WW1 only or "National Reunification War", Poll

Please vote.

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?

I voted for the second choice....

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.

So we had a unification or not?

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.

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

From Wikipedia:

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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