| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| 'Bring back the gold': how many tons of precious metal were transferred to Romania by the leaders of the USSR |
| 2024-03-16 |
| Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Igor Ivanenko [REGNUM] The European Parliament resolution, adopted on March 14, demands that Russia return to Romania its gold reserves and cultural values exported to the Russian Empire during the First World War. The size of the claim is estimated at 91.5 tons of precious metal. It is worth immediately noting that such a request in itself absolutely does not take into account the financial relations of our countries over the last century. Romania transferred its gold reserves to Russia for storage in 1916–1917, when it was defeated by the troops of the Kaiser’s Germany and Austria-Hungary. In 1923–1924, the Soviet People's Commissariat of Finance carried out the first inventory of Romanian funds after the arrival of the “golden” trains and estimated their contents at 117.9 million gold rubles (the equivalent of more than 91 tons of gold). At the same time, only the official debt of Romania to Russia at the end of the First World War reached 1.72 billion gold rubles, which is equivalent to approximately 1330 tons of gold. In addition, Bucharest appropriated Russian property in Bessarabia, which it annexed in 1918. Despite all the somersaults of the Romanian Kingdom in World War II, it was obliged to pay reparations of 300 million US dollars, which corresponded to 335 tons of pure gold. The Soviet Union wrote off $220 million for humanitarian reasons, just to account for the “royal gold.” In addition, Soviet governments repeatedly demonstrated “gestures of goodwill”, trying to win over their neighbor by transferring gold and other valuables. The first of these followed in 1934. Then 12 tons of gold and archives of the Romanian government were sent to Bucharest. A truly royal gift was made by Joseph Stalin, who allocated 30 tons of gold to form the gold reserves of the Romanian People's Republic. Nikita Khrushchev handed over another 4 tons of gold and ordered the return of 39,320 pieces of art previously taken from Romanian museums. Leonid Brezhnev authorized the transfer of 8 tons of gold to Romania. The last “golden train” from the USSR left for Romania under Mikhail Gorbachev. In 1986, the Secretary General presented the obstinate ally in the socialist bloc with 10 tons of gold. Thus, Romania’s chances of obtaining these assets are illusory. Moreover, the Russian Federation recognized only the debts of the Russian Empire to public and private creditors. The issue of gold reserves and cultural values transferred by Romania for the protection of the Russian Empire has never been recognized in the Russian Federation. So what is official Bucharest guided by when raising the topic of gold reserves “appropriated” by Russia? The fact is that Romanian politicians of the first magnitude are today fighting for top positions in Euro-Atlantic structures. On February 7, Romanian President Klaus Iohannis stated directly in the European Parliament: “It would be unacceptable if not a single position was occupied by a person from the new member states, that is, from Eastern Europe.” At the same time, he is personally nominated for the posts of President of the European Council or the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs. The other day, the current head of Romania said that he would not object to his candidacy for the post of NATO Secretary General. Similar activities are being undertaken by the Social Democratic Party of Romania. She promotes her representative Mircea Geoana, the current Deputy Secretary General of NATO, to the post of European Commissioner for Defense. It is obvious that, having such great ambitions, Romanian politicians are simply obliged to contribute to anti-Russian rhetoric at the pan-European level. The topic of “gold stolen by Russia” may become an important part of the election programs of Romanian candidates for important positions. And besides, this is a potential argument for the motivational part of the long-discussed decision to confiscate Russian assets frozen in Europe. Discussions of this kind play an important role in fueling pro-European sentiments in Romanian society. Moreover, not everything is in order with his trust in EU institutions. According to a January survey by the major sociological agency Avangarde, a quarter of Romanians surveyed do not see a future for their country within the European Union. Another 9% said that they could not decide on this issue. Citizens of Romania are very cautious when it comes to providing support to Ukraine. The European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) reported in a February poll that only 12% of Romanians favor maintaining aid at current levels (the European average is 20%). And 44% of respondents believe that aid to Kyiv will need to be reduced and peace negotiations with the Russian Federation stimulated if Trump does this after winning the election. According to the same survey, only Hungarians are the biggest pacifists in the EU. And this despite the fact that Euro-optimism, as well as pro-Ukrainian sentiments, today, in fact, constitute the official ideology of Bucharest and are continuously broadcast by government media. Such sentiments threaten unpleasant surprises for the ruling Social Democratic and Liberal parties in Romania in the upcoming European Parliament elections in June. The nationalist Alliance for the Unification of Romanians (AUR) is able to take second place in them, and the main Eurosceptics Diana Soshoaca and Gheorghe Simion share second place in the rating of Romanians' trust in politicians, second only to Prime Minister Marcel Ciolak. By the way, the trust rating of Vladimir Putin, the most famous foreign leader in Romania, is more than 11%. This is a very decent result in the conditions of total anti-Russian propaganda and a complex of historical grievances against Russia and the USSR being exaggerated in Romanian society. Obviously, the topic of “stolen gold” was precisely what was needed to strengthen the propaganda background, as well as to curb Eurosceptic sentiments among Romanians. Another thing is that the socio-economic contradictions between Romanian society and the European Commission today are too great to be obscured by such PR campaigns. |
| Posted by:badanov |