740.00119 European War 1939/9–344: Telegram
The Ambassador in the Soviet Union (Harriman) to the Secretary of State
[Received September 3—8:50 p.m.]
3281. Patrascanu and Prince Stirbey called on me today at their request. They expressed great disappointment at the delay in concluding the armistice. Stirbey said the Russians were continuing to disarm their troops and seize their supply depots. They had asked [Page 214] that their troops be allowed to retain their arms in order to fight the Germans and Hungarians in accordance with the Russian terms but had been told that nothing could be done until the armistice was signed.
Stirbey said that he had been authorized to sign an armistice in Cairo but that as Patrascanu and another member of the new Government had arrived in Moscow, he assumed they would sign. Patrascanu said that he had thought when he left Bucharest that the armistice had already been signed and had authority only to implement it but that full powers to sign could be obtained from Bucharest with little delay.
Three secretaries have arrived from Bucharest bringing codes but so far the members of the delegation have had no communication with the Rumanian Government except through the Russians.
Patrascanu said that Molotov had received him but had not discussed the terms of the armistice. He told me that he was a Communist and that although the party had few members, because it had been illegal, it has considerable influence. He said that the King had played a considerable role in the coup d’état and that this had gained him respect with the people. Both he and Stirbey said that the King had the support of the new Government, that Carol12 had no following whatever and that the only opposition to the new government was the Iron Guard which had few adherents left in Rumania.
Repeated to Cairo from [for] MacVeagh.
- Carol II, who was succeeded by his son, Michael I, on September 6, 1940.↩