On the Balkan Stage: Romanian Diplomacy during World War II

Who represents our interests, who protects our rights, informs us and negotiates for us outside the borders of the state? The answer to this legitimate question is apparently simple: the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the foreign diplomatic staff. A vast institutional apparatus and a complex area of activity are thus reduced to a single institution, which is more than often depersonalized in historical texts: “The Foreign Ministry has announced…”, “The Government has decided…”. But who are the people behind all these decisions and negotiations? Who are the people who deliver information, establish diplomatic contacts and impact the major decisions at a micro-level? The diplomatic state apparatus is not merely an amorphous mass of civil servants. There are, nevertheless, a national foreign policy strategy and specific negotiating mandates set by the ministry, but each of those engaged in a diplomatic act is an individual with a certain intellectual background, a social and cultural background, their own affinities, opinions and information networks. The final foreign policy decision of a state is also the result of the work that these individuals, with all their particularities, do according to their personal, formative, social and cultural contexts and determinants.

Romanian historiography has dealt with the history of international relations, focusing mainly on the analysis of the bi- or multilateral relations established by the Romanian state over time, participation in international conferences and meetings or activity within organizations. These directions, legitimate and necessary, have been complemented in recent years with research on the staff structure of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, biographies of diplomats and social histories of the Romanian diplomacy. Adrian Vițalaru¹, Adrian-Bogdan Ceobanu², Silvana Rachieru³, Daniel Cain⁴, Alexandru-Murad Mironov⁵, Elinor Danusia Popescu⁶, to mention just a few authors, have approached these topics systematically. Their studies combine the biographical genre with analyzes of international relations history and social history. To some extent, this is also the perspective proposed by our book, situated at the intersection of historiographical genres.

Who were Romania’s diplomatic representatives in the Balkans during the Second World War? How did they establish their links? How did they select and forward information? What personal mark did they add to negotiations and diplomatic notes? What was the relationship between the career diplomats and the political authorities in Romania in the context of a dictatorial regime in Bucharest? Was the functioning of the diplomatic service marked by influences, affinities and ideological and political conditioning? How did the war influence the institutional organization of the Foreign Service and its staff structure? These are just some of the questions our book aims at providing answers to. Moreover, this “questionnaire” applied to the Balkans does not only elicit answers that reflect developments and processes in the area. It allows reflections on the broader decision-making architecture, on the entire Romanian foreign policy of that period and on the functioning mechanisms of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in relation to the rigors of a totalitarian state. In addition, the World War forged the limits of diplomacy, as it was an exceptional context that tested the institutional and personal capacities of those who activated in the Romanian foreign policy. So how did a diplomatic service that had been built in the interwar period function in this exceptional situation marked by war and the impact of dictatorial regimes? In addition, for Romania, those years of conflict meant territorial amputations, negotiations and solutions for re-establishing borders, which represented major issues for the Romanian diplomacy. The issue of territorial cessions has sparkled endless historiographical debates and is still waiting for complete answers. Why did Romania choose to cede territories without a fight in 1940? On what data and information did the King and his government base their decisions? What did Romanian diplomats in the Foreign Service report about the positions and strategies of the states to which they were accredited? Was this information included in the arguments that made the subject of debates in Romania in 1940? The answers may come from the diplomatic correspondence from Berlin, Rome and Moscow, but also from the informative notes transmitted from the small Balkan states, some of which were Romania’s allies. The arguments and sources used by the ministers plenipotentiary in Belgrade or Athens are therefore essential to depict a complete picture of the year 1940.

The Balkans area is particularly suggestive for a complex analysis of the effects of the World War on the diplomatic service also because the fronts had a direct impact on the functioning of Romanian legations and consulates. Albania became part of the Italian Empire, Yugoslavia and Greece were defeated and divided, whereas Bulgaria expanded its territory. In this context, the old diplomatic constituencies no longer corresponded to the new geopolitical realities, some missions were abolished, other were relocated, while the breakdown of the communication system posed numerous problems for the transmission and reception of information. How did the Ministry of Foreign Affairs cope with all these challenges? How did the war affect the activity of the diplomats and how did they react in extreme situations?

In order to cover the above-mentioned issues coherently, our book is structured in seven chapters. The first chapter aims to provide an overview of the functioning of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the period 1939–1945 in terms of legislative framework, staff dynamics and social structure of the diplomatic apparatus. The brief portrayals of the foreign ministers of that period and their perspectives on the main events shed light on Romania’s diplomatic strategies and the motivations of those who accomplished them.

Three chapters are devoted to the functioning of the Romanian legations/embassies in Bulgaria, Greece and Yugoslavia. Using a similar pattern of analysis, we shall focus on the framework of bilateral relations in the interwar period and at the beginning of the war, the main changes derived from the war that affected the organization of the legations and the activity of the heads of mission. The brief biographical data regarding the ministers plenipotentiary is supplemented by an analysis of their work and especially their information networks, their relationship with the political authorities in Bucharest and their personal views on the events and negotiations in which they took part.

Two chapters are dedicated to the Romanian (career and honorary) consular service in the Balkans. Based on a similar structure, these chapters investigate both the institutional functioning of the offices and the activity of the heads of mission. The types of issues on the consuls’ agenda, the relationship with the diplomatic mission and the Foreign Ministry, the “portrait” of the Romanian consul in wartime and the relation between the diplomatic activity, the political context and the ideological imperatives are at the core of our investigation.

The last chapter is devoted to a structure of particular importance especially in times of war. Military Attachés, established in the Balkan capitals before 1914, passed on essential information on army equipment, military plans and operations, as well as negotiations between different diplomatic actors. The attachés provided support for the activity of civil diplomacy, but their twofold subordination, to the General Staff and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, left room for ambiguities and personal disputes. In the case of the attachés, the relationship with the political power is also of particular interest, because the head of the state (Ion Antonescu) was also a general of the Romanian army, and therefore superior in both military and civilian terms. Therefore, did this duality of power impact upon the attachés’ appointment, dismissal and overall activity? In recent years, Romanian military historians have shed some light on the activity of Romanian military attachés, starting from the mapping of missions and the identification of personnel engaged in foreign missions to the publication of documents considered relevant for the mission of these structures. The works written or coordinated by Alesandru Duțu, Lenuța Nicolescu, Alexandru Oșca and Andrei Nicolescu⁷, Mihai Chețan⁸, Dumitru Preda and Mihai Retegan⁹, Gheorghe Nicolescu¹⁰, Marusia Cîrstea¹¹ and Mitică Detot¹² are illustrative in this respect. Equally useful from a methodological perspective are the works signed by Tim Hadley¹³ and Lothar Hilbert¹⁴.

Our book starts from a long series of interrogations, which is only natural, since the very topic it tackles and the combination of research subjects it exploits inevitable triggers an avalanche of questions. The answers we were able to provide are the outcome of quantitative, contextual analyzes, case studies and comparisons, and remain tributary to the type of historical source that was available to us. In the quasi-absence of memoirs and diaries of Romanian diplomats, which could have added a human touch to this universe and provide us with a deeper insight in their professional and social lives, we made full use of administrative documents to paint a complex picture of each diplomat’s actions, way of thinking, experiences and life.