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) > Romanian-Hungarian border 1918/1920

Posted by: MMM February 06, 2013 03:41 pm

split from http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=6669

QUOTE (Dénes @ February 06, 2013 05:09 pm)

QUOTE (MMM @ February 06, 2013 07:53 pm)

...would a "Green" leadership still have attacked Romania?

I doubt it, because there were hundreds and hundreds of km to Rumania. Remember, Rumanian troops were deep inside Hungary in April 1919.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. What do you mean by "your" government?

Sorry about "your" government part, but due to your attitude I thought (at a sub-conscious level) that you identify yourself with the Hungarian state, in its various territorial / political phases... If you're not, well, that was my impression...

Now back to the issue: perhaps we should agree on the territorial size of Hungary and Romania in april 1919. What do you say?

Posted by: Dénes February 06, 2013 06:29 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ February 06, 2013 09:41 pm)

Your impression is wrong. I try to keep myself equidistant from all parties.

As for the borders, they were officially set by the Trianon Peace Treaty, which was signed on 4 June 1920 and took effect in 1921.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: MMM February 06, 2013 07:10 pm

QUOTE (Dénes @ February 06, 2013 09:29 pm)

the borders, they were officially set by the Trianon Peace Treaty, which was signed on 4 June 1920 and took effect in 1921.

Gen. Dénes

So the borders in april 1919 were set in 1920?!

I thought it was the other way around: the borders resulting from the 1919 conflict were sanctioned by "them" (Trianon), because I was wondering from what borders did you get "hundreds of kilometres" inside the Hungarian borders in april 1919.

Posted by: Dénes February 06, 2013 07:33 pm

I thought it's very clear: the new borders were set by the Trianon Peace Treaty (it did not condone the situation on the field, as the Rumanians wanted a border in the middle of the Hungarian puszta). Until then, officially the Nov. 1918 borders were in effect.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: MMM February 06, 2013 07:43 pm

QUOTE (Dénes @ February 06, 2013 10:33 pm)

What would "officially" mean? Officially not recognizing the Alba-Iulia 1-st. of December 1918 event?

Posted by: contras February 06, 2013 08:02 pm

QUOTE

Remember, Rumanian troops were deep inside Hungary in April 1919.

Denes, I'm sure you are wrong. Transylvania was part of Hungary in 1919?

Posted by: Dénes February 06, 2013 08:12 pm

QUOTE (contras @ February 07, 2013 02:02 am)

QUOTE

Remember, Rumanian troops were deep inside Hungary in April 1919.

Denes, I'm sure you are wrong. Transylvania was part of Hungary in 1919?

De jure yes, de facto no.
Check the text of the Treaty.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. We are getting off topic.

Posted by: MMM February 06, 2013 08:29 pm

We ARE getting off-topic, so please, moderators, split the last posts to a new topic, whatever title should that one have...
We'll continue the discussion there, de facto...

Anyway, just for curiosity, the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty was de jure in effect in 1919, Denes?

Posted by: Dénes February 07, 2013 06:51 am

QUOTE (MMM @ February 07, 2013 02:29 am)

Anyway, just for curiosity, the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty was de jure in effect in 1919, Denes?

I don't know. Check the date it was signed then ratified by the signing parties. These are juridical issues.

There is no point to split the thread because there is really nothing to discuss.

Let's stick to the original topic.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: MMM February 07, 2013 02:56 pm

QUOTE (Dénes @ February 07, 2013 09:51 am)

These are juridical issues.

... and the earlier post in which you write about "de jure" and "de facto" does NOT refer to juridical issues?

Or does it?!
PS: thanks, Victor, for the "cleaning job"!