Russia and the Independence War, split from Carol II fortifications

...sometimes answering with questions does not make one right, but only a nit-picking hag who does not have the answer, but who is too proud to admit it!
@udar: the Bulgarian front was just the Western Front of the conflict. Just a part of the war...

Nicolae Iorga siad that "insulta e declaratia infrangerii". Why do you need to insult me? And you do this regularly.
What "answer" did I fail to give? I answered clearly with dates and links. I made my points clearly. YOU are the one who said "Russia took lands from Romania" but failed to show one single piece of evidence or clarification. So far, what you call a "nit-picking hag who does not have the answer but is too proud to admit it" fits your description much more closely.
Radu

Do not forget the other European Powers. They were almost always involved in Russian-Turkish conflict resolution and were signatories to peace treaties.

And from a text of V.B. Kashirin "The Peace of Bukarest"

This post has been edited by Petre on December 26, 2013 10:17 am

Except those "mudplops" could hinder or even block the navigation and the "some river" was the most important river of Europe, especially in XIX-th century when the naval transportation was still the most important means of transportation. Or do you think the "mudplops" were of no importance for the Russians as well? Even in 1940 the Soviets (now...) were very interested in controlling the mudplops above. Why would that be? Why would they need the whole country when they had "cuiul lui Pepelea" right in the Danube Delta?

Except those "mudplops" could hinder or even block the navigation and the "some river" was the most important river of Europe, especially in XIX-th century when the naval transportation was still the most important means of transportation. Or do you think the "mudplops" were of no importance for the Russians as well? Even in 1940 the Soviets (now...) were very interested in controlling the mudplops above. Why would that be? Why would they need the whole country when they had "cuiul lui Pepelea" right in the Danube Delta?

Again, please do your research!

The "islands" in question are on the Chilia branch of the Danube Delta. I spent many holidays in Tatanir (where the mostly Lipovean population speak Russian) and I can tell you there is no significant "naval transportation" there. In fact it is the least navigable waterway you can think of. It is the longest branch of the Danube Delta, the water is too shallow, the shores too close, the course is diverted by many (temporary/seasonal) islands and it also has its own miniature shallow delta (which means no actual direct access for sea-going ships). It often freezes in the winter.

All major transport on the Danube is on the Sulina branch, the main branch. That is why King Carol II built the canal that "straightened the M" (I bet you have no idea what I am talking about) to improve navigation.

Do you remember when the ship Rostock sank in the Sulina channel and blocked traffic? Why would "blocking one branch" block a three-branch river system? Why did the ships not go on the other branches? Because they are not navigable.

I grew up in Galati, my father worked for the AFDJ which involved a lot of travel on the river and he was (still is) obsessed with fishing in the Delta. I know the Danube! I have been to the Delta many times, last time five months ago, going there in four months. There is no "cuiul lui Pepelea" there. That story about "the Russians and some islands in the Delta" is monumentally stupid and oozed from the same mind that gave us "the Dutch do not want us to go shipping cargo up the Danube". You are more the fool to believe it.
If the Russians wanted the Delta in 1940 they could have taken it whole like they took Bessarabia and Romania could do nothing about it. But instead they stopped at the 1812 borders.

Radu

If the Danube was so important for the Russians why did the Russian Empire exchange Dobrogea (which was under Russian control after the 1878 war) for southern Bessarabia:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...Europe_1878.jpg

Surely holding the whole of Dobrogea would have given the Russian Empire a much stronger grip over the whole of the Danube Delta.

Do not bet, because you may as well lose! OK, I did NOT grow up in the area, but I can read a map, I know about "the M", or the "butterfly wings", as I thought they looked like on the map (when I was a kid; when I actually went there at 11, I began to see them more like mosquito wings... ). But as I read, Chilia was used more intensive until 1812, the only "branch" that never was appropriate being Sf. Gheorghe.
To end the dispute (vorba vine...): you are right, but answer me one question: why, if the islands are so unimportnat, both the Russians wanted them (in 1940 and 1941, that is) and were ready to fight for them; also, why the "Danube Comission" believed in the importance of having a "Russian-free" Chilia?
Re: Dutch and stuff: do not remember what that was; perhaps a story of the nineties?
Re: Rostock: old stories... Of course it was a "coincidence" that a Ukrainian ship (BTW, in those days there stil was USSR! Where from "Ukrainian ships"?) sunk right there. I do not remember if Romania upset them in 1991 (before the sinking), though...
Merry (rest of) Christmas!

@Imperialist: Dunno, I always wondered WHY didn't they want the land connection to Bulgaria? Perhaps the other powers had something to say in this? (I mean in Black sea becoming a Russian lake)...

This post has been edited by MMM on December 27, 2013 11:05 am

The point of the Danube Commission was to keep the whole of the Danube free from interference and allow traffic for everyone. By the way, the building of the "Commission" is now housing the V.A. Urechia library in Galati.

The "Dutch story" was fabricated by Cristian Negrea two years ago when the Dutch opposed Romania's entry into Schengen. He invented this insane "Dutch concern/fear" that if Romania joined Schengen, all traffic through Rotterdam would be diverted to Constanta and then shipped up the Danube. Crazy!
Mr Negrea also made up this story of the "Russian attack on some small islands in the Delta in 1940" which makes no sense. They took the whole of Bessarabia in 1940 for goodness' sake! Why worry about some small islands? This is like worrying about a toenail when your leg is amputated. As I said, if Russia wanted control over the Danube, they could have taken the whole lot (not just some pointless "grind") and Romania could do nothing about it.
As I said then, as I said repeatedly in this thread and I am telling you now again: Russia stopped at the 1812 borders. Accept it!

Radu

...or else!
I never stated something different! Although neither have you answered me: Does Bukowina belong to 1812 borders? And why the skirmishes in the Danube Delta and over the "new" demarcation line?

This post has been edited by MMM on December 27, 2013 12:07 pm

Possibly, but since Dobrogea was technically Ottoman territory they could have tried to treat it like Bessarabia and thus keep a "claim" on it even if they lost control of it under pressure from the other great powers. A claim they could then "reactivate" whenever the circumstances became suitable. But from the little I've read on this issue they made no big "fuss" over it and exchanged it. It's worth looking more into this.

...or else!
I never stated something different! Although neither have you answered me: Does Bukowina belong to 1812 borders? And why the skirmishes in the Danube Delta and over the "new" demarcation line?

Of course Bukovina has nothing to do with 1812!
That whole "Bukovina and the Danube Delta" was a "red herring", a "straw man", a "diversion", a "gica-contrism" thrown in just to cause a sideshow in an another thread about "Russia lusted for a few tiny islands on the edge of the Delta but somehow forgot the rest of the Delta". Bukovina also has nothing to do with the 1877 Russo-Turkish war which is the subject of this thread.

The islands are on the 1812 border line in the Delta. Russia reverted to the 1812 border line in the Delta. Why is that so hard for you to understand? But more importantly, why is this tiny and irrelevant detail obsessing you so much? As I and others already said, Russia could have taken the lot, everything, the whole delta, the whole of Romania, not just a few tiny islands in a marsh.

Radu

Perhaps some "grand design" (the ancestors of the "Great Firefly" ) decided that Danube Delta - thus the Danube Mouths - should not belong to Russia?

Huh?
Radu

Now, now... do you think the Berlin Conference was "not for the Russians"? I mean, after the Crimean War, they must have understood somehow that "We are not alone"...

Sorry, too many riddles.
Please make your points clearly.
Radu