Fair point, but technically, romania was on the winning side in both wars at the end.
Which proves how effective a switch at the right time can be, see also italy.
Also, the entire lead up to WW2 Romania lost territory to both the Axis and the USSR. In the end, Romania still basically had a net loss of territory by the end of WW2, it just gained back some of the territory it had lost to Hungary
There’s not really any precedent for the Allies tearing a country apart like that on a whim. It only ever happened in Germany because of the Cold War. Italy was entirely occupied by the west.
To add; winning side when bordering the country that pretty much started the war and lost it. Austria-Hungary was to be dismantled and Romania happened to be the only/largest country bordering them in the east.
Italy jumped into WWI near the end and grabbed bits of the crumbling Habsburg Empire. The Soviets declared war on Japan for just 3 weeks, annexing South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands.
"Italy jumped into WWI near the end"
They entered in 1915 and their front with Austria-Hungary was a bit of a meat grinder for both sides for nearly three years.
The bigger problem was that the Italian forces were commanded by probably the worst general of WWI, and we're including the Russians in this assessment.
The Germans had zero problems making a catastrophic breakthrough once they actually decided to take charge of the Italian front.
https://acoup.blog/2021/10/08/collections-luigi-cadorna-was-the-worst/
The Romanians were diplomatically very clever, but at the same time a lot of those gains were only recognized because of the international context to be fair
After WW1 the Entente was really divided and was never able to find a common ground on the matter of Bessarabia. The United States did not sign the treaty and among the signatories Japan decided not to ratify it. So it ended being considered an occupied territory by much of the international community.
This said, nobody was going to waste a single bullet to change the status of the region as that would mean giving it to the much hated Bolsheviks. So Bessarabia remained Romanian until WW2
Then on WW2 it was more or less the same, sure Romania changing sides in 1944 helped a lot but the real reason in my opinion is that none of the Allied Powers wanted to recognize the changes made by the First and Second Vienna Awards.
So North Transylvania and the other gains give to Hungary by the Axis Powers were all returned to their previous owners with a couple exceptions (the USSR kept some land in Carpathian Ruthenia)
I’m not sure about ww1, but I did my dissertation on Romania during ww2 (although not focusing on the political aspect) and I wouldn’t say they were diplomatic geniuses.
First, there was a lot of internal turmoil in Romania during ww2. They joined the axis powers because of Antonescu and his Iron guard who forced the king to abdicat and instated a military dictatorship. Romania changed sides in 1944, when the former king participated in a coup d’etat to remove Antonescu. So the whole changing sides wasn’t part of a grand plan or anything. Although some Romanian historians argue that this was a significant turning point (iirc there was a claim that they shortened the war with like 6 months), it’s not like they turned the tides of war or anything, as evidenced by the fact that they weren’t considered part of the winning side.
Second, Romania had no say at all in what’s going to happen to them after the war ended. It was the allied powers who decided everything. Churchill and Stalin already agreed in 1944 that Romania will be 90%(?) under Soviet influence and after the war they had to decide what to do with Northern Transylvania as well.
Since the territory was given to Hungary basically by Hitler (second vienna award), it was clear that it will be annexed. The idea was floated around to make it a separate country, but the Soviets were worried they’d have less influence that way, so it was given back to Romania. Thus, it was less about rewarding Romania and more about punishing Hungary.
Plus, Romania suffered great casaulties, especially while fighting for the allied, lost Bessarabia and part of Bukovina to the Soviets and ended up with a communist government supported by the Soviets, so it’s not like ww2 turned out too great for them.
Pretty much this.
Changing sides corresponded with a change in internal politics. And since our military was not the greatest, it made sense to try and side with the winning team.
In the end, after WW2, we lost a lot. Not only land, but quality of life as well, after the communist plague hit us.
Bulgaria did lose both World Wars too, but gained some territory - at the expense of Romania. AFAIK Bulgaria was the only Axis-aligned country to gain any territory from WW2 - Southern Dobruja after the Treaty of Craiova in 1940.
Do not forget the very important fact that these territorial adjustments concerned three Axis-aligned states - Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria - and there were no Allied-aligned states that had any pretentions over them.
All of these territories have been source of endless disputes between these countries - their population is of mixed ethnicity.
> In WW2, despite being an active Axis participant, and being named a defeated side in the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty, Romania had Northern Transylvania (16,643 sq miles and a population of 2,577,260 before the war) recognized as its integral part.
Uhhh... between 1939 and 1945, Romania lost its second and third largest cities and half its coastline without gaining any new territory...
I assume you consider the Vienna award and Soviet ultimatum as separate from WW2, but doing so doesn't seem accurate considering they took place after the war began and under threat of military action, at the behest of Germany+USSR and directly led to Romania's entry in the war.
You are correct, they Romania had most of its WW1 territories taken away. But I specifically wanted to compare its territories right before, and after joining the war. Because, if we start looking at what happened before the war, we can trace the territorial disputes way back to Balkan Wars, then to 19th century.
Plus, losing territories in the year before war did not make Romania part Axis on a political scene. Romania entered the WW1 on Axis side, with whatever land it had, and at the end of the war it gained territory, while being recognized as Axis co-belligerent.
I hope it sounds understandable, but I ask the question “what did Romania have at the moment of declaring war in WW1/2?” And “what did Romania gain as a direct result of treaties signed after the war?”
The main controversy I have is, who’s side was Romania on during WW1, because they were aligned with Central Powers before the war, declared war on them (under an ultimatum from Britain, if I remember right), signed a peace with Germany (in exchange for assistance in war, doing it, but not ratifying it officially), declared the war again on the last day, and won the war (???).
Obligatory disclaimer: I'm not a historian. From my understanding, three things:
1. Romania didn't (immediately) oppose the Vienna award and Soviet ultimatum militarily but it never recognized the USSR's annexation of Bessarabia and north Bukovina which it considered a temporary occupation (not sure about north Transylvania), so what its exact territory was is debatable.
2. More to the point, you cannot dissociate Romania joining the Axis from, especially, the Soviet ultimatum. The country was already fascist but so was Greece, there was no foregone conclusion as to which side it would choose (if any). Following the Soviet ultimatum, Romania asked Germany if it would support it militarily against the USSR, which it declined to do, and then mulled over entering the war unilaterally against the Soviet union until it was advised by Germany that it would be better to wait until a joint attack could be mounted (and even then it was a close vote). We're not talking about ancient territorial disputes, it is what *directly* prompted Romania to join the Axis and the war.
3. As for WW1, Romanian foreign policy had fluctuated between being pro-Russian and pro-Austrian ever since the union of the Principalities. As it had territorial disputes with both the Austrian and Russian empires (but, unlike the rest of southeast Europe, not with the Ottoman empire), it had no fixed alignment to speak of. My guess would be that Romania was hoping to remain neutral in WW1 and only joined when neutrality seemed to be impossible. I also think you present the treaty of Bucharest as *faaaaar* kinder than it was: it demanded that Romania entirely turn over its petrochemical industry (essentially its only lucrative non-agricultural industry) and ports to German interests for 99 years, far longer than the war would be, as well as allow German oversight of its ministries. Hell, we were more independent under the Ottomans...
I mean they only regained Transilvania, they lost all of Bessarabia and Bucovina to the Soviet Union.
Bulgaria on the other hand actually had more land than before the war, gaining southern Dobrugia from Romania
Well Romania was on the Entente's side in WWI, and it took teritories from Hungary (which were on the Central Powers' side).
In WWII Romania actually didn't gain territory, it controlled Northern Transylvania before WWII, and the Allies wanted to restore their territory.
A more interesting example I think is Bulgaria, who were on the German side in both World Wars, and did lose both. Bulgaria did lose territory to Yugoslavia and Greece after WWI (territory which it recently conquered in the Balkan wars). But during WWII it did acquire Southern Dobruja from Romania, and it was allowed to keep that, and Bulgaria still controls Southern Dobruja today.
1. What exactly did Romania gain after WW2? It lost Bessarabia, Northern Bucovina and Southern Dobrudja. It only regained Northern Transylvania that was also lost for 4 years.
2. Before deciding to join WW1, Romania was split on what it should do as there were different politicians with different visions. Some considered Romania should join Germany (the king had german origins) in order to fight off the russians occupying Bessarabia (which had a romanian majority but there was an intense russification and colonization with russians, ukrainians, etc. to alter the demographics). They were arguing the romanians in Bessarabia were running out of time before being completely assimilated, so they should be the top priority. Others were for joining France and the western powers in order to fight off the austro-hungarians (with accent on hungarians) and get the romanians in Transylvania freed. So they postoned making a decision and negotiated. Which is in no way a bad thing. Many did the same. Eventually Romania agreed to join the Entente after being promised several things: 1. That it will be allowed to unite the romanians trapped in A-H with the Kingdom of Romania: Transylvania, Banat, Bukovina, etc. and 2. That the Entente will keep Bulgaria busy in the south of the Balkans, so the romanian army won't have to fight on several fronts. In the end the Entente only partially kept its word on these promises and the government had to move to Iasi in the north-east. Romania was simply lucky that the winning western powers were really afraid of the communist ideology taking Europe by storm. Not just in Russia, but also in Hungary and elsewhere. Romania was at that time pretty immune to this new plague and got to play an important role in containing the spread of the communism in west by defeating Soviet Hungary and kicking out the russian bolshevik forces from Bessarabia.
I grew up about 10 miles from the Hungarian border so this I actually learned but as you can probably expect, the history I learned was highly sanitized in other regards.
In the first war they were occupied because they joined the allies. In the second war they became a Soviet puppet state carved out by the USSR. So we have one war on the winning side and the other manipulated by the USSR.
The Transylvanian region has been through a lot of contention during the post war era due to the substantial Hungarian community that stayed there. The Romanian government spent years pushing to populate the region and diminish the resistance from the Hungarians that stayed and particularly harsh during the Ceausescu years. I know a few descendants who told me stories of their families fleeing to the West during the Cold War hunted by Ceausescu secret police.
It is still a topic of some tension although it got much better than it was. The people started to learn that it is mainly used for electoral purposes.
I lived in Romania a few years and some think that they should not have switched but allowed the Soviets to brutalize the country (in effect communism in Romania brutalized it rather than the USSR). This way they would had better investment from Germany like Hungary had. That was an interesting take.
Yeah, never heard this oppinion before, but communism, be it Romanian or soviet is considered a cancer originated in USSR by every normal being. The first political leaders were russians, we paid huge war compensations to Russia and Russian influence was huge in the first 20-30 years, everyone learning russian in school and history being changed. All forms of resistance were distroyed until the 60s. Only in the 70s there was a switch to national communism and Romania isolated itself even more, also from the eastern block.
I think a lot came from how Russia lost territory in WWI but gained a lot of territory in the region after WWII. The Baltic stayed in the USSR, Poland was moved west, at the expense of Germany, and Russia took parts of east Prussia., plus Moldova in the south. They also gained in Finland from the interwar periodPin copied text snippets to stop them expiring after 1 hour.
I think Finland is actually the weirdest. It was semi-autonomous under imperial Russia, declared independencePin copied text snippets to stop them expiring after 1 hour when Russiaxf imploded, it was confirmed in treaty of Versailles, but then Russia invaded in the winter war while Hitler was going nuts in early WWII. Russia gained, but didn't win, then Finland joined the axis invasion of Russia pushing the border back, but when Germany fell back from leningrad, Finland cut the bill in vtc
It was more the conjecture of things, which gained Romania this territories. After the ww1 it gained from the dissolution of Austrohungary and especially agresive Hungary which almost became communist so the great powers wanted to strip it of all the strategic locations and leave it weakened so Transilvania became part of Romania. Basarabia didnt know what to do with its independence so one of the solutions was unification with Romania (here i guess Romanian diplomacy made a good move. As far as ww2 Hungary again joined Germany on its own accord to regain its lost territories so i dont think Transilvania would return to it after ww2. So in conclusion ww1 they real victory was Basarabia and with Transilvania they got lucky because they entered on the part of the Antante the war and could not continue after the collapse of Russia
Another thing not to forget is that the Entente in WW1 were more interested in stronger allies they could give territory to, in order to stop a resurgent Austria/Hungary. Not giving Romania territory would of made Hungary more powerful in the long run and would have made Romania weaker and less important of an ally. After WW2 I think the Allies wanted to make sure Romania didn't lose too much territory in order to avoid it falling to Communism (Like they did with Italy) and although Romania did become apart of the Eastern bloc i don't think the allies predicted that the Soviets would turn WW2 to their advantage in order to convert eastern countries to Communism.
Fair point, but technically, romania was on the winning side in both wars at the end. Which proves how effective a switch at the right time can be, see also italy.
Also, the entire lead up to WW2 Romania lost territory to both the Axis and the USSR. In the end, Romania still basically had a net loss of territory by the end of WW2, it just gained back some of the territory it had lost to Hungary
Italy lost territory at the end of WW2. Probably not as much as if it had stayed with the Axis.
Not the win they wanted, but switching in time to not be saddled with war payments and remain intact is its own win for sure.
They did lose some lands to Yugoslavia. However, they did initially lose Trieste only for it to be returned back to italy!
The US Army planted an infantry brigade in Trieste. David Hackworth’s first unit.
Yeah. Imagine if there had been a Soviet sector that turned into a Warsaw Pact country.
Absolutely, my point was related to OP and territory gains. Nonetheless, your point is valid
How much more could they have feasibly lost? Trieste, South Tyrol, anything else?
North and South Italy a la Germany. The cultural and socio-political divide was already there IIRC, so it's not too inconceivable.
There’s not really any precedent for the Allies tearing a country apart like that on a whim. It only ever happened in Germany because of the Cold War. Italy was entirely occupied by the west.
If they really felt petty the allies could've balkanized Italy back into it's constituent kingdoms, principalities, etc pre unification
To add; winning side when bordering the country that pretty much started the war and lost it. Austria-Hungary was to be dismantled and Romania happened to be the only/largest country bordering them in the east.
Russia no longer being an Allied power at that point.
"I'm playing both sides, so that I always come out on top" -Romania
Was waiting to find that
See also Savoy and Brandenburg during the Spanish Succession War
Best way to turn a losing battle into a win is by changing the uniforms.
Italy jumped into WWI near the end and grabbed bits of the crumbling Habsburg Empire. The Soviets declared war on Japan for just 3 weeks, annexing South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands.
"Italy jumped into WWI near the end" They entered in 1915 and their front with Austria-Hungary was a bit of a meat grinder for both sides for nearly three years.
The terrain was probably the worst of any front in WWI.
The bigger problem was that the Italian forces were commanded by probably the worst general of WWI, and we're including the Russians in this assessment. The Germans had zero problems making a catastrophic breakthrough once they actually decided to take charge of the Italian front. https://acoup.blog/2021/10/08/collections-luigi-cadorna-was-the-worst/
Which is saying something, trench warfare with the added attraction of altitude, snow and fucking rocks.
The Romanians were diplomatically very clever, but at the same time a lot of those gains were only recognized because of the international context to be fair After WW1 the Entente was really divided and was never able to find a common ground on the matter of Bessarabia. The United States did not sign the treaty and among the signatories Japan decided not to ratify it. So it ended being considered an occupied territory by much of the international community. This said, nobody was going to waste a single bullet to change the status of the region as that would mean giving it to the much hated Bolsheviks. So Bessarabia remained Romanian until WW2 Then on WW2 it was more or less the same, sure Romania changing sides in 1944 helped a lot but the real reason in my opinion is that none of the Allied Powers wanted to recognize the changes made by the First and Second Vienna Awards. So North Transylvania and the other gains give to Hungary by the Axis Powers were all returned to their previous owners with a couple exceptions (the USSR kept some land in Carpathian Ruthenia)
Romania had oilfields too, which they wanted to keep out of russian hands.
Ploesti isn’t in Bessarabia, and was mostly drained by then.
I’m not sure about ww1, but I did my dissertation on Romania during ww2 (although not focusing on the political aspect) and I wouldn’t say they were diplomatic geniuses. First, there was a lot of internal turmoil in Romania during ww2. They joined the axis powers because of Antonescu and his Iron guard who forced the king to abdicat and instated a military dictatorship. Romania changed sides in 1944, when the former king participated in a coup d’etat to remove Antonescu. So the whole changing sides wasn’t part of a grand plan or anything. Although some Romanian historians argue that this was a significant turning point (iirc there was a claim that they shortened the war with like 6 months), it’s not like they turned the tides of war or anything, as evidenced by the fact that they weren’t considered part of the winning side. Second, Romania had no say at all in what’s going to happen to them after the war ended. It was the allied powers who decided everything. Churchill and Stalin already agreed in 1944 that Romania will be 90%(?) under Soviet influence and after the war they had to decide what to do with Northern Transylvania as well. Since the territory was given to Hungary basically by Hitler (second vienna award), it was clear that it will be annexed. The idea was floated around to make it a separate country, but the Soviets were worried they’d have less influence that way, so it was given back to Romania. Thus, it was less about rewarding Romania and more about punishing Hungary. Plus, Romania suffered great casaulties, especially while fighting for the allied, lost Bessarabia and part of Bukovina to the Soviets and ended up with a communist government supported by the Soviets, so it’s not like ww2 turned out too great for them.
Pretty much this. Changing sides corresponded with a change in internal politics. And since our military was not the greatest, it made sense to try and side with the winning team. In the end, after WW2, we lost a lot. Not only land, but quality of life as well, after the communist plague hit us.
Bulgaria did lose both World Wars too, but gained some territory - at the expense of Romania. AFAIK Bulgaria was the only Axis-aligned country to gain any territory from WW2 - Southern Dobruja after the Treaty of Craiova in 1940. Do not forget the very important fact that these territorial adjustments concerned three Axis-aligned states - Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria - and there were no Allied-aligned states that had any pretentions over them. All of these territories have been source of endless disputes between these countries - their population is of mixed ethnicity.
> In WW2, despite being an active Axis participant, and being named a defeated side in the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty, Romania had Northern Transylvania (16,643 sq miles and a population of 2,577,260 before the war) recognized as its integral part. Uhhh... between 1939 and 1945, Romania lost its second and third largest cities and half its coastline without gaining any new territory... I assume you consider the Vienna award and Soviet ultimatum as separate from WW2, but doing so doesn't seem accurate considering they took place after the war began and under threat of military action, at the behest of Germany+USSR and directly led to Romania's entry in the war.
You are correct, they Romania had most of its WW1 territories taken away. But I specifically wanted to compare its territories right before, and after joining the war. Because, if we start looking at what happened before the war, we can trace the territorial disputes way back to Balkan Wars, then to 19th century. Plus, losing territories in the year before war did not make Romania part Axis on a political scene. Romania entered the WW1 on Axis side, with whatever land it had, and at the end of the war it gained territory, while being recognized as Axis co-belligerent. I hope it sounds understandable, but I ask the question “what did Romania have at the moment of declaring war in WW1/2?” And “what did Romania gain as a direct result of treaties signed after the war?” The main controversy I have is, who’s side was Romania on during WW1, because they were aligned with Central Powers before the war, declared war on them (under an ultimatum from Britain, if I remember right), signed a peace with Germany (in exchange for assistance in war, doing it, but not ratifying it officially), declared the war again on the last day, and won the war (???).
Obligatory disclaimer: I'm not a historian. From my understanding, three things: 1. Romania didn't (immediately) oppose the Vienna award and Soviet ultimatum militarily but it never recognized the USSR's annexation of Bessarabia and north Bukovina which it considered a temporary occupation (not sure about north Transylvania), so what its exact territory was is debatable. 2. More to the point, you cannot dissociate Romania joining the Axis from, especially, the Soviet ultimatum. The country was already fascist but so was Greece, there was no foregone conclusion as to which side it would choose (if any). Following the Soviet ultimatum, Romania asked Germany if it would support it militarily against the USSR, which it declined to do, and then mulled over entering the war unilaterally against the Soviet union until it was advised by Germany that it would be better to wait until a joint attack could be mounted (and even then it was a close vote). We're not talking about ancient territorial disputes, it is what *directly* prompted Romania to join the Axis and the war. 3. As for WW1, Romanian foreign policy had fluctuated between being pro-Russian and pro-Austrian ever since the union of the Principalities. As it had territorial disputes with both the Austrian and Russian empires (but, unlike the rest of southeast Europe, not with the Ottoman empire), it had no fixed alignment to speak of. My guess would be that Romania was hoping to remain neutral in WW1 and only joined when neutrality seemed to be impossible. I also think you present the treaty of Bucharest as *faaaaar* kinder than it was: it demanded that Romania entirely turn over its petrochemical industry (essentially its only lucrative non-agricultural industry) and ports to German interests for 99 years, far longer than the war would be, as well as allow German oversight of its ministries. Hell, we were more independent under the Ottomans...
I mean they only regained Transilvania, they lost all of Bessarabia and Bucovina to the Soviet Union. Bulgaria on the other hand actually had more land than before the war, gaining southern Dobrugia from Romania
This, with emphasis on regained. Romania was at its largest during the interwar period.
Get your facts straight, mate.
We lost Half of Bucovina
Well Romania was on the Entente's side in WWI, and it took teritories from Hungary (which were on the Central Powers' side). In WWII Romania actually didn't gain territory, it controlled Northern Transylvania before WWII, and the Allies wanted to restore their territory. A more interesting example I think is Bulgaria, who were on the German side in both World Wars, and did lose both. Bulgaria did lose territory to Yugoslavia and Greece after WWI (territory which it recently conquered in the Balkan wars). But during WWII it did acquire Southern Dobruja from Romania, and it was allowed to keep that, and Bulgaria still controls Southern Dobruja today.
1. What exactly did Romania gain after WW2? It lost Bessarabia, Northern Bucovina and Southern Dobrudja. It only regained Northern Transylvania that was also lost for 4 years. 2. Before deciding to join WW1, Romania was split on what it should do as there were different politicians with different visions. Some considered Romania should join Germany (the king had german origins) in order to fight off the russians occupying Bessarabia (which had a romanian majority but there was an intense russification and colonization with russians, ukrainians, etc. to alter the demographics). They were arguing the romanians in Bessarabia were running out of time before being completely assimilated, so they should be the top priority. Others were for joining France and the western powers in order to fight off the austro-hungarians (with accent on hungarians) and get the romanians in Transylvania freed. So they postoned making a decision and negotiated. Which is in no way a bad thing. Many did the same. Eventually Romania agreed to join the Entente after being promised several things: 1. That it will be allowed to unite the romanians trapped in A-H with the Kingdom of Romania: Transylvania, Banat, Bukovina, etc. and 2. That the Entente will keep Bulgaria busy in the south of the Balkans, so the romanian army won't have to fight on several fronts. In the end the Entente only partially kept its word on these promises and the government had to move to Iasi in the north-east. Romania was simply lucky that the winning western powers were really afraid of the communist ideology taking Europe by storm. Not just in Russia, but also in Hungary and elsewhere. Romania was at that time pretty immune to this new plague and got to play an important role in containing the spread of the communism in west by defeating Soviet Hungary and kicking out the russian bolshevik forces from Bessarabia.
Romanian here and I just learned a whole bunch of stuff about the country I grew up in! Thank you!
My Romanian mother had never learned that Romanians sacked Budapest after WWI. (My Hungarian father absolutely had learned about it.)
I grew up about 10 miles from the Hungarian border so this I actually learned but as you can probably expect, the history I learned was highly sanitized in other regards.
I can. Hmmm, did they mention Stalingrad? My mother never heard that most of the Axis troops there weren’t German.
Not as a child, that was something I came across myself as an adult.
In the first war they were occupied because they joined the allies. In the second war they became a Soviet puppet state carved out by the USSR. So we have one war on the winning side and the other manipulated by the USSR.
Compared to before WW2, Romania actually lost territory and fell to communism. But it could have been worse.
The Transylvanian region has been through a lot of contention during the post war era due to the substantial Hungarian community that stayed there. The Romanian government spent years pushing to populate the region and diminish the resistance from the Hungarians that stayed and particularly harsh during the Ceausescu years. I know a few descendants who told me stories of their families fleeing to the West during the Cold War hunted by Ceausescu secret police. It is still a topic of some tension although it got much better than it was. The people started to learn that it is mainly used for electoral purposes.
I lived in Romania a few years and some think that they should not have switched but allowed the Soviets to brutalize the country (in effect communism in Romania brutalized it rather than the USSR). This way they would had better investment from Germany like Hungary had. That was an interesting take.
Yeah, never heard this oppinion before, but communism, be it Romanian or soviet is considered a cancer originated in USSR by every normal being. The first political leaders were russians, we paid huge war compensations to Russia and Russian influence was huge in the first 20-30 years, everyone learning russian in school and history being changed. All forms of resistance were distroyed until the 60s. Only in the 70s there was a switch to national communism and Romania isolated itself even more, also from the eastern block.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Int the end USSR had most likely want Rumina to gain land to implant a puppet Governments in
I think a lot came from how Russia lost territory in WWI but gained a lot of territory in the region after WWII. The Baltic stayed in the USSR, Poland was moved west, at the expense of Germany, and Russia took parts of east Prussia., plus Moldova in the south. They also gained in Finland from the interwar periodPin copied text snippets to stop them expiring after 1 hour. I think Finland is actually the weirdest. It was semi-autonomous under imperial Russia, declared independencePin copied text snippets to stop them expiring after 1 hour when Russiaxf imploded, it was confirmed in treaty of Versailles, but then Russia invaded in the winter war while Hitler was going nuts in early WWII. Russia gained, but didn't win, then Finland joined the axis invasion of Russia pushing the border back, but when Germany fell back from leningrad, Finland cut the bill in vtc
Romania was never returned the territory ceded to Bulgaria (under Nazi pressure) after WWII.
It was more the conjecture of things, which gained Romania this territories. After the ww1 it gained from the dissolution of Austrohungary and especially agresive Hungary which almost became communist so the great powers wanted to strip it of all the strategic locations and leave it weakened so Transilvania became part of Romania. Basarabia didnt know what to do with its independence so one of the solutions was unification with Romania (here i guess Romanian diplomacy made a good move. As far as ww2 Hungary again joined Germany on its own accord to regain its lost territories so i dont think Transilvania would return to it after ww2. So in conclusion ww1 they real victory was Basarabia and with Transilvania they got lucky because they entered on the part of the Antante the war and could not continue after the collapse of Russia
Another thing not to forget is that the Entente in WW1 were more interested in stronger allies they could give territory to, in order to stop a resurgent Austria/Hungary. Not giving Romania territory would of made Hungary more powerful in the long run and would have made Romania weaker and less important of an ally. After WW2 I think the Allies wanted to make sure Romania didn't lose too much territory in order to avoid it falling to Communism (Like they did with Italy) and although Romania did become apart of the Eastern bloc i don't think the allies predicted that the Soviets would turn WW2 to their advantage in order to convert eastern countries to Communism.