Romanian WI: Skorzeny in Bucharest

August 1944.

The Allies have broken out of the hedgerows of Normandy and are in the suburbs of Paris. In the east, the Soviet 'Bagration' offensive has smashed Army Group Center. Now twenty Red Army divisions have opened a secondary offensive in the south, out of Bessarabia into Bukovina and Moldavia. Jassy, the ancient capital of the Romanians, has fallen; the Soviets are across the River Pruth, the northeast boundary of inner Romania, in force.

Marshal Antonescu, military dictator of Romania, understands the desperation of the situation. He has been trying to cut a deal with the Allies since 1943. (1) Antonescu has a backup plan: to hand over power to a government of liberal politicians, by means of a faked coup. The civilians will then take Romania out of the war. (2) But for one reason or another, he can't bring himself to pull the trigger. So Romania has stayed in the Axis.

Until August 23, 1944. Then young King Mihai -- the anomalously decent son of the loathsome Carol II -- leads a coup against Romania's "Conducator". Antonescu ends up locked in a vault in the Royal Palace for several crucial hours, while an odd coalition of Royalists, civilian politicians, and Communists seizes power. Romania switches sides and joins the Allies.

But what if they hadn't?

POD: Hitler is just a wee bit more alert. OTL he knew that the Romanians were getting increasingly squish, but doesn't seem to have realized how close they were to the brink. TTL he decides to take out some insurance. For the drama of the thing, let's say he sends Otto Skorzeny to Bucharest in July, with instructions to stick close to the King and take him off the board if necessary. (3)

So the August 23 coup fails. Antonescu is still in charge. King Mihai is placed in 'protective custody' and packed off to genteel confinement in an isolated monastery.

Now what?

Well, the Romanian army is still a force to be reckoned with. There are 300,000 of them, interspersed with several German divisions. They're distinctly lacking in heavy armor and artillery, and they've been rather badly chewed up by the defeats at Stalingrad and in the Crimea. On the other hand, the survivors are veterans, and defending their homeland.

OTL the Romanian performance on the Eastern Front was erratic but not horrible -- they were consistently better than either the Italians or the Hungarians, and when the stars were right they could be surprisingly good. (4) Furthermore, the Soviet advance is about to come up against some very ugly territory. Northwest Romania is an intimidating mixture of mountains and swamp, cut by river valleys running across the Soviet line of advance. And the Romanian rail network is still pretty much intact, as is the industrial base; the Ploesti oilfields have been battered, along with some major manufacturing centers, but the country is still entirely able to fight.
(5)

My tentative conclusion is that the Soviets will break through, but it won't be fast or easy. Several weeks of vicious fighting, with heavy casualties all around.

So we're up to, mm, sometime in October '44. The Russians, having lost 50,000 or so men in Moldavia, are closing in on Bucharest from the north and east. Antonescu is still trying to cut deals, but he continues to be a step or two behind. And the Germans are still sticking very close to him.

If we follow the Hungarian model, then at some point Antonescu should simply collapse, as Admiral Horthy did. Real power would then passed off to a German-dominated government of local fascists.

But I'm not sure this works in a Romanian context. For one thing, Antonescu seems to have been made of sterner stuff than Horthy. For another, while there were plenty of local fascists even after Antonescu purged the Iron Guard, there were never too many delirious fanatic Naziphile fantasists comparable to Hungary's Imredists or Arrow Cross.

So at some point I think Antonescu bucks. Either he tries to evade German supervision and declare a ceasefire, or he tries to activate some version of the Maniu Plan (letting liberals/Communists/royalists take over to get Romania out). (2) Let's say he fails. Unlike Horthy, I don't think he's going to break down weeping. I think he hangs tough, and the Germans end up having to kill him. (6)

What happens after that is likely to be disintegration. Romanians don't love Russians, and were entirely willing to fight the USSR, but I don't see them fighting with much enthusiasm for obvious German puppets.

On the other hand, very few will ever turn out to fight /for/ the Soviets. Very different from OTL, where they eventually fielded 27 divisions under Soviet command.

I think we get a siege of Bucharest rather like that of OTL Budapest -- lasting a 2-3 of weeks, with a lot of dead civilians and rubble. Followed by a Red Army advance to the west in November '44.

Short-term knock-on effects: the Soviet advance into the Balkans is delayed by about two months. Belgrade falls in December instead of October; Budapest, in February instead of December. The Red Army never does reach Vienna or Prague. The final scene in the bunker happens a week or ten days later than iOTL.

Slightly bloodier WWII overall, with perhaps 60 to 80,000 more dead Russians and about twice that number of Romanians. Romania much more devastated than iOTL. Other hand, there's a small possibility that some of Transylvania might be given back to Hungary... OTL this seems to have been considered, but dismissed because Romania switched sides and Hungary didn't. Not sure about this one.

Obviously there'll be longer-term effects, but pause for now.

Thoughts?


Doug M.

(1) Without success, for reasons that remain somewhat disputed to this day. The best interpretation seems to be that the western Allies kept referring him to the Soviets, and then Antonescu was always one step behind what the Soviets were willing to accept... demanding to keep Bessarabia and Bukovina until the Red Army was already in there, for instance.

(2) See http://tinyurl.com/4ex3e for some discussion of this.

(3) If this seems improbable, consider that it's almost exactly what Skorzeny did in Hungary OTL, just a couple of months later. As there, we can assume that Skorzeny is backed up by German intelligence operating out of the embassy. OTL the Germans seem to have been weirdly sluggish in Romania, but exceedingly alert in Hungary.

(4) For instance, in the initial invasion of Bessarabia in '41; in the Caucasus in '42; and then again in the defense of the Crimea. That was a disaster, but they acquitted themselves honorably. On the other hand, their performance in the first part of the attack on Odessa, and later in the Stalingrad campaign left much to be desired.

(5) The Romanians were particularly good in the air, at least at first. Romania had the strongest aeronautical tradition of any country between Germany and Russia, and Romanian pilots were as good as any if not better. In 1941-2, they gave a very good account of themselves against the Soviets.

But by 1944 heavy casualties had reduced the Romanian air force to a shadow of its former self. It was still able to inhibit Allied strategic bombings to some extent, but no longer played much of a battlefield role.

(6) Which might not be easy. The old Marshal seems to have been possessed of a Rasputin-like tenacity of life.

"The execution took place on 1 June 1946 at 1803, in the Jilava penitentiary. Marshal Antonescu asked to be shot by the army, but was refused and the firing squad was made up of 12 prison guards. In the moment of the volley, he saluted and then fell down.

"[But then he] rose up on his right arm and said that he was not dead and that they should fire again. The chief of the guards shot him in the head with the revolver, but the doctor did not confirm the death, so another shot in the chest was necessary. But [he was] still alive. The chief of the guards then took a rifle and fired three bullets in several places of their bodies. Only then did the doctor confirm his death."
 
If they never get to Prague or Vienna, doesn't this leave the Red Army over-extended in pushing to Berlin as its Southern flank isn't secure ? Is there any chance that what's left of the Germans in the South can hit them there ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Jassy, the ancient capital of the Romanians,

Not really.

Northwest Romania is an intimidating mixture of mountains and swamp, cut by river valleys running across the Soviet line of advance.

Romanian resistance basically means that the Soviets will have to actually fight their way across the Carpathians. That'd be a pain in the ass.

Belgrade falls in December instead of October;

The capture of Belgrade was a joint Soviet-Partisan operation. Maybe Tito can pull it off by himself.

Other hand, there's a small possibility that some of Transylvania might be given back to Hungary... OTL this seems to have been considered, but dismissed because Romania switched sides and Hungary didn't. Not sure about this one.

It might also lead to a greater loss of territory to the USSR after the war is over. I can see them taking the Danube Delta and part, if not all, or Romanian Maramures. Maybe southern Bukovina too. The end result would be that they'd be even less liked around here. And the Soviets might agree with the Yugoslav demands for part of the Romanian Banat - which would make us feel much more belligerent towards Yugoslavia when the Stalin-Tito split occurs.

A very interesting rough draft. You should ask someone who knows the issue what the Partisans could've achieved without Soviet cooperation. They might still be able to trap some German troops in the Balkans by themselves.
 
Not really.

Well, let's see. It was the capital of Moldavia for several hundred years, when Moldavia was one of the two Romanian principalities; then it was the co-capital of the United Principalities for three years; then it was the capital of Romania from 1916 to 1918.

So, I'd say yes really.


Doug M.
 
Well, let's see. It was the capital of Moldavia for several hundred years, when Moldavia was one of the two Romanian principalities; then it was the co-capital of the United Principalities for three years; then it was the capital of Romania from 1916 to 1918.

So, I'd say yes really.


Doug M.

Except for the fact that the Romanians arived in Moldavia after they arived in Wallachia. :p

Hence the Romanian for Wallachia is "Ţara Românească", the "Romanian Land".
 
Romanian resistance basically means that the Soviets will have to actually fight their way across the Carpathians. That'd be a pain in the ass.

It would be, but it was definitely doable. Heergruppe Ukraine had been stripped of armor and heavy artillery, and was in a state of disintegration after just three days of fighting. The Romanians could be tough at a tactical level, but they were outnumbered and outgunned.

Hence my assumption that while this slows the Red Army down, it doesn't stop them.


The capture of Belgrade was a joint Soviet-Partisan operation. Maybe Tito can pull it off by himself.

Umm. OTL Tito managed to capture one Yugoslav city of any size by himself, and then he had to abandon it a few days later.

The Yugoslav Partisans did very well in irregular warfare, and were sometimes capable of giving battle when conditions were favorable -- either in mountainous terrain, or when facing Axis units that were second-string, cut off, severely outnumbered or demoralized.

But in a fair fight on open ground against frontline Wehrmacht units, they got their asses kicked. Consistently. Which is what you'd expect, right? Putting aside issues of training and organization, the Partisans were short on things like heavy artillery, tanks, and airplanes. (Though they did have a small air force.)

So, there's no way Tito is taking Belgrade by himself. He can be a huge PITA for the Germans, but that's all.


It might also lead to a greater loss of territory to the USSR after the war is over. I can see them taking the Danube Delta and part, if not all, or Romanian Maramures. Maybe southern Bukovina too. The end result would be that they'd be even less liked around here. And the Soviets might agree with the Yugoslav demands for part of the Romanian Banat.

They'd need to get the Western Allies to sign off on territorial claims at Yalta. Not impossible, but not easy either -- especially since these areas are not ethnically Russian, and never were part of the Russian Empire.

Banat: Royalist Yugoslavia made a push for the Banat at Versailles, but AFAIK Tito never tried to raise that claim again.


Doug M.
 

Thande

Donor
Didn't the Byzantines refer to their empire as 'Romania'? Was the use of the name by the Wallachians and Moldavians supposed to present themselves as the heirs, or at least the kin, of the Byzantines?
 
It was the capital of Moldavia for several hundred years, when Moldavia was one of the two Romanian principalities;

This doesn't make it the ancient capital of the Romanians, it makes it an ancient capital of the Romanians. And it wasn't Moldavia's only capital or even its oldest (or even its second oldest). It was just its last.

then it was the co-capital of the United Principalities for three years;

This doesn't make it the ancient capital of the Romanians either.

then it was the capital of Romania from 1916 to 1918.

Neither does this. It was a provisional capital while Bucharest was occupied by the Central Powers - kind of like Chungking for the Chinese Nationalists. After Bucharest had been the capital for over half a century. And WWI is not ancient history, especially from the perspective of 1944.

Except for the fact that the Romanians arived in Moldavia after they arived in Wallachia. :p

Hence the Romanian for Wallachia is "Ţara Românească", the "Romanian Land".

That's if you accept the Hungarian theory that we arrived from the Balkans. Our theory is that we've always been around here. The name "Romanian Land" may reflect the fact that Wallachia as a state was founded before Moldavia, so the name was already taken, but the founders of both states came from the Carpathians. The interesting part is that official sources referred to Wallachia and Moldavia as "Ungro-Vlahia" and "Moldo-Vlahia", respectively. So both of them were actually a "Romanian Land".

They'd need to get the Western Allies to sign off on territorial claims at Yalta. Not impossible, but not easy either -- especially since these areas are not ethnically Russian, and never were part of the Russian Empire.

The fact that they were never part of the Russian Empire didn't spare northern Bukovina and the town of Herta from annexation. The Danube Delta actually has a population of Russian Old Believers (the Lipovans), while the Romanian part of Bukovina and Maramures have Ukrainian minorities. The Soviets can come up with ethnic justifications.

Even if they couldn't, they can always invoke defensive or economic reasons. Or even basic retribution - their justification for demanding northern Bukovina in 1940 was as reparation for Romanian rule in Bessarabia, which they had never recognized.

Banat: Royalist Yugoslavia made a push for the Banat at Versailles, but AFAIK Tito never tried to raise that claim again.

A Romanian history article that I've read mentions that Tito wanted to get Tmisoara and an industrial area in the east of the Banat.

Since about the 15th c, and the country became that around the 1860s.

As far as I know, we've called ourselves that way since the first time we ever called ourselves anything.

Didn't the Byzantines refer to their empire as 'Romania'? Was the use of the name by the Wallachians and Moldavians supposed to present themselves as the heirs, or at least the kin, of the Byzantines?

No, we called ourselves "Romanians" because (some of) our ancestors were Romans. The French call themselves that way because they have Frankish ancestors. The English call themselves that way because they have Angle ancestors. The Wallachian and Moldavian courts continued to use the exonym "Vlachs" in official documents (which were in Slavonic).
 
Just for curiosity, since when did the Romanians start to call themselves Romanians?
probably from allways. The first text in romanian(16 cnt), reveal, either, the first mention of Țeara Rumânească, but this doesn't mean it was Neacșu invention. Between them, they used the term român or rumân, probably depending fron an areea to another. As I know from elders from my parents village(central, mountaineous Romania), there were used both terms: român meaning the ethnicity, and rumân meaning usual people, poor people, christian people.
 
That's if you accept the Hungarian theory that we arrived from the Balkans.
In fact, I think we were allways here, and there. Wallachians lived till 9-10 cnt, mainly in highlands(not desired by invaders), spreaded from moravia carpathians, to Greece Pindus. Time to time they tried to settle in small lowlands, and thus appeared Great Wallachia, or simply Wallachia in Greece, Moesia, Moravia. Displaced by others, finally they concentrated in actual Romania, relegating and/or asimilating the others(slavs, pechenegs, cumans..)
No, we called ourselves "Romanians" because (some of) our ancestors were Romans.
I think they were plebeian remaints of latinised balkanians(dacians, especially, but also thracians, illirians, goths...latter adding gepids,avars,..The reason why they've choosen români, is quite simple: sorounded by non-romanic populations, they felt the need to distinguish themselves with a common name from others
 
Top