Reorganizing the pre-WW2 military section

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.

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

This post has been edited by Dénes on June 27, 2005 08:43 pm

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.

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

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?

This post has been edited by Dénes on June 27, 2005 09:10 pm

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.

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...

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:

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on June 27, 2005 11:29 pm

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.

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.

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.

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".

This post has been edited by johnny_bi on June 28, 2005 12:15 am

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.

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

This post has been edited by Dénes on June 28, 2005 02:38 am

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

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?

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] --

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

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

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.

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

Gen. Dénes