How differant would Romania and Bulgaria had looked if they had never became communist and would their repsectvie monarchies still be in power today
If the United States, NOT the Soviet Union had liberated Romania and Bulagaria
- Thread starter HistoryLovingCat
- Start date
If the US commits forces to liberate those areas (which I'm not sure is logistically possible), then they're going to have to leave other areas open. So you might, for instance, end up with more of Germany going communist.
Perhaps if the Normandy invasion had failed or was deemed unfeasible (not sure if that's possible), the Allies would concentrate on the foothold they already had in Italy. That could lead them to engage Balkan units in an attempt to link up with the Soviets so they could push towards the East. This leads to more of Germany and possibly the Low Countries turning into Soviet puppet states (Southern Germany would probably stay in Allied hands, and the Berlin situation would happen roughly as OTL), while Yugoslavia and Romania turn into an anti-communist bulwarks with softer dictatorial tendencies than OTL.
Heck, you could have Tito who make a 'rightward' turn if needed to help his interests. If the allies are more helpfull..
I read a scenario about this in, I think, "Options of Command" by Dupuy. Thought it was in either of the 2 "What If" books but couldn't find it(or did too quick a scan of the chapter headings.
If memory serves me either it was a highly successful Anzio win and a rush for the passes of the Italian Alps or Churchill planned to go through the Adriatic and into southern Europe. Don't see how that would have been possible though.
If memory serves me either it was a highly successful Anzio win and a rush for the passes of the Italian Alps or Churchill planned to go through the Adriatic and into southern Europe. Don't see how that would have been possible though.
HeavyWeaponsGuy
Banned
As others have said, I doubt the logistics behind this.
But in any case, it is unlikely the Soviets would stomach a serious expansion of Allied forces into the Black Sea, or at least if this was something more than a one-time occurrence with the Americans leaving soon after.
Allied presence in these countries threatens Soviet control of the Black Sea (and puts not one but two premier Soviet ports in bombing range), and also takes the Ploiesti refinery out of Soviet reach, whilst putting the Bessarabian oilfields themselves in danger.
What this would offer the Americans and friends however, is leverage in negotiations. Trading concessions of Bulgaria and Romania in exchange for the Soviets letting Czechoslovakia go free, for instance.
But in any case, it is unlikely the Soviets would stomach a serious expansion of Allied forces into the Black Sea, or at least if this was something more than a one-time occurrence with the Americans leaving soon after.
Allied presence in these countries threatens Soviet control of the Black Sea (and puts not one but two premier Soviet ports in bombing range), and also takes the Ploiesti refinery out of Soviet reach, whilst putting the Bessarabian oilfields themselves in danger.
What this would offer the Americans and friends however, is leverage in negotiations. Trading concessions of Bulgaria and Romania in exchange for the Soviets letting Czechoslovakia go free, for instance.
IIRC, Churchill wanted to invade the Balkans instead of Italy for precisely this reason. To prevent the Soviets from getting them.
They would be substantially more prosperous, of course.
Greece's per capita GDP is over twice that of Romania and Bulgaria.
They would be more culturally healthy, too. Communist rule was profoundly damaging in both obvious and subtle ways.
For example, Jay Nordlinger of National Review Online wrote while attending the 2012 Salzburg Festival:
"I meet a musician from Bulgaria... He grew up under
Communism, the tail end. We talk about it a little. He is
not nostalgic about Communism, does not suffer from
illusions. But ...
He says there was a unity among people in that era. No one
had any money. And they all had a common enemy: the
Communist party!"
Romania was even worse. The demented rule of Ceausescu included demolishing much of the old parts of Bucurest for a hideous new Presidential Palace, with similar vandalism throughout the country.
He also decided at some time that Romania should have a larger population, and banned all forms of contraception and abortion. At the same time, the incompetence and corruption of the regime meant that most people were poor, and mostly didn't want to have children. The Securitate (secret police) monitored women's menstrual cycles, trying to spot illegal contraception or abortions. Think about it: the people fighting against the state not to have children, because their lives are so depressing. It was one of the most deformed societies I have ever heard of.
One other likely difference: there was a German colony in central Transylvania, known as Siebenburgen, which dated back to the Middle Ages. During the Ceausescu years, most of the Siebenburgen "Saxons" emigrated to West Germany. They were allowed to leave because the West German government basically paid ransoms for them. No Ceausescu regime, and they probably don't want to emigrate.
As to monarchies:
The Romanian monarchy was seriously discredited by 1945: the blatant corruption of the previous king, Carol, the involvement of the monarchy in Romania's alliance with Nazi Germany, the complicity of the government in anti-Jewish atrocities, and the disastrous outcome of Romania's participation in the invasion of the USSR. Thus neither western nations nor Romanians had any great liking for the monarchy. I think it would be dispensed with, much as Italy's monarchy was.
Bulgaria's monarchy was less discredited, and might survive. The king (Tsar, actually) was a child, and could not be blamed for anything that had gone wrong. However, the monarchy might be abolished later, as it was in Greece.
Dementor
Banned
It should be noted that living standards were generally similar to those in Greece, if not higher, until the 70s. It was Greece' entrance in the EU as well as Bulgaria's stagnation in the 80s and collapse in the 90s that produced the difference.
What do you mean under "culturally healthy"? Because looking at what happened over the last 20 years here in Bulgaria, that describes non-Communist rule much better.
The National Review Online is probably not the most reliable source about Communist rule in Eastern Europe. It should be noted for example that the former Communist party won the first democratic election in Bulgaria and that opinion surveys have generally shown that Communist rule is considered to have more positives than negatives.
If people didn't want to have children due to the regime, what does this about today when the birthrate is much lower? And higher number of abortions is not really the answer as there are now fewer abortions than even the most restrictive years of Communist rule. And the same pattern is true of countries where abortions were not seriously restricted.
No, they would probably still emigrate, as Germany would most likely still be a far wealthier country. See for a comparison the decline of the Swedish population in Finland.
The Monarchy would most likely be abolished. The institution was not really popular even among non-Communists.
There are only two remotely feasible PODs:
a) Greece remains in the fight somehow, and that with Tommies on the ground; something akin to WW1's Saloniki-situation; so Bulgaria and Romania can defect to the WAllies when the tides turn (and the possibility of this happening would also change the inter-allied diplomacy, IMHO)
b) Turkey somehow ends in the Allied camp at a point of time when it is beyond the German capability to Blitz them, say slightly post-Stalingrad. For the Soviets, it is still a long road to the Romanian border, but it should be possible to get a few US divisions to Istanbul.... Bulgaria would start to swing as soon as they feel sure that the US get to Sofia faster than the SS...
a) Greece remains in the fight somehow, and that with Tommies on the ground; something akin to WW1's Saloniki-situation; so Bulgaria and Romania can defect to the WAllies when the tides turn (and the possibility of this happening would also change the inter-allied diplomacy, IMHO)
b) Turkey somehow ends in the Allied camp at a point of time when it is beyond the German capability to Blitz them, say slightly post-Stalingrad. For the Soviets, it is still a long road to the Romanian border, but it should be possible to get a few US divisions to Istanbul.... Bulgaria would start to swing as soon as they feel sure that the US get to Sofia faster than the SS...
Max Sinister
Banned
In "Hitler's Mediterranean Strategy", this actually happens.
And yes, Romania and Bulgaria would be better off economically. And the monarchy might survive. (I think I had Bulgaria keeping it, but not Romania.)
Of course, if you let the western Allies invade the Balcan, then you also have to think about Albania and Yugoslavia. And whether Yugoslavia would fall apart earlier if Tito wasn't in charge.
And yes, Romania and Bulgaria would be better off economically. And the monarchy might survive. (I think I had Bulgaria keeping it, but not Romania.)
Of course, if you let the western Allies invade the Balcan, then you also have to think about Albania and Yugoslavia. And whether Yugoslavia would fall apart earlier if Tito wasn't in charge.
I would like to see some evidence from those who claim the monarchy was not popular in Romania after 1944.
In OTL, the King was one of the driving forces (and the glue that bound the various political groups together) behind the coup that ousted Antonescu. All the democratic parties accepted and supported him, and those parties got, by all accounts, a majority of the actual vote in the 1947 elections.
Edit: Regarding a POD:
the allied med offensives are delayed some time (failure of Husky ?). Italy switches sides later, and the Allies are able to take a bigger advantage out of it. They land both in Italy and Greece, and, with limited German troops in the area, really manage to stabilize their positions. Bulgaria switches sides, followed by Romania. Bonus if Turkey also joins.
In OTL, the King was one of the driving forces (and the glue that bound the various political groups together) behind the coup that ousted Antonescu. All the democratic parties accepted and supported him, and those parties got, by all accounts, a majority of the actual vote in the 1947 elections.
Edit: Regarding a POD:
the allied med offensives are delayed some time (failure of Husky ?). Italy switches sides later, and the Allies are able to take a bigger advantage out of it. They land both in Italy and Greece, and, with limited German troops in the area, really manage to stabilize their positions. Bulgaria switches sides, followed by Romania. Bonus if Turkey also joins.
Last edited:
First of all,the war can be a lenghty one.
Second,the logistics can be a problem.
third,the war exhaustion can turn USA into USSA.
Second,the logistics can be a problem.
third,the war exhaustion can turn USA into USSA.
And the King of Italy was involved in the removal of Mussolini. The monarchy was still abolished.
In both cases, the King had been deeply complicit in the dictator's rise to power in the first place.
Both monarchies had ruled in periods of catastrophic military defeats.
Besides that, there was no tradition upholding the Romanian monarchy.
The House of Savoy was an actual Italian noble dynasty with centuries of history. The Romanian monarchy were transplanted Hohenzollern cousins, none of them having a trace of Romanian ancestry.
I don't see any reason why the Romanian monarchy should have been popular at all.
Because something happened in Italy doesn't mean its true in Romania.
Actually, Michael had zero to do with the rise of Antonescu.
And if the Allies conquer the Balkans and Romania and Bulgaria change sides without being conquered shortly after, then the King and the democratic parties would have deposed an increasingly unpopular tyrant, fought against the hated Hungarians, regained Transilvania and joined the winning side of the war. Hell, domestic propaganda could spin the change in sides as having tipped the balance in favour of the allies.
So, instead of a looser, Michael would be seen as this great victor.
Romania (and its constituent states before it was created) had had monarchical rulers since time immemorial. Carol I, Ferdinand, Carol II and Mihai I all claimed the title of Voievod/Voda.
The people had grown quite accustomed to the dynasty. After all, independence, unification and a host of popular reforms had all happened under it.
I don't see a reason why it shouldn't. Since Romania would probably end up at the frontline of the east-west divide, the country (and its King)would end up being seen as a bulwark against communism and supported accrdingly.
Plus, pro-monarchy parties received a majority of the actual vote in the OTL 1947 elections, despite the pro-communist government getting the chance to enact electoral and land reform, and with one of the most rigged elections in this country's histry.
Cook
Banned
Aside from arming his troops, dropping regular supplies of ammunition to them, parachuting teams of sabotage experts in to train his men, and finally rescuing him and his supports and evacuating them to the island of Vis when the Germans made things a bit too hot, what more do you propose the allies do? (Especially after they became aware that he’d been trying to negotiate a truce with the Germans?)
Mussolini was removed by the Fascist Grand Council; the king wasn’t involved.