Greater Romanian Lebensraum

Is it possible in a scenario that leaves all regional powers heavily destabilized (WW1 central power victory's like Kiser Reich are decent examples) for Romanian ultranationalist to successfully presue greater Romanian natural borders based off the kingdom of Dacia as a type of Romanian lebensraum?
1608146917017.png

With the Western border anchored northern border anchored at least as far as the Dniester River (pic 1) The western border anchored to the Danube (pic 2) and the southern border anchored to at least the south east Balkan mountains (pic 3)
1608161475105.png
1608161450576.png
1608161626974.png
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 109224

There were various ideas floated between WWI and WWII for the union of Romania and Hungary. Have one of those take off and you're mostly there.
 

thaddeus

Donor
There were various ideas floated between WWI and WWII for the union of Romania and Hungary. Have one of those take off and you're mostly there.
so Hungary, already greatly reduced after WWI would either be bisected (per OP) or reduced to a hostile minority within Greater Romania? guessing this is not going to be a very stable situation?

my guess to enlarge Romania would be eastward expansion, either with or supported by the Entente powers post-WWI or ally with Poland during their war with the Soviets? and both would be as unstable as absorbing more of Hungary.
 
so Hungary, already greatly reduced after WWI would either be bisected (per OP) or reduced to a hostile minority within Greater Romania? guessing this is not going to be a very stable situation?

my guess to enlarge Romania would be eastward expansion, either with or supported by the Entente powers post-WWI or ally with Poland during their war with the Soviets? and both would be as unstable as absorbing more of Hungary.
I could see the suggestion of Entente sanctioned expansion working on the basis of a partition of Hungary as more lenient peace to Austria Hungary that would allow the retention of at least Hungary west of the Danube with the German diaspora outside of these lands relocated to Hungary west (as I am calling it) which already had localized German minority (seen in red on the map). If Austria only picks up west Hungary and does not also make other pickups (like the republic of German Austria) these relocations should be enough for this reduced Austria Hungary to have a healthy German majority
1608165554953.png

The British after WW1 had at least some support for a stronger Austrian state to act at least as a regional power, this sentiment seems to have persisted at least as late as WW2 with prime minister Churchill even going as far as to try to create a seemingly German majority Austria Hungary through the inclusion of south Germany (pic below). I don't know to much of the French opinions but based off what I know they seemed to be mostly concerned with the weakening of Germany after WW1 and where not as concerned with taring down Austria-Hungary. America seemed mostly concerned with making ethnically humogonis states.
1608165536653.png

These major powers might be able to come to a agreement on making a German majority lesser Austria Hungary (Austria and west Hungary) as a regional power. Alternately if they want them to punish Germany more (French interest) while making Austria strong enough to be a counterbalance to Germany and maintain the balance of power ( British interest), they could give the Austrians south Germany and allow them to retain the Czech republic and Slovakia as far east as the Ondava river (pic below) and with proper relocations from the German diaspora and south German immigration plans you could intermix a competitive enough German majority or large minority to make a ethnically humogonis south German state (American interest/ side note American negotiations might be easier with Teddy Roosevelt as president since he seemed to be more open to the concept of empire and ethnic states seemed to be largely the brian child of Woodrow Wilson)
1608166458954.png

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Interwar Romania already had pretty much every piece of land Romania had a claim to. A border at the Balkan mountains isn't something they'd even want, that's a ton of Bulgarians to absorb.
 
Interwar Romania already had pretty much every piece of land Romania had a claim to. A border at the Balkan mountains isn't something they'd even want, that's a ton of Bulgarians to absorb.
They did have all Romanian ethnic lands ethnicity which is why Romania would either have to have a larger ultranationalist presence (I see an central powers victory as the easiest road to this, as stated in the original post) or simply view this as a regional empire like the great powers international empires, in absence of significant ultranationalism (my best guess as to justification in a entante victory). As for Bulgaria you could form a tri-part regional coalition with a vested interest in keeping down the Bulgarians (and maintaining there own regional empires) justifying not needing a Bulgarian nation state with the bulk of Bulgaria Bulgaria being incorperated into a expanded Yugoslavia state that encompareses most south Slavsic land between the northern border of the Balkan mountains (pic 1, red doted line)
1608173590638.png

and the southern border on the Mariza river (pic 2, blue river), the land south of which would go to the Greece due to there interest in this land from the wanting to make there own empire through the Magali idia, debatably verging on lebensraum (pic 3 otl black Greek map presented at Paris peace conference) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megali_Idea
1608170215955.png
1608170579380.png

and Romania taking the northeast quarter of Bulgaria corresponding to Dacia (pic 4) which when compared to the prior example if a non ultranationalist Greece could think up the Magali idia a Dacian based Romanian concept might emerge as a similar version to this concept of regional empire
1608170114332.png

since Bulgaria is more ethnically divided then most people would expect according to the 2011 census ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Bulgaria ) the principle of divide and conquer should be workable exceedingly well when were consider 3 powers. Note, the Romanian northeast quarter should be heavily divided between Turks and Bulgarians, with the Greeks quarter facing a similar scenario in the south. Yugoslavia's half would be the least mixed per capita and hold Bulgaria's capital but be more equip to deal with them as a south Slavic state (albit Serbian dominated)
1608172415883.png
 
Last edited:
Interwar Romania already had pretty much every piece of land Romania had a claim to.
There were bits and pieces that were still conceivable, as well as various opportunistic landgrabs.

1. Timok Valley
This is south of the Danube, roughly were the Romanian, Serbian and Bulgarian borders meet, and where there's a funny bend in the course of the Danube. By many accounts, there was an outright Romanian majority. Main problem is that it was part of pre-war Serbia, meaning there'd have to be some pretty convoluted circumstances whereby Romania could get this bit. Most likely scenario is the Entente big boys pulling out of the Balkans post-war for whatever reason, and then a war erupting between Serbia and Romania, likely over Timisoara (which Serbia had gotten to first following the Austro-Hungarian collapse, but was majority Romanian).

2. Serbian Banat
This is the bit of Serbian Vojvodina that's north of the Danube and west of the Tisza. Used to be part of A-H, so it doesn't have the problem above, but is much more mixed, with the Serbians likely having formed a plurality at the time. Romania lobbied hard for this at Versailles, but didn't get it. Have Serbia do something stupid, and they might.

3. Transnistria
Another place with a localized Romanian minority, roughly corresponding to the modern breakaway state. Entente could very well have agreed to Romania keeping it, but Romania didn't even try, as defending it from the Soviets would have required troops needed to conquer Budapest. Could conceivably have been gotten if some sort of deal was reached with the Bolsheviks early on, but I have no idea what that would have entailed. Alternatively, they could have snagged it later in 1920 on from the Whites if these were more successful (but not TOO successful).

now we get to parts that hardly had any Romanians...

4. Hungarian area east of the Tisza
Hungarians form a clear majority here. Romania claimed it needed it for security reasons, much like Italy had gotten south Tyrol all the way to the Brenner Pass. Was militarily occupied by Romania in the Romanian-Hungarian War. Have them be dicks and not giving it back after pulling out of Budapest

5. Transcarpathian Ruthenia
This was a sort of no-mans-land in the aftermath of the dissolution of A-H, and it took a while before Prague finally managed to assert dominance, only after the Hungarian bolsheviks were defeated. Had Romania chosen to occupy it prior to the Czechs getting there, they could have forced the issue all the way to the point of war. Given the overall unstable situation, and the ongoing conflict between Prague and Warsaw over disputed border territories, it's conceivable Romania could have hung on to it, either by the Czechoslovaks backing down, or by defeating them militarily.

6. Pokuttia
Romania actually occupied this bit of the West Ukrainian People's Republic, after both it and Poland had ganged up on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pokuttya
Have the transfer be delayed for whatever reason, and then either a falling out with Poland, or worse a Soviet takeover of Poland, and Romania could decide to not hand it over, and instead keep it

now we're getting into the realm of the truly speculative...
7. West Ukrainian Peoples Republic
It's not inconceivable that a Romania that emerges from the war much stronger than OTL (say, by not entering it in the first place until late 1918) could try and force its dominance over this ailing would-be state, especially after something like the Lwow Pogrom happens. True, it would sacrifice Polish friendship, but Bucharest could rightfully rationalize it by the fact that Poland and Romania had a common enemy in the form of the USSR, and a common patron in the form of France, making any direct conflict less likely. If Poland somehow falls to the Reds, there's even more incentive by Romania to hold on to parts of Ukraine, in order for them to act as a buffer state.

8. Varna area
The only bit about this that makes any sort of sense is that Bulgarians did not make up an outright majority in the region, with Turks, Jews, Greeks and others combined forming a majority, if a narrow one. If the Entente decide to punish Bulgaria more severely for whatever reason, turning this area into either a Romanian puppet-state, or even making it an autonomous part of Romania, is conceivable, if only barely.

9. Greater Transnistria
This is basically the entire area between the Dniester and Bug rivers, including the important port-city of Odessa. While the western bit was majority-Romanian (or at the very least had a substantial minority), the rest was decidedly not. The only way for Romania to keep this would be by actively taking part in the Russian civil to a much, much, much greater extent, and then carving up this bit of territory at the end, more likely than not ruled indirectly via a White warlord or the remnants of one of the iterations of Ukraine (First Peoples Republic/Hetmanate/Second Peoples Republic/whatever)

10. Komancza and Lemko Republics
The only way it's even conceivable to think about these if Romania gains the WUPR from #7 as a puppet state, and then gets into a conflict with both Poland and Czechoslovakia, while simultaneously not having to care about threats to its east. If this unlikely set of conditions is somehow met, then some sort of meddling here is conceivable, though to what extent any attempts to exert influence here are successful is highly debatable.

and now for the truly sad and depressing...
11. Population transfers
There were quite a significant number of Aromanians throughout the Balkans in the 19th and early 20th century. If there had been a falling out between Serbia/Yugoslavia and Romania in the aftermath of ww1, some sort of forced population transfer, like what happened between Greece and Turkey, is not inconceivable. Lots of people displaced, lots die, overall Aromanian culture assimilated into the broader Romanian one, though probably slower than OTL since there would be more of them concentrated into a single area
 

Dementor

Banned
They did have all Romanian ethnic lands ethnicity which is why Romania would either have to have a larger ultranationalist presence (I see an central powers victory as the easiest road to this, as stated in the original post) or simply view this as a regional empire like the great powers international empires, in absence of significant ultranationalism (my best guess as to justification in a entante victory). As for Bulgaria you could form a tri-part regional coalition with a vested interest in keeping down the Bulgarians (and maintaining there own regional empires) justifying not needing a Bulgarian nation state with the bulk of Bulgaria Bulgaria being incorperated into a expanded Yugoslavia state that encompareses most south Slavsic land between the northern border of the Balkan mountains (pic 1, red doted line)
View attachment 608520
and the southern border on the Mariza river (pic 2, blue river), the land south of which would go to the Greece due to there interest in this land from the wanting to make there own empire through the Magali idia, debatably verging on lebensraum (pic 3 otl black Greek map presented at Paris peace conference) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megali_Idea
View attachment 608504View attachment 608506
and Romania taking the northeast quarter of Bulgaria corresponding to Dacia (pic 4) which when compared to the prior example if a non ultranationalist Greece could think up the Magali idia a Dacian based Romanian concept might emerge as a similar version to this concept of regional empire
View attachment 608503
There were plans for such a division of Bulgaria, though not in 1919, but rather in 1934 after the assasination of King Alexander of Yugoslavia. In 1919 Serbia and Greece did raise extensive claims against Bulgaria (though in the case of Greece they only demanded the territory up to the Arda river, not to the Maritsa, let alone to the line indicated on pic 3), but the big three victors of WWI were not inclined to grant even these. I don't see why they would agree to the division of Bulgaria and I imagine neither Greece or Romania would be happy about the deal you propose, considering how much it's in favor of Yugoslavia.
since Bulgaria is more ethnically divided then most people would expect according to the 2011 census ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Bulgaria ) the principle of divide and conquer should be workable exceedingly well when were consider 3 powers. Note, the Romanian northeast quarter should be heavily divided between Turks and Bulgarians, with the Greeks quarter facing a similar scenario in the south. Yugoslavia's half would be the least mixed per capita and hold Bulgaria's capital but be more equip to deal with them as a south Slavic state (albit Serbian dominated)
View attachment 608518
Also people actually aware of the population distribution. The Turkish population appears larger than it is due to being concentrated in sparsely populated rural areas, while nearly all cities have a Bulgarian majority. According to the census you cited, only one out of seven provinces in the northeast has a Turkish majority, with the whole region being about 72% Bulgarian and 20% Turkish.

8. Varna area
The only bit about this that makes any sort of sense is that Bulgarians did not make up an outright majority in the region, with Turks, Jews, Greeks and others combined forming a majority, if a narrow one. If the Entente decide to punish Bulgaria more severely for whatever reason, turning this area into either a Romanian puppet-state, or even making it an autonomous part of Romania, is conceivable, if only barely.
I don't know what you mean by "Varna area" but the district of Varna ( district 2 on this map, excluding the area annexed by Romania) was 70% Bulgarian in 1920. As for the Entente wanting to punishing Bulgaria further, it seems unlikely they would so at the benefit of Romania. In OTL, the Entente powers were far from convinced that even Southern Dobruja should be given back to Romania and did not do so until the end of 1919.

Honestly it seems to me that Romania already had it's natural borders after WW1

Not really. The natural borders are along the Danube, Carpathians and Prut (or at most Dniester river). Romania did reach these borders, but only in the brief time between Russia withdrawing from the war and the German defeat.
 
Last edited:
Top