Western University Scholarship@Western Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository 11-22-2013 12:00 AM British-Romanian Relations during the Cold War Mihaela Sitariu The University of Western Ontario Supervisor Professor Brock Millman The University of Western Ontario Graduate Program in History A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree in Doctor of Philosophy © Mihaela Sitariu 2013 Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd Part of the Diplomatic History Commons, and the European History Commons Recommended Citation Sitariu, Mihaela, "British-Romanian Relations during the Cold War" (2013). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 1862. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/1862 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BRITISH –ROMANIAN RELATIONS DURING THE COLD WAR Thesis format: Monograph By Mihaela Sitariu Graduate Program in History A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada @Mihaela Sitariu, 2013 Abstract In the aftermath of the Second World War, towards the end of the 1940s, British- Romanian relations were strained, marked by accusations of espionage directed towards Britain’s diplomats and requests for recalls. The British Government reacted moderately, acquiescing to recall their diplomats but refusing to concede to the Romanians when it came to their ‘flimsy’ accusations. Negotiation was preferred to reprisals especially when certain Britons had to be rescued from the Communists’ hands. In one respect Britain was not that indulgent: when money was involved, particularly the assets of oil companies nationalized in 1948. Trade remained a priority for both the British and Romanian governments. After laborious negotiations, a trade agreement was signed in 1960 and the ascendant trend continued into the 1970s when Harold Wilson and Nicolae Ceausescu established a close relationship. Britain’s interest in Romania was defined at this juncture as being firstly political, then mercantile and cultural, in order of priority. As far as Romania remained a ‘thorn’ in the Soviet Union’s back, a means to reach the remote Chinese or a mediator between various sides of the world in conflict, politics was priority. Trade remained an issue for both parties. Anglo- Romanian cultural relations however, were almost nonexistent for the duration of this period. Concern for human rights, Helsinki agreements notwithstanding, focused entirely on the predicament of a few persons who wished to marry or to reunite with their family in Britain. When political interest in Romania declined in the 1980s, due to the regime’s eleventh hour attempt to reconnect to the Eastern Bloc, Britain’s economic interest still remained. Relations between Britain and Ceausescu’ Romania remained strong until the Revolution of 1989 that swept away Ceausescu and the Communist regime. ii At the close of the decade, Romania's foreign and domestic policies were fiercely criticized by the Soviet Union’s more liberal Communist leader, Gorbachev. Although the “value” of Romanian deviance within the communist camp seemed to be diminishing in importance during the 1980s, Ceausescu’s fall was as big a surprise to London as it was to himself. Although Ceausescu’s policies of national assertion abroad, and promises, censorship and repression inside, had produced a seemingly a stable state, neither Ceausescu nor London, had grasped that a changing Eastern Europe would challenge even the existence of a complicated balancing act between the West and East which culminated with the disappearance of the Soviet led organizations and the Soviet Bloc. Once renowned for an assertive foreign policy, Romania was again in the spot of world at the end of 1989, this time for having executed its dictator and bloodily ending a regime. iii To Professor Neville Thompson iv Table of Contents Abstract .............................ii-iii Acknowledgements ................................vi Introduction ...........................1-16 1.’We still have 10 percent’ .........................17-39 2. ‘To go to war for Romania?’ ......................40-62 3. Supporting the Communist regime? ........................63-87 4. Spies everywhere .....................88-112 5. The Romanian thaw .....................113-138 6. Divergent aims: detainees’ release versus cultural exchanges .....................139-161 7. Looking at Romania through the wrong end of the telescope ..................162-194 8. Romania singled out ........................195-221 9. Britain’s interests in Ceausescu’s Romania ...................... 222-241 10. The Queen’s guests ......................242-266 Epilogue .......................267-270 Conclusion .......................271-279 Bibliography ........................280- 286 Appendix ..........................287 Curriculum Vitae ...........................288 v Acknowledgements I was fortunate to have met during my studies at the University of Western Ontario wonderful professors. Professor Neville Thompson was a genuine mentor, always encouraging and helpful. The dissertation is dedicated to him. I am grateful to my supervisor, Professor Brock Millman, who helped me to clarify my ideas, read every word of my dissertation, often several times, and gave me much needed advice. I have learnt much from Professors J. Rodney Millard, Pierre Claude Reynard and William J. Turkell and received much encouragement from Professor Roger D. Hall. I am also grateful to Silviu Moldovan from the National Council for Studying the Securitate Files and Stelian Obiziuc from the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs who guided my research in the files of their institutions. A number of friends have given me advice and help. I am indebted to Radu Neamtu and Cosmin Florescu who supported me in various occasions during my studies. Neil and Chris Speed offered me their warm hospitality during my stay in London in May 2013. My friends Nicolae Videnie and Mircea Stanescu offered me advice and kindly located various books for me. vi Introduction This dissertation grew out of a paper which I presented in a seminar held by Professor Neville Thomson on British history. After reading my paper my colleagues were interested to find out more about Ceausescu and his foreign policy. My presentation had focused on British-Romanian relations in the mid-Cold War: the sixties and seventies. “How was Ceausescu perceived today”, my colleagues wanted to know. Is he still considered a ruthless dictator or is he praised for his stance during the Czechoslovak crisis when he condemned the Soviet led invasion by the Warsaw Pact countries in which Romania did not take part? To many people Romania was and still is a remote country whose relations with Britain were not of much interest. To many Romanians, Britain still represents the country of Churchill -- the ‘betrayer who sold us at Yalta’ -- and a country where it is good to go to work, particularly given high currency valuations. The eldest may recall that, in their youth, they had watched on TV the great pomp of Ceausescu’s visit to London and most of them would remember that the Queen took Ceausescu into her carriage. Only some would know that it was the first State visit by a Communist leader to Britain since the War and very few might draw a connection between Ceausescu’s stance of 1968 and his subsequent state visit to Britain of 1978. In the aftermath of the Second World War Romania was not of much interest for Britain. Churchill ‘never felt’ that Britain’s relations with Romania in the past ‘called for any special sacrifice’ from Britons. 1 Although changing sides on 23 August 1944, Romania was still a former Axis power. 1 Churchill, The Second World War, II, Their Finest Hour, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1940, p. 208. 1 At the beginning of the Second World War Romania’s leaders adopted a policy of cautious neutrality and King Carol II looked to Britain to help offset the developing hegemony of Germany. In 1939 the Foreign Office conceived a plan by which military assistance could be given to Romania in case of a German attack. This implied an intention to form a bloc of states in Eastern Europe which would be able to provide direct military aid to Romania in case of attack. 2 Following a request for economic assistance, on 20 March 1939 the Foreign Office announced that it would send a trade mission to Bucharest. The mission arrived at the end of April and had the purpose of granting of five million pounds in credit and the promise to purchase two hundred thousand tons of Romanian wheat from the next harvest. 3 In order to gain a free hand against Poland, Hitler made important concessions to the Soviets, including the recognition of Bessarabia as a Russian asset. Following the secret additional protocol to the Non-Aggression Pact of 23 August 1939 signed by Ribbentrop and Molotov, the Soviets invaded Bessarabia and Bukovina. In a Foreign Office memorandum of 5 September 1939 Orme Sargent stated that it was in Britain’s ‘vital interest’ to strengthen Romania. 4 This remained however just an intention. Romania led by General Ion Antonescu joined the Anti-Comintern Pact and six months later, on 22 June 1941 declared war on the Soviet Union. The Romanians would soon find themselves engaged in war with the Soviets’ allies without wanting it. Britain declared war on Romania on 7 December, followed by the United States on 12 December 1941. 5 2 Paul D. Quinlan, Clash Over Romania. British and American policies toward Romania: 1938- 1947, American Romanian Academy of Arts and Sciences, Los Angeles, 1977, p. 42. 3 Ibid,, p. 46. 4 Ibid., pp. 49-50. 5 Nicolae Ciachir, Marile Puteri si Romania, 1856-1947 [The Great Powers and Romania, 1856- 1947] , p. 296 and 303-305. 2 On 23 August 1944 the King Michael arrested Antonescu and announced the unilateral cessation of hostilities with the Soviets.