What if there is an interwar Soviet-Romanian Nonaggression Pact?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if the Soviets and Romanians signed a nonaggression pact during the interwar period?

What might have motivated them to make one?

Did either side propose one?

I wonder why they did not have one in OTL, after all, if ex-belligerents like the USSR and Poland could have a nonaggression pact in 1932, I do not see what is so impossible about a Soviet-Romanian one.

Of all the pre-1914 territories of the Russian Empire that the post-war Soviet Union lost, why was Moscow more open about its revisionist ambitions for Bessarabia in particular?
 
"In January 1932 in Riga, and in September 1932 in Geneva, Soviet-Romanian negotiations were held as a prelude to a non-aggression treaty, and on June 9, 1934, diplomatic relations were established between the two countries. On July 21, 1936, Maxim Litvinov and Nicolae Titulescu, the Soviet and Romanian Ministers of Foreign Affairs, agreed upon a draft of a Mutual Assistance Pact.[48] It was sometimes interpreted as a non-aggression treaty, that would de facto recognize the existing Soviet-Romanian border. The protocol stipulated that any common Romanian-Soviet action should be pre-approved by France. In negotiating with the Soviets for this agreement, Titulescu was highly criticized by the Romanian far right. The protocol was to be signed in September 1936. However, Titulescu was dismissed in August 1936, leading the Soviet side to declare the previously achieved agreement null and void. Subsequently, no further attempts were made to reach a political rapprochement between Romania and the Soviet Union.[49] Moreover, by 1937, Litvinov and the Soviet press revived the dormant claim over Bessarabia.[50]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovie...Romanian_relations_during_the_interwar_period

According to Louis Fischer (Men and Politics, p. 135) this had already become an issue in Soviet politics in the 1920's: "In 1924, and on several subsequent occasions, too, Litvinov wished to recognize Rumanian sovereignty over Bessarabia. Litvinov was always the businessman in diplomacy and he did not like to have an unfinished account. Latent hostility with Rumania made it difficult for eastern Europe to settle down and Litvinov wanted to heal the sore. Rakovsky and Litvinov quarreled on this matter. When Rakovsky went as Ambassador to London he would write regularly to the Politbureau in Moscow recalling the necessity of Russian watchfulness in the Balkans and of perpetuating Bessarabia as a "Soviet Irredenta." When Rakovsky stopped writing on the subject because negotiations with Great Britain absorbed all his time, Chicherin inquired by letter why Rakovsky had left him to fight the battle alone. Thanks to Chicherin's and Rakovsky's insistent propaganda, the Soviet press on January 26, 1928, the tenth anniversary of Rumania's seizure of Bessarabia, called Bessarabia "the Alsace on the Dnieper." Trotzky and Litvinov were reconciled to its loss. Rakovsky, Chicherin, and Stalin were not..." https://archive.org/stream/menandpolitics006501mbp#page/n145
 
The Soviet Union would break it right before an invasion or demand, like they did with Finland. Nonagression Pacts were broken regularly before and during WW2.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Soviet Union would break it right before an invasion or demand, like they did with Finland. Nonagression Pacts were broken regularly before and during WW2.

Indeed, they were actually a bad omen in that era.

Probably that is why the term fell out of diplomatic fashion.
 
Last edited:
Top