Vol. XXVII, 2014
1. Alexandru Mamina, Raţionalizare, ideologizare, mecanizare. Cultura războiului modern, p. 3-10.
L’étude cherche le rapport entre la phénoménologie de la guerre depuis le XVIIe siècle et jusqu’au XXe siècle, respectivement les traits intellectuels et pratiques qui ont précisé son profil culturel. On observe alors, à travers le passage de l’étape monarchique à l’étape nationale, le lien entre la manière de lutter et l’effort de rationaliser les ressources, le besoin d’une motivation idéologique pour la population et le triomphe de la mécanique, en plan matériel et symbolique à la fois. Ça corresponde en effet au passage des armées professionnelles aux armées de conscription, en relation avec les structures intégratives de la pensée moderne.
2. Mihai Sorin Rădulescu, Gladstone şi românii, p. 11-38.
This article is based mainly on the correspondence between William Ewart Gladstone (1809–1898) – four times liberal prime-minister of Great Britain – and four Romanian statesmen who were revolutionaries in 1848: Dumitru Brătianu (1858, 1887), Ion Ghica (1866, 1878), Nicolae (1858) and Ştefan Golescu (1867). This correspondence is kept among Gladstone’s Papers, at the British Library, in London. The author could transcribe these letters from the microfilms kept at the Gladstone’s Library, in Hawarden, Wales. One letter, found in the Library of the Romanian Academy, Bucharest, was sent by Gladstone in the spring of 1866 to prime-minister Ion Ghica. The author of the article consulted also the Glynne – Gladstone Papers at the Gladstone’s Library, in Hawarden, from the Flintshire Record Office.
All these documents give informations about the interest of W.E. Gladstone about the Romanian Principalities, whose union and independence he supported through the speeches held in the House of Commons. Chronologically speaking, Gladstone’s support for the Romanians has been even prior to the interest he showed to the fate of the Bulgarians, Greeks, and Armenians. William Ewart Gladstone was granted in 1867 the Romanian citizenship by the Parlementary Assembly in Bucharest, as a sign of recognition for his pro-Romanian actions and speeches.
This paper briefly presents the way in which Britain’s minister to Bucharest, Sir George Barclay, presented to the Foreign Office, in his annual country reports of 1912 and 1913, Romania’s diplomatic involvement in the Balkan wars. Barclay proved to be a keen observer of diplomatic developments in Bucharest, as he scrutinised the context in which Romanian authorities were compelled to finally react after the alteration of the statu quo in the Balkans. He referred to several rash decisions taken both in Bucharest and Sofia, as well as to the far reaching consequences of the conflicts on Romania’s foreign policy. This paper insists on these miscalculations and diplomatic errors, as they result from Barclay's detailed reports. His correspondence is edited in extenso in the appendix of this paper.
4. Daniel Cain, Un diplomat bulgar la Bucureşti: Gheorghi Kalinkov (1911–1913), p. 73-84.
The short diplomatic career of Gheorghi Kalinkov (1860–1926) was limited to the position he held in Bucharest between 1911–1913, a time of great tensions in the Balkan Peninsula. Appointed head of the Bulgarian legation without any diplomatic background, the former member of the Bulgarian Parliament, Kalinkov was confronted with the challenges raised by the outbreak of the First Balkan War. Mainly, he had to make use of all his influence to fill the gap between Romania’s expectations and Bulgaria’s intransigence in respect to the remapping of the common border. Both the memoirs and the diplomatic correspondence of the Bulgarian diplomat reveal not only a clear glimpse in the backstage of the negotiations concerning Romania’s attitude during the Balkan Wars, but also a forceful description of the Bucharest’s mores.
5. Petre Otu, Armata română în 1913. Capacitate operativă şi stări de spirit, p. 85-96.
Romania's participation in the Second Balkan War is commonly perceived mainly through its politico-diplomatic dimension and less for its military aspects; the actions of the Romanian Army at the South of Danube were in fact confined to a certain historiographical shadow. Up to a point, that fact is normal, considering the absence of direct military confrontations, the entire action consisting only in a strategic march through the enemy territory.
The Romanian participation in the Second Balkan war was perceived in a contradictory manner: either as a great deed of arms, or as a “military stroll”.
Starting from these contradictory appraisals, and making use of recent investigations in the military and civilian archives, this paper attempts to assess the operational capacity of the Romanian army, in the particular situation of the Bulgarian lack of action.
The paper also tries to assess the state of mind of both the officers and soldiers, in the beginning of the campaign, and in the end of the campaign as well. Eventually, the paper points out the most important “lessons (not) learned” of this military endeavour, which should have constituted a “preamble” to the “war of unification”, launched on August 15/28, 1916.
Among the relatively numerous contemporary memoirs about Romania during the First World War, stands out the diary of a lady from the Romanian high life: Pia Alimăneştianu, Notes from the times of the German occupation, 1916–1918. This diary depicts not only the events of those troubled times for the country, but also the feelings of the author herself: anxiety, helplessness, despair, resignation, revolt, hope, trust and ultimately the joy and pride to see the victory and the political achievement, which was the Greater Romania.
This article aims to investigate less known facets of a scientific personality implicated in the process of the Romanian social modernisation at the end of the XIX and the beginning of the XX Century: G. M. Murgoci. A well-known geologist, Murgoci had interests such as: solving of the agrarian issue; promoting, together with his wife, the Romanian folklore; initiating the first journey to the Aromanian communities, before the outbreak of the Balkan wars. He was one of the founding members of the Romanian Geological Institute, as well as of the Institute for South-Eastern European Studies. As a cartographer, he joined the Romanian delegation to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. Murgoci was also one of the creators of the Romanian scout movement. The documentary annex sustains his prodigious activity.
This article approaches the status of the Italian minority in Romania, after the Independence and until the begining of the Second World War. It stresses mainly upon the economic and cultural support given by the Italian government to several agricultural colonies establishe in Moldavia and Dobrudja.
9. Alexandru Mamina, Unirea din 1859: Rolul personalităţilor în istorie, p. 173-175.
La communication traite le lien opérationel entre l’ansamble de la nation et les personnalités dirigeantes, à l’occasion de l’effort colectif pour l’union de la Moldavie avec la Valachie. On observe ainsi l’importance du programme et de la détermination contextuelle, par lesquelles les élites réalisent le contact efficace avec les attentes populaires et les tendances générales en époque.