 |
|
| Anatol Țăranu | |
84 years ago, on June 28, 1940, Romania obeyed the USSR’s ultimatum and ceded the territory of Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and Hertsa Region in the face of Soviet tanks. Following the Russian military invasion, Romania lost an area of over 50,000 square kilometers, with about 4 million inhabitants, most of them ethnic Romanians, who after this date found themselves under Soviet occupation. The tragic events were a consequence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and the effects of this act caused wounds whose phantom pains are still felt today.
Catastrophic destiny of Bessarabia
The invasion of Romanian territories by the Soviets, on June 28, 1940, was only the first act of the collapse of Greater Romania, which lasted for slightly over two decades, its edifice being built with the blood effort of the glorious generation of 1918. This was followed by the national ordeal of the Romanians through the cession of Northern Transylvania to Hungary and the Quadrilateral to Bulgaria. In the fateful year 1940, Romania found itself facing an existential catastrophe with repercussions difficult to calculate at that time.
Especially catastrophic was the destiny of Bessarabia, which after being separated from the old Principality of Moldavia in 1812, returned home to its natural Romanian national space, in 1918, and then after only two decades of free development, on June 28, 1940, it was again subjugated by the empire of the East. Thus began the drama of over two million Romanians from over the Prut who were to be executed, deported and exterminated in the Stalinist gulags. The Soviet occupiers, apart from genocide through organized famine, deportations to Siberia, NKVD exterminations, brought with them the “great work” of denationalization, which still haunts the sociopolitical realities of the Republic of Moldova. The tanks of the Soviet occupiers, still frozen on pedestals and guarded by the descendants of the invaders of 1940, are one of the most illustrative manifestations of the liveliness of the phenomenon of denationalization in the Romanian territories of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina.
Cases of Romania and Finland put together
More than eight decades after the tragic events, the disputes with different interpretations regarding a possible resistance of Romania to the Soviets in June 1940 continue. The example of Finland is often remembered. This country did not give in to Soviet pressure, fought fiercely on the “Winter War” front and, even if it lost the battle, it ended that war honorably defeated. The heroic resistance of the Finns in the winter of 1940 was a significant factor in determining the state of post-war Finland, which, even though it was Hitler’s ally in the war with the Soviets, it was not ceded to Stalin.
Regarding the case of Romania, it is most often said that in June 1940, it had no choice. Sacrificed on the altar of the secret agreement between the two dictatorships within the infamous Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, it is deduced that in the event of an armed resistance, Romania would have been devastated by the Soviet troops and the fate of Bessarabia would not have been different. This assertion, which justifies the cession of Bessarabia, seems to be logically correct, but the appearance in the scientific circuit of new documents from that period comes to tinge the dispute.
It was a cruel reality that Romania, unlike Finland, had to cope with the military aggression of the Soviets totally unprepared. Due to the ignorance of the political regime at the time, the army and the entire defense system were poorly prepared for war. In addition, after France’s surrender to the Germans, the political and military alliances that really strengthened the country’s position in the past collapsed, and little was done by diplomatic ways to create new security opportunities. The fact that interwar Romania was surrounded by neighbors with revisionist pretensions was an aggravating factor and the lack of anticipation of the dangers that came on this path made the situation even worse.
But voices nevertheless existed
And yet, on June 27, 1940, at the meeting of the Crown Council where the issue of the Soviet ultimatum regarding Bessarabia was discussed, six of its members voted for armed resistance. The names of these Romanian statesmen - Nicolae Iorga, Victor Iamandi, Silviu Dragomir, Traian Pop, Ștefan Ciobanu, Ernest Urdăreanu - deserve to be included in the book of honor of Romanian dignity. But the majority of the Crown Council, a body whose vote was consultative for King Carol II, decided to accept the USSR’s ultimatum and cede Bessarabia without a fight.
Resorting to a counterfactual historical procedure, we can affirm with a large dose of certainty that, on June 28, 1940, even a minimum resistance for Bessarabia would have meant today a completely different rapprochement between two Romanian states on the left and right banks of the Prut, including another international perception of the desire to restore the Romanian national unity, not to mention, of course, the prestige and image of the Romanian national dignity internationally, but also in the face of the judgment of History.
Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact was still secret
The reasonableness of the Crown Council’s decision is supported by the assertion that in the event of armed resistance against the Soviets in June 1940, the fate of Bessarabia would have been identical, while the involvement of the Romanian Army in its defense would have led to the occupation of the whole of Romania by the Soviets. It is clear that Bessarabia could not be saved from the Soviet occupation, but a deep analysis of the positioning of Germany and the Soviet Union in the Balkan issue should have suggested that Stalin was unable to extend the Soviet occupation beyond the Prut without the risk of colliding with his new ally Hitler. Romanian oil and agricultural products were vital for Germany, which made Hitler not to allow Romania to fall into Stalin’s hands under any circumstances.
But in June 1940, the Romanian diplomatic service did not have a certain knowledge about this geopolitical reality in the Hitler-Stalin relationship and Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and Hertsa were ceded without demonstrating the slightest armed resistance, thus creating the annoying feeling of abandonment for four million Romanians, and later also for their descendants. Regarded from this perspective, the echo of the surrender of Romanian territories without a fight in 1940 is heard to this day, also fueling the anti-Romanian propaganda potential, speculated to the maximum by Moscow’s propaganda and by the followers of the Moldovan ideology in the Republic of Moldova.
History repeats itself...
Today history repeats itself in the case of Ukraine that was invaded and is being destroyed by the Russian army, just as on June 28, 1940 the Soviet Union invaded Romania and occupied Bessarabia. Today the Russian invaders are “liberating” Donbas, as they “liberated” Bessarabia then. That is why it is so important to make precise conclusions about that crime committed by the Soviets, by which Moldova eastward the Prut was separated from the country and which deprived us of the possibility of being today in Romania, an EU and NATO member state that is prosperous, safe and with a guaranteed future.
In the current conditions when the Republic of Moldova is covered by the imperialist plans of Putin’s Russia and potentially lives the danger of the Russian military aggression, in Bucharest and Chisinau the authorities are talking about the meeting of the two Romanian states within the EU. But this idyllic meeting may not happen in case of a new Russian invasion of Bessarabia. Today more than ever, we need a glimpse of the political foresight and national dignity of the political leaders on both banks of the Prut, which would agree with the national dignity vote of the six members of the Crown Council on the night of June 27-28, 1940, regarding the rejection of the Soviet ultimatum and the manifestation of resistance.
Do the opportunities repeat as well?
Russia’s war against Ukraine has generated a dangerous crisis on the border with the Romanian space. But in the history of the Romanians, these periods of international crisis generated special opportunities for achieving national unity. It would be unforgivable for the current Romanian political class in both states to miss the chance offered by history. It is true that the risks are great, but Winston Churchill still warned the politicians who chose dishonor between dishonor and war that, in the end, they invariably have both war and dishonor. It remains to be hoped that the lesson of June 28, 1940 was a good lesson for the Romanians, and they did not unlearn to use the great crises of history for the benefit of their own national unity.
IPN publishes in the Op-Ed rubric opinion pieces submitted by authors not affiliated with our editorial board. The opinions expressed in these articles do not necessarily coincide with the opinions of our editorial board.