WorldWar2.ro Forum [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

WorldWar2.ro Forum > WW1 and Regional Wars (1912-1919) > Transylvania's choices in 1918

Posted by: Imperialist December 16, 2011 09:32 am

Mihnea posted this on the thread about December 1:

QUOTE

We all know now that transilvanians had in reality 3 choices A Romania; B Hungary; C Independence. In my opinion in 1918 the best choice would have been C as it was better organized and a industry compared to the rest of poor Romania. But the choice they made was the safe one to go unite with Romania for protection and be part of a bigger country. A not so good choice for Transilvania but a good one for Romania.

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=6344&view=findpost&p=83810

What makes you think an independent Transylvania would have been economically feasible or that joining Romania was not so good choice?

p.s. I post this because the "December 1" thread was closed and I believe this discussion would have been off-topic there anyway.

Posted by: mihnea December 16, 2011 10:27 am

Transilvania had the same chance other now (in 1918) independent countries had, see Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. The organization, industry etc in Transilvania were developed like in the rest of the AH empire and in my opinion were superior to those in Romania that was devastated by a war that it fought on it's own territory. The industry before WWI was underdeveloped not to mention organization, even today in the old cities and villages from Transilvania you can see very clearly the influence of the occidental organization. Compared to the chaotic Muntenia and Moldova were the village is along the main road and the absence of a central square.

And Transilvania had everything a country needs: industry around it's main cites, fields for agriculture, natural resources and enough population. So I don't see why an independent Transilvania wouldn't have worked.

Posted by: Imperialist December 16, 2011 11:26 am

QUOTE (mihnea @ December 16, 2011 10:27 am)

Well, that's the thing, is your opinion based on hard data?

The national wealth produced by Romanian industry went from 1.171 million Lei in 1912-1914 (Old Kingdom) to 1.837 million Lei in 1920-1922 (Great Romania).

Transylvania's mainly extractive industry was created by Austrian capital in order to supply the manufacturing centres in the West with mineral resources. So Transylanian economy was shaped by being part of a larger market, one that disappeared after 1918.

Posted by: 21 inf December 16, 2011 11:34 am

Back in 1918 the only choice that romanians from Transylvania choosed was union with Romania. This the documents are saying. A lonely and inefective voice sustaining a Transylvania federalised in AH empire (nota bene: NOT in Hungary) was of bishop Vasile Mangra, who was extremelly powerfull rejected by romanians from Transylvania. About an indepedent Transylvania romanians didnt take it like a choice in 1918 and perhaps never. I believe that the idea that in 1918 romanians from Transilvania thought about independence is a suposition apeared in the minds of some modern historians. I am not aware of such an idea or scenario in 1918 or earlier.
LE: in 1918 economical factor and development better in Transylvania that in Romania had no influence regarding the decision of union with Romania. Romanian transylvanian politicians from 1918 were aware about the economical superiority of Transylvania upon Romania, but didnt take it into account when they decided to unite with Romania. The same thought the romanian masses from Transylvania. National aspirations prevailed overwhelming upon economical ones.

Posted by: Dénes December 16, 2011 12:40 pm

QUOTE (Imperialist @ December 16, 2011 05:26 pm)

The national wealth produced by Romanian industry went from 1.171 million Lei in 1912-1914 (Old Kingdom) to 1.837 million Lei in 1920-1922 (Great Romania).

Your "proof" is totally wrong, Imp. What you have shown is what Rumania could produce with the industry it gained following the annexation of Transylvania and the other regions to the pre-war "smaller Rumania".

You must compare apples to apples and so on. In this case, you have to find data on the industrial output of the regions in Transylvania, Banat and the "Hungarian Lands" while under the AH Monarchy, and compare those to the difference in the industrial figures between the so-called "smaller" and "greater" Rumania.

It would be interesting to see the actual results.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Imperialist December 16, 2011 03:07 pm

QUOTE (Dénes @ December 16, 2011 12:40 pm)

QUOTE (Imperialist @ December 16, 2011 05:26 pm)

The national wealth produced by Romanian industry went from 1.171 million Lei in 1912-1914 (Old Kingdom) to 1.837 million Lei in 1920-1922 (Great Romania).

The data I provided shows that the amount of industrial wealth that the new provinces added to Romania was not that great. Slightly above 50% of pre-union levels.

Number of industrial establishments with over 20 employees:

Old Kingdom - 1886 - 236
Transylvania - 1890 - 210

I'll try to find out more in-depth data on Transylvania but doing so is difficult because after T. became part of Hungary all economic data was tallied for the whole of Hungary, and was not province-specific.

The general picture I got after swifting through the material I had at my disposal is that Transylania was indeed better industrialized, but not by a huge amount.

Posted by: mihnea December 16, 2011 03:13 pm

@Imperialist: You are comparing pears and apples, the national wealth before and after a war that involved Romania 100% (percentage wise WWI is the hardest war for our country) so even if you would compare "Small" Romania pre and post war the result would show a very abrupt decline in wealth.

No I have no data I'm basing my statement on common sense and knowledge of the situation around those years. Arad had some important factories and the industry was not based solely on raw materials.

EDIT: You also have to compare % (reporting to poupaliton) not just numbers.

Posted by: Imperialist December 16, 2011 03:39 pm

QUOTE (mihnea @ December 16, 2011 03:13 pm)

I was not the one that made a table comparing national wealth by sector in 1912-1914 with national wealth by sector in 1920-1922, a bunch of economists did.

BTW, in the meantime I found another bit of crucial data that may seal the deal so to speak.

Here is the contribution to the country's industrial potential after the Union:

Old Kingdom - 41% of number of industrial companies, 55% of production value
Transylvania - 37% of number of companies, 27% of production value*

The difference to 100% consisted of Basarabia's and Bucovina's contribution.

*Istoria Economiei, Editura Economica, 2003, pg.215

Posted by: mihnea December 16, 2011 03:47 pm

At what date are those % and the investments made by the central government immediately after war gun manly in the part of the country affected more by the war and that is Muntenia.

Those economists were stupid to compare apples and pears.

But this only supports my statement that Transilvania was able to support itself if they would have been independent. But we all know that the decision from 1918 was manly emotional and was probably the wright one in the long term.

Posted by: Imperialist December 16, 2011 04:04 pm

QUOTE (mihnea @ December 16, 2011 03:47 pm)

Transylvania most likely had a lead in the industrial sector throughout the second half of the 19th century but after the Old Kingdom gained independence it started to catch up fast.

The idea of Transylvania as an industrial power-house that joins a largely agrarian Old Kingdom turns out to be just another myth. At best both were similarly industrialized. And for both the main industry was the extractive one.

One important difference though was that having a smaller population meant that T. had a higher GDP per capita, hence better standards of living. Although one has to wonder - given the fact that most Romanians were living in rural areas, how much of that well being actually trickled down to them?

Posted by: Agarici December 16, 2011 05:24 pm

QUOTE (Imperialist @ December 16, 2011 04:04 pm)

QUOTE (mihnea @ December 16, 2011 03:47 pm)

Those economists were stupid to compare apples and pears.

Mihnea, I see no comparison between apples and pears there.

I fully agree with Imperialist.

Posted by: mihnea December 16, 2011 05:35 pm

To be clearer this is what I consider stupid (I did not see the post with % when I made that statmen the posts are 8min apart):

QUOTE (Imperialist @ December 16, 2011 01:26 pm)

The national wealth produced by Romanian industry went from 1.171 million Lei in 1912-1914 (Old Kingdom) to 1.837 million Lei in 1920-1922 (Great Romania).

The rise is obvious, bigger country, bigger economy. It' exactly like comparing apples and pears.

Posted by: mihnea December 16, 2011 05:44 pm

QUOTE (Imperialist @ December 16, 2011 06:04 pm)

I fully agree with your statement, Transilvania was not anymore very far ahead in front of the "Old Kingdom" but still it's capabilities were not to be underestimated and further more it didn't needed Romania to survive in 1918. On the other hand the Romanian poulation of Transilvania was considered 2 rate and faced a series of disadvantages as well as discrimination. But I was referring to Transilvania as a hole not only the Romanians that lived there and they were obviously going to gain a lot from the unification.

Posted by: Florin December 16, 2011 05:52 pm

I do not recall to read in the previous messages posted here that the agreements signed in France after WWI asked Romania to take over a part of the war reparation asked toward the Austro-Hungarian Empire, on the reasoning that by taking over a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Romania should be responsible with a part of the war reparation. Maybe my mind is biased as Romanian, but I think this was not fair from our Western Allies, considering how much the Romanian nation sacrificed during WWI.

If Transylvania would start as an independent state in 1918, would be very short lived (see Ukraine in the same period). One of the neighbors around would try to grab it (either Romania or Hungary), igniting a war with the other part. This also happened in the real world: the war between Romania and Hungary in 1919 happened of course because of Transylvania. The ideological differences (Communist vs. Capitalist) were less important at that moment.

Posted by: MMM December 16, 2011 05:59 pm

QUOTE (mihnea @ December 16, 2011 08:44 pm)

I was referring to Transilvania as a hole

C'mon, man!!!!! Somebody will get extremely offended!!!!

On topic, it is very much a comparison between apples and pears, because whereas (smaller) Romania was an independent country, Transylvania was not; thus, the "data" interpreted by the economists can be watched as irrelevant, or, at least, not very objective. One always tends to present the facts in a light that would favor his interpretation: "If the facts don't suit the conclusions, change the facts!"

Posted by: 21 inf December 16, 2011 07:14 pm

The entire discussion is futile until someone will point the romanian transylvanian who back in 1918 sustained the idea of an independent Transylvania or the idea of remaining to Hungary. Otherwise, all discussion is only a "what if" game between nowadays people.

Posted by: Agarici December 16, 2011 07:20 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ December 16, 2011 05:59 pm)

QUOTE (mihnea @ December 16, 2011 08:44 pm)

I was referring to Transilvania as a hole

C'mon, man!!!!! Somebody will get extremely offended!!!!

On topic, it is very much a comparison between apples and pears, because whereas (smaller) Romania was an independent country, Transylvania was not; thus, the "data" interpreted by the economists can be watched as irrelevant, or, at least, not very objective. One always tends to present the facts in a light that would havor his interpretation: "If the facts don't suit the conclusions, change the facts!"

It depends on the type of hole.

Posted by: 21 inf December 16, 2011 08:13 pm

@Florin: during Peace Conference at Paris in 1919-1920 the Allies tried to obtain war reparations from the so-called "state succesoare ale Austro-Ungariei" since the AH empire ceased to exist. Romania was included in this "state succesoare", together with Cehoslovacia and others, but Romania strongly oposed to be put in this category due to the fact that she didnt considered herself a succesor of AH empire, even if she included at the end of WW1 former teritories which were part of this empire. I dont know if Romania managed to opose to pay the war reparations owed in this manner, but I have to check my bibliography when I'll have time.

Posted by: ANDREAS December 16, 2011 08:53 pm

I agree with 21inf opinon about the usefulness of the discussion about Transilvania as an independent state, and also want to add that the economic viability of Transylvania as an independent state should be related to the evolution of economic relations with Hungary after 1918 (if we consider the economic ties created in the last 50 years when Transylvania was part of Hungary). Do not overlook the economic leverage who was in the hands of Hungarian, Jewish and German minorities in Transylvania before 1918 (closely related to the former Austro-Hungarian administration) which by virtue of inertia if not their own interests would had maintained close ties with Hungary, after 1918!

Posted by: mihnea December 16, 2011 10:15 pm

OFF TOPIC: People, wake up it's just a hypotetical discussion about a fact that already happen, we cannot change the past.

This is a discussion about the choice for Transilvania as a region (not the population) in 1918, and in my opinion it had had 3 options: A Independence; B Union with Romania; C Union with Hungary. But, and this is very important the fact, the majority, Romanians, wanted the union with Romania and this sealed the deal.

We are talking about the economy not the Romanians that lived in Transilvania and were considered "2 rate" people, most being part of the lower blanket of society.

And obviously like any discussion about a choice that happened it can be considered useless.

Posted by: Florin December 17, 2011 05:57 am

QUOTE (mihnea @ December 16, 2011 05:15 pm)

OFF TOPIC: People, wake up it's just a hypotetical discussion about a fact that already happen, we cannot change the past.
.................................

At least from the text presentation, it looks to me that no one taking part in this topic want to change the past (if that would be possible...).
Am I missing something ?

Posted by: 21 inf December 17, 2011 06:00 am

Transylvania was better developed economically in 1918 than Romania, but was underdeveloped economically in comparison with other provinces of AH empire. Transylvanian economy in 1918 couldnt provide the basic needs for the population of the province if it wanted to go independently.

Posted by: Florin December 17, 2011 06:03 am

QUOTE (21 inf @ December 16, 2011 03:13 pm)

So eventually did Romania pay those war reparations or not? It seems to be another unclear subject among historians. The way I learned it (I don't have books on hand right now) is that Romania paid them.

Posted by: Florin December 17, 2011 06:11 am

QUOTE (21 inf @ December 17, 2011 01:00 am)

In 1918...1919 all European economies were doing poorly and the people from the Central Powers and from the former Russian Empire were starving. And the Romanians were on the brink of starvation as well...
In normal times, I think Transylvania could survive on her own, if different nationalities could get along. It has planes and hills good for crops, it has all kind of raw materials, and in some parts, like Deva / Hunedoara, the industry was more than one century old by 1918.

P.S.: This does not mean I would like it, and of course I would not change the past, even if I could travel in time.

Posted by: 21 inf December 17, 2011 07:59 am

I mean that during AH empire rule Transylvania was way underdeveloped economically in comparison with other AH provinces. Mentioning 1918 year was my mistake, I was not refering only to that year. Of course, even with this underdevelopment, Transylvania was above Romania economically, but unable to sustain itself. Generally speaking, AH empire had an old problem with its economy, starting from XVIIIth century. It managed to keep it's economy at a basis level, but this was well lower in comparison with other european western powers.

Posted by: mihnea December 17, 2011 09:39 am

The mention with "not changing the past" means that we can have a relaxed discussion on this subject. As the emotional factor started to appear in a previous post made by 21inf regarding the will point of the romanian transylvanian in 1918. And no I don't want to change the past... well there might be some personal decisions that I would change but that's off topic.

AH problem was poor management not the absence of resources/industry. Transilvania had everything a small state needed, it would have been harder to be independent, but not impossible.

Posted by: Radub December 17, 2011 10:15 am

QUOTE (mihnea @ December 17, 2011 09:39 am)

Well, it is possible that this is just an attempt to continue here the discussion closed there.

I am surprised no one is "offended" yet by the "notion" that Transylvania could be "anything other that Romanian."

Radu

Posted by: ANDREAS December 17, 2011 11:35 am

Because, during the discussions, it was mentioned the higher economic development of Transylvania comparing to Romania, I give a exemple from the book "Populatia Romaniei" Dr. S.Manuila and D.C.Georgescu 1937, M.O. Imprimeria Nationala, Bucuresti situation available for 1930: Transylvania included a population representing 30,7% of that of Romania, had 31,8% of all households from Romania, had 31,5% of all buildings existing in Romania, had 34,5% of the total Romanian enterprises and contributed with 41,4% of industrial output of Romania. But I agree this situation is after more than 10 years from the unification with Romania!

Posted by: Imperialist December 17, 2011 11:43 am

QUOTE (mihnea @ December 17, 2011 09:39 am)

AH problem was poor management not the absence of resources/industry. Transilvania had everything a small state needed, it would have been harder to be independent, but not impossible.

Transylvania and the Old Kingdom were economically compatible. The Old Kingdom had oil but didn't have coal, something that Transylvania had. The O.K. had plenty of grains but not much timber, Transylvania had timber but needed wheat. And so on.

With the large Austro-Hungarian common market gone, the successor states adopted economic nationalism and each sought to industrialize themselves. So all kinds of barriers appeared that affected the free trade and subsequent economic specialization that the AH had established. They also sought to form large markets - the Czechs joined the Slovaks, the Croats joined the Slovenes and Serbs etc. I think it would have been economically difficult for an independent Transylvania and just as difficult for a Romania without it.

Posted by: MMM December 17, 2011 01:26 pm

QUOTE (ANDREAS @ December 17, 2011 02:35 pm)

Oh, that book must be true, is it? What does it say about Bessarabia? I mean, with Hungary perceived as an all-time-present threat, the utmost interest was to presebt Transylvania as being Romanian! IMO, at least...

Posted by: Agarici December 17, 2011 02:53 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ December 17, 2011 01:26 pm)

QUOTE (ANDREAS @ December 17, 2011 02:35 pm)

???

Posted by: ANDREAS December 17, 2011 03:02 pm

@MMM
Sorry, I don't think I understand what you talking about?
Do you want to know the ethnic percentages in Transylvanis or economic situation of Bessarabia as it is presented there?

Posted by: Dénes December 17, 2011 04:02 pm

QUOTE (21 inf @ December 17, 2011 01:14 am)

I am sorry to 'kill' an illusion (a spulbera o iluzie), but there were Rumanians from Transylvania, who advocated either the status quo (i.e., Transylvania to remain part of Hungary, with a degree of autonomy), or who believed in an independent Transylvania, as a country separate from both Hungary and Rumania.

I searched for the references to support the above statement, but could not find them yet. However, what I did find in a book was the enclosed poster, without any further explanation. When could this be issued and popularised?

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/542/independenttransylvania.jpg/

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: 21 inf December 17, 2011 04:32 pm

QUOTE (Dénes @ December 17, 2011 06:02 pm)

QUOTE (21 inf @ December 17, 2011 01:14 am)

I am sorry to 'kill' an illusion (a spulbera o iluzie),

@Denes: This propaganda leaflet you posted is a very strong proof to sustain that "some" romanians wanted to reject union? My opinion is that the leaflet was not even writen by a romanian. The leaflet it is even hilarious if it was suposed to be written by a romanian transylvanian: which "our" army was disbanded in Basarabia?? The whole text of the leaflet is a so stupid propaganda that in the era only really idiot people could believe it.

LE: the stupidity of the leaflet is that Iuliu Maniu was in fact a strong partisan of union with Romania. Maniu was the one who declared in late november 1918 at Arad to Oszkar Jaszi, minister of nationalities from Hungary, that romanians from Transylvania want to break relations with Hungary and union with Romania. To cite from memory the discussion from these 2 men:

- O. Jaszi: What do you want, romanians from Transylvania?
-I. Maniu: Teljes elszakadas. Rupere totala. Total breaking.

After that, Oszkar Jaszi left Arad. Maniu and other romanian politicians went out of the building (today the townhall of Arad), which was surounded by more than 10.000 romanians who atended the meeting that day. A group of romanian students went to Maniu and asked him to return to the meeting room and to declare union with Romania on the spot. Maniu and others replied that it would be easy to do so, but it would be better to make the union as a free will of romanians from Transylvania, not as a will of a few politicians. So he went back in the room and established the National Gathering from Alba Iulia to be on 1st of december (new style) 1918, 2 weeks from the day the discusion with Jaszi was.

Check THIS out

. ROmanian propaganda http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/850/fratiromani.jpg/

Anyway, Denes, what's the point anyway that you keep sustain that a small part of romanians from Transylvania didnt want union with Romania (I am sure that a small number of transylvanian hungarians didnt wanted Transylvania united with Hungary and sustained union with Romania in 1918. Is this relevant for the general hungarian atitude in 1918)?? Since when the opinion of a small number part of the population prevail on the opinion of majority part of the population??

Posted by: Agarici December 17, 2011 04:55 pm

QUOTE (Dénes @ December 17, 2011 04:02 pm)

QUOTE (21 inf @ December 17, 2011 01:14 am)

I hate to disappoint you, Denes, but I'm pretty sure the leaflet was launched in 1940, in the days after the loss of Basarabia, and during/immediately after the days of the cessation of Cadrilater and N-V Transylvania. It requested for an independent Transylvania, in order for the province not to be included in Hungary. As far as I know, the episode was considered a populist stain in Maniu’s career, even if it might have been inspired by some of his followers in National Peasants Party, without his initial knowledge. However, it didn’t make too much of a stir, since the widespread and commonly held belief in those days was that anything is preferable to the annexation by Hungary - a fact unfortunately confirmed latter by the abuses and killings perpetrated by the elements from the Hungarian army, civilian population and administrative authorities.

Another possibility is that the poster was a piece of Hungarian irredentist and subversive propaganda (see the “illiterate” spelling), tons of which were smuggled and distributed across the frontier in 1938-1940, as R. V. Bossy, the Romanian ambassador in Budapest, mentions in his memoirs.

As for the voices claming an autonomous or independent Transylvania, I’m not aware of any of those. I don’t say they did not exist, but the fact was made irrelevant by the referendum and its credentials sent for/at the 1 December gathering. What I do know is that when, towards the end of the war, the new A-H emperor (Karl I) came with the idea of transforming the empire into a federation, the Transylvanian Romanians (among other nations within the empire) did not agree. So if they did not in a year in a moment in which Romania was reduced to the territory of Moldova and Russia was asking for peace, why would they do that (or even worse than a confederation, an autonomy as a part of Hungary) in 1918, after the Central Powers defeat?

Posted by: 21 inf December 17, 2011 05:06 pm

The declaration of Woodrow Wilson from 1918:

1. No more secret agreements ("Open covenants openly arrived at").

2. Free navigation of all seas.

3. An end to all economic barriers between countries.

4. Countries to reduce weapon numbers.

5. All decisions regarding the colonies should be impartial

6. The German Army is to be removed from Russia. Russia should be left to develop her own political set-up.

7. Belgium should be independent like before the war.

8. France should be fully liberated and allowed to recover Alsace-Lorraine

9. All Italians are to be allowed to live in Italy. Italy's borders are to "along clearly recognisable lines of nationality."

10. Self-determination should be allowed for all those living in Austria-Hungary.

11. Self-determination and guarantees of independence should be allowed for the Balkan states.

12. The Turkish people should be governed by the Turkish government. Non-Turks in the old Turkish Empire should govern themselves.

13. An independent Poland should be created which should have access to the sea.

14. A League of Nations should be set up to guarantee the political and territorial independence of all states.

Posted by: mihnea December 17, 2011 06:54 pm

Ah it's another lost topic, exactly what I was fearing 21inf's post form December 16, 2011 09:14 pm stared a emotional discussion regarding transilvania. How gives a damn for economics, emotional topics about Transilvania are a lot more interesting.

Posted by: Dénes December 17, 2011 07:17 pm

21inf and Agarici, I did not state this leaflet was issued in 1918. It was actually I who asked when was it possible issued? Check again my post.
Nevertheless of the date of issue, it is a proof that at a certain point there was a Rumanian movement for the independence of Transylvania, as asked earlier by 21inf. - see his quote on the top of my post.

Returning to the economic side of the story, I will keep looking for relevant info (I stumbled across this leaflet exactly when checking my refrences).

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: MMM December 17, 2011 08:20 pm

QUOTE (ANDREAS @ December 17, 2011 06:02 pm)

@MMM
Sorry, I don't think I understand what you talking about?
Do you want to know the ethnic percentages in Transylvanis or economic situation of Bessarabia as it is presented there?

Yeah, but only if you can look at them with the proverbial "grain of salt", or - even better - corroborate them with other sources! (sorry, but that's what's called "objective account" of history, as opposed to wishful thinking...)

Posted by: 21 inf December 18, 2011 06:19 am

Denes, there were back in 1918 a number of transylvanian hungarians who sustained the union of Transylvania with Romania.

Posted by: Dénes December 18, 2011 10:31 am

21inf and others, please do not steer off the topic. You keep posting issues that are not relevant to the topic, namely Transylvania's choices in 1918 (in this case independence, version C from Mihnea's scenarios, or more precisely the economic aspect if Transylvania went independent). This in order the topic not to degenerate and draw early closure by the Admin. Thanks.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: 21 inf December 18, 2011 01:07 pm

Denes, I didnt went off-topic. You posted the leaflet who has no link with economical issues. You mentioned again the romanians who oposed union and I mentioned in consequence about hungarian who wanted union with Romania. Who says that their option (romanians, as well as hungarians) wasnt based on economical issues? (even if their numbers were insignifiant, but it seems that this small number have a great importance for you, I am curious why is so relevant to you

)

From my part, if admins want to close this topic too, let it be, if it is considered a democratic way to solve discussions. Maybe it will be better to be opened separate topics to discuss all issues, if discussions are going off topic. There are interesting point of view who some forumist are expressing, it is true that most of them are not sustained with documents, but who am I, a half-true speaker citing the documents I have readed during years, as some guys from here put the label on me, to comment on those opinions?

LE: anyway, I'll keep away from this issues, as I see that I was acused that I started emotional discussions about the subject. Actually, I used more document based opinions more than many other forumist fellows, who just kept playing with "what if" scenarios. Have a further nice discussion here, guys!

Posted by: ANDREAS December 18, 2011 01:55 pm

21 inf,
I appreciate your interventions and I think they are on topic! The fact that some members (I do want them to understand that I am pointed exactly to them!!!) are bothered by your opinions, it's exactly their problem, actually for me to have a different opinion is a professional obligation (to speak like that), and, in fact, of this difference, we approach the truth! I am sorry to say, that apparently innocent words are in fact diversions, which, as an transylvanian, I feel more often, compered to others from other parts of our country! If you want to be on topic, dear members, please make the numbers talk and not you, bring documents and not share impressions to us! Thanks!

Posted by: ANDREAS December 18, 2011 02:11 pm

@MMM
I guess I understand your point, you doubt the credibility of the figures published in the book! Well what can I say? I quoted from this book because it's the one I have... On the other hand I give you a link where are other figures more accurate, since they are from 1919 ... at least so says the author:
http://www.istoriatransilvaniei.ro/vol2/v2c5.pdf

Posted by: Agarici December 18, 2011 07:37 pm

QUOTE (Dénes @ December 17, 2011 07:17 pm)

OK, now I’ve got the idea, but still don’t know what to say about the poster. I know that there was a rather vague and unclear “Maniu + autonomy” episode as described in my previous post, in the context of the turmoil generated in Transylvania by the Vienna decision - in many major cities taking place popular gatherings requesting for the government to reverse the decision (cessation), for Romanian army not to withdraw and/or for the civilians to organize their (armed) resistance. Their main target (at least for the politicians) was king Carol.

On the other hand, I maintain the opinion that, given the awful grammar, the leaflet may be a piece of adverse/subversive propaganda.

Posted by: 21 inf December 18, 2011 08:36 pm

Agarici, you risk to steer off the topic, as I did

Posted by: contras December 18, 2011 08:42 pm

There were many propaganda leaflets sent by Hungary in those days, are many references about it in memories of those who were part of events. But I can't understand how Maniu could be part of it, because his mother was taken hostage by Hungarian guards and was exchanged later with the father of Bela Kuhn.

Posted by: Florin December 19, 2011 04:33 am

QUOTE (Dénes @ December 17, 2011 11:02 am)

In regard to question "when ?", the text is mentioning that Bessarabia was lost, and Dobrogea is at the brink of being lost. This looks like the late summer of 1940.

Now, regarding who did it... The fact that the text is in Romanian (with some obvious grammar mistakes) is not a proof that it was issued by Romanians.
The political world of interbelic Romania was indeed divided, but at least all Romanian parties had in common the will to keep Romania united.

Posted by: Florin December 19, 2011 04:22 pm

QUOTE (contras @ December 18, 2011 03:42 pm)

....... But I can't understand how Maniu could be part of it, because his mother was taken hostage by Hungarian guards and was exchanged later with the father of Bela Kuhn.

Wow !

So that war was more than business... It was personal.

Posted by: IoanTM January 11, 2012 09:46 am

Even if it's a little old one - this is an interesting discussion anyway !

For my personal understanding, Mihnea - when you mention "Independent Transylvania" you consider just "core-Transylvania" or also all Western region gained by Romania in 1918-1919 ?

I asked this because ... Banat region was independent ( and recognized as so by Hungary ) for ... few weeks until the Serbian Army invaded it.

This is just as an indication of real chances for such an alternative ...

And also it worth to note that Banat region provided a lot of industrial output claimed to be from "Transylvania" - without which ... probably the general level of province/region would be even more comparable to Old Kingdom median output/GDP and so on.

Posted by: Speedy June 27, 2012 02:00 pm

Hello all of you,

I am a bit confused, about the title...Transilvania's choice in 1918...well, this is not the best title to be given. Let me explain, the war ended after the Romanian-Hungarian war, in 1919, when the Romanian Army occupied Budapest.
I think this aspect is very relevant when you are speaking about Transilvania as an independent state.
As we all know, back then, and even now, independence is won in battle, in 1877, Romania won it's independence.
In 1920, at Trianon, Romania secured it's independence by signing that treatty.
The ones who speak about Transilvania as an independent state, disregard this argument, Transilvania was not a separate state inside the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it was a part of Hungary, it had no army of it's own, no government of it;s own, no parliament of its own, no justice system of it's own.
When is said that Transilvania was richer then the Kingdom ( Vechiul Regat), no one is saying were exactly the comparisson was made.
Indeed the industry was more developed, agriculture was more develepod, but the gains from this were sent to Vienna and to Budapest.
If you visit the History Museum in Vienna, there you can see a large quantity of gold objects that came from Transilvania...why Vienna? why not Cluj ? if indeed Transilvania had a choice in 1918...
As I said above, Hungary accepted Transilvania to be out of their control only with the romanian flag on top of the hungarian parliamnet in Budapest....in any other situation, Transilvania would have been still a region inside Hungary...and all forms of romanian culture would have seeisd to exist.
The romanian people would have been transformed in hungarians by name changes, lack of romanian schools and so on...

Transilvania was the source for prime materials for Austro-Hungary, romanians in Transilvania were the cheap workforce that was exploited.
The major cityes were inhabited by hungarians and germans, who had more civil rights then the romanian majority that was kept in a poor state of education, and had access to limited financial resources.
I think all of you red Liviu Rebreanu's novel Ion, where the sad reality of the romanian majority was presented.

I'm not a nationalist, but i know both sides of the story, my grandmother was from Transilvania, and the rest of my family was from Bucharest.
I'm sure that in 1918, this topic was not on the agenda, no one wanted an independent Transilvania, the act from Alba Iulia was more important.