The Vienna Arbitration

That's not correct. The 2nd Vienna Arbitration was a compromise solution, reached diplomatically, accepted by all signatory parties. With that official agreement, the clauses of the Trianon Treaty became de jure void.

This problem was not unique to Bessarabia and the change of souveranity in 1940. Similar porblems are recoreded with the entry of the Red Army troops in Eastern Poland in Sept. 1939. Then, local Jewish people targeted in a similar fashion the retreating Polish officials, even local Polish civilians. I don't know details related to the occupation of the Baltic states, but the circumstances might had been similar.

The 'affinity' of many Jews towards Communism is unquestionable. However, the reasons why still have to be uncovered.

That's not correct. The 2nd Vienna Arbitration was a compromise solution, reached diplomatically, accepted by all signatory parties. With that official agreement, the clauses of the Trianon Treaty became de jure void.

I don't see how your statement contradicts mine.

Trianon oh well...sure.. a treaty imposed at gunpoint, just like the stealing of Bessarabia by the Soviets. I wonder what value it could have had in the eyes of the Hungarians

Didn't Antonescu read Tolstoi ?

So, let's say I changed my mind and I'm more or less convinced that the Romanian Bessarabians from Jewish religion (or was it atheistic ?) where acting as a 5th column for the Bolsheviks. Sure would like to know why they liked communists that much.

Your post and mine contradict each other in 2 points.

You wrote:
1, Hungary violated the Trianon Treaty.
In my answer I've shown it did not, as the 2nd Vienna Award was a diplomatic solution, which officially and legally replaced the pertinent clauses of the Trianon Treaty.

You wrote:
2, Rumania had no choice but to sign the final document, thus it was forced to do so.
Again, I've shown that it wasn't the case, as the end result was reached through diplomatic negotiations. Neither sides could achieve their goals, thus it involved compromise from both parties and was accepted accordingly.

What makes you think the Vienna Dictate was legal, and the Trianon treaty was not?

I didn't said that, but you are right. Romania was forced to sign it. Even if it was so, you know as well as me that the Romanian policy and the Romanian population condemned this act, never accepted this compromise, and never gave up the idea of reversing this unjustice.

QUOTE

What makes you think the Vienna Dictate was legal, and the Trianon treaty was not?

I did not say the Peace Treaty of Trianon was not legal. Why would you think so? Of course, it was. The same manner, the Vienna Abitration was an official, legal document which superseeded parts of the Trianon Treaty.
BTW, the Vienna Abitration was not a 'Dictate' (see below). Or, if you insist it was, it was equally a 'dictate' for both the Hungarian and Rumanian parties.

QUOTE

I didn't said that, but you are right. Romania was forced to sign it.

Rumania was not forced to do so. It could have walked away.
Again, the Vienna Arbitration was a compromise solution, reached after (limited) negotiations. Neither sides achieved their goals, but it was a diplomatic solution.

QUOTE

Even if it was so, you know as well as me that the Romanian policy and the Romanian population condemned this act, never accepted this compromise, and never gave up the idea of reversing this unjustice.

That's an entirely different problem. This is the emotional approach to the aforementioned historical episode.

Of course, the Rumanian population did not agree with it. Neither did the entire Hungarian nation, for the opposite reasons. But the Hungarian majority in Northern Transylvania did accept it enthusiastically.
How exactly 'unjust' the Vienna Arbitration (referred to in Rumanian history books as 'the odious Vienna diktate', etc.) was it's questionable, though. If not other, but it awerted an imminent bloody war (have you read one of the members' footnote, a quote from Benjamin Franklin: "There is no good War and no bad Peace"?).

Dragos, I fully understand your and other Rumanians' emotional approach to this sensitive topic. Believe me, the same topic is equally emotional to most Hungarians.
However, since our interest in history is more than a passing hobby and we try to do it seriously and in a professional manner, we should, at least try to regard history in an unbiased, neutral manner, relying on facts, not emotions.

Just in case..., do you speak of the act of 30 August 1940? :roll:

QUOTE

However, since our interest in history is more than a passing hobby and we try to do it seriously and in a professional manner, we should, at least try to regard history in an unbiased, neutral manner, relying on facts, not emotions.

Fair, but I don't agree relating history just like an enumeration of dates and events, but also presenting the motivations, goals, ideals, hope of those involved in conflict. The history is full of emotions.

QUOTE

It is a serious mistake to compare Trianon with the Soviet ultimatum. For how many times must I say that Transylvania was legitimate Romanian territory?

From a Romanian nationalist point of vue it seems effectively very important to repeat it ad nauseum, so as to give the statement some weight.

QUOTE

Even if it wasn't the people congregation of Alba Iulia, asking for union with Romania, this is the reason for which Romania has entered the First World War.

Does Romania's entry into the war constitute a right, a justification in itself for taking possession ?

QUOTE

Not to speak of the fact that Romanians were majority in Transilvania in 1919, while Russians were not in Bessarabia in 1940.

There are a majority of foreigners in some quarters of my capital. It doesn't give them the right to burn my flag and put theirs. You will - I'm sure - find me very anti Romanian again Dragos But you will see the principle I apply are the same that are handed to me many times.

QUOTE

Didn't Antonescu read Tolstoi ?

QUOTE

I don't know. But I know Stalingrad was one step further than Borodino.  :lol:

Mmm I didn't know that Antonescu fancied himself to be brighter than Napoleon. But, apparently, he didn't fare better.

QUOTE

Just in case..., do you speak of the act of 30 August 1940?  :roll:

I'll pass on this... 8)

QUOTE

I don't agree relating history just like an enumeration of dates and events, but also presenting the motivations, goals, ideals, hope of those involved in conflict. The history is full of emotions.

I partially agree with you. I never said that only dry data has to be presented to the reader. Of course, the participants' motivations, goals and international circumstances have to also be shown, so the reader would better understand a certain historical episode. Also, the approach and views of all sides should be presented as well, with the proper caveat.
What I don't agree with is that emotions should be included in, or nationalism should influence, a work on history. Emotions lead to bias, which is the death of history as an exact science.

QUOTE

From a Romanian nationalist point of vue it seems effectively very important to repeat it ad nauseum, so as to give the statement some weight.

It seems that the "nationalistic" point of view is the only one you see. I quoted nationalistic, because it has many senses, according to the current deffinition in Oxford dictionary, and the only side you see is the dark one.

QUOTE

There are a majority of foreigners in some quarters of my capital. It doesn't give them the right to burn my flag and put theirs. You will - I'm sure - find me very anti Romanian again Dragos  :lol:   But you will see the principle I apply are the same that are handed to me many times.

Let's cite an official census of Transylvania in 1841: 260,170 Magyars, 260,000 szeklers, 250,000 saxons, 1,287,340 walachians (Romanians).
Thiat sounds different than the majority in some quarters of your capital.

The title of this thread is misleading and biased (see the arguments in my previous posts).
The term 'Diktate' is used only by the Rumanian historiography. The internationally accepted and used historical term is the Vienna Arbitration, or Award.
Since this forum is supposed to be an international one, accessible not only for Rumanians, we should stick to the proper terms.
Moreover, the date should be included as well, so people unfamiliar with the above terms should be able to chronologically locate it.
Finally, unlike in Rumanian language, Vienna is spelled in English with double 'n'.
I am aware that Dragos is the (web)master here, but unless these issues are corrected, I cannot post here.

QUOTE

Quote:   It seems that the \"nationalistic\" point of view is the only one you see... the only side you see is the dark one. Perhaps you should present us the other one.

There are several pages on the definition of nationalism! I'll try to post them later.

QUOTE

Quote:   Let's cite an official census of Transylvania in 1841: 260,170 Magyars, 260,000 szeklers, 250,000 saxons, 1,287,340 walachians (Romanians).   Thiat sounds different than the majority in some quarters of your capital Not at all, same scale   Lets' see further. Based on the same (or better) morale high ground, today :   Germany should immediately declare war on Belgium to unify the western districts where there is a crushing majority of Germans. By entering war it completely justifies the unification of the country.   Right ?

Wrong! In order to fully understand the situation, I have to post some other statistics of the same period in Transylvania.
The number of members in Dieta (the governing organization):
161 Magyars, 114 Szeklers, 35 Saxons, no Romanians

QUOTE

The title of this thread is misleading and biased (see the arguments in my previous posts). The term 'Diktate' is used only by the Rumanian historiography. The internationally accepted and used historical term is the Vienna Arbitration, or Award.

Internationally accepted? By who?
Webster: diktat/dictate = an authoritarian decree, order or policy

QUOTE

Finally, unlike in Rumanian language, Vienna is spelled in English   with double 'n'.

Allright, I'm guilty here.

QUOTE

I am aware that Dragos is the (web)master here, but unless these issues are corrected, I cannot post here.

C'mon, don't be a sissy! :mad:

QUOTE

QUOTE I am aware that Dragos is the (web)master here, but unless these issues are corrected, I cannot post here. C'mon, don't be a sissy! :mad:

It's not about sissyness, but rather about integrity and sticking to principles.

After changing the topic's title, I'm interested which countries recognized officially the Vienna Arbitration, except Romania, Hungary, Germany and Italy?