WW1 only or "National Reunification War", Poll

Actually we forget something... The reason for Romanian entrance in WWI was Transylvania. Those who decided the Romania's entrance in WWI, saw this war as unification war. Should we change today the meaning of the entrance of Romania in WWI. Could we say "well, actually it was not unification" when it was obviously that was about unification...

In stricto senso both designations are wrong. As I have seen on my grand-grandfather's documents (he got some kind of medal in this war), His Majesty called the war "The war for civilisation".

Talking about "hindsight", the expression WWI is not correct , "we" invented later after WWII . If we want to be correct in stricto senso, we should name this war as the "The war for civilisation". As we can see the name of the war was changed anyway...

As I have already said I preffer the title WWI and NRW as subtitle as both are conventions, first giving an internationl perspective and the second giving the Romanian perspective. I see nothing wrong in that.

This post has been edited by johnny_bi on July 01, 2005 04:04 pm

It would be interesting to know when it was first called Razboiul pentru eliberare si reintregire nationala (the war for liberation and national reunification).

I have a feeling that it was called "Razboiul pentru eliberare si reintregire nationala (the war for liberation and national reunification)" before it was called WWI.
The international term was, as I have said, "The war for civilisation".

This post has been edited by johnny_bi on July 01, 2005 04:02 pm

Check any official history book printed in the inter-war era (not 'updated' re-prints). IIRC, both N. Iorga and C.I. Kiritescu have authored fundemantal works on 'The Great War'.

I checked the history manuals I have at home.
'Istoria Românilor', printed by Editura Didactica si Pedagogica in 1996 refers to it as 'Razboiul pentru reintregirea nationala a Romaniei', and it lasts until Rumania's rulers, i.e. King Ferdinand and Queen Maria [without their names being mentioned], entered the liberated Bucharest on 18 November/1 December 1918.

Another history manual for students, bearing the same title, this time published by Editura Humanitas in 1999 refers to the same war as 'Primul razboi mondial'. A sub-title mentions 'Intrarea României in razboi si problema intregirii nationale'. The time period covered by this definition is from 15 June 1914 to 18 November 1918.

Finally, a third scholarly book I have, printed recently in Rumania, titled 'Istoria României', by M. Barbulescu, D. Deletant, K. Hitchins, S. Papacostea and P. Teodor, published by Corint in 2002 (the newes book on the topic I have) notes: 'Primul Razboi Mondial'. The covered topic starts on 15/28 June 1914 and lasts until the fall of 1920. The book notes that the initial goal of the Rumanian army, when started the attack against Austro-Hungary in August 1916, was to reach the basin of Danube and Tisza Rivers. To this task, a total of 420,000 soldiers were assigned.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on July 01, 2005 05:39 pm

Istoria artei militare by Alexandru Babos, at the Land Forces Academy publishing house, refers to the First World War as the RAZBOIUL ROMANILOR PENTRU ELIBERARE SI REINTREGIRE NATIONALA (1916-1919) and to the Second World War as RAZBOIUL ROMANIEI PENTRU REINTREGIRE NATIONALA (1941-1945)

Publishing date? It's important.
So now W.W. 2 had a new distinct Rumanian term as well? It's new to me.
What about the Sept. 1939-June 1941 time period? That was part of W.W. 2, too...
The same question is valid for the 1914-1916 time period, RE: W.W. 1.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on July 01, 2005 06:40 pm

You mean "The great War" or "The war for civilisation"...

Technically, there was no war for Romania during this period of time.

As far as I know, the above mention sections reffer to the Romanian involvement in 1916-1918 and 1941-1945.
As for WWII, there is an other section WW2 in general... A special section could be introduced also for other fronts during the period 1914-1918.



This post has been edited by johnny_bi on July 01, 2005 07:08 pm

2001

The titles refers strictly to the participation of Romanian Army in the war, not in the periods above mentioned. Of course, the context is refered as the First World War and the Second World War, as usual.

Still no WWI.

Years ago I had in my hands two original Kiritescu editions, from early 20’s. They both belonged to a family friend, no library exemplaries. One (Kirtiescu et al.) was about universal history, from ancient to up-to-date (!) and another dealt exclusively with WW 1 (with many interesting photos about Romanian participation, the German/Bulgarian military occupation, the treason trials and so on… many of them never seen again by my since than, in any other book). The formula used in both of them was “The Great War”…

I do not deny that for the Romanian state the creation of Great Romania was both the outcome of its participation and the main reason behind its entering in WW 1. But these kind national unification/reunification-type reasons were also used by the Italian state when it entered the war, and to a certain degree by the French (the Alsace-Lorraine question). Also, in a pure technical perspective (and now I’m referring to the English-language formula used, “reunification”) it surely wasn't a re-unification but a unification. The unification realized by Mihai Viteazul/Michael the Brave in 1600 was rather an ideal for the modern Romanian state. It preceded the apparition of the reality and concept of “nation” (in the modern sense), and it did not last long enough to create any consolidate and viable state structure. Also the realization of a complete unification was not entirely the direct, foreseeable, result of WW 1. Wouldn’t have been for the Russian Revolution, the dissolution of authority in the former Russian empire and the favorable context of 1918, Romania couldn’t have dreamt of unifying with Bassarabia. The alternative offer of the Central Powers for Bratianu's cabinet negotiations with the Entente was the unification with Basarabia, after the end of the war (and the victory of the Central Powers). So in terms of the decision taken by Romanian government in the summer of 1916, by that time it was pretty much an option for Transylvania instead of Basarabia.

This post has been edited by Agarici on July 06, 2005 01:37 pm

Many historians say that the "nationalism" was the main cause of the Great War. In this context every country had a "fight for (re)unification" or a "fight against those who fight against its (re)unification". That's why, even if I voted for NRW, I think that this term is redundant. This war's ideology was the nationalism. Was that good or bad? It doesn't matter, simply because it existed and it was a reality.

This post has been edited by johnny_bi on July 06, 2005 12:51 pm

It preceded the apparition of the reality of nation?
You mean nations became real only when they were put on paper by 19th century writers? I'd rather say the characteristics of a nation were always present, and the 19th century writers only gave those pre-existent realities a political meaning/goal (the role of the state to "gather" under its wing the remaining members of the nation). The action of Mihai Viteazu is thus seen rightly as the first unification on national grounds.

If you don't accept my earlier stance regarding the inexistence of the political concept of 'nation', as currently is defined, during the rule of Mihai Viteazul, proven by excerpts - as you apparently don't - perhaps you'll believe what Lucian Boia has written in his book, 'Istorie si mit in constiinta romaneasca' (Ed. Humanitas 1997), p. 151 [book translated into English as well, as 'History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness', book I recommend: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/963...2803164-9370356

Or, let's quote G.I. Bratianu ('Origines et formation de l'unité roumaine', Bucharest, 1943, p. 10-13), also included in the same book:

BTW, there is a whole sub-chapter devoted to this issue in the aforementioned book, p. 150-157.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. I shall translate the text later on.

This post has been edited by Dénes on July 07, 2005 03:43 am

But let me give you some excerpts too:

source: transilvanian Mathias Miles' chronicle
excerpt quoted in "Documente ale Unirii. 1600-1918." Editura Militara, 1984

source: german Johann Bisselius quoted in the same book

The reality and consciousness of nationality existed before it was put in elaborated theories in the 19th century. The writers of the 19th century did not invent nationality, they just observed and synthesised the similarities that make a nation, and gave it a coherent political consciousness and program.

Mihai's conquests followed the existing national pattern and were made easier by that national pattern. Conscious or not, the unity of the 3 principalities under 1 romanian ruler was a national unification.
And it was a moment of reference.

I find Editura Humanitas too biased to talk about Romanian "Myths".

Denes, Lucian Boia is not considered as factual historian in professional circles. There was an article in "Idei in dialog" magazine (Romanian), I don't recall the author's name but it was a University professor, in which Boia was recommended but always with a grain of salt. His interpretations of Romanian myths are only very loosely based on facts, his writing owing more to literature then to scientific method.
That doesn’t mean reading him is not a healthy intellectual exercise for any Romanian interested in history.