Optimal ROMANIA Post World War One Borders Survey
You dont want to make Poland or Serbia hate you, and if zou could minimize conflict with Bulgaria, do it
I'd say that the optimum would be a 1918 Romania without the Cadrilater (terrible mistake taking it from Bulgaria in 1913).
Though if, due to butterflies, a Ukrainian state would manage to successfully resist the Soviet Union's attempts to engulf it, Northern Bukovina and Bessarabia could be a useful and strengthening addition to it. Romania benefits more from a strong Ukrainian state between itself and the USSR than it does from a couple of distant (if relatively large) provinces.
In that case I would amend the previous statement to 1918 Romania minus Cadrilater, North Bukovina and North Bessarabia.
CaliGuy
Banned
Wouldn't that be the same as Romania right now, though? Or am I missing something here?
Yes. And Hertza Land as well.
As mentioned, it is the 1918 map, minus the Cadrilater, and potentially Northern Bukovina/Bessarabia (depening on whether or not an independent Ukraine could/would survive). It is indeed very similar to current-day Romania, except expanded with what was historically Eastern and South-Eastern Moldavia (and Hertza, which people tend to forget about).
Last edited:
Purple areas are non-negotiable.
Northern Transylvania, Southern Maramures and Szekler Land: can only be lost if and only if Hungary's borders include significant portions of Slovakia (i.e. Hungary-friendly Tiranon), and with no guarantee.
Cadrilater: since it was already Romanian by 1913, I don't see why they must cede it back to Bulgaria right away. However, while southern Cadrilater can be lost if needed, Silistra should stay unless a population exchange occurs.
Northern Bessarabia: this one's tricky. You can defend yourself better with it, but it wouldn't exactly hurt to lose. Keep it unless you have a nationalist Ukraine at the border.
Serbian/Hungarian Banat: unless Yugoslavia/Serbia proves to be antagonistic to Romania, keep it.
Transnistria: if Ukraine is at the border, drop everything within the area. If the USSR is at the border, Tiraspol is a should have, and Odessa is a maybe (note: do not go all the way to Mykolaiv). Keep out of Northern Transnistria at all times.
Timoc: if Serbia becomes deadlocked by both Bulgaria and the State of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, consider this an option. Though the border gore within Timoc needs some smoothing, so parts of 11 should be with 12 instead.
South Patrium, Tilsa Ruthenia and Northern Maramures: keep them if (i) Tiranon becomes harsher to Hungary, or (ii) Hungary and Czechoslovakia become irredeemably Communist.
Stay out from everything else. No benefits from getting them, plus it introduces more minorities.
Formation of an Aromanian state must be under the assumption that it is independent from Romania and Greece.
Northern Transylvania, Southern Maramures and Szekler Land: can only be lost if and only if Hungary's borders include significant portions of Slovakia (i.e. Hungary-friendly Tiranon), and with no guarantee.
Cadrilater: since it was already Romanian by 1913, I don't see why they must cede it back to Bulgaria right away. However, while southern Cadrilater can be lost if needed, Silistra should stay unless a population exchange occurs.
Northern Bessarabia: this one's tricky. You can defend yourself better with it, but it wouldn't exactly hurt to lose. Keep it unless you have a nationalist Ukraine at the border.
Serbian/Hungarian Banat: unless Yugoslavia/Serbia proves to be antagonistic to Romania, keep it.
Transnistria: if Ukraine is at the border, drop everything within the area. If the USSR is at the border, Tiraspol is a should have, and Odessa is a maybe (note: do not go all the way to Mykolaiv). Keep out of Northern Transnistria at all times.
Timoc: if Serbia becomes deadlocked by both Bulgaria and the State of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, consider this an option. Though the border gore within Timoc needs some smoothing, so parts of 11 should be with 12 instead.
South Patrium, Tilsa Ruthenia and Northern Maramures: keep them if (i) Tiranon becomes harsher to Hungary, or (ii) Hungary and Czechoslovakia become irredeemably Communist.
Stay out from everything else. No benefits from getting them, plus it introduces more minorities.
Formation of an Aromanian state must be under the assumption that it is independent from Romania and Greece.
Last edited:
Suggestions for improvement:
Split off the Bulgarian-inhabited area (Bolhrad) from the Budjak. Split the remainder of it at Tatarbunari.
Split up Southern Transnistria into the following (all in WWII borders):
1. Judetul Odessa
2. Judetul Berezovca and Oceanov
3. Judetul Golta and Ananiev
4. Judetul Ovidiopol
5. Whatever is left of Tiraspol, Dubăsari and Râbnița.
Clean up the Timoc border gore.
Split off the Bulgarian-inhabited area (Bolhrad) from the Budjak. Split the remainder of it at Tatarbunari.
Split up Southern Transnistria into the following (all in WWII borders):
1. Judetul Odessa
2. Judetul Berezovca and Oceanov
3. Judetul Golta and Ananiev
4. Judetul Ovidiopol
5. Whatever is left of Tiraspol, Dubăsari and Râbnița.
Clean up the Timoc border gore.
This would be my answer. I partitioned a bit Northern Dobrogea.
Now two yellows have negotiation purpose.
1. South Dobrogea(South of Constanţa should be offered for that corner of Vidin, if the offer is not accepted you keep the area.
2. West Banat(a bit bigger) should be taken if that corner of Timoc cannot be obtained and Serbia wants an exchange of population.
This I would try to be my end game for 1930 starting from independence. with the white lands a puppet state and the rest of the lands grouped into states/cantons/voivodships as an administrative solution.
Moldova, Ardeal, Muntenia, Maramures, Oltenia, Banat, Bihor.
But this is the perfect scenario.
As for the Aromanians and the colonies, I cannot see how Romania could do something or why they should do that.
Now two yellows have negotiation purpose.
1. South Dobrogea(South of Constanţa should be offered for that corner of Vidin, if the offer is not accepted you keep the area.
2. West Banat(a bit bigger) should be taken if that corner of Timoc cannot be obtained and Serbia wants an exchange of population.
This I would try to be my end game for 1930 starting from independence. with the white lands a puppet state and the rest of the lands grouped into states/cantons/voivodships as an administrative solution.
Moldova, Ardeal, Muntenia, Maramures, Oltenia, Banat, Bihor.
But this is the perfect scenario.
As for the Aromanians and the colonies, I cannot see how Romania could do something or why they should do that.
Last edited:
As a reasoning for my first map, I did not used the morals of present day and I am not encouraging any claims on the today borders.
1. I think Transilvania, Crisana(Trianon), Maramures Ugocsa Bucovina and Banat(Trianon+ a portion of plain linking the Danube) should be viewed as cores in the first step and should be taken with the possibility to develop them. So Banat should have plain acces to Danube, Maramures should have the rail link and the mountains to protect Transylvania.
2. Pocutia, East Transylvania and Timoc should be considered as a next step, since they control vital routes that link Oltenia to Banat, Maramures to Bucovina and Moldova to the rest of Transylvania. So this would be a gain to consolidate the proper cores. Of course, most likely East Transylvania will be included in the the first step in any realistic scenario, but I took into account all possibilities.
Minorities would have the rights and they had/have a similar culture and way of life with the majority, being mountain peoples too.
3. Now, concerning the east, I took in consideration the power of Russia and the alliance system. A direct confrontation should be avoided and only if the politics allow it, a union/annexation should be considered. Taking a part of Transnistria would make the defense of the Dniester more easy and will give full control of the river so will enhance the economy of Moldova as a whole. This could be the first step as it happened in reality, but that would be the reasonable tactic since they were controlled by a superpower.
4. Bulgaria should be an important allied and Romania should take lands in Dobrogea just to secure the link with the sea for Muntenia, by Constanta harbor. South of this line the land should be used as a tool to get a part of the Bulgarian Timoc. Any claims beyond the 1900 border should be viewed as a madness since Bulgaria has a long border with Romania and Romania needs an allied, also the cultures are close. I think that was a mistake on Romania's behalf to annex Cadrilater.
5. Serbia should not be made into an huge enemy, but the relation should be as normal as possible, so west of Banat should be claimed only if Timoc lower valley is not part of Romania, as a negotiation tool. Should be pursued only in an extreme scenario, let's say, Hungary/Germany/Austria would conquer Serbia.
Maybe Serbia will not make a life or death situation from a minor loss in Timoc.
6. Rutenia, the rest, should be given to Hungary or Slovakia with an emphasis on minority rights as a negotiation tool. Should be pursued only if the rest of the solutions will not benefit Romania by that time and the population wants to enter Romania.
7. South Transnistria should be viewed as a buffer and the Ucrainian population should be encouraged to form a state. Should be pursued only if they want to enter Romania as a protection from a future annexation from Russia.
All lands who are not vital to the security of Romania, in Hungary, west of the Trianon line, should be a big no-no and should be left a part of Hungary regardless of the scenario, because even by those standards that will be a very imoral solution and blatant Imperialism from a very young country to take them.
I also took in the consideration the unlikely succes of an Ukrainian state in that period, with Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Russia as enemies. So spending efort on helping Ukraine and leaving Pocutia or parts of Maramures- Bucovina for them will not be realistic. Also the population has some ties as culture and vocabulary with the Romanian one and could be integrated with fewer efforts than the Hungarian one. Poland will not mind that Pocutia is in Romania, they would have other problems.
Some scientists claim that Hutuls have a Dacian or Romanian substratum.
As for Aromanians that will complicate the scenario too much and will make Romania vulnerable on her southern borders, I will fallow the same policies of educational help, but not political help.
Also, Romania taking lands that were subjected, I think the population will not agree with colonies and will go against the culture of Romanians. So for me is a big no.
I hope nobody will be offended and view this as a way to encourage Romanian iredentism. That's not the case.
1. I think Transilvania, Crisana(Trianon), Maramures Ugocsa Bucovina and Banat(Trianon+ a portion of plain linking the Danube) should be viewed as cores in the first step and should be taken with the possibility to develop them. So Banat should have plain acces to Danube, Maramures should have the rail link and the mountains to protect Transylvania.
2. Pocutia, East Transylvania and Timoc should be considered as a next step, since they control vital routes that link Oltenia to Banat, Maramures to Bucovina and Moldova to the rest of Transylvania. So this would be a gain to consolidate the proper cores. Of course, most likely East Transylvania will be included in the the first step in any realistic scenario, but I took into account all possibilities.
Minorities would have the rights and they had/have a similar culture and way of life with the majority, being mountain peoples too.
3. Now, concerning the east, I took in consideration the power of Russia and the alliance system. A direct confrontation should be avoided and only if the politics allow it, a union/annexation should be considered. Taking a part of Transnistria would make the defense of the Dniester more easy and will give full control of the river so will enhance the economy of Moldova as a whole. This could be the first step as it happened in reality, but that would be the reasonable tactic since they were controlled by a superpower.
4. Bulgaria should be an important allied and Romania should take lands in Dobrogea just to secure the link with the sea for Muntenia, by Constanta harbor. South of this line the land should be used as a tool to get a part of the Bulgarian Timoc. Any claims beyond the 1900 border should be viewed as a madness since Bulgaria has a long border with Romania and Romania needs an allied, also the cultures are close. I think that was a mistake on Romania's behalf to annex Cadrilater.
5. Serbia should not be made into an huge enemy, but the relation should be as normal as possible, so west of Banat should be claimed only if Timoc lower valley is not part of Romania, as a negotiation tool. Should be pursued only in an extreme scenario, let's say, Hungary/Germany/Austria would conquer Serbia.
Maybe Serbia will not make a life or death situation from a minor loss in Timoc.
6. Rutenia, the rest, should be given to Hungary or Slovakia with an emphasis on minority rights as a negotiation tool. Should be pursued only if the rest of the solutions will not benefit Romania by that time and the population wants to enter Romania.
7. South Transnistria should be viewed as a buffer and the Ucrainian population should be encouraged to form a state. Should be pursued only if they want to enter Romania as a protection from a future annexation from Russia.
All lands who are not vital to the security of Romania, in Hungary, west of the Trianon line, should be a big no-no and should be left a part of Hungary regardless of the scenario, because even by those standards that will be a very imoral solution and blatant Imperialism from a very young country to take them.
I also took in the consideration the unlikely succes of an Ukrainian state in that period, with Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Russia as enemies. So spending efort on helping Ukraine and leaving Pocutia or parts of Maramures- Bucovina for them will not be realistic. Also the population has some ties as culture and vocabulary with the Romanian one and could be integrated with fewer efforts than the Hungarian one. Poland will not mind that Pocutia is in Romania, they would have other problems.
Some scientists claim that Hutuls have a Dacian or Romanian substratum.
As for Aromanians that will complicate the scenario too much and will make Romania vulnerable on her southern borders, I will fallow the same policies of educational help, but not political help.
Also, Romania taking lands that were subjected, I think the population will not agree with colonies and will go against the culture of Romanians. So for me is a big no.
I hope nobody will be offended and view this as a way to encourage Romanian iredentism. That's not the case.
Last edited:
Dementor
Banned
I agree that giving up South Dobruja would be better for Romania in the long term. But any Romanian leader proposing the deal your outlined would probably not stay in power for long (if he's not assassinated), since it involves exchanging established Romanian territory with a Romanian majority for Bulgarian majority territory. It also does not make sense from the point of economy and logistics (there was no bridge linking Vidin to Romania to 2013).
Of course Bulgaria is not likely to agree either (and I don't think even the Romanian minority would be especially supportive of this idea).