Military Review

Romania in the First World War

79
In 1914, the Russian representatives in Romania noted that their attitudes had changed. Previously inhospitable, it has been underlined benevolent. Earlier, Bucharest was guided by Austria-Hungary and Germany - there was an alliance treaty with them from 1883. However, the Romanians began to declare that they did not consider themselves bound. In August, the war began - Berlin and Vienna demanded to act on their side, but Bucharest refused.


In Bucharest, by this time it was decided that it was better to be in the anti-Austrian coalition. Victory as part of this coalition promised participation in the section of Austria-Hungary. Romania hoped to grab Transylvania, among other things, where several million Romanians lived. What was meant was not only the national task of reuniting the Romanians. Transylvania was richer than Romania itself, there was something to put a paw on. In addition, the Romanians really wanted to assign the property of German shareholders in their country.

The outbreak of a major war caused an ambivalence in Bucharest - both fears and hopes. The war gave a chance to achieve territorial increments, joining the side that wins. But who will win? The Romanian elite was very afraid to miscalculate - to act on the side that will lose. Bucharest was at a crossroads. If the Entente had won, then by joining it, it would have been possible to get Transylvania. But if the central powers won? Then you could join them and take Bessarabia. But it was necessary to join someone.

The Romanians for the most part wanted the Entente to be the winning side. The idea of ​​speaking on the side of the Entente gathered big demonstrations, had a lot of activists and administrative support. There were also supporters of a speech on the side of the central powers, but they were few and inconsequential. As an example, the Romanian king (by the name of Hohenzollern) is given - which did not even affect his own antanthophilous spouse.

In the autumn of 1914, news came of the victories of the Entente in the Marne and Galician battles. The defeated Austro-Hungarian army retreated. Russian troops occupied Bukovina. This further aroused Bucharest, he himself was counting on Bukovina, the southern part of which is inhabited mainly by Romanians. Romanian newspapers yelled: “Let's cross the Carpathians! The hour has come! Free the brothers! ”

The Romanians began negotiations on the topic of their entry into the war on the side of the Entente. They sought to sell their performances at a higher price and bargained with gipsy passion. The Romanians wanted to get all of Bukovina, as well as Transylvania, even Hungary to the bend of Tisza, the Serbian part of Banat, and that’s not all. And all this is not for joining the war on the side of the Entente, but for neutrality, simply for not opposing the Entente. However, the Entente countries responded with irritation: Romania could hope for territorial increments only by entering the war against the central powers.

Negotiations dragged on. Even getting a concession for a concession, the Romanians did not go to concrete agreements. At the same time, they continued to maintain contacts with Austro-Germans. Romanian representatives eagerly listened to promises - what will they get for speaking on the Austro-German side. Romania has provided its territory for the transit of military goods to Turkey.

However, there were also objective reasons that restrained Bucharest from immediately speaking out for the Entente, and directing it to the path of double-dealing, bargaining and winning. One of the reasons was Bulgaria. In 1913, the Romanians struck in the back with the Bulgarians, taking advantage of the fact that the Bulgarian army was constrained by its opponents in the 2 of the Balkan war. As a result of the attack, part of Bulgarian territory was captured - southern Dobrudja. After that, the Romanians were afraid that the Bulgarians would do the same to them - they would strike in the back when the Romanians concentrated against Austria-Hungary.

The Romanians in the negotiations insisted on securing their border with the Bulgarians. Specifically, this meant: if the Bulgarians oppose the Romanians, then Russia must stand up for the Romanians against Bulgaria. Of course, in Russia no one smiled at fighting for the Romanian conquest.

Another problem of Romania was the poor equipment of its army. Own military industry in the country was rudimentary. Plus, corruption - the budget allocated for the army did not reach it all.

Another “plug” for Romanians was the problem of the Black Sea straits. Romanian trade mainly went by sea - through the straits. If Russia was established in the straits, then the Romanian import-export was under Russian control. Therefore, the prospect of Russia's approval in the straits made Bucharest no less alarming than London. But in the spring of 1915, Anglo-French operations began in the straits and Bucharest calmed down a bit.

1914 went to 1915. Negotiations continued. Meanwhile, the scales were staggering. Serbs counter-strike Austro-Hungarians rejected. From Italy came the information that this "Latin Romanian sister" is also inclined to speak out against Austria-Hungary. Romanian supporters of entry into the war for the Entente launched a noisy campaign. But the ruling group headed by Prime Minister I. Brattianu decided to wait a little more. And on May 2, the 1915 launched an Austro-German offensive on the Eastern Front. The Russian army was forced to retreat. The Allied operation in the Dardanelles ended in defeat. Bulgaria entered the war on the Austro-German side; Serbia was defeated. Romanian proantanthic enthusiasts are silent.



Bucharest has decided to remain neutral. Instead of a hike through the Carpathians, the Romanians took up trade. The war inflated the prices of grain and cattle, which, together with oil, were the main items of Romanian exports. Austro-Germans bought everything. Romania has become a country like Denmark - neutral, profiting from trade with desperately warring countries. However, not quite Denmark made money on Danish deliveries to Germany. Specifically, a handful of so-called goulash-barons was enriched, but the people from the alien war received only difficulties. Food has jumped in price not only for German importers, but also domestically. In Romania, these contrasts were even stronger; on the Austro-German import, only an oligarchic group has profited.

The 1916 year has come; in May-June, the Russian troops made the Brusilov breakthrough. The defeat of Austria-Hungary was impressive. And here in Bucharest were frightened of being late for the war. After all, Austria-Hungary (or even just Hungary) could conclude a separate peace with the Entente - and then why would anyone need Romanians?

Negotiations on the performance of Romania intensified. Against this was the Russian General Staff - it was considered more profitable to maintain the neutrality of Romania. But the Western allies, especially the French, insisted on Romanian involvement at any cost. Moreover, it was not them who had to pay. France's human resources were close to exhaustion, the new front in the Balkans was to divert at least some enemy forces. Romanians agreed to their terms of entry into the war. But then Brattianu began to extort more concessions, it took another two months to agree on them. In the meantime, the Brusilovsky breakout was exhausted, the Austro-Germans stabilized the front. 4 August 1916 Romania finally joined the Entente. 14 August Bucharest declared war on Austria-Hungary, hoping that this is all. But August 19 declared war against Romania in Germany, and then Bulgaria.

The Romanian command divided its forces: 370 000 man and 185 batteries to the north against Austria-Hungary; 140 000 people and 80 batteries south, against Bulgaria; 50 000 made up the reserve in the middle. In all, 1 200 000 people were mobilized during the war.

"The generals are preparing for the last war" (Winston Churchill). The last war for the Romanian generals was an attack on Bulgaria in 1913. Then the Bulgarian army was tightly constrained on other fronts, there was no one to put up against the Romanians, and they almost met no resistance. In 1916, the Romanians counted on something similar — not battles, but a triumphant walk, while Austro-Hungarians were shackled on other fronts. At first it was. But then quickly began to increase complications that have fallen into a catastrophe.

Bulgaria remembered 1913 well. In general, the Bulgarian troops did not surpass the Romanian counterparts. However, the Bulgarians focused on several points - the attacks against them were successful. Romanian headquarters panicked, the offensive in Transylvania was stopped. The central powers got time to transfer reserves to the Romanian front. In October, their counteroffensive began.

Romania in the First World War


Romanians were taken in ticks from the north and south. In November, the central block launched an offensive against Bucharest. The Russian command recommended that the Romanians keep the army, which means retreat, giving Bucharest without a fight. The Romanian generals hesitated, but still gave the battle and were defeated again. 6 December 1916 The Germans entered Bucharest. The Romanian army collapsed, on 17 December 70 thousand people remained in the divisions at the front.

The remnants of the Romanian army rolled back to the northeast, to Moldova. Millions of civilian refugees rushed there. The flight began in the autumn thaw, then hit the winter frost. Most of the food supplies went to the advancing enemy, so the famine began. For hunger and cold came the typhoid epidemic.

In general, the Romanians won, won, but still lost with the moment of entry into the war. Speak out in 1916 in June - they would take part in consolidating the success of Brusilovsky. But they were too late; speaking in August - when the Brusilov breakthrough was already stuck - the Romanians received a quick revenge of the central powers.

Although Romania entered the war later than the others, it was no less affected than others. Its population numbered more than 7 million; the losses are not exactly known, according to a lower estimate, 220 000 soldiers were killed (120 000 killed in battle and died from wounds, 30 000 from diseases, 70 000 died in captivity), and 270 000 civilians (120 000 from war veterans, too, in the dissents of the military, in disagreement of the military, in their part, in disagreement of the military, in their defense, in disguise, of 150 000 300 of civilians (000 400 in captivity), as well as in disagreement of the military, in disagreement of the military, in their defense, in defense of the military, in defense of the military, in war, 000 XNUMX XNUMX of civilians (XNUMX, XNUMX, in hardening of war, in defense of the defense, in defense of the hind. from hunger and epidemics). According to other estimates, more than XNUMX XNUMX soldiers and more than XNUMX XNUMX civilians died - about one in ten.


Romanian prisoners under the escort of the Turks.

By the beginning of 1917, there was a threat that, in pursuit of the fleeing Romanians, the enemy troops would invade the southern regions of Russia. A huge number of Russian troops were deployed to the Romanian front, stopping the offensive of the central powers.

The defeat and occupation of most of the country was, of course, a terrible shock for the Romanians. The answer was the determination to continue the struggle for their country. The Romanian army still did not disappear. Near 200, 000 soldiers and 80 000 recruits who were mobilized, but did not manage to arm, went to Moldova. In the confusion of defeat, many could desert, but did not. Mobilization was carried out on unoccupied territory. Having received a respite behind the back of the Russian army, the Romanians reorganized, trained and equipped their army with the help of the Entente. By the summer of 1917, it had 460 thousand people.

1917-th year brought new challenges. In February, a revolution occurred in Russia, after which progressive decomposition began in the Russian army. Thanks to him, the Austro-Germans won the 1917 battle in the summer on the Russian front, after which they decided that it was time to end Romania. 6 August began their offensive. But the Romanian troops resisted quite stubbornly. The achievement of Romania required, as it turned out, a considerable price - more than the central powers were willing to pay on a secondary front for them. Their losses grew, and they were forced to stop the offensive. There was a lull on the Romanian front. The Germans began to deploy their troops on the Western Front.

But Romania was threatened not only by the onslaught of enemy armies from the west, but also by a social storm from the east. The victorious Bolsheviks in Russia expected the revolution to spread to other countries. Romania seemed to be an ideal link for the world revolution - tormented by the war, with the already propagated Russian army on its territory, and for a long time suffering from poverty and social inequality.

Romanian statistics in 1903 recorded the following situation: 7 780 large landowners own 51% of the country's agricultural land, and more than 1 250 000 peasant families have the remaining 49%. Other 300 000 peasant families had no land at all. So the agrarian question in Romania was no less acute than in Russia. And also the soldier-peasant deafly hated gentlemen-officers.

The revolutionary committees of the Russian units stationed in Romania called for the Romanian soldiers to join the revolution. If revolutionary ferment had spread to the Romanian army, the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks in Romania would have been a decided matter.

The Romanian elite demonstrated will and solidarity in difficult times. Split, like the Russian, was not. The political system of Romania was different from the Russian one, with its king clinging to absolutism. In Romania, there was a constitutional monarchy with an already established parliamentary form of government. In fact, of course, it was an ordinary oligarchy. But still there was the appearance of a legal opportunity to achieve change through elections, rather than destroying everything.

The king, the government and the parliament agreed on a decision: “Let's say to the peasant that while fighting for Romania, he is fighting for his political and economic liberation.” 5 April 1917 King Ferdinand appealed to the soldiers, promising to carry out radical changes immediately after the war: to introduce the right to vote for all and redistribute the landlords' land in favor of the peasants (keeping silent about the conditions - redemption).

Romanian rulers managed to keep their army. There were a huge number of deserters, mutilation and defectors - but against the background of the collapse in the neighboring Russian army, the Romanian still remained combat-ready and manageable. Whether the Romanian soldier turned out to be nationally more conscious and steadfast than the Russian, or (most likely) the Romanians still missed the first two years of the war. Yes, and the Romanian authorities were much tougher in repression. There was also such a factor: the majority of Romanian peasant soldiers had houses and land behind the front - in the occupied territory. The Russian soldier’s home and land were behind the front, his craving for peace, in his native village, for family and farming contributed to his susceptibility to propaganda and the collapse of the front. The Romanian soldier had to release him to get home. Hatred of the invaders, the desire to liberate their homeland, prevented decomposition, because it required organization and discipline.

In early December, 1917 Romanians concluded a truce with the enemy - immediately after the truce between Russia and Germany. And then the Romanians turned their army in the other direction. In December 1917 they began to seize warehouses of the Russian army; they also surrounded Russian units, selecting weaponwho resisted immediately shot. Russian units did not expect an attack, and because of the collapse, organized opposition was excluded. The Romanians disarmed the Russian army on the territory of Romania and captured its huge reserves. And in January, the 1918 Romanian army invaded Bessarabia. She broke the resistance of scattered detachments and this region of the Russian Empire was occupied.

In January, the Germans 1918 demanded the conclusion of peace (that is, the surrender of Romania and its separate withdrawal from the Entente and the war). The Romanian government had to negotiate conditions. In May, the so-called Bucharest peace was concluded. His text was sent to the king, but he was slow in signing.

Autumn came 1918 th. The position of the central powers was rapidly deteriorating. Entente troops began a successful offensive in the Balkans. The Bulgarian army collapsed and capitulated. The Austro-Hungarian army was falling apart, its units left Bukovina. The Romanians hastily moved their troops into Bukovina, since the Ukrainian troops began to occupy the place of Austro-Hungarians there. Germany evacuated its troops from the occupied part of Romania. But still, Romania did not dare to re-enter the war for a long time, although this did not threaten with any enemy troops. 10 November 1918, the Romanians announced the entry into the war - just the day before its end.

Romania has formally maintained the status of an ally of the Entente at the peace conference in Paris. Initially, it did not bring any bonuses. The conference hosts, the French and the British, simply ignored the envoys from Bucharest. The Romanians discovered that the 1916 agreements with the Entente mean nothing. But then their shares rose against the background of events in Eastern Europe - the revolution in Russia could not be stifled, the revolution also took place in Hungary.

The Romanians were lucky with their salvation by the Russian army at the beginning of 1917. Then they themselves managed to keep their army and state in harsh conditions. Due to this, following the war, they were a big winner, having increased their territory. The “State Council” of the occupied Bessarabia in March 1918 proclaimed unification with Romania. In the occupied Bukovina, too, a meeting was organized, which voted for unification in October. After the collapse of Austria-Hungary and the dissolution of its army, the Romanian troops entered Transylvania - and on December 1 there proclaimed an alliance with Romania. In Versailles, they recognized all joining, interpreting the proclamation as the right of peoples to self-determination.


Romanian troops in Transylvania.
Author:
Photos used:
From Wikipedia
79 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Olgovich
    Olgovich 4 March 2018 07: 31
    +4
    about then their stocks rose amid events in eastern Europe - the revolution in Russia could not be strangled, the revolution also took place in Hungary.

    And Serbia, too, gained territory thanks to the undead revolution in Russia? lol hi
    All those who fought on the side of the Antatta received an increment of territory, indemnity and, in the future, cancellation of debts.
    Russia, thanks to the betrayal of the traitors of the Air Ministry of 1918, received the non-resignation of casualties and losses incurred, the future wars of 1939-40 and the current western border of Russia.
    Terrible price.
    1. Yaroslav 2
      4 March 2018 12: 12
      +1
      Quote: Olgovich
      And Serbia, too, gained territory thanks to the undead revolution in Russia?

      I do not think that Romania and Serbia can be generalized in one case. And Romania, yes, consolidated the occupied territories partly due to the "red danger".

      Quote: Olgovich
      All those who fought on the side of the Antatta received an increment of territory, indemnity and, in the future, cancellation of debts.
      Russia, thanks to the betrayal of the traitors of the Air Force 1918, received

      Yes, one of the meanings of becoming is a comparison of Russia and Romania in WWI. Romanians held out and won.
      1. Weyland
        Weyland 4 March 2018 12: 33
        +2
        Quote: Yaroslav 2
        Romanians held out and won.

        Have you read the article carefully? The Romanians merged and made a separate peace with the Axis - and the day before the end of the WWII they again bravely declared war on it!
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 4 March 2018 12: 59
          +1
          Quote: Weyland
          Did you read the article carefully?

          You ask ... the author! yes
          1. Yaroslav 2
            4 March 2018 15: 11
            +1
            Yeah. Although it happens, the author himself does not fully understand what he wrote.
            Romanians merged and made a separate peace with the Axis

            In the article: Romanians first in August 1917 showed that it’s so easy not to merge them. Then the Austro-Germans did not try to occupy the territory that remained with the Romanians and destroy their army. The Romanians just held out - they kept the army recreated after the defeat of 1916.
          2. Felix99
            Felix99 4 March 2018 15: 46
            +1
            Look carefully at the photo, a soldier in Russian uniform with a rifle accompanies unarmed soldiers in Turkish hats, fez and helmets. Are you sure about the signature? In the details photo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1917.03.0
            4_Le_Miroir _-_ Soldati_turci_facuti_prizonieri_in_
            Dobrogea.png
            Wikipedia signature
            Otoman soldiers imprisoned by Romanian troops, 1916
            Română: Soldati turci făcuti prizonieri from Dobrogoy, 1916
            Date March 4, 1917
            Source French magazine "Le Miroir", number 173 from March 4, 1917.
            1. Yaroslav 2
              4 March 2018 18: 06
              +1
              Oh. Really, really screwed up with a photo.
      2. Olgovich
        Olgovich 4 March 2018 12: 58
        0
        Quote: Yaroslav 2
        I do not think that Romania and Serbia can be generalized in one case. And Romania, yes, consolidated the occupied territories partly due to the "red danger".

        Why so? It is even possible: both that and that have received territories after a victory in structure of Entente.
        Quote: Yaroslav 2
        secured the occupied territories partly due to the "red danger".

        Transylvania and Dobrudja? belay As for Bessarabia, before the Bolsheviks no one had a mouth on it, it all started after them.
        Quote: Yaroslav 2
        Yes, one of the meanings of becoming is a comparison of Russia and Romania in WWI. Romanians held out and won.

        And Russia survived and did not lose the war. The traitors who hit in the back lost the war.
        Rymyns (lucky) did not have such.
      3. antivirus
        antivirus 4 March 2018 15: 54
        0
        On April 5, 1917, King Ferdinand addressed the soldiers, promising immediately after the war to carry out radical transformations: introduce suffrage for all and carry out the redistribution of landowners' land in favor of the peasants (without mentioning the conditions - redemption).


        I wrote a few months ago about Nick 2-- and would have retained power

        and half a year. from Jan 18g, do not sign a separate peace with the center of powers - a feat
  2. Vard
    Vard 4 March 2018 07: 33
    +2
    Romania is the hyena of Europe ... Gypsies ... With all their mentality ... And what they did in the Great Patriotic War ... And now they want hotel ... Moldova and the southern parts of Ukraine ...
    1. There is
      There is 4 March 2018 09: 16
      +2
      They used to say that Poland is a hyena of Europe. Then Hungary. Now Romania. So who is the hyena?
      1. Yaroslav 2
        4 March 2018 09: 42
        +3
        Yes these hyenas flock.
      2. Lenivets2
        Lenivets2 4 March 2018 14: 16
        0
        About Poland, ask Churchill.
        And who said that about Hungary? hi
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 4 March 2018 15: 55
          0
          probably Admiral Nelson?
          1. Lenivets2
            Lenivets2 4 March 2018 16: 02
            0
            And in the time of Nelson was independent Hungary?
            Or is it sarcasm? what
            1. antivirus
              antivirus 4 March 2018 16: 07
              0
              Yes. joke

              to refer to the greats, who were often mistaken, is not always right
              1. Lenivets2
                Lenivets2 4 March 2018 16: 08
                +1
                So I do not refer to the great ones, but explain that the labels about the hyena of Europe were not hung by us, but by the Europeans themselves. hi
  3. Monarchist
    Monarchist 4 March 2018 07: 43
    +4
    The Romanian elite had "envious eyes, arched hands, and wills in inverse proportion." If they had more will, they would have entered the war earlier.
    The author believes that they should have acted at the beginning of the Brusilovsky offensive, perhaps he is right. It is impossible to say that Romania’s entry into the war helped Russia, but axis countries also benefited more from their neutrality.
    To a certain extent, it reminds WWII, when Turkish neutrality was in the hands of Hitler, and accordingly did not suit: Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt
    1. There is
      There is 4 March 2018 09: 22
      0
      The Romanians would probably want to speak early in World War I, only they needed to know what they were fighting for. And then the great powers will always tear out a piece for themselves more fat, and only the bones get the weaker ones. In the war of 1877-78, the Romanians fought with Russia against Turkey, and in the end they even lost a little of their land.
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 4 March 2018 11: 01
        +3
        Quote: Meron
        Romanians, together with Russia, opposed Turkey, and in the end they even lost a little of their land.

        They got INDEPENDENCE, denMay 9- Independence Day of Romania 1877. South Bessarabia did not have a relationship with Romania - you cannot lose what you do not have.
        But I ARROW with Constance (the main port of Romania so far) -I acquired it after this war
        1. pytar
          pytar 4 March 2018 13: 52
          +2
          Dobrudja, before 1878, there was NEVER Romanian in history! The Danube has stood for centuries as an esthetic border between Romanians and Bulgarians. By surrendering Northern Dobrudja to the Romanians in 1877, Russia created points of conflict between Orthodox Bulgarians and Romanians. The Romanian king Carol I and the Romanian government were reluctant to accept this territory inhabited by 13 for centuries with the Bulgarians into their own state, fearing that Romania would have further problems with the newly created Bulgarian state. But as they say "appetite comes with food!" In the 1913, Romania, crawling from the difficult situation of Bulgaria during the 2-Balkan war, attacked from the rear! It was the FIRST WAR IN HISTORY BETWEEN ROMANIA AND BULGARIA! It’s difficult to call it a war, since there were no Bulgarian troops in the north! The Romanians crossed the entire Southern Dobrudja and Mysia reaching 14 km. from Sofia, robbing civilians. It was occupied and annexed to Romania and South Dobrudja, up to the city of Varna! On the occupied Romanian lands, persecution and repression of the Bulgarian population began. And what does the Dobruja mean for the Bulgarians? In historical terms, this land for the Bulgarians matters as the Moscow region for the Russians! ARBW AND THE FIRST PIECE OF BULGARIAN LAND IN THE BALKANS, conquered 13 centuries ago by the Bulgarian Kang Asparuh from Byzantium! In Dobrudja in 681 in Danube Bulgaria is born! In economic terms, Dobruzhda is the breadbasket of Bulgaria. A fertile, plain field populated with a large Bulgarian population! To arouse the appetites of the Romanians in the south of the Danube was a huge strategic mistake for Russian politics on the Balkans.
          1. Severski
            Severski 5 March 2018 11: 45
            0
            They say that Friendship belonged to Dacia BC. And also at the beginning of the 14th century, belonged to Wallachia.
            1. pytar
              pytar 5 March 2018 12: 25
              +1
              Dobrudja, like the entire Danube Delta, was inhabited by the Thracian tribe Geti (lat .: getae). Herodotus writes about them: “Geti the most courageous and fair among the Thracians”. Related Thracians Dacian tribes inhabited the present Wallachia and the Carpathians. In the pre-Roman and Roman period, Wallachia was called Dacia. Bulgaria occurs long before the advent of Wallachia. Moreover, for almost 200 years she owns more territory north of the Danube than in the south. All of today's Romania, half of Hungary, part of Moldova were almost 200 years into Bulgaria. The Bulgarian people themselves are formed on the territory of Dobrudja, Mysia, Thrace and Macedonia, from the 7 to the 9 century. Dobrogea never belonged to Wallachia! in the 14 century, after the Turks were defeated by the Wallachian commander Mircho Stara in the battle of Rovin on May 17 on May 1395, the Dobrudjan despot (feudal title) Ivanko tried to enter the anti-Ottoman alliance with the Wallachians. The idea failed and Bayazid I liquidated the despotism by taking and destroying the Kaliakra fortress, which was the capital of this Bulgarian feudal despotism. Now the remains of the fortress are a cultural-historical object. If you visit the ego, you can examine the artifacts, inscriptions (they are all in Bulgarian). By the way, in Wallachia for a long time Bulgarian was the official language. For centuries, divine services have been held in Orthodox churches and temples. It was in Romania almost until 1920. Cyrilica was the official written language.
              1. Severski
                Severski 5 March 2018 12: 58
                0
                Thank you for the information, but at first you said: Dobrudja, until 1878. NEVER was Romanian in history!

                And then you say that at first it belonged to the Bulgarians and only then to the Romanians.
                1. pytar
                  pytar 5 March 2018 15: 57
                  +1
                  I do not see any contradiction ?! request
                  Dobrudja, before 1878, there was NEVER Romanian in history!

                  Neither Wallachian nor Romanian! Romanians / Wallachians / consider themselves heirs and descendants of the Dacians. There were no Dacians south of the Danube. When the Proto-Bulgarians arrived in the 7 century, Dobrudja, like the whole Balkan Peninsula, was owned by Byzantium. First settled in Dobrudzhi (Kan Asparuh) and Macedonia (brother of Asparuh, Kan Coober), gave rise to the Bulgarian state. I already wrote about how Northern and then Southern Dobrogea became a part of Romania and what it led to. hi
                  1. Severski
                    Severski 6 March 2018 22: 53
                    0
                    Strange, here is the map: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Atlas_of_Rom
                    ania # / media / File% 3ALangThraco-Illyri.png
                    Dacians are like to the Balkan mountains.

                    First Dacian state: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Atlas_of_Rom
                    ania # / media / File% 3ADacia_82_BC.png


                    Further, the beginning of the 15th century, Friendship as part of Wallachia: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Atlas_of_Rom
                    ania # / media / File% 3AWallachia_Mircea_the_Elder.png
                    1. pytar
                      pytar 7 March 2018 09: 56
                      +1
                      Thank! Amused! good These cards are modern Romanian interpretations that have nothing to do with history. And in Romania there are "great rukry ..."! Are there at least one affirmation of authoritative international historians on the abstracts of Romanian authors?
                      Particularly amused "inclusion" of Dobrudjan despotism in the composition of Vlachia! lol By 14 century. Bulgaria is entering a period of feudal fragmentation. Many feudal lords crawling weakening central authority, become semi or independent. Dobrudjan despotism to the feudal lord Dobrotits is one of them. In 1371, the Bulgarian Tsar Yoan Alexander divided the country between his heirs. Tarnovo kingdom with the ruler of Joan Shishman and the Vidin kingdom with the ruler of Joan Sratsimir. Several of the western feudal lords swear allegiance to the then powerful Serbian kingdom of Dushan. As a result, Bulgaria is recognized, weakened and easily falls under Ottoman slavery.
                      1. Severski
                        Severski 8 March 2018 18: 37
                        0
                        After the defeat of the Turks by the forces of Tamerlane in 1402, the period of civil strife and the struggle for power begins in the battle of Angora in the Ottoman state. Mircea together with the Hungarians use it to organize a new crusade against the Ottomans. In 1404, he returned to Wallachia Dobrudja.


                        https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Мирча_I_Старый

                        The whole world knows that Friendship was all the same in the Wallachia, except for the Bulgarians.

                        P.S. I'm glad you have fun.
                    2. pytar
                      pytar 8 March 2018 23: 06
                      0
                      The whole world knows that Dobruzh was still part of Wallachia

                      They write anything on the wiki. In the version you cite, there is not a single Romanian source. So "the whole world" obviously does not know! laughing I am even ready to agree with that passage "In the 1404 year, he returns to Wallachia Dobrudja." Only instead of the word "returns", I put the word "briefly attached." Moreover, it is not indicated how much time! A year or two? For comparison, you can read the Russian-language version of the wiki about Dobrudja, where there is not a word about no Mircea and no Wallachian possessions south of the Danube.
                      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%BE%D0%B1%
                      D1%80%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B0
                      Moreover, the whole of Blachia from Transylvania and Bessarabia, were almost 200 years in the First Bulgarian Kingdom.
                      I'm glad you have fun.

                      Yes! I am cheerful, positively tuned people! And I wish you such a mood! yes
        2. antivirus
          antivirus 4 March 2018 15: 58
          0
          STRENGTH NEEDS AGAINST ALLIES

          wrote it many times
          and the Romanians were right in their calculations-- FRIENDS WILL TERMINATE A WEAK “WEAPONER” IN PART, IN ITS INTERESTS
        3. Severski
          Severski 5 March 2018 11: 32
          0
          After the Crimean War, southern Bessarabia was returned to the Principality of Moldova, to which it belonged before. Only then Moldova united with Wallachia and formed Romania. So this was just Romanian territory. Not to know such a “trifle”, the author of reading, is very impolite.
      2. Lenivets2
        Lenivets2 4 March 2018 14: 21
        +2
        Quote: Meron
        The Romanians would probably like to speak early in World War I, only they needed to know what they were fighting for. And then the great powers will always tear out a piece for themselves more fat, and only the bones get the weaker ones. In the war of 1877-78, the Romanians fought with Russia against Turkey, and in the end they even lost a little of their land.

        A piece of both sides was offered to them immediately and rather bold, but the Romanians could not choose which fattener in any way and requires the least effort.
    2. Olgovich
      Olgovich 4 March 2018 10: 54
      0
      Quote: Monarchist
      The author believes that they should have acted at the beginning of the Brusilovsky offensive, perhaps he is right.

      So they decided to enter the war only AFTER the luck of the Lutsk breakthrough, when the defeat of A-Hungary was, it seemed, inevitable. They wanted to come to everything ready.
      Given the huge increase in the territory of Romania according to the results of the WWII, they did the right thing.
  4. Cheburator
    Cheburator 4 March 2018 09: 10
    +19
    on the picture
    Romanian prisoners under the escort of the Turks.

    The crowd of captured Turks is clearly visible
    And judging by the front character - they are ours.
    Here they are - Turks in Russian captivity: the same form and characteristic hats.



    Romanian rulers managed to save their army.
    Just not old.
    After a series of defeats, by mid-December 1916, there were only 12 thousand bayonets in 70 active Romanian infantry divisions — the Romanian army virtually ceased to exist. All that came later was recreated with the support of Russia and France.
    Mainly - of Russia.
    1. Horseman without a head
      Horseman without a head 4 March 2018 09: 54
      +18
      on the picture
      Romanian prisoners under the escort of the Turks.
      The crowd of captured Turks is clearly visible

      Yes, it’s just the Turks who drive
      And the Romanians were lucky to stand on the side of the winners
      They lost the army, they made a separate peace - but they didn’t even offend them.
      The situation with Romania is the answer to those who think that Russia, which endured the main burden of the FDA in its key periods, would be offended after the victorious end of the war.
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich 4 March 2018 11: 20
        +1
        Quote: The Headless Horseman
        And the Romanians were lucky to stand on the side of the winners

        Romanians fought on the side of the vanquished, they were drafted into the army of A-Hungary from the territories that were part of A-Hungary
        Quote: The Headless Horseman
        The situation with Romania is the answer to those who think that Russia, which endured the main burden of the FDA in its key periods, would be offended after the victorious end of the war.

        All allies of the Entente received an increase in territories, population, indemnities, cancellation of debts and, most importantly, from the end of 1918 began to build PEACEFUL life and restore the destroyed economy.
        In Russia, where the Bolsheviks “ended” the war on October 25, 1917, the war (and much worse than the WWII) was just beginning ...
        1. Horseman without a head
          Horseman without a head 4 March 2018 11: 29
          +17
          By Romanians I meant the Romanian kingdom.
          Ethnic Romanians, of course, served in the Austro-Hungarian army - 8 regimental districts were “Romanian” (that is, 8 regiments were more than 50% Romanians).
          All allies of the Entente received an increase in territories, population, indemnities, cancellation of debts and, most importantly, from the end of 1918 began to build PEACEFUL life and restore the destroyed economy.
          In Russia, where the war was “finished” on October 25, 1917, the war (and much worse than the WWII) was just beginning

          Totally agree with you.
          Is he who from abroad called for the defeat of his belligerent army and called for turning the external war into a civil war - not a state criminal? During the Second World War he would have been slapped and rightly so.
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich 4 March 2018 11: 48
            +2
            Quote: The Headless Horseman
            By Romanians I meant the Romanian kingdom.

            This was understandable, I just wanted to focus on such an incident.
            Quote: The Headless Horseman
            Is he who from abroad called for the defeat of his belligerent army and called for turning the external war into a civil war - not a state criminal?

            Of course the criminal and not he alone.
            Quote: The Headless Horseman
            During the Second World War he would have been slapped and rightly so.

            So it (and his whole family as a whole) to slap was a mass of reasons since the 1880s.
            And in exile (!) He skated .... he married, hunted, wrote the piano, water and got fat so that his mother-in-law was already surprised: "" Ek smashed you! "
            You can’t do this with the enemies of the state, you can’t ....
            1. Horseman without a head
              Horseman without a head 4 March 2018 11: 59
              +17
              Of course you can’t, liberalism. They didn’t spare anyone.
              By the way, I like the following joke.
              Müller calls Stirlitz and says: Stirlitz, it turns out you are a Russian spy. Shame on you?
              To which Stirlitz answers him: Why should I be ashamed? After all, Lenin was a German spy - and nothing. laughing
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich 4 March 2018 12: 04
                +2
                Quote: The Headless Horseman
                To which Stirlitz answers him: Why should I be ashamed? After all, Lenin was a German spy - and nothing.

                Good! good
                I have not heard before ....
      2. Yaroslav 2
        4 March 2018 11: 20
        +2
        Quote: The Headless Horseman
        Yes, it’s just the Turks who drive

        Maybe. I took the picture from Vicki, where it was precisely such a signature (in Romanian) - the captured Romanians were escorted by the Turks. Maybe they got it wrong.
      3. antivirus
        antivirus 4 March 2018 16: 02
        0
        EVERYTHING PROMISED WOULD BE GIVEN, EXCEPT STRAINS.
        this is the defeat of Russian diplomacy, with the victory of the army
        But what would land do in RI? -
        - 16 million bayonets that would get ???
        1. Some kind of compote
          Some kind of compote 4 March 2018 18: 26
          +15
          The straits would have come together under the joint control of the Entente powers (everything is better than under the Turks). Such an Act existed, was approved by the parties
          And if Russia has the largest army in Europe - everything would have given
          How cute
          1. antivirus
            antivirus 4 March 2018 20: 43
            0
            I wrote boiling water many times, the strength is needed against the allies
            WHO AND WHAT HAD (ARMY .. OR IN PANTS ..) - THIS IS ONE,
            and the determination to fight against its yesterday’s allies in WWI and strategic in finance and industrial development and culture (were the Diaghilev seasons in Berlin and Vienna?) for the past 20 years --- THIS IS BREAKING THE WHOLE WORLD POLITICAL SYSTEM.
            ARMY SEPARATELY,
            DIPLOMACY SEPARATELY,
            THE DECISION OF THE WHOLE RULING CLASS TO COMBAT WITH ITS "FRIENDS" - OTHER

            each block of system states is checked for lice separately and collectively it looks AMOUNT OF COMPETENCIES - the ability to insist on your own vision of the world.

            then there could be no war or just graters in Versailles.
            And in Potsdam there was an opportunity and the IVS did not yield to the allies (learned a lesson)

            would roll out "You owe us xxx. we set them off for this and that"
            the thought is not finished - I don’t know how the “Russian spring” was turned in 14, who and why (and with whom) offered not to quarrel
            1. Some kind of compote
              Some kind of compote 4 March 2018 20: 47
              +15
              Who would have rolled out there
              with such power
              kids (Serbs, Italians, Romanians) didn’t offend
  5. There is
    There is 4 March 2018 09: 18
    +1
    Ginderburg said that if the Romanians were allies of the Germans, they would have won the First World War.
    1. Cheburator
      Cheburator 4 March 2018 09: 26
      +19
      Hitler said that if Romania ends the war on the side on which it started, it only means that during the war she ran away (that is, changed allies) 2 times laughing
      I recalled an interesting phrase)
      1. There is
        There is 4 March 2018 10: 44
        +1
        It seems that the first world war began with the Entente, and ended with the Entente. And before I do not remember that the Romanians would change the side of the conflict. So either Hitler breshet, or you.
        1. Weyland
          Weyland 4 March 2018 12: 38
          +1
          Quote: Meron
          And before I do not remember that the Romanians would change the side of the conflict.

          They clearly changed the side in WWII - and in the WWII they made a separate peace, and a day before the end of the WWII they again heroically entered the war! The same is true for Italy in WWII.
          1. Severski
            Severski 5 March 2018 11: 49
            0
            Perhaps you understand that Hitler could not say something that had never happened before.
      2. antivirus
        antivirus 4 March 2018 16: 04
        0
        knowing all this, Paulus climbed to Stalingrad, substituting his flanks under Romanian barriers

        here are the follies!
    2. Yaroslav 2
      4 March 2018 11: 25
      +2
      In Romania, they also said then: if we take the side of the Austro-Germans, then they will win the war. I think that, like Hindenburg, they exaggerated.
    3. Lenivets2
      Lenivets2 4 March 2018 14: 24
      0
      Quote: Meron
      Ginderburg said that if the Romanians were allies of the Germans, they would have won the First World War.

      This is not your first time writing this.
      But could you throw off a reference where this nonsense is attributed to Ginderburg? hi
      1. Severski
        Severski 5 March 2018 12: 02
        0
        The German high command was seriously worried about the prospect of Romania entering the war, Paul von Hindenburg writing:

        It is certain that so relatively small a state as Rumania had never before been given a role so important, and, indeed, so decisive for the history of the world at so favorable a moment. Never before had two great Powers like Germany and Austria found themselves so much at the mercy of the military resources of a country which had scarcely one twentieth of the population of the two great states. Judging by the military situation, it was to be expected that Rumania had only to advance where she wished to decide the world war in favor of those Powers which had been hurling themselves at us in vain for years. Thus everything seemed to depend on whether Rumania was ready to make any sort of use of her momentary advantage. [31]

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania_during_Wo
        rld_War_I
  6. polpot
    polpot 4 March 2018 09: 42
    +2
    Such allies as enemies are not needed, they betrayed Russia, they betrayed Germany, and NATO is next in line.
  7. captain
    captain 4 March 2018 13: 23
    0
    What Romanians are greedy for someone else’s good ...
    1. Severski
      Severski 5 March 2018 12: 03
      0
      Well they like, the lands inhabited by Romanians took
      1. Yaroslav 2
        9 March 2018 16: 35
        0
        Mostly so. But on top of this - northern Bukovina (Ukrainian), southern Bessarabia - also Ukrainian + land inhabited by Hungarians. They also wanted the Serbian part of Banat + to take southern Dobrudja, where the Romanians had a few percent in the population.
  8. Serge Gorely
    Serge Gorely 4 March 2018 14: 27
    +3
    By the way! Who can tell me, in the constantly betraying Russia Bulgaria live brothers (they are Orthodox !!!) And in pro-Orthodox Romania there are no brothers ...
    1. Yaroslav 2
      4 March 2018 15: 24
      +1
      As for the Bulgarians constantly betraying Russia - you turned it down. In WWII, for example, the Bulgarians came out on our side. In 1944 only, but even so. In WWI, the Bulgarians fought with their neighbors because of the most acute territorial disputes. It so happened that these neighbors were allies of Russia. There is no betrayal, but bases (not from the side of the Bulgarians).
      1. Lenivets2
        Lenivets2 4 March 2018 15: 30
        +1
        "In WWII, for example, the Bulgarians came out on our side. In 1944 only, but even so"
        You are joking?
        Then, following your logic, the Hungarians, Romanians, Finns ... were allies of the USSR, not Germany? what
        1. pytar
          pytar 4 March 2018 16: 12
          +2
          Then, following your logic, the Hungarians, Romanians, Finns ... were allies of the USSR, not Germany?

          In WWII, Bulgaria and the USSR supported the norms. diplomatic relationsuntil 05.09.1944! The difference between the Bulgarians and the Hungarians, Romanians, Finns you mentioned was that the Bulgarian army was not sent to the Eastern Front and the Bulgarians did not fight against the Soviet Union!
          Since the beginning of October 1944, 3 of the Bulgarian army with the total composition of half a million soldiers took part in the war against the Wehrmacht. The first BGA in the 99 662 people. even was directly included in the 3-Ukrainian front, under the command of Marshal Tolbukhin!
          1. Lenivets2
            Lenivets2 4 March 2018 16: 20
            +1
            Quote: pytar
            Then, following your logic, the Hungarians, Romanians, Finns ... were allies of the USSR, not Germany?

            In WWII, Bulgaria and the USSR supported the norms. diplomatic relationsuntil 05.09.1944/XNUMX/XNUMX! The difference between the Bulgarians and the Hungarians, Romanians, Finns you mentioned was that the Bulgarian army was not sent to the Eastern Front and the Bulgarians against the Soviet Union did not fight!
            Since the beginning of October 1944, 3 of the Bulgarian army with the total composition of half a million soldiers took part in the war against the Wehrmacht. The first BGA in the 99 662 people. even was directly included in the 3-Ukrainian front, under the command of Marshal Tolbukhin!

            Do you understand that this mantra, about did not send troops, has already hesitated?
            Turn on logic and think.
            Bulgaria is fighting on the side of Germany.
            Each Bulgarian division put on the western front = German removed from this front and directed to the eastern front.
            You provided the territory for the deployment of aviation, warehouses, hospitals, transportation, ....
            You provided airfields.
            Your industry worked for the Germans .....
            And after all this, how do you repeat the mantra about Bulgaria that did not declare war on the USSR? wink
            1. pytar
              pytar 4 March 2018 17: 32
              +2
              Do you understand that this mantra, about did not send troops, has already hesitated?

              Bulgaria did not send troops to the Eastern Front and did not fight against the USSR! It is a fact!
              And mantras, this is what you repeat!
              Turn on logic and think.

              This does not apply to me. Take advantage of the advice yourself!
              Each Bulgarian division put on the western front = German removed from this front and directed to the eastern front.

              What is the "western front"? Do you understand the stakes of the world? laughing
              You provided the territory for the deployment of aviation, warehouses, hospitals, transportation, .... You provided airfields. Your industry worked for the Germans .....

              Like all occupied countries! What kind of "industry" by the way say ...?!
              And after all this, how do you repeat the mantra about Bulgaria that did not declare war on the USSR?

              Those who are repeating your mantras, Sloth ... fool Your thousand times repeated lie will not become true, no matter how hard you try. negative
              1. Lenivets2
                Lenivets2 4 March 2018 19: 45
                +2
                "Bulgaria did not send troops to the Eastern Front and did not fight against the USSR! This is a FACT!
                And mantras, this is what you repeat! "

                Are you kidding me?
                Try re-reading my comment again. hi

                "What is the" western front "? Do you understand the stakes of the world?"
                For the Germans (and the Bulgarians), the war with the British, Serbs and then the Amers is not a Western front?

                "Like all occupied countries! What kind of" industry "by the way, say ...?!"
                So you were occupied?
                And besides you, does anyone know about this?

                "Your thousand times repeated lie will not become true, no matter how hard you try."
                Do not be fooled by illusions, I have not said a word of lie.
                Exclusively facts.
                And it’s not my fault that they do not fit into your idea of ​​history.

                ps and I repeat about the logic, try to turn it on anyway.
                It can work out. hi
              2. Lenivets2
                Lenivets2 4 March 2018 23: 21
                +2
                You can not be half pregnant.
                So decide whether you were an ally of Germany (and you were just them) or did not fight against the USSR?
                Your official declaration of war is not even worth a piece of paper for a toilet.
                Your participation is important: Each Bulgarian division put on the western front = German removed from this front and directed to the eastern front.
                You provided the territory for the deployment of aviation, warehouses, hospitals, transportation, ....
                You provided airfields.
                Your industry worked for the Germans .....
                1. alatanas
                  alatanas 6 March 2018 16: 14
                  +1
                  1) We were an ally of Germany - a fact.
                  2) We were in the diploma. relations with the USSR to 5.09.1944. - also a fact.
                  3) The Bulgarian troops did not fight on the territory of the USSR - again a fact.
                  4) Soviet troops entered the territory of Bulgaria without casualties - a fact.
                  5) Bulgaria fought against the Germans as part of the 3rd Ukrainian Front, with its first and second armies, showed heroism in the battles near Lake Balaton and ended the war in the city of Klagenfurt (Austria), where it came into contact with the 3rd British Army advancing from Italy - again a fact.
                  So compare with all the other allies of the Third Reich and draw conclusions! hi
      2. Lenivets2
        Lenivets2 4 March 2018 15: 56
        +2
        "In 1944 only, but even so."
        That is, when they and their masters were defeated, the outcome of WWII was predetermined and their help was not needed (and it was purely symbolic) did they come along with us?
        I bowed to my little brothers, they saved us from unchangeable death! negative
        1. pytar
          pytar 4 March 2018 16: 20
          +2
          That is, when they and their masters were defeated, the outcome of WWII was predetermined and their help was not needed (and it was purely symbolic) did they come along with us?

          Not saved from imminent death, of course! But they fought quite well! At own losses 32 thousand. Bulgarians managed to destroy 78-80 thousand. Germans and a significant amount of military equipment! The bringing of the Bulgarian army to the defeat of Nazi Germany was also recognized in Moscow! 360 soldiers and officers of the BGA were awarded Soviet orders, 120 of thousands of servicemen - with the medal "For the victory over Germany in the Great Patriotic War of the 1941 — 1945 years." If the memory fails, in Moscow 3 saluted the victories of the Bulgarian army! Look for info how many such salutes were there during the whole war? Commander-in-Chief of the 1-BGA, Gen. V. Stoychev took part in the Victory Parade on Red Square in 1945
      3. pytar
        pytar 4 March 2018 16: 08
        +1
        As for the Bulgarians constantly betraying Russia - you turned it down. In WWII, for example, the Bulgarians came out on our side. In 1944 only, but even so. In WWI, the Bulgarians fought with their neighbors because of the most acute territorial disputes. It so happened that these neighbors were allies of Russia. There is no betrayal, but bases (not from the side of the Bulgarians).

        100% true! good Respect to you, Yaroslav! hi
  9. Yaroslav 2
    4 March 2018 18: 40
    +1
    In general, the Bulgarian theme is appropriate here. Bulgaria found itself in adversaries of the Entente (including Russia) largely due to the actions of Romania. In 1913, Romanians seized part of the Bulgarian territory. The challenge for the Bulgarians was the return of the territory. Russia could not help in this, so the Bulgarians sided with the Germans. That is, there was a setup from the side of the Romanians, pushing Bulgaria towards the Austro-Germans.
    We must look at the 1 and 2 Balkan wars - it is clear from them why the Bulgarians ended up as German allies. And not just "non-brother-brothers."
    1. pytar
      pytar 4 March 2018 18: 49
      +1
      In 1913, Romanians seized part of the Bulgarian territory. The challenge for the Bulgarians was the return of the territory.

      Similarly happened with Macedonia, occupied by Serbia and Greece. In the same 1913, Bulgaria, which had borne the bulk of the war against Turkey, found itself in a position to repulse its former allies from the insidious collusion! Millions of Bulgarians fell into occupation, more merciless and cruel than Turkish. As an example, I will give the fact that the Bulgarian population in the Ottoman Empire had at least the right to create their own schools, where the children learned in Bulgarian. In 1870, Sultan Abdul Azis held a plebiscite and allowed the Bulgarians to establish their own Orthodox Exarchy. Everything was liquidated, with new occupants - Greeks, Serbs and Romanians. By the level of persecution of the Bulgarian population, they exceeded the Turks. The Bulgarians who left in the Free part of the Fatherland did not have a choice "which side will fight in the WWI"! For them, the question was: "Who will be our ally, in our Just Cause?"
    2. Severski
      Severski 5 March 2018 12: 07
      0
      Bulgaria became an ally of the Central Powers in 1915. And Romania started the war only in 1916. So Romania is no side here. Bulgaria began military operations against Serbia.
      1. alatanas
        alatanas 6 March 2018 16: 18
        +1
        There was something to fight against Serbia (see 1885, 1913)
        1. pytar
          pytar 6 March 2018 16: 42
          +1
          And a lot ... As I know, the most unsupported Bulgarian military units were just from the natives from the occupied Serbs of Macedonia.
          1. Severski
            Severski 6 March 2018 22: 42
            +1
            Macedonia is Bulgaria, Cyprus is Greece, Montenegro is Serbia, Moldova is Romania.
        2. Severski
          Severski 6 March 2018 22: 40
          +1
          I agree. The reason for the war against the Entente was Serbia and not Romania
          1. Yaroslav 2
            9 March 2018 16: 31
            +1
            Romania was also a reason for the Bulgarians to oppose the Entente. The agreement with Germany stated this: if Romania enters the war on the side of the Entente, then after the defeat of the Romanians, Bulgaria should have got southern Dobrudja (which the Germans committed to help). The fact that Romania will support the Entente (sooner or later, but will) at the time of the German-Bulgarian agreement, few doubted.
            1. Severski
              Severski 12 March 2018 22: 12
              0
              Romania entered the war later than Bulgaria. And there was not so much confidence that Romania would take the side of the Entente. It could well become an ally of Germany and Austria-Hungary. In 63, too, everyone thought that there would be a nuclear war, but it didn’t happen. Bulgaria simply noted the circle of its interests, as all countries do before the war.