How can you describe a book of more than 550 pages in a few words? Interwar Romania. Political and institutional modernization and national discoursepublished in 2023 under the supervision of Professors Sorin Radu and Oliver Jens Schmitt at the Iași Publishing House A polisher? I would choose the following formula. 17 studies thanks to the number of 18 authors (the nineteenth, Oliver Jens Schmitt retains only the status of coordinator), drawn from universities and research institutes in the country (Bucharest, Iasi, Sibiu, Cluj-Napoca) and abroad (Luxembourg, Budapest). , Indiana University, Liverpool, Montpellier, Regensburg, Munich, Vienna). Historians who examine from all sides various aspects related to political, social, professional, religious, national minorities (Jews, Hungarians), cultural history of the Romanian interwar period. All because of the desire to get a somewhat more accurate, richer, clearer and less exalted picture of what happened in Greater Romania after the Union from December 1, 1918 to the moment of democratic decline and the national disaster that followed Molotov – the Ribbentrop Pact and the Vienna Dictatorship.

AND introduction a follow-up written by the volume’s coordinators, Professors Oliver Jens Schmitt (Vienna) and Sorin Radu (Sibiu), explains the reasons that led to the decision to write and publish the volume. Firstly, it is about the need to clarify the essence of the phrase. What, after all, do we mean by the interwar period in the context of Romania? The period that begins in 1918 and when does it end? In 1938, during the royal dictatorship, in 1940, when Greater Romania suffered serious territorial amputations, in 1941, when our country entered the war as an ally of Germany? The authors choose et pour reason for 1940. In 1940, Greater Romania ceased to exist due to massive territorial losses. The territorial, political, social, intellectual and ethnic construct was destroyed.

Further. Was the interwar period a period when everything and everyone went smoothly in Romania? Did only milk and honey flow, and all Romanians prospered and were like brothers? Was it an undisputed and uninterrupted period of universal economic prosperity and social peace in which all social classes, men and women, lived without problems? In which minority did equally well with the general satisfaction, in which all had equal rights, in which all Romanian provinces benefited from equal development and equal attention from successive governments in Bucharest? Didn’t he say his word and previous dowry? I mean another development that occurred in 1918? Both economic and political, and mentality, and regarding the concept of democracy. Here, Svitlana Suveika details, for example, in her research, what is meant by improvised democracy in Bessarabia.

Further. How should historians treat the Romanian interwar period? How is the period open or closed? Of course, the authors prefer the first option. Didn’t the legal act of the Union of December 1, 1918 foresee a rather long period of adaptation, unification of legislation, its implementation, training of personnel, civil servants? Was it a quiet period? A study by Francesco Magno with an interesting title It seems that it was written during the time of Franz Joseph as the one signed in collaboration by Yudit Pal and Vlad Popovichi (From county elected officials to bureaucrats) provides data that contradicts the overly optimistic outlook we were accustomed to by professional historians before 1989 and even after.

Or. Were the promises made to the minorities in 1918 and immediately after fully kept? Did all minorities unreservedly applaud the Union? What was the situation of the Hungarians, how were they organized politically? What about the Germans? What about the Jews? A whole chapter Romania is only for Romanians. National minorities or other 30%thanks to the studies written by Florian Curer – Velach, Nandor Bardi or Carol Janku, provides more than necessary explanations.

What were the relations between denominations and between Churches? There are questions in this section Faith and believers in mainstream society. Church and state in studies written by Andrea Kaltenbrunner and Marian Petrou.

About what happened to young people, about their commitment to extreme right-wing forces, about the social and political position of women, Roland Clark and Maria Bukur respectively write in the studies grouped in the chapter A society moving towards new horizons. Sorin Radu talks about how the political integration of the peasants was achieved in the new national state. Sergiu Delcea is interested in revealing the relationship between the national and the transnational as it manifested itself in the new nation-state, while Ovidiu Buruiană is concerned with the dynamics of liberal elites, starting with the moment and significance of the election of I. G. Duka as the leader of the PNL. Christian Wasile watches in his office Mykhailo Ralya and his view of political and cultural modernization the suffering, political and ideological contradictions of one of the greatest intellectuals of the interwar period, while Philippe Henri Blessin deals with the personality of the controversial Mihail Manoilescu. An interesting study by Ottmar Traschk was established The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and its consequences for Romania, the provocative hypothesis that King Charles II would have resorted to a royal dictatorship out of a desire to respond to the many dangers that threatened Europe and Romania as a result of his propensity for fascism.

What conclusions do we leave, what conclusions do I, who am not a historian but interested in history, leave after reading the book? Does it suggest, or does it achieve, a complete, even dramatic, demystification of the period? Are we dealing with a broken mirror? No, I wouldn’t say. Interwar Romania. Political modernization and national discourse it only furthers the common sense view that the interwar period was not a golden age. It wasn’t perfect, but it could be improved. The analysis seemed to me balanced, without nationalistic exaltations and without the desire for dismissals at any cost and by any means. _

Read the whole article and comment on Contributors.ro