Negotiations with Soviet Union, 1921

The Russians wanted to make a deal - Romania should give up asking for its Tezaur and should recognize the Soviet government and in turn the Soviet Union would recognize Romania's sovereignty in Basarabia. Tache Ionescu refused.

Faced with the refusal, the Soviets proposed another deal - the signing of an agreement saying that in case another power attacks the Soviet Union, Romania would remain neutral on the basis of reciprocity. Tache Ionescu refused.

Why was Romania so unwilling to compromise? The second proposal seems acceptable. Why was Tache uwilling to formally assure the Soviet Union of Romania's neutrality in case someone attacked the former?

This post has been edited by Imperialist on July 31, 2009 08:05 am

Imp. When did all this happen?
More details would certainly be helpful in assessing the situation back then.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. Two minor spelling issues. The former Prime and Foreign Affairs' Minister's first name was Take (Tache is only a recent spelling form).
The province you mentioned is called in English Bessarabia (Basarabia is the Rumanian version of the name).

This post has been edited by Dénes on July 31, 2009 01:08 pm

A series of meetings between the delegates of the two countries took place in Warsaw from late September 1921 to late October that same year. Ionescu and Chicherin also kept in touch via letters and telegrams.

I know about the spelling of the province, the mispelling was intentional because I'd rather use the Romanian name.

Constantin Argetoianu touches this subject in his memoirs,"Memorii pentru cei de maine ",Ed. Machiavelli,Buc.1995.
As for the reasons,maybe it was the fate of "belle Adina " blocked for a period in Odessa by RUMCEROD.
Seriously speaking,I dont think european politicians ,at that time, thought that Soviet Russia will last long,so it was pointless.

I doubt they still thought that because otherwise they wouldn't have negotiated with it. The Soviets defeated Wrangel in November 1920. When Germany and the Soviet Union signed the Rapallo Treaty it should have been clear for Romanian politicians that the SU is there to stay.

Well,than your question continues to stand and,probably,the answer is in archives.T.I. did some questionable things as agreeing to withdraw from Basarabia in return for release of romanian hostages held in Odessa.Anyway,the whole story seems a bit surrealistic.

I don`t think that Soviets were trusted in keeping their word. This proved to be a realistic thinking later, so many times...
On the other side, why negociating between two things that belong to you? It was pure blackmail.

The tezaur was in their hands and there was no way we could force them to give it up. Our recognition of their legitimacy and their de facto hold on it in return for their recognition of our de facto hold on Basarabia. What's the problem with that deal? The second variant was even easier - what did it cost Romania to sign an agreement specifying its neutrality.

Even if the SU would have done exactly what it did later on, that recognition of our sovereignty would have remained and given the later condamnation of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, it would have enhanced our position vis-a-vis that province. And on the short term it was an opportunity to solve a territorial problem.

I dont think the whole "tezaur"was in soviet hands.Probably,the gold,toghether with the imperial gold fell into the hands of Kolcheak gouvernament and was later sent to Japan or sunk on the way.