Vienna, 30 August 1940 - Award or Diktat ?

First I have to say that I know Otto Traşcă personally from years (actually he’s a friend of mine) and we had this discussion/dispute several times in the past. By that time, it was rather a debate based on opinions and interpretations, during which, although far for being a professional historian, I held my ground with arguments. Basically he insisted in calling the event an award/arbitration rather then a dictate, but - important notice - emphasizing that it was imposed on Romania. So it was rather more of a terminological disagreement between us.

Our encounters have been rare in the last couple of years (before that we’ve been, at a certain point in time, also neighbors). He’s a first class new generation historian, also known for some less conventional approaches - even though, in my interpretation, this does not make his work divergent from the Romanian "traditional historical school", and it is rather part of his endeavor to bring some "fresh air" in the area and to challenge them with some new interpretations but in a rather constructive way. Part of his strong points are his access to German and Hungarian language literature and documents and his research stages in the Hungarian and German archives (being also of mixed Romanian-German-Hungarian origin, he speaks Hungarian and German from family).

But this claimed breakthrough (if accurate as it was reported by Denes), involving that time Romanian documents, is surprising and puzzling, not to say more. The are at least two important elements of suspicion (not to say more):

The first is raised by the fact that it directly contradicts the memoirs of King Carol (undisputedly the better informed person in Romania by then, and the one who call the game), which were written on a day by day basis and not compiled post facto. In these he is dealing extensively and in detail with the events preceding and from the period of the arbitration/diktat and openly and explicitly manifests his surprise, shock and revolt when he finds out that Ribbentrop claimed that Romania had requested for an arbitration.

The second is raised by the memoirs of both Manoilescu and Valer Pop - the Romanian special envoys at Vienna - (which both repeatedly mentioned their protests in front of Ribbentrop and Ciano towards the formula “the arbiters, at the request of the involved parties…”; I’m sure there are archive documents which includes these official discussions) AND by the fact that the official communiqué, printed and distributed to the press by Romania after the arbitration, mentioned he fact that this was imposed upon its government (I’m quoting from memory - I’m not sure if this was the exact term, but nevertheless the sense was exactly that). The only protest of Ribbentrop to that was not that the fact isn’t true in itself, but that it subminates the idea of a resolution of the conflict and the guarantees offert by the Reich to Romania. Even this objection was withdrawn when the Romanian government announced that the communiqué has already been made public.

Now I have some difficulties in accepting the idea that some “newly discovered archive documents” (?) can revert the signification of all those mentioned above.

I tend to think that everything that has to be said on this topic is said, and the arguments are both abundant and “common-sense overwhelming”, even though some intend to re-resuscitate a already settled debate. I would recommend Denes trying to obtain acces to these memorial volumes/documents, which I think (unless their authenticity is contested) will settle the dispute for him too.

This post has been edited by Agarici on August 31, 2010 11:43 pm

It was a diktat as sure as hell, back then in august 1940. One should read also Valer Pop's "Bătălia pentru Ardeal", which contains a well documented memoires about the discussion with hungarian side BEFORE 30 august 1940. Although he was retired from political life back in 1940, he was asked by Carol II to be the head of romanian delegation who conducted the discussions with the hungarian side, as he was considered one of the best "connaisseur" about Transylvanian realities. The infos that Valer Pop gives are very valuable in order to make an idea about how the discusion were made, with the unfortunate ending from 30 august 1940. Even if he proposed a exchange of populations and teritories, based on number of population, economical, political and geographycal datas, it is interesting to see the point of view of the hungarian side who participated.

In the light of this kind of a discussion, if in 1940 it was a diktat or an arbitration, I would be very curious to see what mr. Traşcă and others would have to say about Trianon peace treaty: it was an arbitration or a diktat. At Trianon the great powers aknowledged only what the romanian transylvanian plebiscite said on 1st of december 1918: breaking bonds with Hungary and Union with Romania. Nota bene: in 1st december 1918 it was a plebiscite, so it was a popular will! Is that a diktat? This kind of popular will doesn't exist in 1940, nor from hungarian transylvanians, nor from romanians. It is at least a cinism to say that for Romania the 30 august 1940 german supervised decision was an arbitration.

Anyway, in the backstages of all this 30 august 1940 Viena diktat was Germany. Transylvania was give to Hungary as a "insurance" that Romania will join Axis without destroying it's oil fields from Ploiesti as she did in 1916. Dismembered, Romania had no chances to fight if invaded and was subject anytime to german "blackmail". The romanian oil fields were put into discussion by Germany before France was invaded by germans and romanians declared to them that they have no intention to destroy them. But after the France fall in 1940, germans captured the entire french secret services archive, discovering the documents that romanians WILL destroy the oil fields if germans entered Romania. Looking as lyers, romanians were "punished" by germans with Transylvania handover to hungarians. Germans sugested that they will "help" Romania regain Transylvania after war, if Romania join Axis and secure the so much needed oil fields for Germany.

It was a blackmail for both Romania and Hungary, a blackmail made to keep in Axis, whatever will happen.

Indeed! I don't know if this was already said in here, but Ribentropp (as a foreign affairs minister, that is) stated to some diplomat, "we have to keep both irons hot in the fire and mold them as our necessities will ask". (Romanian - "să ţinem amândouă fiarele în foc şi să le folosim după cel mai bun interes al Germaniei"). And it worked, but also in the sense that both countries spent a lot of energy and propaganda against the Diktat/Award, as Romania wanted back what it was taken and Hungary wanted the rest of Transylvania, as well...

There is a new book on the topic going to be published this Summer:
The Second Vienna Award and Hungarian-Romanian Relations, 1940-1944
http://www.bookdepository.co.uk/book/97808...ographicdata-26

The author is a new generation historian from Transylvania, who studied Hungarian, Rumanian and German sources.
Hopefully, the book will shed a neutral light on this sensitive topic.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. I will wait for the softcover edition, as 39 Euros is a bit steep for me.

This post has been edited by Dénes on April 02, 2011 08:11 am

A good book is Bătălia pentru Ardeal, by Valer Pop, who was the chief of romanian delegation on the first meetings with the hungarian part, in Oltenia, months before 30 august 1940.

I enclose a few excerpts from this reference book on this (sensitive) topic:











General data on the book:

The Second Vienna Award and the Hungarian-Romanian Relations, 1940-1944. Béni L. Balogh
589 pages, hardcover.
Published by Atlantic Research and Publ. Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 2011.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. See also the discussion in "The best Romanian historical book" topic: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=6913

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 11, 2014 01:12 pm

Regarding the affirmations on page 3, about the suggestion that this act was not compulsory or forced upon Romania. It is taken out of context and the same he could say about the Soviet ultimatum of 1940, since Romania agreed then he could say it was not forced

The claim is separated from context of 1939-1940 international events including the most crucial moment of the fall of France and the carving of different countries by the bullies Hitler and Stalin.

Romania did not want this award or diktat because she did not want the events leading to this. It's like saying she was not content with result of Trianon and wanted to make an exchange of territory and population with Hungary. If this was the case, why wasn't this "award" done in the inter-war period?

The situation, which lead to what was/is generally known as the '2nd Vienna Arbitration' (or Dictate, if you want to use Rumanian terminology), was very complex, indeed.

Here is how I would sum up the events (regarding solely Transylvania) in seven simple steps (Caveat! One should not use hindsight or today's politics to judge those events!):
1, Rumania gained a disputed territory (the whole historical Transylvania) during the turbulent post-WW 1 times. This territory gain was then legalised internationally by the Trianon Peace Treaty of 1920.
2, Hungary wanted back the lost territory, and worked towards this goal (revision). Rumania obviously wanted to keep it.
3, With the defeat of Poland, France (and the cornering of the UK), Rumania lost its traditional allies. By contrast, Hungary started to openly arm from late 1938, and also increased diplomacy for peaceful or military revisionism.
4, Rumania had to align itself with the Powers of the "New Order" (Germany and Italy) if it wanted to survive.
5, With the Soviet Union recovering Bessarabia, Hungary saw the right time to recover Transylvania, by either peaceful means (dialogue), or military way. The talks at Turnu Severin lead to nowhere. The only remaining solution for Hungary was war.
7, Rumania did not want to engage in war, knowing that the USSR might intervene to get the whole Moldavia, eventually Bulgaria Dobrudzha, and not knowing what would Germany do. Therefore asked for an arbitration by the two European Powers (Germany and Italy), the real power brokers at that time (besides the Soviet Union). Same did Hungary, hoping to avoid a war it might not win after all (they also did not know how would Germany react, as Rumania was more a preferred strategic ally to Hitler than Hungary). [see note at the end]
6, Germany did not want an open conflict in the rear area, while was gearing up to the anti-Soviet war. Therefore, agreed to an arbitration mandatory for both parties (the 2nd one).
7, Neither side was happy with the outcome of the arbitration, and both sides geared up to regain control over the lost part of Transylvania. This shaped their policy towards Germany (and the Eastern Front) throughout the entire war, both sides courting Hitler all along. At the end, neither side managed to influence Hitler to revise the original decision made at Vienna, on 30 August 1940.
The rest, we know.

I am looking forward to your opinion on this sensitive and interesting topic (I truly hope that enough time have passed since then, so we can talk about the historical aspects without involving politics or various sentiments, which invariably end up to hard feelings and in a locked topic).

Gen. Dénes

P.S. Here is the English version of the Arbitration: http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXVIII/407-412.pdf
Note: Please note the first sentence, omitted when the document was published in Rumania.

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 11, 2014 05:03 pm

Mr Denes, the "arbitration" of Vienna was a Diktat, evan you or hungarian historiography don't like this word. And it is not about the terminology but a fact. And this is generally accepted by the historiography, not only romanian.... excuse me, "rumanian".

This post has been edited by Daniel Focsa on November 11, 2014 05:14 pm

Can you prove your strict words, Mr. Focsa? One by one, please.

In anticipation,

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 11, 2014 06:34 pm

Prove what ? That Vienna "arbitration" was a diktat ?
Sorry, I have no time for this.

This post has been edited by Daniel Focsa on November 12, 2014 04:33 am

Hi Denes,

Considering that a weakened Romania after World War One was not willing to give away even a little piece of Transylvania in the aftermath of that war, an that was the reason for all that fighting in 1919 - 1921, why a stronger Romania would have given away a half of Transylvania in 1940, without being forced into that ?
Yes, Romania was stronger in 1940, but this time Hungary was not alone.
In the eyes of Hitler, Hungary was always "the good guys".
Romania not only was an enemy in WWI, but she had alliance treaties with France, Poland and Czechoslovakia. Being allied with France, she was also allied with Great Britain. Should I remind that 3 of these countries were already enemies of the Reich by August 1940, and the 4th would have also been if it would not have been stabbed in the back by her own allies ?
The worst thing Romania could have done (in the eyes of the Nazi leadership) was to let the Polish Army to evacuate through Romania, and also to allow the gold of Poland to reach Great Britain.
You know the words of that British Air Marshall during The Battle of Britain : "We need any pilot we can get". More than 150 Polish pilots took part in The Battle of Britain - the biggest number from all foreigners, including those from the Commonwealth. All of them arrived in Great Britain through Romania.
So, to make it simple: Romania had to be punished for her past.
Romania accepted to give that half of Transylvania for being afraid to be invaded by Germany.
Should I remind you that in that very moment Soviet Union was an ally of Germany, and they collaborated like brothers in Poland ?
For the Romanian leadership of that moment, it was a very fresh memory.
I do not blame that Romanian government for trying to avoid a simultaneous war with Germany, Soviet Union, Hungary and Italy (Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were also official allies of Germany - should I add them ?).
Romania survived as a functional state (I did not write "independent state").
Even if not independent, at least Romania did not end torn in pieces by the victors, like Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece.
Why did I write all these ? You know them very well.
Was my introduction really needed ? It seems so.
You are making the confusion between the will to avoid a catastrophic war, having as obvious result the end of Romania as state, and the will of a country to give away a big part of her territory in peaceful times.

This post has been edited by Florin on November 13, 2014 01:25 am

I fully agree with your list of events.

I have not enough information about what the Romanian diplomats did expect from the meeting at Vienna. From the document in English that resulted after this event, it is expressed that Romania wanted to accept anything that Germany and Italy would "arbitrarily" chose, but from other sources and claims it appears that Romanian side expected some negotiations to take place and not just be shown the map and sign or else.

In English, the word "Rumania" is perfectly acceptable. It is included in the Oxford English Dictionary, which is the authority on English language.

Similarly, the word "Rumania" is included in the Webster English Dictionary, which is the standard American English dictionary.

If you wish to imply that "Rumania" is a "Horthyst" (whatever that is... ) or some kind of Hungarophile expression, then you should know that the Hungarian word for Romania is "Románia".

Radu