Romania was neutral at the beginning of WWII, but then Marshall Antonescu (as he liked to be called) went to visit Hitler and then joined the war on the German side. Things have happened as they happened, but I wonder if Romania could have stayed neutral for the entire duration of WWII in any other circumstances? Some historians say that it was inevitable, because of two main reasons:
- Resources (mainly petroleum) and
- Geographical position.
Although somehow right, I fail to believe in these two parameters, and I think that there was lack of diplomacy and negotiation*. Can this be right? Could they have negotiated their neutrality?
Sweden had resources and it was close to Russia too, and yet, they stayed neutral. Denmark was a strategic point because of its Atlantic/North Sea shores, but stayed somehow neutral and even if it was invaded, they didn't have bad, bloody fights inside its territory and no armies on the Russian territory, like in Romania's case. So I wonder... what could have been done differently and could a better diplomacy/negotiation keep Romania neutral?
Question: Was Romania such an important player in WWII that entering the would have been inevitable? Were Russia and Germany so dependent on Romania?
*I base this theory by listening to what king Michael was saying about Antonescu (see video here) and considering some details from his biography.