well what exactly the news?

 

[Zeprion]

Well, this is not an argument really, why would the "winning side" complain, the Italians in south tyrol doesn't really voice that they want even more ski parks/territories right?

If Hungary would have kept Northern Transylvania in 1947 as you suggest, Romania will not be the "winning side".

Sad as it is but there are a lot of theories, and not much proof, but I do know that many (current) historians say that there is a weak and debate relation in connection to the Roman Empire, this could be said about the Hungarians-Finnish or Hungarian-Steppe connection (that way we could claim parts of mongolia/china/ural right? The past is the past and I am talking about the current Hungarian minority and their options.

There is limited primary source doccuments from that era, theories is the best we can get. Which historians and what are their arguments? If you are talking about the current Hungarian minority and their options, why did you argue that the Daco-Roman theory was just a propaganda creation and it doesn't have any actual bases? This is why I wrote about the old chroniclers, including Hungarians chroniclers, who supported the Daco-Roman theory calling Romanians "descendents of Roman colonists". Hungarian propaganda can keep saying that Romania is the descendent of Cumania and other Turking tribes, but it's hard to argue around the latin-based language, because that's not speculation, that's a fact that can be observed today.

So this is just as debatable like your counterpoint against my argument. There are 2 main different theories about the "conquest" and one of them wasn't really "that kind of conquest" and more like assimilation in 600-700AD and even before with the Hunnic tribes in 300-400AD, sadly just like before, there are highly debatable and to me its not really relevant in the current world. if the question is who was here first then we supposed the go back to Asia? you do understand my argument right? So the "not just conquest theory" about how did we "captured" the territory has some answers to this. I also never argued that Hungary was a multinational state (but this could be applied to 99% percent of the European kingdoms), but it did have one big connection and that is the connection between the Hungarian lands and the Hungarian Crown, the Crown represented the lands and the chain between the Kingdom and the land with all people living on them.

The Magyars came in Europe around the 9th and 10th centuries, how is it possible to be a Hungarian assimilation on 600 - 700 AD and even before with the Hunnic tribes in 300 - 400 AD, 600 years before the Hungarians arived in Europe? To my knowledge, the event is officialy known as "the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin", which leaves little room for interpretation or alternative methods such as "assimilation". I could be wrong since I don't know about the 2nd theory that you mention, would you please explain it to me?

Well, Hungary was a multinational state from the medieval ages up to 1918. On a Hungarian-favorable average throught the centuries, 50% of the population in the whole Kingdom was Hungarian. Compare that with the Ottoman Empire who held a lot of Balkans and Middle East, yet still had a population of 76% Turks. The situation of Hungary's population is rather similar with the Russian Empire in 1877, when it had only 44% Russians. But the Russian Empire at that time conquered: A lot of former Poland, all of Ukraine, all of Belarus, all of the former Tatar states, all of Finland, all the Baltics, Bessarabia and all of Caucas. Hungary was the opposite of Romania in the middle age, where half of Romanians lived outside of Wallachia and Moldavia, half of the citizens of the Kingdom of Hungary weren't Hungarians.

Let me say something else, during the 18th century (after the Ottoman occupation) there were a lot of settling and during the 19th century it also repeated, and this mainly because under the Ottoman occupation of Hungary a big chunk of the country was more or less empty and undeveloped, so therefore many Romanians got settled by the Austrian Empire to tranyslvanian as well as Slovakians etc. This is one of the reasons why Hungary became more "fragmented" in ethnicity after the 15th century.

I have heard of this argument before but never seen evidence supporting it. Why would the Austrian Empire settle Romanians to Transylvania when Wallachia and Moldavia weren't part of the Austrian Empire? Or where else would they settle them from? Besides, Hungary wasn't part of the Austrian Empire during the Ottoman Occupation, they would have no means and no motivation to do so. Besides, even if Austria Hungary and the Ottoman Empire had some sort of "deal" for some reason (which I highly doubt, given that they were enemies and the Austrian Empire gains nothing from this) Wallaicha and Moldavia were autonomous provinces of the Ottoman Empire, the Ottomans couldn't do whatever they wanted in Wallachia and Moldavia as long as they paid tribute. Do about have sources or population censues to support these claims? Besides, the previous quotes I posted of people stating that the Romanians were numerous in Transylvania were long before 1541 (the 16th century) when the Ottoman Hungary was formed.

I dont really want to talk about how nationalizing politics work, but let me say this, is it bad to let them have this option? Getting another citizenship is that wrong if they want to have an opportunity with connection to their ancestry/ethnicity? Even today in Hungary there are battles over why should the "non-belligrent" Hungarians vote in our national election.

It is bad for Romania, if you have 2 citizenships, how can you tell which country are you loyal to? Especially when it's about Romania-Hungary due to their history. There's another problem, giving citizenship to Hungarian Romanian citizens is basically Hungary meddling in the internal affairs of another country, which is why it is heavily criticized by the European Union. And which is why it further discourages Romanians from offering autonomy. Autonomy or annexation? You give them autonomy and the next thing you know they want independence.

So you defender the Romanian minority but what about the Hungarian majority? You do see that there is an analogy between this issue and the issue after 1918 Transylvanian snap. Did the Romanians care about Hungarian minority? Not really, Stalin even enforced to create the Szekler Autonom Region which was then quickly abolished after his death. You do understand that there is fear in the Hungarian government about the whole issue. The question is if there were talks between the government wouldn't be the Romanians happier to have autonomy rather than the current dual citizenships? Im not saying that this is a solution to the problem but you do have to understand why our politicians have annual visits to Transylvania, and angering the "currently less powerful" Hungarians isn't a good decision from the "currently winner Romania". I also doubt that a Transylvanian autonomous region would even want to join Hungary, from my point of view this is just a fear from the Romanian government.

I defend the Romanian minority because they should not live under a Hungarian Autonomous region in Romania, they live in Romania. In the same way I would defend Hungarian minorities because they should not live under a Romanian Autonoums region in Hungary, they live in Hungary. It is for the same reason that I'm against a Romanian Autonomous region in Italy, even though there are regions full of Romanians, they live in Italy, nobody ever proposed this but for the sake of the argument. Did the Hungarians care about the Romanian minority prior to 1918? Not really. Hungarians today have more rights than Romanains had in Hungary.

I was not aware that there is fear in the Hungarian government about the whole issue, but I know that Orban is very verbal about the issue. I see it the other way around, it's Hungary that start with all these provocations. Regardless of how you feel about history, Transylvania is currently officially part of Romania, and this is internationally accepted by Romania, Hungary and everyone else. If you come into your neighbour's home making a fuss, who is the angering party? The "currently less powerful" Hungarians or the "currently winner Romania" ? It's not Romania making autonoums claims in Hungary, it's the other way around. I don't doubt a Transylvanian Hungarian autonomous region would even want to join Hungary, you gave the example yourself with the flags, a few comments ago.

As I said previously, in my honest opinion the root of all this conflict: Hungarian-Slovakian, Hungarian-Serbian, Hungarian-Romanian, is Hungary's revanchist desires. If they would stop with that the conflict would stop. All of this "deangerization" has to start from the government. The problem starts with the government and with 2 different versions of history. From my knowledge, there are areas where there's an actual debate, such as in the case of Gesta Hungarorum, but there are more areas where there's no debate and the Hungarian version is a complete fabrication. As I previosuly said, 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? Imagine if Germany today still had the mindset of interwar Germany, France and Poland wouldn't have the same attitude towards them.

Regarding the flag issue, I think that "Hungarian-Szekely flag" represents a political thought and also symbolize the "Hungarian-Transylvanian origins". It's not like there is "Greater Hungary" on it that want to reclaim the area is it? Also has historical origins according to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Székely_Land But again, I dont understand why a flag would danger a country if it's not symbolizing hostility (like a greater Hungary flag or swastikas etc).

I also want to say thank your answering and keeping a civil conversation, I never had any similar experience.

The Szekely flag is a pretty face on "we want autonomy" considering the current state of affairs and the places where they're placed. To you it may not, but to the Romanian that's exactly what it is, it symbolizes hostility.

I want to thank you as well for your answering and keeping a civil conversation, then I'm glad I offered you that experience.

 

[Selzro]

I greatly enjoyed reading about Romanians' perspective on the war and on why they fought, but I'm not particularly convinced by the reasoning that "we only fought for the Nazis because we had to". Greece found itself in a very similar situation to Romania at around the same time. It was one of the winners of WWI and was trying to maintain peace and stability because its neighbours wanted parts of its territory. It also formed a dictatorship in the second part of the 30s in response to world tension and tried to get an alliance with the UK but the latter refused because it feared being dragged into a war with Italy. After the fall of France Germany put pressure on it to accept Italian and Bulgarian territorial demands, in exchange for integrating it into the new European order, much like they did with Romania with the Second Vienna Award. But Greece refused. It fought against Italy, and then Germany as well, even when there was little to no hope of winning. It then formed Free Greek forces that saw action from the Indian Ocean to Italy to the sea off Normandy on D-Day. No Greek soldiers fought for the Germans against the USSR or anyone else. Greece was devastated by Axis occupation while Romania was not, but by the end of the war the former had earned its place on the side of the victors.

Of course, much of the same as Greece was true of Poland, and while Greece ended up on the western side of the Iron Curtain Poland ended up on the eastern side. Perhaps if Romania had resisted it wouldn't have made a difference in the end. It would still have ended up a Soviet puppet, with its soldiers having fought abroad for the UK feeling betrayed once more by the outcome. And the country would have sustained the same devastation Poland and Greece did. But I can't help but feel there's a moral difference there that is perhaps unacknowledged by ascribing Romania's choices to necessity.

 

[hkrommel]

But I can't help but feel there's a moral difference there that is perhaps unacknowledged by ascribing Romania's choices to necessity.

If you ever figure out a way to articulate that let me know. My instinct tells me you're right and it's better to go down fighting than make a deal with the devil. At the same time I'm living in the 21st century and have never witnessed anything close to the kind of death and destruction Romania would face if they did fight, so it's hard to evaluate whether it's even possible for me to see the difference between subjecting my own people to that sort of hopeless war or to try and ride it out another way, even if that means compromise of the worst sort.

 

[Selzro]

If you ever figure out a way to articulate that let me know. My instinct tells me you're right and it's better to go down fighting than make a deal with the devil. At the same time I'm living in the 21st century and have never witnessed anything close to the kind of death and destruction Romania would face if they did fight, so it's hard to evaluate whether it's even possible for me to see the difference between subjecting my own people to that sort of hopeless war or to try and ride it out another way, even if that means compromise of the worst sort.

Maybe a middle path would have been more humane. Romania didn't have to die fighting the Germans, but it also didn't have to display such fervour in fighting for the Germans. Bulgaria also profited from being on Germany's good side and from allowing it military access for its conquests, but it didn't commit its own armies to Germany's war. It seems that Romania was particularly eager to please the Germans in the hope of getting some of its land back from Hungary, but that goes beyond survival and into the territory of complicity. Coupled with the Antonescu government's fervent participation in carrying out the Holocaust, I find the existence of a widespread attitude of excusing all of Romania's actions as something unavoidable potentially worrying.

(By the way, one of my most memorable games in HoI2 was as Romania, where I was instrumental in bringing down the USSR - and I kicked it off by conquering Hungary before I joined the Axis, for good measure. )

 

[hkrommel]

but it also didn't have to display such fervour in fighting for the Germans

Excellent point.

 

[PeterX7]

If Hungary would have kept Northern Transylvania in 1947 as you suggest, Romania will not be the "winning side".

No, I am talking about a "fairer" map drawing something like this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/MagyarsOutsideHungary.png (look at the green areas next to the border. At least that 500 thousand Hungarians could be living in their "home country" if the ww1 nations wouldn't want to decimate the Hungarians(Austrian) "occupation". There is no way that this is a good idea, this just like Danzig before ww2 for many Hungarians. On about the 20% of Hungarian cars, you can find a greater Hungarian flag decal/patch which is even more than those politicians that have loud voices about the border issue. I am also talking about whole villages, cities that have near 80% percent Hungarian majority (look at many Slovakian parts). Or just look at the Carpathian Ruthenian Hungarians that are even harder fighting against discrimination, refusing to learn Ukranian etc.

There is limited primary source doccuments from that era, theories is the best we can get. Which historians and what are their arguments? If you are talking about the current Hungarian minority and their options, why did you argue that the Daco-Roman theory was just a propaganda creation and it doesn't have any actual bases? This is why I wrote about the old chroniclers, including Hungarians chroniclers, who supported the Daco-Roman theory calling Romanians "descendents of Roman colonists". Hungarian propaganda can keep saying that Romania is the descendent of Cumania and other Turking tribes, but it's hard to argue around the latin-based language, because that's not speculation, that's a fact that can be observed today.

In middle school we learned that the Daco-Roman theory (or the version that was favored by Ceaucescu) was "fake news", and this is also said by some of our current historians but with some modifications (so the cutural part could be correct).I am also not into genalogy, but if this was true lets say that the Romanians and the Italians could be connected? Hunnic and Magyar tribes also have a quite complicated historical "past". The "original" Hungarian dna could be similar to the Mongols right? or even the Kazkh dna? I do now that there was an article not to long ago that we are a lot closer to slavic and german dna than anything else, so biologically the old theories are quite refusable.

The Magyars came in Europe around the 9th and 10th centuries, how is it possible to be a Hungarian assimilation on 600 - 700 AD and even before with the Hunnic tribes in 300 - 400 AD, 600 years before the Hungarians arived in Europe? To my knowledge, the event is officialy known as "the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin", which leaves little room for interpretation or alternative methods such as "assimilation". I could be wrong since I don't know about the 2nd theory that you mention, would you please explain it to me?

Well, Hungary was a multinational state from the medieval ages up to 1918. On a Hungarian-favorable average throught the centuries, 50% of the population in the whole Kingdom was Hungarian. Compare that with the Ottoman Empire who held a lot of Balkans and Middle East, yet still had a population of 76% Turks. The situation of Hungary's population is rather similar with the Russian Empire in 1877, when it had only 44% Russians. But the Russian Empire at that time conquered: A lot of former Poland, all of Ukraine, all of Belarus, all of the former Tatar states, all of Finland, all the Baltics, Bessarabia and all of Caucas. Hungary was the opposite of Romania in the middle age, where half of Romanians lived outside of Wallachia and Moldavia, half of the citizens of the Kingdom of Hungary weren't Hungarians.

So there is this theory called "Double conquest" (the word conquest also is not really good but its called "Kettős Honfoglalás" in Hungarian if it helps).

Hungarian tribes have a very little record of moving from Asia to Europe, also there were "more" tribes than we have a record of, this theory claims (and have some "true" legitimacy). Hungarian tribes arrived to the Carpathian basin since the 7th century running from the "greater Hungarian tribes and other tribes and they arrived before and had very similar customs as Hungarians which would be strange since no other "population" could have done it. There is also a little bit more extreme versions that claims the Huns (around 400-500AD) also had Hungarian tribes with them (running from them or supporting them) and they also settled in the Carpathian Basin. You could say that these are not stone written, but there is a lot of strange evidence that could be connected to this.

I dont argue that the Kingdom of Hungary was a multinational state, we even had warnings from the 1848 war of independence that our minorities do have demands in terms of rights and autonomy but we didnt do anything. The punishment is, however, the badly draw Hungarian borders that we also lost territory to Austria after WW1 (which is very strange, since they were our puppetmasters and the "main enemies") - even if those territories had German/Austrian majority, they were living in Hungary for a longtime and never wanted t breakaway to join Austria).

I have heard of this argument before but never seen evidence supporting it. Why would the Austrian Empire settle Romanians to Transylvania when Wallachia and Moldavia weren't part of the Austrian Empire? Or where else would they settle them from? Besides, Hungary wasn't part of the Austrian Empire during the Ottoman Occupation, they would have no means and no motivation to do so. Besides, even if Austria Hungary and the Ottoman Empire had some sort of "deal" for some reason (which I highly doubt, given that they were enemies and the Austrian Empire gains nothing from this) Wallachia and Moldavia were autonomous provinces of the Ottoman Empire, the Ottomans couldn't do whatever they wanted in Wallachia and Moldavia as long as they paid tribute. Do about have sources or population censues to support these claims? Besides, the previous quotes I posted of people stating that the Romanians were numerous in Transylvania were long before 1541 (the 16th century) when the Ottoman Hungary was formed.

So the first record I found is from 1740 when a large number of immigrants from Moldavia and Wallachia settled in tranyslvania, we even had a law from 1723 about the Romanian settlers and our justice system connection. I did find some Hungarian articles about Romanians in Hungary between 15-18th century but it didnt mentioned any reliable numbers only that schools and literature had a big effect spreading from Transylvania to other Romanian cities, plus the religious advancement. Hungarian and German lords have also rallied Romanian peasants from nearby areas to themselves during the 15-16-17th century based on their own self interest.

It is bad for Romania, if you have 2 citizenships, how can you tell which country are you loyal to? Especially when it's about Romania-Hungary due to their history. There's another problem, giving citizenship to Hungarian Romanian citizens is basically Hungary meddling in the internal affairs of another country, which is why it is heavily criticized by the European Union. And which is why it further discourages Romanians from offering autonomy. Autonomy or annexation? You give them autonomy and the next thing you know they want independence.

As I said before, its very unlikely, just imagine how did the "Two Hungarian" country connect to each other without border? I also wouldn think that the Szekely wanted to join Hungary aswell. The citizenship is important in terms of the fundemental rights, I dont really get this why is it bad for the Romanian in the EU to have dual citizenships? To me every Eu citizen have dual citizenships since they have a national level guarantee of their basic rights and an EU level gurantee. Also Romania could simply just modify the citizenship law just like the Slovakians did that they dont accept dual citizenships and you have to choose one.

On a historical note, during the communsit era the whole hungairans behind non Hungarian borders issue was dead, no communist leader ever wanted to touch those politics, but after the fall of communism it became a thing and we felt that those 3 million Hungarian should get a protection from their "home country", due note that in early the2000s there a were a lot of incidents in Serbia, Romania, Slovakia, Ukraine against Hungarians, flag burning, Molotov cocktails on houses etc. And only after this, the government decided to intervene, and also the dual citizenships issue had a failed national voting in 2004 and only in 2010 after a regime change it became a law.

I defend the Romanian minority because they should not live under a Hungarian Autonomous region in Romania, they live in Romania. In the same way I would defend Hungarian minorities because they should not live under a Romanian Autonoums region in Hungary, they live in Hungary. It is for the same reason that I'm against a Romanian Autonomous region in Italy, even though there are regions full of Romanians, they live in Italy, nobody ever proposed this but for the sake of the argument. Did the Hungarians care about the Romanian minority prior to 1918? Not really. Hungarians today have more rights than Romanains had in Hungary.

But would you change your mind if Hungary had 1,5million Romanians living here? Yes you would want them to feel your support protect them etc, this is what modern govnments usually do (apart from their political goals) trying to protect their citizens even if they are kidnapped in foreign countries etc, the government send their swat team etc etc.

The Szekely flag is a pretty face on "we want autonomy" considering the current state of affairs and the places where they're placed. To you it may not, but to the Romanian that's exactly what it is, it symbolizes hostility.

Lets say, you can have the Szekely flags on the building, did it really change anything? apart from the Hungarians not complaining the szekelys not being angered? What if the Romanian government let them to do? They declare independence just because of the flag? I do think the Romanians are hars on this issue because they also have fears from the past just like the Hungarians. But what if they (for one time) offer the peace pipe and say, okay you can do it for one day/week/ and be happy about it. I do know that the Romanians nationalists would get a bloody eye and could do the same as their Ukranian counterparts (burning Hungarian flags), but it wouldn't be a diplomatic incidents and I wouldn't have to see every newspaper/tv station talk about how bad are the Romanians and making the whole country fear/being angered again.

 

[Zeprion]

I greatly enjoyed reading about Romanians' perspective on the war and on why they fought, but I'm not particularly convinced by the reasoning that "we only fought for the Nazis because we had to". Greece found itself in a very similar situation to Romania at around the same time. It was one of the winners of WWI and was trying to maintain peace and stability because its neighbours wanted parts of its territory. It also formed a dictatorship in the second part of the 30s in response to world tension and tried to get an alliance with the UK but the latter refused because it feared being dragged into a war with Italy. After the fall of France Germany put pressure on it to accept Italian and Bulgarian territorial demands, in exchange for integrating it into the new European order, much like they did with Romania with the Second Vienna Award. But Greece refused. It fought against Italy, and then Germany as well, even when there was little to no hope of winning. It then formed Free Greek forces that saw action from the Indian Ocean to Italy to the sea off Normandy on D-Day. No Greek soldiers fought for the Germans against the USSR or anyone else. Greece was devastated by Axis occupation while Romania was not, but by the end of the war the former had earned its place on the side of the victors.

Of course, much of the same as Greece was true of Poland, and while Greece ended up on the western side of the Iron Curtain Poland ended up on the eastern side. Perhaps if Romania had resisted it wouldn't have made a difference in the end. It would still have ended up a Soviet puppet, with its soldiers having fought abroad for the UK feeling betrayed once more by the outcome. And the country would have sustained the same devastation Poland and Greece did. But I can't help but feel there's a moral difference there that is perhaps unacknowledged by ascribing Romania's choices to necessity.

I agree with you, you have a very good point here. Romania could have refused Germany's demands for Northern Transylvania and Southern Dobruja in exchange for integration in the New European Order, just like Greece did. The Greek people showed bravery. It's just like the DLC "Death or Dishonour". Greece's choice was death, Romania's choice was dishonour.

I will not deny that fighting for the Nazi was wrong, all I'm saying is that Romania's choice was rather pragmatic than based on bravery. USSR also took part of Romania's territory, as such Romania had 2 evils to deal with. USSR also wanted more but was stopped by the Nazi. If Romania would have refused the Second Vienna Award, it could have been the next Poland, with the combined forces of Nazi Germany and USSR the outcome was sucicide for Romania.

Even in the eventuality that USSR wouldn't intervene, this was a bit unlikely, maybe USSR would have got all of Moldavia while Hungary all of Transylvania, Bulgaria all of Dobruja and Wallachia occupied by Nazi Germany. But even without the USSR, at that time Nazi Germany seemed like an unstoppable army. And the hesitation of France and UK was already apparent prior to the war. Again, fighting Nazi Germany was sucicide, what Greece did was sucicide, it's just that Greece was lucky as the Allies won the war. If the Axis would have won the war then Romania would have been in a good spot and Greece in a terrible one. This is not an excuse for joining the Nazi, all I'm saying is that Romania's choice was sensible while Greece's choice was suicide, but they got lucky.

"Just as you fight for England, I fight for my country, but out sufferings, battles and threats, you cannot immagine. We were attacked, although we didn't attack anyone, what was ours was taken." - Ion Antonescu to General Maitland Wilson

"If I had won the war, you would have built me statues in every city, but because I lost I will have to die. I ask to be sentenced to death and refuse any pardon." - Ion Antonescu on his trial.

If you ever figure out a way to articulate that let me know. My instinct tells me you're right and it's better to go down fighting than make a deal with the devil. At the same time I'm living in the 21st century and have never witnessed anything close to the kind of death and destruction Romania would face if they did fight, so it's hard to evaluate whether it's even possible for me to see the difference between subjecting my own people to that sort of hopeless war or to try and ride it out another way, even if that means compromise of the worst sort.

Exactly my point, refusing Nazi Germany would have led to Romania being the 2nd Poland. Being invaded by both Nazi Germany and USSR. It would have been suicide. Romania's choice was not honourable, but it was sensible.

Maybe a middle path would have been more humane. Romania didn't have to die fighting the Germans, but it also didn't have to display such fervour in fighting for the Germans. Bulgaria also profited from being on Germany's good side and from allowing it military access for its conquests, but it didn't commit its own armies to Germany's war. It seems that Romania was particularly eager to please the Germans in the hope of getting some of its land back from Hungary, but that goes beyond survival and into the territory of complicity. Coupled with the Antonescu government's fervent participation in carrying out the Holocaust, I find the existence of a widespread attitude of excusing all of Romania's actions as something unavoidable potentially worrying.

(By the way, one of my most memorable games in HoI2 was as Romania, where I was instrumental in bringing down the USSR - and I kicked it off by conquering Hungary before I joined the Axis, for good measure. )

Romania displaied such fervour in fighting for the Germans in order to take back Northern Transylvania from Hungary thorugh German alibration. Germany succesfully played both Romania and Hungary. What you say about not commiting to Germany's war is exactly what many people said at that time, including King Michael I, but it would have made little difference in the outcome, Romania didn't had the luxury of being close to the West like Greece and Italy, it was certain Romania was to be occupied by the Soviet Union, Finland is still a loser of World War II despite stopping after they took some territory. Still, whether it should have advanced or stay in Bessrabia after they took it back is a good question.

"Antonescu's biggest mistake was going to Stalingrad. This couldn't be accepted in Romania. What were we doing out there? Everyone agreed to retake Bessarabia, but no centerpiece from the Dniester." - King Michael I of Romania

"During the period from 1944 to 1947 I was very unhappy. I can't say I was very hurt, but I was upset and disappointed, because I really hoped that the US and the UK would do something to stop the Russians." - King Michael I of Romania

No, I am talking about a "fairer" map drawing something like this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/MagyarsOutsideHungary.png (look at the green areas next to the border. At least that 500 thousand Hungarians could be living in their "home country" if the ww1 nations wouldn't want to decimate the Hungarians(Austrian) "occupation". There is no way that this is a good idea, this just like Danzig before ww2 for many Hungarians. On about the 20% of Hungarian cars, you can find a greater Hungarian flag decal/patch which is even more than those politicians that have loud voices about the border issue. I am also talking about whole villages, cities that have near 80% percent Hungarian majority (look at many Slovakian parts). Or just look at the Carpathian Ruthenian Hungarians that are even harder fighting against discrimination, refusing to learn Ukranian etc.

As I previosuly said, Infrastructure and defense played a great part in arbitration. Cities like Oradea, Arad, Satu Mare had a railway connecting them and were good defensive points in case of Hungarian aggression, which pragmatically was to be expected.

Romania has a similar case but a different attitude. Bukovina and parts of Bessarabia that were taken in 1940 are part of Ukraine. 100% feel that those territories are rightfully Romanian but 90% of Romanians don't claim those territories and don't complain that they are part of Ukraine, they just accept it. It's on a smaller scale indeed, but Romanians in Bukovina have no problem learning Ukrainian, they acknowledge that they like in Ukraine and respect that. They also visit Romania, some moved here.

In middle school we learned that the Daco-Roman theory (or the version that was favored by Ceaucescu) was "fake news", and this is also said by some of our current historians but with some modifications (so the cutural part could be correct).I am also not into genalogy, but if this was true lets say that the Romanians and the Italians could be connected? Hunnic and Magyar tribes also have a quite complicated historical "past". The "original" Hungarian dna could be similar to the Mongols right? or even the Kazkh dna? I do now that there was an article not to long ago that we are a lot closer to slavic and german dna than anything else, so biologically the old theories are quite refusable.

Seems kind of strange for another country to specifically teach the history of another country in their school, unless it's "world history" or "european history". I don't believe in genes, we the Romanians and the Hungarians are probably more genetically related than Hungarians and Finns or Romanians and Italians. French and Germans are probably very genetically related, same goes for Greeks and Turks. It's culture that makes the difference. Even the Roman Empire was a conglomerate of people, there was Roman Culture not Roman genes. A Roman from nowdays Spain was as much of a Roman as a Roman from Italy but genetically different.

So there is this theory called "Double conquest" (the word conquest also is not really good but its called "Kettős Honfoglalás" in Hungarian if it helps).

Hungarian tribes have a very little record of moving from Asia to Europe, also there were "more" tribes than we have a record of, this theory claims (and have some "true" legitimacy). Hungarian tribes arrived to the Carpathian basin since the 7th century running from the "greater Hungarian tribes and other tribes and they arrived before and had very similar customs as Hungarians which would be strange since no other "population" could have done it. There is also a little bit more extreme versions that claims the Huns (around 400-500AD) also had Hungarian tribes with them (running from them or supporting them) and they also settled in the Carpathian Basin. You could say that these are not stone written, but there is a lot of strange evidence that could be connected to this.

I dont argue that the Kingdom of Hungary was a multinational state, we even had warnings from the 1848 war of independence that our minorities do have demands in terms of rights and autonomy but we didnt do anything. The punishment is, however, the badly draw Hungarian borders that we also lost territory to Austria after WW1 (which is very strange, since they were our puppetmasters and the "main enemies") - even if those territories had German/Austrian majority, they were living in Hungary for a longtime and never wanted t breakaway to join Austria).

I see, interesting theory. I can't pronounce myself for that region, but in Transylvania there was a vote. Romanians and Germans voted for union with Romania while Hungarians (Szekely included) were against it. The former group was the majority.

One could argue that this was just a facade for legitimacy as Transylvania would join Romania anyway, but the delegates from Transylvania made their vote and it seems the population agreed with them. The Romanians from Banat, Transylvania and Bukovina entered the war from the very beginning with hundreds of thousands being mobilized throught World War I. Based on the folkore songs they didn't like it, some songs went like "better here in my village than slave to the emperor (mai bine la mine in sat, decat sluga la imparat)", but the most reactionary sentiments emerged after Romania joined the Entente in 1916. Many of the previously loyal soldiers decided that it's better to risk their lives through desertion rather than to fight against their own country. Many novels were written on this subject, most famous being "The Forest of the Hanged", hanging was the punishment for desertion in Austria-Hungary.

There was also the Volunteer Corps of Transylvanian-Bukovinians, a military formation created from ethnic Romanian POVs held in Russia. While one would be intuitively led to believe that they were simply given for free by Russia so that the Romanians would have extra troops, this is Russia we're talking about. Russian authorities initially prohibited such initiatives, those who insisted to establish contact with Romania were arrested by Russian police force, it was only after the insistance of the Romanian government that Russia allowed transfers in limited numbers in exchange for money or non-Romanian prisoners from Romania. The point is that Transylvanian Romanians were pretty vocal about wanting to be part of Romania.

So the first record I found is from 1740 when a large number of immigrants from Moldavia and Wallachia settled in tranyslvania, we even had a law from 1723 about the Romanian settlers and our justice system connection. I did find some Hungarian articles about Romanians in Hungary between 15-18th century but it didnt mentioned any reliable numbers only that schools and literature had a big effect spreading from Transylvania to other Romanian cities, plus the religious advancement. Hungarian and German lords have also rallied Romanian peasants from nearby areas to themselves during the 15-16-17th century based on their own self interest.

I googled "1740 immigrants from Wallachia and Moldavia" and only found only one source on the subject, a Hungarian one, it says: "There has been much debate about the scale of immigration from the two Romanian principalities. Benedek Jancsó estimated that 500,000 Romanians arrived in Hungary and Transylvania, while Zoltán Dávid put their number at 350,000 - 400,000; these estimates will be evaluated further on. Historians attribute this movement mainly to the new burdens imposed on peasants in the period that Wallachia and Moldavia were ruled by Phanariotes (Greeks from Constantinople), and the attraction of a safer and more developed Transylvania."

I find that this source lacking in base evidence for its reasoning, it seems more like an estimation based on an estimation. It is primarily based on the Austrian statistics from 1713, not a population census just an estimation, which said that in Transylvania about 37% of the population was Romanian, 47% was Hungarian and 20% German. Even though this is an estimation, this source takes it as fact and builds from it. It also ignores to mention the Austrian statistics from 1730, which is again not a population census just an estimation, making it not reliable, which said that Transylvania had a population of about 725.000 people, out of which 57,9% are Romanians, 26,2% are Hungarians and 15,1% are Austrian. I can only guess this sourced favored one statistic over the other for the sake of convenience.

In my personal opinion, both estimations don't represent facts since they are just that, estimations, but if I have to pick one, I'd argue the second is more likely to be accurate as the estimations are more in-depth, leading me to believe more work was done in making those estimations, you don't randomly make an "57,9%" number in the same way you make an "about 37%" number, this isn't lazy writing, the statistics literally say "about 37%". But what I have here is just an estimation based on 2 other estimations, see what I mean? not reliable. The same source also mentions: "It appears, then, that immigration from Wallachia and Moldavia was comparatively light between 1711 and 1740, then mushroomed over the next twenty years", 1740 was 10 years after 1730 when the Austrian statistics already argued the Romanians were an absolute majority.

As I said before, its very unlikely, just imagine how did the "Two Hungarian" country connect to each other without border? I also wouldn think that the Szekely wanted to join Hungary aswell. The citizenship is important in terms of the fundemental rights, I dont really get this why is it bad for the Romanian in the EU to have dual citizenships? To me every Eu citizen have dual citizenships since they have a national level guarantee of their basic rights and an EU level gurantee. Also Romania could simply just modify the citizenship law just like the Slovakians did that they dont accept dual citizenships and you have to choose one.

They don't have to be connected, countries can have enclaves. If they wanted dual citizenship they are already Hungarian citizens, I doubt they would want to be Hungarian citizens but not join Hungary as well. They have the same EU rights as Romanian citizens and Hungarian citizens. Which can't be said for Moldovans, which is why many Moldovans make Romanian citizenship, and why Romania won't ban dual citizenship.

On a historical note, during the communsit era the whole hungairans behind non Hungarian borders issue was dead, no communist leader ever wanted to touch those politics, but after the fall of communism it became a thing and we felt that those 3 million Hungarian should get a protection from their "home country", due note that in early the 2000s there a were a lot of incidents in Serbia, Romania, Slovakia, Ukraine against Hungarians, flag burning, Molotov cocktails on houses etc. And only after this, the government decided to intervene, and also the dual citizenships issue had a failed national voting in 2004 and only in 2010 after a regime change it became a law.

But would you change your mind if Hungary had 1,5 million Romanians living here? Yes you would want them to feel your support protect them etc, this is what modern govnments usually do (apart from their political goals) trying to protect their citizens even if they are kidnapped in foreign countries etc, the government send their swat team etc etc.

I didn't read anything about them, but I doubt that the 2000s civillians conflicts were that one-sided. Italy has 1.5 millions Romanians living there and I still disagree with a Romanian Autonomus region. Even if there were 1.5 millions Romanians in Hungary I wouldn't change my mind. The Romanian government has no deal in Italian or Hungarian internal affairs, and those Romanians are always free to leave, they aren't kidnapped by Italy, they just happen to live in Italy. 95% of Hungarians in Romania aren't oppressed, I've been there 4 times, they have some special rights like being allowed to study in their language and all the rights a normal Romanian citizen has, the other 5% talk smack and when you talk smack you're going to find retaliation regardless of where you're from. I used to work with a Hungarian from Transylvania in Bucharest, there was no racism towards him, if anything we made jokes about autonomy. I once needed a pen from his desk and he told me "I can't even have autonomy on my desk?" in a jokingly manner.

Lets say, you can have the Szekely flags on the building, did it really change anything? apart from the Hungarians not complaining the szekelys not being angered? What if the Romanian government let them to do? They declare independence just because of the flag? I do think the Romanians are hars on this issue because they also have fears from the past just like the Hungarians. But what if they (for one time) offer the peace pipe and say, okay you can do it for one day/week/ and be happy about it. I do know that the Romanians nationalists would get a bloody eye and could do the same as their Ukranian counterparts (burning Hungarian flags), but it wouldn't be a diplomatic incidents and I wouldn't have to see every newspaper/tv station talk about how bad are the Romanians and making the whole country fear/being angered again.

It wouldn't, but it would be a symbolical call for independece. Would the Romanian flag on the Hungarian government's building change anything? It would not, but it would not be taken very lightly. The people who plant those flags understand this but still do it. First they'll get the flag, then they'll want more and the whole situation escalates. They don't wave that flag as a "celebrate culture" sort of message, it was a nationalistic message.

 

[Selzro]

Again, fighting Nazi Germany was sucicide, what Greece did was sucicide, it's just that Greece was lucky as the Allies won the war. If the Axis would have won the war then Romania would have been in a good spot and Greece in a terrible one. This is not an excuse for joining the Nazi, all I'm saying is that Romania's choice was sensible while Greece's choice was suicide, but they got lucky.

I appreciate the almost impossible situation Romania was in, but I have to disagree on Greece's action as suicide with a lucky result. Greece had been preparing for war for years, and Metaxas (its dictator) resisted the Axis demands with clear long term goals in mind. As he said a couple of days after Greece joined the war:

... I consider this danger for the nation and its future [of accepting Axis demands], Gentlemen, incomparably worse than War; even if this war may result in the temporary occupation of Greece. I say temporary occupation, because I believe unswervingly that Victory will eventually be on our side, since the Germans will not win; they cannot win; there are many obstacles.

... Time is not with the Axis. Time is with the other side. Victory for Germany can only be achieved in connection with her world domination, an opportunity definitely lost in Dunkirk. The Axis lost the War from the moment England declared: “We shall fight even alone, we shall fight them everywhere and we shall fight to the final Victory.” Furthermore, we Greeks should know that we do not only fight for Victory, but we fight for Glory.

... It is true in our recent history we did not always have reasons to be grateful to England. After all the British policies following WW I and in particular those in the most recent years, are policies with great historical responsibilities. These policies England is now discharging, with the proud determination of her great People. England preserves the liberty of the World and of Civilisation. England is a natural friend of Greece. England has proven many times to be our protector and at certain instances our only protector.

Victory will be ours, and nothing but ours. It will be the Victory of the Anglo-Saxon world, against which Germany was not up to this date able to achieve a determining blow and thus Germany is doomed to be devastated. From now on the prospects for Germany are not going to be bright, not even in the East, and the East is always full of mysteries. We shall finally win. I want you, leaving this room, to take with you my absolute certainty that we will win. However, I shall repeat what I most solemnly have declared from the very first moment: Greece is not fighting for Victory, it is fighting for Glory, and it is fighting for Honour. Greece has the responsibility towards herself to remain worthy of her past.

... I want to add something. I know Greece will suffer from this ordeal. I also know for sure that Greece will come out at the end not only glorious, but also greater. You have certainly noted Mr. Churchill’s telegram, which was published in today’s press, as released by the Ministry of Exterior. I want to underline the following: Those who do not see in this telegram a written confirmation in black and white and a consent for the integration of the Dodecanese islands with Greece, they cannot read between the lines.

So Greece fought because of the perception (already in 1940) that this was to be a total war which could have only one winner, and that winner would not be Germany. Any territorial changes agreed among the Axis powers would not survive their defeat, so they were not worth much consideration. It fought to contribute as much as possible to the eventual Allied victory and it wasn't half bad at it as a result. Of course, certain assumptions were made: that the Anglo-Saxon world would close ranks against Germany and that Hitler was being overly optimistic concerning his eastern borders. But those were calculated guesses, taking into account what was known from diplomats and spies.

Perhaps Romania couldn't have done the same. It wasn't as easy for British ships to reach it, and the USSR was seen as an enemy rather than a potential ally. But from the moment Romania collaborated with Germany's war effort (and its other humanitarian misdeeds) it bet on Germany's eventual victory, tying its fortunes to it. That was a choice as bold as Greece's choice to tie its fortunes to Germany's final defeat, and not something that would have been seen as obviously sensible, since indeed there was much opposition from the Romanian public and king.

 

[Zeprion]

I appreciate the almost impossible situation Romania was in, but I have to disagree on Greece's action as suicide with a lucky result. Greece had been preparing for war for years, and Metaxas (its dictator) resisted the Axis demands with clear long term goals in mind. As he said a couple of days after Greece joined the war:

So Greece fought because of the perception (already in 1940) that this was to be a total war which could have only one winner, and that winner would not be Germany. Any territorial changes agreed among the Axis powers would not survive their defeat, so they were not worth much consideration. It fought to contribute as much as possible to the eventual Allied victory and it wasn't half bad at it as a result. Of course, certain assumptions were made: that the Anglo-Saxon world would close ranks against Germany and that Hitler was being overly optimistic concerning his eastern borders. But those were calculated guesses, taking into account what was known from diplomats and spies.

Perhaps Romania couldn't have done the same. It wasn't as easy for British ships to reach it, and the USSR was seen as an enemy rather than a potential ally. But from the moment Romania collaborated with Germany's war effort (and its other humanitarian misdeeds) it bet on Germany's eventual victory, tying its fortunes to it. That was a choice as bold as Greece's choice to tie its fortunes to Germany's final defeat, and not something that would have been seen as obviously sensible, since indeed there was much opposition from the Romanian public and king.

That's interesting, I know for a fact that Ion Antonescu thought that the winner will be Germany because the German army was unbeatable so far while the West was very hesitant to protect its allies, but I also thought this was the general perception of the Allies and the Soviet Union as well, with them fighting an uphill battle.

For how long has been Greece preparing for the war? Switzerland esitmated in 1936 that a new world war is about to start and even correctly predicted the year the war will start - 1939, which makes me think historical Switzerland was actually a Hearts of Iron IV player. If you pick Switzerland and start preparing for war since 1936 you're doing it historically.

Romania could never have done the same due to its location and due to Great Britain's attitude towards Romania. The Great Britain was very hesitant to help Romania through the war, they guaranteed Romania in 1938 but didn't oppose the Soviet Union when they demanded the annexation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, they gave Romania to the Soviet Union at the Tehran Conference, because of this a Balkan Landing as Ion Antonescu proposed to the Allies was impossible, the Yalta Conference was just a confirmation and continuation of the Tehran Conference, and when the communists came to install a Soviet regime in 1945 the British and Americans did nothing, King Michael's plea fell on deaf ears. There was a conference in 2004 in Romania, Sinaia were British historians tried to explain why Britain didn't oppose Stalin's annexation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina given that Romania was guaranteed, arguing that there was nothing they could have done from that distance and they didn't want to alienate the Soviet Union who could be a great ally of the Allies or of Germany, but I suppose Stalin did not want to alienate the Allies either.

Before the war, Romania had good relations with France and US, but the relations with UK were distant. King Micahel I said that his father, King Carol II, tried to visit UK to gain their favor in the interwar years, but to no avail, they simply did not care about Romania.

I remembered about the situation where Romania collaborated with Germany's war effort and bet on Germany's eventual victory, when the American soldiers retreated from Northern Syria after Turkey threatened to bomb them if they stayed alongside the YPG, and then Northern Syria started to collaborate with Assad's Regime and Russia. This was a natural thing for Northern Syria to do, it's about survival, why would you keep supporting the Americans who left you to die to Turkey when you can have an ally that actually supports you? If you abbandon your friends, don't be surprised if they change sides. I am strong supporter of democracy, but one weakness of democracy is its hestiation to take the necessary action to combat terrorist treats. Austria in 1938, Crimeea in 2014 and now Turkey. The irony is that when Hitler tried to annex Austria in 1934, the only one opposing him was Mussolini.

As for why didn't Romania stop like Finland? Because Finland already took back all its previous territory + a bit more from Russia before stopping. If the war ended with Germany winning, Finland would have gained territory. This wasn't the case for Romania, Romania still had Northern Transylvania under Hungary. A region with 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. In aiding Nazi Germany better than Hungary, Ion Antonescu hoped that Romania will gain Germany's favour in another arbitration of Transylvania.

Attacking the Germans while being at war with the Soviets would have been suicide. As for switching sides after taking Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina back, Ion Antonescu tried that. 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. Switching sides while being under Soviet occupation would have led to exactly what happened in our timeline, even if it was before the eastern front would reach Romania.

Also, I added more information about King Micahel's Coup from 1944 and the Democratic-Communist tensions from 1945.

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.

The political parties of Romania, even though they had no power anymore, were left alone even during Ion Antonescu's dictatorship, they maintained contact and discussions with the Allies under the leadership of Iuliu Maniu in Turkey and Egypt. In the Allies' negociations with Iuliu Maniu, at Stalin's request, the condition for switching sides was that the Communists will have to be part of the new government.

On 23 March 1944 Marshal Ion Antonescu was in an official visit in Germany, King Michael I sent General Constantin Sănătescu, who served in World War II ever since 1941 and was vocal about his anti-fascist sentiments, however Ion Antonescu left him in charge due to his competence as a general, to ask the generals next to the Minister of War who he thought opposed Antonescu, whether they are willing to move to action, but the ressult was dissapointing, arguing that now it's not the time for a coup d'etat.

After a few days, during the working lunch, King Michael I realised there's no point trying to convince Ion Antonescu to change the external policy of the country. If an ultimatum for surrender were to come from the Allies, King Michael I asked thte political leaders to assume the responsability of accepting it, in that case he would publically request Ion Antonescu's resignation. This however didn't happen, and King Michael I now disillusioned, was convinced that he would need the army to depose Ion Antonescu, the army that after asked by Constantin Sănătescu, considered that it wasn't the time yet.

On August 1944 King Michael I found a good moment for the coup d'etat, as Germany Army retreated their tank divisions from the Romanian front and the Soviet Army was regrouping for a few months on the frontline and could initiate a large attack at any moment. The Germany Secret Police became suspicious and Queen Mother Elena was interogated, without revealing that she was aware of her son's plans. To weaken the suspicions, King Michael I left for a hunting between 16 and 18 August, and staying for the next 2 days at his castle in Sinaia.

On 20 August 1944, the news came that the Russians started the Opperation Iasi-Chisinau, thus King Michael I left quickly towards Bucharest followed by secretary Mircea Ionnitiu, adjutant Emilian Ionescu and general Gheorghe Mihail, his military adviser. In Bucharest he held a metting with the military leaders, and they were in favor of a coup d'etat. Among them was general Dumitru Dămăceanu, who was the Chief of Staff of Bucharest's Military Command. Constantin Sănătescu, Ioan Mocsony-Stârcea, Grigore Niculescu-Buzești, Mircea Ionnițiu and Aurel Aldea also participated at the meeting. Dumitru Dămăceanu was asked how much time he needs to gather troops to occupy the strategic points in Bucharest, he answered that he needs 5 days, as such the time of the coup d'etat was set on 26 August.

On the night of 21 August the political leaders Iuliu Maniu, Constantin Brătianu, Titel Petrescu and Lucrețiu Pătrășcanu had a meeting where the political class agreed over the plan established a night before. King Michael I delegated Iuliu Maniu and Lucrețiu Pătrășcanu to form the list of new ministers for the new government until 23 August. During the meeting, the political class approved the text of a telegram that was to be send to British General Maitland Wilson, the commander of the Allies in Egypt.

In that telegram, the Romanian plotters requested the support of the coup d'etat through the Allied bombardment of the German units in Northern Bucharest, next to Baneasa Airport, and of the railways at the border with Hungary and Yugoslavia. Mocsoni Styrcea, who was the Minister of Foreign Affairs, went to Snagov and crypted 2 telegrams, one to be send through Turkey and another through a transmission apparatus owned by Iuliu Maniu.

In the morning of 22 August, before going back to Bucharest, the decided to swim in the lake and met with the general secretary of the minister, Davidescu, who informed him that Marshal Antonescu will return from the frontline and will have to leave Bucharest the next day, which will ruin the plans of the coup d'etat. Being informed of such things, King Michael I quickly moved the date to 23 August, without consulting the political leaders.

On 23 August 1944, Ion Antonescu gave the command to request an audience with King Michael I at 4:00 PM. King Michael I offered him a private audience at 3:30 PM. The discussion went for an hour, Ion Antonescu offered in-depth details of the frontline situation and said that we would only accept a truce with Hitler's consnet and refused to accept surrender, justifiny his position as "I gave my word to Adolf Hitler, that I will stand by him to the end". To which King Michael I replied: "If this is how things are, then there's nothing left to do" and called colonel Emilian Ionescu with a group of 4 soldiers taht arrested Marshal Ion Antonescu and his lawyer Mihai Antonescu. They were given to Emil Bodnaras, the leader of a group of partizans called "the Patriotic Guards", who transfered them in a conspirative house in Bucharest. Other pro-Antonescu ministers and generals were sent there as well: Constantin Pantazi, Dumitru Popescu, Constantin Vasiliu, Mircea Elefterescu and Eugen Cristescu. King Michael I later said about the event: "Antonescu and the rest considered me a child. When I took the state under their noses they were so surprised they didn't know what to do".

After Ion Anontescu was arreted, King Micahel I called the political leaders of the democratic parties: Constantin Brătianu, Iuliu Maniu and Titel Petrescu, as well as Lucrețiu Pătrășcanu, representing the Communist Party. However, they weren't to be found, expeting the coup to take place on 26 August, the first to reach King Micahel I was Titel Petrescu, after the new government was already formed by people King Michael I trusted, while the former political ledaers were given the title of minister without a given position.

As the troops prepared by King Michael I and Iuliu Maniu were not available quickly, the only troops available were that of the communist Emil Bodnaras, fact eventually expolited by the communist propaganda, who argued that the Community Party played the leading role in the coup d'etat.

Before 8:00 PM, King Michael I recorded a message for the country to be broadcast on radio at 10:00 PM, which announced the change of government and the changing sides to the Allies. Solidarity with King Micahel I was general, with all the important officers being on his side. Following the broadcast of the message on the radio, popular demonstrations of enthusiasm broke out.

Around 9:00 PM, the German ambassador, Manfred von Killinger, came to visit King Michael I to learn about what happened. In order to buy time, King Michael I denied what happened, saying that Ion Anontescu is free. The next day, the German Army launched an attack on Bucharest, King Michael I however, already took refugee with Queen Mother Elena in Dobrita, Oltenia. With support from the American Airforce, the Romanian Army resisted the German attack on Bucharest. The Romanian Army fought against the Garmany Army until 28 August when the German Army in Bucharest and surrounding areas was whiped out. Around 56.000 German troops were taken prisoner. King Michael I later said about the event: "After August 23, the Russian offensive stopped. I suppose they wanted the same result as in Warsaw, where they stopped the offensive, letting the Germans destroy the Poles, then resumed the offensive".

Meanwhile, the Soviet Army started to advance in Romania, still counting Romania as an enemy territory and acting as such, confiscating munition and goods on their way to Bucharest, both public and civillian goods, and taking thousands of Romanian soldiers and officers as prisoners, who stopped fighting since 23 August. Still, starting with 23 August, the Romanian territory was exempted from being a theater of war, the Romanian-Soviet Truce was formally signed on 12 September 1944. When the Soviet Army reached Bucharest on 31 August, the pro-Antonescu regime, including Ion Anontescu, were given to the Red Army.

In 1980's, a document came out that Captain Gheorghe Teodorescu from the guard of the royal palace, who was stationed on August 23, claimed that it was written by Ion Antonescu the day immediately after his arrest. Ion Antonescu said that he did not in principle oppose the exit from the war, but that he refused it, arguing both with the difficult conditions of armistice in relation to the Soviet Union, signing a political act of surrender of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, accepting Soviet occupation, payment of indefinite damages, as well as most importantly with his total refusal to turn arms against Nazi Germany, a refusal assumed as the main argument and understood as such by the other participants. The document was published after the 1989 Romanian Revolution in the Romanian nationalist newspaper, published by circles seeking the rehabilitation of Antonescu and was included in several anthologies of period documents and works of other nationalist historians, but it is not difficult to revise the vision in any way.

After Ion Anontescu was given to the Soviet Army, general Constantin Sănătescu was tasked with forming a new government formed of democratic parties, the communist party and officers of the Romanian Army. This government negociated the truce with the Soviet Union and was forced to play war reparations, admit the territorial losses in 1940 and give more important functions to the communists. The Soviet Army completly occupied Romania, although initally the Romanian soldiers and officers were taken prisoner, the Soviet Union eventually accepted Romanian collaborations against Nazi Germany.

British Field Marshal and military advisor to Winston Churchill, Alan Brooke⁠, declared that through the coup d'etat on 23 August 1944, Romania opened up the Balkans to the Soviet Union and contributed to the liberation of this region, shortening the war by 6 months and saving hundreds of thousands of lives. German General Johannes Friessner, commander of German Army Corps South, declared that the coup d'etat on 23 August 1944 was a betrayal of Romania towards the German Reich.

The Sovet Army gave Marshal Ion Antonescu to Soviet General Burenin, he was kept prisoner in the Soviet Union, not being judged at the Nurnberg Trials. Eventually, he was brought to Romania and judged by the People's Tribunal in a facade trial. Although he would have asked for a pardon, Marshal Ion Antonescu refused to sign the request for pardon brought to him by his lawyer, in order not to put King Michael I in a difficult situation, where King Micahel I would have been accused of pro-nazi sentiments if he would have accepted it and anti-Romanian sentiments if he would have rejected it. Marshal Ion Antonescu said during his trial: "If I had won the war, you would have built me statues in every city, but because I lost I will have to die. I ask to be sentenced to death and refuse any pardon". And then told the Romanian Communists "I foresee a third world war that will put humanity on its true social foundations. As such, you and your followers will do tomorrow what I tried to do today". Marshal Ion Antonescu was sentenced to death and executed on 1 June 1946 next to Jilava prison.

When the truce with the United Nations was formally signed on 12 September 1944, Romania assumed the obligation to contribute with 38 divisions against the anti-Nazi struggle effort. On October 25, the last Romanian towns are liberated: Carei and Satu-Mare. For the offensives in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, Romania mobilized approximately 567,000 soldiers. The heaviest battles took place in the siege of Budapest and in the Tatra Mountains, with heavy losses of human lives.

During Operation Barbarossa when Romania entered the Second World War on 22 June 1941, the 1st Romanian army was inside Romania while the 3rd and 4th armies formed the main Romanian assault force. After King Micahel's Coup, the 1st Romanian army became one of the main Romanian armies fighting for the Red Army on the Eastern Front. In its campaign from August 1944 to May 1945, the Romanian army lost about 64,000 men. At the Battle of Debrecen in October 1944, the Romanian units played a key part in the overall Soviet offensive, then took part in the Budapest Siege as part of the Red Army's 3rd Ukrainian Front.

Dr. Florin C. Stan, adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that most of the 20 points of the armistice required the Romanian state to be subordinated to the Soviets. "Not without significance was the signing of the Armistice only by Romanians and Soviets, the Anglo-Americans accepting representation through Soviet delegates. In the watermark, the message was obvious: Moscow was free to impose its own political interests on Bucharest". The only positive point was the 19th, which provided that the Second Vienna Award of 1940 is "null and void", this territory is to be returned to Romania. On the one hand, the armistice shortened the war by several months, saving hundreds of thousands of soldiers from death. However, on the other hand, it allowed the occupation of the country by the Red Army, which lasted until 1958, during which time the Soviets ensured the establishment of communism.

Year 1945 was one of internal disputes between the democrats and the communists. The great material shortcomings faced by the Romanians, due to the state of war and the obligations imposed by the Armistice Convention, facilitated the communist action to bring out the Romanians in the streets and to cause many to support the expected political and social changes. To participate in the removal by force of the state institutions and to impose on the leadership the political regime agreed by Moscow.

In January 1945, the leader of the Communist Party of Romania, Gheorghe Gheorghiu Dej, is summoned to Moscow together with Ana Pauker. Stalin gives them clear instructions for the rapid seizure of power in Romania: the army, the interns, the public administration.

On 11 February 1945, in the face of this situation, General Nicolae Rădescu, now Prime Minister of the Romania, made known the main points of his government program. Among the most important were the continuation of the war, with all the power, together with the Allies, until the total defeat of Nazism, the loyalty and unobtrusive fulfillment of the clauses of the armistice concluded with the Allied Powers, the keeping of the order so that we could work in peace and as much as possible, more intensively in order to increase production and thus be able to cope with the contracting duties through the concluded truce.

Former General and now Prime Minister Nicolae Rădescu also said "I will defend, at any cost, the peace and order in the country, nobody should be afraid of anything if he steps on the right path, and I ask the Romanian people for reasonableness, keeping the most perfect order and peace, eagerness for hard and sporadic work, this are the only means of not slipping on the slope of the collapse”. These statements were received by Communist leader Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej as "an act of hostility towards our whole people, an act of defiance, an act of hostility towards our great allies and in the first place towards the Soviet Union”. Demonstrating firmness in maintaining the country's internal peace and the democratic structures, Prime Minister Nicolae Rădescu ordered that: "if the demonstrators, who are trying to occupy the institutions, do not withdraw, at the warning, to be fired", admitting even the possibility of reaching civil war.

Given the existence of the Soviet troops in Romania due to the armistice, in case of civil war there was a real danger of the direct intervention of the Soviet troops, marching through the streets, and of the military occupation of the country, which could easily be triggered by the patriotic guards, organized by the communists, they were ready to move to "the occupation by force of the main state institutions". At the order of the Soviet Union, 15 military bases from Bucharest were disarmed, including the Great General Staff.

In some cities such as Craiova, Caracal and Bucharest, in the attempt of the protesters to occupy, by force, the headquarters of the mayors and prefectures, the military and the police forces fired, being dead and injured, at the order of Prime Minister Nicolae Rădescu. Historian Alesandru Duţu said that: "It is worth mentioning that bullets of another caliber, which did not belong to the Romanian Army, were also fired”. The ministers of the National Democratic Front and the communist press accused the Romanian Army of being "fascist", assassinating the peaceful citizens of the country.

Afterwards, some of the military who had executed the order of Nicolae Rădescu were arrested and sentenced to prison, including General Iosif Teodorescu, the military commander of Bucharest. In most of the garrisons however, no weapon was used and the commanders avoiding bloodshed, by talking with the leaders of the protesters or with the commanders of the Soviet troops in the area.

Whenever an action by the communists was trying to be blocked by the Romanian authorities, the tanks of the Red Army were moved on the streets of Bucharest. The army, the police, the gendarmerie and the press were all in the hands of the Soviets, and the British and the Americans were just spectators of the play that Stalin had staged in Bucharest.

On 24 February 1945, the Communists summon a huge rally against the government in Bucharest. Over 25,000 people, led by Ana Pauker, pour into the square in front of the Government and the Royal Palace. The Soviets create diversion: they shoot a few gunshots in the crowd, kill people and then accuse the prime minister of having ordered the army to fire.

On 27 February 1945, Gheorghe Ghiorghiu Dej and Ana Pauker are helped by Moscow to seize power. Their political opponents, among whom Iuliu Maniu and Dinu Brătianu are labeled as enemies of the people. Stalin sends Andrei Vashinsky, the prosecutor who has instrumentalized the political processes in Moscow during the great purge, to Bucharest. Andrei Vashinsky comes directly to the Elisabeta Palace and asks King Michael I to dismiss Prime Minister Rădescu and replace him with communist Petru Groza.

King Micahel I asks for a break of thought. And makes a desperate appeal to Americans in an attempt to help him not appoint a Communist prime minister. The reply of the US representative in Bucharest, however, is a plastic one, telling King Michael I that "We don't want to put our fingers in the Romanian political soup". Irritated and frustrated, King Michael I responds in the same way: "Why do you refuse to put your fingers in my soup, when you know very well that your ally has put his hand in my throat?".

On 28 February 1945, however, Vashinsky returns, slamms the table, slamms the cabinet door and forces King Micahel I to dismiss Prime Minister Nicolae Radescu. In face of the Soviet tanks patrolling the streets of Bucharest and without any Western ally next to him, King Michael I accepts the demand and Prime Minister Nicolae Radescu is dismissed. King Michael I later said about the events: "During the period from 1944 to 1947 I was very unhappy. I can't say I was very hurt, but I was upset and disappointed, because I really hoped that the US and the UK would do something to stop the Russians".

On 6 March 1945, Andrei Vashinsky forces King Micahel I to appoint the pro-Soviet prime minister Petru Groza, who would shortly authorize the faithful military forces, especially the Division "Tudor Vladimirescu-Debrecen", established in 1943 on the Soviet territory from Romanian prisoners of war, to intervene in the street, this time against the opposition protesters represented by the democratic parties, in particular.

The Romanian government run by the Communists for the first time, who call themselves "the democratic force". The Petru Groza Government begins to purge the administration and intellectuals. And make a new land reform. He confiscates the large agricultural properties, divides them into small strips and gives them to the peasants. King Michael I went on a royal strike to block the government decisions imposed by the pro-Soviet regime.

The last offensive the 1st Romanian army took part in World War II was the Prague Offensive in May 1945. During the Prague Offensive, the 1st Romanian army operated together with the 4th Romanian army as part of the Soviet 2nd Ukrainian Front. Marshal Ivan Koniev, the commander of the 1st Ukrainian Front, was the main Soviet commander in the area. Together with Marshal Georgy Zhukov's 1st Byelorussian Front, Koniev had launched the great attack on April 16 that resulted in the fall of Berlin and Soviet victory on the Eastern Front. The 260 days of participation in the anti-Nazi war ended on 12 May 1945 when Nazi Germany surrended, leaving room for the strengthening of Soviet influence in Romania.

With the first step already taken, the communists did not find it difficult to take complete and exclusive control of the country in the following years: they falsified the parliamentary elections of 1946, arrested the leaders of the National Liberal Party and the Peasant National Party, they forbade any opposition party and eventually ousted the king from the country. What started on 6 March 1945 ended on 30 December 1947 with the proclamation of the Romanian People's Republic and would last for almost half a century.

During the Paris Peace Treaties of 1947, Romania gained back Northern Transylvania, but not Southern Dobruja, Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia. Former democratic prime minister Gheorge Tatarescu said about the the Paris Peace treaties that: "This must be seen as an end, and at the same time as a beginning, it wipes out a lost war and it is a starting point for a new life." and later added that "The Russians will continue to stay. I do not believe in a war between the West and communism. My duty is to sign the Peace Treaty and save what is left of Romania".

 

[PrinceOfMacedon]

Romania's fate is one of tragedy, and this tragedy continues to this day.

 

[Selzro]

That's interesting, I know for a fact that Ion Antonescu thought that the winner will be Germany because the German army was unbeatable so far while the West was very hesitant to protect its allies, but I also thought this was the general perception of the Allies and the Soviet Union as well, with them fighting an uphill battle.

For how long has been Greece preparing for the war? Switzerland esitmated in 1936 that a new world war is about to start and even correctly predicted the year the war will start - 1939, which makes me think historical Switzerland was actually a Hearts of Iron IV player. If you pick Switzerland and start preparing for war since 1936 you're doing it historically.

The Greek Army's military academy normally took in about 100 students each year. In 1937 it took in 300 so that in 1940 there would be ample junior officers to properly command a mobilized army. Those were assigned to their units in September 1940, a month before Italy invaded Greece. A line of forts across the border with Bulgaria had also been in construction since 1936 and was well along by 1940. Unfortunately that line wasn't expanded along the border with Yugoslavia, since it was not expected to be a hostile nation, and that's where the Germans got through.

I remembered about the situation where Romania collaborated with Germany's war effort and bet on Germany's eventual victory, when the American soldiers retreated from Northern Syria after Turkey threatened to bomb them if they stayed alongside the YPG, and then Northern Syria started to collaborate with Assad's Regime and Russia. This was a natural thing for Northern Syria to do, it's about survival, why would you keep supporting the Americans who left you to die to Turkey when you can have an ally that actually supports you? If you abbandon your friends, don't be surprised if they change sides. I am strong supporter of democracy, but one weakness of democracy is its hestiation to take the necessary action to combat terrorist treats. Austria in 1938, Crimeea in 2014 and now Turkey. The irony is that when Hitler tried to annex Austria in 1934, the only one opposing him was Mussolini.

An interesting analogy, but I think not quite precise. If the Kurds, after having been abandoned by the Americans, instead allied with ISIS and took part in their crimes against civilization in the hope that they would gain the territory in Turkey populated by a Kurdish majority I believe that might be more like what Antonescu did. And I don't think the rest of the world would be as sympathetic to the Kurds then as it is now.