black sea

Hitler turned down Stalin’s offer to reach a new
agreement to divide the Balkans, something that
precipitated the decisions taken in Berlin. In the
spring of 1941, Yugoslavia and Greece were occupied
by Germany, which imposed its control over
South-Eastern Europe. Both Romania, which had
also been mutilated in the summer of 1940, and
Bulgaria had been previously included in the German
sphere of dominance.
The Montreux Conference, where the decisions
taken in Lausanne were discussed again, represented
another moment when the common interest
of Romania and Greece concerning the issues
in the Black Sea came to light. Having in
background the important changes that took place
in the international arena during the first half of
the fourth decade, Turkey strongly demanded the
revision of the treaty of 1923, which, in its opinion,
was harming its sovereignty. On April 10, 1936, the
Turkish government sent a letter to the signatories
of the Treaty of Lausanne and also to the Secretary
General of the League of Nations, in which
it demanded the revision of the status of the Straits.
All the contracting parties accepted Ankara’s request
and the place for the new conference was
chosen again in Switzerland, this time at Montreux.
The talks took place between June 20 and July 20,
1936. The Romanian delegation was led by Nicolae
Titulescu and the Greek delegation by Nicolas
Politis, who was elected vice-president of the Conference,
the president being W. Bruce, Australia’s
representative, the only British dominion that attended
at the Montreux Conference.
Just like in Lausanne, there were two points
view – one expressed by Turkey, the other by Britain.
Basically, Turkey wanted to regain the control
over the Straits, something that met the grievances
of the Soviet Union. The British project
envisioned the maintaining of the regime established
in 1923. After hard negotiations, the Turkish
point of view prevailed, the right of Turkey to
rearm the zones demilitarized by the Treaty of
Lausanne being recognized. The free circulation
principle was maintained for trade ships, but was
severely restricted for war ships, especially if Turkey
remained neutral.
Romania supported the Turkish point of view
and opposed the British project. This was a significant
change of stance compared to what had happened
in Lausanne, when Bucharest and London
were on the same wavelength. In the opening ses-
����� Review of Military History �����
sion, Nicolae Titulescu stated that Turkey’s request
to revision the status of the Straits by legal means
complied with the international law and, consequently,
did not contravene to the spirit and letter
of the peace treaties. The Romanian Minister of
Foreign Affairs stated: “I will say that the Straits
are the heart of Turkey, but they are also the lungs
of Romania. And when a region is, by its very geographic
location, the heart of one nation and the
lungs of the other, the most elementary piece of
wisdom demands that the two nations unite”. 11 In
another intervention, Titulescu declared that the
main reason why Romania accepted Ankara’s
standpoint was “our unlimited trust in Turkey’s loyalty”.
12
Titulescu’s stance can be explained by several
causes. The acceptance of the Turkish point of
view contributed to the maintaining of the unity of
action of the Balkan Pact, which was subjected, at
that time, to strong pressures from inside and especially
from outside. At the same time, Titulescu’s
position also met the interests of France, who had
signed a treaty of mutual assistance with the Soviet
Union. As the Soviet help for France could
have only come by sea, the Romanian acceptance
satisfied both powers – France and the Soviet
Union.
At the same time, Nicolae Titulescu had signed
with the Soviets, also in Montreux (on July 21, 1936),
a protocol which laid the foundations of a future
treaty of mutual assistance between Romania and
the Soviet Union. The support given to the Turkish
position, which met Moscow’s interests, could
only prepare the way to the signing of the treaty of
mutual assistance between the two countries. 13
Titulescu’s position in Montreux generated
mixed reactions among the Romanian political
class, a number of leaders – Gheorghe I. Brătianu,
Octavian Goga, Mihail Manoilescu and others –
considering that Romania’s security interests were
affected by the blocking of the Straits during wartime.
Nicolae Titulescu’s attitude in Montreux was
actually one of the reasons for which he was dismissed
from the position of Minister of Foreign
Affairs on August 29, 1936.
In what concerns Greece, its position took into
account its interests at the Black Sea, which were
significantly smaller than Romania’s. The Greek
diplomacy agreed to Turkey’s request because the
Greek commercial navigation to the ports from
this region, although very active in the Straits,
61