WI: Romania never joins the Axis

Had the Iron Guard never risen to power in the Kingdom of Romania and had the country remained blatantly liberal like in the years before, I'd say the fate of the Second World War would have been a different one.

For starters, Romania was where Nazi Germany got all its oil from, cheaply, during the war. Had the country not joined the Axis and instead continued to play buddies with Paris and Moscow, it's very plausible that Germany would have had a much harder time in "conquering" Europe. The ramifications of the Balkan theatre would have been vastly different - with Greece, Yuogslavia, and Romania up against Hungary (whose army was peanuts at the time), Bulgaria, and Italy, it's safe to say Hungary and Bulgaria would quite frankly fall in a matter of weeks, leaving the Italians alone on the front against a couple of nations they've struggled against in the OTL World War II, as well as Romania.

Supposing a Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact would have existed and supposing the Partition of Poland did occur, and supposing the French fell as easily as they did, Germany would have had the time and the capacity to help the Italians out, but not easily. All in all, by say 1942 without Soviet involvement, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Greece would fall, but if the Soviets had gotten themselves involved we'd be looking at a much more progressive Eastern Front.

This would open up room for the Western Allies as well and Normandy would have happened some time earlier. If they'd have even considered it. Judging by how Italy struggled, they might as well have invaded Europe through Sicily. We'd be looking at an entry in Germany through the south and east, as opposed to a western attack.

As for the post-war situation, one would have to say the Soviets would get the better part of the deal.

That's just my take, I invite y'all to post your own as well.
 
More likely the Germans simply would have invaded and taken over directly. It isn't like they respected borders is it? However they would have taken losses so it might take a couple months off of its lifespan.
 
I originally started a thread on this:

Ok, so basically, King Carol II of Romania had used much of the 30's to sabotage all of the democratic parties and subverted democracy to the point where he and his movement where the only legitimate political force. Any opposition was either subjugated (the democratic parties) or violently purged (the fascist Iron Guard).

OTL, this did him no good in the end since the Soviet Union, Hungary and Bulgaria took for themselves bit and pieces of the country, and his popularity plummeted. The military and the fascists took over after he abdicated, with the military under Antonescu eventually getting rid of the the nazi look-alike's of Horia Sima.

But, what if he decided opposing foreign aggression was the only way to save himself ?
Specifically, he tells Hitler (as convincingly as possible) that if he continue's to push for Hungary to get a slice of Transilvania, Romania will fight. And not only that, it'll keep fighting till the bitter end, and also blow up all the oil refineries and oil extraction facilities.

However, if he (Hitler) backs off and tells Hungary and Bulgaria to do the same, he can have all the oil he wants in return for bits of technology and discounted prices.

Would this bluff work ? Would Hitler risk attacking Romania, because, if he does and the oil rigs go up in flames, it'll be years before production is back up again, meaning no Barbarossa?

What butterflies can we expect if Hitler doesn't call Carol's bluff and respects Romania's neutrality in return for oil ?


It requires some major bals on the side of carol, which OTL were lacking, but I think it's so crazy it might just work.
 
It's possible Romania could have remained outside the Axis and not participated in Barbarossa. However, Romania would still be supplying lots of oil to Germany right up to the point the Red Army reaches its borders. It has no choice but to provide oil unless it wishes to be invaded.

Romania would need to offer Germany various concessions if it did not want to participate in the war. First off, it would have to accept that there is zero chance of reversing the Vienna Awards should Germany win and therefore Hungary keeps Transylvania. Second, besides oil it would also need to give Germany other preferential economic treatment. Third, it likely needs to send the equivalent of the Spanish Blue Division and allow Waffen SS recruitment of Romanian fascists (a Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Dracul would be kind of awesome) so that Hitler gets some kind of troops. Transit rites for German troops would also need to be given.

It would also still need to allow Germany use of military bases in the country at least initially. Very possible some kind of German military zone in Moldavia under the pretext of protecting the oil fields from a British attack prior to Barbarossa.
 
Had the Iron Guard never risen to power in the Kingdom of Romania and had the country remained blatantly liberal like in the years before, I'd say the fate of the Second World War would have been a different one.

Romania did not have much in common with been a liberal country other then having been governed by a party that was called liberal.
Thinks started to stink why before the Iron Guard got in power,you could say they started to stink once Carol II came back,and even before thinks where not all right.
And then lets thinks how could have been prevented the Iron Guard rise to power,if a they would have not been protected by various idiots starting with Carol II,if the likes of
A.C. Cuza and Nae Ionescu would have not brain was a hole generation in to nationalism and anti-Semitism,and then Romania was an economic failed state,whose
economy was in the hands of a few oligarchs,with one of the lowest income per capita in Europe (if not the lowest),with a public administration which leave much to be desired
(to be polite),a country where violence was quite normal,and i can carry one but you get the idea,Romania had a foot in the grave before the rise to power of the Iron Guard,with them she just to the second leg in.



For starters, Romania was where Nazi Germany got all its oil from, cheaply, during the war.

Nazi Germany took a large part of her oil from Romania,but not all of it,i think it was half of it (if i'm not mistaking)

Had the country not joined the Axis and instead continued to play buddies with Paris and Moscow,

Romania was not buddies with Moscow,there was the forging mister Titulescu how was/tried to buddy-buddy with Moscow,and then even with France thinks where not so spectacular,the main problem been forging trade,which France did not need,not to mention that France was greatly affected by the first world war,needer did UK needed what Romania had to offer,how need it was Germany,the problem was that Romania,did not know or refuse to accept this fact for a long period,and then it turn in to some kind of a Nazy her self.And then Romania had a territorial dispute with USSR.


it's very plausible that Germany would have had a much harder time in "conquering" Europe.

You are exaggerating,the problems would have appearer in the war with USSR.

The ramifications of the Balkan theatre would have been vastly different - with Greece, Yuogslavia, and Romania up against Hungary (whose army was peanuts at the time), Bulgaria, and Italy, it's safe to say Hungary and Bulgaria would quite frankly fall in a matter of weeks, leaving the Italians alone on the front against a couple of nations they've struggled against in the OTL World War II, as well as Romania.

There would have been no Romania,Greece,Yugoslavia vs .. there would have been Romania vs ... then there would have been Yugoslavia vs ... then there would have been Greece vs ... .As for the peanuts Hungarian army,when the Romania army was not great,But if you what a Romania vs Hungary,the moment would have been the Slovak-Hungary war,if Romania would have been capable of knocking out Hungary in a matter of days (if not hours).

Supposing a Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact would have existed and supposing the Partition of Poland did occur, and supposing the French fell as easily as they did,

With France out and a Ribbentrop pact USSR is free to try to resolve here territorial dispute with Romania.

This would open up room for the Western Allies as well and Normandy would have happened some time earlier. If they'd have even considered it.

Normandy had nothing to do with Romania or the Balkans.
 
Now here is my take on keeping Romania out of the Axis,
The start just in the begging after the first world war,and make the country a federation like it should have been,so part of the country would have been ruled by the Liberals and part by the Peasants party,so they would both implement there own economic plans,and maybe they learn form on from each other,now chance are they both build there on oligarchies but chance are there will be more completion.Then to fight the Danube think just because Hungary is for it,which will improve the economics of the Danube country's,and if possible get Germany in also and who knows,maybe no Nazis in power in Germany,so fix the economy,don't ignore the low income.
Then for the second part after the great depression and the death of the king,turn the country in to a republic,or at least keep the regency,no let say Hitler comes to power,and the relations with USSR can be improve,well get close to Nazy Gemany,but don't become one,I a know Nazy Germany,but you are gonna need to make a few deals with the devil,so fix the economy as fast as possible after the depression,even if this means deal with Nazi Germany,build up an arm industry,prep the soviet border for a confrontation.
Then come the Hungarian-Slovak,if is still happens get involve in there an know Hungary out,as fast as possible.No come the fall of Poland,get the new border with USSR as ready as possible,no if Romania is lucky with the bad performance of USSR in the winner war and the good performance of Romania in the Hungary vs Slovakia, how knows meaby Stalin will not move against Romania.If not fight,and if Romania is prepared and lucky the war will end in a stalemate,with minimum losses,once Germany moves against the Soviets get any think that has been lost back,and sell oil to Germany and stay out,while keeping improving the toys of the military,for just in case.
 
If Romania doesn't participate, then the Hungarians might not either. Their leaders apparently wanted to put in a good showing, lest the Germans decide to give the Romanians their land back.
 
It's possible Romania could have remained outside the Axis and not participated in Barbarossa. However, Romania would still be supplying lots of oil to Germany right up to the point the Red Army reaches its borders. It has no choice but to provide oil unless it wishes to be invaded.

Romania would need to offer Germany various concessions if it did not want to participate in the war. First off, it would have to accept that there is zero chance of reversing the Vienna Awards should Germany win and therefore Hungary keeps Transylvania. Second, besides oil it would also need to give Germany other preferential economic treatment. Third, it likely needs to send the equivalent of the Spanish Blue Division and allow Waffen SS recruitment of Romanian fascists (a Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Dracul would be kind of awesome) so that Hitler gets some kind of troops. Transit rites for German troops would also need to be given.

It would also still need to allow Germany use of military bases in the country at least initially. Very possible some kind of German military zone in Moldavia under the pretext of protecting the oil fields from a British attack prior to Barbarossa.

The Vienna Awards only awarded Hungary half of Transylvania. The other half was still in Romanian hands.

But aside from that, what you say does make a lot of sense.
 
Romania did not have much in common with been a liberal country other then having been governed by a party that was called liberal.
Thinks started to stink why before the Iron Guard got in power,you could say they started to stink once Carol II came back,and even before thinks where not all right.
And then lets thinks how could have been prevented the Iron Guard rise to power,if a they would have not been protected by various idiots starting with Carol II,if the likes of
A.C. Cuza and Nae Ionescu would have not brain was a hole generation in to nationalism and anti-Semitism,and then Romania was an economic failed state,whose
economy was in the hands of a few oligarchs,with one of the lowest income per capita in Europe (if not the lowest),with a public administration which leave much to be desired
(to be polite),a country where violence was quite normal,and i can carry one but you get the idea,Romania had a foot in the grave before the rise to power of the Iron Guard,with them she just to the second leg in.





Nazi Germany took a large part of her oil from Romania,but not all of it,i think it was half of it (if i'm not mistaking)



Romania was not buddies with Moscow,there was the forging mister Titulescu how was/tried to buddy-buddy with Moscow,and then even with France thinks where not so spectacular,the main problem been forging trade,which France did not need,not to mention that France was greatly affected by the first world war,needer did UK needed what Romania had to offer,how need it was Germany,the problem was that Romania,did not know or refuse to accept this fact for a long period,and then it turn in to some kind of a Nazy her self.And then Romania had a territorial dispute with USSR.




You are exaggerating,the problems would have appearer in the war with USSR.



There would have been no Romania,Greece,Yugoslavia vs .. there would have been Romania vs ... then there would have been Yugoslavia vs ... then there would have been Greece vs ... .As for the peanuts Hungarian army,when the Romania army was not great,But if you what a Romania vs Hungary,the moment would have been the Slovak-Hungary war,if Romania would have been capable of knocking out Hungary in a matter of days (if not hours).



With France out and a Ribbentrop pact USSR is free to try to resolve here territorial dispute with Romania.



Normandy had nothing to do with Romania or the Balkans.

1. I think you're underrating too many elements here. After the First World War, Greater Romania was stable politically for what, nearly two decades? I'd argue that things only started to become worse when Carol rose to power. But before that, what you're saying is nonsense. Failed economic state? Romania was the number one exporter of oil in Europe. I'd argue that isn't bad from a trading and economical standpoint even in the 1930's. Economy in the hands of oligarchs? Romania had an agrarian economy. It was quite frankly impossible to be controlled by oligarchs. Nationalism was indeed pretty rampant, but anti-Semitism was on the same level as in every other European nation bar Germany. Violence was quite normal? Now you're really talking out of your arse.

2. Of course, not all oil came from Romania. But a majority of it did.

3. I'll disagree. Romania was, erm, courting France if you will. Diplomatically and politically the two nations had a history of being fond of one another. The Soviets were mainly concerned with one thing: restraining German power. They'd have looked the other way regarding the resource-wise useless stretch of land that is Bessarabia were the Germans been unable to obtain oil.

4. With a stronger Allied core of nations in the area, the Soviets would have benefitted from being further east because the Axis would geographically try to dispose of Romania first, and attack Russia on a limited front (basically taking out the border with Romania).

5. The Hungarian Army was indeed peanuts at the time. Compare the army of a country whose form of government fell twice during the period between 1918 and 1939, with Trianon restrictions added in, to the army of a country which doubled because of the annexation of Transylvania, and who was also experiencing a surge in nationalism. There was simply no way Hungary would have come out on top, especially with Yugoslavia being nearby as well. Greece, Yugoslavia, and Romania would have cooperated because they are situated in the same geographical area.

6. The USSR would have likely just went along with Poland rather than Romania. Presuming they did, the Soviets weren't all that gung-ho on getting Beseerabia back. And I think I stated an extra reason somewhere before this.

7. With Germany distracted on two fronts, one of which was quite a bummer (Eastern Front + Italy), the path would have been cleared for an earlier Normandy.
 
If Romania doesn't participate, then the Hungarians might not either. Their leaders apparently wanted to put in a good showing, lest the Germans decide to give the Romanians their land back.

This was right after Trianon. Hungary was fascist for some time before Romania turned so.

There was no way they'd cooperate. Germany managed it because that was after the Iron Guard rose to power.
 
Thing is, Hungary was not the only one who wanted to take a slice out of Romania. Romania would be able to resist Hungary's limited army, but if it's attacked by the USSR at the same time? That's a problem. Especially since other non-Axis nations such as Yugoslavia or Greece might be willing to help against Hungary or Bulgaria - but not against a giant such as the USSR.
Maybe if Romania could somehow get in their good graces...but I'm not sure how, the USSR was fairly greedy and had common cause with the Axis in post-WWI territorial revisionism.

And the Iron Guard didn't end the democratic/liberal order in Romania. King Carol II's dictatorship did, two years before them.
 
Could Hitler cancel the invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece to deal with Romania and/or postpone Barbarossa until 1942? Point is that fuel and timing would impede Barbarossa, along with garrison troops. Not to mention better Soviet preparations.
 
1. I think you're underrating too many elements here. After the First World War, Greater Romania was stable politically for what, nearly two decades?

About two decades was all of it,for the period we have under Ferdinand I for the period of 1914-1927 eleven governments,then under the regency 1927-1930 four governments, and for Carol II 1930-1940 fifteen governments,so i would not call the period as one of political stability.

I'd argue that things only started to become worse when Carol rose to power. But before that, what you're saying is nonsense.

Yes it got worse after Carol II,but the period before was no happy days,

Failed economic state? Romania was the number one exporter of oil in Europe.

I think that the Soviets where the first,but yes Romania was one of Europe most important oil producers.

I'd argue that isn't bad from a trading and economical standpoint even in the 1930's.

Yes Romania was an important oil producer as far as Europe is concern,on the world stage things where different,But the oil development of the inter war,did not trigger an industrial development (there was some),and did not managed to attract to large polls of work force,and then Inter war Romania was a country with low capital investment in the Human resource.

Economy in the hands of oligarchs? Romania had an agrarian economy. It was quite frankly impossible to be controlled by oligarchs.

I was refering to the industry how was controlled by a low number of oligarchs,and as far as agriculture was concern,not only did Romania's production wasn't stellar,but the prices of the products when down or the period of the inter war.

Nationalism was indeed pretty rampant, but anti-Semitism was on the same level as in every other European nation bar Germany.

You cannot say that the level of anti-Semitism was on the same level in Romania as it was in France,UK,or Belgium,if you what to compare the country's of Central and Eastern Europen that is another discussion

Violence was quite normal? Now you're really talking out of your arse.

Didn't the Romania army officer find corporal punishment as something normal ?
Where not electoral campaigns were marred by violence.

3. I'll disagree. Romania was, erm, courting France if you will.

I did not say that Romania was not courting France,i said that the resultants where not that great.

Diplomatically and politically the two nations had a history of being fond of one another.

I will say that Romania was more fond of France,then France was of Romania.

They'd have looked the other way regarding the resource-wise useless stretch of land that is Bessarabia were the Germans been unable to obtain oil.

The soviet considerd Bessarabia,soviet territory that was take a way by Romania.
The territory was claimed by the Soviets,because the soviets considers the border to be to close to Odessa.

With a stronger Allied core of nations in the area

What core of nations ? Yugoslavia and Greece did not look to Germany to angry,the thinks change with the coup in Yugo,and for Greece with Mussolini's demands,but before that,and Czechoslovakia was gone.

the Soviets would have benefitted from being further east because the Axis would geographically try to dispose of Romania first, and attack Russia on a limited front (basically taking out the border with Romania).

There is one small issue the Soviet Ultimatum,came before the Vienna award or any threat of a German invasion of Romania.

Going back to the Romania as a field state here are some economics,
GDP/Capita USD Romania 1.741 (1913) 1152 (1929) 1242 (1938),Yugoslavia 1057 (1919) 1364 (1929) 1356 (1938),Hungary 2098 (1919) 2476 (1929) 2655 (1938)
Bulgaria 1534 (1919) 1180 (1929) 1595 (1938),Greece 1592 (1919) 2342 (1929) 2677 (1938),here we can draw the fallowing conclusions the GDP/Capita smaller after the first world war then before while the rest had manage to improve, (source is Maddison 2003)

And here is the evolution year by year starting with 1926 to 1938,GDP/Capita Romania interwar Dolars Geary-Khamis 1990, 1.258 (1926) 1.241 (1927) 1.225 (1928) 1.152 (1929) 1.219 (1930) 1.229 (1931) 1.144 (1932) 1.184 (1933) 1.182 (1934) 1.196 (1935) 1.194 (1936) 1.130 (1937) 1.242 (1938) (Maddison)

Income per capita 1938,US Dollars was for Bulgaria 68 (same for Yugoslavia),Romania 76 Greece 80 Hungary 111 Belgium & Luxemburg 285 (Dobre 1996),as you can see Romania was a bit above Bulgaria and a bit below Greece,but at quiet a distance from Hungary.

Average meat consumption for the year of 1938,Romania 18 k/y Bulgaria 22 k/y Yugoslavia 21k/y Hungary 36k/y Greece 20k/y (Dobre 1996).

Average life expectancy 1938,Romania 40,20 (M) 41,40 (F) , Bulgaria 45,92 (M) 46,64 (F) Greece 49,06 (M) 50,89 (F) Hungary 48,27 (M) 51,34 (F),as you can see Romania when compared with neighbouring countries,had the lowest life expectancy. Infant mortality 1938 1000/year Romania 182,5 Bulgaria 144,4 Greece 99,4 Hungary 131,4,had the highest infant mortality.And then illiterate ratio (%) Romania 54,3 Bulgaria 31,4 Greece 40,8 Hungary 6.0. (all from Dobre 1996)

As far as agriculture is concern,average grain production quintals / hectare
Romania 1920-1922 8,9 1934-1938 10,3,Bulgaria 1920-1922 12 1934-1938 12,5, Hungary 1920-1922 11 1934-1938 14.0 (from Bairoch 1999: 108; Handbuch: VI, 109 (capitol de Wolfram Fischer) ) Has you can see Romania had the lowest production when compared with Hungary and Bulgaria,while been a larger country.
Productivity of work Dollar/Person 1938 again for agriculture Romania 80 Bulgaria 110 Hungary 150. (Dobre 1996)

(Date comes from Romania and Europe economic disparities accumulation,which quotes what i have listed )
 
Top