The New York Times Current History, A Monthly Magazine: The European War, March 1915 — John Shaqi
The New York Times Current History, A Monthly Magazine: The European War, March 1915Various
History
The New York Times Current History, A Monthly Magazine: The European War, March 1915
Various
World War, 1914-1918
What is this policy worth? The chances are that it may not always be
good, particularly in the present state of things. Rumania is still a
small country by reason of its area. In addition to this, her
neighbors, on which she was wont to exercise a moderating influence,
are bound to change in density of population. And it is very likely
that Rumania, on the next day after the war, might find herself
suddenly surrounded by homogeneous peoples, who in the meantime would
become distinctly more important than she is, and that these people
might have against her certain slight grievances which they would make
her feel. Moreover, even if Austria by chance is victorious, and even
if the Government at Bucharest helped her, is it not clear that her
(Rumania's) Hungarian neighbor, becoming stronger, would make her
(Rumania) suffer the same as she made the Servians suffer when they
were feeble?
Rumania may well protest her friendship, but this will not prevent
her, if only by her presence, from being a danger to the tranquillity
of the Hungarian subjects in Transylvania. And then who is going to
defend her?
Here is what the good sense of the people says, and it is this common
sense which will triumph in the end over all vacillation, and will, in
spite of everything, assert its way of seeing things.
THE ATTITUDE OF RUMANIA.
[From the Paris Temps of Sept. 25, 1914.]
Mr. Diamandy, Rumanian Minister at Petrograd and an ardent advocate of
Rumanian intervention, has returned to the Russian capital after a
voyage to Bucharest, where he went in order to explain his views to
his Government.
The return of Mr. Diamandy to Petrograd is regarded as a favorable
omen, as this diplomat had expressed previous to his departure that he
would not come back to his post if he were not successful in placing
Rumania on the side of the Triple Entente.
On the other hand, l'Agence de Balkans is in receipt of the following
dispatch from Bucharest, Sept. 19, 1914:
"The semi-official papers of the Rumanian Government have published
the following statement with regard to the Treaty of Bucharest: The
viewpoint of Rumania on the subject of the Treaty of Bucharest, and of
its connection with the European war, has been discussed and
established in a council of the Crown, held on the 21st of July, (Aug.
3, N.S.) In the Treaty of Bucharest the Rumanian interest was not
bound to fixed frontier lines, except so long as these assured an
equilibrium necessary to Rumania. Rumania was not obliged to protect
this equilibrium in its actual form any longer than in her mind this
could be possibly maintained.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account