thatweirdguy
Banned
Can Romania survive intact after the WW2 and maybe end up neutral or pro-West after the war?
Is A Territorially Intact & Neutral Romania possible during WW2? Or just territorially intact after it?
Fearless Leader
Donor
Like so much of Eastern Europe, Romania was really in a difficult position during the 1930s. In theory, the Little Entente could have replaced the Habsburgs and provided stability but without significant Great Power support it simply could not withstand pressures from a resurgent Germany and USSR.
Philippe Maguerat implies an interesting argument in Le IIIe Reich et la petrole roumain , 1938-40. According to Maguerat, had the Allies pursued a similar strategy in Romania in 1938 that they pursued in 1939, the Reich might have been starved of its most precious resource. In OTL, the lack of coordination between the British and French efforts to reduce the available supply and drive up the price of Romanian oil coupled with German successes and a lack of other options for weapons drove the Romanians into German arms and provided the opening for German domination of the Romanian economy right after the Sudetenland Crisis.
After reading Maguerat's book I wondered about a potential wrinkle to the often mused about "Munich Goes Hot" scenario. Assuming war breaks out in October 1938, the British and French likely pursue a more aggressive version of the strategy they employed in OTL 1938, something similar to what they did in 1939 to try and keep as much Romanian oil out of German hands as possible. Only in 1938 the Germans would be even less capable of responding as they did in OTL and without the pressure from the USSR Romania wouldn't feel pressed for time. Germany would also have far lower fuel stocks in this scenario so in addition to all the other problems they would be facing in TTL they would also be facing a far more severe fuel shortage.
They likely would succeed in conquering the Czech Republic in such a scenario, but I don't think they would risk invading Romania afterwards. The OKW was extremely hesitant about invading in OTL as they feared damaging/sabotage of the refineries. They just didn't have the time, money, or expertise to conduct those repairs and those same factors contributed to decreasing Romanian production in 1943 and 44. Instead I think they would attempt an offensive into France, only in addition to not having Czech tanks, they would also lack Romanian oil (or at least as much as OTL) assuming the Allies responded more strongly than they did during OTL's Munich Crisis. Add in the likelihood that Sickle cut doesn't happen and the German offensive likely bogs down before they reach Paris and the ghosts of their defeat in 1918 come back to haunt them. Perhaps the OKW then decides to kill Hitler and sue for peace bringing the war to an abrupt conclusion. Peace is restored in Europe and Romania's borders remain intact only for it to become the forefront of an anti-Communist alliance as the USSR becomes more belligerent.
Philippe Maguerat implies an interesting argument in Le IIIe Reich et la petrole roumain , 1938-40. According to Maguerat, had the Allies pursued a similar strategy in Romania in 1938 that they pursued in 1939, the Reich might have been starved of its most precious resource. In OTL, the lack of coordination between the British and French efforts to reduce the available supply and drive up the price of Romanian oil coupled with German successes and a lack of other options for weapons drove the Romanians into German arms and provided the opening for German domination of the Romanian economy right after the Sudetenland Crisis.
After reading Maguerat's book I wondered about a potential wrinkle to the often mused about "Munich Goes Hot" scenario. Assuming war breaks out in October 1938, the British and French likely pursue a more aggressive version of the strategy they employed in OTL 1938, something similar to what they did in 1939 to try and keep as much Romanian oil out of German hands as possible. Only in 1938 the Germans would be even less capable of responding as they did in OTL and without the pressure from the USSR Romania wouldn't feel pressed for time. Germany would also have far lower fuel stocks in this scenario so in addition to all the other problems they would be facing in TTL they would also be facing a far more severe fuel shortage.
They likely would succeed in conquering the Czech Republic in such a scenario, but I don't think they would risk invading Romania afterwards. The OKW was extremely hesitant about invading in OTL as they feared damaging/sabotage of the refineries. They just didn't have the time, money, or expertise to conduct those repairs and those same factors contributed to decreasing Romanian production in 1943 and 44. Instead I think they would attempt an offensive into France, only in addition to not having Czech tanks, they would also lack Romanian oil (or at least as much as OTL) assuming the Allies responded more strongly than they did during OTL's Munich Crisis. Add in the likelihood that Sickle cut doesn't happen and the German offensive likely bogs down before they reach Paris and the ghosts of their defeat in 1918 come back to haunt them. Perhaps the OKW then decides to kill Hitler and sue for peace bringing the war to an abrupt conclusion. Peace is restored in Europe and Romania's borders remain intact only for it to become the forefront of an anti-Communist alliance as the USSR becomes more belligerent.
Let's say Romania refuses the Soviets demands for Bessebaria. Soviets plan to invade.
- Would Germany allow this? I don't think so considering the Germans relied on Romanian oil, even if they were "friends" with the Soviets at the time.
- Could the Soviets even beat Romania? They're currently getting their asses handed to them in Finland, they have a significant portion of their military occupying Poland, and they have a significant portion of their forces in the East due to border skirmishes with the Japanese. The Romanian military in 1941 was double the size of Finland's military with similar equipment. On the defensive, they had the terrain on their side too, the Dnister, Prut, and Siret Rivers in the east make great defensive positions, as does the Carpathians and rivers in Wallachia.
- Would the allies allow this? They already considered attacking the Soviets over Finland, attacking a target so close to Greece might persuade the British to do something insane.
- Would Germany allow this? I don't think so considering the Germans relied on Romanian oil, even if they were "friends" with the Soviets at the time.
- Could the Soviets even beat Romania? They're currently getting their asses handed to them in Finland, they have a significant portion of their military occupying Poland, and they have a significant portion of their forces in the East due to border skirmishes with the Japanese. The Romanian military in 1941 was double the size of Finland's military with similar equipment. On the defensive, they had the terrain on their side too, the Dnister, Prut, and Siret Rivers in the east make great defensive positions, as does the Carpathians and rivers in Wallachia.
- Would the allies allow this? They already considered attacking the Soviets over Finland, attacking a target so close to Greece might persuade the British to do something insane.
"With regard to Southeastern Europe attention is called by the Soviet side to its interest in Bessarabia. The German side declares; its complete political disinterestedness in these areas." https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/addsepro.asp