Why Romania Matters

Ask most people in the UK what they know about Romania and the answers are often predictable. Dracula. Transylvania. Perhaps a vague recollection of the tyrant Nicolae Ceausescu and the televised fall of communism.

Yet Romania’s history contains one of the most remarkable stories in modern Europe.

It is a story of ambition and insecurity, of nation-building and geopolitical struggle. It is the story of a country that repeatedly found itself on the fault lines of great power politics, striving to preserve its independence in a region where independence could never be taken for granted.

It is also the story that inspired my research and, ultimately, my book.

Europe’s Forgotten Frontier

For much of modern history, Romania has occupied an uncomfortable position on the map. Situated between the Russian, Ottoman, Habsburg, and later Soviet and Nazi German spheres of influence, it rarely enjoyed the luxury of isolation. Geography placed Romania at the crossroads of empires, and with that came both opportunity and danger.

The country’s emergence as a modern state in the nineteenth century was itself improbable. Through war, diplomacy, political reform, and no small measure of luck, the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia united and gradually secured independence from the Ottomans.

Yet independence did not resolve Romania’s central dilemma. How does a small state survive in a neighbourhood dominated by larger powers? That question would shape Romanian history for generations.

The Promise of Greater Romania

The end of the First World War appeared to provide an answer. Romania emerged from the conflict significantly enlarged. The acquisition of Transylvania, Bessarabia, and Bucovina created what contemporaries called Romania Mare, or Greater Romania, a state that seemed finally to have realised long-standing national aspirations.

For many Romanians, this was a moment of triumph. For leaders, however, it was the beginning of a new problem. The settlement created a larger Romania, but not necessarily a more secure one. The new borders were contested by neighbouring states. Hungary rejected the loss of Transylvania. Soviet Russia refused to recognise Romanian control of Bessarabia. Bulgaria harboured grievances in the south. Victory had produced new vulnerabilities.

The Search for Security

The central challenge facing Romanian statesmen during the interwar years was therefore not expansion but preservation, and this led Romania to become one of the most active diplomatic powers in Europe.

Far from being a passive observer of international affairs, the Romanians helped create a network of alliances designed to uphold the post-war settlement. The most important of these was the Little Entente, an alliance linking Romania with Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.

The alliance’s purpose was straightforward: to prevent revisionist states from overturning the peace settlement by force. Yet beneath this objective lay a larger ambition. Its architects hoped that collective security, international law, and multilateral cooperation might provide an alternative to the old politics of power. In many respects, they were attempting to answer a question that remains familiar today: can small and medium-sized states protect themselves through institutions and alliances rather than military strength alone?

The answer was not as straightforward as they hoped.

A Warning from History

One reason I became fascinated by Romania’s interwar experience is that it raises questions that continue to shape contemporary international politics. The 1920s and 1930s witnessed growing challenges to the international order. Revisionist powers became increasingly assertive. Economic crises weakened political stability. International institutions struggled to enforce collective decisions. Allies disagreed about how best to maintain the peace.

The language may sound familiar. Of course, history never repeats itself precisely. Yet studying the interwar period reminds us that international orders are neither permanent nor self-sustaining. They depend upon political will, effective institutions, and a shared commitment to their preservation.

Romania’s leaders understood this all too well. They invested enormous energy in diplomacy because they recognised that military power alone could not guarantee security. Their successes, and eventual failures, offer valuable lessons for our own age.

The Human Side of Diplomacy

One of the discoveries that emerged from my research was the importance of individuals. History is often written in terms of states and structures, but it is ultimately shaped by people.

Figures such as Nicolae Titulescu, a Romanian Foreign Minister and twice-elected President of the League of Nations Assembly, dedicated their careers to building alliances, mediating disputes, and defending the principle of collective security. They believed that diplomacy could restrain conflict and that international cooperation offered a path away from the destructive rivalries that had consumed Europe.

Whether they succeeded remains open to debate. What cannot be doubted is the scale of their ambition. They were attempting to construct a stable international order in a continent increasingly drawn towards division and confrontation.

Why Romania’s Story Endures

Romania’s history matters because it is about more than Romania. It is about how states navigate uncertainty. It is about the relationship between power and principle. It is about the strengths and limitations of alliances. Above all, it is about the enduring challenge of preserving security in an unpredictable world. These are not merely historical questions. They are contemporary ones.

The study of Romania offers a window into some of the most important issues in international affairs: nationalism, diplomacy, collective security, alliance politics, and the fragility of international order.

That is why I wrote Romania, the Little Entente and the Struggle for Europe.

Not simply to tell the story of a country often overlooked in Western narratives, but because Romania’s experience illuminates broader questions about Europe, power, and the international system itself. History does not provide easy answers. But it does provide perspective. And few countries offer a richer perspective on the challenges of modern Europe than Romania.