Un blog de Principele Radu al Romaniei

Marina Rotaru

King Michael of Romania
A King for All Seasons

Universitatea Româno-Americană, Bd. Expoziţiei 1B, Bucureşti
e-mail: rotaru_marina@yahoo.com

Abstract

After 45 years of communist terror, the Romanians’ identity seems to be at a loss. Has it ever had a European dimension or not? After 1866 and culminating with 1881 when the Romanian Principalities under the rule of King Charles I became a kingdom, Romanians, politically and culturally managed to add a new, more vigorous and thorough European dimension to their national identity. We were back then a constitutional monarchy, finding our place into the European political configuration of the age.

Keywords: king, constitutional monarchy

After the Second World War, even after the fall of the Iron Curtain, Europe has continued to produce new profiles of great men: Pope John Paul II, the first Pope to start a dialogue between Christianity and other religions at a world scale; Olof Palme, the leader of the Social Democratic Party in Sweden and the Prime Minister of Sweden and Anna Lindh, the Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs, whose murders had an impact across Scandinavia; King Juan Carlos of Spain, who peacefully led the transition from a dictatorship to a constitutional monarchy and a democratic regime in Spain.

These people can be considered great men because the public eye identifies a strong relationship between them and a historical mission. They seem to embody a value around which the public can gather around and identify with. According to the XVIIIth century spirit to which it belongs, “le grand home” is a philosophical concept with political and social implications for a nation. A public figure once considered a great man has to assume or is perceived to have assumed certain functions. He has to transgress his own individuality and leave the comfort and the anonymity of his collectivity to become the spokesperson of this collectivity and the defender of their values. “Le grand home” is an ideal based on reason, atheist, incarnated by a public figure that makes history without considering any kind of determinism. It is, originally, a philosophical attitude turned against the rules imposed by the French absolutist monarchy and aimed to overthrow the king and the system he represented. Paradoxically, this anti-monarchic concept can, in the XXth century, be embodied by a constitutional king in a given historical circumstance.

From 1948 to 1989, Romania found itself out of the Western European civilization to which it once proudly belonged. Since 1990, the Romanians have been in search of their European roots. During such an identity crisis as we are experiencing today, it is only natural to look around for leading figures, beholders of not only a national but also a European identity. I believe King Michael of Romania stands the test. In this paper I discuss three historical moments that made King Michael one of the greatest heads of state since WWII and for his people, a great man: August 23rd 1944 or the reversal of military alliances, the Royal Strike (or the King’s refusal to co-operate with the Soviets) and The King’s tour for Romania’s integration into the structures of NATO.

When he became king for the second time in his life, in September 1940, King Michael was just 18 years old, still too young and inexperienced for such a position in the state and in such troubled times. His father, King Charles II had left the country and abandoned the throne to him. So when King Michael acceded to the throne, he was in fact a king with a carton crown. The real ruler of the country was General Antonescu, who undertook the task of leading the country through the troubled years of the Second World War. Many contemporaries considered that there was little the young King could do except watch the events unfold.

August 23rd 1944 or the Reversal of Military Alliances

After he got rid of “The Iron Guard”, an extreme-right movement in 1941, Antonescu established a military dictatorship and engaged the country into an Alliance with the Nazi Germany and against communist Russia. The reason for Romania’s joining the German war effort was to get back Basarabia and Bucovina, the territories we lost after the Wien Diktat. But after the fall of Stalingrad, it became clear that Germany was about to lose the war and that Romania had to abandon Hitler and ask for an armistice.

King Michael started to prepare the operation of ending the war on Germany’s side at the end of 1942. But he literally took action in 1944. He sent the Allies two emissaries: Constantin Vişoianu, former Romanian ambassador to the Hague and member of the Romanian delegation to the United Nations and Prince Barbu Ştirbey, a close friend of the Romanian Royal Family. They were the sovereign’s personal representatives and acted in his name. Their secret mission was to suggest a separate peace between Romania and the Allied Forces. The two went to Cairo and started serious negotiations with a view to put an end to the alliance with Germany. The talks took a long time but did not have the result the King and his collaborators expected. Months of extreme suspense were coming and going but no clear action was taken to help us. This is how The King describes those months: “We even sent the Allies an official statement according to which we would have told them the exact areas where the Germans were less numerous if the Allies had parachuted massive troops to liberate the country. No answer! Only later did we understand that we had already been handed over to Stalin…It was dreadful! We were listening to the BBC, who were urging us to break the alliance with Germany and I was sending back secret messages: There is nothing else we are waiting for! But we cannot do it alone!”[4, pag.88].

In the end The King was left with no other alternative but to try and end the alliance with Hitler alone. Although The King was young, he proved he had come of age and he could rely on the support of all the political parties in opposition that he kept contact with since 1942-1943. The D-Day was August 23th 1944. The King himself wrote a telegram to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Italy informing him on his decision to overthrow Antonescu. Antonescu was summoned to the Royal Palace where he arrived late afternoon. The King and the general talked for about an hour and when The King told and asked Antonescu to sign the armistice without delay, Antonescu refused, rhetorically asking:

‘Do you think I will leave the country in the hands of a child?’[3, pag.105]. Soon afterwards he was arrested. The King then ordered the Romanian army to stop any conflict with the Russians. He also ordered the Germans to leave the country. The Germans refused so Romania started a new military conflict with their former allies. On September 12th 1944 Romania signed the armistice treaty with Russia, US and the UK. “Thus we became allies of the West and of the Russians without being acknowledged as cobelligerent, a status which might have granted us certain rights during the peace negotiations process”[7, pag.252]. Thus, Romania found itself occupied by the “allied” Soviet army whose behaviour was one of a conqueror and not of an ally. A new bitter age started for us: because we had lost the war in front of the Soviets we were now forced – in spite of the allies’ promises that they would protect us – to adopt Moscow’s political regime.

The historian John Erickson, one of the leading specialists on the Eastern Front, considers that “August 23rd 1944 proved to be one of the most decisive days of the whole war”[8, pag. 441], because Germany’s combat dispositions in South-East Europe collapsed. According to other specialists, August 23rd 1944 hastened the fall of the Reich by about six months. Florin Constantiniu, a Romanian historian, mentions that “Hitler himself, in a conversation with Croatia’s nationalist leader, Ante Pavelić, considered the crisis brought about by Romania’s changing its front similar to the Allies’ landing in Normandy”[8, pag.442].

August 23rd 1944 represented a turning point in our history. Romania broke the alliance with Germany. And this military move was done by a handful of people: The King, a few representatives of the political opposition and a few army officers. King Michael could rely on the Romanian army who supported and respected the sovereign. Although The King was young, he was about 23 years old, he proved he could assume the responsibilities of a head of state, he proved he could take decisions. He was not a puppet monarch, he had critical awareness. Back then, King Michael of Romania was the only head of state in this part of Europe who managed to throw the Germans out of the country, avoided the capitulation of his army and made his armed forces practically and legally become the Allies’ cobelligerents.

In February 1945, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin met in Yalta to sign an agreement according to which the countries liberated from German occupation should organize free elections. For only a short while, the Romanians thought they could return to a normal parliamentary life as they were used to. But nobody could have imagined the appalling, brutal way in which the Russians understood these free elections. They continuously and purposefully exercised all kinds of pressure on The King to name a communist as his Prime-Minister, but The King constantly refused. As a result, the communists, who were present in all the political and administrative even the military echelons, began a massive undermining action. The country was under terror, even the political parties, which kept silent. The King was now alone to face the Russians. And yet, he did not give up and refused to appoint a communist as his prime-minister! The King was trying to buy some time until the Russians sent Vâshinski, their Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs to Bucharest to force The King’s hand. He made sure that Russian tanks occupied the streets of Bucharest and threatened The King that, unless he appointed a communist as Prime-Minister, they would produce serious unrest in the capital. Fearing for a bloodshed, The King appointed Petru Groza as the new Prime-Minister.

The Royal Strike

Since Petru Groza’s administration proved to be an undemocratic one, The King asked for his resignation on August 21st 1945. Groza’s refusal to resign marked the moment when The King started a passive resistance on his own, a unique act ever to be made by a constitutional monarch: The Royal Strike. He immediately left Bucharest and went to Sinaia refusing to countersign any act issued by Groza’s communist government. But soon the King realized that there was nothing else he could literally do and put an end to his protest. King Michael’s decision of going on strike against the communist government in Bucharest was unprecedented. He was the only head of state to publicly face the communists in this way while aware of the risks. Although, politically speaking, his gesture was unsuccessful symbolically speaking, The King’s opposition and refusal to co-operate with an undemocratic government represented the country’s refusal to accept such a government. The King’s position mirrored the country’s position, which was clearly illustrated by the general elections of November 1946, which were nothing bur a big fraud. More than 80% of the votes were anti-communist. But having the political power in their hands, the communists managed to manipulate the results over night and to declare that in fact, 80% of the votes were in theirs. Faking respect for the Potsdam declaration regarding the necessity of free elections in the countries liberated from German occupation, a tripartite delegation was summoned to find a convenient solution to the Romanian crisis. The Delegation was formed by the American and the British ambassadors to Moscow and Vâshinski. Their only solution was to reform the communist government by appointing to anti-communist ministers but without ministry or portfolio! In other words, two puppets. The King knew there was nothing to expect from the allies. Their only help was, in The King’s words “to send two dummy ministers with no legal responsibilities to acknowledge a communist government legitimized by general elections grossly falsified”[4, pag.110]. One year later The King was forced to abdicate, leave his country and go on a 45-year exile.

The early 1990s were years of great hope for Romania. There was a great psychological support for democracy, for a renewal of the political life. Public opinion was already fed up with those politicians who quickly seized power after the fall of the communist regime and who pretended to be democrats when they were, in fact, crypto-communists. The general public wanted new figures in the public arena to refresh and strengthen the political life of the country and the newly born democracy. King Michael was one of them. When he came to Romania in April 1992, the American television channel CNN, estimated a presence of one million people in Bucharest, gathering to welcome The King. Many Romanians who were not monarchy supporters or sympathizers were admirers of King Michael. Many of them asked themselves: Why does not The King come to Romania and try to restore the monarchy? Why can’t Romania follow the example of Spain? Why can’t King Michael be like King Juan Carlos? These questions also reached The King’s ears. But The King proved to be wise and politically mature. There is a great difference between King Juan Carlos’s Spain and King Michael’s Romania. From General Franco, King Juan Carlos inherited a country that had avoided the communist invasion, a country that for almost 40 years lived in peace which allowed it to build a strong, stable and prosperous middle class as the backbone of Spain. On his return to Romania, the King found a country economically bankrupt whose so-called middle class was just a shadow of what it used to be, a country spiritually and morally devastated by 45 years of communism, a country for which ‘continuity’ was an empty word. The King assessed the situation very well. He knew he had to ignore his natural urge to come back and get involved in his country’s reconstruction. He had to think and behave like a constitutional king, trying to help and at the same time trying to do as little harm as possible to the stability and the democratization of his country. The words of King Juan Carlos best describe what might have happened to a King claiming back his throne in a country ruled by communists for half a century, a country unaware of his real past, a country in economic collapse: “In a country economically and morally exhausted, nobody, not even a King, could do great things in a short period of time. Unable to put an end to the economic misery, that King would be quickly repudiated as enthusiastically as he as welcome. Worse than that, he would be held responsible even for the problems that had occurred while he was in exile!”[11, pag.211]. The unsuccessful example of King Simeon of Bulgaria, who became Bulgaria’s prime minister only to leave after a couple of years with an unfulfilled mission clearly illustrates the Spanish sovereign’s point of view.

The King’s Tour of Europe for NATO Integration

In 1997, president Constantinescu invited The King to help Romania integrate into the European and NATO structures. His qualities and his relations together with the fact that The King was one of the greatest European personalities since the end of WWII, weighed heavily in Constantinescu’s eyes. The Romanian president correctly inferred that such a public figure like King Michael could more easily and smoothly open doors for Romania, facilitate contacts, make the country better known and understood. The King accepted to help his country and in the spring and summer of 1997 The King toured Europe for his country. His mission was to plead for Romania’s integration in the NATO structures as part of the first group of selected countries. So the King visited 7 important members of NATO: Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Great Britain. Unfortunately, Romania missed to be invited to join NATO in 1997. But The King and the country continued their efforts and in the summer of 2002 The King lobbied again for Romania’s integration into the North-Atlantic structures. In March 2004 Romania became a member of NATO. Symbolically speaking, the kind of help The King offered his country while lobbying for Romania’s integration in the European military structure and Romania’s joining this structure was the kind of help The King was expecting from the Allies against the Russian occupation of his country, the kind of help the King was fighting for 45 years ago.

For many members of the general public, King Michael is a controversial figure. And his presence in Romania after 1990 has produced intense public debates. Why this attitude? Because in 45 years of communism, King Michael, a Romanian like us was transformed into “the other”. Forced to abdicate at gun point and leave his country, he went on a 44-year exile. Systematically, Romania’s monarchic past was erased from our collective memory as if it never existed. The same happened to the Romanian royal dynasty and King Michael. In her autobiographical book “I Live Again” Princess Ileana, aunt of King Michael, makes reference to a dialogue that she once had with a leading member of the Romanian Communist Party, Ana Pauker. The Princess asked Pauker to explain some of the communist principles and methods; why, for example, they used so much violence, when violence never convinced anyone. Ana Pauker calmly replied that it was not intended to convince, but to frighten. When one replanted, one first destroyed everything that had grown, root and branch. Then one leveled the earth. It was only afterwards that one could plant successfully. And yet, news about the King’s existence managed to get through the Iron Curtain. Many of us may still remember our parents and grandparents taking their radios and hiding in the most remote room of the house, with the windows and doors safely locked and listening to the King broadcasting his Christmas or New Year’s Speech to all Romanians on two well-known radio posts: Voice of America and Free Europe. So the image of the King was still present but became part of a sort of “underground” personal memory, one of the best kept and well-hidden secrets of a Romanian living under a communist regime. By “underground” I mean secret, something that you admit only in the most remote corner of your mind and something that you would never admit to others, sometimes not even to your closest relatives.

When King Michael first attempted to visit Romania after the fall of the communist regime, on December 24th 1990, he had to face a very difficult situation: there were many Romanians who welcomed him and who considered him the savior of the country. But for the majority of the Romanians, he was a grey spot on the map, neither white nor black, somebody they regarded with restraint. And for those who quickly seized power after 1989, he was a threat to the stability of the new democratic republic. So, there were two antithetical myths trying to take over the King’s identity: for the anti-communists and the supporters of democracy, he was the Savior, the only one capable of bringing order, prosperity and a truly democratic political life to the country. Or he was the Usurper, a foreigner who lived lavishly in the West while the Romanians were suffering behind the Iron Curtain, an opportunist surrounded by other opportunists (landlords and industrialists-representatives of the old bourgeois regime) who wanted to take the land off the Romanians’ hand. The image of The King as usurper was quickly embraced by those sharing the communist nostalgia after 1990 (former members of the Communist Party Apparatus, officers and employees of the Securitate – the Romanian Intelligence Agency which became a tool of the communist repression, and many other individuals who in one way or another benefited from the communist regime) as well as by quite a large part of the general public who had no anchorage in the country’s democratic past. The King as usurper is part of an anti-monarchic discourse that has been promoted since 1990 and which was still very virulent in the early 1990s dividing the Romanian society.

A king’s destiny is indissolubly linked to the destiny of his country. Many want their king to become a hero, their national hero, a beholder of their values, a guardian of their ideals and aspirations, a leader to follow and serve. And these are not words from a fairy tale, but words that became reality in days not too far from today. King Juan Carlos of Spain prevented his country from falling again into a dictatorship in 1981, King Baudouin of Belgium acceded to the throne when the country was on the brink of division and managed to become the symbol of the unity of the country. During the Second World War, in Denmark, a country occupied by German troops, King Christian X decided to wear the Jewish yellow star himself in answer to the anti-semite measures taken by Nazi Germany. “Such a gesture was meant to define the Danish people and save them even only from the danger of losing themselves”[12, p.28]. At about the same time, but in another part of Europe, in Romania, King Michael was doing something similar ruling by the power of his own example. According to B. Renouvin, a sovereign is “the bearer of a certain affirmative ethics, never coercive, which reveals itself and becomes an example when everything seems lost”[12, pag.28]. Almost 50 years later, the attitude of The King was once again exemplary during the general elections of November-December 2000. Ion Iliescu, one of the candidates, got 37% of the votes, Vadim Tudor, the nationalist leader got 21% of the votes while President Constantinescu decided to quit the presidential race, being replaced by Mugur Isărescu, former governor of the National Bank of Romania, who had been appointed Prime-Minister on December 16th 1999. There was a real opportunity for Vadim Tudor to defeat Ion Iliescu during the second ballot, a very bleak scenario. The country would have lost all it had achieved until then. On December 10th 2000, The King issued a public statement warning the Romanians to choose moderation when voting: “If you choose to give your votes to politicians who encourage ethnic and racial hatred, who speak the language of violence, you will vote for Romania to remain out of Europe for decades”[3, pag. 266]. The King proved his honest character and, in helping his country, he also supported the man who literally chased him out of the country in the early 1990s. This was a fine example of King Michael’s skills as a constitutional monarch, even without a crown on his head. By birth, education and experience, he has proved to be an inter-culturally competent figure, able to capture and understand, in interaction with people from foreign countries, their specific concepts and requirements related to Romania’s political, military and strategic needs. His tour of Europe, lobbying for his country’s integration into NATO is a standing proof.

References:

1.Cannuyer, Christian, The Royal and Sovereign Houses of Europe, Bucharest, Gavrilă Publishing House, 1996.
2.Scurtu, Ioan, Michael I, Bucharest, The Encyclopaedic Publishing House, 2001.
3.Porter, Ivor, Michael I of Romania – The King and The Country, Bucharest, Allfa Publishing House, 2007.
4.Desplaces, Philippe Viguié, His Majesty King Michael I of Romania – A Broken Reign: Conversations with Philippe Viguié Desplaces, Bucharest, Libra Publishing House, 1995.
5.Ciobanu, Mircea, Dialogues with Michael I of Romania, Bucharest, Humanitas Publishing House, 1997.
6.Lee, Arthur Gould, Crown Against Sickle, Bucharest, Humanitas Publishing House, 1998.
7.Djuvara, Neagu, Short Romanian History Told to the Young Ones, Bucharest, Humanitas Publishing House, 2005.
8.Constantiniu, Florin, An Honest History of the Romanian People, Bucharest, Univers Enciclopedic Publishing House, 1997.
9.Boia, Lucian, Two Centuries of National Mythology, Bucharest, Humanitas Publishing House, 2005.
10.Boia, Lucian, History and Myth in the Romanian Conscience, Bucharest, Humanitas Publishing House, 2006.
11.Vilallonga, José Luis de, The King – Dialogues with Don Juan Carlos I of Spain, Bucharest, Pacifica Publishing House, 1996.
12.Renouvin, B., La République au Roi Dormant, Paris, 1985.

Regele Mihai I al României – Un rege pentru toate anotimpurile

Rezumat

După 45 de ani de comunism, românii par a-şi fi pierdut identitatea. Identitatea lor a avut oare, vreodată, o dimensiune europeană sau nu? După 1866 şi culminând cu anul 1881, când Principatele Române sub domnia Regelui Carol I au devenit regat, românii au reuşit şi din punct de vedere politic şi din punct de vedere cultural să adauge identităţii lor o nouă şi mai viguroasă dimensiune europeană. Deveniserăm, pe atunci, o monarhie constituţională, găsindu-ne locul în configuraţia politică europeană a epocii.