From the point of view of practical politics only the issue of the conflict will determine the wisdom or otherwise of Rumania’s attitude.  But, though it is perhaps out of place to enlarge upon it here, it is impossible not to speak of the moral aspect of the course adopted.  By giving heed to the unspoken appeal from Transylvania the Rumanian national spirit would have been quickened, and the people braced to a wholesome sacrifice.  Many were the wistful glances cast towards the Carpathians by the subject Rumanians, as they were being led away to fight for their oppressors; but, wilfully unmindful, the leaders of the Rumanian state buried their noses in their ledgers, oblivious of the fact that in these times of internationalism a will in common, with aspirations in common, is the very life-blood of nationality.  That sentiment ought not to enter into politics is an argument untenable in a country which has yet to see its national aspirations fulfilled, and which makes of these aspirations definite claims.  No Rumanian statesman can contend that possession of Transylvania is necessary to the existence of the Rumanian state.  What they can maintain is that deliverance from Magyar oppression is vital to the existence of the Transylvanians.  The right to advance such a claim grows out of their very duty of watching over the safety of the subject Rumanians.  ’When there are squabbles in the household of my brother-in-law,’ said the late Ioan Bratianu when speaking on the Transylvanian question, ’it is no affair of mine; but when he raises a knife against his wife, it is not merely my right to intervene, it is my duty.’  It is difficult to account for the obliquity of vision shown by so many Rumanian politicians.  ’The whole policy of such a state [having a large compatriot population living in close proximity under foreign domination] must be primarily influenced by anxiety as to the fate of their brothers, and by the duty of emancipating them,’ affirms one of the most ardent of Rumanian nationalist orators; and he goes on to assure us that ’if Rumania waits, it is not from hesitation as to her duty, but simply in order that she may discharge it more completely’.[1] Meantime, while Rumania waits, regiments composed almost completely of Transylvanians have been repeatedly and of set purpose placed in the forefront of the battle, and as often annihilated.  Such could never be the simple-hearted Rumanian peasant’s conception of his duty, and here, as in so many other cases in the present conflict, the nation at large must not be judged by the policy of the few who hold the reins.

[Footnote 1:  Quarterly Review, London, April, 1915, pp. 449-50.]