WorldWar2.ro Forum [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

WorldWar2.ro Forum > Ancient, Medieval and Modern History > Russia and the Independence War

Posted by: MMM December 10, 2013 04:29 pm

QUOTE (Radub @ December 10, 2013 11:36 am)

tsarist Russia was actually quite "friendly" to Romania at the time, it was an ally in the War of Independence
Radu

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

Posted by: Radub December 10, 2013 06:04 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ December 10, 2013 04:29 pm)

However, the mere fact (!) that Russians decided to "exchange" Romanian territories without even bothering to announce us led to a huge "loss of sympathy" in their regard.

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

Posted by: MMM December 11, 2013 08:11 am

QUOTE (Radub @ December 10, 2013 09:04 pm)

QUOTE (MMM @ December 10, 2013 04:29 pm)

However, the mere fact (!) that Russians decided to "exchange" Romanian territories without even bothering to announce us led to a huge "loss of sympathy" in their regard.

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

Well, this link should make you remember, shouldn't it?
http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C4%83zboiul_de_Independen%C8%9B%C4%83_al_Rom%C3%A2niei#Urm.C4.83ri
Perhaps ”compensation” is more appropriate...

Posted by: Radub December 11, 2013 08:47 am

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

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

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

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

Radu

Posted by: MMM December 12, 2013 03:38 pm

QUOTE (Radub @ December 11, 2013 11:47 am)

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

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

Radu

So we did "go over this before", but that was the first time that an allied Russia did such things to her new allied state (new as in new state, I mean).
Re: Tsarist Russia being a good thing overall, I strongly disagree. To quote only the last example, here is the problem of 1907 "riots", which, at least in Moldova (Moldavia, whatever... the territory between Prut and Eastern Carpathians

), were instigated by Russian agitators. This was proved at the time, the "cooperation" between the Austrian and Russian regimes, but Carol I chose not to make it public.

Posted by: Radub December 12, 2013 05:54 pm

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

Posted by: Victor December 24, 2013 01:40 pm

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

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

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

Posted by: Radub December 24, 2013 05:25 pm

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

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

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

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

Radu

Posted by: MMM December 25, 2013 01:24 pm

QUOTE (Radub @ December 24, 2013 08:25 pm)

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

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

Radu

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

Posted by: Radub December 25, 2013 06:12 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ December 25, 2013 01:24 pm)

Re: invasion and so on: why would Russia / USSR need to "take" all Romania?

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

Posted by: MMM December 25, 2013 07:43 pm

QUOTE (Radub @ December 25, 2013 09:12 pm)

ALWAYS retreated to the 1812 borders.
Radu

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

Posted by: Radub December 25, 2013 08:33 pm

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

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

Radu

Posted by: MMM December 25, 2013 08:44 pm

QUOTE (Radub @ December 25, 2013 11:33 pm)

Nice! I managed to get you nervous again! Good X-mas present!

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

Posted by: udar December 25, 2013 10:13 pm

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

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

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

Posted by: Radub December 25, 2013 10:16 pm

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

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

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

Radu

Posted by: MMM December 26, 2013 07:50 am

...sometimes answering with questions does not make one right, but only a nit-picking hag who does not have the answer, but who is too proud to admit it!
@udar: the Bulgarian front was just the Western Front of the conflict. Just a part of the war...

Posted by: Radub December 26, 2013 09:49 am

Nicolae Iorga siad that "insulta e declaratia infrangerii". Why do you need to insult me? And you do this regularly.
What "answer" did I fail to give? I answered clearly with dates and links. I made my points clearly. YOU are the one who said "Russia took lands from Romania" but failed to show one single piece of evidence or clarification. So far, what you call a "nit-picking hag who does not have the answer but is too proud to admit it" fits your description much more closely.
Radu

Posted by: Petre December 26, 2013 10:16 am

Do not forget the other European Powers. They were almost always involved in Russian-Turkish conflict resolution and were signatories to peace treaties.

And from a text of V.B. Kashirin "The Peace of Bukarest"

QUOTE

după Pacea de la Tilsit şi întrevederea Alexandr I - Napoleon de la Erfurt în 1808, când Rusia şi Franţa au devenit aliaţi, Petersburg-ul îşi putea propune un obiectiv mult mai ambiţios - alipirea tuturor Principatelor Dunărene. Cu toate acestea, în timpul armistiţiul şi negocierile cu Franţa a fost expusă şi ideea unui compromis – Rusia sa capete numai Basarabia. O remarcabilă instructiune data de cancelarul conte N.P.Rumianţev pentru ambasadorului din Franţa, contele P.Tolstoi. În ea se indica anume că la Tilsit Rusia a fost de acord să evacueze Moldova şi Valahia, nu Basarabia. Acesta a fost primul caz din istoria diplomaţiei ruse când denumirea Basarabia se aplica la tot spatiul dintre Nistru şi Prut şi nu doar la partea sa sudică, adică Bugeacul.

Posted by: MMM December 27, 2013 07:42 am

QUOTE (Radub @ December 25, 2013 11:33 pm)

some thatch-ridden mudplop the size of a stadium in the middle of a river?

Except those "mudplops" could hinder or even block the navigation and the "some river" was the most important river of Europe, especially in XIX-th century when the naval transportation was still the most important means of transportation. Or do you think the "mudplops" were of no importance for the Russians as well? Even in 1940 the Soviets (now...) were very interested in controlling the mudplops above. Why would that be? Why would they need the whole country when they had "cuiul lui Pepelea" right in the Danube Delta?

Posted by: Radub December 27, 2013 10:04 am

QUOTE (MMM @ December 27, 2013 07:42 am)

QUOTE (Radub @ December 25, 2013 11:33 pm)

some thatch-ridden mudplop the size of a stadium in the middle of a river?

Again, please do your research!

The "islands" in question are on the Chilia branch of the Danube Delta. I spent many holidays in Tatanir (where the mostly Lipovean population speak Russian) and I can tell you there is no significant "naval transportation" there. In fact it is the least navigable waterway you can think of. It is the longest branch of the Danube Delta, the water is too shallow, the shores too close, the course is diverted by many (temporary/seasonal) islands and it also has its own miniature shallow delta (which means no actual direct access for sea-going ships). It often freezes in the winter.

All major transport on the Danube is on the Sulina branch, the main branch. That is why King Carol II built the canal that "straightened the M" (I bet you have no idea what I am talking about) to improve navigation.

Do you remember when the ship Rostock sank in the Sulina channel and blocked traffic? Why would "blocking one branch" block a three-branch river system? Why did the ships not go on the other branches? Because they are not navigable.

I grew up in Galati, my father worked for the AFDJ which involved a lot of travel on the river and he was (still is) obsessed with fishing in the Delta. I know the Danube! I have been to the Delta many times, last time five months ago, going there in four months. There is no "cuiul lui Pepelea" there. That story about "the Russians and some islands in the Delta" is monumentally stupid and oozed from the same mind that gave us "the Dutch do not want us to go shipping cargo up the Danube". You are more the fool to believe it.
If the Russians wanted the Delta in 1940 they could have taken it whole like they took Bessarabia and Romania could do nothing about it. But instead they stopped at the 1812 borders.

Radu

Posted by: Imperialist December 27, 2013 10:52 am

QUOTE (MMM @ December 27, 2013 07:42 am)

If the Danube was so important for the Russians why did the Russian Empire exchange Dobrogea (which was under Russian control after the 1878 war) for southern Bessarabia:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/SouthEast_Europe_1878.jpg

Surely holding the whole of Dobrogea would have given the Russian Empire a much stronger grip over the whole of the Danube Delta.

Posted by: MMM December 27, 2013 11:01 am

Do not bet, because you may as well lose! OK, I did NOT grow up in the area, but I can read a map, I know about "the M", or the "butterfly wings", as I thought they looked like on the map (when I was a kid; when I actually went there at 11, I began to see them more like mosquito wings...

). But as I read, Chilia was used more intensive until 1812, the only "branch" that never was appropriate being Sf. Gheorghe.
To end the dispute (vorba vine...): you are right, but answer me one question: why, if the islands are so unimportnat, both the Russians wanted them (in 1940 and 1941, that is) and were ready to fight for them; also, why the "Danube Comission" believed in the importance of having a "Russian-free" Chilia?
Re: Dutch and stuff: do not remember what that was; perhaps a story of the nineties?
Re: Rostock: old stories... Of course it was a "coincidence" that a Ukrainian ship (BTW, in those days there stil was USSR! Where from "Ukrainian ships"?) sunk right there. I do not remember if Romania upset them in 1991 (before the sinking), though...
Merry (rest of) Christmas!

@Imperialist: Dunno, I always wondered WHY didn't they want the land connection to Bulgaria? Perhaps the other powers had something to say in this? (I mean in Black sea becoming a Russian lake)...

Posted by: Radub December 27, 2013 11:47 am

QUOTE (MMM @ December 27, 2013 11:01 am)

why the "Danube Comission" believed in the importance of having a "Russian-free" Chilia?
Re: Dutch and stuff: do not remember what that was; perhaps a story of the nineties?

The point of the Danube Commission was to keep the whole of the Danube free from interference and allow traffic for everyone. By the way, the building of the "Commission" is now housing the V.A. Urechia library in Galati.

The "Dutch story" was fabricated by Cristian Negrea two years ago when the Dutch opposed Romania's entry into Schengen. He invented this insane "Dutch concern/fear" that if Romania joined Schengen, all traffic through Rotterdam would be diverted to Constanta and then shipped up the Danube. Crazy!
Mr Negrea also made up this story of the "Russian attack on some small islands in the Delta in 1940" which makes no sense. They took the whole of Bessarabia in 1940 for goodness' sake! Why worry about some small islands? This is like worrying about a toenail when your leg is amputated. As I said, if Russia wanted control over the Danube, they could have taken the whole lot (not just some pointless "grind") and Romania could do nothing about it.
As I said then, as I said repeatedly in this thread and I am telling you now again: Russia stopped at the 1812 borders. Accept it!

Radu

Posted by: MMM December 27, 2013 12:06 pm

QUOTE (Radub @ December 27, 2013 02:47 pm)

Russia stopped at the 1812 borders. Accept it!

Radu

...or else!

I never stated something different! Although neither have you answered me: Does Bukowina belong to 1812 borders? And why the skirmishes in the Danube Delta and over the "new" demarcation line?

Posted by: Imperialist December 27, 2013 12:52 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ December 27, 2013 11:01 am)

@Imperialist: Dunno, I always wondered WHY didn't they want the land connection to Bulgaria? Perhaps the other powers had something to say in this? (I mean in Black sea becoming a Russian lake)...

Possibly, but since Dobrogea was technically Ottoman territory they could have tried to treat it like Bessarabia and thus keep a "claim" on it even if they lost control of it under pressure from the other great powers. A claim they could then "reactivate" whenever the circumstances became suitable. But from the little I've read on this issue they made no big "fuss" over it and exchanged it. It's worth looking more into this.

Posted by: Radub December 27, 2013 01:19 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ December 27, 2013 12:06 pm)

QUOTE (Radub @ December 27, 2013 02:47 pm)

Russia stopped at the 1812 borders. Accept it!

Radu

...or else!

I never stated something different! Although neither have you answered me: Does Bukowina belong to 1812 borders? And why the skirmishes in the Danube Delta and over the "new" demarcation line?

Of course Bukovina has nothing to do with 1812!
That whole "Bukovina and the Danube Delta" was a "red herring", a "straw man", a "diversion", a "gica-contrism" thrown in just to cause a sideshow in an another thread about "Russia lusted for a few tiny islands on the edge of the Delta but somehow forgot the rest of the Delta". Bukovina also has nothing to do with the 1877 Russo-Turkish war which is the subject of this thread.

The islands are on the 1812 border line in the Delta. Russia reverted to the 1812 border line in the Delta. Why is that so hard for you to understand? But more importantly, why is this tiny and irrelevant detail obsessing you so much? As I and others already said, Russia could have taken the lot, everything, the whole delta, the whole of Romania, not just a few tiny islands in a marsh.

Radu

Posted by: MMM December 27, 2013 02:10 pm

QUOTE (Radub @ December 27, 2013 04:19 pm)

"Russia lusted for a few tiny islands on the edge of the Delta but somehow forgot the rest of the Delta"

Perhaps some "grand design" (the ancestors of the "Great Firefly"

) decided that Danube Delta - thus the Danube Mouths - should not belong to Russia?

Posted by: Radub December 27, 2013 02:28 pm

Huh?

Radu

Posted by: MMM December 27, 2013 03:23 pm

QUOTE (Radub @ December 27, 2013 05:28 pm)

Huh?

Radu

Now, now... do you think the Berlin Conference was "not for the Russians"? I mean, after the Crimean War, they must have understood somehow that "We are not alone"...

Posted by: Radub December 27, 2013 04:44 pm

Sorry, too many riddles.
Please make your points clearly.
Radu

Posted by: MMM December 27, 2013 05:02 pm

OK! Your point is that Russia could have taken all Romania in 1878. Militarily speaking, yes, but what would have been the consequences? Do you think that Habsburgs, Germany, Britain would have said (or done) nothing? Just 20 years after the Crimean War? Do you really suppose that Russia was in a league of her own? Not even in 1945... But it seems that in 1944/45 USSR found it easier to simply install puppets which would sign whatever needed - a thing not so easy to be done in 1870-s!

Posted by: Radub December 27, 2013 05:21 pm

I was talking about facts and events that actually took place.
Of course politics and diplomacy played a huge role.
Radu

Posted by: MMM December 28, 2013 05:50 am

When you write "Russia could have done this and that, this is NOT an event that actually took place! Or is it? And no, I am not talking about the period of 1820-s, but about 1878! Because in 1940 everybody knows that only Germany prevented our invasion by the Red Army,

Posted by: Victor December 28, 2013 09:16 am

This is why debates are something very important that is missing from the Romanian curricula (spelling ?). Two highly educated people simply don't seem to be able to discuss an issue without resorting to personal attacks (unable to understand, deaf, hag etc) when they don't agree on something. It's Christmas. At least now one should try to be more tolerant.

Posted by: Radub December 28, 2013 10:06 am

QUOTE (MMM @ December 28, 2013 05:50 am)

But what does not make sense is why you are so obsessed with what happened in 1940 in a thread about 1877/1878. Tsarist Russia of 1878 was different from Stalin's USSR of 1940. What you are doing is akin to "discussing the Battle of the Bulge in a thread about the American war of Independence." It is not "smart", in fact it is the opposite if it.

As Victor said, here we have a chance to discuss something that is usually never discussed in Romania and you keep dynamiting it (two pages now). Stop! Please stop!

Radu

Posted by: Imperialist December 28, 2013 01:17 pm

QUOTE (Victor @ December 28, 2013 09:16 am)

I've noticed this inability within the Romanian world of academia too. It's mostly because highly educated people also tend to develop very big egos and some of them tend to take things very personally when they are contradicted on an issue dear to them. This wouldn't be that bad but our Latin temper also means we are prone to "letting it all out" in an angry outburst. That burns the "communication bridges" and each side then retreats into its own cocoon (or forms "bisericute" with other people who agree completely) and is reluctant to communicate/cooperate.

Posted by: Victor December 30, 2013 03:51 pm

QUOTE (Radub @ December 24, 2013 07:25 pm)

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

The three counties in Southern Bessarabia (Cahul, Ismail and Bolgrad) were given through the Treaty of Paris of 1856 to the Principality of Moldova, not to the Ottoman Empire, unlike the Danube Delta which was directly annexed by the Porte (the initial talks proposed to give as well the Delta to Moldavia). The Danube Commission had authority only on the water canals in the Delta, not in the territory north of it.

The three counties were taken over by the Moldavian administration. When Moldavia united with Wallachia in 1859 to form the United Principalities and later Romania (1862), this territory was obviously part of the newly formed entity. Troops were raised in these three counties (mounted gendarmes squadrons) and took part in the 1877-78 war. It is thus wrong to consider that the three counties were not part of the territory of the Romanian state in 1878.

The idea that the Romanian Principalities and then Romania were/was part of the Ottoman Empire is debatable. Through the treaty of Adrianople/Edirne of 1829, the two principalities were basically put under a Russian-Ottoman condominium. The Porte was still the nominal sovereign power, but the new "constitution" was basically drafted by Russia with the help of the local nobility, the new government was setup by Russia and nothing could be changed without Russian consent. Furthermore, the Turkish bridgeheads (raia) at Turnu [Magurele], Giurgiu and Braila were to be transferred back to Wallachia.

During the Crimean War, the Russian-Ottoman condominium was briefly replaced by a similar Austrian-Ottoman condominium. The Treaty of Paris of 1856, however, placed the two principalities under the common protection of all European powers in order to ensure that none will exert more influence than the rest. It also recognized the administrative independence of the Principalities. The Ottoman Empire was still the sovereign power in name, but the situation of the Principalities was very different from that of Bulgaria or Dobruja at the time.

The Romanians grabbed the maximum they could from this situation and went on to create one state from the two principalities and then, having the benefit of a great prince in the person of Carol, to organize and modernize the country. Thus, although de jure Romania was still dependent from the Porte, the reality was very much different from what was 60-70 years before.

In April 1877, Romania and Russia signed a convention to facilitate the passing of Russian troops on Romanian territory. Article 2 of this convention contained Russia's obligation to maintain Romania's territorial integrity. This article was breached by the Treaty of San Stefano, through the annexation of the 3 Bessarabian counties, hence the indignation of prince Carol and his government, the concentration of the Army around Ploiesti and the military tension resolved by the Treaty of Berlin. It is not very important that Moldova did not take part in Congress of Paris in 1856 or that Romania, as successor state, did not take part in the Congress of Berlin in 1878 when the three counties were shifted back and forth. It was considered Romanian territory by the Romanian government. The Great Powers did what they usually did and tended to their own interests, although Romania got a relatively decent deal. The fact remained that Russia breached the convention with Romania and, although it did not have any European consequences, given the relative importance of the two parties, it left marks in the Romanian psyche. Later, Romania secretly joined the German-Austro-Hungarian defence alliance aimed mainly against Russia.

A long post unfortunately, but it is a complex subject, which should not be treated lightly.

Posted by: Victor December 30, 2013 04:19 pm

QUOTE (Radub @ December 28, 2013 12:06 pm)

As Victor said, here we have a chance to discuss something that is usually never discussed in Romania and you keep dynamiting it (two pages now). Stop! Please stop!

Radu

MMM has raised some interesting points, unfortunately without going into many details. Maybe tomorrow I will have time to elaborate.

Posted by: Petre December 30, 2013 06:40 pm

Translation from a russian book :

QUOTE

The Treaty of Paris 1856 :
Articolul XX:
In schimbul oraselor, porturilor si teritoriului mentionate la Art. IV din tratat si pentru a asigura o mai mare libertate de navigatie pe Dunare, M.S.Imparatul intregii Rusii este de acord cu trasarea unei noi linii de demarcatie in Basarabia….
Articolul XXI:
Teritoriul cedat de Rusia va fi alipit la Principatul Moldovei de sub inalta autoritate a Sublimei Porti.

The Preliminary Treaty of San-Stefano 1878
ARTICOLUL XIX
Remuneratie si despagubiri… total 1410 milioane ruble.
Avand in vedere greutatile financiare ale Turciei si conform cu solicitarea M.S.Sultanul, Imparatul intregii Rusii este de acord cu inlocuirea a mare parte a sumei calculate… cu urmatoarele concesii teritoriale:
a) Sangeacul Tulcei, adica judetele Kilia, Sulina, Mahmudia, Isaccea,Tulcea, Macin, Babadag, Harsova, Kiustenge si Medgidia, precum si ostroavele Deltei si insula Serpilor. Ne dorind sa-si alipeasca teritoriile mentionate si ostroavele Deltei, Rusia se ofera … sa le schimbe cu acea parte a Basarabiei care i-a fost instrainata prin tratatul din 1856…

The Treaty of Berlin 1878
ARTICOLUL ХLV
Principatul Romania inapoiaza M.S.Imperiale partea ruseasca din teritoriul Basarabiei luata de la Rusia prin Tratatul de la Paris 1856…
ARTICOLUL ХLVI
Оstroavele care formeaza Delta Dunarii, precum si insula Serpilor, sangeacul Tulcei alcatuit din… se alipesc la Romania. Principatul, mai primeste in plus teritoriul care se intinde in sudul Dobrogei pana la…, la sud de Mangalia.