Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Paris Peace Conference: Proceedings, Volume III

CFM Files

Verbatim Record

August 13, 1946, 4 p.m.

[Extract]

C.P.(Plen) 15

President: Mr. Byrnes.

The President: I beg the Secretary General to introduce the Roumanian Delegation.⁸²

(Entry of the Roumanian Delegation)

The President: The Paris Conference welcomes the Roumanian Delegates. I call on M. Tatarescu, Chief of the Roumanian Delegation to express the views of his country on the Draft Treaty concerning Roumania.

M. Tatarescu (Roumania) Mr. President—Gentlemen.

The first words of the Roumanian Delegation will be words of thanks to the 21 United Nations for the possibility which they have given the Roumanian Government to express its views on the draft Peace Treaty drawn up by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R., the U.S., the U.K. and France.

The draft Treaty also gives the whole Roumanian people a further reason to express its gratitude by the decision stipulated in the terms of Article 2, which declares null and void the Vienna Award of 30 August, 1940, attaching arbitrarily Northern Transylvania to Hungary,⁸³ and restores the frontier between Roumania and Hungary to what it was on 1 January, 1938.

This decision, which restores to Roumania the Territory of northern Transylvania, torn from the Roumanian motherland by violence and coercion, puts an end for ever to the prolonged and renewed oppression of which the Roumanian people has been the victim. Taken in the name of justice and at the same time, we are convinced, as a result of the countless sacrifices made by the whole Roumanian nation, this decision offers real prospects of fruitful collaboration between the Roumanian people and the Hungarian people and augurs well for the pacification of those last centres of agitation, heritage of a distressing past, which up to the present have prevented the establishment of friendly relations between these two peoples.

Roumania welcomes this act of reparation with the firm resolve to carry out unflinchingly her duties in maintaining order and harmony among the other free and democratic peoples.

The Roumanian Government has carefully studied the other provisions embodied in the draft Peace Treaty and we are now able to submit to you our observations on the political, military and economic clauses of this treaty.

In the first place the Roumanian Government feels obliged, to its regret, to note the absence of any recognition of its quality of cobelligerent which Roumania considers it would only have been just to recognise.

The Roumanian people considers that its military and economic achievements during the final phase of the war which has just come to an end entitle it to claim this recognition.

It is perhaps necessary to recall that in the years between the two wars Roumania remained throughout in the group opposed to Germany. As a member of the League of Nations and by its adherence to a whole series of international treaties, Roumania adopted towards Germany the attitude not of a satellite but of an opponent.

Yet, after the military events of May and June 1940, Roumania was drawn by a handful of adventurers and traitors and to the detriment of her permanent interests into the German campaign against the Soviet Union and her Allies.

None the less the Roumanian people, with greater foresight than its tyrannical leaders of that time, turned against Germany and her satellites and at the cost of what sacrifices and perils, broke the chains of this baneful collaboration.

On the 23rd August, 1944 when “the issue of the war was not yet decided”—to quote the glorious chief of the Red Army, Generalissimo Stalin—the Roumanian people, led by the forces of its true democracy and with the help and support of its young and gallant king, took its place in the ranks of its natural Allies and unhesitatingly plunged into the war of liberation. By one of the greatest and gravest efforts in its history it made a most valuable contribution, we believe, to the war of the United Nations and to final victory.

Furthermore, the Roumanian Government feels called upon to remind the representatives of Members and Associates of the United Nations that Roumania came into the war against Germany and Horthy’s Hungary, not as stated in the Preamble to the draft Peace Treaty, after the armistice concluded with the United Nations on 12th September, 1944, but on August 24th of that year.

On that date, the King, the Army and the people of Roumania unanimously rose sword in hand against Germany and Horthy’s Hungary. The entire military and economic strength of Roumania was mobilised simultaneously and placed at the service of the United Nations. On August 24th, 1944, eighteen Roumanian divisions comprising 385,000 men, supported by air corps, were launched to attack the German and Hungarian invaders. The Roumanian army served as a covering force for the Red armies and, from August 24th to September 1st alone, by hard-fought battles, had freed the Roumanian territory south of the Carpathians and taken 51,000 prisoners.

The state of war Germany and Hungary was therefore not a result of the Armistice Convention, which was not signed until September 12th, it was the outcome of King Michael’s Proclamation and the Government declaration of August 23rd—both of which reflected the feelings and the will of the Roumanian people.

In a memorandum addressed last April to the Deputy Foreign Ministers in London—a document we hold at the disposal of the Conference—the Roumanian Government explained in detail the military and economic efforts our country had made to promote the common cause of the United Nations.

Having undertaken, in conformity with the Armistice Convention, to contribute not less then twelve divisions to the war effort, Roumania was at no time represented by less than fourteen divisions in the fighting which took place between August 23rd, 1944, and May 10th 1945. Operating under the Soviet High Command for 260 days the Roumanian troops fought shoulder to shoulder with the Red Army. Piercing the enemy lines to a depth of 1,000 kilometers—from the Murosk river in Transylvania to the centre of Bohemia—Roumanian troops, by sheer force of arms, crossed twelve mountain ranges and liberated 3,831 localities, including 53 towns. During the fighting 103,214 prisoners were captured by the Roumanian forces, which, after the liberation of our own territory, fought on first in Hungary and then in Czechoslovakia, thereby helping to free the territory of their Czechoslovak brothers.

After 23rd August, 1944, not a single Roumanian soldier, either regulars or volunteers, continued to fight side by side with the German armies or those of its satellites. Roumania did not afford the spectacle of those internal dissensions in which one portion of the armed forces, fighting in the ranks of the United Nations, had ranged itself against the other, fiercely determined to assist the German armies.

After the 23rd August, all Roumanian forces, without exception, resumed their place under the banners of freedom; and in the actions they contested by the side of the United Nations, lost at least 111,000 killed and wounded. The results of the Roumanian action may be summed up as follows. It prevented the German armies from making a successful defensive stand on a previously organised fortified line, a stand which would have enabled these armies to gain valuable time for further defensive operations.

It favoured and added speed to the strategic manoeuvres of the glorious Soviet armies, which aimed at taking the German forces in the rear and linking up with Yugoslavia. By undertaking covering operations in Transylvania, it assisted and hastened the deployment and concentration of the Russian armies beyond the Carpathians, thus facilitating their great strategic manoeuvres which broke open the gates of Central Europe.

Lastly, Roumanian action contributed substantially to the destruction of the Hungarian forces which had remained faithful to Germany, and thus to the liberation of Czechoslovak territory.

Launched at a time when German resistance was still powerful, Roumanian action contributed to reversing the political and military situation of the countries still fighting on the German side or assisting her in other ways.

For all these reasons, and on the basis of her contribution to the common victory during the concluding stages of the war, Roumania believes she has earned the right to claim the title of co-belligerent.

The Roumanian Government feels, in the interests of historical accuracy, that the two following facts should be recognised and defined in the preamble of the Treaty:

1. That Roumania entered the war on 24 August, and not on 12 September, 1944;

2. That she waged war not only against Germany, but also against Horthy’s Hungary;

The Roumanian Government is also prepared to make the most explicit reservations regarding another omission in the Draft Treaty of Peace which has been noted.

For this Draft does not contain any clause concerning compensation or reparations for Roumania, either from Germany or from Hungary, although Roumania was actually at war with both these countries.

Both the German and Hungarian forces were responsible for causing great destruction and damage on Roumanian territory, and inflicting very heavy losses, on both the armed forces and the civilian population.

International law gives Roumania the right to claim compensation and reparation from its former enemies.

Roumania has already submitted her claims in this connection.

Reparation claims from Germany were submitted by the Roumanian Government to the German Reparations Commission at Paris in December, 1945.

The claims against Hungary are embodied in a special memorandum, submitted by the Roumanian Government to the Deputies of the Foreign Ministers at London in April; and this memorandum is held at the disposal of the Conference.

Roumania, like the other allied armies, fought against the Hungarian Fascist forces, not only until the conclusion of the Armistice, signed on 20 January, 1945 between Hungary and the United Nations, but also until the general cessation of hostilities in May of that year.

Roumania feels convinced she has earned the right to reparations for the destruction for which the Hungarian armies were responsible on her territory, as well as for the damage resulting from other acts of war.

For all the above reasons, the Roumanian Government is compelled to request the Conference to remedy this omission in the Treaty of Peace.

Moreover, the Roumanian Government considers that the measures set forth in the military clauses are very far from corresponding to the Roumanian contribution to the common effort of the United Nations during the concluding stages of the war.

Roumania is firmly resolved to adhere, without delay, to all the measures which may be adopted by the United Nations Organisation in connection with the limitation of the military forces and armaments of all countries. She is compelled, however, to challenge what is, in her opinion, the unjust character of these restrictive military provisions which are definitely penal in character. The Roumanian armies, with great enthusiasm, placed all their forces at the service of the United Nations and the common Allied cause. For nine months they fought side by side with the Russian armies, up to the very ramparts of Budapest and the outskirts of Prague.

Roumania feels fully justified in claiming that the blood of her soldiers, mingled on the battlefield with that of their Russian comrades, will contribute to mitigate before history the consequences of the errors committed.

The Roumanian people therefore earnestly begs the Conference to leave the arms with which they fought for freedom and justice, side by side with the United Nations, in the hands of its soldiers.

On examination of the economic clauses, as well as those dealing with restitution and reparation, the Roumanian Government find that they contain provisions which lay such burdens on Roumania that, if they were maintained as stipulated, Roumania would be left in the position of assuming obligations which she could not fulfil and would simultaneously find her economic rehabilitation irremediably compromised.

Many of these provisions moreover, are not merely inequitable and difficult to put into effect but, in addition, their complex and indefinite character gives grounds for the most serious apprehensions and leaves the door open to unreal claims which can neither be foreseen nor estimated.

We feel it abnormal also to expect the Roumanian Government to compensate, simultaneously with the losses due to its war activities, those losses arising from action taken by it after 24th August, 1944, i.e., at a date when Roumania was fighting against the Axis Powers and even in cases where the action was forced on her by those very circumstances.

Equally it would be wrong to apply the same treatment to property honestly acquired through the ordinary commercial channels and property seized by force and without compensation. Should, however, such restitution be insisted on, provision would necessarily have to be made for the Roumanian State or its nationals to have a right of counter compensation against the Axis Power which alienated the property in question.

I should add that the clauses in the Treaty, which lay an obligation on Roumania to prove that the property whose title is disputed has not been obtained by force or duress, are incompatible with the elementary principles of the law of evidence.

With more particular reference to the question of railway rolling stock, some 30,000 trucks of which have been taken out of Roumania for the common benefit of the Allies, the Roumanian Government suggest that, as soon as the Peace has been signed, an International Railway Conference should be convened to determine the practical steps to be taken to ensure that every country can recover its own rolling stock.

On the problem of reparation to be paid to the Allied and Associated Powers I cannot refrain from pointing out that the Soviet Union, which more than any other Power was entitled to claim full reparation from Roumania, has, nevertheless, agreed to limit her demands to one fifth only of the losses sustained through Roumanian action. It would, therefore, be strange if the other Allied and Associated Powers whose territory was not affected by the Roumanian war effort, treated Roumania so harshly as to aggravate her economic situation to an extremely serious degree.⁸⁴

Some of the claims which are made, however, go so far as to demand compensation for what might be regarded as indirect losses and even loss of profits. On the other hand, Roumania’s acceptance of the principle of reunuciation of her claims on Germany and German nationals as advocated in certain proposals would in view of the special circumstances governing trade between Germany and Roumania, often put the Roumanian Government in the position of having to pay twice over debts which it has already discharged. Such a proposal would merely mean punishing Roumania for having joined the United Nations and would be tantamount to Roumania paying reparation to Germany. It is clear, on the other hand, that the destruction wrought by the Axis troops during their withdrawal, as well as other losses suffered by Roumania’s economy at the hands of Germany, would fully justify the reparation which Roumania demands from the latter country in consequence of Roumanian operations subsequent to 23rd August, 1944.

Finally, not content with placing excessivley heavy burdens on Roumania and debarring her from lodging just claims against the Axis Powers, the Treaty further insists on Roumania dropping all claims in respect of the measures taken in various countries from 1st September, 1939, onwards, although Roumania remained neutral until 22nd June, 1941.

The Roumanian Government would further point out that the provisions of Article 30 of the draft Treaty, derogate from Roumanian sovereignty in the field of economic policy. Under this Article the benefits of the most-favoured-nation clause are automatically claimed for all the United Nations for a specific period and in very vague terms. The implementation of these provisions would mean a diminution of Roumania’s resources, would make her efforts to restore her economy illusory and prevent her carrying out the undertakings assumed under the Treaty itself, for the obvious reason that she would have to support burdens without any equivalent consideration. There seems to be even less justification for inserting this clause in the Peace Treaty seeing that it has no connection with acts of war or their consequences.

Mr. President—Fellow Delegates, in submitting these remarks and reservations, the Roumanian Government would like to state that Roumania will conscientiously discharge all the undertakings she assumes under the Peace Treaty, animated as she is by the wish to regain and maintain her place in the ranks of the free peoples, by reliance on her efforts and observance of her undertakings.

Roumania has emerged from the great tragedy which has steeped her existence in blood, with her material resources shattered but her moral forces intact. She has decided to redeem her mistake and to build up a new framework for the social and political life of her people.

The frontiers assigned by the Peace Treaty to Roumania remove all possibility of conflict in this part of Europe and hold out an attractive prospect of peaceful and harmonious collaboration between the Roumanians and all their neighbours.

Our aim today is to efface the consequences of the unhappy conflict with the Soviet Union and the United Nations into which we were thrown.

It is our desire to strengthen the ties of friendship and collaboration with the peoples of the Soviet Union and to re-open relations with the United States and the United Kingdom and put them on a basis of mutual confidence.

We seek to renew our relations with France with whom we already feel we are linked by a strong tradition of friendship.

Lastly, we seek to collaborate with all peace-loving peoples.

Having settled our dispute with Bulgaria we wish today to build on the ruins of the past the foundations of a permanent friendship that will be equally advantageous to both our nations.

Similarly in a desire to reinforce democratic peace and order in this part of Europe we have stretched out the hand of friendship to the Hungarian nation and we still hold that hand outstretched.

At this solemn moment when Roumania seeks for the co-operation of all peace and liberty-loving peoples, she intends to notify without further delay her full acceptance of the principles of the United Nations Charter, principles which she has already put into execution by guaranteeing everyone under her jurisdiction irrespective of race, ethnic origin or creed, full and complete enjoyment of human rights and fundamental liberties.

In loyal acknowledgement of these principles, Roumania has not waited for any internal pressure to be exercised or external orders to be imposed before guaranteeing the national minorities on her territory a regime of complete freedom.

Roumania will spare no effort in future which is calculated to improve the material and moral circumstances of the individual or reject any suggestions calculated to promote international collaboration and strengthen collective security. For her social justice is an article of faith and a policy of international harmony and Peace is her guiding principle.

Having resolved to pursue these ideals to the utmost of her power, Roumania hopes that the Conference will, through its decisions enable her to fulfil her task for her own sake and for that of all mankind.

82. The source text contains the following handwritten marginal note at this point: “I said ‘ask’ not ‘beg’ JFB”
83. For text of the Second Vienna Award and Protocol, see Documents on German Foreign Policy 1918–1945, series D. vol. X (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1957), p. 581.
84. On August 29, Foreign Minister Tatarescu called on the Secretary of State. In the course of their conversation, which was principally concerned with the Rumanian internal situation, Byrnes told Tatarescu that he had not liked certain passages in the present statement, notably references to Soviet generosity in matters of reparations implying lack of generosity on the part of the United States. For the record of this conversation, see vol. vi, p. 626.