Vienna, 30 August 1940 - Award or Diktat ?

If a leader worries too much about this and has such an apocaliptic vision of things (death sentence of hundreds of thousands) he remains paralised and inefficient. And therefore, not a leader.

Indeed, nobody wanted to die for his country. Obviously games make people think silly (imagine, fighting blindly for your country while the whole world is against you -- talk about childish gamers! ) 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.

Indeed, it feels great to live in a country were national pride is an unknown word and where such beautifully educational proverbs flourish in an atmosphere of bohemian decadence.

Thats not the task of a leader. If that would have been the task of a true leader then Romania would have never existed.
Also, consider that forfeiting territories to save lives may lead to the contrary situation. The leader may find himself with too little resources and lands to sustain the saved folks. Obviously he would then have to send them to work in other kingdoms or to assimilate in the four corners of the world. What can I say... hell of a leader!!
[I was a little sarcastic, no offense intended]

take care

Because the legitimity of its new international legal system (based on German might) was contested albeit verbally by Britain. It was the same situation as with the League of Nations, only reversed. Germany could ignore Britain and write thousands of diplomatic acts in Europe, yet as long as Britain (and later others) remained a "revisionist" power, Germany was far from imposing its international authority.

The Allies established their international authority thru the League after completely defeating the Central Powers in WWI. Any effort on their part to establish it during the war would have been only a local system lacking any international validity until the outcome of the war confirmed or infirmed it.
The same with the UN during WWII.
The same with Germany's european "international" authority.

p.s. why didnt hungary and romania approach russia for arbitration?


This post has been edited by Imperialist on March 07, 2005 11:00 pm

I think that Germany (after invading Poland and France) could be only an ultimative judge in the arbitrage. No democratic country was involved in this scenery (neither Romania was democratic anymore).

But this is of topic. I invite you on Romania's "Territorial issues" or "options at the dawn of WW2" topics.

I tried to ask about the rights that Hungary had to ask for Transilvania at Vienna, but I got no answer, so I figured I'm of topic . Therefore I made up this new topic on Romania's territorial issues".


Barbosu

This post has been edited by Barbosu on March 08, 2005 01:55 pm

You are partially correct. But only partially, because it is not only necessary to change or twist the facts to fit a current ideology, but also to present the facts truncated, or out of context. Therefor, what you are asking, is to forget about who was Hitler or Mussolini, what was happening in Europe and what came out of this, and also to forget about the Romanian activity (diplomatic or otherwise) of undoing this act (therefor evidencing the character of "imposed by force" of this diktat).

So what should been taught in Romania about it? That it wasn't bad or "odious" as you put it? Come on, one can claim that the invasion of Poland was not so "odious" from a different light, or the fate of Czechoslovakia, and so on... Everybody can judge the past events as he wishes, as long as he respects the point of view of the victims.

This would create the false impression that Romania requested the "award" by her own initiative. In fact, Romania had absolutely no reason to do so, unless she was threatened to, which again shows that such statements offers only half-truths, bypassing the context of the events.

On 15 July 1940, after the fall of France, Hitler addressed a letter to Romania's leader by which he proposed Romania to open negociations with Hungary and Bulgaria, countries presented in the letter as old friends of Germany, in order to avoid a disaster of the country.

The threats contiuned at the end of July, when the president of the crown council and the Romanian foreign minister were invited at Salzburg and Berchtesgaden, and after that at Rome.

The Romanian and Hungarian delegations met on 10 August 1940, obviously without any result since the Hungarian side demanded approximately 67,000 square km, while the Romanian side proposed an exchange of population on ethnical principle. The request of Hungary would have meant that 2,200,000 Romanians would enter under Hungarian administration, while only 162,000 Hungarians would have remained in the Romanian controlled part of Transylvania.

The two delegations left on 24 August 1940 in order to allow the Hungarian side to reconsider its demands, and meet again, this time in Hungary. But only three days later, on 27 August 1940, the Reich's minister in Bucharest informed the Romanian foreign minister that Ribbentrop invited the Romanian minister to Vienna, in order to settle the Romanian-Hungarian issue in the presence of German and Italian officials. The Romanian minister should have had full powers of decisions on the Romanian-Hungarian relations.

Arriving at Vienna on 29 August, thr Romanian officials were informed they are to sign the decision of Ribbentrop and Ciano. At the protest of Romanian delegation, they were simply threatened that if they refuse, Romania would risk an attack from all directions. In case Romania would accept the decision of Ribbentrop and Ciano, it would have the new borders guaranteed by Germany and Italy.

Having transmitted the situation in Bucharest, the Crown Council was summoned in the same evening. Even if the ultimatum given for a decision expired with several hours, at 3,30 AM they voted with 21 to 11 for submitting to the award. On 30 August, the Romanian delegation was entitled with power to accept the award in the name of Romania, both of the officials being required to sign it.

The document was signed only by one of the two Romanian officials. It was also neither given official sanction by the Romanian government, nor it was published in the "Buletinul Oficial".

Hi Guys,

There is no doubt that the Vienna Arbitration was a "diktat" imposed on Romania.

Romania, being in possession of all the disputed territory, had no reason to want an arbitration. Such an arbitration was imposed upon it.

By contrast, Hungary was in possession of none of the disputed territory and could only gain from any arbitration, to which it agreed first.

There was no such entity as the "Vienna Diktat". There was, however, a Vienna Arbitration, which was most definitely a diktat as far as Romania was concerned, both in the compulsion to submit to arbitration in the first place and then to agree to its result in the second place.

Cheers,

Sid.

The fact that it withdrew the Army and allowed the changes of the border was an official sanction of the document.

Also PM Gigurtu did not allow any public meeting against the Arbitration.

Romania was not forced to submit to arbitration. It was threatened to do that. It succumbed to the threat, not to the force that broke its powers to resist. It could have chosen war with Hungary. It preferred arbitration, though probably imagined that the Germans will be biased towards Hungary. And who compulsed Romania to agree to its result but Romanian politicians themselves?

Not true. Romania was threatened with war by Germany too, it was not an assumption. If Romania refused, the Soviets would occupy the whole Moldova, Bulgaria the whole Dobrogea, Hungary the whole Transilvania, while Germany would take the rest.

To what part of my message are you replying?

This would create the false impression that Romania requested the "award" by her own initiative. In fact, Romania had absolutely no reason to do so, unless she was threatened to, which again shows that such statements offers only half-truths, bypassing the context of the events.

Dragos, I owed you (and others) a proof regarding Rumania's actual request towards Germany and Italy for an arbitration on the Transylvanian issue.

Here is the complete an unaltered transcription of a German document, which clearly states, repeatedly, that Rumania - along with Hungary - did ask for the arbitration. It also shows that Germany had greater interest in Rumania, due to her oil and grain wealth.

The problem is that you're relying almost exclusively on Rumanian sources, which imply limitation. Same can be said, of course, of those who rely solely on Hungarian sources.

I hope the above document clearifies the issue, once for all.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on September 04, 2005 03:22 am

Nice reading. Do you also have any Soviet diplomatic proclamations, signed by Molotov or Stalin? Of course, for the sake of ultimate truth.

Precisely.

The compulsion to agree to the result of an arbitration is the main aspect of accepting arbitration in the first place.
As for the compulsion to submit, there was no such thing. Having to choose between a war over the disputed territory and building a case to present for arbitration, the romanian diplomats chose the latter. It was a conscious choice. They even prepared the necessary documentation to sustain their claim over the territory. Ofcourse, they had the surprise to find out things were already decided, but surely they were not unaware of the bias of the arbiter to which they submited.

Nice reading. Do you also have any Soviet diplomatic proclamations, signed by Molotov or Stalin? Of course, for the sake of ultimate truth.

Pretty lame answer, if I may add.

Gen. Dénes