This article concerns British official policy and political propaganda disseminated in the first year of World War II towards Hungary and Romania. The story is told in the broad framework of the relationship between foreign propaganda, foreign policy implementation, and war strategy. As these embody short-term strategic aims and long-term political objectives, the analysis throws light upon the often differing requirements of British diplomacy, war strategy, and post-war plans. This context is discussed through the prism of the British evaluation of the minority and territorial dispute in Transylvania between Budapest and Bucharest. Such a perspective has been of little concern in the historiography, although it provides a means for putting into question certain basic assumptions underpinning existing models in the history of British policy towards the region. Although these countries lay on the periphery of British war strategy, London aimed at expanding its political influence there during and after the war. For one, the analysis of this dichotomy tells us about the paradoxes, dynamics, and interplays of short- and long-term political, economic, and strategic interests; for another, it answers the question, whether any broad patterns could be reached about British Central and South-East European policy, or did actions distinctively differ towards individual countries? Regarding this last question, it is offered here that, precisely because these countries lay outside of primary imperial interest, standard diplomatic and strategic procedures were subverted, criteria were less carefully calculated, and historical reflexes and prejudices governed British viewpoints and actions.

中文翻译：

---

1939-40 年英国的外交、宣传和战争战略以及匈牙利-罗马尼亚对特兰西瓦尼亚的争端

本文涉及英国在二战第一年对匈牙利和罗马尼亚的官方政策和政治宣传。这个故事是在对外宣传、外交政策实施和战争战略之间关系的广泛框架中讲述的。由于这些体现了短期战略目标和长期政治目标，分析揭示了英国外交、战争战略和战后计划的不同要求。这种背景是通过英国对布达佩斯和布加勒斯特之间特兰西瓦尼亚的少数民族和领土争端的评估的棱镜来讨论的。这种观点在史学中很少受到关注，尽管它提供了一种方法来质疑英国对该地区政策历史上支持现有模型的某些基本假设。尽管这些国家处于英国战争战略的边缘，但伦敦的目标是在战时和战后扩大其在那里的政治影响力。一方面，对这种二分法的分析告诉我们短期和长期政治、经济和战略利益的悖论、动态和相互作用；另一方面，它回答了一个问题，是否可以就英国的中欧和东南欧政策达成任何广泛的模式，或者针对个别国家的行动是否有明显不同？关于最后一个问题，这里提出，正是因为这些国家不属于主要的帝国利益，