Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (3) [1] 2 3   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> WW1 only or "National Reunification War", Poll
 
The description of the forum on WW1 and Regional Wars:
Should include the term "National Reunification War", as it would bring benefit in understanding and comprehension of Romanian history. [ 13 ]  [48.15%]
Both the title of the forum and the description should refer to the standard notion of "WW1" only, in order not to cast misunderstanding and disinterest on foreign visitors. [ 14 ]  [51.85%]
Total Votes: 27
Guests cannot vote 
dragos
Posted on June 28, 2005 01:46 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



Please vote.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
sid guttridge
Posted on June 29, 2005 05:45 am
Quote Post


Locotenent colonel
*

Group: Members
Posts: 862
Member No.: 591
Joined: May 19, 2005



Hi Dragos,

To what does the "reunification" refer?

There had been no state under the name Romania before the second half of the 19th Century and it had lost no territory since then to reunify.

I would suggest that WWI should more accurately be described as "The War for National Consolidation" as Transilvania and Basarabia were absorbed into the modern Romanian state for the first time, and WWII has a more accurate claim to be "The war for National Reunifcation", because the aim was to reunify Northern Transilvania and Basarabia with the modern Romanian state.

Cheers,

Sid.

PMEmail Poster
Top
Imperialist
Posted on June 29, 2005 06:08 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (sid guttridge @ Jun 29 2005, 05:45 AM)
Hi Dragos,

To what does the "reunification" refer?

There had been no state under the name Romania before the second half of the 19th Century and it had lost no territory since then to reunify.

I would suggest that WWI should more accurately be described as "The War for National Consolidation" as Transilvania and Basarabia were absorbed into the modern Romanian state for the first time, and WWII has a more accurate claim to be "The war for National Reunifcation", because the aim was to reunify Northern Transilvania and Basarabia with the modern Romanian state.

Cheers,

Sid.

Sid, the title says National Reunification War, not State Reunification.
Are you aware of the differences?
PM
Top
Alexandru H.
Posted on June 29, 2005 06:17 pm
Quote Post


Sergent major
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 216
Member No.: 57
Joined: July 23, 2003



I voted for the second choice....
PMUsers Website
Top
SiG
Posted on June 29, 2005 06:34 pm
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 86
Member No.: 616
Joined: June 29, 2005



I voted for the second choice too. The word "reunification" is inappropriate and any other substitute words (like "national consolidation") besides beeing equally irellevant to foreign users, are far less popular among Romanians.

Why "reunification" is inappropriate? Because the Romanian nation had never been united before, so it could not be re-united. OK, we had the union of Mihai Viteazul, but it was very shortlived and besides, Mihai only happened to rule over three distinctive states, and never attempted (nor had the time) to merge their institutions into one state.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Imperialist
Posted on June 29, 2005 06:45 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (SiG @ Jun 29 2005, 06:34 PM)


Why "reunification" is inappropriate? Because the Romanian nation had never been united before, so it could not be re-united. OK, we had the union of Mihai Viteazul, but it was very shortlived and besides, Mihai only happened to rule over three distinctive states, and never attempted (nor had the time) to merge their institutions into one state.

So we had a unification or not?

QUOTE
Because the Romanian nation had never been united before, so it could not be re-united.
  OK, we had the union of Mihai Viteazul, but...




PM
Top
SiG
Posted on June 29, 2005 07:11 pm
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 86
Member No.: 616
Joined: June 29, 2005



I would rather say no. It would be just like saying that Australia and Canada are united just because Queen Elizabeth reigns in both countries. The three Romanian Principalities did not form an unitary state by any standards. The "union" was importand for the purpose of shaping national identity, but at that moment it meant very little.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Dénes
Posted on June 29, 2005 07:35 pm
Quote Post


Host
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 4347
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



QUOTE (SiG @ Jun 30 2005, 12:34 AM)
OK, we had the union of Mihai Viteazul, but it was very shortlived and besides, Mihai only happened to rule over three distinctive states, and never attempted (nor had the time) to merge their institutions into one state.

The concept of nation did not exist at the time when Mihai Viteazul ruled.

From Wikipedia:
QUOTE
The idea of a "nation" gained wide acceptance and popularity in eighteenth centurty [sic!], when romantic nationalism was developed and used to shatter the old world order of dynastic or imperial hegemony.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. By the way, I did not vote in the poll...

This post has been edited by Dénes on June 29, 2005 07:43 pm
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted on June 29, 2005 07:42 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (SiG @ Jun 29 2005, 07:11 PM)
I would rather say no. It would be just like saying that Australia and Canada are united just because Queen Elizabeth reigns in both countries. The three Romanian Principalities did not form an unitary state by any standards. The "union" was importand for the purpose of shaping national identity, but at that moment it meant very little.

QUOTE
The three Romanian Principalities did not form an unitary state by any standards.


And what would those standards be? I hope not 19-20th century standards.

PM
Top
Imperialist
Posted on June 29, 2005 07:49 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Dénes @ Jun 29 2005, 07:35 PM)

The concept of nation did not exist at the time when Mihai Viteazul ruled.


That doesnt mean that what later became known as nations were absent, or people were not aware of the similarities between members of the same nation.
The fact that the inhabitants of the 3 principalities had the same language and the same or very similar traditions was pretty obvious to contemporaries. The circulation of political leaders, coups and counter-coups between the 3 principalities was made possible by that similarity.
PM
Top
SiG
Posted on June 29, 2005 08:24 pm
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 86
Member No.: 616
Joined: June 29, 2005



QUOTE (Imperialist @ Jun 29 2005, 07:42 PM)
  And what would those standards be? I hope not 19-20th century standards.


Well, if you can name any 17th century standards for a national state "unitary and centralized" :) I would be happy to work with them.

What I am trying to say is that we cannot judge the political realities of the past with the mentality of the present. It might be hard to believe, but the concepts of "nation" or even "state" simply did not exist back then, or they had a different meaning. If they are used for describing the past it is because it's difficult for us to imagine the world without them. But this does not mean they are correctly used.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Dénes
Posted on June 29, 2005 08:35 pm
Quote Post


Host
Group Icon

Group: Hosts
Posts: 4347
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



QUOTE (SiG @ Jun 30 2005, 02:24 AM)
What I am trying to say is that we cannot judge the political realities of the past with the mentality of the present. It might be hard to believe, but the concepts of "nation" or even "state" simply did not exist back then, or they had a different meaning. If they are used for describing the past it is because it's difficult for us to imagine the world without them. But this does not mean they are correctly used.

Very true, SiG. In the past I also tried to draw attention to the common mistake done when hindsight was used while talking about history.

If the very notion of "nation" did not exist back then, then we cannot refer to it. Period.

BTW, back in the middle ages religion was the main issue along with social status, not nationality or common cultural roots.

Gen. Dénes
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Imperialist
Posted on June 29, 2005 08:49 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (SiG @ Jun 29 2005, 08:24 PM)


Well, if you can name any 17th century standards for a national state "unitary and centralized" :) I would be happy to work with them.

What I am trying to say is that we cannot judge the political realities of the past with the mentality of the present. It might be hard to believe, but the concepts of "nation" or even "state" simply did not exist back then, or they had a different meaning. If they are used for describing the past it is because it's difficult for us to imagine the world without them. But this does not mean they are correctly used.

In that case, would you be satisfied if the name would be National Unification War? No re-Unification there to make difficulties for very critical foreigners.

p.s. SiG, we shouldnt be overcritical with ourselves, because other nations are not. For examples the US keeps mentioning the founding fathers for their role in establishing democracy. Yet the democracy during the times of the founding fathers was radically different from what we have today. However, with all its imperfections, innerent in the context of the age, the founding fathers act set a point of reference that cannot be ignored and is still used.
In the same way, Michael the Brave's act, with all its imperfections, means the same thing for Romania. I dont see why there should be a "but.." in this case.

QUOTE
If they are used for describing the past it is because it's difficult for us to imagine the world without them. But this does not mean they are correctly used.


There is nothing correct or objective in history. Dates are. Numbers are. Statistics. But when talking about "national" history everything is and should be subjective. Thats the way it is all around the world. I personally dont see why Romania is the one country who has to set a different example, especially when that doesnt change anything.

In my view National Reunification/Unification War (1916-1919) even as a subtitle (!) to WWI title is perfectly OK. I dont see why some people are so against it.
PM
Top
dragos
Posted on June 30, 2005 02:28 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



The name is not invented by me, it's the short translation of razboiul pentru eliberare si reintregire nationala (the war for liberation and national reunification), as it was called, so any other variation is excluded.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
MaxFax
  Posted on July 01, 2005 07:09 am
Quote Post


Plutonier
*

Group: Members
Posts: 255
Member No.: 7
Joined: June 18, 2003



Anyway till now we have ONLY 18 votes

This is quite low number for a forum with 613 registered members !!!

This post has been edited by MaxFax on July 01, 2005 07:11 am
PM
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (3) [1] 2 3  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0273 ]   [ 17 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]