Romanians vs Romanians in WWI

Thank you very much Denes. But what is "ARR"?

I found a very interesting source regarding all those that enrolled in the Romanian National Army after 1918. Everybody from general to non-commissioned officer.

However, I would still appreciate names of Roumanians who applied and who were rejected by the Romanian Army or the civiliam state institutions after 1918. Or those officers (Romanians, Hungarians, Szekely, Germans) who did not want to return and live in Greater Romania.

Thanks again Denes. Could you provide me with the full quoation of the source (issue, no., place of publication, exact title, pages)?

ARR is abreviation for Aviatia Regala Romana.

For Denes:

sorry, I forgot to mention the case of General George (Gheorghe) Pomut/Pomutz. He was a Romanian from Gyula, he fought in the Hungarian national army, he was close to Kossuth. In 1949 he managed to evade. Eventually he arrived in USA where he fought in the US Civil War. Then he became a US General.

The reason I mention to you this name is that you might probably remember other cases (Romanians) who in 1848 were part of the Hungarian national army organized by Kossuth. As in the case of WWI, Romanian historians avoid the "non-linear" cases, the rebels, the outliers. I would appreciate if you could provide me any other names (with sources).

If I could be of any help to your research, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks. I was confused because usually it is called Aviatia Militara Regala Romana. However, acronyms will always give us headaches us, don't they? K.u.K did it once

In 1848 it was very rare the cases of romanians who joined hungarian army or militia by their own will. The most cases were drafted by force and their numbers reached as many as almost 3000 men, other sources mentioned even more, but all drafted by force and with a very high rate of desertion.

G. Pomut was a romanian who joined hungarian army due to his hungarian education and fought in a army of which the political leader declared to romanians from Transylvania total extermination if dont comply with hungarian revolutionary programe, which was against romanian (from Transylvania) revolutionary and national goals.

Kossuth himself was not ethnic hungarian by born, he was a magyarised slovak who ended fighting in hungarian revolution against his own slovak people (and other nationalities too, as romanians, serbs, croats and so on).

I dont want to inflame the spirits, but I wouldn't blame the historians, whatever their nationality, who dont speak about their conationals who fought against their own national interest, voluntarily. In my opinion, the case of G. Pomut is showing like this: he is romanian ethnic only by birth, but by his deeds in 1848 revolution he is not romanian, fighting voluntary on the enemy side. He was a hungarian soldier by his own choice and later an american one.

The same manner judged the austrians back in 1848 with the austrian ethnics who joined hungarian army voluntarily. At Arad in 1849 some of the 13 oficers executed by austrian army were austrian ethnics, some of them high ranking officers and even nobles, but they were considered traitors and punished for this. (Actually from all 13 oficers very few, maybe only 2 or 3 were hungarian by born, the rest were of other ethnicity, but they were always considered all as being hungarians because they adhered to hungarian revolution goals with great enthusiasm).

The same case probably regarding ww1 romanian ethnic oficers from AH army who enthusiastical fought for AH monarchy.

Of course, others may have different opinions, which is their right do to so.

Actually it stands for Aeronautica Regala Romana.

Actually it stands for Aeronautica Regala Romana.

My bad, sorry.

21 inf:

You do not inflame any spirits. It is your right to believe that historians in XXI century should still hide under the carpet the "unusual" cases. But it is also the the right of others to uncover it. Otherwise the history will remain linear.

In 1848 we have a real tragedy among people in Transylvania. There were Hungarians and Germans that supported or even joined the Romanian movement. There were, on the other hand, Romanians who chose to join the Hungarian revolutionary ideas. Liviu Maior called this tragedy "the crisis of loyalties". There were actual fights (with deaths and injured) between those who were loyal to the Emperor and those who were loyal to the King (of Hungarians). It seems they forgot the Emperor and the King were one and the same person.

However, this is part of history and should not be neglected by all historians.

Sebastian, I did not believe that nowadays one should put under the carpet the unusual cases from the past. I just cant see the reasons to speak beside romanian goals from Transylvania the cases of such romanians as Pomut who totaly identify themselfes with foreign goals, in this case the hungarian one. By his atitude, it is clear that he gave up his ethnicity and nationality. He can be discussed, but in my opinion in other subjects, not the national one.

Of course that in 1848 there were hungarians who fought on romanian side, but in little number and they joined, of course, for social reasons. I found a list of hungarians executed by hungarian revolutionary army because they fought on romanian side.

There were also a small number of germans (mainly saxons) who fought in the ranks of romanian militia, as it were romanians who fought in hungarian ranks, by their own will or forced. The cases are not so relevant by numbers of by deeds, doesnt matter if they are hungarians, romanians or saxons.

I doubt about the fidelity of all nations toward the austrian emperor, excepting maybe the saxons. Hungarians raised their army and militia to get rid of the austrian rule. Romanians allied with austrians in 1848 because otherwise they were alone. We romanians are so naive to believe that austrians punished us for nothing after 1849, because we forget that at Blaj romanians declared "We want the union with the Country" (Noi vrem sa ne unim cu Tara). What kind of fidelity is that toward austrian emperor? None. Romanians dreamed to a romanian country together with the romanians across Carpathians, even the late themselves didnt had yet a country. It was only a custom union in 1842 between Moldavia and Wallachia. Romanians from Transylvania didnt lost the 1848 revolution on military ground, but on political ground. Hungarians lost their war from freedom from 1848, but soon get some political victories, mainly in and after 1867.

Another example is general Ion Dragalina, KIA on 9 November 1916, at Jiu. He was born in 1860 in Caransebes, graduated Military Academy in Viena, and in 1887 crossed the frontier and joined Romanian Army. Between 1908 and 1911, he was lt.-col. and comander of Military School in Bucarest.

Sebastian was referring actually to officers that served in the KuK Army during WW1 and then joined the Romanian Army after the war.

For contras:

Thank you very much for Dragalina. I knew the case. Recently, editura Militara has published a great biography of him, written by one of his relatives. A great example: militar graenze descendancy, loyal to the Emperor, but moves to Romania.

For all others: I found a great source of information regarding the rest of the Romanians that were co-opted in the Romanian Armes Forces after 1919. The source is called Anuarul ofiterilor activi ai Armatei Romane. I got the 1920 edition (not complete) and the 1925 edition. The Anuarul was brought to my attention by a great person, prof. Nicolae Balint. He also has a great blog. In Anuarul you can find all the officers, from division generals (Danila Papp, by the way, do you know whether he left any memoirs or journals?) down to lieutenants.

Now I would like to ask you about those who were rejected or those who denied (refused) to be part of the Romanian Army after 1919. There should be names and cases of these kind of people. I do believe they are also part of Romanian history.

Thanks in anticipation.

P.S. 1) Regarding other interesting cases. I found, for instance that Christian Tell (a major figure in 1848 and after in Muntenia) was an officer in the Ottoman Army. He fought as Ottoman officer againts the Russians in 1828-1829, and in 1830 he enrolled in the Militia Pamanteana (Land Militia) organized by Gen. Kisseleff. Then he became a strong nationalist. This is a real interesting destiny: in less than 20 years he is an officer in no less than three armies, following no less than three allegiances/loyalties. Do you know other similar cases among Romanians.
2) Anatol Lescu, the historian from Moldova who published a great book few years ago (Romanians in the Russian Imperial Army) published (again at ed. Militara) a new book about the supranational loyalties of Moldovans from Bessarabia.

Hallo,
Even if this exemple of an ex-KuK Army officer is not at all honorable, and I am sure no telling for most officers coming from Austro-Hungarian Army, it is on the subject however... I quote
"Mircea Haupt s-a născut la data de 7 aprilie 1899 în localitatea Rodna Veche (judeţul Bistriţa Năsăud). A urmat studii militare la Şcoala de Ofiţeri de Infanterie Kassa (1915-1917). După absolvirea Şcolii de Ofiţeri, a fost încadrat ca sublocotenent în armata austro-ungară, iar după dezmembrarea Imperiului Austro-Ungar, devine ofiţer în Armata Română (1919). Urcă pe rând treptele ierarhiei militare, fiind comandant de pluton, companie şi batalion. A fost înaintat la gradele de locotenent (1923), căpitan (1929) şi apoi maior (1939)." Source Wikipedia.
For the readers who ask why not honorable, read further about his fulminant career after the communist regime came to power. And for the one who still had doubts, please read on the page 404 of the book "Tancuri in flacari" -Ion S. Dumitru, Ed. Nemira 1999, the writer opinion about that commanding officer.

For those who do not have access to the book in question, Mircea Haupt was the deputy commander of the Tudor Vladimirescu Division (Soviet unit formed from Romanian POWs).

Hello Andreas:

the quotation is from the Nemira's book? It is still available in bookshops?

On the other hand, I do not think we should be ashamed of these people. They did what they believe is correct, or, even worse, they did what they believed will suit best their personal interests. Loyalty has two main features: pure and hypocritical