Romanians vs Romanians in WWI

Nobody can made a statistics, but from memoires of veterans, these meetings in combat were often. Of were so traumatised for Romanians to meet in combat fellow Romanians, that each time it happens, it is mentioned by veterans (in Galitia).
In 1916, when Romanian army entered in Transylvania, were many cases. Many Romanians in AH army who surrendered at first wiew to Romanian soldiers, and later served as volunteers in Ro army.
But in some places, fightings occured, and those Ro from AH army who tried to cross the lines to Ro army and were captured, were hanged.
The most known case is of Livius's Rebreanu brother, who was hanged because he tried to desert to Romanians. He was awarded in Italy, and later his unit was sent in Transylvania to fight against Romanians. His case is ilustrated in Liviu Rebreanu novel, Padurea spanzuratilor, Apostol Bologa, the pricipal character of the novel, is in fact his brother, Emil Rebreanu.

One can made an aproximative, at least, statistic about AH romanian units against romanian from Romania units following the history of deployment of different AH units raised from romanian AH ranks. There are sites which presents the ethnic composition of each AH great unit (division, regiment) and compiling with the deploying of the unit one make a certain idea if there were romanians against romanians. It should be an interesting statistic!

Hello 21 inf,
That's a very interesting idea which I intend to apply when I have some free time... My interest in doing this is whether or not there was a deliberate policy of the A-H Army or just happen... I wonder if you can help me by giving me a name for such a site where I can find -unit, deployment, ethnic composition, ...
Thanks in advance!

Could you explain a bit clearer what do you mean that there was no consolidated national identity? You mean in 1914? In Transylvania?

thanks

Hi, Andreas!

Here are the ethnic compositions of AH units in 1914:
Common Army Infantry and Jager Units http://www.austro-hungarian-army.co.uk/nationality.htm

Common Army Cavalry Regiments http://www.austro-hungarian-army.co.uk/nationality2.htm

Austrian and Hungarian Landwehr Infantry http://www.austro-hungarian-army.co.uk/nationality3.htm

Austrian and Hungarian Landwehr Cavalry http://www.austro-hungarian-army.co.uk/nationality4.htm

Common Army, Austrian & Hungarian Landwehr Field Artillery http://www.austro-hungarian-army.co.uk/nationality5.htm

Common Army Fortress Artillery Regiments http://www.austro-hungarian-army.co.uk/nationality6.htm

Common Army Pioneer and Sapper Units http://www.austro-hungarian-army.co.uk/nationality7.htm

This are ethnic composition in 1914, but this may vary until 1916 when some of this units were sent to romanian front. I dont know how much this ethnic composition varied in 1916, but I can supose that it was no great difference, since the drafting areas weren't changed. Maybe the ethnic composition was modified by receiving reinforcements thru so-called "march batalions". As far as I know, each great AH unit had a march batalion which was destinated to bring reinforcements to front. All march batalions were recruited from the same drafting area as the original great unit, but not always the march batalions were sent to their "mother unit". Sometimes march batalions were sent to diferent great units, were they were badly needed, so the ethnic composition may varied due to this mixing of mother units with march batalions, but in great lines, probably the ethnic composition was more or less the same in the great unit in discussion.

About Galicia fightings, the first fight that involves Romanian vs Romanian recounted by Octav Taslauanu (Sub flamurile habsurgice, edit Rao) was in autumn 1914, on Dniestr region, near Horbacze, when his btl 2 Fagaras (From Reg 23 Sibiu) flanked at left by Reg 41 from Bukovina was involved in fights against Bassarabians.

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?

The discussion is really off-topic here. You can start a new one if you wish to discuss the subject of Bessarabia between 1812 and 1918.

Hallo 21 inf,
Thank you very much! Interesting information I could find there, indeed...
But a significant number of A-H units present in Transylvania in august -september 1916 were new raised -f.ex. 61. Infantry Division -raised in 1915 (hungarian division from imperial army), 70. Honvéd Infantry Division -raised in 1915 (hungarian division from territorial army) or 144. Honvéd Infantry Brigade -raised in 1916 (hungarian brigade from territorial army)... so about this units we can only assume that the percentage of romanian was high. But surely there are enough units we can identify on the site you mentioned.
Hallo Contras,
interesting example you gave... I almost forgot that the russian imperial army used romanian contingents too! And they were send to fight their brothers from A-H Army. Tragic episodes of a huge disaster -the First World War.

Hallo Andreas,
I must regognise but I'm not have a clue to find an OOB in Russian army in 1914. Even I can find it, I truly believe that the Bassarabian units were not recognised like Romanian ones, the russificasion politics it worked here so much. In a few minutes I'll came with one example about Ro against Ro in 1916, just let me look at the book I had in mind.

About Galicia fightings recounted by Octav Codru Taslauanu, in wich romanian in AH army fight against romanian in Russian army, the Bassarabians, the battle he tells in his memories took part between 9 to 11 September 1914, in Galicia, close to Dniestr river, near Horbacze, close to Stambor.
Another episode recounted by Polihron Dumitrescu, in that time (1916) locotenent, when he drives his platoon and company in battle of Cerna, he attempt to enter in a valley, when a man in AH uniform apeared, non armed, with both hands raised, and began to shooted at them in Romanian:
Do not enter, do not close, mr officer, stay back!
He was a Romanian from Transylvania, his name was Toma Ion, and he surrender. He swows to Romanian units that all the valley was mined, later were taken off about 100 kilos of dynamite from there, two faked tombs were the points where the ignitions were.

Polihron Dumitrescu, Ascultand chemarea, 1968.

By the way, Polihron Dumitrescu took part at the battles of Cerna, Jiu, Olt, Marasti, Marasesti, oituz and Ciresoaia.

The book apeared in comuist era, and I don't know if he was involved in the 1919 battles. Anyhow, in 1968, he still lived.

Hello to everybody!

First of all, it is indeed interesting to see the topic is of interest.

For clarifying what I've said about "consolidated national identity":

1) Practical Issues:
- in 1914 there was already a national state (Roumanian constitutional monarchy).
- however, its life was very short: full recognition and declaration of it as such came only in 1881, so at the beginning of the WWI there was a 33 years old Roumanian national state as such.
- Roumanians in Transylvania fought loyaly in the KuK army (see the case of Sextil Puscariu, for instance, who in the summer of 1914 is in Bucharest, nobody is going to punish him, but he choses, out of a "sense of duty", to cross the Carpathians and join the KuK).
- Most of the Roumanian national elite in Transylvania did not think about joining the Romanian Kingdom since Romania was an ally of Austria-Hungary. Alexandru Vaida Voevod famously stated that Romanian Kingdom would easily join the Austro-Hungarian Empire than Transylvania joining the Romanian Kingdom (reference from Episcop in Romania).

2) theoretical Issues:
- national identity building is a process (never ending), since it is permanently negociated (boundaries, national myths, etc.) and institutionalized (relations between ethnic majority and minorities, citizenship, army conscription, etc.).
- nation-state belongs to different international contexts (in case of Romania significant difference between 1848, 1859, 1914, 1919, 1947, 1989, 2007, etc.). National identity is influenced by the general international situation, namely what is possible and what is not.

Conclusion:
- I did not say that in 1848 there was no national identity. I said it was unconsolidated (as we feel it today) because at the moment there was no single state that would "securitize" and "secure" this identity. In 1848, the main problems were language, national myths (Roman-Latin origins, frontier status, Ortthodox Christianity, etc.). In addition, we should not forget that in Blaj all the leaders declared their full and un-negotiated loyalty to the Emperor. If one only looks at the tragedy of the Romanian grenze regiments from Nasaud, it will understand this.

I hope I was clear enough with this.

On the other hand, the Roumanian drama was one of the highest since the level of trust between the leaders of Roumanian minorities in the surrounding empires (especially AH and Russian) in the Roumanian governments and politicians in Bucharest was very low even after 1918. Maniu's letter to the King in 1938 is tragic, to say the least.

What I would like to discuss with you are these kind of aspects.

Secondly, I would like to ask you whether you know cases of Roumanian military officers from the AH and Russian army that were integrated or rejected by the Roumanian national army after 1919. This cases might say much about the real tragedy of these people.

Dear Sebastian,

There are always two faces of one coin. Depend on which one is looking...

About 1848 sense of nationality in Transylvania, I'd say you have to read more and you have to put some questions about it.

Even if the leaders of transylvanian romanians declared their full suport to austrian emperor, so did the commoners.The national identity in Transylvania and especially in Apuseni Mountains was as stronger as today back in 1848, disregarding "myths" as daco/roman roots, orthodoxy and so on. The wallach grenz infanterie regiments from austrian army is another discussion, the romanians drafted in those regiments had to give up their ortodox religion, some of them, especially oficers, were germanised in names as a condition to join austrian army and were drafted from diferent parts of Transylvania, not only from Nasaud or Orlat.

The "alliance" with austrians in 1848 was a normal conclusion after hungarian presented their revolutionary program, as it was not suited with transylvanian romanian's targets for the revolution. Being the ipotetical case that a Romanian state existed back in 1848, transylvanian romanians would join romanians from across Carpathians and no the austrians. But the "alliance" with austrians was the best option in the absence of a better one, which occured only in 1916.

The same strong national identity occured in Apuseni Mountains, mainly in Zarand and Tara Motilor back in the times of Horea peasant rising, in 1784. Starting with a social program, soon the movement of Horea's peasant took a national program. For the confirmation of this, try to read Horea's proclamations from late 1784.

Sebastian, your views presented above are certainly proof that you're "thinking out of the box" many other persons are trapped in, and try to do a fresh approach to these delicate topics. However, I do not agree with all your conclusions.

Today just a few points to support your conclusions and answer your questions:

Myself being interested mostly in the history of aviation came across several names of k.u.k. airmen with of Rumanian origin, who fought during WW I, some on the Rumanian front. For example, Leo Onciul, who was an observer in Flik. 36. His airplane force landed in Rumanian held territory on 24 Sept. 1917 and the crew became POW.

Yes, there were dozens of ex-k.u.k. airmen (particularily German ethnics, but Rumanians and Hungarians, too), who enrolled after 1918 in the Rumanian air force and served until the end of the 1930s. I can give you examples, if needed.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on January 10, 2010 01:36 pm

One can be of course a grown up man and able to made a certain opinion on desired subject. Not always a "think out of box" is necesarilly apropiate, when the things are clear as they were before. The subject about national feelings in romanian's case is clear as day light. Since 1784 hungarians tried to acuse Horea as having a "Daco-Romanian" atitude and this is, from romanian point of view, ok. What is so bad from romanian point of view, to be romanian and to declare that you want so? This is the idea for which peasants from Tara Motilor fought very soon in 1784, after their social revendications. A social uprising turned very fast in a national one, not only in Tara Motilor, but also in Salaj, Cluj and other counties. I can point some works as a proof, if wanted or needed.

One can ask why a fresh aproach for clearly researched subjects is needed? Just to have an oposite opinion, to be "different", to have a "frondă" atitude? Of course, if one want to do so.

The national feeling in romanian case is not sensitive, as knowing well our national history and knowing what our ancestor fought for, the romanian national conscience is a fact since long before writen colective memory and fact for which our ancestors died. There are too many well documented and writen works to prove that. Prestigious romanian historians as Silviu Dragomir, David Prodan and many others cleared the subject of national comunity of feelings long time ago. Their works are a statement that at least in Transylvania the national conscience was well developed and mantained in the harshest conditions, vivid and clear many centuries before our days.

The debate regarding romanian national conscience is just a subject of discussion for people who are not enough documented and it is exactly the same subject as it is the debate between romanian ortodoxs and greek catholics. Greek catholics from Romania says that if they didnt existed, romanian from Transylvania never became emancipated, for only greek catholics worked for raising schools and have access to learning. Not trying to make their deeds less valuable that they were, if one study enough, one can make the opinion that even without those greek catholic romanians, the course of romanian history in Transylvania it would be the same. Greek catholic wisemen apeared too late in our history to play such a significant role that they asume for themselfes. It is only a reason to defend their choose, to join a religion invented by austrians in late XVII century for orthodox nations as romanians.

One of the common errors committed when talking of a 'nation' and a 'national state' is to trace the nation centuries back, well into the Middle Age, or beyond. This is plain wrong.

The concept of 'nation' (both political and cultural), as we understand it today, emerged only around the end of the 18th century and it's birth coincides with the French Revolution of 1789. This novel notion reached the territories populated by Rumanians at the very end of the XVIIIth Century. Before that the 'nation' did NOT play a role in political, historical and social life. In other words, it did not matter what language people spoke. What actually DID matter was religion - much more like today - and social status, incl. nobility vs. peasantry. Therefore, for example, the statement like Michael the Brave somehow 'united' the Rumanians in the three 'Rumanian' territories in 1600 is a historical nonsense. It only serves current politics, nothing else. And so on.

21inf., et al., please take a second look on what you've written, and perhaps you can rethink some of your statements in light of this information.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on January 10, 2010 05:08 pm