Romanians vs Romanians in WWI

I think it would be interesting to discuss the drama/tragedy of the Romanians that fought against each other in WWI. It is a tragedy unique in Europe.

What makes you think it was unique? Ethnic minorities were/are pushed in the line of fire all the time. Last example in Europe: the Serbo-Croat war in the 1990.

Gen. Dénes

I dont want to start a long discussion, but my opinion is that the war between serbs and croats in 1990 is not the same as the situation of romanians in ww1. Serbs and croats started the war between them because each nation wanted to have it's own state.

In ww1 romanians from Transylvania, Banat and Bucovina were sent to fight sometimes against romanians from Romania, but the former ones in fact wanted the union with Romania. Romanians from that three provinces were sent against romanians from Romania by AH empire.

The result of serb-croat war is seen today in two different and apart states.

The fact that all romanians from all regions inhabited by them wanted to be united in one single state is seen now in what it is today Romania, after the 1st of December 1918.

I am not agree totaly with Sebastian, because in ww1 not only romanians were sent by AH monarchy to fight against their brothers. So the romanian case is not so unique. The italians were in the same situation. I believe the serbs also. Not all nationalities from AH monarchy had somewhere on Earth a national state, as were romanians and italians. In their cases the tragedy were felt bigger and bitter cos they fought under AH colours against their brothers. It is not the case of czechs, slovacs and others who had no national state at the begining of ww1.

"Cântec de cătănie" performed by Grigore Leşe. Romanian traditional folk song from Transylvania area. A sad ballad ("doina") about young men drafted in army.

*******

Pictures show Romanians (from Transylvania and Banat areas) during their tour of duty in the Austro-Hungarian dual monarchy army.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZhEp0jBVUE

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, or my post wasn't read carefully.

Why I actually raised the issue of the recent serbo-croat war is because both nations tended to push their own ethnic minorities in the first lines, where fire was intense and casualties high. In other words, Serb commanders pushed ethnic Albanian, Hungarian, Croat, etc., soldiers in the first lines, the Croats doing about the same, with their own ethnics.

Gen. Dénes

Well, if they did such, they are stupid. One can't expect that those ethnics fight as well as for their own cause and one can expect from their part high rate of non-combat atitude or desertion and so on.

Oh Sebastian, it is anything but unique.

Let's take for example World War I where Romanians in the Austro-Hungarian Army fought against Royal Romanians. Then you had Serbs from Slavonia, Vojwodina and Lika who fought against Serbs in Serbia in 1914-1915. Slovenes who fought against Venetian Slovenes in the Italian Army. Austrian Poles and Ukrainians who fought against Poles and Ukrainians in the Imperial Russian Army. French Alsatians who fought against French, though their regiments were mostly on the Eastern Front, but still.. There were some individuals who saw service on the Western Front. And of course you also have Volga and Baltic Germans fighting against Germans at Tannenberg and Masurian Lakes.

Lots of such cases.

lp,

Klemen

I appeciate that there few reactions to my proposals.

To make things shorter, I am writing my PhD Thesis on a comparative assessment of the supranational and national military loyalties among Romanians (1848-1918). Why I do believe the case of Romanians in WWI is so unique? There are few reasons:
- in 1914, Romanians were divided along several lines of loyalties: national-ist (Romanian Kingdom), supranational (Austro-Hungarian corporatist empire), sub-national (Bessarabia, Serbia and Bulgaria).
- there was no consolidated national identity as we know it today.
- the geographical locus of national identity craddle (Translyvania) did not belong to the nation-state (Romanian Kingdom).
-national identity has been developed under the huge pressure of three imperial matrixes: Habsburg, Ottoman and Tsarist (Russian).
- there was no consensus over the best alliance's belonging (Entente or Central Powers).
- any firm political attitude might have become either loyalty or betrayal.

Out of this tragic framework, a national identity has been imposed and survived for almost a century now, which is basically unique in Europe.

I am waiting for your further comments.

Happy New Year

I think we forget one case, the first one were Romanians fought each other in ww1. Starting to 1914, in Galitia, Romanians from AH (Transylvania and Bukovina) were fighting against Romanian fron Bassarabia, who were part of Russian Empire. There are many cases reported in memories and diaries. (Octav Codru Taslauanu related also about this fact in his memories, republished after 1990, in 2 volumes).

I dare to disagree some of the points cited here.

The national identity was surprinsingly very well developed even before 1848. At Blaj in 1848 Romanian National Gathering firmly stated "Noi vrem sa ne unim cu tara!" ("We want the union with Motherland!"). I dare to ask, if there was no national identity, why RNG stated such? To unite with what Motherland? Romania as state doesnt exist at that time! It was just a formal custom union since 1842 between Moldavia and Walachia, but was no room to speak about a romanian state. To Hungary? No, because this was the esence of Romanians fight in 1848/1849, cos they didnt wanted a Transylvanian union with Hungary. To Austrian empire? They turned to austrian cos they figured out the the hungarian revolution program was not suitable to romanians from Transylvania. How many people are aware today that at the national gathering at Blaj Alexandru Ioan Cuza, later first ruler of first Romanian state, was participated? And only 11 years after this Blaj gathering, first Romanian state emerged? Too odd to be just an coincidence. So, I would say that national identity was clearly and well developed even far before 1848, as being hard to believe that national identity went consolidated in that very year.

Revolutionary romanians from Muntenia sought shelter in Transylvania, but not to hungarian revolutionaries, but to transylvanian romanian revolutionary resistance from Apuseni mountains. Why to transylvanian romanian revolutionaries, who were alied with austrian (practicaly the opresors of the 1848 revolution) and not to hungarian revolutionaries, who were against austrians and other opressors? Conclusion: national feelings went above revolutionary ideas, so a great degree of national feeling had to be existing.

National identity was developed under 3 huge empires, but not necesarily under a huge pressure. Ottoman and Russian empire didnt atack national identity in such manner as it was in Transylvania. Not even in Transylvania Habsburgs were not so mean trying to destroy romanian identity. The fight was more between romanians and hungarian landlords, the later being also those who made rules in the Transylvanian Dieta, issuing such laws that romanians were at risk to loose national identity.

At the begining of ww1, romanian popular atitude was to enter war against Central Powers, as national feeling was great and wanted to liberate romanians from AH rule. The idea to enter ww1 beside Central Powers was of Carol I, who signed the secret aliance treaty with Germany, AH and others. Only a handfull of politicians agreed this idea (one of them being P. P. Carp), the rest of political class being for an alliance with Entente. So betrayal or not, it was practically clear in what direction Romania was heading at the begining of ww1. It was just a matter of time when Romania joined ww1, not a matter of option.

I do not fully agree. The Russian Empire was much more effective in transforming Bessarabia after occupation than Hungary ever was able to Magyarize the Romanian population. This was due in my opinion to the higher level of cultural development of the Romanians in Transylvania and to the comparitively less brutal methods employed by the Hungarian Kingdom.

Indeed Victor,
but also true is that a huge empire like Russia did have other possibilities to absorb a little population in his indigenous population mass, situation inimaginable in a small state (compared to Russia) like Austro-Hungary. We have to remember that the assimilation policy of Hungary run for a relative short time (less than 50 years) compared to the russian (around 100 years untill 1918 and other 45 after 1945), and the education level of our population was much more reduced in Bassarabia compared to Transsylvania. And also the church -the orthodox church- who helped the romanians in Transsylvania (surely not as important as the greek catholic church!) played an important part in the russification policy in Bassarabia. Just some thoughts about this thema...

The point was about Russia trying as well to destroy the national identity of the territory it had annexed in 1812 (the situation after 1918 is not relevant to the discussion at hand). Hungary was not the only one trying this, as 21inf claimed, and, IMO, it wasn't the most successful at it either.

What the Russian Empire did in Bessarabia between 1812 and 1918 is the subject of several books or in our case a separate topic.

A question about the problem in question...
How often did the romanian-made units from the A-H Army met in combat the romanian units from Romania. Did anybody know this? I mean was that often happen or just of random?

I do not fully agree. The Russian Empire was much more effective in transforming Bessarabia after occupation than Hungary ever was able to Magyarize the Romanian population. This was due in my opinion to the higher level of cultural development of the Romanians in Transylvania and to the comparitively less brutal methods employed by the Hungarian Kingdom.

Which were the brutal method of russification on Bessarabia between 1812-1918, giving the comparison mentioned that the hungarian ones were less brutal than the russian's?