INTRODUCTION

War is the last way of resolving a dispute, but unfortunately the most often used, perhaps
because it represents the advantage of fully fulfilling expectations and initial objectives.First
configuration of World, unlike many other conflicts, it was due to both parties involved, as a
solution to existing political-diplomatic impasse at the time. Yet after the first moments of the First
World War it was clear that battle will be longer that all expected and then began the auction of
neutrals, any input was welcome. This situation has provided some small countries, such as
Romania, unexpected chance to play a major role in the arena of international relations. It was many
promises but risks also existed.Actually for that small states needed to search a balance between
these two parts of the problem. This search was made by many states in shelter of the neutrality.
Neutrality was seen by many countries as an emergency preparedness period especially for
small states that have aspirations of national wholeness as Romania. Romania have adopt neutrality
as a solution for small period of time do not taken into account the difinitive neutrality.Also it is
important to mentionate bandwagoning behavior of Romania and security environment 1914-1916.
In this essay I argued that decision of neutrality was the best choice for security and for the
protection of national interests of Romania during that period.

THE BANDWAGONING BEHAVIOR OF ROMANIA TRIPLE ALLIANCE

2

According to Stephen Walt alliances are most commonly viewed as a response to threats.
When entering an alliance, states may either balance (ally in opposition to the principal source of
danger) or bandwagon (ally with the states that poses the major threat) 1 Adherence of Romania to
the Triple Alliance is the good example of bandwagoning behavior. It behavior it is justified because
Romania want to balancing the Russian threats and the solution was to join to the Triple Alliance.
Romanian decision to adherence to this alliance was influenced by the fact that she was the only
small state encircled by Russian protectorate. Another argument was the fact that Romania had to
give a good part of Bessarabia to Russia despite that a careful Romania agreed previously with
Russia that it was going to defend and maintain Romanias present territorial integrity appeared to
greatly frustrate Romania. Scared by Russian actions, Romania stared to looked up for security
umbrella in order to resolve the problem with the territorial integrity. Her choice stopped on AustroHungarian empire despised the fact that tension between Romania and AustroHungary persisted in
their relations because some regions of Romania was occupied by Austro-Hungary. Romania obtain
her security umbrella on october 30,1883 according to the treat of alliance with Austro-Hungarian
empire like Romania, Germany also joined in this alliance in the same time and place.
According to Walt exists two reasons for bandwagoning2:
-First, bandwagoning is chosen by state for defensive reasons, as a means of maintaining
independence in the face of the potential threat;
-Second, bandwagoning is chosen by state in order to acquire territory.
In the Romania case bandwagoing was chosen for defensive reasons how mentioned Nicolae
Petrescu-Comnene" The alliance among Germany, Austro-Hungary and Italy was the result of a
conservative and defensive collaboration whose main purpose was to defend the allied states against
any attack from the outside and to consolidate the situation created by the previous treaty" 3.
In this context by joining in the Triple Alliance, Romania have a balancing behavior in order to
balance the external threat that was Russia. By the other side she can be an example of
bandwagoning behavior because made an alignment with Austro-Hungary despise the fact that she
had owned some Romania territory. This is an example of the debate regarding whether weak states
balance or bandwagon.Walt suggests that the conditions under which states tend to behave in
certain ways are imperative for understanding the states behavior4.
The security umbrella that have Romania by adhering to the Triple Alliance, demostrated that
Romania want to take part and be an equal in the peace negotiations and are supposed to take part in
the establishing peace in the Balkans.
This particular behavior according to Walt regarding the weak states behavior: states are
tempted to bandwagon when allies are unavailable and that the most threatening power was believed
to be appeasable5
The bandwagoning behavior shows the fact that despite the tensions between AustroHungary, Romania joined in the alliance at the stronger coalition hoping to profit from the
relationship and regain its territories under the Austro-Hungary occupation. A very good advantage
1

Walt, M. Stephen. The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1987, p 21.

Ibidem,Walt

Petrescu-Comnene, Nicolae The Great War and the Romanians: Notes and Documents on World War I. The Center
for Romanian Studies 2000.
4

Ibidem,Walt

Ibidem,Walt

for Romania was the fact that alliance terms allowed change of status from alignment in neutral,
and during the Bulgarian war and the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, Romania maintains a neutral
position vis--vis the events.
This alliance was the important diplomatic step in establishing the diplomatic configuration
before the World War I and members of this alliance brings some advantages from it.For example
Austro-Hungary was interested in defending south border and through the alliance it was possible.
This was more than a strategic success; Italy, Serbia and Romania were the center for much of the
multinational population of the dualist empire. Austro-Hungary hope that the Romanian government
will not take directly actions against national manifestations in order to bring together the
Romanians over the mountains and it will not support them. The importance for Germany was that
in the eventually conflict, Austro-Hungary, have to secure the southern border, and she could
concentrate forces in the East, where it benefited from the help of the Romanian army. Therefore,
Germany could turn its attention to the West. On the other hand, which is particularly important for
its development in the next stage, Romania, through the alliance of two great powers can easily front
with the external pressures, the focus was already on the domestic affairs.
SECURITY ENVIRONMENT OF ROMANIA 1914-1916
Treaty with the Central Powers was renewed by Romania in 1913, but it was not the best option
because it greatly tangle the interests of Romania. Breaking relationships with Central Powers was
caused by two issues :
1. Magyarization Policy promoted by the Austro-Hungarian empire on Romanian territories that
were under his dominion. This policy is officially promoted by the Austro-Hungarian government
has seen a tightening in 1907 with the adoption of "Appony Laws ", their main purpose was to
destroy the Romanian national identity. Following these events can emphasize two vital interests of
Romania:
-Prevent denationalization of population in the territories occupied by Austro-Hungary;
-Reunion of Romanian nation and acquire the national identity in the entire territory inhabited by
Romanian.
2. The second aspect is that Austro-Hungary could not be protective umbrella of Romania because
she having a hostile attitude towards the Romanian interests. This aggressive attitude increased
when Russia was defeated in Russo-Japanese war (1914). Taking advantage of this aspect AustroHungary annexed the Bosnia and Herzegovina. After the annexation is obvious that Austro-Hungary
changed its policy vis-a-vis the Balkans, but in Romania's interest was to be with the power that did
not want to impose their domination in the Balkans. After the Balkan wars Romania viewed the
actions of Austro-Hungary as provocateurs rather than provoked and understood that the main
enemy of Romanian interests was Austro-Hungary. At the beginning of World War Romania was
requested by both camps. Central Powers asking Carol to honor obligations towards the allies, on
the other hand France and Russia in early August 1914 were willing to guarantee the national
interests of Romania' if Romania remains neutral throughout the conflict.
The change of national security matrix was determined by Crown Council on July 21 August
3, 1914,in the Pele Castle after which Romania was declared neural.
On October 1, 1914 Ionel Brtianu has signed an agreement with Russia after which Romania
had the right to hold all territories beyond the Carpathians inhabited by Romanian in exchange for
its neutrality. It is important to mention that this agreement was negotiated only with Russia being
guaranteed by France and England which meant that Romania falls in Russia's sphere of influence,
where it follows that history repeats like in 1883 as Austro-Hungarian alliance was guaranteed by
Germany in result of which Romania was under the influence of Austro-Hungary. In terms of
4

political security matrix of Romania 1914-1916, the main direction taken by Romania was forming
the alliance with Entente. It actions had two major objectives:
The first objective was to conclude a treaty of politics alliance with more favorable
arrangements .It was difficult to achieve this goal because existed difference in the economic as well
as military sphere of low power (Romania) and high power (Entente). Romania refused unique
partnership with Russia, insisting for conclusion of multiple partnerships with all Entente Powers.
Two major risks faced by Romania in that period was Romania's entry into the Russian sphere of
influence and concluding a separate peace with Austro-Hungary such a peace would be postponed
indefinitely national unification. For Romania was important to entered in war when the allies had
encountered difficulties at the fronts in this context they would agree with the political concessions
that in another situation would not be accept. Another aspect that can be mention was that Romania
need time to prepare the nation and army to the changes like new security matrix and the fact that
the friend became an enemy.
The second objective was to avoid conflict with the Central Powers before proceeding the
alliance with the Entente. An important element was accomplished by Romanian diplomacy to keep
in secret treaty with the Central Powers that favored Romania in negotiations with the Entente,
represent a balancing of the pressures made by the Entente to enter in the alliance and the most
important aspect was to avoid Austro-Hungarian aggression. If the treaty with the Central Powers
denounced it directly represent a declaration of war, in this case Romania must be already allied
with the Entente in the other hand army and the entire nation must be prepared at the highest level.
National Security Matrix of Romania 1914

Interests
Maintain
independence
Territorial
integrity
Reunification

Threats/Risks
Russia
AustriaHungary
Bulgaria
(territorial
revisionists)
Validity
of
alliance
domination

Vulnerability Opportunity
No military Strategic
opposition
position
(1883)
No economic
growth

Resources
0

Alternative
Do not join
in military
alliance
Neutrality
Join
Stay
with
ally,Reliance
Separate
peace

DECISION OF NEUTRALITY -THE BEST CHOICE FOR ROMANIA

Unleashing the war Romania found itself in an extremely complex situation. Strategically
located between the two camps, have little chance to assert and maintain neutrality. If at first the
central powers proved imperious joining Romania on their side, along the way, in the face of
growing public opinion wants a military intervention alongside the Entente for the issue of
Romanian territories under Austro-Hungarian domination, Germany and Austro-Hungary opted for a
permanent neutrality.
5

Entente have thought neutrality from the outset as a solution advantageous to them but with the
extension of the war with Romania's major interests regarding its completion, campaigned for
attracting them in the war against the central powers.
The situation in this context is relatively difficult to appreciate. In the eventually conflict of
european proportions, it was necessary to take a decision. At the time of 1914, Romania was still in
alliance with the central powers, under the treaty concluded in October 1883.The treaty was
concluded on defensive reasons, pledging aid to Romania of Austro-Hungary in the event of an
attack. The Treaty has not gone through the process of ratification by Parliament, and a small part of
the politicians were informed by King Carol I of his existence.
In the summer of 1914, Romania is led by a liberal government under Ion I. C. Brtianu as Prime
Minister and Minister of war. First making official position is that of the Council of Ministers on
16/July 29, 1914, one day after Austro-Hungary had been officially declared war on Serbia. The
Government call for neutrality, considering developments of the events in this time 6. This attitude
maintained by the Liberals, is one "that matches the responsibility of governance" as noted historian
Lucian Boia7. However, a requirement for making the official position: King Charles I convened for
21 July/august 3, the Council of the Crown.
Crown Council convened will bring together members of the liberal Government, conservative
opposition leaders such as Alexandru Marghiloman, Petre Carp, Take Ionescu or Theodor Rosetti,
King Carol I and Crown Prince Ferdinand of Hohenzollern. The views expressed in the Council
positions are relevant to the analysis of the final decision.
Thus, King Carol I choose French language exposure, which it considers more appropriate for
diplomatic subtleties. Exposure contains all three possible positions: neutral, or choose the side of
Russia or the side of the Triple Alliance. The King considered decision of neutrality is a
inappropriate in the context of the given argument is the historical one: in a recent war, who chose
neutrality countries will be treated on a second plan, and certainly will not take part in the decisions
taken by the peace conference. The second situation, the Alliance with Russia, sovereign is excluded
from the outset. The situation for which King Carol I to pronounce in favour of the entry into the
war with the Triple Alliance. States military force components, and hence their victory are
considered indisputable. Romania is also linked to the Triple Alliance through a commitment. Ion
Brtianu brings two main arguments for neutrality solution. The first keep in secret report of
Romania with Austro-Hungary, which has not announced. Romania, in its capacity as ally, on the
intent to declare war on Serbia.
At the same time as other participants showed that they took the word, Romania is not bound by
law to intervene in the present case. The second argument is that of "public confidence", which says
the liberal Minister, cannot be ignored "during the hours of national life". It crashed and the problem
of the Romanians in Transylvania, which cannot be ignored by political leaders8.
According to other reports, its position is clear and firm: "Let us arm, to prepare public opinion,
not to declare themselves neutral, but in defense of our borders". We observe a tinting of the idea of
neutrality.
Also notable is the exposure of Petre Carp, known for the firmness with which he supported
Romania's entry into the war. Romania, as conservative leader, must comply with the treaties
immediately entering the war on the side of central powers. Neutrality is not a solution, neither
moral nor in the material aspect. The moral aspect concerns the need to respect the treaties, while
6

MAMINA, Ion, Consilii de Coroan, Editura Enciclopedic, Bucureti, 1997, p.28.

BOIA, Lucian, Germanofilii. Elita intelectual romneasc n anii Primului Rzboi Mondial, Humanitas, Bucureti,
2009.
8

Quoted by DUCA, I.G n op. cit., pp. 51-62

the material impeding of an invasion of Romanian territory in the context of a general conflict. The
most virulent in argumentation, launching into an open feud with Ion I. C. Brtianu, Petre Carp
argues that Romania should support germanism in his fight against slavism. Moreover, exposure
of Carp contains references to clear the Russian threat. Public opinion is, in this sense, a secondary
factor, as conservative leader: "the Statesman's duty is to lead the public opinion, not to be dragged
by it"9. It's time to point out that beyond some accents, and position of Petre Carp can be assimilated
to that of a man uninterested or hostile political issue over the Romanians across the Carpathians.
Carp knew better than anyone, he knew Russia its potential expansionist, knew the true intentions of
Rusia towards Romania .Petre Carp (and not only) would be desirable as Romania lose being allied
with Germany, but not to be at the the winning side of Russia.
A triumphant Russia would have annexed the Straits (the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles), and
would be installed rule over Southeast Europe, and Romania's fate would be known dramatic
accents. Then, Carp was deeply convinced that the German force (which he knew well) will be
sufficient to subdue the Colossus of the North, and then allied with Germany release Bessarabia,
which endure for over a century a process of denationalization.
That's right, fears of Petre Carp were not true then, but over three decades, his vision will
prove prophetic (after of world war two). The conservative opposition party, noted his position by
clear position of Alexandru Marghiloman that was neutrality, stating that both the Austro-Hungary
and Russia, major powers around which focuses the discussion, will accept. Through its action,
Austro-Hungary has not created a casus foederis warranting immediate intervention of Romania. At
the same time, Italy, a member of the Alliance since its inception, has not decided to intervene.
Marghiloman conclusion is pragmatic: "Let us arm ourselves to guard the borders and as long as
everything for the moment"10. Take Ionescu is also under discussion, saying that Romania was not
consulted before sending ultimatum to Serbia. It says agree with Margiloman about neutrality11
interesting aspect of the debate on neutrality is reporting to the italian model. Italy is a member of
the Triple Alliance in 1882, 12 and her situation is seen as similar to Romanian. Reporting to the
attitude of Italy will remain constant throughout the period 1914-1916. I. G. Duca believes that
essential problem cleared up, to establish the official position of Romania, is the decision you will
take Italy. Thus, the liberal Minister considers that Romanian political leaders would be easier to
rule if the Italy do not enter in war. 13
Moreover, reporting to the position of Italy will influence even talks of the Crown in July 1914.
According to the report of I.G. Duca, news about the neutrality of Italy scored the decisive point in
the fierce discussion between conservatory Petre Carp and Ion Brtianu: "when the dialogue was
more ardent, the door opens and a lackey with a telegram on a silver platter. The remit of the
Brtianu, speedily open: official news was Italy's neutrality. A real blow to the theater "14.
In judging the decision the Council bear in mind the fact that the attitude of the political leaders
from Romania established before the meeting had received a further justification on the part of Italy,
which had declared its neutrality, shortly prior to the meeting in Sinaia. By the Convention of 18
9

Quoted by MARGHILOMAN, Alexandru, op. cit., pp 159-162, the identification of 21 July 1914

10

Quoted by MARGHILOMAN, Alexandru, op. cit., pp 159-162, the identification of 21 July 1914

11

Quoted by MARGHILOMAN, Alexandru, idem.

12

Italy had defensive agreement with Germany and Austro-Hungary on 20 may 1882, according to BERSTEIN, Serge,
MILZA, Pierre, Istoria Europei, vol. 4, traducere de Monica Timu, editura Institutul European, Iai, 1998, p. 189
13

DUCA, I.G, op. cit., p.49

14

DUCA, I..G, citat n MAMINA, Ion, op.cit., p.46

September/1 October 1914, Petersburg, Russia signed a guarantee the territorial integrity of
Romania and its rights over the territories of Austro-Hungary, inhabited by Romanians in exchange
for benevolent neutrality.
Recent works trying to bring new perspectives to Romanian elite position at the time of 19141918. The classical division between "antantofili" and "germanofili", is not so clear in the context
where there are many streams of opinion within each camp. Thus, Take Ionescu, and the
conservative-democratic party opts for an entry into the war on the Entente side, for the release of
Transylvania. The opinion is shared by conservator Nicolae Filipescu.Germanofile pole was
represented mainly by Petre Carp, the most out spoken supporter of the war on the side of the central
powers, his argument that Russia represent the main enemy. A supporter of the ideas of Carp is from
liberal and Constantin Stere. There is also a germanofile moderate current, represented by the
conservative party as well as the personalities of the Alexandru Marghiloman or Titu Maiorescu,
who advocates for a positive neutrality of Austro-Hungary and Germany15.
Public opinion also was divided into proententes and germanofili. Proentente side want Romania's
involvement at the side of Entente for release of Transylvania, and germanofilii were to get involved
in the war on the side of the Central Powers.
At the moment politicians have decided to adopt neutrality on 2 July to 3 august 1914, in the
Crown Council in Sinaia. Decision of the Council, held at Pele Castle, on 3 august 1914, as
Romania remained neutral in world conflict, was a good choice because even this decision was
impose, against the King, neutrality, it has avoided involvement in the war, Romania, catastrophic
consequences for the national ideal, in the event that the King's position would have been followed.
Moreover, on the position of neutrality, Ionel Brtianu, who, after the death of Carol I, personally
will take over coordination/management of Romanian foreign policy, should be placed in an
extremely favourable position to negotiate Romania's entry into the conflict, at the side of Entente.
Ionel Brtianu had no intention to join in the side of Central Powers, and during the two years of
neutrality has used it with maximum efficiency and accountability, in the direction of negotiation
and signing of a treaty with the Entente, agreement was supposed to recognize Romanian rights
over Transylvania, Bukovina, and the Banat. In a strict sense, the neutrality of Romania, 1914-1916,
in legal form have not been years of neutrality, but expect the army to protect the borders.
As evidenced by the decision of the Council of 3 august 1914, where it was decided military
action for the safety of "bourders", with the purpose of the Austro-Hungarian border:"an advantage
for the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, whereas her borders on several hundred miles are secured. De
jure, after 3 august 1914, Romania continues to belong to the Triple Alliance, because the Brtianu
had the no courage to denounce the Treaty with the Central powers, particularly in terms of the
beginning of the war, when the military superiority of Germanin in the first place, it was quite clear.
Another argument it that during the period of neutrality, the President of the Council of Ministers,
Brtianu's I.I.C assumed particular responsibility, with the leadership of the Romanian foreign
policy, initiated and led the negotiations for Romania at war only with and alongside the Entente. He
delayed the entry of Romania into the war for two years, and to ensure optimal conditions for
Romania in the politically and militarily spheres. Historic tradition the fact that for centuries was
part of the "battlefield" for the armies of neighbouring powers, confirms this assessment. In making
a decision the leaders should heed the Triple Alliance membership; at the same time, he noted that
the country's economy and army were far from satisfying the needs of a modern war.
As the armies of the Great Powers were equipped with armoured cars, airplanes, machine guns,
etc., Romania had only three enterprises producing light weapons and ammunition. The Bucharest
15

BOIA, Lucian, Germanofilii. Elita intelectual romneasc n anii Primului Rzboi Mondial, Humanitas,
Bucureti, 2009 p.38

Government's position was to take into account public opinion, which was joined by the brothers of
Austro-Hungary and France and get solid guarantees on the part of the Great Powers, in order to
avoid the situation in 1878, when Russia was worn more as an enemy than as allies after the end of
hostilities. Therefore, although for politicians was clear that completion of the Romanian national
unity was not possible without participating in a war without a leading "tribute of blood, triggering
the first world war, somewhat predictable after the Balkan wars, only found unprepared.
The formula "expectation" and not "neutrality", which was adopted by the Crown, the Prime
Minister gave him the opportunity, in the future to obtain guarantees in addition to the great powers
of the Entente (France, United Kingdom, Russia), with a view to the completion of the state unity,
and at the same time, to keep up at the appropriate time a safety margin of the central powers, which
the Romanian Government's decision had been presented to them as a friendly act.
A first success for Romania's in exchange of her neutrality was the right to occupy the territories
inhabited by Romanians in Austro-Hungary, was obtained by the signing on 1 October 1914,
Russian-Romanian Convention, by S.D. Sazonov and Diamandy. By Convention, Russia recognized
Romania's right to occupy the Austro-Hungarian territories inhabited by Romanians whether
Romania will take toward a benevolent neutrality in front of Entente.
Instead of benevolent neutrality from Romania, Russia will provide the status-quo of its territorial
borders. By Convention, the Russian Government acknowledged Romania's right to annex the
territories under the Austro-Hungary domination, pledging to support the occupation of these
territories with its own forces. Russia is also bound to obtain the adhesion of the Entente powers,
and France and the British Empire, sustain these commitments. The secret Convention with Russia
was of great significance for Romania. For the first time, a Great Powers recognise the historical
Romanian state rights over our large provinces over the Carpathians, accepting, the freedom of so
many peoples, to help a neighbor, for the purposes of fulfilling the national interests.
It is important to mentionated that the time offered by the neutrality has been used by the
Government for the preparation in economic, military and diplomatic aspects of the war.
Raported this work of the actually period we arrive at the conclusion that Romania is a minor
power on the international arena and through its diplomatic skills must defend national interests, as
well as to provide a favorable security invironment. In order to this idea Romania needs security
umbrella of Great Powers like in 1914, which currently is its partnership with NATO and the E.U.
Romania had to choose the most advantageous proposals for defense of its interests, like in 1914
when Central Powers proposed the restitution of Bessarabia, Bukovina and southern Negotin not
satisfied Bucharest, because leaving unresolved the main problem-discrimination of Romanians in
Transylvania.
The Entente powers, needs support of Romania in order to weaken the German military
pressure, pledged Romania's Bucovina, Banat, including that portion which is now part of Serbia,
and Transylvania.
Thus we see that in all respects the Entente's proposals were far more generous than those of the
Central Powers.Why do the major European powers were ready to go to Romania, also yielding to
compromise that they never would have done in times of peace? We seem relevant two explanations:
-First at all, they were interested in the raw material resources of Romania food and crude oil.
World War I was the first in which the military technique has been widely used. The oil becomes
"blood of war", and the only state in Europe which have the major crude oil reserves was Romania.
-Secondly, Romania had an army which, together with the reservations, numbered about one
million two hundred thousand people. After two years of war, the warring parties have lost on the
battle fields several million people and Romanian "million" was useful for them.
A closer analysis, however, shows that much more important than natural riches and resources of
raw materials and human resources of Romania was its geostrategic position. Until 1916, the two
9

flanks of the central powers-the northern one, made up of Austro-Hungary and Germany and South
Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire, there is no direct junction. Therefore, supplying the Southern
allies was done excsuvely via Romania, since maritime access routes were blocked by the British
Navy.
Like in 1914 Romania nowdays must orient its foreign policy taking in consideration the national
interests.

CONCLUSION
The year 1914 was extremely hard for Romania, both in the diplomatic and political spheres,
the manifestation of public opinion was intensified in the circumstance of occurrence chance to
achieve national reunification of Romanians people.Romania was placed in front of the choice to
remain in the side of the Central Powers or remain neutral in conflict in this way Entente guarantee
the right to occupy the territories inhabited by Romanians in Austro-Hungary.According to the
National Security Matrix of Romania, the national interest of Romania was to mentain
independence, territorial integrity and reunification but she do not have millitary opposition and
economic grouth in order to ensure this interest.
In this order of ideas the best choice for Romania was to choise neutrality because by
Convention with Russia, the Russian Government acknowledged Romania's right to annex the
territories of Austro-Hungary domination, pledging to support the occupation of these territories
with its own forces another important fact was that a Great Powers recognise the historical
Romanian state rights over our large provinces over the Carpathians, accepting, the freedom of so
many peoples, to help a neighbor, for the purposes of fulfilling the national interests.In the other
hand period of neutrality give time that has been used for the preparation to the war in economic,
military and diplomatic aspects.
10

Romania is a minor power in international arena thats why she always must choose the most
advantageous proposals in order to achieve her main purposes.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. BOIA, Lucian, Germanofilii. Elita intelectual romneasc n anii Primului Rzboi
Mondial, Humanitas, Bucureti, 2009.
2. BERSTEIN, Serge, MILZA, Pierre, Istoria Europei, vol. 4, traducere de Monica Timu,
editura Institutul European, Iai, 1998.
3.

DUCA, I.G n op. cit., pp. 51-62

4. MAMINA, Ion, Consilii de Coroan, Editura Enciclopedic, Bucureti, 1997

5. MARGHILOMAN, Alexandru, op. cit., pp 159-162, the identification of 21 July 1914
6. PETRESCU-COMNENE, Nicolae The Great War and the Romanians: Notes and
Documents on World War I. The Center for Romanian Studies 2000.
7. WALT, M. Stephen. The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1987

11

12