We acted safely: Romania, the gold, and the long road to restitution

We acted safely

The Romanian government faced a pivotal decision during the First World War as the conflict dragged on in Europe. Romania joined the war in 1916, initially scoring military successes against Austro-Hungarian forces. Yet by autumn that year, German, Austro-Hungarian, and Bulgarian troops advanced through Dobruja, Oltenia, and Muntenia, driving the country into a precarious position. The capital Bucharest was increasingly threatened and, to secure the state, a temporary evacuation was planned, with the government relocating to Iasi in Moldova, near sympathetic Russia.

When Russia extended military support, questions about the city’s safety persisted. In response, the National Bank of Romania initiated the transfer of the country’s gold reserves to the Allies to fortify security, mirroring the approach taken by France in sending assets to the United States. The preferred route for safeguarding wealth would have been a voyage to London, but sea routes through the Black Sea and the Baltic were blocked by adversaries. As a result, Romania decided to deposit the gold in the Kremlin, alongside Russia’s own reserves. In addition to the gold, valuable state treasures such as ancient manuscripts, paintings, rare books, and critical archives were relocated. The total transferred weight was about 93.4 tonnes, predominantly in the form of coins.

In October 1917, the Bolshevik upheaval reshaped the Russian political landscape, though not everyone accepted the revolution. General Dmitry Shcherbachev, commanding the Russian-Romanian Front, resisted the Bolshevik takeover, siding with the Ukrainian Central Rada and endorsing the Romanian army’s actions in Bessarabia while removing Bolshevik influence from the army.

Following these events, the people’s commissars declared that the workers’ and peasants’ governments of Russia and Ukraine rejected responsibility for the fate of valuables transported to Russia during the Tsarist era and belonging to Romania and the Romanian National Bank along with other Romanian institutions and landowners. The expropriation of gold, framed as retaliation, aligned with the Bolsheviks’ broader policy of denying property rights to capitalists and capitalist governments.

The mystery of Kolchak gold

At the outbreak of the Civil War, Romanian and Russian gold reserves were stored in Kazan. In August 1918, white forces led by Vladimir Kappel captured Kazan and transported valuables by rail to Omsk to fund anti-Bolshevik forces under Alexander Kolchak. When the white movement in Siberia was crushed, tracking the gold became increasingly difficult. Some of it was spent or sold, others were stolen, and the remaining portion fell under the control of the Czechoslovak Corps, an Allied unit composed of Austro-Hungarian prisoners of war. The Czechs later returned 409 million rubles to the Soviet government as a condition for safe repatriation, yet the ultimate fate of the rest became the enduring historical enigma known as the Kolchak gold.

Alexander Kerensky, head of the Russian Provisional Government, suggested that some of the money transported by the Czechs contributed to the creation of a new coin for the National Bank of Czechoslovakia in Prague. Most of the gold supposedly found its way back to Moscow, while portions lost along the route inspired speculation and debate. Some scholars argue that Romanian gold was treated as part of Russian assets with a shared destiny; others note there is no conclusive documentary proof. Despite these uncertainties, the Romanian government continued to seek the return of its valuables in the postwar era and hoped to recover what was stored in the former Russian empire and its successor states.

100 years of determination

Recovering the Bolshevik era assets proved elusive, particularly during Stalin’s regime. In 1935, a partial concession did occur when the Soviet government dispatched 17 freight wagons containing 1,443 boxes of cultural treasures along with gold reserves to Bucharest. These items included historic documents, artworks, and bank records that were valuable yet difficult to monetize and circulate. The gesture nonetheless contributed to easing relations between the two nations.

During the Stalin years, only some cultural assets were returned; the remainder surfaced publicly in 1956 under Khrushchev, when a friendlier Communist leadership in Romania enabled greater cultural exchange. A formal Soviet statement asserted that these works held inalienable value for the Romanian people. In total, 33,068 gold coins, 2,465 medals, 1,350 paintings and drawings, roughly 2,500 medieval jewels, illustrated canvases, icons, and fabrics were eventually repatriated.

Nevertheless, even with communism’s grip, Romania persisted in its pursuit of the 93.4 tonnes of gold. Nicolae Ceaușescu attempted to press the issue with Leonid Brezhnev but received a firm refusal. Brezhnev argued that the long history of Romanian gold was intertwined with the legacy of the Kingdom of Romania and the Russian Empire, and the postwar reparations burden further complicated the matter. He inferred that the dispute was effectively closed.

Romania continued diplomatic effort after the fall of communism, dispatching emissaries and engaging in joint historical commissions. In 1994, a Romanian president sought the return of the valuables, but the response mirrored earlier refusals. A 2004 Joint Public Commission of Historians aimed to improve bilateral relations, with the Romanian side repeatedly returning to the gold dispute at meetings.

European Parliament Resolution

Despite multiple refusals, the Romanian government kept the issue alive and brought it back into international discussions. A March decision by the European Parliament urged the return of the Romanian heritage sheltered in Russia in 1916 and 1917 and encouraged the EU and Russia to prioritize the matter within bilateral diplomacy as soon as regional stability allowed for resumed dialogue.

The Russian Foreign Ministry reiterated a familiar stance, maintaining that any compensation related to World War II included Romanian gold’s forgiveness, thereby negating a separate payment obligation. The dialogue remains guarded, with both sides citing legal and historical argument over the fate of the gold.