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 > Reorganizing the pre-WW2 military section

Posted by: Victor June 26, 2005 06:55 pm

Recently there have been some suggestions from several members about the opportunity of reorganizing this section, which covers a very large part of history.

My personal view on the subject is to brake up the section into several pieces:

1. Pre-Independence history (or pre-19th century history)
2. Independece War
3. WW1 (1913-1919)
4. Romanian Army in the inter-war period

There is still much work to be done in WW2 section of the site and adding more details about WW1 or the Independence War is something out of reach for the moment being. So we may as well encourage the discussions on the forum about them, by creating special sections.

Would do you think about this? We are waiting for feedback from you.

Posted by: Carol I June 26, 2005 07:36 pm

It would indeed be easier to use the 'The pre-WW2 military' section with the new structure, even though its volume might not seem to justify a reorganisation. On the other hand, I wonder whether such a measure will encourage the potential posters which might find their way easier through the various topics.

Do you think that your third subsection would fare better split into two: 'The 1913 campaign' and 'WWI (1916-1919)'?

Posted by: Iamandi June 27, 2005 06:12 am

Good!

In this way popularity of that subforum will have more succes. And, Carol I gave a good ideea.

Maybe a section dedicated to earlier history will be another useful ideea - a place dedicated to Dacia and a period of time up and down to this reper?

Iama

Posted by: dragos03 June 27, 2005 11:40 am

I think it's useless to have a special section about the 1913 campaign. Not too much to talk about.

Posted by: Imperialist June 27, 2005 12:58 pm

QUOTE (dragos03 @ Jun 27 2005, 11:40 AM)

I think it's useless to have a special section about the 1913 campaign. Not too much to talk about.

There is a lot to talk about, not much info maybe.

Posted by: Victor June 27, 2005 04:10 pm

Given teh fact that there haven't been many (if any discussions) about it so far, Ithink it can ver ywell be included in the WW1 section, along with teh 1919 campaign.

Posted by: Dénes June 27, 2005 04:36 pm

I also think the 1913, the 1916-1918 and the 1918-1919 campaigns could be included in one sub-chapter, under 'WW1 and Local Wars', or similar title.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: dragos03 June 27, 2005 04:44 pm

Maybe the 1913 and 1919 wars, along with the battles with the Red Army, could get a separate section, in order to encourage interest in these forgotten campaigns.

Posted by: dragos June 27, 2005 05:07 pm

For now I think the following structure for the pre-WW2 section is sufficient:

Pre-WW2 Romanian Military History

Ancient, Medieval and Modern History
Covers the old history of the region, the Independence War (1877-1878), and the post-Independence War period up to the First Balkan War (1912)

WW1 and Regional Wars (1912-1919)
Romanian Army in the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) and in the National Reunification War (1916-1919)

The Interwar Period (1920-1940)
Romanian Army and the International Context of the Interwar Period

Posted by: Dénes June 27, 2005 06:10 pm

QUOTE (dragos @ Jun 27 2005, 11:07 PM)

the National Reunification War (1916-1919)

Sounds very much like the 'Great Patriotic War', only less obvious to foreign visitors.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Imperialist June 27, 2005 06:49 pm

QUOTE (Dénes @ Jun 27 2005, 06:10 PM)

Sounds very much like the 'Great Patriotic War', only less obvious to foreign visitors.

Gen. Dénes

Only slightly, in the fact that rabid empires were broken during those 2 wars. But in the case of our NRW no new empire emerged after the war, like it did after the GPW. Ours was a national war.

Posted by: dragos June 27, 2005 06:57 pm

QUOTE (Dénes @ Jun 27 2005, 09:10 PM)

QUOTE (dragos @ Jun 27 2005, 11:07 PM)

the National Reunification War (1916-1919)

Sounds very much like the 'Great Patriotic War', only less obvious to foreign visitors.

Gen. Dénes

Leaving aside the obvious irony, why should not the foreign visitors find out about the National Reunification War, since the Great Patriotic War is much more known?

Posted by: Dénes June 27, 2005 07:59 pm

QUOTE (dragos @ Jun 28 2005, 12:57 AM)

Leaving aside the obvious irony, why should not the foreign visitors find out about the National Reunification War, since the Great Patriotic War is much more known?

Leaving the obvious irony aside, why complicate matters, particularly in titles, confusing prospective foreign visitors?

IIRC, this forum is supposed to be an international forum in English language on the history of the Rumanian military; therefore, I think internationally recognized terms should be used. World War 1 is such an instantly recognizable historical term, as NRW doesn't say much, if any.

Of course, if you wish you can enlighten the uninitiated to the latest terms used exclusively by a segment of current Rumanian historiography; however, I think titles should be short and concise. The KISS theory, you know...

This is just an educated opinion, of course. The administrators are free to implement their own views.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: dragos June 27, 2005 08:04 pm

QUOTE (Denes)

IIRC, this forum is supposed to be an international forum in English language on the history of the Rumanian military; therefore, I think internationally recognized terms should be used. World War 1 is such an instantly recognizable historical term, as NRW doesn't say much, if any.

WW1 and Regional Wars (1912-1919)
Romanian Army in the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) and in the National Reunification War (1916-1919)

World War 1 is present in the forum's title, the National Reunification War is in the forum's description, below the title. Is this ok with you?

Posted by: Dénes June 27, 2005 08:14 pm

Dragos, as I said, it's your (and Victor's) forum. You do whatever pleases you.

This having been said, personally I see a logical contradiction in the title and subtitle. If you talk of WW1 in the title, then why are you referring to NRW in the sub-title? Wouldn't it be much simpler to use in the sub-title clear and neutral terms, like:
The Romanian Army in the Balkan Wars (1912-1913), W.W. 1 (1916-1918) and the Local Campaigns of 1918-1919?

Gen. Dénes

P.S. Recently I read, in English, a book on the recent history of Bulgaria, for one of the projects I am working on. It struck me, among others, the usage of terms unfamiliar to me, like the 'National Renaissance War' (IIRC) (referring to the 1878-1879 war) and the 'September War' (referring to the early stage of the anti-Axis campaign of Sept. 1944). I think such confusing terms should be avoided in English language literature.
Based on this logic, I try to avoid using the term 'Western Front' when referring to the Rumanian Armed Forces' activity after August 23, 1944, regardless the term being widely used in the Rumanian language literature. I rather mention the events as the anti-Axis campaign, or mention the term as "the so-called 'Western Front'".

Posted by: Imperialist June 27, 2005 08:34 pm

QUOTE (Dénes @ Jun 27 2005, 08:14 PM)

This having been said, personally I see a logical contradiction in the title and subtitle. If you talk of WW1 in the title, then why are you referring to NRW in the sub-title? Wouldn't it be much simpler to use in the sub-title clear and neutral terms, like:

I dont see the point in using neutral terms.
This is a forum about Romanian Army, it is supposed to have Romanian "flavor".
If any foreigners are attracted to a site dedicated to a small country's army and "fapte de arme", they are because it gives them that particular flavor.
Terms, opinions on events, name of campaigns should portray the romanian side of the coin. Besides, the terms are not cryptic.
I think NRW is just fine.

Posted by: Dénes June 27, 2005 08:42 pm

QUOTE (Imperialist @ Jun 28 2005, 02:34 AM)

QUOTE (Dénes @ Jun 27 2005, 08:14 PM)

I dont see the point in using neutral terms.
This is a forum about Romanian Army, it is supposed to have Romanian "flavor".

If so, Imperialist, then why bother at all with the English language? This obstacle hinders the participation of those persons who are not knowledgeable enough in English to contribute to the forum.

If you want to have a "Romanian flavor", then IMO it should be a fully Rumanian language site.

I personally prefer the forum as is, an international one, up to international standards and terms.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: dragos June 27, 2005 08:54 pm

QUOTE (Denes)

P.S. Recently I read, in English, a book on the recent history of Bulgaria, for one of the projects I am working on. It struck me, among others, the usage of terms unfamiliar to me, like the 'National Renaissance War' (IIRC) (referring to the 1878-1879 war) and the 'September War' (referring to the early stage of the anti-Axis campaign of Sept. 1944). I think such confusing terms should be avoided in English language literature.

On the contrary, as a foreigner I find these terms interesting and they attract me to learn more.

But I will wait for the input of other members.

Posted by: Imperialist June 27, 2005 08:58 pm

QUOTE (Dénes @ Jun 27 2005, 08:42 PM)

Cultural globalisation means/should mean that each country presents its "flavor" on a common market, easily accessible to others. It doesnt mean all those "flavours" have to be standardised according to a single pattern.
Therefore, if we say National Reunification War (1916-1919) we put it both in an accessible language and in a deductible fashion [ (1916-1919) -- so that was WWI in Romanian eyes/flavour ]. Nothing is lost, flavor is added.

take care

Posted by: Dénes June 27, 2005 09:07 pm

QUOTE (dragos @ Jun 28 2005, 02:54 AM)

QUOTE (Denes)

On the contrary, as a foreigner I find these terms interesting and they attract me to learn more.

O.K., then we apparently think differently. Same with Imperialist.

To me, W.W. 1 is W.W. 1. I see no need to introduce a new term on an English language international forum.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. I am wondering, how are the Russian historians currently call W.W. 1?

Posted by: dragos June 27, 2005 09:18 pm

QUOTE (Denes)

I see no need to introduce a new term on an English language international forum.

I would say this is an English language Romanian forum, which is internationally accessible. As Imperialist touched it, this is not just a commercial product for public masses all over the world.

On the other hand, I understand your reticence towards the Romanian notion of "National Reunification War". It's nothing new around here.

Posted by: Dénes June 27, 2005 09:45 pm

QUOTE

On the other hand, I understand your reticence...

Dragos, you think you understand. That's a totally different matter.
FYI, I would have objected to any other term used in English for W.W. 1, other than W.W. 1...

QUOTE

I would say this is an English language Romanian forum, which is internationally accessible.

So far I thought it's the other way around. Apparently, I was wrong.

O.K., then. If you say so...

Let me repeat myself:

QUOTE

Dragos, as I said, it's your (and Victor's) forum. You do whatever pleases you.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: dragos June 27, 2005 11:35 pm

QUOTE (Dénes @ Jun 28 2005, 12:45 AM)

QUOTE

On the other hand, I understand your reticence...

Dragos, you think you understand. That's a totally different matter.

What it is so hard to understand? It is so hard to admit that you are against using terms like Vienna Diktat or the National Reunification War because of your ethnic origin, thus damaging your objectivity? Take a break. All of us are subjective, this is the human nature. Every man is driven by his education, cultural background and determination. But do not worry, even if we'll have this argument forever on this forum, I'm sure that when we will meet face to face we will fully enjoy a cup of palinka.

QUOTE (Denes)

QUOTE

I would say this is an English language Romanian forum, which is internationally accessible.

So far I thought it's the other way around. Apparently, I was wrong.

O.K., then. If you say so...

Which other way around? Stop playing with words and make it clear.

Posted by: johnny_bi June 27, 2005 11:55 pm

QUOTE ("Denes")

To me, W.W. 1 is W.W. 1. I see no need to introduce a new term on an English language international forum.

Actually, if I recall correctely, Transylvania was "the price" asked by Romanians for entering into this "War of Civilisations"... It was the purpose, not just a "side effect"... Not knowing this thing denotes actually ignorance... I see no reason to just HIDE the CAUSE of the Romanian involvement in that war into neutral terms just for the sake of the English language (is this a joke?). Anyway, as we could see in two years, Dragos and Victor avoided the "slip" into a nationalistic forum. So, why should we fear?

As I have personally experienced in Canada, the facts and the military campaigns involving Romania in WWI are not correctely depicted (Romania was defeated and put out of the war after 3 months, etc). Not even the campaigns and simple facts... Not talking about the REASON.
I think that this subtitle could emphase the reason why Romania joined the Entente.

QUOTE ("Denes")

Of course, if you wish you can enlighten the uninitiated to the latest terms used exclusively by a segment of current Rumanian historiography; however, I think titles should be short and concise. The KISS theory, you know...

Let's change the name of the Independence War in this forum with the neutral term of "the 8th russo-turkish war" and we will explain later that actually the Romanians were involved too...

But this war never got "enough attention". If "war of independence 1877-1878" is clear enough, believe me that the "National Reunification War (1916-1919)" will be more than clear...

Personally I preffer the name World War I with the subtitle "National Reunification War (1916-1919)". So, there will be no "confusion".

Posted by: Dénes June 28, 2005 12:58 am

QUOTE (dragos @ Jun 28 2005, 05:35 AM)

It is so hard to admit that you are against using terms like Vienna Diktat or the National Reunification War because of your ethnic origin, thus damaging your objectivity? Take a break.

Dragos, please refrain getting personal (it's against the rules, BTW). Did I ever refer to your, or others' ethnicity? No, because it would be unproper and a cheap shot as well.

I object against the term "Vienna Diktat" because it's a political, not a historical term. The opposite side's take on the same event would be something like "the reunification of Northern Transylvania with the Motherland", i.e. Hungary. The neutral historical term is the Vienna Award, or Resolution.
Whenever somebody uses the "Vienna Diktat" term should always remember it's equivalent from the other side. Have you seen me using it, or something remotely similar ever? I doubt it, because I try to remain balanced and neutral. That's why I also suggested to use the neutral English term for W.W. 1, which is... W.W. 1. However, it was a mere suggestion from a forumite, in order to retain objectivity, obviously overruled by the administrator, for the sake of his own agenda.
So be it.

QUOTE

But do not worry, even if we'll have this argument forever on this forum, I'm sure that when we will meet face to face we will fully enjoy a cup of palinka.

I am not worried at all. If a personal meeting will ever take place, I am sure we can drink a glass of pálinka, or tuica, no problem.

Interestingly, I have already met personally several guys active on this forum (initially in Bucharest, then recently at Brasov) and I have to tell you we had a really good time, without getting into personal issues. We did raise a few glasses of beer (pálinka was not at hand) and talked about our common fields of interest (and not only). It appears that this can be done if the persons have open minds...

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Dénes June 28, 2005 02:47 am

QUOTE (johnny_bi @ Jun 28 2005, 05:55 AM)

QUOTE ("Denes")

To me, W.W. 1 is W.W. 1. I see no need to introduce a new term on an English language international forum.

Actually, if I recall correctely, Transylvania was "the price" asked by Romanians for entering into this "War of Civilisations"...

That's incorrect. The territorial prize asked by the Rumanian Government to enter the war on the Entente's side in 1916 was much bigger than Transylvania.

If interested in the topic, check out the forum's archives for details (from the times when 'Geto-Dacul' was still active here).

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Victor June 28, 2005 06:14 am

I think we give to much importance to a simple name. What matters are the facts, because at the end of the day it is those that remain, and those facts should be discussed, not wether the section should be named in one way or the other. It is a waste of time and energy.

As for the "National Reunification War" my personal opinion is that WW1 would be a better desgination. We don't name the 22 June 1941 - 23 August 1944 period the "Anti-Bolshevik Crusade". The reunification was achieved by the Romanians in those provinces, who voted for it, not by means of force from the Old Kingdom. Romanian troops were just reentering Bucharest at the time of the Alba Iulia Mass Rally. At least this is how I see things. But if it is that important we can make a poll about it.

Other ideas on the reorganization?

Posted by: Imperialist June 28, 2005 07:16 am

QUOTE (Victor @ Jun 28 2005, 06:14 AM)

As a citizen of a Succesor State [1], I think there is no such thing as a simple name.
And there should be no shame in using names that were written in blood by our ancestors. Every youngster heard about the 1877-1878 War. If you ask him when Romanian Independence War took place, or Marea Unire, or Mica Unire etc., the majority of them have no idea.
History is supposed to be personalised by the nation who lived it. Thats why we (still) have a national history.

I think a poll should clarify each member's position.

[1] --

QUOTE

In the Successor States, by contrast, while rhetoric about social justice was not missing, loyalty to the new states had to be based on nationalism. A successful consolidation within the newly formed states depended upon a rapid formation of new loyalties: identification of the population with the territorial extent of the new states. This required a formation of, say, a new Czechoslovak national identity, to correspond with the proposed territory of the Czechoslovak nation-state. It had to replace old separate Czech, Slovak, or Ruthenian regional identities, identification with Austria, or, in the case of Slovaks and CarpathoUkrainians, with Hungary. Similar reorientation was required of the new citizens of Yugoslavia and Romania.

http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/mocsy/mocsy03.htm

Posted by: dragos June 28, 2005 08:58 am

QUOTE (Denes)

Dragos, please refrain getting personal (it's against the rules, BTW). Did I ever refer to your, or others' ethnicity? No, because it would be unproper and a cheap shot as well.

I did not insult you, and I don't feel abused if anyone reffers to my ethnicity or nationality. What's the problem?

QUOTE (Denes)

I object against the term "Vienna Diktat" because it's a political, not a historical term. The opposite side's take on the same event would be something like "the reunification of Northern Transylvania with the Motherland", i.e. Hungary. The neutral historical term is the Vienna Award, or Resolution.

Who decreed that "Vienna Diktat" is a politcal term and not a historical one? Point me the source. It was a diktat because the result was imposed by the Axis powers, as part of Hitler's machinations.

Posted by: Dénes June 28, 2005 01:00 pm

QUOTE (Imperialist @ Jun 28 2005, 01:16 PM)

As a citizen of a Succesor State [1], I think there is no such thing as a simple name.

I, also as a citizen of a successor state, believe that W.W. 1 would describe the events properly.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Carol I June 28, 2005 08:14 pm

QUOTE (Dénes @ Jun 27 2005, 10:45 PM)

FYI, I would have objected to any other term used in English for W.W. 1, other than W.W. 1...

This same war is also known in English as "The Great War" or as "The Great War for Civilisation".

Posted by: Agarici June 28, 2005 10:16 pm

I would personally opt for WW 1 formula. I think that for the foreign visitors the content of the topic should enlighten them about the particularities of the Romanian involvement in WW 1. The National Reunification War variant is quite new and seems unusual…
For my suggestion about the reorganization of this section of the forum (a new project) take a look here: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=2253

Posted by: Victor July 05, 2005 06:11 pm

The reorganization is done. Hope I didn't leave anything behind.

Posted by: dragos03 July 05, 2005 06:16 pm

Why did you choose the "WW1" version? The poll ended with a draw.

I voted for the other variant and i think the solution is unfair.

Posted by: Imperialist July 05, 2005 06:36 pm

QUOTE (dragos03 @ Jul 5 2005, 06:16 PM)

Why did you choose the "WW1" version? The poll ended with a draw.

I voted for the other variant and i think the solution is unfair.

I dont think the poll is even closed...!
Only 20 people voted... thats roughly 3,3% of the members.

Posted by: Victor July 05, 2005 06:46 pm

QUOTE (dragos03 @ Jul 5 2005, 08:16 PM)

Why did you choose the "WW1" version? The poll ended with a draw.

I voted for the other variant and i think the solution is unfair.

Read Dragos' post on the first page of this topic, dated Jun 27 2005, 07:07 PM.

The issue of the "National Reunification War" vs. WW1 was never meant to be in the title of the forum, but in the comments section. I left the comments section of that forum empty, until a conclusion in that poll can be reached.

Posted by: dragos03 July 05, 2005 07:07 pm

Ok, that sounds fair.

Posted by: Imperialist July 05, 2005 07:20 pm

QUOTE (Victor @ Jul 5 2005, 06:46 PM)

Yes, it was meant to be in the subtitle.
So the poll is still open, right? Could it still be introduced as subtitle?

Dragos wrote:

QUOTE

WW1 and Regional Wars (1912-1919)
Romanian Army in the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) and in the National Reunification War (1916-1919)

Posted by: Dénes July 05, 2005 07:30 pm

QUOTE (dragos03 @ Jul 6 2005, 12:16 AM)

Why did you choose the "WW1" version? The poll ended with a draw.

I voted for the other variant and i think the solution is unfair.

The poll's result, as currently is, is irrelevant, as in any context a sizeable number of participants must vote in order the result to have any statistical relevance. In a national referendum, for example, a certain percentage of persons eligible to vote must cast their votes in order the refrendum to be valid. This percentage is set usually between 25-50%. Over here, even 10% would be acceptable, I think. Moreover, a deadline is usually set, as well.

Many forumites are simply not interested in this forced poll thing (myself included, that's why I did not vote). I believe Victor also voiced his pro-W.W. 1 opinion and probably he didn't vote either. And so on...

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: dragos July 05, 2005 08:25 pm

I have introduced the complete formula of "the War for Liberation and National Reunification"

Posted by: Victor July 06, 2005 04:44 am

Liberation? What Liberation?

Why not wait for the poll to reach a conclusion? So far it seems there are 11 against and 10 pro.

Posted by: MaxFax July 06, 2005 06:25 am

QUOTE (Dénes @ Jul 5 2005, 09:30 PM)

Many forumites are simply not interested in this forced poll thing (myself included, that's why I did not vote).

Gen. Dénes

Forced thing?

Do I feel (again?) a kind of tendentiousness here?!

I see it more like a democratic option to have an idea about the members’ opinion.
Well, till now it wasn’t too helpful …

Posted by: dragos July 06, 2005 08:44 am

QUOTE (Victor @ Jul 6 2005, 07:44 AM)

Liberation? What Liberation?

http://www.actrus.ro/biblioteca/cursuri/istorie/babos_2/capitol_6.html

QUOTE

Romania, prin hotararea Consiliului de Coroana de la Sinaia, din 21 iulie /3 august 1914 se declara neutra, o neutralitate armata, sub forma „espectativei cu apararea frontierelor", in pofida insistentei regelui Carol I, sustinut de liderul conservator P. P. Carp, ca Romania sa se alature Puterilor Centrale, potrivit tratatului special de alianta din 1883,. Premierul I. I. C. Bratianu a insistat pe faptul ca tratatul nu obliga Romania sa participe la conflict, intru cat nu alianta era atacata ci un membru al ei, Austro-Ungaria, era agresorul. Mentalitatea a fost aprobata de toate fortele politice ca o solutie de moment. Refuzul de a intra in razboi alaturi de Puterile Centrale reprezenta pozitia oficiala a detasarii politice a Romaniei de acestea, incluzand totodata optiunea ce viza eliberarea teritoriilor romanesti anexate Austro-Ungariei. Hotararea Romaniei a fost primita cu satisfactie de romanii din Transilvani si Bucovina care nu ar fi putut accepta o alianta a patriei mama cu stapanitorii lor vremelnici. Toata perioada de neutralitate va fi dominata de miscarea pentru realizarea eliberarii nationale.

Posted by: Imperialist July 06, 2005 10:00 am

QUOTE (dragos @ Jul 5 2005, 08:25 PM)

I have introduced the complete formula of "the War for Liberation and National Reunification"

Thank you Dragos.