Optimal ROMANIA Post World War One Borders Survey

[Zagan]

It seems that these Optimal Borders Surveys are quite a fad recently.

The initial one was some time ago about Poland, Repeated two years later here, both posted by @Magnificate, apparently from Poland.
Warning: Both Threads are old. Do not necro them, please.
[Sadly, while I do remember it, I cannot find it.] Edit: @Augenis helped me with the Polish borders threads.

The first copy-cat was about Serbia, posted by @Tomislav Addai, who seems to be from Slovakia!

The second copy-cat was about Lithuania, posted by @Augenis, who is certainly from Lithuania.

And now, the third copy-cat, about Romania, posted by me, @Zagan, from Romania.


The purpose of this thread is to find the best possible borders for Romania. To quote from @Augenis:

[...] for the tumultous time that was the period between 1918-1920. As always, you can use whatever measure to determine the best possible borders, be it national borders, cultural or historical claims, or strategic importance.

Map of Romania and Adjacent Areas
(superimposed over Google Maps for reference)

Do not use this map for colouring purposes!

​

Key:

1. [CORE] United Principalities Wallachia and Moldavia (part of Romania 1862-present, massive Romanian majority, not claimed by anyone)
2. [CORE] Herța Region, United Principalities Wallachia and Moldavia (part of Romania 1862-1940, 1941-1944, massive Romanian majority, not claimed by anyone)
3. Northern Dobruja (historical claim, part of Romania 1878-1918, 1919-present, Romanian majority, Bulgarian and Turkish minorities, claimed by Bulgaria)
4. Danube Delta riverine islands, Northern Dobruja (historical claim, part of Romania 1878-1918, 1919-1948, claimed by Bulgaria as part of Northern Dobruja)
5. Silistra and environs (historical claim, proposal to assign it to Romania in 1878, part of Romania 1913-1918, 1919-1940, mixed Bulgarian and Turkish population, small Romanian minority, claimed by Bulgaria)
6. Part of Southern Dobruja (historical claim, part of Romania 1913-1918, 1919-1940, mixed Bulgarian and Turkish population, small Romanian minority, claimed by Bulgaria)
7. The rest of Southern Dobruja (historical claim, part of Romania, 1913-1918, 1919-1940, mixed Bulgarian and Turkish population, small Romanian minority, claimed by Bulgaria)
8. "Rusciuc-Varna Line" (annexation proposal in 1913, mixed Bulgarian and Turkish population, almost no Romanians)
9. Part of Vidin Region (important Romanian minority / plurality)
10. The rest of Vidin Region (small Romanian minority)
11. Part of Timoc Region with Romanian majority
12. The rest of Timoc Region (Romanian minority)
13. Southern Bukovina (serious historical claim, part of Romania 1918-present, Romanian majority, Ukrainian minority, claimed by West Ukraine)
14. Northern Bukovina (serious historical claim, part of Romania 1918-1940, 1941-1944, mixed population, claimed by West Ukraine)
15. Pokuttya (historical claim, Romanian administration 1919, small Romanian minority, claimed by West Ukraine, Poland)
16. Central Bessarabia (serious historical claim, part of Romania 1918-1940, 1941-1944, part of Moldova 1991-present, clear Romanian majority, claimed by the Soviet Union)
17. Găgăuz Region, Bessarabia (serious historical claim, part of Romania 1918-1940, 1941-1944, part of Moldova 1991-present, mixed population, claimed by the Soviet Union)
18. Northern Bessarabia (serious historical claim, part of Romania 1918-1940, 1941-1944, mixed population, claimed by the Soviet Union)
19. Southern Bessarabia / the Budjak (serious historical claim, part of Romania 1918-1940, 1941-1944, mixed population, claimed by the Soviet Union)
20. Present day Transnistria / part of Moldavian ASSR (historical claim, part of Romania 1941-1944, part of Moldova 1991-present, de facto 1991-1992, Romanian plurality)
21. The rest of Moldavian ASSR (historical claim, part of Romania 1941-1944, important Romanian minority)
22. Southern Transnistria / Yedisan (historical claim, part of Romania 1941-1944, small Romanian minority)
23. Northern Transnistria (part of Romania 1941-1944, almost no Romanians)
24. Southern Transylvania Proper (part of Romania 1918-present, clear Romanian majority, claimed by Hungary)
25. Northern Transylvania Proper (part of Romania 1918-1940, 1944-present, Romanian majority, claimed by Hungary)
26. Szekler Land / Hungarian Autonomous Region (part of Romania 1918-1940, 1944-present, important Romanian minority, claimed by Hungary)
27. Romanian Banat (part of Romania 1919-present, Romanian majority, claimed by Hungary, Serbia)
28. Part of Serbian Banat without Serbian plurality (mixed population)
29. The rest of Serbian Banat (Serbian plurality, Romanian minority)
30. Hungarian Banat (Hungarian plurality, Romanian minority)
31. Southern Crișana / Southern Partium (part of Romania 1918-present, clear Romanian majority, claimed by Hungary)
32. Northern Crișana / Northern Partium (part of Romania 1918-1940, 1944-present, Romanian majority, claimed by Hungary)
33. Cenad and Bichiș Counties (part of Romania 1919-1920, important Romanian minority, claimed by Hungary)
34. Tisa Plain (Romanian administration 1919-1920, small Romanian minority)
35. Part of Tisa Plain in Czechoslovak Ruthenia (Romanian administration 1919-1920, small Romanian minority)
36. Southern Maramureș (part of Romania 1918-1940, 1944-present, clear Romanian majority, claimed by Hungary)
37. Part of Northern Maramureș with Romanian plurality (part of Romania 1919, claimed by Hungary, West Ukraine, Czechoslovakia)
38. The rest of Northern Maramureș (part of Romania 1919, Ukrainian majority, small Romanian minority, claimed by Hungary, West Ukraine, Czechoslovakia)
39. The rest of Carpatho-Ukraine (almost no Romanians)
40. Overseas Colonies
41. Territories with Aromanian plurality in N Greece, E Albania, Serbian Macedonia, SW Bulgaria (annexation or independent / puppet state)
42. Territories with Aromanian minorities in N Greece, E Albania, Serbian Macedonia, SW Bulgaria (annexation or independent / puppet state)

Edit: I realized that an Ethnic Map may be useful.


Ethnic Map of Romania and Adjacent Areas

Do not use this map for colouring purposes!

Note: Please excuse the distorsions. It was an old map of unknown projection and I could not fit it perfectly over Google Maps Web Mercator.

Original Map Link



My Vote:

Do not use this map for colouring purposes!

The five levels are the same as always:

• Priority 1 (Violet): Must be acquired at all cost;
• Priority 2 (Blue): May only be sought once all of Priority 1 is acquired;
• Priority 3 (Green): May only be sought once all of Priority 2 is acquired (secondary importance);
• Keep If Offered (Yellow): Keep territory if offered by other countries, otherwise do not claim;
• Keep Out (Red): Do not claim (negatives outweigh the benefits).

Additional colours include:

• Water (Sea Blue): Black Sea;
• Core Romania (Dark Grey): Always part of Romania (you should leave it like that);
• Not Under Consideration (Light Grey): Absolutely no reason to include / never even mentioned.

Use the following Blank Map please. Colour it according to your own rationale.
(no labels and pixelated borders, for easy colouring in Paint)

You may download it from this link.


Thank you.

 

[GDIS Pathe]

 

[Augenis]

The Poland border surveys are here and here.

My shot at the map:

 

[Lyhoko Leaci]

Here's my version:

(Most of the yellow regions, that is, not the arrows, are marked as such due to insufficient data provided on them. They'd probably be either green or red.)

 

[Achaemenid Rome]

My vote for Romania's territories

 

[Halagaz]

Something like this:

The logic: mostly based on ethnicity/self-determination. And keeping in mind that the smooth functioning of the future Little Entente may be useful for the preservation of Romania's gains.

 

[Zagan]

For easy reference, I have added to the Opening Post an Ethnic Map subimposed under the same Borders Map. You may open it directly using this link.

 

[Dementor]

Nice idea, but it could have used a bit more objectivity and accuracy.

Silistra and environs (historical claim, promissed to Romania in 1878, part of Romania 1912-1918, 1919-1940, mixed population, claimed by Bulgaria)

When was Silistra promised to Romania? The idea of giving Northern Dobruja only appeared after the 1877-78 war and with a southern border that reached well north of Silistra. It was decided only at the Berlin treaty to extend the border further.

Also Silistra had a Bulgarian majority and only a very small Romanian minority.

Part of Southern Dobruja without Bulgarian plurality (historical claim, part of Romania 1913-1918, 1919-1940, Turkish plurality, Romanian and Bulgarian minorities, claimed by Bulgaria)

The rest of Southern Dobruja (historical claim, part of Romania, 1913-1918, 1919-1940, Bulgarian plurality, Turkish and Romanian minorities, claimed by Bulgaria)

The Romanian minorities in both of these was insignificant. And the historical claim over Southern Dobruja was very dubious.

Also, 6 almost certainly has a Bulgarian majority and 7 has a Turkish majority. At them, and also today, most Bulgarians in Dobruja lived close to the coast or along the Danube river.

"Rusciuc-Varna Line" (historical claim, annexation proposal in 1913, Bulgarians and Turks, almost no Romanians)

When had Romania ever reached there? Even in the Middle Ages?

Part of Vidin Region with Romanian majority

No, only if the border is drawn north of Vidin and Kula. Also Yugoslavia had conflicting claims in this area.

The rest of Vidin Region (Romanian minority)

The Romanian minority was practically insignificant here.

Southern Bukovina (serious historical claim, part of Romania 1918-present, Romanian majority, Ukrainian minority, claimed by West Ukraine)

Northern Bukovina (serious historical claim, part of Romania 1918-1940, 1941-1944, mixed population, claimed by West Ukraine)

Northern Bukovina had an Ukrainian majority (or very nearly so), so why not describe it by the same model as Southern Bukovina?

Pokuttya (historical claim, Romanian administration 1919, Romanian minority, claimed by West Ukraine, Poland)

Again a very weak claim and the Romanian minority was absolutely insignificant.

Northern Bessarabia (serious historical claim, part of Romania 1918-1940, 1941-1944, mixed population, claimed by the Soviet Union)

No, Northern Bessarabia had an Ukrainian majority. This is why it was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR in OTL.

The rest of Moldavian ASSR (historical claim, part of Romania 1941-1944, Romanian plurality)

No, this area had an Ukrainian majority and pretty clearly so, considering that the MASSR had an Ukrainian plurality and this part was the most Ukrainian. This is why it was not given to the Moldovan SSR.

Southern Transnistria / Yedisan (historical claim, part of Romania 1941-1944, Romanian minority)

Goes for the rest of Transnistria as well: what historical claim did Romania have exactly? And with Odessa included, the Romanian minority is near insignificant (probably less than 2%).

Cenad and Bichiș Counties (part of Romania 1919-1920, Romanian minority, claimed by Hungary)

The Romanian minority was not especially significant.

Part of Tisa Plain in Czechoslovak Ruthenia (Romanian administration 1919-1920, Romanian minority, Hungarians, Ukrainians)

This wording makes the Romanian minority look significant, while it was basically non-existent.

Part of Northern Maramureș with Romanian plurality (part of Romania 1919, claimed by Hungary, West Ukraine, Czechoslovakia)

Not even close, if judging by this map. I wonder what source you were using to make such a claim.

Territories with Aromanian plurality in N Greece, E Albania, Serbian Macedonia, SW Bulgaria (annexation or independent / puppet state)

Such a state would be either be a bunch of non-connected enclaves or would not have an Aromanian majority.

For easy reference, I have added to the Opening Post an Ethnic Map subimposed under the same Borders Map. You may open it directly using this link.

What is the source of this map? It contradicts nearly all other ethnic maps I've seen in several places.

 

[Dementor]

Some explanations:

1. Getting all Romanian majority regions in Hungary is of course the main priority (incidentally it would have been better to have the Hungarian majority territory on the border in a separate region). In an ideal world, having the Szeklerland as an Hungarian enclave inside Romania would be preferable in the long term, but under the conditions in this period it's probably not a good idea.

2. Romania should not alienate their allies, so no attempt to grab territories that are considered high priority for Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia (let alone attempting to take pre-war Serbian territory). At most the Romanians should attempt to get better borders drawn in the land taken from Hungary, but it should not be the main priority.

3. I doubt that the Soviets would agree with any Romanian expansion east of Prut, but it would be immoral and idiotic for the Romanians to abandon Moldavia. So the best strategy would be to take over the Bessarabia in its old borders. Trying to extend the borders of Romania beyond the Dniester , however would be a very unwise idea, what with the marginal at best Romanian plurality even along the Dniester, being on the wrong side of a good defensive line and most importantly, provoking the Soviets into making Romania a high priority target.

4. Regarding Bulgaria, I have to admit that I could not disregard my obvious bias (especially since part of my family is from Southern Dobruja and the Romanian rule there is not fondly remembered, to put it mildly). Having said that, I don't see even from the point of cold self-interest what exactly Romania gained from this minor (from the Romanian point of view) territory with which it had little connection, either historical or ethnic, that would offset the cost of gaining yet another enemy, which Romania had no shortage of. This goes also for trying to expand in the Vidin region where the Romanian national identity was very weak at best and would involve substantial economic costs (its on the other side of a broad, bridge-less river) with little benefit.

 

[Zagan]

0. Nice idea, but it could have used a bit more objectivity and accuracy.

1. When was Silistra promised to Romania? The idea of giving Northern Dobruja only appeared after the 1877-78 war and with a southern border that reached well north of Silistra. It was decided only at the Berlin treaty to extend the border further.
Also Silistra had a Bulgarian majority and only a very small Romanian minority.

2. The Romanian minorities in both of these was insignificant. And the historical claim over Southern Dobruja was very dubious.
Also, 6 almost certainly has a Bulgarian majority and 7 has a Turkish majority. At them, and also today, most Bulgarians in Dobruja lived close to the coast or along the Danube river.

3. When had Romania ever reached there? Even in the Middle Ages?

4. No, only if the border is drawn north of Vidin and Kula. Also Yugoslavia had conflicting claims in this area.

5. The Romanian minority was practically insignificant here.

6. Northern Bukovina had an Ukrainian majority (or very nearly so), so why not describe it by the same model as Southern Bukovina?

7. Again a very weak claim and the Romanian minority was absolutely insignificant.

8. No, Northern Bessarabia had an Ukrainian majority. This is why it was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR in OTL.

9. No, this area had an Ukrainian majority and pretty clearly so, considering that the MASSR had an Ukrainian plurality and this part was the most Ukrainian. This is why it was not given to the Moldovan SSR.

10. Goes for the rest of Transnistria as well: what historical claim did Romania have exactly? And with Odessa included, the Romanian minority is near insignificant (probably less than 2%).

11. The Romanian minority was not especially significant.

12. This wording makes the Romanian minority look significant, while it was basically non-existent.

13. Not even close, if judging by this map. I wonder what source you were using to make such a claim.

14. Such a state would be either be a bunch of non-connected enclaves or would not have an Aromanian majority.

15. What is the source of this map? It contradicts nearly all other ethnic maps I've seen in several places.

0. Thanks. You are partly correct. I am biased but not extremely so. See below.

1. At the Congress of Berlin it was a proposal to include Silistra in Northern Dobruja, then not the town itself but only a hill on its eastern side and finally not even the hill. The Bulgarians forgot about the whole incident, the Romanians did not. That is why we claimed (and received) Silistra prior to the Second Balkan War and the Peace of Bucharest when we got the rest of the Cadrilater.
Silistra had less than 50% percent Bulgarians, a smaller percentage of Turks and few Romanians.
A plebiscite would have certainly awarded Silistra and the whole Cadrilater to Romania since all the Turks would have voted for Romania in order to have their minority rights fully respected.

2. Before the Aromanian colonization in Cadrilater the Romanian minority was about 5% (yes, a small minority although not insignificant).
Mircea cel Batrân ruled most of Cadrilater (except Turtucaia) for about a decade centuries ago (yes, a flimsy claim).
Wrong. Area 6 had less Bulgarian than Turks and Area 7 had more Bulgarians than Turks. Both the Bulgarian census of 1910 and the Romanian census of 1930 show the same results here.
Around Turtucaia there was an island of Romanians.

3. Varna had been part of independent Dobruja in the Middle Ages. The problem is that it was ruled by Bulgarians (correct, no plausible claim here).

4. When the Romanian Army liberated Vidin (Diu) in 1877-1878 they found "compact Romanian population". True, before 1919 some Bulgarization may have occured.

5. The rest of the Vidin Region: about 5-10% Romanians, not insignificant.

6. I did not describe the two parts of Bucovina the same. Please reread my descriptions:
- Southern Bucovina: Romanian majority, Ukrainian minority
- Northern Bucovina: mixed population*
* The Ukrainians did not become a majority in Northern Bukovina until the 70's. True, they were more numerous than the Romanians but the Jews, the Poles and the Germans were also significant.

7. Pocuția was ceded by Poland and was ruled by the Moldavian Voivodes for two centuries (with interruptions) and was never truly relinquished by Moldavia. About 7% Romanians.

8. It is difficult to get accurate ethnic data for Northern Bessarabia since it is not exactly identical with the Hotin Județ but, as far as I can estimate, the ethnic distribution was very close to 50-50.

9. Possibly correct, not enough data. The Romanian Authorities in occupied Transnistria concluded that the area had a small Romanian plurality (although the Ukrainians plus the Russians were more numerous).

10. Northern Transnistria: no claim at all.
Southern Transnistria (Edisan) was ruled intermittently by the Moldavian Voivodes, from Ștefan cel Mare to Mihai Viteazul. Oceacov had a Romanian mayor for decades and a Romanian garrison for four small periods.
The Romanian minority was between 3-5% (about 1% in Odessa itself).

11. Oh it was. The Cenad and Bichiș Județe had almost 20% Romanians who had voted in Alba Iulia to unite with Romania just like the other Transylvanian Romanians. The same about Northern Maramureș.

12. The area is extremely small anyway. In truth I included it to provide the possibility of a smooth border on the Tisa. The Romanian minority is similar to the rest of the Tisa Plain (in Hungary), that is about 3-4%.

13. That area still has a significant Romanian minority today (with some places with Romanian majority). Just check a current Ukrainian census and please disregard any Hungarian censuses (they had to lie because the Hungarians were a minority in their own country).

14. There is an area in the Pindus Mountains in Greece, possibly connected to smaller areas in nearby Albania (around Korce / Curceaua) and Macedonia (around Bitolia) with an Aromanian plurality. It is about the size of Southern Dobruja.
If we want an outright Aromanian majority than we have to limit it to a small area in the Pindus Mountains with one town (Metsovo / Aminciu) and about 7 villages. It is still about the size of Luxembourg.

15. Some Frenchman draw it, not a Romanian. I found it on the Internet: https://i.pinimg.com/736x/93/c8/bd/93c8bd378826ef4737c8e71db73b6056--old-maps-romania.jpg

 

[Jürgen]

Honestly I think Romania should go wild, the only areas they should avoid annexing should be ones Yugoslavia and Poland would claim. No matter what they will have a antagonistic relationship with Hungary, Bulgaria and USSR, so they can just as well go wild, and create as big Romania as possible. It may give them a better chance against USSR.

 

[Zagan]

There is an area in the Pindus Mountains in Greece, possibly connected to smaller areas in nearby Albania (around Korce / Curceaua) and Macedonia (around Bitolia) with an Aromanian plurality. It is about the size of Southern Dobruja.

I remembered that I posted a map in a thread about an Aromanian State by @Sevarics once.

As the tin says, the challenge is to create a lasting Aromanian state in Epirus. The POD is the 4th Crusade.

My Take

1. Plausibility for an Aromanian State: low.

2. Most likely area(s) for an Aromanian State: South-Eastern Albanian Epirus + North-Eastern Greek Epirus + Westernmost Greek Macedonia (Pindus Mountains) + Southernmost Yugoslav Macedonia.

3. Name. Let's make a distinction between endomyms and exonyms here. Examples: Finland / Suomi, Georgia / Sakartvelo, etc.
Romania is România in Romanian and Armâñia in Aromanian. Yes, we the Aromanians call ourselves Armâñi and we call Romania Armâñia!
So, it is obvious that an Aromanian State would be called Armâñia in Aromanian (the endonym). OTOH, its English exonym would probably be Romania (if it is before the creation of a united Romanian State north of the Danube with this name). If Romania is already taken (by OTL Romania or by a Greek State, Ρωμανια), then the Aromanian State could be called in English Aromania.
If the local name Epirus is used, the English exonym would be obviously Epirus while the Aromanian Endomyn would be the Aromanian term for it, Epiru.

4. Proposed territory (with an Aromanian plurality at least until the Balkan Wars), see map:

5. Capital: Moscopole (although very marginal, see red dot) or Bitolia (Bitola), Grebena (Grevena), Castoria (Kastoria) or Curceaua (Korçë).

6. Area: cca. 15,000 sq km.

7. Population: cca. 1 million (Aromanians 40%, Albanians 30%, Greeks 20%, Bulgarians 10%, without the 20th century massive Aromanian denationalization).


Disclaimer: I am Aromanian.

 

[Dementor]

1. At the Congress of Berlin it was a proposal to include Silistra in Northern Dobruja, then not the town itself but only a hill on its eastern side and finally not even the hill. The Bulgarians forgot about the whole incident, the Romanians did not. That is why we claimed (and received) Silistra prior to the Second Balkan War and the Peace of Bucharest when we got the rest of the Cadrilater.

No wonder the Bulgarians did not remember this. Basically the awarding of Silistra was just a rejected proposal in the course of the Congress of Berlin and could not, by any conceivable stretching of the word's definition be called a "promise". It's frankly not believable that this was why Romania wanted Silistra. This sounds like a rather poor attempt to make the ultimatum for the surrender of Silistra look at least somewhat diplomatic.

Silistra had less than 50% percent Bulgarians, a smaller percentage of Turks and few Romanians.

Wrong. Silistra was about 55% Bulgarian according to the 1910 census. (It's number 4182. The total population is in the second row and the Bulgarian population in the third row, after the double line).

A plebiscite would have certainly awarded Silistra and the whole Cadrilater to Romania since all the Turks would have voted for Romania in order to have their minority rights fully respected.

All Bulgarians (47.6% of the population) would have voted against Romania. So would probably most Gagauz (1.7%). There were also 1.5% smaller minorities (Armenians, Jews and Greeks) who would probably not support Romania overwhelmingly at the very least. This means even a small proportion of the Turks not voting for Romania would result in the failure of the plebiscite. Why would the Turks believe their minority rights would be respected better in Romania anyway?

2. Before the Aromanian colonization in Cadrilater the Romanian minority was about 5% (yes, a small minority although not insignificant).

More like 2.3%. I would consider any minority below 5% as insignificant for the purpose of this discussion. This is well below the threshold in which nearly any country would grant regional language rights, for example.

Wrong. Area 6 had less Bulgarian than Turks and Area 7 had more Bulgarians than Turks. Both the Bulgarian census of 1910 and the Romanian census of 1930 show the same results here.
Around Turtucaia there was an island of Romanians.

No, this is incorrect. Where exactly did you get this information? According to the Bulgarian census of 1910, Bulgarians were the majority in the subdistricts of Balchik, Dobrich and Silistra, while the subdistricts of Akkadanlar, Kurtbunar and Tutrakan had a Turkish majority. Compare your map with the map of Bulgarian administrative districts (the names on the map are respectively Балчик, Добрич, Силистра, Аккадънлар, Куртбунар and Tutrakan) and you'll see that practically all of Balchik and Silistra, as well as the northern part of Dobrich is inside 6, while most of the Turkish majority subdistricts are in 7.
This map (first map on page 14) which shows the Bulgarian population in 1900 by (modern) municipality show more or less the same results. And if you look at this map based on the 1930 census, 6 includes basically all of Balcic, Casim and Silistra and the northern part of Ezibei, all the districts where Bulgarians outnumbered Turks and only a small part of districts where they don't (the urban areas are not large enough to change the results). I admit that this is not a very precise analysis, but it's not easy to compare the results by administrative districts with your - as far as I know - arbitrary lines (or perhaps not as arbitrary considering they are drawn so as to include both Silistra and Balchik), so I'd be interested in your sources.

4. When the Romanian Army liberated Vidin (Diu) in 1877-1878 they found "compact Romanian population". True, before 1919 some Bulgarization may have occured.

There was (there still is, for that matter) a compact Romanian population - an unclear term in any case - but it was mostly in the rural areas north of the city. Vidin itself never had many Romanians (number 720, Romanians are not counted separately but are about half of "others" in the last row). There wasn't any significant Bulgarization in this period - the Romanian population in the Vidin region went from 23% in 1881 to 24% in 1910.

5. About 5-10%, not insignificant.

No, much less than that. The area you include in 10 contains not a single village with a significant Romanian population. The ethnic border is very sharp in the region and you drew your border considerably to the south of it. By the way, I'm quote interested in how you calculated your percentages, considering that the only reliable sources are in Bulgarian, in an atrocious format and your borders are more less arbitrary and do not conform to any administrative border.

6. I did not describe the two parts of Bucovina the same. Please reread my descriptions:
- Southern Bucovina: Romanian majority, Ukrainian minority
- Northern Bucovina: mixed population*
The Ukrainians did not become a majority in Northern Bukovina until the 70's. True, they were more numerous than the Romanians but the Jews, the Poles and the Germans were also significant.

The Ukrainians certainly become a majority after WWII, as there were no Jews and Germans left there. As for before the war, the ceded area consisted of two whole counties and part of a third. The smaller, Storojineț was 45.5% Ukrainian, while the larger, Cernăuți had 48.9% Ukrainians. Considering that most of the settlements ceded from the third county, Rădăuți were Ukrainian, I would say that Ukrainians were probably very close to 50% or a little above it. Saying simply that it was mixed is misleading.

7. Pocuția was ceded by Poland and was ruled by the Moldavian Voivodes for two centuries (with interruptions) and was never truly relinquished by Moldavia.

More like 150 years and apparently for most of the time Pocutia was still a Polish fief. In any case, nearly 500 years is a bit too long for a convincing historical claim.

8. It is difficult to get accurate ethnic data for Northern Bessarabia since it is not exactly identical with the Hotin Județ but, as far as I can estimate, the ethnic distribution was very close to 50-50.

Hotin Județ had an Ukrainian plurality (41% versus 35% or 45% versus 33% if mother language is considered, with most). As most of the Romanian settlements (see map) were assigned to the Moldovan SSR, the remainder would probably have a Ukrainian majority or very nearly so.

9. Possibly correct, not enough data. The Romanian Authorities in occupied Transnistria concluded that the area had a small Romanian plurality (although the Ukrainians plus the Russians were more numerous).

This does not seem to be indicated by these census results (for example most of Balta was within territory left behind when the Moldavian ASSR was dissolved). As for the previous census in 1939, all districts which did not become part of the Moldavian SSR had large Ukrainian majorities in 1939.

10. Northern Transnistria: no claim at all.
Southern Transnistria (Edisan) was ruled intermittently by the Moldavian Voivodes, from Ștefan cel Mare to Mihai Viteazul. Oceacov had a Romanian mayor for decades and a Romanian garrison for four small periods.
The Romanian minority was between 3-5% (about 1% in Odessa itself).

I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on the intermittency of Romania's rule over the region, though I note that this map doesn't have Mihai Viteazul controlling the area.
And I was going to post a long explanation why your figure is an exaggeration when I realized that even 5% is not even remotely high enough to deserve special mention.

11. Oh it was. The Cenad and Bichiș Județe had almost 20% Romanians who had voted in Alba Iulia to unite with Romania just like the other Transylvanian Romanians. The same about Northern Maramureș.

I have to admit that I could not find numeric sources on this. I believed it to be so when I considered how far west the border was drawn compared to the ethnic border line (like here, for example). It should be mentioned though that this area had about 600 thousand people in 1920. It seems very unlikely that were 120 thousand Romanians living there - see bellow.

2. The area is extremely small anyway. In truth I included it to provide the possibility of a smooth border on the Tisa. The Romanian minority is similar to the rest of the Tisa Plain (in Hungary), that is about 3-4%.

The same thing about Transnistria can be said about the Tisa plain.

13. That area still has a significant Romanian minority today (with some places with Romanian majority). Just check a current Ukrainian census and please disregard any Hungarian censuses (they had to lie because the Hungarians were a minority in their own country).

I did check the Ukrainian census. The area in question is divided among two districts, Tiachiv and Rakhiv. They have about the same Romanian population (12.4% and 11.6% respectively) and while they cover a larger area than 37 on the map, most of the population lives there due to the north and east being mostly mountainous. Considering also that 10 out of 95 settlements have a Romanian majority, I think that an estimate of about 20-25% Romanians in 37 seems a reasonable estimate.
And while I understand why the Hungarian authorities would undercount the Romanians, I don't see why they would count them as Ukrainians.

14. There is an area in the Pindus Mountains in Greece, possibly connected to smaller areas in nearby Albania (around Korce / Curceaua) and Macedonia (around Bitolia) with an Aromanian plurality. It is about the size of Southern Dobruja.
If we want an outright Aromanian majority than we have to limit it to a small area in the Pindus Mountains with one town (Metsovo / Aminciu) and about 7 villages. It is still about the size of Luxembourg.

You also run into the problem that many, if not most Aromanians preferred Greece over Romania.

 

[Zagan]

My answers in Red, inside the quote, for simplicity.

In a nutshell (TL;DR): You are (mostly) right.

I will make some modifications in the original post. Thank you.

No wonder the Bulgarians did not remember this. Basically the awarding of Silistra was just a rejected proposal in the course of the Congress of Berlin and could not, by any conceivable stretching of the word's definition be called a "promise". It's frankly not believable that this was why Romania wanted Silistra. This sounds like a rather poor attempt to make the ultimatum for the surrender of Silistra look at least somewhat diplomatic.
Correct. "Not believable" but real. Let's say that Romania "bullied" Bulgaria. Not nice, I know.
Another "reason" was that, since Bulgaria aquired a lot of land in the south, Romania should be "compensated" somehow.

Wrong. Silistra was about 55% Bulgarian according to the 1910 census. (It's number 4182. The total population is in the second row and the Bulgarian population in the third row, after the double line).
A five percent "error" favouring the ethnicity doing the counting is possible.

All Bulgarians (47.6% of the population) would have voted against Romania. So would probably most Gagauz (1.7%). There were also 1.5% smaller minorities (Armenians, Jews and Greeks) who would probably not support Romania overwhelmingly at the very least. This means even a small proportion of the Turks not voting for Romania would result in the failure of the plebiscite. Why would the Turks believe their minority rights would be respected better in Romania anyway?
You may be right with the calculations. However, the Turks already knew that their rights are significantly better safeguarded in Romania than in Bulgaria. They already had 35 years to get a correct idea about that.

More like 2.3%. I would consider any minority below 5% as insignificant for the purpose of this discussion. This is well below the threshold in which nearly any country would grant regional language rights, for example.
Ok.

No, this is incorrect. Where exactly did you get this information? According to the Bulgarian census of 1910, Bulgarians were the majority in the subdistricts of Balchik, Dobrich and Silistra, while the subdistricts of Akkadanlar, Kurtbunar and Tutrakan had a Turkish majority. Compare your map with the map of Bulgarian administrative districts (the names on the map are respectively Балчик, Добрич, Силистра, Аккадънлар, Куртбунар and Tutrakan) and you'll see that practically all of Balchik and Silistra, as well as the northern part of Dobrich is inside 6, while most of the Turkish majority subdistricts are in 7.
This map (first map on page 14) which shows the Bulgarian population in 1900 by (modern) municipality show more or less the same results. And if you look at this map based on the 1930 census, 6 includes basically all of Balcic, Casim and Silistra and the northern part of Ezibei, all the districts where Bulgarians outnumbered Turks and only a small part of districts where they don't (the urban areas are not large enough to change the results). I admit that this is not a very precise analysis, but it's not easy to compare the results by administrative districts with your - as far as I know - arbitrary lines (or perhaps not as arbitrary considering they are drawn so as to include both Silistra and Balchik), so I'd be interested in your sources.
Interesting. I can read Cyrillic very well, thank you. I also understand a little Bulgarian, being close to Russian.
It seems that I used different (Romanian) sources and ethnic maps. Also, my father was born in Șabla, near the coast, and I believe that he did not lie when he told me that the area was "full of Turks"!

There was (there still is, for that matter) a compact Romanian population - an unclear term in any case - but it was mostly in the rural areas north of the city. Vidin itself never had many Romanians (number 720, Romanians are not counted separately but are about half of "others" in the last row). There wasn't any significant Bulgarization in this period - the Romanian population in the Vidin region went from 23% in 1881 to 24% in 1910.
Probably correct.

No, much less than that. The area you include in 10 contains not a single village with a significant Romanian population. The ethnic border is very sharp in the region and you drew your border considerably to the south of it. By the way, I'm quote interested in how you calculated your percentages, considering that the only reliable sources are in Bulgarian, in an atrocious format and your borders are more less arbitrary and do not conform to any administrative border.
Ok.
The border lines are: (i) compiled from dozens of maps (Romanian, foreign, ethnic, historical, proposals, nationalistic, etc), (ii) arbitrary (invented by me, the author of the survey).
The percentages are more or less estimations with the error on the side of the Romanians (I mostly used Romanian or French data and maps).

The Ukrainians certainly become a majority after WWII, as there were no Jews and Germans left there. As for before the war, the ceded area consisted of two whole counties and part of a third. The smaller, Storojineț was 45.5% Ukrainian, while the larger, Cernăuți had 48.9% Ukrainians. Considering that most of the settlements ceded from the third county, Rădăuți were Ukrainian, I would say that Ukrainians were probably very close to 50% or a little above it. Saying simply that it was mixed is misleading.
That was my idea. That the Ukrainians were just a plurality, not a majority. 49.9% is not a majority!

Hotin Județ had an Ukrainian plurality (41% versus 35% or 45% versus 33% if mother language is considered, with most). As most of the Romanian settlements (see map) were assigned to the Moldovan SSR, the remainder would probably have a Ukrainian majority or very nearly so.
Nearly.

This does not seem to be indicated by these census results (for example most of Balta was within territory left behind when the Moldavian ASSR was dissolved). As for the previous census in 1939, all districts which did not become part of the Moldavian SSR had large Ukrainian majorities in 1939.
I see. I must have read war-time nationalist propaganda then.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on the intermittency of Romania's rule over the region, though I note that this map doesn't have Mihai Viteazul controlling the area.
And I was going to post a long explanation why your figure is an exaggeration when I realized that even 5% is not even remotely high enough to deserve special mention.
Mihai Viteazul ruled Oceacov for two weeks. Hardly long enough to get on any maps!

I have to admit that I could not find numeric sources on this. I believed it to be so when I considered how far west the border was drawn compared to the ethnic border line (like here, for example). It should be mentioned though that this area had about 600 thousand people in 1920. It seems very unlikely that were 120 thousand Romanians living there - see bellow.
Not 120,000 but only about 75,000. Still, quite a large number.

The same thing about Transnistria can be said about the Tisa plain.
Ok.

I did check the Ukrainian census. The area in question is divided among two districts, Tiachiv and Rakhiv. They have about the same Romanian population (12.4% and 11.6% respectively) and while they cover a larger area than 37 on the map, most of the population lives there due to the north and east being mostly mountainous. Considering also that 10 out of 95 settlements have a Romanian majority, I think that an estimate of about 20-25% Romanians in 37 seems a reasonable estimate.
And while I understand why the Hungarian authorities would undercount the Romanians, I don't see why they would count them as Ukrainians.
While the border line is mostly arbitrary there, I used a figure of cca. 40% Romanians for a region around Teceu, Rahău, Biserica Alba, etc. As the area also contained Magyars, Germans, Jews, Slovaks, etc, I assumed that the Ukrainian percent might have been lower.
There is also the issue that a good portion of the Ukrainians have a different identity, for example as Rusyns.

You also run into the problem that many, if not most Aromanians preferred Greece over Romania.
That is correct. Sadly, around two thirds of the Aromanians were "Grecomans", i.e. they considered to be closer to the Greeks than to the Romanians. This Aromanian split into Graecophiles and Romanophiles had tragic consequences which are outside the scope of this discussion.

 

[Zagan]

I will make some modifications in the original post. Thank you.

@Dementor had some valid points. I was biased. I made several corrections in the original post. Thank you.

 

[Dementor]

Thank you for your corrections! I hope I wasn't too aggressive and petty in arguing my points, which wasn't my intention.

 

[Zagan]

Thank you for your corrections! I hope I wasn't too aggressive and petty in arguing my points, which wasn't my intention.

It's ok. Disagreements are normal and healthy. What I don't understand is why they frequently end in kicks and bans!

And, after all, besides the fact that the Bulgarians were more numerous in Southern Dobruja, there is one more reason why it should have been Bulgarian territory:
I spend my holidays there in Ecrene / Кранево because it's nicer and less crowded than in Northern Dobruja.

I have already told you that my father was from Șabla / Шабла. You said that you also have relatives from Southern Dobruja. May I ask from where exactly? Maybe I know the place.

 

[Dementor]

I have already told you that my father was from Șabla / Шабла. You said that you also have relatives from Southern Dobruja. May I ask from where exactly? Maybe I know the place.

My grandmother's parents were born and grew up in the village of Kyose Abdi (today it is called Rainino), which was just north of the 1913 border. They remained there during the first period of Romanian rule (1913-1916), but both families fled, along with most of the Bulgarian just in advance of the Romanian army which was returning to occupy Southern Dobruja in 1919. They settled in the first village south of the border, Eski Balabanlar, now Vazovo. They managed to recover eventually, so I don't think any of my relatives ever returned to Rainino after it became part of Bulgaria again. Especially since priority was given to Bulgarians resettled from Northern Dobruja (I think mostly from Cerna).

 

[CaliGuy]

My map (on my first try):

My logic is this: The Romanian-majority areas outside of Romania should generally be annexed to it. However, I gave lesser priority to Transnistria and the Chernivsti area due to the fact that I don't care too much if Romania doesn't get to keep them. (Basically, I want friendly relations with Ukraine if it ever becomes independent in this TL.)

As for the other disputed areas, I would keep them if offered but would not pursue them in order to avoid ruining my relations with my neighbors.

 

[Magnum]