871.00/11–2746
The Representative in Rumania (Berry) to the Secretary of State
No. 1265
[Received December 10, 1946.]
Sir: I have the honor to refer to Despatch No. 1245 of November 18 entitled “Prelude to Rumanian Elections”62 and to report on the [Page 663] basis of available documentation upon the course of Rumanian elections of November 19. In view of the coverage of these elections by voluminous telegraphic reports from this Mission and the American military representation, as well as press stories written by American correspondents here for the event, this despatch merely seeks to highlight the course of the elections through the most relevant and official documentary material.
[Here follows a brief review of the difficulties encountered by the opposition parties on the eve of the Rumanian elections.]
The design of government falsification of elections appeared clear before they occurred, and the tactics were simple and unashamed. The technique consisted of three devices, (1) stuffing the ballot boxes before opposition watchers arrived at the polls or were permitted to enter, (2) by depriving of voting cards at least fifty per cent of the people eligible to vote, thus permitting multiple voting by ostensible government supporters, and (3) denying the right of opposition watchers to be present when the ballot counts were made.
The above practices were confirmed by documents received before elections. For example, a document dated November 15 put out by the Prefect in Foçsani, Putna District, took the signatures of all presidents of all voting sections to blank electoral return certificates. He then requested that these men permit the greatest freedom in voting, since the result was assured by means of falsification. Likewise, on November 18, this Mission received a written statement from a responsible source which is given in translation as enclosure No. 4,63 outlining the voting procedure to be followed in stuffing the ballot boxes before allowing opposition watchers to enter the polling places.
For the information of voters, the Government published a document, widely circulated, entitled “How We Must Vote”. This voting information, the only printed guidance given to the voters by a supposedly impartial Government, specifically states that the voter should place his stamp on the list for the “sun”, the electoral sign of the DPB. The document ambiguously says “If the seal is applied to one side or overlaps the square, the voting is cancelled”. This interesting document in translation is given as enclosure No. 5.63
In the electoral pamphlet snow-storm on election day, the DPB made every effort to mobilize propaganda media. A recent speech of the King at the Soviet Embassy was quoted on leaflets, and his toast was quoted as desiring friendship between Rumania and Russia, and his conviction “that it will become perfect and last forever”. Another leaflet which literally covered the streets of Bucharest declaimed that the people wished to live in peace and prosperity and [Page 664] that the vote was a weapon with which the people could win or lose everything. The only way to win was considered to be the redeeming sign of the “sun”.
During the course of election day the political opposition leaders, on the basis of tactics that their representatives informed them were being employed in Bucharest, addressed representations to the head of the Electoral Bureau in Bucharest. Two such compendium documents were so addressed, and copies sent to this Mission. As these tell a story repeated universally throughout the country, the two documents are combined as enclosure No. 6.65
When the Electoral Commission began receiving reports of an opposition landslide, mainly for Maniu’s National Peasants, which left the DPB, despite all pressure, in the ruck, it suspended all reports of returns at noon of November 20 and special instructions were issued to all prefectures to revise the count according to freshly issued directives. Thus, the electoral results were delayed for a period of 48 hours while the official arrangements were perfected. It was noted that the first provisional returns gave only results for the DPB, Maniu, Bratianu and Petrescu, whereas later reports began adding various groups as “independents”, with several thousand votes distributed among them. The reason for this is attributed by informed Bucharest sources to the arrival of a Soviet electoral expert, who took pains to build up a show of “independent” strength in the returns, presumably to make their unpalatable taste less bitter.
On November 20, to all of the foreign correspondents in Bucharest, the Government presented a declaration at an Information Ministry reception, which asked all of the correspondents to sign to the effect that the elections were free. The document was couched in half-truths, which on close reading could really have been signed by every correspondent in Rumania, except that it significantly failed to mention the three electoral practices outlined previously, which made the elections a complete travesty. The declaration, with the names of the newspapermen signing it, is attached in translation as enclosure No. 7.65
In a further attempt to build up a case for the free elections supposedly held, the Interior Ministry issued a communiqué carried by the press dated November 22nd, which mentioned the atmosphere of peace and order which prevailed throughout the country and which attributed all disorder to the National Peasant and National Liberal Parties of Messrs. Maniu and Bratianu. This document is carried as enclosure No. 8.65
[Page 665]The Justice Ministry gave a communiqué, published by the press on November 23, to the effect that 6,934,983 people had voted in the elections, and that the total number of voters registered was 7,859,212. Accordingly, it proudly held that 88.99 per cent of the eligible electorate had participated in the elections of November 19th. This was the official story, and the Government was to stick to it.
There were also published the figures of percentages of the popular vote secured by the various participant parties. This document is given as enclosure No. 9.65 It shows that in six prefectures the Government permitted itself not to secure a majority. In three of those districts the majority was permitted to go to the Hungarian Popular Union, which it knew would cooperate with the DPB. In two of the six districts, it shared the overwhelming majority vote with the Hungarian Popular Union, while in one district, Botoşani, it permitted the combined opposition to outvote the DPB. This, as some observers have cynically pointed out, could even be overcome at a later date by revised calculations when results were published in the Official Gazette.
The election results officially gave the Government over 70 percent of the votes, whereas a survey of available reports of public feeling on election day and a cross-section of the free vote information show that the Government might not have garnered ten per cent of the electorate in its favor. In any event, the Democratic Parties Bloc was credited with 84.5 per cent or 348 seats in the new Parliament, the National Peasants with 7.75 per cent or 32 seats, the Hungarian Liberals with .72 percent or 3 seats, and the Democratic Peasants of Dr. Lupu with .48 per cent or 2 seats. The distribution of electoral seats by districts as it appeared in the press is contained in enclosure No. 10.66
Following the announcement of the electoral results, the victors began quarreling over the spoils, and there were varying figures, all of which still placed the Social Democratic element within the DPB as having elected the most numerous deputies, with the Tatarescu Liberals and the Plowmen’s Front virtually in a tie, closely followed by the Communists. The National Popular Party and the Dissident National Peasants were in the lower categories of the coalition. It was nevertheless true that the Communists in real numbers dominated the coalition through their control over Communists and fellow travelers camouflaged throughout the nominally elected lists of all of the other coalition parties. Nevertheless, the Socialists wished for a larger number of cabinet seats and pointedly refused [Page 666] to attend a Government-sponsored victory celebration in the Palace Square, where Premier Groza and Mr. Gheorghiu-Dej were the leading speakers. On that occasion, Mr. Groza acclaimed the victory as enabling the Government forces “to hold our heads high even in the presence of those who until now have doubted our rights. Henceforth no one on the globe will be able to ignore us”. Likewise, at a conference with press correspondents, Dr. Groza gave the significant final word by stating, “our obligations in connection with the Moscow Agreement are fulfilled through effecting the elections in an atmosphere of order and perfect freedom”.
Respectfully yours,
Foreign Service Officer