WorldWar2.ro Forum [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

WorldWar2.ro Forum > Comments and suggestions > WW1 only or "National Reunification War"

Posted by: dragos June 28, 2005 01:46 pm

Please vote.

Posted by: sid guttridge June 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.

Posted by: Imperialist June 29, 2005 06:08 am

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

Sid, the title says National Reunification War, not State Reunification.
Are you aware of the differences?

Posted by: Alexandru H. June 29, 2005 06:17 pm

I voted for the second choice....

Posted by: SiG June 29, 2005 06:34 pm

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.

Posted by: Imperialist June 29, 2005 06:45 pm

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...

Posted by: SiG June 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.

Posted by: Dénes June 29, 2005 07:35 pm

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...

Posted by: Imperialist June 29, 2005 07:42 pm

QUOTE (SiG @ Jun 29 2005, 07:11 PM)

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.

Posted by: Imperialist June 29, 2005 07:49 pm

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.

Posted by: SiG June 29, 2005 08:24 pm

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.

Posted by: Dénes June 29, 2005 08:35 pm

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

Posted by: Imperialist June 29, 2005 08:49 pm

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

Well, if you can name any 17th century standards for a national state "unitary and centralized"

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.

Posted by: dragos June 30, 2005 02:28 pm

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.

Posted by: MaxFax July 01, 2005 07:09 am

Anyway till now we have ONLY 18 votes

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

Posted by: johnny_bi July 01, 2005 03:46 pm

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.

Posted by: dragos July 01, 2005 03:55 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).

Posted by: johnny_bi July 01, 2005 04:00 pm

QUOTE

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".

Posted by: Dénes July 01, 2005 05:35 pm

QUOTE (johnny_bi @ Jul 1 2005, 10:00 PM)

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.

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

Posted by: dragos July 01, 2005 05:57 pm

http://www.actrus.ro/biblioteca/cursuri/istorie/ 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)

Posted by: Dénes July 01, 2005 06:20 pm

QUOTE (dragos @ Jul 1 2005, 11:57 PM)

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

Posted by: johnny_bi July 01, 2005 06:55 pm

QUOTE

The same question is valid for the 1914-1916 time period, RE: W.W. 1.

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

QUOTE

What about the Sept. 1939-June 1941 time period? That was part of W.W. 2, too...

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.

Posted by: dragos July 01, 2005 07:02 pm

QUOTE (Dénes @ Jul 1 2005, 09:20 PM)

Publishing date? It's important.

2001

QUOTE (Denes)

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.

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.

Posted by: johnny_bi July 01, 2005 07:10 pm

QUOTE

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'.

Still no WWI.

Posted by: Agarici July 05, 2005 05:41 pm

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.

Posted by: johnny_bi July 06, 2005 12:50 pm

QUOTE

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).

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.

Posted by: Imperialist July 06, 2005 01:53 pm

QUOTE (Agarici @ Jul 5 2005, 05:41 PM)

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 structures.

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.

Posted by: Dénes July 07, 2005 03:34 am

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/9639116971/qid=1120706845/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-2803164-9370356

QUOTE

Dimitire Onciul avea sa exprime in citeva cuvinte sensul actiunii lui Mihai [Viteazul], constatind absenta oricarui proiect national. Unirea, arata el, "nu era sustinuta decit prin sabia cuceritorului, al carui gind conducator era lupta pentru credinta; ideea unitatii nationale nu era in constiinta politica a acelor timpuri, inca nepregatite a o concepe". Source: Dimitire Onciul, Din Istoria Romaniei, Editura Socec, Bucuresti, 1908, p. 76.

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:

QUOTE

Obiectivul politic al lui Mihai Viteazul nu a fost unitatea nationala, si actiunea sa se explica suficient prin suita logica a ideilor sale de cruciada.

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.

Posted by: Imperialist July 07, 2005 10:01 am

QUOTE (Dénes @ Jul 7 2005, 03:34 AM)

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

But let me give you some excerpts too:

QUOTE

De indata ce s-a raspandit in tara zvonul despre victoria lui Mihai [de la Selimbar], numai decat valahii din tara noastra s-au adunat si au atacat in taina si public mosiile si curtile nobililor si au ucis multi dintre stapanii lor, ca pe Francisc Tekei, comitele Turdei, Ladislau Boronkai si multi altii; si aceasta de fapt, din inchipuirea visatoare ca, avand de acum inainte un principe din sangele lor, trebuiau si ei, mojicii, valahii, sa-i stapaneasca pe nobili. ...

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

QUOTE

Valahul avea pe de alta parte mereu sporita constiinta a atator mari victorii, o nemarginita incredere in puterile sale si prestigiul numelui sau; in unele nu era cu nimic mai prejos decat Basta, iar in multe altele, facute singur si fara de ajutor, il intrecea pe Basta.
La aceasta se adauga faptul ca mai toti provincialii transilvaneni tineau mai mult la unul de-al lor, la un dac ca Mihai, decat la un strain ca Basta. Caci oare ce-i este mai apropiat Transilvaniei decat valahul din vecinatate?
Iar de vom da uitarii lupta din urma a Bathorestilor (care-i pusese fata in fata cu voievodul) care alt popor, in afara de valahi, poate fi oare intr-atat de asemanator si intr-atat de placut transilvanenilor?
Caci mai toti sunt de acelasi sange, de aceeasi origine, de acelasi nume: daci sunt si unii si ceilalti ...

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".

Posted by: Ahmed July 07, 2005 02:05 pm

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.

Posted by: Imperialist July 07, 2005 02:37 pm

QUOTE (Ahmed @ Jul 7 2005, 02:05 PM)

His interpretations of Romanian myths are only very loosely based on facts, his writing owing more to literature then to scientific method.

You mean his interpretations of Romanian history...

Posted by: Dénes July 08, 2005 12:15 am

Imperialist & Ahmed, you missed the point. I did not quote Boia per se. Instead, from the book authored by Boia I quoted other historians, as Onciul and Bratianu. Other reveered Rumanian historians, quoted in the same chapter, are A. D. Xenopol, N. Iorga, C. C. Giurescu et al - all converging to the same idea, namely that a clear 'national unity' vision in Mihai Viteazul's plans did not exist - could not exist - during his conquest of Transylvania on the turn of the XVIth and the XVIIth Centuries.

As I said, check out the book and you'll see what these illustrious historians mean.

Finally, I did not learn of the actual time of birth of the 'nation' only recently, but many years ago, in a context totally different than Mihai Viteazul's. It's nothing new, as it's a classic, well established historical concept. What is new is the attempt to push the envelope, so it would fit a certain political agenda. This happened mainly after the war, during the Communist times, and is curently uphold by a certain segment of historians - professionals and amateurs alike.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: johnny_bi July 08, 2005 04:15 pm

The problem of unification during the Middle Ages is very complex. There were many unifications during that period (the unification of France, the unification of Norway, the unification of the Visigothic and the Hispano-Roman communities in Spain) that all were later used as a territorial base for "nations".
Could we say, from this perspective, that what was Mihai Viteazu’s kingdom (that unified those who spoke the same language even if this was not the purpose of his actions but anyway it was a kind of unification) became later the base of the Romanian nation (as historical process).

Every nation, since the appearance of the concept, referred itself to some kingdom that existed before. The relation between nation and territory is more powerful than we think. And this is the cause of the conflicts and disputes that appeared later. Many territories changed sides many times (look at the situation in the Balkans), that’s why it was very difficult to “split” two neighbors. How could one do it? Taking in consideration the old kingdoms or taking in consideration the ethnicity of the population?

Maybe this would be a question for an other thread that would try to analyze the technical relation between a state as structure, territory, people and nation.