Roumanian Ripples (1940)

From the October 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The Balkans Have No Future.” Karl Marx

The River Danube is one of the most important rivers in Europe, and the desire on the part of Germany for possession of this waterway is closely connected with the cause of the war.

As pointed out in a previous issue of the Socialist Standard, the Rhine and the Danube have been connected by a canal so that boats can go from the North to the Black Sea: the German capitalists desire to enlarge this canal and also to cut a canal from Bucharest in Roumania to Salonika in Greece. This would enable ships to travel from the North Sea to the Mediterranean without having to go into the Black Sea and pass through the Dardanelles.

It is because Hitler is determined to have full control of these waterways that he is being so vigorously opposed. With these in his possession he could utilise the wealth of all Southern Europe in the interests of German capitalism. His object is to turn France into a producer of raw materials for the benefit of German industry, and to compel all the countries in South-Eastern Europe to dance to the same tune. The complete control of the main transportation system would go a long way to enable Hitler to succeed in his object of dominating Europe. A glance at the map will show how Roumania occupies a strategic position of the highest importance in the present conflict.

Nearly 80 per cent. of the people of Roumania are engaged in agriculture and kindred occupations, but there are a number of important towns. Between the peasant and the townsman there is rivalry; the merchant to a great extent holds the whip hand over the peasant, who must sell to and buy from the former.

Low-grade capital is always at the mercy of high-grade capital, and as the peasant is the sufferer in Roumania he supports the Iron Guard and the Nazi Party.

King Carol has recently abdicated and fled along with the lady to whom he is apparently more attached than to his wife. The Iron Guard were strongly opposed to the lady above referred to, not so much on account of her Jewish blood, but principally because she is said to receive diplomatic pin money from a country outside Roumania.

In the Economist (September 21) we have the following: —

“Those who argue that with the dismemberment of Roumania the sphere of possible agreement between Germany and the Soviets would be all but exhausted, can point to the Danube question to prove their point. In spite of Russia’s demand that no Danubian question should be settled without her, and her sharp reminder that as an interested party she expected to be consulted, Germany has taken the law into her own hands, and at the recent Danubian Conference the representatives of Germany, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia, Jugo-Slovia, Roumania and Bulgaria agreed to do away with the International Danube Commission, under the presidency of a German, Herr Martius. German control is assured, since only the President has the power to convene a session. An Iron Gates Committee, representing Jugo-Slavia and Roumania, is also to be set up under German presidency. Thus the Soviets have received a very obvious and very serious rebuff, and for the first time since the signing of the Russo-German Pact an obvious difference of opinion has been made public. Germany’s attitude to Russia has not suffered a serious change, since it always completely opportunistic. It is merely the circumstances that have altered. Russia has now advanced to the utmost limit compatible with Germany’s Eastern interests. And Germany is now busy playing her cards in Italy and Spain, where her connection with Russia has always been suspect. But Germany will find it more difficult to be rid of Russia than it was to invite her in. Control of Bessarabia gives the Russians control of the Kilia channel; the most-used outlet of the Danubian Delta. Their decisions on Danubian traffic can not only be formulated but also enforced. And Germany is in no better position to risk a clash with Russia than she was a year ago. Neither will thwart the other to the point of an open estrangement, but the events of last week suggest that the elements of a permanent divergence of opinion are there.”

We do not see the Economist attempting to analyse Russia’s moves in Bulgaria; it is interesting to speculate what is likely to be the effect on Turkish and Grecian politics if Bulgaria, stimulated by Russia, demands the return of the territory formerly “belonging to her bordering on the AEgean Sea; the Balkans is full of combustible material.

The strange part of the present situation is that the Balkans, generally at war with one another, are now at peace.

It is a precarious peace, however, and exists solely because those engaged in hostilities (both sides) do not desire war in the Balkans just now.

As things stand the Nazis can do as they like in Roumania. All hopes of genuine solidarity have been abandoned and the enforced unity of a single party—and that party one which in normal times could not once achieve a parliamentary majority—has thwarted all party concentration. The Iron Guard is the sole legal and political party, and in General Antonescu’s new Cabinet Horla Sima, leader of the extremist faction of the Iron Guard, is deputy Prime Minister—four ministers and five out of nine under-secretaries are influential.

We can see, as yet, no sign of a clash between Russia and Germany; it may come, but at present with some writers the wish is father to the thought. Russia goes out of her way to make things as irksome for the enemies of Germany as she dare without exciting comment. Note the action of her Communist agents here and in U.S. In the latter country the Nazis and the Communists propagate the same policy—the United States must keep out of the war.

It is true, however, that the Soviet Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs recently informed the German Ambassador in Moscow that Soviet Russia as a state bordering on the Danube “must take part in deciding questions that concern the Danube and that the Soviet Government expects to receive all relevant information regarding the Vienna Conference of experts on Danubian questions of International concern.”

The hope of Socialists is beyond the war, and the object of the ruling class is to devise some ways and means of preventing the working-class carrying out their historic mission at the end of the present conflict. The Editor of the “Nineteenth Century” has his ear to the ground and he can see what is coming. Note carefully what he says :

“Broadly speaking, England should assume the conscious leadership of the potential European revolution and give her support of every subversive or revolutionary movement against German domination. There is no sign of revolt amongst the Germans themselves, but if they meet with failure in the field they will be threatened with revolt at home. England cannot assume revolutionary leadership in Europe if she does not herself accept profound social changes which will cumulatively achieve as much as violent revolution can achieve. But that she should proceed any other way than by organic reform, that she should undergo violent upheaval can only be the earnest wish of Hitler and his Allies. Organic change that will deepen national unity by promoting greats social justice and eliminating excessive individual greed and privilege in the bitter need and heavy sacrifice which the war will impose is essential to ultimate victory. Without it England will have no lasting inner strength and no real authority in Europe. Without it she will be unable to win not only the war, but also the peace. Nothing must be allowed to weaken her effort on the land, on the sea and in the air. Necessary as it is for her to promote the anti-German revolution everywhere it will not win the war.

“The war will be won first by defeating the Italians, then the German armed forces in battle.

“Defeat will accelerate the advent of revolution, but defeat must come first. Every Italian or German reverse inspires and fortifies the revolutionary forces and weakens Italian and German resistance to them. But the revolution itself will be the consequence, not the cause of defeat. Defeat once it comes will be clinched by revolution or even by the menace of revolution. Revolution can help decisively to accelerate the final overthrow of German power.

“For England the European revolution is a means to an end. It is not in itself desirable as revolutionary romantics pretend. It is an accessory, an important one, but, nevertheless, an accessory to the action of the armed forces, a means to achieve not a ‘new order’ or a ‘better Europe’ (except in so far as Europe will be renewed and made better by the removal of German domination) but the one war aim, which must be achieved at all costs, to break the power of Germany, and the one peace aim—which no ideal or Utopian proposals of any sort should be allowed to obscure—to keep the power of Germany broken.”

The grave-digging by the capitalist class goes busily on.

Charles Lestor