$Unique_ID{COW03024}
$Pretitle{360}
$Title{Romania
Romania History and Rebirth in Liberty and Democracy}
$Subtitle{}
$Author{Lieutenant - General Costache Codrescu, D Sc.}
$Affiliation{Embassy of Romania, Washington DC}
$Subject{romanian
history
military
romania
peace
historical
state
union
conference
national}
$Date{1990}
$Log{}
Country:     Romania
Book:        Romanian Military History
Author:      Lieutenant - General Costache Codrescu, D Sc.
Affiliation: Embassy of Romania, Washington DC
Date:        1990

Romania History and Rebirth in Liberty and Democracy

     Ours is a world of movement and change, a world in which a multitude of
realities, political, social and economic trends and ideas are crisscrossing
and confronting. History, "the first book of a nation ", "the most important
book of a kin," "magistra vitae" "the memory of mankind," etc. - as the
servant of Clio described it, can offer viable explanations helping us to
decipher the course of contemporary society, to understand the nature and
character of the renewing processes in the world; each and all of the above
descriptions cast light on the fact that history as a science is not only a
collection of events occurred hundreds and thousands of years ago but also,
and chiefly, an unmatched source of lessons for the present and the future.

     History has always been a propelling force of human progress and
civilisation. Taking over the best achievements of the past in all domains of
activity and interpreting by scientific criteria mankind's huge capital of
experience, the study and knowledge of history have enabled people to identify
the ways of making progress, of building a future of world harmony and peace.
From this point of view, history as a science is not only a powerful
instrument of human knowledge but also a genuine force in engineering the
present and the future. "If you want to know the future," wrote the Romanian
national poet Mihai Eminescu, "turn to the past," while philosopher Lucian
Blaga said: "There are two realities whose huge weight we do not feel but
without which we cannot live: the air and history." For many centuries, these
truths have reigned in the hearts and minds of enlightened people. Because
the Romanians, placed geographically "in the path of all evils," as chronicler
Grigore Ureche put it, have built history - alongside their walls, weapons,
bodies and lives - into a frontier that no one can trespass.

     The study of history has considerably strengthened the Romanians'
awareness of their oldness, origin and unity, their continuity in space and
times as well as their confidence that they will live in a unitary national
state including all the Romanian provinces. It was not accidental that in
mid-19th century, when this desideratum had become imperative, the great
Romanian thinker and democratic revolutionist Nicolae Balcescu said a few
memorable words about the role of knowing history in re-awakening
consciousnesses: "I am opening the sacred book where Romania's glory is
written in order to place before the eyes of its sons several pages from the
heroic life of their parents (...) As, inheritors of the rights for the
preservation of which our parents fought so hard in past centuries, may the
memory of those heroic times stir in us the desire to keep and increase this
precious heritage for those to come!" History offered the spiritual background
against which the Romanian people's great accomplishments were made: the
building of the modern Romanian state in 1859, the winning of state
independence in 1877 and the achievement of the unitary national state in
1918.

     The study and knowledge of the past is also a good means of developing
the patriotic sentiment of the members of a society. Through history, the
young ones know their own roots and the sacrifices made by their ancestors to
maintain their identity. Knowing the major lines of its historical
evolution - its oldness, ethnogenesis and continuity in the
Carpathian-Danubian-Pontic area, the uninterrupted evolution of its material
and spiritual culture, the permanence of its state organization and the great
battles to preserve its being, the sociohistorical process of the making and
assertion of the Romanian nation at the great moments of 1784, 1821 and 1848,
the struggle for the building of the modern Romanian state, for the full state
independence of Romania and the accomplishment of the unitary Romanian
national state, the features of Romania's development after the Great Union of
1918 - the Romanian people has been able to know and understand the
imperatives of the present and to take part in their attainment, to integrate
in the struggle for the country's defence, for its general progress in a
conscious and active manner. Thus, the book of history - written with
historical probity and respect for the truth, with competence and talent,
grounded on historical truth, on the exact, objective knowledge of historical
development - can meet a twofold desideratum: to inform through the data on
and the deeds of the forerunners - having thus an obvious
cognitive-informative function - and to shape characters and mentalities for
the present and the future, having thus an educational-civic and teleological
function.

     Another essential requirement of patriotic education through the study of
history is the striking of a correct balance between the national and the
universal. We should remark here that the integration of the Romanians'
history in world history permits a more accurate understanding of the
diversity of mankind's evolution, of the particular-general relation, hence of
the specific development of the Romanian people, of its contribution to the
progress of world history and culture. "National history can only be set on
the larger map of world history," wrote the great Romanian historian Nicolae
Iorga. The Romanian contribution to the development of world civilization is
highlighted by the results of researches made by Romanian and foreign
historians into the material and spiritual culture of the Geto-Dacians, the
maintenance of Romanian statehood in the Middle Ages, the participation of the
Romanian countries in inter-European trade, the cultural patronage achieved by
the Romanian countries over several Orthodox communities and monastic centres
in the Ottoman Empire, the artistic, cultural, ethnologic and ethnographic
achievements, the role of the Romanian peasantry, intellectuals and workers,
the evolution of the Romanian military phenomenon, Romania's relations with
its neighbours and other countries etc.

     An essential component of the homeland's history, the military history of
the Romanian people has been the object of deep-going and responsible
investment for all the generations of Romanian historians. Outstanding
personalities of the Romanian historical science have carried out a rich
activity, studying, analysing and explaining the chief military events - wars,
great battles, popular and revolutionary movements etc. - the development of
the army and the evolution of other army structures, the direct connection
between the people and the army, the progress of Romanian military thought and
art, of the military doctrines, of the combat forms and methods, the
development of the education and culture in the army, of the military press
and printing activity, the system of alliances, peace treaties and conventions
concluded in the course of time, the role played by certain personalities as
well as other questions pertaining to the military sphere. A fundamental,
defining feature resulting from these studies is that at all the crucial
moments in the people's destiny, the Romanian army has always been on the side
of the progressive, advanced, revolutionary forces of society. This truth has
once more been confirmed by the December 1989 Revolution when from the very
first moments, the Romanian army sided with the people, thus avoiding the
outbreak of a civil war, a state of anarchy and chaos in the country. Part and
parcel of the people, a shield and guarantor of national independence,
territorial integrity and state sovereignty, the Romanian army has been
restored its rights by the December 1989 Revolution, the military institution
regaining thus its traditional attributes in the sacred mission of defending
the homeland.

     In the last two decades, an institutional framework has been created for
the Romanian historical-military research: in 1969, the Military History and
Theory Study and Research Centre and in March, 1990, the Operational-
Strategic, Forecast and Military History Study and Research Department. In
1974, a Romanian Commission for Military History was founded as a body of
initiative and scientific coordination in this domain which has special tasks
and missions, especially in the new conditions created by the Revolution. The
results of this important activity have materialized in numerous books of
military history virtually covering all the genres-collections of documents,
of studies, monographs, treatises, biographies of heroes, historical
recollections, was memoires etc. - as well as in a military and historical
press.

     In the atmosphere of revolutionary effervescence brought about by the
renewal changes taking place in society in the wake of the December 1989
Revolution, Romanian historiography, the military one included, is also
going through a deep-going process of clarification, of re-assessment of
what has been written so far, of selection of those theses, ideas and
conclusions that have proved viable, perennial; in parallel, interpretations
of certain historical moments and personalities marked by the ideology of
the former dictatorial regime are being reconsidered. The path has thus be
found to remove anachronisms in the study and analysis of the historical
phenomenon so that history may become a science of the truth and of respect
for the truth. In this light, we consider that historical research should be
grounded on a thorough and objective analysis of the internal-external
contexts and interactions, of the economic, social, political and spiritual
conditions of each historical stage, of the relations existing between
various social classes, categories and layers, of the position and role of
various parties, political organizations, groups and personalities, of the
sociopolitical and state institutions and bodies, of the Romanian military
phenomenon taken as a whole. In all these approaches, the Romanian military
historians will consistently promote an advanced, objective, renewing spirit
in order to avoid the exclusively event-based, narrative treatment of
military matters in favour of syntheses and the integration of the military
phenomenon in society's development as a whole, in keeping with the
methodology and theoretical advances in the national and world
historiography; they will cast light on the common and particular elements
of the Romanian military history in relation with those of other peoples,
will highlight in their studies everything that may serve the development of
sentiments of esteem, respect and friendship towards the past of other
nations, towards their contribution to mankind's patrimony and the general
progress on our planet.

     By its strong impact on people's consciousness, history as a science
also has large possibilities to contribute to understanding among peoples
and nations; the better we know the history of every people, of every nation,
the easier can we achieve the desideratum of understanding. Given this
desideratum and Romania's geopolitical situation the books of history printed
in this country intend to bring to light those facts which favoured contacts
and mutual influences between the Romanian people and other peoples, the fact
that the development of the peoples in this part of Europe has been the fruit
of their collaboration and that whenever this collaboration lacked, they fell,
one by one, under the domination of foreign empires.

     Favoured by the great opening offered by the December 1989 Revolution,
the Romanian historians have the duty towards the people and their own
consciousness to re-analyse and reconsider the whole national history and rid
it of those theses and ideas imposed by the ideological bodies of the former
totalitarian regime which made the Romanian historical science serve interests
running counter the requirements of the Romanian people's historical
consciousness.

     The fundamental condition for the efficient use of the virtues history as
a science has is the strict observance of the truth, the rendering of reality
as it was - with both its good and bad aspects. It is our firm conviction that
only a history conceived as a science of the truth, only a history which
develops into part of "mankind's memory," offering those living today the
lessons required for an action towards progress and civilization can
contribute to the better knowledge and understanding among peoples and
nations. The distortion of historical truth gives birth to suspicion and
tension, feeds distrust and adversity. In many instances, placing themselves
in the service of retrograde causes, seeking to justify a policy of domination
and expansion, certain historians have deliberately ignored or falsified
theses and conclusions grounded on real data and facts. Such scientifically
wrong conceptions are particularly harmful to good neighbourhood, to the
cause of peace and understanding among peoples. We therefore think
preconceived theses and ideas should be given up and historical questions be
approached in a strictly scientific manner on the basis of documents and
genuine evidence, of objective interpretations - the only way of turning
the historical science into a means of rapprochement and work-together,
of knowledge and progress. This is a message we'd like to convey to both the
Romanian and world historians.

From one Conference to Another: Paris (1919-1920) - Paris (1946) 1919-1920:
"A great injustice was corrected"

CONSTANTIN BOTORAN, D Hist.

     On January 18, 1919, in the Hall of the Horologe at the Palace of the
French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on the Quai d'Orsay, 66 delegates from
32 states opened the Peace Conference called to conclude the treaties with
the vanquished powers in the World War I, treaties sanctioning the new
realities cropped up worlwide after the fall of the great empires (Austrian-
Hungarian, German, Tzarist and Ottoman) and, implicitly, recognizing the
borders of the newly-created or reunited nation-states.

     Regarding Romania, the Paris Peace Conference- an international forum
vested with political and juridical powers - had, in keeping with the huge
military and material efforts made to wage the war, as well as with the
plebiscite-like decisions of 1918 - at Chisinau (in March), Cernauti (in
November) and Alba lulia (in December) - decisions which irrevocably
established, the Romanian nation-state, to sanction, under the forthcoming
treaties, the new borders of united Romania and the reparations it deserved
for the plunder carried by the Central Powers during the 1916-1918 military
occupation. Acordingly, when the Conference opened its debates, the Romanian
unitary nation-state was a de facto reality, the peace negotiators following
to grant that reality a de jure investiture by including it into the
forthcoming treaties. It meant, therefore, the recognition of a legitimate
right, and not a "gift" made by the Peace Conference, nor a "reward" offered
to Romania by the allies.

     Romania's desiderata at the peace forum in Paris were presented at
length at the plenary meeting in February 1919, at which the head of the
Romanian delegation, premier Ion I.C. Bratianu made a lengthy and argumented
survey of the Romanian situation from 1914, when the war broke out, till 1919,
when the Peace Conference was called off, recorded by the senator of the
British delegation at the Conference in shorthand report.

     Romanian premier began his speech by showing that since the outbreak
of the war, Romania, although bound to the Central Powers, under a defensive
alliance, refused to follow the aggressors in their warlike activities which
"ran counter to its wishes and interests". In addition, during the war,
Romania had always vested its 1914-1916 policy of neutrality with many an
indication of its favourable attitude toward the Entente. Proof thereon
were the limitation, "as much as possible" of Romanian exports to the
Central Powers, the facilities extended to the transit of ammunition to
Serbia, the obstruction of the passage through Romania of war materials for
the Ottoman Empire.

     Ion I.C. Bratianu emphasized the major contributions brought by Romania
to the Entente cause, contributions "which attracted upon her feelings of
enmity and threats from Germany." Moreover, he showed that these
contributions were expressly acknowledged by Entente governments and formally
confirmed by Russia by the definition and recognition of the territories in
Austrian-Hungary which were to be united to Romania. Proof thereon are the
acts-conventicns and treaties by which the Entente powers recognized the
legitimate rights of Romania over her territories under Austria-Hungary and
the country's declaration of war on Austria-Hungary in August 1916. The head
of the Romanian delegation stressed that at the request of the Entente
governments Romania "declared herself ready to effectively support with the
army a cause which she has already regarded to be her own." Nevertheless,
Romania made her terms whose fulfillment was absolutely necessary for her
military action to be successfully carried out, namely: the precise
delimitation, on the map, of the Romanian territory under the Austrian-
Hungarian Empire which were to be liberated, "with the view to eliminating
any further discussion on this matter", the guarantee of military supplies
and ammunition needed to equip the Romanian army; Romania's security ensured
against a possible aggression from Bulgaria, by means of political and
military measures and its security ensured against a two-front war which,
because of its geographical position and its potential, it could carry
successfully. The Entente Powers eventually agreed to the justness of the
Romanian claims and sanctioned them in the Alliance Treaty and the Military
Convention in August 1916. "These two documents - emphasized Ion I.C.
Bratianu - were meant to ensure Romania's capacity to help the common cause
by an efficient military action and, at the same time, to guarantee after
victory the fufillment of its claims recognized as legitimate and necessary
for the development of the Romanian nation. "Further on, the Romanian premier
referred to the evolution of the military operations, emphasizing that -
under the critical circumstances cropped up in late 1917 and early 1918,
when, isolated by its allies, having most of its national territory occupied
and with its army curtailed to less than half - Romania was compelled, under
the political and military pressure exerted by the Central Powers to sign the
horrendous peace treaty of May 7, 1918. In spite of all this, it remained
loyal to the cause of its allies, which was in fact its own cause. Given the
attempts made by some to deny Romania the statute of ally by invoking the
peace with the Central Powers in May 1918, the Romanian premier made it a
point to state that, for the government of his country, this peace did not
and could not have another character than ,,a halt of the fight that had to
break out again. Therefore, this was for the Romanians neither legal, nor
practical nor moral....

     It was neither sanctioned nor ratified by the King ever. The day the army
led by General Berthelot crossed the Danube, the Romanian troops crossed the
trench-lines which never ceased to be, all through the Burcharest Peace
(namely from May to November 1918) a fortified line between enemy nations."

     The Romanian premier made, further on, a lengthy presentation of the
circumstances under which the Romanians in the provinces under foreign
domination decided the union of these provinces, in their ethnic borders, with
the Mother-Land. These ethnic borders were broadly delimited by the
plebiscites favourable to the Union, and they secured the political
-national-administrative framework for the Romanian nation's development. Ion
I.C. Bratianu buttressed up the Romanian people's right to unity on
historical, ethnic and lingusistic, economic, geographical and statistical
data and facts which evidenced the Romanians' autochthony on the country's
entire territory, the continuity of their life and culture on this territory,
the unity of material and spiritual civilization on the whole
Carpatian-Danubian-Pontic territory, their continuous struggle for the
preservation of the national being and the union within a single state. Asked
by the Italian premier, Vittorio Emmanuele Orlando, about the number of
Magyars in Transylvania, the head of the Romanian delegation mentioned the
data of the Hungarian census of 1910 according to which out of the 4,642,253
inhabitants of Transylvania, 2,505,958 (54%) were Romanians, 1,092,719 (23%)
Hungarians, 450,000 (9.7%) Szeklers, 276,335 (5.9%) Saxons, 187,987 (4%)
Jews, 73,416 (1.6%) Slavs, 55,838 (1.2%) other populations. "However, it is
certain that these statistics are inaccurate, he pointed out. Suffice to read
the figures contained by these statistics referring to the natural growth of
the Romanian population to see that they are purely and simply invented,
varying with the political situation and the sharpness of the political
struggle. While the Romanian population over the Carpathians (in the old
Romanian Kingdom) is three and even four times bigger, the Romanian
population in Transylvania, according to Hungarian census, stagnated. If the
census were done correctly, then the figures would show 2,900,000 Romanians
and 587,000 Hungarians or 62% and 15% respectively."

     Referring to the position taken by the national minorities in
Transylvania toward the decision of Union adopted by the National Asembly at
Alba lulia of December 1, 1918, the Romanian premier, answering also the
questions put by Lloyd George, emphasized that the German population "signed
even a formal act of union with the Romanian kingdom," but, as far as the
Hungarians in this province were concerned, he expressed his conviction that
even if their representatives had been invited to vote in favour of the union
with Romania "they certainly would not have done this." On behalf of the
government he represented at the Conference, Ion I.C. Bratianu guaranteed that
in the future political life the minorities' rights would be respected and the
broadest freedoms would be guaranteed. But, at the same time, the Romanian
premier was firmly convinced that "he could not expect from the vanquished to
wish the union with a country whom they dreamt to dominate for centuries on
end". He entirely agreed with Lloyd George by saying that "it was no more
possible that the minorities be treated in the future as the Romanians were
under the Hungarian state, who were deprived of the use of their
monther-tongue, of their traditions and of their own life." The Romanian
premier let the audience know that the Union Act at Alba lulia stipulated that
the religious and political freedoms should be recognized and observed for all
nationalities, and this very fact made the Transylvanian Saxons agree with the
Union. "This principle - stressed the Romanian premier - has a general
valability, and it will be extended to all united provinces, without
exception."

     Referring to the Romanian claims to Bucovina, Ion I.C. Bratianu showed
that this Romanian province, annexed to Austria in 1775, was united with
Romania by the decision taken at Cernauti on November 28, 1918, in keeping
with the right to national self-determination. The Romanian delegation asked
that the union of Bucovina within its ethnic borders be recognized, even if
its northern part was inhabited by a majority population of Ruthenians,
colonized there by Austria, with the view of suppressing the ethnic character
of the population. "It would be a groundless arrangement, politically and
geographically - emphasized the Romanian premier - if Bucovina did not remain
within Romania as it is now." He also called forth the fact that the assembly
for the union with Romania gathered 500,000 inhabitants out of the 800,000
living in Bucovina at that time.

     The third province united with Romania for whose recognition the head of
the Romanian delegation at Paris pleaded was Bessarabia. By the union of
Bessarabia with Romania, on March 27, 1918, "a great injustice was corrected,"
said the Romanian premier. "The union was the act of will of the Romanians who
make up more than 72 per cent of this province's population. "The remaining
are Slavs, Bulgarians of Germans, but they stand only for 15% of the
population. From all points of view, Bessarabia is a Romanian territory."

     To persuade the big whigs at the Conference of the legitimacy of the
Romanian delegation's claims to Bessarabia, Ion I.C. Bratianu put forth a
spate of political, strategic and geographic arguments. Bessarabia's
incorporation into Russia in 1812, was, according to him, an anachronism whose
existence could no longer be perpetuated. Bessarabia was, in his opinion, of
no importance for Russia, since hardly were any Russians living in this
province. Once annexed, it was hard for Russia to give it back. After
surveying the circumstances favourable for the union of Bessarabia with
Romania, the Romanian premier concluded: "Now Bessarabia will be in a
community of ideas with the national consciousness. For all these reasons,
Romania considers that the peace forum will not question the justness of
Bessarabia's union with Romania."

     Portraying the centuries-old sufferings endured by the Romanians living
in the above-mentioned provinces, Ion I.C. Bratianu highlighted that the
decisive element for the destiny of these provinces were the popular masses
which, by self-determination, decided their union with Romania. Starting from
these realities, the Peace Conference, as an international supreme forum, was
invited by the Romanian premier to give its official investiture to the
political and territorial statute of completed Romania. To this end, the
Supreme Council of the Conference decided the creation of a Committee, led by
Andre Tardieu, which had to study and solve the complex problem of the
Romanian borders, following that this settlement be included in the peace
treaties with Hungary, Austria and Bulgaria.

TRIANON and the Post-War Statu-Quo

Editor

     1920. In the "Memorandum on Transylvania" and in the one called Instead
of One, Three Multinational States", Count Apponyi's delegation accused
Romania, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia of imperialism because by virtue of the
principle of nationalities", these States had taken possession of Hungary's
millenary territory". Answering on behalf of Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour,
Lord Crowford informed on how the Peace Conference had carefully studied the
whole documentation presented by Count Apponyi and said that: I cannot admit
even for a moment that the peace treaty with Hungary was worked out in a
spirit of injustice for a defeated enemy with the sole purpose of pacifying
the States which fought and suffered side by side with us during the war I do
not think it right either to accuse these states of such a policy despite
centuries-old sufferings".

     Referring to the "Danubian Confederation" project, a camouflaged attempt
at reviving the old Austro-Hungarian Empire, the American delegate, Charles
Seymour, professor of history at Yale University noted that: "Such an idea was
doomed to failure, the Danubian peoples would not even hear of it. They had
actually freed themselves through their own efforts and were instinctively
afraid of any federation which might have determined a survival or restoration
of this hated tyranny which had caused them so many sufferings. The Conference
had neither the right, nor the power to impose on them a union they rejected.
By virtue of the proclaimed principle of each people's right to
self-determination, the Danubian nations alone had the power to decide on
their destiny".

     On 6 May 1920, after studying for more than two months the documentation
of Count Apponyi's delegation, through its specialized commissions, the Peace
Conference negociators handed the latter an answer signed by Chairman of the
Conference Alexandru Millerand. Showing that "the Powers found it impossible
to adopt the views of this delegation", the letter extensively referred to
"the responsibility shared by Hungary for the outbreak of the world war and,
in general, for the imperialistic policy promoted by the Dual Monarchy".
Rejecting the idea of organizing a plebiscite in the territories formerly
ruled by Hungary and Hungary's so-called millenary right to Transylvania the
letter underlined that: "the people's will vas voiced in the days of October
and November 1918 when the Dual Monarchy collapsed and when the population
for a long time oppressed united with their Italian, Romanian, Yugoslav and
Czechoslovak brothers".

     As the French politician A. Millerand pointed out: "The events occuring
at that time are as many new proofs of the feelings cherished by the
nationalities which had once been subject to the crown of St. Stephen. The
belated decisions taken by the Hungarian Government in order to give
satisfaction to the nationalities' aspirations after autonomy cannot create
illusions; they do not in the least change the essential historical truth
which is that for many years the Hungarian policy has striven to suppress the
nationalities' voices".

     Answering the Hungarian delegation which tried to demonstrate that the
new frontiers left a part of Hungary's population outside its State and that
Hungary had a thousand-year-claim on Transylvania, President Millerand's
letter made it clear that: "The ethnographic circumstances in Central Europe
are such that it is indeed impossible for the political frontiers to coincide
entirely with the ethnic frontiers. It follows that certain nuclei of Magyar
population - and the Allied and Associated Powers have submitted to this
necessity much to their regret - will find themselves transferred under the
sovereignty of another State. But it cannot be claimed, on the basis of this
situation, that it would have been better if the old territorial status had
been preserved. Even a millenary state of affairs has no reason to live on if
it runs counter to justice."

     The Hungarian historian Tibor Eckhardt in his book Magyarorszag Tortenete
(History of Hungary) brought out in Budapest in 1933 wrote: "Do not let us
imagine that the Hungarians peopled the entire country. The territory
inhabited by them covered roughly that established by the Peace of Trianon".

     Refferring to Hungary's complaints against the Peace Treaty of Trianon,
the American historian Milton G. Lehrer said that: "If in 1920 injustice was
done, it is not for the Hungarians to complain about it, but for the
Romanians, because beyond the political frontier several islands of Romanians
were left in the Hungarian territory".

     On the occasion of the ratification of the Treaty of Trianon, in the
House of Commons, Secretary of State C.M.F. Harmworth said that the "Kingdom
of Hungary had broken into its component parts even before the beginning of
the Peace Conference works".