Russia and the Independence War, split from Carol II fortifications

However, the mere fact (!) that Russians decided to "exchange" Romanian territories without even bothering to announce us led to a huge "loss of sympathy" in their regard. Also, I do NOT see as a coincidence the fact that in those very years Romania signed a treaty (secret, but nevertheless a treaty of alliance) with the "Central Powers".
1883

What "Romanian territories" did Russia "exchange" without notice?
Radu

What "Romanian territories" did Russia "exchange" without notice?
Radu

Well, this link should make you remember, shouldn't it?
Independence War
Perhaps ”compensation” is more appropriate...

That article is only giving the Romanian "angle". There was more to that war. Here is another perspective on those events. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1877–1878)

Without Russia, there would be no independence for Romania. What the Romanians call the "War of Independence" was the end battle of a long list of wars between Russia and the Ottoman Empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_th...so-Turkish_wars

As for the "Russians took Budjak"... Didn't we go over this before? The Treaty of Bucharest gave Budjak to Russia in 1812. More here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bujak

Don't confuse "Soviet Russia" with "Tsarist Russia". Overall, Tsarist Russia was a good thing for Romania.

Radu

So we did "go over this before", but that was the first time that an allied Russia did such things to her new allied state (new as in new state, I mean).
Re: Tsarist Russia being a good thing overall, I strongly disagree. To quote only the last example, here is the problem of 1907 "riots", which, at least in Moldova (Moldavia, whatever... the territory between Prut and Eastern Carpathians ), were instigated by Russian agitators. This was proved at the time, the "cooperation" between the Austrian and Russian regimes, but Carol I chose not to make it public.

This post has been edited by MMM on December 26, 2013 12:36 pm

Overall, when you put everything ("good", "bad", whatever) on a balance, Tsarist Russia was better for Romania than the Ottoman Empire.
The "united principalities" were stuck between two empires, the Tsarist Empire and the Ottoman Empire. One enslaved the principalities and one helped the principalities to gain their freedom.
Radu

Actually the tensions between Russia and Romania were very high in the beginning of 1878 and the situation did not escalate into yet another Russian invasion thanks to the Major Powers' pressure on Russia for an international peace conference.

The two major problems for Romania in the San Stefano Treaty were the loss of the three counties in Southern Bessarabia (which had been awarded through the Treaty of Paris of 1856) and the supply road Russia maintained through Romanian territory for 2 years, which the prince and Bratianu feared could lead to yet another Russian protectorate like in the 1830s-1840s. Romanian opposition to these terms led to a direct communication from the Russian foreign minister prince Alexander Gorchakov to the Romanian ambassador on 1 April 1878 that the Russian Army will invade and will disarm the Romanian troops. Not exactly a friendly attitude and one that Carol took seriously into consideration during the rest of his reign.

Regarding the positive aspects of the Russian influence during the 18th and 19th centuries, these are plain and obvious in the way the modern Romanian state/states was/were shaped. However, the Russian interest in modernizing the principalities and eliminating the Ottoman influence were not philanthropic, but were simply steps taken towards annexing the principalities in their way to the Straits.

The Budjak was awarded to Russia in 1812 by the Treaty of Bucharest. At that time it was nothing to do with "Romania" and Budjak was not "taken from Romania" because "Romania" as we understand it today did not even exist. In actual fact, the 1812 Treaty of Bucharest was between Russia (victors) and the Ottoman Empire (defeated) at the end of the 1806-1812 Russo -Turkish War and the "principalities" were not even part of the delegations, they were never asked. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Turkish_War_(1806–12)

In the 1856 Treaty of Paris, the Budjak was not really "taken from Russia" and it was not "given to Romania" either, again for the simple reason that "Romania" as we understand it today did not exist. In fact, 1856 was three years before the 1859 union between the Principalities, which anyway were still for all intents and purposes part of the Ottoman Empire. The Treaty of Paris was signed beween Russia (defeated) and the Ottoman Empire (victor) at the end of the Crimean War and the principalities were not part of the delegation, they were not even asked. Anyway, as I said, the Budjak was not "taken from Russia" and it was not actually "given to the Ottoman Empire" either. It was placed under the control of the "Commission of the Danube River" which acted as an independent body. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissions_of_the_Danube_River

So let us stop lying to ourselves and be honest for a second here. When the Budjak was traded back and forth, "Romania" as we know it today had no say, no power, no authority - bigger and more powerful empires traded chunks of our land between themselves. It was nothing "personal", just empires doing what they were doing best. The Principalities were never consulted. So it is a bit "rich" to say that land was taken from a "country" that was not seen by the world as the legal owner of that land or even accepted as a "country".

BUT, after "Romania" became what we understand by that term today in 1878, Russia actually behaved quite well. Yes they sometimes behaved like a bully, but they were a "soft bully", all talk no action, all spark no fire. If you think honestly about it, you know that if they wanted to take over Romania they could do it easily. Yet they did not! And they had plenty of opportunity. The fact that Russia or USSR could have taken the whole of Romania but did not do so has a significance that must not be discounted so easily.

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on December 24, 2013 07:46 pm

OK; so in 1812 Russia and the Othomans redesigned some borderlands, was that all?
Re: invasion and so on: why would Russia / USSR need to "take" all Romania?

Exactly!
The overall opinion in Romania is that "evil Russia lusts for Romania" yet history proves the exact opposite.
Every time Russia found itself on Romanian lands it ALWAYS retreated to the 1812 borders.
Radu

...or close to them! The Danube Delta clashes in the second half of 1940 are something to talk about, maybe?

Have you got a map showing that Russia broke the 1812 border lines? That is where the border was drawn and Russia stayed on their side of it. The islands in the Delta keep changing with the seasons. The lines on the map did not.

But that brings us neatly back to the point that you seem unable to understand: RUSSIA HAD THE ABILITY AND OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THE WHOLE OF ROMANIA! They did not! You complain that they claimed some thatch-ridden mudplop the size of a stadium in the middle of a river?

Radu

Nice! I managed to get you nervous again! Good X-mas present!
NOW! Cool down and understand that I did not complain about anything. I merely stated how I see things. Plus, the Russian access to Danube was a problem not only for Romania, but also for the "interested" powers, such as Prussia, Britain, Italy and so on. I understand very well what you are repeating: yes, Russia could have taken all of Romania but the fact that they chose to take only small (!) slices does NOT necessarily make them our benefactors.
PS: is there such a map with 1812 lines?

Lets not forget however that Russia asked for Romanian intervention and help in south of Danube (after we agreed to offer them passage through Romania and protection to pass over the Danube).
Without that the Russo-Turkish war probably would have ended probably with a failure to defeat the Ottomans and much bigger losses for Russians who wouldnt be able to control the situation.
Which maybe could have been even more favorable for us. Romania was "de facto" independent anyway, it was "de jure" part aquired then, but in case of both empires exhausting eachother and both weakened Romania could declare as well the "de jure" independence, as Ottomans surely wouldnt have beein able to invade Romania or something. Yet we get in the war alongside Russia, at their request

So why should Russia start another war with us, losing who knows how many other troops for an uncertain conquest (especially on the medium/long term) of Romania and maybe even helping by this the Ottomans to come back to Danube and antagonizing other major powers?

And beside that this part of Europe was always too turbulent to control, with a fragmented geography and difficult population

This post has been edited by udar on December 25, 2013 10:15 pm

"Nervous"? Do you understand what that word means? I thought you taught English....
I am not angry. Sometimes you need to shout for the deaf.

So... If you do not know of a map with the 1812 lines, how come you are so sure they crossed those lines? You made that point, so it is up to you to substantiate it.

Russia was an empire. It behaved like an empire. As a much more powerful empire, they could have taken anything they wanted from Romania in 1877 when they had a massive military presence in the country. They did not!

Radu