War against Bulgaria?

[Geto-Dacul]

As we know, Southern Dobrogea was ceded to Bulgaria on September 7, 1940. Romania wished to keep Balcic, but Bulgaria wanted eventually more than what it was ceded. In the Caliacra and Durostor counties lived mostly Turks and Bulgarians, but also Romanians (mostly Aromanians).
This territory was a strategic region for Romania, which was captured after the 2nd Balkan War, at the Treaty of Bucharest in 1913. The major part of the region was part of Mircea cel Mare's Wallachia of the 14th Century, the chief town being Silistra.

Did Romania planned anything in recapturing that lost land, during WW2? Because Greater Romania without Southern Dobrogea cannot be Greater Romania.

[tarzy]

Southern Dobrogea wasn't a strategic region for Romania,
those region had no industry, no major city or something interesting.
and the percentage of romanian people was low.

[Geto-Dacul]

tarzy wrote :

QUOTE

Southern Dobrogea wasn't a strategic region for Romania,   those region had no industry, no major city or something interesting.   and the percentage of romanian people was low.

Means nothing... Southern Dobrogea was important for her extra débouché on the Black Sea. Is the actual boundary between Romania and Bulgaria more strategic for Romania? NO! Southern Dobrogea was also a lot more mountainous, with plenty of hills, covering the vulnerable northern Dobrogean plain. With Southern Dobrogea, the Danube was better controled by Romania.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

tarzy wrote : QUOTE Southern Dobrogea wasn't a strategic region for Romania,   those region had no industry, no major city or something interesting.   and the percentage of romanian people was low. Means nothing... Southern Dobrogea was important for her extra débouché on the Black Sea. Is the actual boundary between Romania and Bulgaria more strategic for Romania? NO! Southern Dobrogea was also a lot more mountainous, with plenty of hills, covering the vulnerable northern Dobrogean plain. With Southern Dobrogea, the Danube was better controled by Romania.

Geez, Geto so the fact that Rumanian population there was in minority means absolutely nothing ? May I suggest that the following little war would be beneficial for the sake of Greater Rumania : annex all territories around the black sea + New York and London for their valuable strategic position ;-)

Seriously the real question is : was that (or is it) worth a war. The obvious answer is no. There is only so much you can grab before making enemies of otherwise neutral neighbors. And this naturally doesn't even take into account that all those "Greater Countries" have a bad tendency to overlap each other and be a source of continual conflict. There comes a time when the wise says "enough".

[Geto-Dacul]

Chandernagore wrote :

QUOTE

Geez, Geto so the fact that Rumanian population there was in minority means absolutely nothing ? May I suggest that the following little war would be beneficial for the sake of Greater Rumania : annex all territories around the black sea + New York and London for their valuable strategic position

What do you think of this : You live on a territory... A foreign population invades and takes you a piece of your territory... You are too weak to confrount with this population. This foreign population practices ethnic cleansing there and installs herself. Later, when you are stronger, you manage to reconquer that territory, with the foreign population still there.( :?: )
It's not a question of annexing NY or London... That territory was Romanian (Wallachia) before the Turks took it from the Romanian principalities and attached it to Bulgaria.

QUOTE

Seriously the real question is : was that (or is it) worth a war. The obvious answer is no.

If you are attacked by a neighbour, a sure worths something. What do you think? That reconquering lost territories worths nothing? Of course that for a globalist like you, territories don't mean nothing but for an opressed people during the last 2000 years, it's another thing. You judge again with what was though to you, disconsidering our traditions, ideals and struggles.

Regards,

Getu'

[Chandernagore]

Geto,

There is always a key period for each nation in history. The Daces didn't emerge in actual Rumania during the geologic formation of the continent. The Hungarians where not originating from Pannonia. The Franks are not from the Jura. They came. And they pushed other peoples out or swallowed them. Territorial justification is absurd. "This territory is mine because at such or such period in history bla bla, bla bla...". Everyone can come up with similar stuff and reach diametrally opposed conclusions. You have the recipe for endless wars and it's usefull to understand the past. But it has become totally worthless in the present.

The more we advance in civilization the less these practices are tolerated and justly so. Milosevic didn't quite understand this. WWI & II were the last great periods of nationalism in Europe, where many countries extreme (Greater) territorial needs and hunger for power naturally conflicted with that of their neighbor's . The result was, I'm sure you noticed, tens of millions of dead. The lesson is not lost.

Wether good or bad, actual frontiers in Europe are pretty much fixed. You should recognize that some countries have a much bigger beef with the treatment of history than Rumania. You need to draw a line at some point and have the courage to say : so it is and I will not go back to the Dark Ages. I'm Rumanian, German or Portuguese. I have my own culture, language and laws. But I'm European. We are Europeans. You will not play much of a role in globalisation by being Rumanian, French or Finn. But your weight will be decupled as a European.

Best regards

PS: Geto should I vote for you as 3rd moderator ? What do you think ? I fear that the rabid nationalist would use the first opportunity to oust the rabid anti-nationalist ;-)

[Chandernagore]

Flash news. A stubborn ultranationalist offensive on the ice pack
is defeated by a quiet globalist :roll:

[Geto-Dacul]

Chandernagore wrote :

QUOTE

The Daces didn't emerge in actual Rumania during the geologic formation of the continent.

Of course that the Dacians couldn't have emerged... But they are the actual major inhabitants in Romania, and they want to preserve that land like normal sedentaries, and not like globalist nomads!

QUOTE

And they pushed other peoples out or swallowed them. Territorial justification is absurd. \"This territory is mine because at such or such period in history bla bla, bla bla...\".

No, territorial justification is not absurd... It's a cover-up for the stronger one to take territories, and it's a good one. Daco-Romanians fought until today to live togheter in an unitary and independent state, not to be dispersed in a cosmopolitan amalgam of "people". Those values (that you may not like/apreciate) are very important in the culture of the Romanian people. You see, you're actually criticizing a different culture, thinking that your philosophy is the best.

QUOTE

You have the recipe for endless wars and it's usefull to understand the past. But it has become totally worthless in the present.

What are you dreaming at? A world of "eternal" peace? This kind of world will be possible only when nations and personalities will disapear, which is one clear goal of globalization.

QUOTE

The more we advance in civilization the less these practices are tolerated and justly so. Milosevic didn't quite understand this. WWI & II were the last great periods of nationalism in Europe, where many countries extreme (Greater) territorial needs and hunger for power naturally conflicted with that of their neighbor's . The result was, I'm sure you noticed, tens of millions of dead. The lesson is not lost.

Actually, the Milosevic debate is very controversial ; that guy is judged with no proofs against him (you may say that the evil dictator has erased proofs, etc, etc, etc). Nationalism has no "special" periods ; it exists at different stages, and it will exist till all nations will die. And wars can be "fueled" with nationalism, but are not necessarily caused by it. The main source of wars is economic interests, needs and competition (See US interests in Iraqi oil, see US interests in Kosovo's chromium mines or the Boer war with S.African diamonds, etc.)

QUOTE

Wether good or bad, actual frontiers in Europe are pretty much fixed.

The same thing was said after the Helsinki Conference of 1973(? - don;t remember the exact date), where post-WW2 boudaries were recognized a 2nd time at European scale (after the Paris Peace Treaty with ex-Axis nations of February 10th, 1947). But see, since 1990, more than 10 new countries appeared on the map of Europe...

QUOTE

I'm Rumanian, German or Portuguese. I have my own culture, language and laws. But I'm European. We are Europeans. You will not play much of a role in globalisation by being Rumanian, French or Finn. But your weight will be decupled as a European.

Before being European, I'm Romanian... If we continue like this, after being European I'll be "Earthian"??? And after this I'll be "Milkian" (our galaxy)???

Regards

QUOTE

PS: Geto should I vote for you as 3rd moderator ? What do you think ? I fear that the rabid nationalist would use the first opportunity to oust the rabid anti-nationalist

P.S.: I could not fire you, until the other moderators agree... And I have no really motive to oust you if you continue to express yourself in civilized manners.

From a topic on a particular territory, we have arrived to discuss the essence of territorial contestation... Dragos & Victor will not like this!

[Victor]

QUOTE

Seriously the real question is : was that (or is it) worth a war. The obvious answer is no. There is only so much you can grab before making enemies of otherwise neutral neighbors. And this naturally doesn't even take into account that all those \"Greater Countries\" have a bad tendency to overlap each other and be a source of continual conflict. There comes a time when the wise says \"enough\".

The annexation of southern Dobruja in 1913 was not done because of imperialistic desires, as you seem to think. Initially, after the 1st Balkan War , Bulgaria was forced by the Great Powers through the St. Petersburg Protocol (9 May 1913) to cede the fortress of Silistra to Romania, which it did not respect, although it had signed it. The idea is to keep the balance of forces in the Balkan Peninsula. The Romanian intervention in the 2nd Balkan War was following intense pressure from the Kaiser, who feared the Bulgarian hegemony might be installed in the Balkans if they defeated their former allies Serbia and Greece and annexed more land. This put an end to a war, which could have generated an earlier WWI and which brought a lot of horrors to the area. Ethnic cleansing was not invented by Milosevic you know. Generally after Bulgarian, Greek, Serb or Turkish troops left a town, there was a massacre. The Carnegie Commission published a report in 1914 on the atrocities carried out during the war. The Romanian troops were only guilty of several rapes (which have already been dealt with) and the bombing of a museum by mistake.

QUOTE

Wether good or bad, actual frontiers in Europe are pretty much fixed. You should recognize that some countries have a much bigger beef with the treatment of history than Rumania. You need to draw a line at some point and have the courage to say : so it is and I will not go back to the Dark Ages. I'm Rumanian, German or Portuguese. I have my own culture, language and laws. But I'm European. We are Europeans. You will not play much of a role in globalisation by being Rumanian, French or Finn. But your weight will be decupled as a European

Actually Geto-Dacul was referring to the WWII period, not to present day. Today we must concentrate on the rights of the Romanian minority in Bulgaria, which are not very well looked after. Bulgaria even does not want to recognize the Vlachs as Romanians and carried out a press campaign a couple of years ago against this idea. Fortunately lately they realized that working together is better than working against each other, as we are inevitably linked in the EU integration program.

Getting back to our topic. The Treaty of Craiova with Bulgaria was by far the most amiable of all three territorial losses in 1940. The Romanians represented less than 50% in the Cadrilater (southern Dobruja), although I could not find exactly how many and which was the most numerous ethnicity. There was an exchange of populations (some 22,000 Romanian families left the territory) and Bulgaria had to pay 1 billion lei for the investments done in the inter-war period. I do not suppose there was any serious intention of getting southern Dobruja back, at least not until NW Transylvania was recuperated. The fact a conflict with Hungary was thought as the most likely after the war on the Eastern Front ended is easily demonstrated by the disposition of the 1st Romanian Army.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

No, territorial justification is not absurd... It's a cover-up for the stronger one to take territories, and it's a good one.

No longer a good one.

QUOTE

You have the recipe for endless wars and it's usefull to understand the past. But it has become totally worthless in the present.

QUOTE

What are you dreaming at? A world of \"eternal\" peace? This kind of world will be possible only when nations and personalities will disapear, which is one clear goal of globalization.

No need to go that far. War within EU/NATO is unthinkable. It's a fact.

QUOTE

Nationalism has no \"special\" periods ; it exists at different stages, and it will exist till all nations will die.

Yes but the way nations interact change and will continue to change. You must adapt.

QUOTE

Wether good or bad, actual frontiers in Europe are pretty much fixed.

QUOTE

The same thing was said after the Helsinki Conference of 1973(? - don;t remember the exact date), where post-WW2 boudaries were recognized a 2nd time at European scale (after the Paris Peace Treaty with ex-Axis nations of February 10th, 1947). But see, since 1990, more than 10 new countries appeared on the map of Europe...

New frontiers were created but no one existing was modified. Anyway the practical meaning of those frontiers is diminishing within EU, at least for the common people. Last summer I made a car trip through Germany, Austria, Italy, Belgium, Luxemburg & France with a simple ID card which nobody ever asked me to see. The color of the roadsign change so you know you just crossed in another country. I could pay in € or credit card everywhere, meet several people I discovered on the net (some of whom I've come to know better than my neighbors), be understood and respected everywhere. This kind of day by day experience in the long run has a tendency to open the horizon.

QUOTE

Before being European, I'm Romanian... If we continue like this, after being European I'll be \"Earthian\"???  And after this I'll be \"Milkian\" (our galaxy)???

It all depends on the nature of the external threat. Rumania will not challenge the Awefull Green Things from Outer Space alone ;-)

QUOTE

From a topic on a particular territory, we have arrived to discuss the essence of territorial contestation... Dragos & Victor will not like this!

Bah, as long as everyone enjoys himself, no harm.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

The annexation of southern Dobruja in 1913 was not done because of imperialistic desires, as you seem to think

.

I didn't say that. It's almost a hundred years old event. How much more before it becomes irrelevant who started what ?

QUOTE

Actually Geto-Dacul was referring to the WWII period, not to present day. Today we must concentrate on the rights of the Romanian minority in Bulgaria, which are not very well looked after. Fortunately lately they realized that working together is better than working against each other, as we are inevitably linked in the EU integration program

I don't know. If a majority of Rumanians have an identical mindset as our Geto it will not be easy to meet EU requirements and, at the same time, to swallow the partial loss of sovereignty which comes along inevitably with membership.

Thanks for the many precisions over the spoken territory. It's not well know by here.

[dragos]

From political perspective, rejecting the surrendering of Quadrillateral was offering Soviets an oportunity to open hostilities, since Bulgarian's request was supported by Soviet Union (initially Bulgaria asked for support of Germany, but it was turned down).

From military perspective, the situation at borders was the following: Soviet Union had 40 divisions, 11 tank brigades and 3 airborne brigades, Hungary had 21 brigades and Bulgaria had the equivalent of 8 brigades. Romania could respond in east with 24 divisions, in west with 11 divisions and in south with 7 divisions. It is considered that Romania could have successfuly resisted one or two simultaneous attacks from west and south, respectively from Hungary and Bulgaria, in the conditions they hadn't received direct support from Germany or Soviet Union. In case of two simultaneous attacks, of which one was from north-east (Soviet Union), Romania could have resisted on the secondary front, while slowing the Soviet advance for several weeks. In case of three simultaneous attacks, our country alone wouldn't have stand a chance.

[Victor]

QUOTE

I didn't say that. It's almost a hundred years old event. How much more before it becomes irrelevant who started what?

It was not about who started it, but about presenting the facts on a less known episode of Balkan history.

QUOTE

I don't know. If a majority of Rumanians have an identical mindset as our Geto it will not be easy to meet EU requirements and, at the same time, to swallow the partial loss of sovereignty which comes along inevitably with membership.

Actually Romania is the most pro-EU of all candidate (and former candidate) states. Some 80% for the EU. However I doubt that more then 10% of these know exactly how the EU functions. The partial loss of sovereignty is not that important for the regular Romanian, living better is.

Back on topic, dragos, I really doubt that Romania could have resisted alone against the Red Army, much less against two countries in the same time.

[dragos]

QUOTE

QUOTE I didn't say that. It's almost a hundred years old event. How much more before it becomes irrelevant who started what? It was not about who started it, but about presenting the facts on a less known episode of Balkan history.

Chanderagore point of view in all his "sharp" remarks are understandable as of one's who is less "initiated" in the Romanian historiography, but wants to carry a crusade against nationalism. Romania's specific goals of the last century were weaved around the ideal of unity, and the value of this ideal was never lower than of any actual interest.

QUOTE

Back on topic, dragos, I really doubt that Romania could have resisted alone against the Red Army, much less against two countries in the same time.

I didn't say we would have resisted against Red Army, at best only slowed it. Resistance could be considered only at the western and southern borders.

[Geto-Dacul]

Chandernagore wrote :

QUOTE

No need to go that far. War within EU/NATO is unthinkable. It's a fact.

In Europe, there are territorial problems between Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia... Between Hungary and Slovakia (the dispute on a barrage), Poland and Russia (Kaliningrad territory), Lithuania and Russia (Nemunas river), Estonia and Russia (Narva region), Russia and Ukraine (Tuzla island - Kertsch Peninsula), Moldavian Republic and Transnistrian separatists, Ukraine and Romania (strategic Serpent's island in the Black Sea), Greece and Turkey (Egean Isles - very tensionate) etc.

Of course that war between EU-NATO countries is unthinkable (for now) because they are allied by force.

QUOTE

New frontiers were created but no one existing was modified.

Existing not modified??? The statement is contradictory. East and West Germany united ; territorial modification... Ex-Yugoslavia splited in small states ; the existing Yugoslavia was modified etc.

QUOTE

Last summer I made a car trip through Germany, Austria, Italy, Belgium, Luxemburg & France with a simple ID card which nobody ever asked me to see. The color of the roadsign change so you know you just crossed in another country. I could pay in € or credit card everywhere, meet several people I discovered on the net (some of whom I've come to know better than my neighbors), be understood and respected everywhere.

This is the official theory. First of all, not every European can travel like you. Second of all, that cultural/economical/social universalism cannot bring only advantages. Everyone of the countries of the EU has its proper economical, social and cultural tradition, and imposing a single and universal model everywhere can bring a lot of instability. I don't think that the Germans like that much trade and work with Euros... The Swedes realized that and voted against unique currency.