The historiography published in the United States about interwar Romania, World War II and the instauration of the Communist regime is extensive and richly documented (Clark 1922; Fischer-Galati 1970; Hitchins 1977, 1994; Livezeanu 1995; Quinlan 1995; Tismăneanu 2012). Romanian and United States interests did not reach concurrence and balance until the early twentieth century, with dialogues transcending commercial, political or immigration themes (Florescu 1993; Quinlan 1988; Stanciu and Cernovodeanu 1985). American diplomats continued to abide by the Monroe Doctrine and the insights from George Washington’s Farewell Address and refrained from political entanglements with foreign states especially in Europe, favoring trade instead (Razi 1988). By the interwar era, Romania’s geostrategic positioning between increasingly unstable influence spheres determined the United States to shift its diplomatic strategy in the region. The two nations officially became military allies when Romania forewent its neutrality in World War I and joined the Entente in 1916. The international key political players seized the chance to reconfigure the political geography around the now-defunct empires after the end of the Great War in 1918, when Austro-Hungary and Germany formally acknowledged their capitulation against the Entente. President Woodrow Wilson participated as the United States representative at the Paris Peace Conference. He actively lobbied for democracy and self-determination to be the core elements in Europe’s reconstruction. Wilson’s ideas expressed as Fourteen Points strongly impacted Central Europe, moving the balance of power from its European-centered tradition to the notion of collective security (Peterson 2014), which also led to the formation of Greater Romania (Devasia 1970). Romania and the United States maintained dialogue throughout the 1920s towards the mid-1930s, despite the Great Depression and growing isolationism (Stanciu 1996) and focus on the ‘petroleum policy’ (Buzatu 2011). Central and East European nationalism and subsequent restrictionism were perceived by US authorities as hindrances to economic exchanges (Randall 2005; Pearton 1971). Romania’s lack of satisfactory strides regarding minority rights, especially for the Jewish community, was also a serious concern for the United States (Quinlan 1977).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
The Ethos of Dialogue and Education
|