Romanian Historian Lucian Boia Reflects on His Nation's World War I Experience

From a  May 2014 interview on History Campus conducted by Historian Vlad Badea

Lucian Boia (born 1944) is professor at the Faculty of History of the University of Bucharest. His work consists of titles published in Romanian and French, as well as translations in English, German, and other languages. In 1997, his work, History and Myth in Romanian Conscience, provoked sensation and remained, until today, a landmark in the process of redefining Romanian national history. In 2014 he focused on The Great War in The First World War: Controversies, Paradoxes, Reinterpretations.

VB: What is the relevance of WWI for those living today, for the European and Romanian present?

LB: . . . As far as Romania is concerned, WWI means the making of Romania virtually as it appears today: from the little Romania (the old kingdom that existed until 1918), to what became Greater Romania—sure, amputated partially during WWII; nevertheless, the Romania we live in today is largely the product of WWI. 

Lucian Boia and Vlad Badea

VB: Where does Romania fit in this equation? [Concerning the dynamics of being drawn into the war]. 

LB: First of all, there was the treaty of alliance signed by Romania in 1883 with Austria-Hungary and Germany. As a German prince, Carol I was faithful to this alliance. He was faithful to the alliance not only by virtue of his German origin; he was also convinced it was in the best interest of Romania to ally with Germany.

What happened eventually was more in favour of Romania than anyone could have imagined—although, we should not forget the high costs Romania paid: Romania incurred enormous human losses in relation to the size of its population; significantly higher than France or Germany. Romania entered the war in 1916 with the Entente in order to obtain Transylvania and Bukovina. Bukovina was not that much of a problem since Austria-Hungary suggested that it would give it away in favour of Romania should Romania join the Central Powers in the war effort. Therefore, the main issue was Transylvania . But there was also Bessarabia!

Romanians often tend to forget Bessarabia; our focus is rather on Transylvania. And to be honest, Transylvania means much more to Romania than Bessarabia. Fair or unfair, this is the reality. No Romanian would give Transylvania for Bessarabia, but this does not mean Bessarabia is not important. The Germanophiles said: Fine, you will make Greater Romania, with Transylvania and other pieces, but this Greater Romania will still be very small next to the Russian empire and of what use will it be if Russia will engulf us, small or big. Russia's aim was to expand to Constantinople. The Allies even recognized this right of Russia in spring 1915. The situation was dangerous, indeed, because you could only get to the Balkans through Romania. Therefore, one shouldn't minimize the viewpoints of the so-called Germanophiles. These viewpoints were of course contradicted by history, but the politicians of 1914 or 1916 could not have foreseen all the historical evolutions we now know, so each constructed his personal scenario of the future. In the end, Romania obtained not only Transylvania and Bukovina, but also Bessarabia, which no one could have predicted given that we entered the war in 1916 as allies of Russia. Russia dismantled after the 1917 revolution and the context was thus created for Bessarabia to leave the former empire and join Romania. As Carp said, Romania has so much luck that it doesn't need politicians.

Romanian Army Soldiers

VB: And yet all these political achievements occurred in a military context where Romania lost the war. From a military point of view, do you think it was wise for Romania to participate in the war effort?

LB: I don't know if the idea to participate was good or not; in the end, Romania achieved its goals... What else is there to say? But the idea was at least bold if not risky and—in a certain interpretation—even reckless, because Romania accepted from the very beginning fighting a war on two fronts, which Germany sought to avoid at all costs. In absolute numbers, the Romanian front was the longest: from Northern Moldavia along the Carpathian Mountains to the Iron Gates and then the rest of the Danube to the Black Sea—and immense front that had to be defended by the Romanian Army. Fighting on two fronts against the Germans, Austro-Hungarians, Bulgarians, and Turks was simply unsustainable. Romania could not have had a different fate. 

VB: How do you see the Versailles negotiations following the war?

LB: . . .  Some states resulting from these negotiations proved to be more viable than others, and a good example in this sense is Romania. Romania was not a true nation-state, as we like to affirm. It was rather a combination of nation-state, in the old kingdom, and different provinces attached to it where the majority was indeed Romanian, albeit with a substantial non-Romanian minority. Yet, Romania proved to be a viable state.