Romanian traitors, in the war of 1916-1919?

[Geto-Dacul]

[...]
While the nation's representatives were witnessing Rumania's unshaken resolution in the Moldavian capital, a very discordant note was struck by two Conservative politicians who had remained behind in Bukarest. It will be remembered that the old "Junimist" Conservative leader, Carp, had to the last protested against Rumania's intervention in the war on the side of the Entente. At the decisive Crown Council of August 27 [1916] he declared to the King :
"I give you my three sons, I suspend the publication of my paper (Moldova) because I do not wish to occasion further unpleasantness, but, as Rumania's victory must be Russia's victory, I wish Rumania to be beaten."
[...]
Carp did not allude to the vexed question of Transylvania and the oppression of the Rumans of Hungary. His former colleague, Marghiloman had had occasion to alter and modify his attitude towards the war during the past six months. The fall of Bukarest, however, revived all his old faith in Germany. To Bratianu's invitation to participate in the new National Government at Jassy he replied with a refusal and stayed behind at Bukarest as President of the Rumanian Red Cross. On December 21 the Hungarian paper Vilag published an interview with him. Marghiloman insisted that he had always opposed Bratianu's desire for war and had refused to countenance intervention by taking any part in a National Government. He reiterated his old distrust of Russia and her aims on Constantinople As for Transylvania, Marghiloman roundly denied that there was any Rumanian Irredenta in Transylvania and the Banat. "The Rumans do not gravitate accross the frontier. This conviction was always the basis of my policy. They are loyal citizens of Hungary." Such were the amazing statements of the ex-leader of the Conservative Party. Possibly his asseverations that the Rumans of Hungary were loyal citizens of Hungary and his praise of their leaders, Mihaly, Vaida and Aurel Popovici, may have had the laudable purpose of attempting to conciliate Magyar feeling towards the much suspected Rumanian population of Hungary. If it had not this intention, but was meant as a literal statement of fact, it was ludicrously untrue.
The Magyars themselves disproved it. Early in February, indeed, the Hungarian Government began to extort from Rumanian public men and newspapers in Hunhary professions of loyalty to the Hungarian Crown and of wholehearted co-operation in the war. Papers like Gazeta Transilvaniei were forced to protest against the Entente's attempts to "liberate" them, and to declare that they "had nothing in common with the Rumanians of the Kingdom in character, aspirations or feeling." On February 14 [1917] the Pester Lloyd published a long address to Count Tisza signed (necessarily) by a number of prominent Rumanian ecclesiastics [Uniates] and public men in which they declared that "we wish to have nothing to do with the liberation spoken of by the Entente, and we hold fast to the inviolability of our Hungarian fatherland.... We know that the Hungarian Crown is called to safeguard the cultural, economic and political development of the Hungarian Rumans." Preaching on this text Pesti Harlap went to the length of calling the Rumans "Ruman Magyars," and declared that the chief lesson drawn from the war was that everyone in Hungary should henceforth learn to understand the Magyar language.
[...]

Source : The Times, HISTORY AND ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF THE WAR, "The Invasion of Rumania - The Rumanian Campaign of 1916 : (III.) The Last Phase.", PART 147, Vol. 12, June 12, 1917, THE PUBLISHER Printing House Square, London.

[Alexandru H.]

Carp was not a traitor and neither was Marghiloman or Maiorescu. A traitor is a person from your camp that defects. These men never participated in the nationalist movement and never declared themselves loyal to Bratianu or the Transylvanian Romanians. The fact that a few people maintained their ideas and beliefs in a time of national stupidity (just read some of the infatuated opinion of some politicians and street people about the capacity of Romanian army of defeating Austro-Hungary) doesn't mean that everyone should become instant nationalists.

Even if some of their ideas aren't on my liking (they are conservatives, I am not), I must say I respect these men more than the so-called great men (like Bratianu, who lied on every occasion about the real power of the Romanian Army and is a moral author of the disaster of Turtucaia...a good read in this matter is "An Honest History of the Romanian History). Carp, unlike Bratianu, never resorted to cheap tricks (like the announcement of Italy's neutrality in 1914 in the Crown Council, right before the voting), being always franck, sometimes painfully franck. Marghiloman managed to obtain peace, a very good peace, teritorially speaking, in a time that no politician wanted to, all fearful about their political future. Marghiloman accepted this assignment and lost all the future possibilities of a political career. Maiorescu, the "Jupiter in a world of lowly humans", was germanophile and with good reasons, both culturally and politically (remember, until 1918, the germans had excellent chances of defeating Entante, especially after the defeat of the russians).

Now, after so many years, we think that their views were incorrect. But let's think about an Entante victory in 1918, with Imperial Russia still holding (as Bratianu and Ferdinand thought in 1916). Russia would have held Bessarabia and Austrian Poland, possibily Oriental Prussia and...parts of northern Transylvania. Banat would have been more Serbian because Serbia was the natural ally of Russia and it would have got more out of this friendship than Romania, who, by all probabilities, would have become a Russian satellite. Now, I may be crazy but I prefer German rule over Russian vassalship.

[Geto-Dacul]

Alexandru H. wrote :

QUOTE

A traitor is a person from your camp that defects. These men never participated in the nationalist movement and never declared themselves loyal to Bratianu or the Transylvanian Romanians.

A traitor is not necessarily and only a person that from your camp deserts to an other... Carp was a Moldo-Romanian nationalist ; he was only anti-Russian... For him, we should at first look to the Russians, at Bessarabia, because the "greatest danger" was their. As for Marghiloman, he was an old phanariote, a "perfect politician"... When the war begun, he stopped to sustain Germany, and retired from politics... But when Romania was defeated, then he came back with his pro-germanism.

At that time, the greatest number of Romanians under foreign occupation where in Austro-Hungary, and not in Russia. So from this point of vue, Marghiloman was a traitor of the Romanian people's vital interests.

QUOTE

The fact that a few people maintained their ideas and beliefs in a time of national stupidity (just read some of the infatuated opinion of some politicians and street people about the capacity of Romanian army of defeating Austro-Hungary) doesn't mean that everyone should become instant nationalists.

The Romanian Army was surely not that powerful, but if there was no Germany there to help Austro-Hungary (and if the Western Allies would have kept their promise with the Balkan offensive), I doubt that we would had lost so fast... I believe that we could have defeated very easily Austro-Hungary, with Italian, Serbian and Russian help.

As inahurry stated at a time, "nationalism is a quality, not an ideology". Our people were not teached to be nationalist, it was something found as a "natural ressource"... Don't think that it was an invention of "communist litterature" to justify the criminal and unjust attacks on the integrity of "great civilized" countries like Austro-Hungary or Russia... :loool: :ro:

QUOTE

Even if some of their ideas aren't on my liking (they are conservatives, I am not), I must say I respect these men more than the so-called great men (like Bratianu, who lied on every occasion about the real power of the Romanian Army and is a moral author of the disaster of Turtucaia...a good read in this matter is \"An Honest History of the Romanian History). Carp, unlike Bratianu, never resorted to cheap tricks (like the announcement of Italy's neutrality in 1914 in the Crown Council, right before the voting), being always franck, sometimes painfully franck. Marghiloman managed to obtain peace, a very good peace, teritorially speaking, in a time that no politician wanted to, all fearful about their political future.

The important here was the general result, which was impossible to obtain with minds like that of Marghiloman or Carp. Sincerity in politics? From when? How sincere had been our adversaries with us?

QUOTE

Maiorescu, the \"Jupiter in a world of lowly humans\", was germanophile and with good reasons, both culturally and politically (remember, until 1918, the germans had excellent chances of defeating Entante, especially after the defeat of the russians).

Maiorescu was from Transylvania, if you remember well... I doubt that he was unaware of the Romanians' situation there.

Getu'

[Victor]

Carp was not a traitor. Even though he had other ideas he did not try to undermine the official pro-Entente position of the Goverment, nor did he conspire with the Central Powers (to my knowing).

Marghiloman sacrificed himself by signing the Treaty of Bucharest, thus ending his political career and for this he deserves admiration. Somebody had to do it and compromise himself and many were reluctant.

Ionel Bratianu was probably the greatest statesman we hadin the 20th century and the prime artisan of the Union. Putting Turtucaia on his shoulders is IMO not justified. The fact that many generals were incapable of anything good was not his fault. One must take into consideration how he negotiated everything with care and stuborness, both in 1916 and 1918-19. The Vizier was truly a man with balls, as Alexandru Vaida-Voevod noted in a letter to Maniu.

If you are looking for traitors, try col. Sturdza, lt. col. Crainiceanu etc. Unfortunately many traitors and cowards were pardoned after the war ended.

[Geto-Dacul]

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

Carp was not a traitor. Even though he had other ideas he did not try to undermine the official pro-Entente position of the Goverment, nor did he conspire with the Central Powers (to my knowing).

Indeed, Carp never conspired... He was sincere. He canceled his newspaper, Moldova...

QUOTE

Marghiloman sacrificed himself by signing the Treaty of Bucharest, thus ending his political career and for this he deserves admiration. Somebody had to do it and compromise himself and many were reluctant.

Comparing with the attitude of the Uniate Transylvanian ecclesiastics, Marghiloman was good... The guy that made the sacrifice. You are right.

QUOTE

Ionel Bratianu was probably the greatest statesman we hadin the 20th century and the prime artisan of the Union. Putting Turtucaia on his shoulders is IMO not justified. The fact that many generals were incapable of anything good was not his fault. One must take into consideration how he negotiated everything with care and stuborness, both in 1916 and 1918-19. The Vizier was truly a man with balls, as Alexandru Vaida-Voevod noted in a letter to Maniu.

Agree 100%...

Getu'

[Alexandru H.]

In WW1 we were lucky enough not only to survive but also to grow in size and power. Maybe we can blame it on the buggie ( :laugh: ) but I wouldn't go so far. The truth is that without a Russian revolution we would have become sattelites of Russia. If the Central powers would have won, we would have become sattelites of Austro-Hungary. In a sense, the Romanian war effort was useless because at that time, neutrality seemed like the best policy. Ok, I admit, Bratianu had balls entering the war in 1916, but this wouldn't have brought nothing significant if the Russians wouldn't have decided to dethrone their monarch.

The Unification was one of the luckiest events in the history for the romanian people, but not because of any politicians, but because of faith and faith alone.