At that time the international policy games were all over. It was war, fighting and resistance. See, one cannot ignore the fact that something very suspect occurred at that time. The British had their "we will fight them on the beaches", the French had their Resistance (yes, later on, but nevertheless). And Romania? No "we will fight them in the 'mountains' ", no sabotages, no whatever... Why? I think because the government presented it as a diplomatic agreement, albeit an unfavourable one or one signed under pressure. The gov did not animate the masses with patriotism etc., it kept its "business as usual" attitude.
Secondly, we must see that Poland and France fought to the death because they were faced with total conquest and "regime change".
In Romania the regime was asked to hand over a piece of territory and it would have been spared. The regime also knew that resisting would have meant war and possible "regime change". I wonder if there wasnt a small element of selfishness involved in the decision too... Ofcourse the decision caused the internal weakening of the regime, but I bet Carol thought he can handle the romanians better than the German Panzers. Lets not forget Carol was a dictator afterall... !
Thirdly, your argument that a lot of people would have died is, sorry to say, irrelevant. In Romanian history there are hundreds of instances where men died heroically and defended their country. Suddenly in the '30s the politicians are worried about casualties so much that they forfeit territory won with the blood of hundreds of thousands in WWI!!!
What about THOSE casualties? Following that trail of thought in 1916 Romania was obviously insane to risk hundreds of thousands of deaths for... "a piece of land".
Lets not confuse political cowardice with "international policy games/diplomatic skills etc."
For me the regime of Carol will always stand out in infamy in Romanian history for that decision. Sorry for being so blunt.
p.s. imagine that today a similar situation would occur. the government takes the decision to allow the 'regionalisation' in Harcov, and it will mumble something about international pressure, US, EU etc. what would you do? would you want to fight (whatever that would be, the moderators should not interpret it as incitement) or accept it and let future generation to vehemently say it was a Diktat? Or, knowing all odds are against you, you would anyhow fight for history, both future and past and for dignity?
take care
) while cafes, debates and the sweet life of the '30s made people understand the important value of saving one's skin whatever the costs and humiliations.
