How would a Romania as part of ‘Free Europe’ have influenced post 1945 European culture?

[PakistaniGuyUK]

I’m interested in Romania specifically due to its unique Latin culture and the fact its inherently more Western or “Mediterranean” (using the term liberally) than Eastern European or “Russian.” Facially, culturally, linguistically Romanians share far more with Spaniards or Italians than Ukranians or Poles. Unfortunately for them I guess geography more or less dictated their OTL outcome post 1945.

So what if Romania had somehow managed to escape the Iron Curtain and just developed as a ‘regular Western economy’ along the lines of Greece or Italy? Here is a small map I altered:

(Any POD where a democratic Western Romania can emerge in place of a Socialist one with the Soviet Union eventually accepting the outcome).

How much richer would it be?

What would be the mainstay of its economy?

What inter-European and international relationships would emerge that were absent from OTL?

What OTL events would butterfly away and what new butterflies may emerge?

My 2 cents:
Good points:
I think it would definitely be a richer economy with Romania likely becoming a household tourist destination for Western Europeans as well as international tourists alongside the likes of Greece and Turkey. Possibly closer inter-cultural ties with Italy (butterflies would emerge in this regard I think). Closer ties with Spain and Latin America?? What else? Potentially a much better football team that alters or impacts European football. Also Romanian cinema might make a decent impact at least in the Latin World (Spain, Italy, Latin America) with movie stars emerging that are not present OTL.

Bad points:
Closer ties with Italy may also mean the Italian Mafia trying to muscle in on the country?
Brain drain of poorer Romanians to Italy and the United States?

 

[The Tai-Pan]

It it totally surrounded by a hostile and expansionist USSR, paranoid about anyone not in the Warsaw pact. How does it survive?

 

[PakistaniGuyUK]

It it totally surrounded by a hostile and expansionist USSR, paranoid about anyone not in the Warsaw pact. How does it survive?

Yeah this is the problem OTL
ATL I'm thinking somehow it doesn't go Socialist with eventually the USSR accepting the outcome like they did with Finland but yeah its verging on ASB but still fascinated with butterflies on Western European/European culture.

 

[user23123]

You need a few pods in the interwar period so that Romania will avoid joining Barbarossa, maybe Ukraine survives as an interdependent country or Romania is strong enough to give soviets some broken bones and nothing or not much to show when the Soviet ultimatum for Bessarabia will come .

As for butterflys:

The economy will still resemble that of today Romania,but richer i would expect for example the Romanian wine industry to be more known .
Anther butterfly will be with Gastarbeiter programs in West Germany and Austria where some of the otl Turkish workers will be replace by people coming from Romania.

But on the other hand with economy of Romania developing mabye some of the workes from turkey who in otl went to Germany my find there way in Romania.

Another change ii would expect Romania to have a stronger military Industry i could see them having a special relation with Israel.

After the fall of communism and USSR Ukraine my move closer to the west sooner maybe even joining EU and.or NATO.

​

 

[Jan Olbracht]

I’m interested in Romania specifically due to its unique Latin culture and the fact its inherently more Western or “Mediterranean” (using the term liberally) than Eastern European or “Russian.” Facially, culturally, linguistically Romanians share far more with Spaniards or Italians than Ukranians or Poles.

Facially???

I don't agree with your statements-Romania is culturally way closer to Bulgaria or Serbia than to Spain and is no more "Western" than its neighbours. Language does not dictate culture, just like Poland is culturally closer to non-Slavic Lithuanians, Hungarians or Germans than to Slavic Russians, Romania is closer culturally to Eastern Orthodox Slavic neighbours than to Spaniards or Italians. You could as well argue, that north Indian Hindi speaker is culturally closer to Englishman or German than to south Indian Tamil.

 

[Alanith]

You would need them to remain totally neutral in WW2, though joining the western allies in the last six months or so might be valid.. And even then I'm pretty sure Stalin would just manufacture some excuse and send a couple armies across the border to facilitate a regime change.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Romania is more Balkan than Mediterranean, culturally it strikes me as more similar to the Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks, etc. than to Italians or the Spanish.

It it totally surrounded by a hostile and expansionist USSR, paranoid about anyone not in the Warsaw pact. How does it survive?

Probably goes the right-wing dictatorship route like Greece that could have eerie parallels with Ceausescu's Romania at times. But as a right-wing dictatorship during the Cold War it could get US and NATO support although the Finland route is far more likely.

 

[PakistaniGuyUK]

You need a few pods in the interwar period so that Romania will avoid joining Barbarossa, maybe Ukraine survives as an interdependent country or Romania is strong enough to give soviets some broken bones and nothing or not much to show when the Soviet ultimatum for Bessarabia will come .

As for butterflys:

The economy will still resemble that of today Romania,but richer i would expect for example the Romanian wine industry to be more known .
Anther butterfly will be with Gastarbeiter programs in West Germany and Austria where some of the otl Turkish workers will be replace by people coming from Romania.

But on the other hand with economy of Romania developing mabye some of the workes from turkey who in otl went to Germany my find there way in Romania.

Another change ii would expect Romania to have a stronger military Industry i could see them having a special relation with Israel.

After the fall of communism and USSR Ukraine my move closer to the west sooner maybe even joining EU and.or NATO.

​

Very interesting points! I wonder how a special relationship with Israel would impact the wider region and the Middle East, although ofc Romania is still a minor country in that sense. But still

 

[AltoRegnant]

I think Bulgaria would also likely be capitalist. Yugoslavia would probably go red since it was liberated by its own partisans who later aligned with the soviets

 

[Nelson Mikeson]

Total ASB. Neutral or joining the Axis, Romania could not escape the Soviet dominance. It is not Finland, a country without a strategic position for the USSR. Romania is in the center of Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe, why would they be so altruist to let it survive and not become Communist? To show Hungary, Bulgaria or even Ukraine that you can succesfuly be a Capitalist country in the middle of the USSR's sphere of influence and it would just allow it? To let Romania form a strong army to resist a Warsaw Pact invasion during a possible WWIII?
I recomend better use a No-Communist Eastern Europe premise, maybe Operation Unthinkable or Weimar Survival.

 

[Arkenfolm]

I think Bulgaria would also likely be capitalist. Yugoslavia would probably go red since it was liberated by its own partisans who later aligned with the soviets

In that scenario, I wouldn't be surprised if the Soviet Union let Hungary keep the pre-WWII border, if not something even more extreme like granting even more areas of Romania to the Ukrainian SSR (and maybe Moldovan SSR), Hungary, and even Yugoslavia. They'd likely be occupying it anyway since I can't imagine Romania would do well in holding Transylvania or the Banat and thus the USSR would send their own forces in there to evict the Axis forces. The USSR would probably also demand control over the mountain passes over the Carpathians to further weaken Romania's strategic depth and thus neutralise it as a potential threat.

It could be "justified" by rigged plebiscites or fraudulent elections that result in these territories "democratically voting" to join their fellow communists in Yugoslavia, Hungary, or the Soviet Union. Perhaps a Romanian Civil War after WWII similar to Greece? Given Romania's very poor position, it would be difficult for the West to seriously dispute this, and this solution could be the price to avoid a total communist victory in Romania.

While Yugoslavia and the USSR gain a significant share of pre-war Romania, Hungary would nearly double its own territory. I'd say that absorbing so many ethnic minorities in Transylvania (a lot of Romanians will try and flee to non-communist controlled areas though) and having to deal with the possibility of a revanchist Romania would help keep them in line.

The loss of all of this land and resources would mean a very different Romanian economy, likely much more reliant on oil than OTL.

 

[Pauh the federalist]

Prehapse as a compromise where the soviats annex the entirety of moldovia leaving a free wallachia as a rump romania state for the soviates to deport thier Romanians to like Poland or Germany.

 

[DrakonFin]

Total ASB. Neutral or joining the Axis, Romania could not escape the Soviet dominance. It is not Finland, a country without a strategic position for the USSR. Romania is in the center of Soviet-dominsted Eastetn Europe, why would they be so altruist to let it survive and not become Communist? To show Hungary, Bulgaria or even Ukraine that you can succesfuly be a Capitalist country in the middle of the USSR's sphere of influence and it eould just allow it? To let Romania form a strong army to resist a Warsaw Pact invasion during a possible WWIII?
I recomend better use a No-Communist Eastern Europe premise, maybe Operation Unthinkable or Weimar Survival.

Finland was not "without a strategic position to the USSR". It was right next to the second city of the USSR, for God sakes, and during WWII the Finnish alliance with the Nazis had made the Siege of Leningrad possible, as well as the enemy directly threatening the Murmansk railway, one of the USSR's main Lend-Lease lifelines. During the Cold War, Finland was astride the USSR's northwestern border, and on the flight path of both nuclear missiles and strategic bombers towards and away from crucial parts of the Soviet Union.

People need abandon the misconception that Finland was " strategically unimportant" to the USSR. In its location right next to Leningrad, Finland was quite important to the Soviet government in terms of the defence of the USSR. It was the events of WWII, beginning with the upset of the Winter War, combined with the particular geopolitical position of Finland that made her a sui generis case to Moscow during the Cold War.

To make a long story short, as long as Finland is suitably neutralized and contractually tied to the USSR in its defence policy (based on the Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948), Finland's geographical position (next to traditionally neutral Sweden, with the Baltic Sea between her and continental Europe apart from the USSR) made it less likely to become an active area of land warfare in the event of a war by a Western alliance against USSR. If anyone was to get its armies into Finland on a short notice, with or without the approval of the Finnish government, it was the USSR. The events of WWII conspired to leave Finland unoccupied by the Red Army, very luckily for the Finns, and then post-1944, Finland's unique position (and its readiness to agree to both the peace treaty the USSR demanded, as well as the above-mentioned Treaty of 1948) made it unimportant for the Soviet Union to finish the job of conquering it.

So, rather than Finland being unimportant to the USSR, since 1949 or so the Soviets thought they had Finland secured to their sphere of control. Their most important goals vis-a-vis Finland were satisfied. This view was further enforced by the apparent readiness of the Finnish government to toe the line of "Finno-Soviet friendship", and, for example, the Finnish military to buy Soviet weapons and maintain a neutral defensive policy apparently showing signs of being directed against the West. Keeping up these appearances was the core of Finnish policies towards the Soviet Union during the Paasikivi and Kekkonen presidencies.

 

[Nelson Mikeson]

Finland was not "without a strategic position to the USSR". It was right next to the second city of the USSR, for God sakes, and during WWII the Finnish alliance with the Nazis had made the Siege of Leningrad possible, as well as the enemy directly threatening the Murmansk railway, one of the USSR's main Lend-Lease lifelines. During the Cold War, Finland was astride the USSR's northwestern border, and on the flight path of both nuclear missiles and strategic bombers towards and away from crucial parts of the Soviet Union.

People need abandon the misconception that Finland was " strategically unimportant" to the USSR. In its location right next to Leningrad, Finland was quite important to the Soviet government in terms of the defence of the USSR. It was the events of WWII, beginning with the upset of the Winter War, combined with the particular geopolitical position of Finland that made her a sui generis case to Moscow during the Cold War.

To make a long story short, as long as Finland is suitably neutralized and contractually tied to the USSR in its defence policy (based on the Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948), Finland's geographical position (next to traditionally neutral Sweden, with the Baltic Sea between her and continental Europe apart from the USSR) made it less likely to become an active area of land warfare in the event of a war by a Western alliance against USSR. If anyone was to get its armies into Finland on a short notice, with or without the approval of the Finnish government, it was the USSR. The events of WWII conspired to leave Finland unoccupied by the Red Army, very luckily for the Finns, and then post-1944, Finland's unique position (and its readiness to agree to both the peace treaty the USSR demanded, as well as the above-mentioned Treaty of 1948) made it unimportant for the Soviet Union to finish the job of conquering it.

So, rather than Finland being unimportant to the USSR, since 1949 or so the Soviets thought they had Finland secured to their sphere of control. Their most important goals vis-a-vis Finland were satisfied. This view was further enforced by the apparent readiness of the Finnish government to toe the line of "Finno-Soviet friendship", and, for example, the Finnish military to buy Soviet weapons and maintain a neutral defensive policy apparently showing signs of being directed against the West. Keeping up these appearances was the core of Finnish policies towards the Soviet Union during the Paasikivi and Kekkonen presidencies.

Actually, it's the opposite, Finland is not in a strategic position for the USSR, but is for the Western Allies, bringing them across the border from Leningrad and on route to Murmansk. If the Western Allies got Finland, they surrounded the USSR, if the USSR turned Finland Communist it gained nothing, since it isn't close to any vital NATO heartland. That's why the USSR preferred a neutral Finland, but a puppet Eastern Europe, and especially the GDR, Poland and Romania, historical enemies with claims to USSR territories, with Hungary, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia serving as an outer ring of defense for this countries.

 

[DrakonFin]

Actually, it's the opposite, Finland is not in a strategic position for the USSR, but is for the Western Allies, bringing them across the border from Leningrad and on route to Murmansk. If the Western Allies got Finland, they surrounded the USSR, if the USSR turned Finland Communist it gained nothing, since it isn't close to any vital NATO heartland. That's why the USSR preferred a neutral Finland, but a puppet Eastern Europe, and especially the GDR, Poland and Romania, historical enemies with claims to USSR territories, with Hungary, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia serving as an outer ring of defense for this countries.

The USSR did not "prefer" a neutral Finland. It would be historical overinterpretation, overlooking the role contingency and unintended consequences play for historical outcomes, to argue that the USSR got exactly what it wanted in Finland. In both 1939 and 1944-45, Stalin would have preferred a Red Army-occupied Finland, to be either annexed to the USSR, or made into a People's Republic and a satellite. It would have pushed the USSR's direct defensive sphere west in the Baltic Sea area to the borders of the former Tsarist Russian Empire. Finland is much better used for the defence of northwestern Russia than it is for attacking it in any case, for simple logistical reasons alone. The events conspired against this outcome, and in the circumstances that were realized, like I said above, Moscow was satisfied with a neutralized, treaty-bound Finland. Stalin didn't get all he wanted, so, having much bigger fish to fry elsewhere, he decided that what he got was good enough.

 

[TheSwedishHistorian]

Seems pretty unviable without Bulgaria being independent as well. To me.

That said, I imagine as you say Romania to be much richer and more interconnected to western Europe as ties there would be much stronger than other eastern european countries in this timeline. Blue jeans etc.

Moldova might merge with Romania like East Germany did with West germany post soviet

 

[The Galaxy]

To achieve this, it would be easier if Romania remains somewhat neutral in ww2.

To do that the leaders need to say during the 1930s that they will sell oil to whoever pays the highest price.
The Romanian leadership also needs to say that if the Germans invade then the Romanian oil wells will and the infrastructure will be blown up, which is to be rigged and guarded around the clock every day in case of a German invasion.

If Hitler believes this to be credible, then he will not invade because without the Romanian oil he can not achieve his plans. Hitler would also need Romanian farm products.

Hitlers own words about the Romanian oil, said in 1942 in Finland.



"I always feared - that Russia suddenly would attack Romania in the late fall - and occupy the petroleum wells, and we would have not been ready in the late fall of 1940. If Russia indeed had taken Romanian petroleum wells, than Germany would have been lost. It would have required - just 60 Russian divisions to handle that matter.

In Romania we had of course - at that time - no major units. The Romanian government had turned to us only recently - and what we did have there was laughable. They only had to occupy the petroleum wells. Of course, with our weapons I could not start a, war in September or October. That was out of the question. Naturally, the transfer to the east wasn't that far advanced yet. Of course, the units first had to reconsolidate in the west. First the armaments had to be taken care of because we too had - yes, we also had losses in our campaign in the west. It would have been impossible to attack - before the spring of 19, 41. And if the Russians at that time - in the fall of 1940 - had occupied Romania - taken the petroleum wells, then we would have been, helpless in 1941.

Another Voice In Background: Without petroleum...

Hitler: (Interrupting) We had huge German production: however, the demands of the air force, our Panzer divisions - they are really huge. It is level of consumption that surpasses the imagination. And without the addition of four to five million tons of Romanian petroleum, we could not have fought the war - and would have had to let it be - and that was my big worry."





This also means that the front for Operation Barbarossa will initially be narrower, which means that perhaps the Germans can reach Moscow, it all depends on where and how Stalin demands the soldiers to be deployed.


During the 1930s and 1940s Romania can expand its military with the money from the oil, perhaps Romania only accepts gold or goods, perhaps they accept military equipment that is new and not some old stuff, this might upset Hitler but he has to pay one way or another for the oil.

If the war goes a similar way as in the original timeline, then Stalin will not want to spend time, men and material on attacking Romania but would rather go after the Germans, perhaps a deal is reached that once the red army soldiers reach the border, Romania stops exporting to Germany.

After the war Romania could then accept British and American soldiers, and negotiate some type of deal with the USSR where Romania agrees it will not launch an attack on the USSR but keeps the right to have western allied troops stationed there for defense purposes.

Now how Romania develops after the war depends on who is elected what parties assume power.

Romania would have acquired wealth from the oil and the farm products, the farmers and land owners would be richer, perhaps other industries would also be more developed. It depends on how the Romanian leadership handles the situation.

After the war it could turn into something similar that has been across South America where there are a few at the top who are very rich and the rest live in poverty.

Or it could be something similar to how the Scandinavian countries developed where the wealth and quality of life is higher for most people.

Or it could be something else.

It all depends on who is incharge and what policies are passed.

 

[PakistaniGuyUK]

Now how Romania develops after the war depends on who is elected what parties assume power.

Romania would have acquired wealth from the oil and the farm products, the farmers and land owners would be richer, perhaps other industries would also be more developed. It depends on how the Romanian leadership handles the situation.

After the war it could turn into something similar that has been across South America where there are a few at the top who are very rich and the rest live in poverty.

Or it could be something similar to how the Scandinavian countries developed where the wealth and quality of life is higher for most people.

Or it could be something else.

It all depends on who is incharge and what policies are passed.

Great post!
I think if Romania somehow managed to get through the other side (of the Iron Curtain) post 1945, they'd do okay, as no Western or Western-leaning economy has massively struggled post WW2. I mean even look at Turkey, they have done reasonably well even with a sort of civil war and semi-democracy, and part of it is not even in Europe. Romania would likely have become much richer than Turkey , quite possibly reaching First World levels by the 1970s (best case scenario).

As someone above alluded to the USSR never allowing this due to the message it sends, I think the Americans would be heavily invested in Romania militarily and economically.

Due to its Latin culture I think Romania wouldn't be 'alien' for Northern Europeans and there would be some butterflies in terms of cultural influence. I disagree with some above who put Romania in the same category as Serbia or Bulgaria. The potential of Romania to alter European culture (even if the effect is residual) is far greater.

Though, agreed, this whole scenario verges (or clearly is) ASB as having a democratic Romania would be anomalous. But that aside its just interesting how things would turn out. By the way the Finland side discussion is also fascinating 👍

 

[Jan Olbracht]

Due to its Latin culture I think Romania wouldn't be 'alien' for Northern Europeans and there would be some butterflies in terms of cultural influence. I disagree with some above who put Romania in the same category as Serbia or Bulgaria. The potential of Romania to alter European culture (even if the effect is residual) is far greater.

What Latin culture? In terms of culture Romania is typical Balkan Eastern Orthodox country.

According to your twisted logic Finn is culturaly closer to Hungarian than to Swede and Swede is culturally closer to Englishman than to Finn due to languages they speak, which is BS.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Prehapse as a compromise where the soviats annex the entirety of moldovia leaving a free wallachia as a rump romania state for the soviates to deport thier Romanians to like Poland or Germany.

The Soviets didn't deport the Romanians from Moldova, or at least not many.

As someone above alluded to the USSR never allowing this due to the message it sends, I think the Americans would be heavily invested in Romania militarily and economically.

They wouldn't be allowed to because having American tanks ready to storm into Ukraine and the USAF ready to bomb the Soviet oil industry is a nightmare scenario. They'd fight tooth and nail for anything that ensures Romania is neutral (Bulgaria, on the other hand, might not be, but that could be mitigated by returning Southern Dobruja to Romania, perhaps as a token compensation for the loss of Transylvania and other areas to the USSR and their Hungarian satellite).

I think you'd probably have a strong anti-American/anti-NATO movement anyway, especially if they do chop up Romania as compensation for Romania not being part of the Soviet sphere. Would it really be worth losing half the country, the same half of the country paid for with hundreds of thousands of lives in World War I, just to avoid ending up as a communist satellite state? Even if Romania is "whole", there's still plenty of opportunities for pro-Soviet propaganda.

I think if Romania somehow managed to get through the other side (of the Iron Curtain) post 1945, they'd do okay, as no Western or Western-leaning economy has massively struggled post WW2. I mean even look at Turkey, they have done reasonably well even with a sort of civil war and semi-democracy, and part of it is not even in Europe. Romania would likely have become much richer than Turkey , quite possibly reaching First World levels by the 1970s (best case scenario).

Probably, but by "First World" you'd be looking at something like Greece, Portugal, or Southern Italy. It's "First World" mostly by virtue of being nominally pro-West (even if neutral). In 1938 Romania's GDP per capita was about 70% that of Portugal (the poorest country in Western Europe). It would probably recover faster from WWII than OTL thanks to Western investment though.

Due to its Latin culture I think Romania wouldn't be 'alien' for Northern Europeans and there would be some butterflies in terms of cultural influence. I disagree with some above who put Romania in the same category as Serbia or Bulgaria. The potential of Romania to alter European culture (even if the effect is residual) is far greater.

Not really, the Romanians are dominantly Eastern Orthodox and have had a very long relation with Greece religiously, economically, and politically. Like their neighbours, they were dominated by the Ottoman Empire for centuries which led to all sorts of influences on cuisine, architecture, music, etc. Linguistically Romanian shares a lot of features with other Balkan languages (see Balkan sprachbund) and genetically Romanians trend closer to Serbs, Bulgarians, and Greeks. Culturally they eat and drink similar foods to their Balkan neighbours, have similar folk music styles, and tend to be more conservative and nationalistic than most of Western Europe (the latter wouldn't necessarily go away ITTL, Greece is a good example).

If there's any impact on culture, it wouldn't be because of shared Latin culture, it would be because Romania (and Bulgaria I guess) would be the most accessible of the Balkan countries and a way to offer Balkan culture elements to the world.