Suchergebnisse

This paper represents a short historical and theoretical analysis of the Romanian foreign policy at the beginning of the First World Conflagration. The study proposes an approach on this topic mainly from the perspective of realism, as a theory of international relations. The Romanian foreign policy during the Great War aimed to achieve the national interest, namely to receive the territories from the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary inhabited by a Romanian population. The article valorizes the thesis of the rational actor. The Romanian state acted as a rational actor in international relations, declaring its neutrality in July 1914. The Romanian government behaved as a rational actor, being aware of the poor supplies for the army and its low level of training. Ion I.C Bratianu also attempted to get certain guarantees on obtaining the territories under Austro-Hungarian rule. So he decided to delay the moment of intervention in the war as long as possible. The analysis tries to demonstrate that the neutrality was only a temporary one due to the geographical position of the country and the evolution of the war. There was also benevolent neutrality towards the Entente and Russia. The paper shows the reasons for which Romania played the role of the balancer in the Balkan area, at least until Bulgarian intervention in the conflict. Moreover, the article demonstrates that the president of the Romanian Council of ministers, Ion I. C. Bratianu enjoyed a real monopoly on foreign policy decisions. He adopted a bandwagoning behaviour, deciding to enter World War I, alongside Entente, at the moment he considered optimal.

This article analyses Romania's situation after the armistice of Focsani (signed on December 9, 1917) and at the beginning of the year 1918. It valorises mainly documentary evidence from both French and Romanian diplomatic and military archives. The necessary documentation for the elaboration of the article consisted mainly of telegrams and military reports. The most significant and important documents were selected. So the paper makes a critical analysis of the sources, resorting to a comparison between documents. The study also used a few concepts belonging to the theory of international relations. For a better understanding, the paper highlighted and analysed briefly the premise, namely the period of Romanian neutrality. The research paper explained as well why the Romanian Kingdom could not remain neutral in the First World War, why its situation in the international system was completely different from that of Switzerland. At the end of 1917 and the beginning of 1918, Romania's situation worsened very quickly due to the unfavourable external circumstances. Under the influence of Bolshevik ideology, Russian soldiers had refused to fight since the fall of 1917. The armistice of Brest Litovsk, signed by Soviet Russia in early December 1917 placed Romania in a critical situation. On January 13/26th, 1918, Russia broke all diplomatic relations with the Romanian government from Iaşi. The Romanian Kingdom would be surrounded only by hostile forces. Ukraine, which had served as a buffer zone for the Romanian state, concluded, in turn, a separate peace with the Central Empires, on February 9, 1918. Although the Romanian army needed military aid, war material, and ammunition, and faced pressures of the Central Powers, the Allies asked for resistance. Among the four powers of the Entente, France was the most intransigent. In fact, all these states strongly rejected the separate peace but the French attitude was more clearly defined than the English attitude for instance.

This study points out some significant aspects of the relations between Romanian Kingdom and France and a few episodes of Romania's relations with Russia as well since the fall of the year 1915 until August 1916. I also tried to analyse the birth and the evolution of the Romanian apprehensions regarding Bulgaria's intentions. So, from methodological point of view, I used somehow a multilateral approach. My paper is based mainly upon documents from French diplomatic archives of Quai d'Orsay. In the autumn of the year 1915, Bulgaria joined Central Powers. Romania, still in neutrality, feared and rejected the possibility to fight on two fronts. In this case, Romania had to face two enemies, the Dualist monarchy of AustriaHungary, in the North and the Kingdom of Bulgaria, in the South. The possible danger from the South of the Danube worried Ion I. C. Brătianu's government. This was one of the main reasons for which Romania has delayed the military intervention against Austria-Hungary. The probability of a Bulgarian offensive against the Southern border of the country delayed the decision of intervention of the Romanian government. In order to enter the war, the authorities from Bucharest asked for Russian troops in Dobruja. These troops had to be able to help Romanian army. As the military agreement of August 1916 stipulated, the Allied Army of Salonika had to begin an offensive in order to prevent a Bulgarian attack against Romania. Romania's entry into the World War I had to begin eight days after the offensive from Salonika. This army had also to counteract the most important part of the Bulgarian troops. In conclusion, if the relations between Bucharest and Petrograd improved immediately after the beginning of the First World War, Romania's relations with its Southern neighbour remained strained. Actually, some of Romania's apprehensions regarding Russia persisted as well. Finally Romania and Bulgaria adhered to rival belligerent blocks and became enemies in World War I.