Historical context:
While King Michael I was able to sweep the state from Ion Antonescu's nose in 1944, he was unable to diplomatically win against the communists. Admittedly, it was an uphill battle. But there is someone else more skilled at politics, to the point where he managed to make his own corrupt loyalist cabinet, Camarila, while keeping the appearance of a democratic regime. Would often appoint minority factions of historical parties only to increase the friction between his enemies, and managed to democratically remove the 1923 constitution.
TL;DR King Carol II was as sneaky as the communists when it came to politics and had authoritarian tendencies.
As for the way he navigated World War II. Originally, he reaffirmed the Polish-Romanian Alliance and offered his support to Poland. But Poland refused counting on the Romanian Bridgehead Strategy that required a neutral Romania. Following the fall of Poland, King Carol II maintained a neutrality policy, requesting western guarantees and threatening Germany to burn the oil fields if they invade. Following the fall of France, King Carol II re-aligned Romania towards Nazi Germany in hopes of gaining a German guarantee, as the western guarantees were now useless. Following the territorial losses in 1940, he finally got a German guarantee, although the situation had a disastrous effect on the reputation of King Carol II. Leading to Ion Antonescu's coup and the forced abdication of King Carol II.
In my personal opinion, he did one of the best things he could have done given the current state of affairs. When Europe was dominated by Germany, staying pro-Allies would have only ensured more territory is lost. Note that Hungary wanted all of Transylvania, not just half of it, and USSR wanted all of Bukovina, although initially they only asked for Bessarabia, so Bukovina wouldn't have been the end of it. If it wasn't for the German guarantee following the re-alignment and amputation of Romania in 1940, it's likely Romania would have lost even more territory. Unlike Bulgaria and Hungary, Romania wasn't a traditional German ally, so gaining the trust of the Germans was no easy task, King Carol II's only ace was the oil fields. Maybe he could have navigated the political situation better, but he certainly didn't left Romania in the worst case possible, the only other country with a less enviable position was Poland. King Carol II was hedonist, but not incompetent.
While he managed to get a German guarantee and re-align Romania to Nazi Germany, it was Ion Antonescu that joined the Axis. If the coup that forced him to abdicate wouldn't have happened, I can't tell for sure, but maybe he wanted Romania to be like Sweden in the war, with the eventuality of joining the Allies should the tide of the war change in 1943. King Carol II said this in 1939: "I do not wish to let my country be engaged in a war which would result, in a few weeks, in the destruction of its army and the occupation of its territory. We do not wish to be the lighting conductor for the coming storm". He had conflicts with the Iron Guard and executed 14 of its leaders including Corneliu Zelea Codreanu on 30 November 1938 in the night of the vampires.
His mother said this about him: "As a small child, Carol was quite fat, happy and very obedient. Being the first born, he was obviously caressed by everyone, old and young, and everything he wanted was put at his feet. He was a much-desired heir, so everyone's favorite child. When he grew up a little he became calm and very serious. The little boy shared his father's and uncle's passions for military things. In any case, this child, preoccupied with the army, was a torment for his sisters, inside him slept well hidden a future autocrat. He wanted order and precision, and he had an enormous and impetuous desire to dominate, to subjugate, and to impose restrictions."
After World War II ended in 1945, King Carol II wanted to return to the helm of the country and dethrone his son again, but was stopped by the Western Allies. If the Western Allies would have allowed him to return, what do you think would have happened?
Personally, I wouldn't count on UK or US support. If they didn't help King Michael I, it's less likely they would help King Carol II.
The communists were very corrupt and sneaky, but so was King Carol II, unlike King Michael I. And his authoritarian tendencies would have pushed him towards a different course of action than King Michael I, who was mostly on defensive and didn't resort to fraud, political shenanigans or shooting protesters and blaming on the other party like the communists. King Carol II was an ace in this department. I couldn't find anything about him ordering to shoot on protesters, but he did execute fascists claiming "they were trying to escape" or "they resisted arrest with armed force", so it was not below him.
Ultimately, I still think the communists would have won, because they had one thing King Carol II didn't have, the Soviet army in Romania. In the style of his flexible foreign policy during World War II, King Carol II would have likely tried to compromise with the communists rather than outright face them. Seeing that he has no other choice, on the long-term he would lose, so better make a compromise that both sides will like and avoid all the fuss, while secretly keeping corrupt politicians on his side. The communists certainly proved they are not beyond bribe so he had a lot to work with.
But at the same time, a communist state with a monarchy would be impossible, so King Carol II's compromise might not have worked at all. What do you think would have happened?
TL;DR: King Michael I slowly lost the communist - democrats diplomatic war of 1944 - 1947. The most important milestones were: being forced to replace the democratic prime minister with a communist one in 1945, being unable to stop the communists from falsifying elections in 1946 and being forced to abdicated in 1947.
While King Michael I was able to sweep the state from Ion Antonescu's nose in 1944, he was unable to diplomatically win against the communists. Admittedly, it was an uphill battle. But there is someone else more skilled at politics, to the point where he managed to make his own corrupt loyalist cabinet, Camarila, while keeping the appearance of a democratic regime. Would often appoint minority factions of historical parties only to increase the friction between his enemies, and managed to democratically remove the 1923 constitution.
TL;DR King Carol II was as sneaky as the communists when it came to politics and had authoritarian tendencies.
As for the way he navigated World War II. Originally, he reaffirmed the Polish-Romanian Alliance and offered his support to Poland. But Poland refused counting on the Romanian Bridgehead Strategy that required a neutral Romania. Following the fall of Poland, King Carol II maintained a neutrality policy, requesting western guarantees and threatening Germany to burn the oil fields if they invade. Following the fall of France, King Carol II re-aligned Romania towards Nazi Germany in hopes of gaining a German guarantee, as the western guarantees were now useless. Following the territorial losses in 1940, he finally got a German guarantee, although the situation had a disastrous effect on the reputation of King Carol II. Leading to Ion Antonescu's coup and the forced abdication of King Carol II.
In my personal opinion, he did one of the best things he could have done given the current state of affairs. When Europe was dominated by Germany, staying pro-Allies would have only ensured more territory is lost. Note that Hungary wanted all of Transylvania, not just half of it, and USSR wanted all of Bukovina, although initially they only asked for Bessarabia, so Bukovina wouldn't have been the end of it. If it wasn't for the German guarantee following the re-alignment and amputation of Romania in 1940, it's likely Romania would have lost even more territory. Unlike Bulgaria and Hungary, Romania wasn't a traditional German ally, so gaining the trust of the Germans was no easy task, King Carol II's only ace was the oil fields. Maybe he could have navigated the political situation better, but he certainly didn't left Romania in the worst case possible, the only other country with a less enviable position was Poland. King Carol II was hedonist, but not incompetent.
While he managed to get a German guarantee and re-align Romania to Nazi Germany, it was Ion Antonescu that joined the Axis. If the coup that forced him to abdicate wouldn't have happened, I can't tell for sure, but maybe he wanted Romania to be like Sweden in the war, with the eventuality of joining the Allies should the tide of the war change in 1943. King Carol II said this in 1939: "I do not wish to let my country be engaged in a war which would result, in a few weeks, in the destruction of its army and the occupation of its territory. We do not wish to be the lighting conductor for the coming storm". He had conflicts with the Iron Guard and executed 14 of its leaders including Corneliu Zelea Codreanu on 30 November 1938 in the night of the vampires.
His mother said this about him: "As a small child, Carol was quite fat, happy and very obedient. Being the first born, he was obviously caressed by everyone, old and young, and everything he wanted was put at his feet. He was a much-desired heir, so everyone's favorite child. When he grew up a little he became calm and very serious. The little boy shared his father's and uncle's passions for military things. In any case, this child, preoccupied with the army, was a torment for his sisters, inside him slept well hidden a future autocrat. He wanted order and precision, and he had an enormous and impetuous desire to dominate, to subjugate, and to impose restrictions."
After World War II ended in 1945, King Carol II wanted to return to the helm of the country and dethrone his son again, but was stopped by the Western Allies. If the Western Allies would have allowed him to return, what do you think would have happened?
Personally, I wouldn't count on UK or US support. If they didn't help King Michael I, it's less likely they would help King Carol II.
The communists were very corrupt and sneaky, but so was King Carol II, unlike King Michael I. And his authoritarian tendencies would have pushed him towards a different course of action than King Michael I, who was mostly on defensive and didn't resort to fraud, political shenanigans or shooting protesters and blaming on the other party like the communists. King Carol II was an ace in this department. I couldn't find anything about him ordering to shoot on protesters, but he did execute fascists claiming "they were trying to escape" or "they resisted arrest with armed force", so it was not below him.
Ultimately, I still think the communists would have won, because they had one thing King Carol II didn't have, the Soviet army in Romania. In the style of his flexible foreign policy during World War II, King Carol II would have likely tried to compromise with the communists rather than outright face them. Seeing that he has no other choice, on the long-term he would lose, so better make a compromise that both sides will like and avoid all the fuss, while secretly keeping corrupt politicians on his side. The communists certainly proved they are not beyond bribe so he had a lot to work with.
But at the same time, a communist state with a monarchy would be impossible, so King Carol II's compromise might not have worked at all. What do you think would have happened?
