Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Eastern Europe, The Soviet Union, Volume VI

871.00/8–2946

Memorandum of Conversation, by the Director of the Office of European Affairs (Matthews)²³

Paris, August 29, 1946.

Participants:	Mr. Tatarescu, Rumanian Minister for Foreign Affairs
	Rumanian Interpreter
	The Secretary
	Mr. Matthews

Mr. Tatarescu called on the Secretary this morning and said that he wanted to pay his respects and to express his gratitude and that of the Rumanian people for the decision of the Council of Foreign Ministers in May with regard to Transylvania.²⁴ He was also grateful for the action taken yesterday (in the Hungarian Political and Territorial Commission) confirming the restoration of Transylvania to Rumania.²⁵ The Secretary pointed out the decision of the Commission will be valid as a Conference recommendation only when it has been approved by the Conference. Mr. Tatarescu said that he knows there is considerable anxiety in the United States and Great Britain concerning the situation in Rumania and that he would therefore like to explain what the situation is. The Secretary said he was glad of this because he himself has considerable apprehension concerning the Rumanian situation.

The Rumanians are a people of order, discipline, and work, said Mr. Tatarescu, and while all countries have suffered crises resulting from the war, he feels confident that the situation in Rumania is more normal than that in any other country of Central or Eastern Europe. From Lithuania to Greece, he said, one would find conditions in Rumania the most peaceful. Furthermore, it is the only country which, since the war, has remained a “capitalist country from the social point of view”. It is the only one that has not nationalized its industry. There are Communists and Socialists in the Government, of course, but even these Parties in Rumania are essentially bourgeois. The only major social step taken was that of badly needed agrarian reform. For the last two years there have been no strikes. He did not want to deny that there had been some excesses and some violence, but these are fortunately on the decline.

As to foreign policy, Mr. Tatarescu said that his country stood for collaboration with the Soviet Union but not for isolation. Rumania also wants relations with the United States and Britain and especially with France, with which country it has long had such close ties. From the time of Versailles to 1940 Rumanian policy was one of complete loyalty to democracy. Rumania was, he said, “a satellite of France and Geneva”. Unfortunately, Rumania lost its head after the fall of France. It was threatened on four sides—by Germany, by Russia, by Hungary, and by Bulgaria. As a result, Rumania lost Bessarabia, the Dobruja, Northern Bucovina, and half of Transylvania. She was isolated and finally forced into an unpopular war. As soon as possible Rumania regained her freedom and joined the Allies. Her contribution on the side of the Allies was 18 Divisions and she lost 100,000 casualties. In fact, Rumania became the fourth Power in importance on the Allied side.

Rumanian collaboration with Soviet Russia arises from her geopolitical situation. He himself has been very anti-Communist all his life. He has fought the Communists and is still doing his best to fight the Communists in Rumania. On the other hand, one must be patriotic and a realist and he cannot lose sight of the fact that there are “200,000,000 men across the Prut”. If one is not a friend of the Soviet Union, then one must be an enemy. It is therefore a question of the very existence of Rumania to be friendly to the Soviets. But he wanted Mr. Byrnes to remember that Rumania is not a Slav nation, but Latin, with Latin clarity of mind, order, and above all, individualism.

On the other hand, Rumania does not wish, continued Mr. Tatarescu, to remain isolated from the West. She wants her old traditional relationships to be resumed. He asks help from the noble people of America. If we have any doubts about his country we should ask France what Rumania stood for during the last 30 years as a factor of order and civilization. In fact, he must protest against Rumania being placed on the same footing with Italy, Bulgaria, and Hungary. Italy was the seat of Fascism; Hungary and Bulgaria were the watch-dogs of Germany. In conclusion, he asked again for the aid of the United States. (At no point did he specify what type of aid he had in mind).

The Secretary said that it was not necessary for him to tell Mr. Tatarescu that the people of America have friendly feelings for the people of Rumania. It was not necessary for him to say that the people of America are not interested in collaboration with any country when such collaboration lessens its independence. The United States has been in two wars in Europe and has never asked one foot of territory or one dollar. Mr. Tatarescu promptly agreed. The United States, continued the Secretary, was not asking and would refuse to accept any special privileges not given to other countries. That is what we mean by equality of opportunity for trade. We are asking nothing for ourselves which we would not want Rumania to give, say, to France or the Soviet Union. The American people fought the war for equal rights for all and they therefore think that Rumania has the right to trade with anyone it wishes and to run its own government. The United States wants Rumania to have friendly relations with the Soviet Union. There is plenty of room for all.

What then are the United States apprehensions? The United States does not believe that there can be any satisfactory situation in Rumania unless Rumania is free. The United States insisted at Moscow in working for the formula adopted in the belief that this would help make Rumania independent. Early and free elections were promised but they have never been held. There were many in the United States who criticized the Secretary, asserting that free elections would never take place and that therefore there was no basis for the Moscow Agreement. The Secretary defended the formula and believed it was justified but now his opponents can say that nothing has been done. There are reports that elections may be held in November. He asked Mr. Tatarescu if that is correct.

Mr. Tatarescu replied that Rumania had more interest than anyone that elections be held as soon as possible and he himself is working to that end. There has been a delay because of the difficulties in agreeing on an election law. One was finally adopted, however. We should recall that these are the first elections in 10 years. Two months were necessary for the preparation of new election lists, for in the interim there had been great movements of people and women had now been given the vote. Thus there will be some 7 million voters in the forthcoming elections compared to 3 million ten years ago. The delays have been caused only by technical reasons and the elections will now, he said, surely take place in October.

The Secretary said that the American Government has disturbing reports that these elections if held will not be the free and untrammeled elections which in his presence Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill worked for at Yalta. On the contrary he hears of political meetings, such as that at Pitesti, which are broken up by the police and that there is no freedom of political assembly or opportunity for the Opposition to carry on their meetings.

Mr. Tatarescu said he did not know anything about any incident at Pitesti. He always speaks the brutal truth. The fact is that it would be a big mistake for anyone from the West to look upon such incidents without considering the ideology of the country. In 20 years he has taken part in 25 campaigns and has won 10 elections. He considers himself, therefore, a professional. He knows it would be a great mistake to judge Rumanian election habits by the standards of New York. The Secretary said he recognized that one could not expect perfection in government anywhere but that the breaking up of meetings and Party Assemblies caused unfavorable attention all over the world. Mr. Tatarescu said he deplored such incidents and attributed them to the extreme tension existing in his country between the Government and the Opposition. He is returning to Rumania shortly and will try his best to arrange—“a truce”— between the Government and the Opposition, which he hoped would end such violence. The incidents were, however, the result of Rumanian habits and civilization. Look at Greece where conditions are worse, and also Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. He admitted the atmosphere in Rumania is not what he wants, but election conditions are far worse in other countries. The Secretary said that while incidents had of course occurred in Greece, he wished to point out that Greece has invited neutral observers to see that her elections were freely carried out.²⁶ He himself had picked the best men available and sent them to Greece as observers. The result was a free election. Greece has again, in connection with its forthcoming plebiscite, insisted that there be neutral observers thus to give confidence to the world in the results of the elections. Because of the shortage of time and personnel, he had at first declined the Greeks’ invitation but they begged him to change and he has therefore agreed to send some informal observers. The United States has no interest in the elections but based on their reports we will tell the world what happens and if there is violence that will not be concealed from the peoples of the world. At Yalta much time was spent in writing the provisions for free and untrammeled elections and now he dislikes to feel that the promises of Yalta have not been complied with. The Secretary understands that the Rumanian electoral law is satisfactory, but his own 25 years of experience has shown him that the important thing in elections is the way the law is applied. It was sad to note that before the elections people were saying that the police in Rumania will prevent all freedom of expression. Mr. Tatarescu said that he thought the reports were probably exaggerated. He himself stood for free elections and he is convinced that they will be properly conducted. The Secretary warned him that the question of our future relations with Rumania are bound to be affected by the manner in which these elections are carried out. He was therefore glad to have the Foreign Minister’s assurances that they will be free.

The Secretary said he wanted to tell Mr. Tatarescu frankly that certain remarks in his statement in the Plenary Session he had not liked.²⁷ The Foreign Minister had said that the Soviet Government had been generous on the matter of reparations and that he hoped others would likewise be generous. The Secretary pointed out that while we had agreed at the time the Armistice was negotiated and feeling was high that $300 million should go to Russia as reparations, we did not think any such figure should have been demanded and we were opposed to it. We had likewise noted that the Soviet Union had taken a considerable number of ships from Rumania. The U.S. and the British, however, had taken nothing. As the Secretary listened to Mr. Tatarescu’s speech he got the impression that the only way to be considered generous was to take something from Rumania. He wanted to know in what respect Mr. Tatarescu did not think that the United States had behaved generously.

Mr. Tatarescu objected that he did not say that the United States was not generous. In his reference to Soviet generosity he only meant that the Soviet could have taken whatever it wanted. The Secretary remarked that it was curious to thank people for not taking everything. Mr. Tatarescu said he had to admit while Rumania did very little against the United States or Great Britain, she had destroyed and pillaged to a shameful extent in Russia and had burned and blackened Soviet territory all the way from the Black Sea to the Volga. When he had gone to Moscow, Mr. Mikoyan, the Minister of Commerce, had showed him his estimates which amounted to three billion dollars of damage caused by Rumania. Mr. Mikoyan had done this for the purpose of bringing home to him what Rumania really owed. Thus in reducing these claims to $300 million the Soviet had behaved generously. The Secretary pointed out that it is utterly impossible for any country to be reimbursed for property destroyed in war any more than it could be reimbursed for the lives lost, and we must get away from this conception. As far as the United States was concerned, United States claims had arisen largely in the period since the Armistice. They concerned primarily the question of our oil interests. He understood that the Rumanian Government requires oil for reparations and has fixed the price to be paid for the oil so low that our companies find it difficult to stay in business. Mr. Tatarescu said that he was familiar with the question and that not only American companies but British and Italian and Rumanian companies were similarly affected. The difficulty was due to the fact that Rumania is living under a regime of fixed maximum prices which apply to all companies. However, he felt this system would soon be abolished. In any event, he believed that the oil companies were not really in bad shape but were “doing a good business”.

The Secretary said that he raised the question because Mr. Tatarescu had spoken of the matter of compensation and he wanted to point out that almost all American claims had arisen in the period since the Armistice. What, however, we are interested in most of all is that the elections in Rumania will in reality be free and fair. Mr. Tatarescu said that not only should the elections be free but there must be “a good government” in Rumania. The Secretary replied that this is what we are interested in and he wanted to stress one important fact. We have been involved in two wars in Europe and after that experience we are convinced that we cannot live to ourselves. This time, as shown at Yalta (in the Declaration on Liberated Europe) and ever since, we intend to concern ourselves with the problems of Europe and to carry out our full responsibilities. We want Rumania to be the same free and independent country that Mr. Tatarescu does. Mr. Tatarescu said he was very happy to hear this because it was a great thing for humanity that the United States should continue to interest herself in Europe. In conclusion the Secretary stated that Rumania need have no reason to be afraid of any country and if she appealed before the United Nations in case of any threat she would be defended. The United States was determined to stand by the United Nations in every issue and to see that the United Nations assume their full responsibilities. Mr. Tatarescu said this was a very heartening and important statement which he was most happy to hear.

H. Freeman Matthews

23. A summary of this conversation was transmitted to the Department in telegram 4385, Delsec 886, August 31, from Paris, not printed. Mr. Matthews was serving as a Special Political Adviser to the United States delegation at the Paris Peace Conference.
24. On May 7, 1946, the Council of Foreign Ministers agreed that the Hungarian-Rumanian border of January 1, 1938, should be restored. See the United States delegation record, vol. ii, pp. 259–260.
25. On August 28, 1946, the Political and Territorial Commission for Hungary of the Paris Peace Conference unanimously adopted article 1, paragraph 3 of the Draft Hungarian Peace Treaty providing for the restoration of the Hungarian-Rumanian border of January 1, 1938. See the United States Delegation Journal summary record of this Commission meeting, vol. iii, p. 302.
26. For documentation regarding the participation of the United States in the Allied Commission to supervise the Greek elections of March 31, 1946, see vol. vii, pp. 88 ff.
27. Foreign Minister Tatarescu, in his capacity as Chief of the Rumanian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, addressed the 15th Plenary Meeting of the Conference on August 13, 1946. For a summary of Tatarescu’s address, see the United States Delegation Journal record of the 15th Plenary Meeting, vol. iii, p. 190.