Central Powers Romania

[Snowstalker]

At the outset of the First World War, Romania was neutral and divided between a nominal alliance with Austria-Hungary and a Hohenzollern king on one side, and a generally pro-Entente political class on the other. Carol died later in 1914, and his successor favored the Entente, with the country ultimately joining the war in 1916, eventually gaining both Russian Bessarabia and Transylvania from Hungary.

Is it plausible to get Romania into the war in 1914 as an ally of Vienna with the explicit territorial goal of Bessarabia, or would a CP Romania more likely be one which opportunistically joins in against a crumbling Russia later on? In either case, how would they perform against a Russia which would be much more focused on fighting Germany and Austria-Hungary?

 

[SEMPRINI]

Not impossible - Austria-Hungary has to explicitly promise Bessarabia as soon as discussions commence, Carol has to live another 1-2 years, and ideally Bulgaria should remain neutral at least as long as it did in OTL.

 

[ghappy1000]

A Central Powers Romania would more likely be one which joined WW1 in 1914 with the intent of getting Bessarabia and with Carol still alive. Romania would not perform well against Russia though.

Hi,

True. The best chances to Romania to enter in war on Central Powers are either right in the begining or if France fall.

If Romania enter in war in the beginning, the differences between the Romanian army and other ones (aka Russian) is less evident (well, aside the numbers).
What plagues Romanian army in 1916 campaign are:
- leadership (well this will be hard to fix in quickly manner, but a German mission, same as the OTL French one, could help a lot. See Bulgarians and Ottomans). The worse were the absence of a good quality of low-rank officers and factionalism and politicization of the higher ranks (that were still not so bad). The Romanian soldiers were good in average, reliable and tough.
- strategy: very oriented on bayonet charge. All the armies were plagued with that in 1914... they completely change in 1916 but Romanians learn it only after loosing half of teh Country and 2/3 of the army (well the most casualties were from typhus)...
- lack of heavy artillery and large stocks of shells: well most of the other armies in 1914 do not have yet heavy artillery like in 1916 one + all have limited stoks of shells (a major reason that the ostilities come to a halt in the fall or 1914). Germany could help.
- lack of machine guns: with the exception of Germany, no army had may of these. In 1916 was completely different situation.
- lack of domestically industry of armament: this will not change.
- lack of provisions: well, when the war start and Romania declared neutrality no country agree to sell it anymore. Romania continue to sell oil and grain but for cash. That gold could not buy anything... So, the situation of the army in 1916 was worse than 1914.

All in once, if Romania enter in war in 1914, I strongly believe that the war could be won by Central Powers. Even before entering in war on the side of Antante, Romania practiced a neutrality very favorable to Antante. They sell oil and grain mostly to them... Forbidden the transport of materials and specialist to Turkey but allowing the transport of such to Serbia. Receiving Serbian retreating troops (well, a Serbian division fight in Romanian army), etc.

Perhaps USA will not even get involved at all. Russia will fall quickly and perhaps France will be toasted.

If this happens, we can see Italy join as well on the side of Central Powers. Bulgaria could join even earlier. Germans could link with ottomans and Serbia could be out of game quicker.

Another problem that Romania faced were the lack of reliance from their neighbors allies (neither Russia or Austro-Hungaria wanted a strong Romania and they were even more happy to divide it between them!)

Still, for Romania will not be a winning move. They can recover Bassarabia from Russia (maybe a little more - a.k.a. Trans-Dniest, Odessa) and maybe Timoc valley form Serbia. At maximum they could hope is to buy from Austro-Hungary the Northern Bucovine, but nothing more. No Transylvania, no Banat, no Crisana and Maramures (Partium), all rich and developed regions. That means No Greater Romania.

With regard to Romania joining the Central Powers, the best outcome would be Romania getting Bessarabia, Budjak, Moldova, Trans-Dnister/ Tranistra, greater Trans-Dnister/ Tranistra and Odessa from Russia (the Timoc Valley would be a maybe since it would be more likely to go to Austria-Hungary or Bulgaria if conquered by the Central Powers and a Central Powers Romania would be focused on Bessarabia from Russia instead of the Timoc Valley from Serbia and Bukovina might by the only Central Powers Romanian gain from Austria-Hungary because Austria-Hungary wouldn't give up the rest of its Romanian-claimed territories to Romania without a Romania-Austria-Hungary War). Note that Romania joining the Central Powers in the scenario above would still leave Southern Dobruja as a Second Balkan War objective, a pre-WW1 objective and (likely) a pre-pod objective not worth fighting WW1 for or being claimed from Bulgaria. Not as great as having Romania join the Entente in WW1 and gaining Transylvania, Banat, Bucovina, Crisana and Maramures (plus Bessarabia and Moldova from Russia and Southern Dobruja (reclaimed after temporary Bulgarian defeat of WW1 Romania was over with Bulgaria's armistice)) as in otl.

And all the best outcome gains for Romania as a Central Power would require a Central Powers victory plus all the best outcome gains to be received by a Central Powers Romania. If Romania joined the Central Powers and the Central Powers still lost as in otl, Romania could be expected to lose all its gains (Timoc Valley) from plus some of its territory to Serbia and all its gains (Timoc Valley) from plus some of its territory to Serbia and all its gains (Bessarabia, Budjak, Moldova, Trans-Dnister/ Tranistra, greater Trans-Dnister/ Tranistra and Odessa) from plus some of its territory to Russia while not being allowed to gain Austro-Hungarian territory to punish Austria-Hungary and Romania. As mentioned above, Southern Dobruja wouldn't be a valid reason for Romania to join the Entente as in otl or the Central Powers in this scenario. And, a Central Powers Romania before Bulgaria joining the Central Powers might encourage Bulgaria to join the Entente to retake recently lost from Bulgaria Southern Dobruja, especially if the Romanians perform as poorly for the Central Powers as the Romanians performed poorly for the Entente otl. In this case, and with an Entente victory as in otl, Romania could lose Dobruja (and potentially the other parts of southern Romania) to Bulgaria. If the Russian Revolution proceeded as in otl, Romania might keep its gains from Russia but, assuming minimal butterflies, lose them to Russia/ the Soviet Union after WW2 and with no history of Romania gaining territory from Austria-Hungary/ Hungary, would not be allowed to gain territory from Hungary, ensuring Romanian participation in both World Wars for totally nothing.

Having said that, due to Romania prioritizing Transylvania (and gains from Austria-Hungary) over Bessarabia (and gains from other countries), and with the benefit of hindsight, the better solution would be for Romania to join the Entente, but wait until the Central Powers were clearly losing (1918, 1919 or later due to butterflies) before joining the Entente. Or stay neutral and try to obtain gains from Hungary in WW1 (Entente victory) and/ or Bessarabia (Central Powers victory over Russia). For WW2 or its equivalent analogue and the aftermath, Romania might need to surrender northern Bukovina only to the Soviets and Southern Dobruja to Bulgaria, but otherwise, Romania would be able to lose less of its interwar territory by leaving Bessarabia Soviet.