Romania doesn't change sides, could the Balkans escape comunism?

The Focsani-Namoloasa-Braila(FNB) line was about 180km long and situated on the Siret river bank, beween the impassable Carpathian mountains and the Danube Delta so it couldn't be flanked. It had about 1600 concrete pillboxes, 1800 emplacements for AT guns and MGs, 80 km of AT ditches, 18m wide and 6m in depth in front of the exposed areas and the usual trenches and mine fields.
At the time of king Michaels coup, the german 6th and 8th armys, together with the romanian 3rd and 4th, about 500k strong, were in full retreat and relocation towards the mountains and the FNB line. Besides that there were about 1 mil romanian reserves. The Ploiesti heavy AA guns were also being redeployed there. During the Iasi-Kisinev offensive, the soviet high command did not even plan to pass the FNB line at that particular moment. Sure, if they alocated enough resources and men they could eventualy do it, but the main thrust towards Berlin was through Poland, so occupying Romania wasn't necessary to defeat Germany.
Marshal Antonescu hoped to inflict as much damage to the Soviet Army trying to infiltrate south of the FNB line, that Stalin would have to reconsider, negotiate and offer better truce terms. Not only offer better terms, but also respect them afterwards, because the Soviets only respected power.
The Gustav line denied access to the Allied forces for about 4 months. The casemate density on this line was lower than that of the FNB line, and had a lot less troops.
However, king Michael was tired of living in the shadow of the man who put him back on the Throne. He was convinced by the politicians and military he kept around him of his providential role in the years to come, if he himself would be the one signing the truce with the Allies and not Marshal Antonescu. Having in mind that after the war, king Michael received the order of Victory, we could say that Stalin considered he had a big contribution in defeating Germany and/or helping SU in securing a large part of the Balkans. The rest is History.

http://www.academia.edu/19208142/Enemy_at_the_gates_a_reconsideration_of_the_purpose_and_potential_of_Romania_s_last_defense_line_against_communism_the_fortified_line_Focşani_Nămoloasa_Brăila
Who is curious to know a lot more about the FNB fortified line can acces this link.
 
Last edited:
Avoiding King Michael's coup would certainly lengthen the war for the Soviets, I don't know how much Operation Bagration would be affected, if at all. If the Romanian defenses held, then the western allies would probably have to occupy Greece sooner to keep the Balkans out of the Soviet sphere. If the western allies reach Bulgarian territory, the Bulgarians are likely to leave the axis (could just be an armistice w/allies or declaration of war with Germany.

The liberation of Belgrade would happen much later without Romania switching sides, but I'm not sure if the Wallies would shift resources away from Italy to the western Balkans. Summer 1944 is an early enough POD that the terms of the Yalta conference may be somewhat different from OTL.

Hungary might actually hold onto Transylvania if Stalin feels like punishing Romania ITTL.
 
Avoiding King Michael's coup would certainly lengthen the war for the Soviets, I don't know how much Operation Bagration would be affected, if at all. If the Romanian defenses held, then the western allies would probably have to occupy Greece sooner to keep the Balkans out of the Soviet sphere. If the western allies reach Bulgarian territory, the Bulgarians are likely to leave the axis (could just be an armistice w/allies or declaration of war with Germany.

The liberation of Belgrade would happen much later without Romania switching sides, but I'm not sure if the Wallies would shift resources away from Italy to the western Balkans. Summer 1944 is an early enough POD that the terms of the Yalta conference may be somewhat different from OTL.

Hungary might actually hold onto Transylvania if Stalin feels like punishing Romania ITTL.
Op. Bagration had just finished when the Jassy-Kishinev offensive started on 20th of august, also the allies were finishing the Falaise pocket and advancing fast towards the Rhine. If it doesn't move fast enough, the Red Army might lose the race to Berlin, maybe even all of Germany if the German army falls apart in the West. As with Finland, maybe Romania wasn't such a big priority to risk waisting resources and men, needed elsewhere.
OTL, Stalin wanted to punish Hungary more because it declared war on SU without a cause, while Romania was fighting for Bessarebia. Antonescu had promised 1 million men and all of the country's resources to the allied cause if they reached Romania first. In any case if the FNB line holds until the end of hostilties Romania most certainly would lose all of Moldavia And Bucovina.
 
Carpathian mountains are difficult and very defensible terrain but certainly not impassable. Question is with what forces do the Axis occupy FNB line. By the time Romania switched sides (POD) their 3d and 4th army had been shattered, while German 6th army has been surrounded. The remaining Romanian forces were mostly poorly armed second and third echelon forces, so it's possible the Soviets would be able to breach FNB on the march, before the defenders had time to consolidate, but it would certainly take another mayor offensive for Soviets to take all of Romania and reach Yugoslavia, with Bucharest suffering the OTL fate of Budapest. In all Soviets would still take Romania and most of Hungary, but wouldn't reach Vienna by the end of war.

The Gustav line denied access to the Allied forces for about 4 months.
In much worse terrain than FNB line. If the Axis forces stop the JK offensive there, then we would see the usual Soviet gathering of supplies for next offensive and then mayor assault breaching the line. In 1942 or 1943 such line could have held the Red Army back. By 1944 the Soviets had learned how to break enemy defense lines and were well equipped to do it. FNB meant that Soviets would need more time and suffer more casualties, that's all.
 
Carpathian mountains are difficult and very defensible terrain but certainly not impassable. Question is with what forces do the Axis occupy FNB line. By the time Romania switched sides (POD) their 3d and 4th army had been shattered, while German 6th army has been surrounded. The remaining Romanian forces were mostly poorly armed second and third echelon forces, so it's possible the Soviets would be able to breach FNB on the march, before the defenders had time to consolidate, but it would certainly take another mayor offensive for Soviets to take all of Romania and reach Yugoslavia, with Bucharest suffering the OTL fate of Budapest. In all Soviets would still take Romania and most of Hungary, but wouldn't reach Vienna by the end of war.


In much worse terrain than FNB line. If the Axis forces stop the JK offensive there, then we would see the usual Soviet gathering of supplies for next offensive and then mayor assault breaching the line. In 1942 or 1943 such line could have held the Red Army back. By 1944 the Soviets had learned how to break enemy defense lines and were well equipped to do it. FNB meant that Soviets would need more time and suffer more casualties, that's all.

The 3d and 4th, together with the german 6th took some casualties but nothing that wasn't manageble. The catastrophic loses that we see at the end of the OTL operations were as a consequence of the sudden defection of 23d August. The romanian forces were ordered by the new government not to resist the Red Army anymore, but that happened without a previous agreement of truce with the Soviet Union. So the Soviets just disarm 150k romanian soldiers and send them to Siberia. While the 6th army found itself with the back against a new enemy and had no way of retreat. The FNB line was already fully garisoned with specialist fortification troops and new divisions from the interior.
The Carpathians were very easy to defend, negating the use of armour.
 
The 3d and 4th, together with the german 6th took some casualties but nothing that wasn't manageble. The catastrophic loses that we see at the end of the OTL operations were as a consequence of the sudden defection of 23d August. The romanian forces were ordered by the new government not to resist the Red Army anymore, but that happened without a previous agreement of truce with the Soviet Union. So the Soviets just disarm 150k romanian soldiers and send them to Siberia. While the 6th army found itself with the back against a new enemy and had no way of retreat. The FNB line was already fully garisoned with specialist fortification troops and new divisions from the interior.
The Carpathians were very easy to defend, negating the use of armour.
As a Romanian, I can totally agree about the defense of the Carpathians. During WWI, only 3-4 passes were usable for armies, especially due to rocky terrain.

However, it is quite doubtful that Hitler would abide a defense of the Carpathians, by leaving the oil fields of Ploiesti abandoned and by allowing the Soviets to reach Danube (and thus possibly have Bulgaria switch sides).

And the defense in Moldova was not feasible. At the point of August 1944, mobile reserves of Germans were exhausted on that front.

But one tidbit of information which has passed unnoticed is the fact that even during the first offensive in April 1944, the objective of Stavka was to force a breakthrough in Moldova, in order to ensure a coup in Romania. Negotiations about the coup took place as early as August 1943, but Soviets refused them, postponing any discussions until the offensive in Romania began. The actual coup from 23 August was planned since June 1944 and Soviets were well aware of the general plans for the coup.
So the real issue is that without the planning of coup which for all appearances and purposes began in March 1944, Soviet offensive would either not have started in April 1944 or it would have changed to focus from Bagration offensive to include a turn south towards the oil fields of Ploiesti.

Either way, I strongly doubt that any of the counter-factual scenarios would have helped Balkans avoid the establishment of communism in Romania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. Bulgaria was already sympathetic to USSR, as they never even declared war against them in June 1941. Yugoslavia was ripe for Tito's communist partisans and Romania was too strategically important for USSR to be left alone as a buffer zone, like Finland was. Finland was useful as buffer state and it had no strategically important position or resources.
 
Op. Bagration had just finished when the Jassy-Kishinev offensive started on 20th of august, also the allies were finishing the Falaise pocket and advancing fast towards the Rhine. If it doesn't move fast enough, the Red Army might lose the race to Berlin, maybe even all of Germany if the German army falls apart in the West. As with Finland, maybe Romania wasn't such a big priority to risk waisting resources and men, needed elsewhere.
OTL, Stalin wanted to punish Hungary more because it declared war on SU without a cause, while Romania was fighting for Bessarebia. Antonescu had promised 1 million men and all of the country's resources to the allied cause if they reached Romania first. In any case if the FNB line holds until the end of hostilties Romania most certainly would lose all of Moldavia And Bucovina.
Hungary declared war on the USSR to curry favor with Berlin and hold onto Transylvania. Hitler told the Hungarians that their gains in Transylvania from the Second Vienna Awards were only "provisional" and the dispute would be decided permanently after the war was over. Romania and Hungary competed to be a more useful ally in Berlin's eyes. The Transylvania dispute was fierce enough that Hungarian and Romanian troops at Stalingrad had to be separated by the Germans so they wouldn't skirmish with each other.
 
As a Romanian, I can totally agree about the defense of the Carpathians. During WWI, only 3-4 passes were usable for armies, especially due to rocky terrain.

However, it is quite doubtful that Hitler would abide a defense of the Carpathians, by leaving the oil fields of Ploiesti abandoned and by allowing the Soviets to reach Danube (and thus possibly have Bulgaria switch sides).

And the defense in Moldova was not feasible. At the point of August 1944, mobile reserves of Germans were exhausted on that front.

But one tidbit of information which has passed unnoticed is the fact that even during the first offensive in April 1944, the objective of Stavka was to force a breakthrough in Moldova, in order to ensure a coup in Romania. Negotiations about the coup took place as early as August 1943, but Soviets refused them, postponing any discussions until the offensive in Romania began. The actual coup from 23 August was planned since June 1944 and Soviets were well aware of the general plans for the coup.
So the real issue is that without the planning of coup which for all appearances and purposes began in March 1944, Soviet offensive would either not have started in April 1944 or it would have changed to focus from Bagration offensive to include a turn south towards the oil fields of Ploiesti.

Either way, I strongly doubt that any of the counter-factual scenarios would have helped Balkans avoid the establishment of communism in Romania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. Bulgaria was already sympathetic to USSR, as they never even declared war against them in June 1941. Yugoslavia was ripe for Tito's communist partisans and Romania was too strategically important for USSR to be left alone as a buffer zone, like Finland was. Finland was useful as buffer state and it had no strategically important position or resources.
The Bulgarians would have preferred occupation by Western armies heading North from Greece over the Red Army. It's possible that Bulgaria would have been Finlandized or turned into a NATO member. A smaller common border with the Warsaw pact might create earlier Yugoslav and Albanian splits from Stalin.
 
The Germans and Romanians should have pulled to the FNB line before the Soviet offensive started.

Ploesti was done producing oil by August 1944, and the attacks all 1944 summer long worked slowly but effectively on the fields themselves, and the transportation networks out bombed as well (Danube mined). So the guns and security forces protecting them could have been moved to the front.

Regardless of the how and why if the German sixth army can survive, it might extend the war a couple of months.

I agree with REDrake that it seems one way or another the Soviet would have to make Romania have a government under their control, and since Romania is ex-Axis, if would be easy for the Soviets to justify and would likely not have much Western Allied Sympathy.
 
If the western allies reach Bulgarian territory, the Bulgarians are likely to leave the axis (could just be an armistice w/allies or declaration of war with Germany.

Could Germans attempt to occupy Bulgaria in such a scenario, similarly to what they did in Hungary and had planned to do in Romania?
 
With what reserves?

The 3d and 4th, together with the german 6th took some casualties but nothing that wasn't manageble. The catastrophic loses that we see at the end of the OTL operations were as a consequence of the sudden defection of 23d August. The romanian forces were ordered by the new government not to resist the Red Army anymore, but that happened without a previous agreement of truce with the Soviet Union.
Not entirely true, before the Romania changed sides the Soviet forces broke through entire defensive depth on both flanks of 6th army and were in it's rear areas. Soviet explotation forces were motorized, while German and Romanian infantry divisions weren't with three avaible armored divisions already suffering heavy casualties, being rendered unable to contain breakthrough. Thus while wehraboos love to blame Romanians for everything, the fact is the 6th army was already doomed when Romania went over, so if it didn't the 6th army still gets annihilated while the remnants 3&4th army are racing towards FNB line against more manouverable enemy, probably losing most of the towed weapons in the process. I reckon they could patch the threathened sectors of the line with rushed in reserve troops and Luftwaffe units, containing any footholds Red Army gains within the line, so it would need another large offensive to break through, throwing the southern fron timeline by two to three months.
 
The question of if Romania can keep the Soviets out is a good one, one I lack the knowledge to speculate on. However Tito was very home-grown so keeping communism out of the western Balkans will be much harder.
 
Could Germans attempt to occupy Bulgaria in such a scenario, similarly to what they did in Hungary and had planned to do in Romania?
Hungary was crucial to the defense of Austria and southern Germany, but Bulgaria was too far away to be this crucial for the defense of "core" Germany (Austria, Sudetenland, Weimar borders - East Prussia). German control of Hungary also bought time for German occupation troops to withdraw from Yugoslavia to defend Germany proper against the Red Army.

Local ethnic German communities were a useful lever for Berlin's control over the Axis minors, but Bulgaria had no sizable German minority that could be influenced by Hitler.
 
Top