| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > WW1 and Regional Wars (1912-1919) > 1st December 1918 |
| Posted by: 21 inf December 18, 2011 01:16 pm |
| In order not to have another topic closed, I propose a discussion about the period from october 1918 to 1st December 1918 in Transylvania. Let's have a document based discussion if posible. Let's see how Transylvania went united to Romania and why the other 2 choices (independence or union with Hungary) were ignored. I dont want an emotional discussion, let's just have the evidence we have. |
| Posted by: 21 inf December 19, 2011 04:21 am |
No info or no guts?  |
| Posted by: Dénes December 19, 2011 06:12 am |
| No time, if you refer to me. By the way, if you indeed intend to analyse the events, you must start with 1916 (secret deals with Rumania) and finish in 1920 (Trianon Peace Treaty and retreat of Rumanian army beyond the new Western frontiers). Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: 21 inf December 19, 2011 07:38 am |
| No,Denes, I didnt refered to you . Anyway, the idea you propose is a start! |
| Posted by: contras December 19, 2011 08:54 am |
| I think the turning point of those events are Arad negotiations between Stefan Cicio Pop and Iuliu Maniu with Oskar Jassy. Those negotiations failed, and Romanians decided to ask the population via Alba Iulia referendum. |
| Posted by: 21 inf December 19, 2011 09:41 am |
| The negociations from Arad failed, but the decision of union was already issued at Oradea in october 1918 in the house of dr Aurel Lazar. |
| Posted by: Dénes December 19, 2011 11:15 am | ||
Wrong. The Rumanian National Committee did not ask the population in a referendum, but rather decided to issue a resolution on behalf of the Rumanian ethnics of Transylvania, Banat and the Hungarian Lands. Big difference. A real and democratic way to ask the population would have been a real referendum in all territories affected by the proposal to unite with Rumania. Gen. Dénes P.S. The Hungarian Minister of Nationalities was properly called Oszkár Jászi. |
| Posted by: 21 inf December 19, 2011 03:54 pm |
| Denes, based on the structure and organisation of Marea Adunare Naţională, it was a referendum. The "credenţionale" presented at Alba Iulia from all localities inhabited by romanians show that it was a popular consultation. At a first glance, the referendum targeted the romanian population from Transylvania and other parts inhabited by romanians in Hungary. The question is (I didnt studied the issue yet): the hungarian and saxon population was invited to this referendum? At the referendum's results the saxons later subscribed. Other question is: was it compulsory to invite at the referendum the other nationalities? |
| Posted by: Florin December 19, 2011 04:32 pm | ||
Denes mentioned previously in another topic that there was a separate referendum of the Hungarian population, a kind of mirror of Alba Iulia, somewhere else in Transylvania. If he has time, he can refresh our memory with details or provide a link to the other topic in worldwar2.ro |
| Posted by: Radub December 19, 2011 04:42 pm |
| An assembly of representatives can only ask for a referendum/plebiscite. Then, the population has to vote individually, one man=one vote. There are clear conditions as to what makes such a thing a referendum. The referenda/plebiscites MUST be clearly called so. If it is not clearly called a referendum, then it is just a vote or resolution. That is the case in all referenda. Check the constitution. For example, our parliament is formed by representatives sent there by voters. In other words, when you send your local deputy to the parliament, he is your voice in the paliament. BUT, in the case of a referendum, if a deputy is sent there by 10000 votses, one deputy cannot vote on behalf of 10000 people in a referendum. Each of those 10000 people has to vote individually and the deputy is suddenly nothing more that just person No. 10001. Is it compulsory for all people to participate in a referendum? That depends if it is mandatory or facultative. But the main rule of referenda is that everyone affected must have a say. Radu |
| Posted by: Florin December 19, 2011 04:44 pm |
| Eastern and Central Europe after WWI were of course not perfect. Transylvania was not the only place with a part of people unhappy regarding their status quo. In Czechoslovakia there were the German and Hungarian minorities, in Poland there were the Ukraineans, in Jugoslavia there were the Croats, the Slovenians and the Hungarians. What really made the situation difficult in Transylvania is the fact that the bulk of the Hungarian and German minorities were concentrated far away from the Hungarian border, and you cannot link those communities with Hungary unless you swallow big chunks of land with Romanian overwhelming majority. |
| Posted by: MMM December 19, 2011 05:13 pm | ||
Actually, the country with the "purest" ethnicity was Hungary, as it was quite harshly configured, ethnically and territorially... I don't exactly know of Austria, but from all the Central and East European states, Hungary had the smallest percentage of minorities - I suppose Denes could concur with that affirmation!  |
| Posted by: 21 inf December 19, 2011 06:05 pm |
| First of all, about what Radub mentioned how a referendum is to be organised, in 1918 there was no government in Transylvania, unless the govern from Budapest was considered legal after breaking apart from Austria. The hungarian government, in the person of Oszkar Jaszi, accepted in november 1918 the power of Consiliul Naţional Român as the representative political power in Transylvania. Second, regarding the same issue, romanians organised actually this kind of referendum. In each locality inhabited by romanians were signed "credenţionale". This were documents in which any romanian from a locality could sign in favor of the union with Romania. The document was autentificated by a local authority. All credentionals were given to deputies from each locality and sent to Alba Iulia. All credentionals are still existing today and can be consulted. Third: all the other nationalities who broke their teritories from AH in 1918 had NO referendum at all. They made their new states based on declarations of independence issued by a handfull of politicians. Only romanians held a referendum, even if a political declaration was issued in october 1918 at Oradea. Forth> @MMM> I dont know from were you get the information about lower percentage of minorities in Hungary during AH empire. Can you point the percentanges and make a comparison with your reference in order to see if it was really like that? |
| Posted by: 21 inf December 19, 2011 06:17 pm |
| 2 examples of "credenţionale" from the thousands existing. http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/17/photo1jiq.jpg/ http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/824/photoyt.jpg/ |
| Posted by: Radub December 19, 2011 06:29 pm |
| There is no denial that some people were deputised to represent a group, but in a referendum, each person must vote individually. One man one vote. That is the constitution. A refereendum MUST be called a "referendum". Yes, politicians use the term haphazardly, like "this election is a referendum on our economy", but that is just rhetoric, it does not make it actually a referendum. Radu |
| Posted by: Dénes December 19, 2011 07:11 pm |
| 21 inf., I really appreciate your efforts to present the idealistic view on the events surrounding the 1 Dec. 1918 resolution. This by trying to present some documents and sources, without calling the others idiot, etc. Very commendable attitude. However, as I've already said, almost every sentence of yours can be countered. Not because you willingly twist the facts, but because the facts are presented in Rumanian literature unilaterally and biased. This is why in a reasonable dispute one MUST ALWAYS consult the other side, too. Otherwise the story is a biased and historically inaccurate one. The definition of a referendum is clear and there is no room for interpretation: one person=one vote, done individually, without influence, and not through a representative. The 1 Dec. 1918 events were anything but referendum, it was a statement done in the name of the Rumanian ethnics living in Transylvania, Banat and the Hungarian Lands. That's it. As regards Hungary, the Entente repeatedly refused to hold referendums in disputed areas, to ask directly the local population of their will how they want to shape their own future. This because the facts have already been decided long before Dec. 1918. However, there was one single exception, when the local population earned with armed resistance the right to hold a referendum on their future. That was Sopron (Oedenburg) and surrounding areas. The result of the referendum was that a German speaking majority voted to stay within Hungary and not to be annexed to Austria. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: 21 inf December 19, 2011 07:18 pm |
| Radub, if readed carefull, in the second "credenţional" it is stated: "Prezent:poporul din comuna politică Surduc". In the first one is written: "întreg poporul din comuna curat românească Albac". So, everybody who participated voted as you say>one man, one vote. This is one point. Another point is that you speak about today constitution and how a referendum is to be organised. All the other guys from here reffer to the era of WW1. If you want to make refference to the constitution of 1918 in Transylvania, could you mention at what constituiton you make the refference? In november 1918 we dont even know if it was talking about a referendum as we understand today. We here said referendum, but we have no clue in this point of discussion if back in 1918 it was named like this. |
| Posted by: Dénes December 19, 2011 07:22 pm | ||
C'mon, 21inf. There institution of the referendums was well known before Dec. 1918! As for referendum in disputed areas of Hungary, please see my above note. Gen. Dénes P.S. For the sake of accuracy, I cheked Wikipedia and in "comuna curat românească Alba" out of the 6519 people of the village 6473 were Rumanian, 16 Hungarian and the rest unidentified (data from 1910). Very close indeed, but not "purely Rumanian". |
| Posted by: contras December 19, 2011 07:47 pm | ||
What constitution? Which one? Modern constitution, in our times, is like you pointed. In 1918 there was not the "universal vote", it was one called "censitar vote", to vote zou may fulfil some conditions. And in 1918 there was not any form of regulamentar referendum, the term and the practice was not in use. Alba Iulia assembly, with "credentials", delegats and so on, was the most democratic form of referendum for those times. Other forms, like today, were not technicaly possible. |
| Posted by: ANDREAS December 19, 2011 07:57 pm |
| Without having to stray too far from the topic, I want to emphasize a point which can not be ignored - but before I have to mention that I don't know whether and to what extent this aspect was the reason or just the consequence of the convening of the Grand National Assembly in Alba Iulia! For not to be misinterpreted! This point was numerous military incidents, punitive actions and even organized military action from the the hungarian national guards and and Szekler militia, against the Romanian delegates mandated to represent the Romanian communities from all over Transylvania. Not necessarily say they were led by the government of Budapest but they were a reality nobody can deny! Do not say that they have prevented the Grand National Assembly from Alba Iulia but I say that a referendum in the current meaning of the word don't think it would have been possible under the circumstances... |
| Posted by: Radub December 19, 2011 08:02 pm |
| 21 Inf, Referendums are very precise and specific procedures. They do not happen all the time. They have very strict rules and procedures. They tend to be needed when a major change is required in the fundamental law of the state, the constitution. It takes more than "vote by the people" to make a referendum. - First of all, a referendum MUST be called a "Referendum". In Romania they were also called "plebiscit". For example, the Senate of Romania was created in the first Romanian "plebiscit" during the time of A.I. Cuza. Also, Carol I was elected by "plebiscit". - Secondly, referendum MUST have a "proposal" - this specifies clearly what amendment must be made to the constitution. The "proposal" MUST be pointed out clearly and advertised/announced in advance so that people can discuss and understand it. Referendums do not happen ad hoc, on the spot. So, if the words "referendum"/"plebiscit" were not used, then this was just a regular run-of-themill garden-variety vote. If there was no "proposal" announced well in advance, then this is not a referendum. Those "credentionals" are just the instruments by which people appointed a deputy to vote for them in an assembly. THAT in itself points out very clearly and unequivocally that this WAS NOT a referendum. In a referendum each person votes , one man=one vote. Referendumns do not permit "lists of votes" in order to avoid rigged votes. But do not take my word for it... I studied constitutional law, but you tend to think little of me... So, please ask a constitutional lawyer. So, find the word "plebiscit" ("referendum") and "propunerea" and you have your proof. Radu |
| Posted by: Dénes December 19, 2011 08:14 pm | ||
Apparently, some people don't bother reading others' posts and keep repeating the same nonsenses. So, Contras, please read what I wrote above: "However, there was one single exception, when the local population earned with armed resistance the right to hold a referendum on their future. That was Sopron (Oedenburg) and surrounding areas. The result of the referendum was that a German speaking majority voted to stay within Hungary and not to be annexed to Austria." Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: contras December 19, 2011 08:50 pm | ||
Denes, no offense, but when I write my post, yours was not put into topic. |
| Posted by: contras December 19, 2011 08:57 pm | ||
Can you tell us more, which was the modality to vote? It was "universal vote" or "censitar vote"? Or were sent delegates to express the comunity option? It is interesting to know. |
| Posted by: ANDREAS December 19, 2011 08:59 pm |
| Radu, to operate with the same units of measurement, if we want objectivity, we need to see what the other part (the leaders of the hungarian community from Transylvania) intended to do and what they actually did! The Transylvanian Hungarian Central Government Committee led by Apathy, the hungarian replica to the CNRC, made serious efforts in organizing a large popular gathering in Cluj (indeed after Alba Iulia, in mid december 1918) with the stated purpose of proclaming a Transylvanian Independent Republic! Indeed a large-scale meeting was held in Cluj in December 22, 1918, in which Apathy expressed the intention to maintain the integrity of the Hungarian State (which, by the way, was in contradiction with the intent of the meeting!). The resolution pronounced by those present there called for maintaining the integrity of the Hungarian State, in which all nationalities enjoy the broadest rights, without prejudice the unity of the state! The meeting elected a Governing Council of Transylvanian Hungarians, in order to lead the Independent Republic of Transylvania (not comment on the nature of the so-called independent republic that was almost exclusively Hungarian by his representatives!). A similar phenomenon occur in Szekely Region where, in 28 november, a Szekely Republic was proclaimed! Only the Romanian Army advance beyond the Carpathians in Szekely Region prevented further recruitments of ex-combatants for the Division led by Kratochvil. |
| Posted by: Dénes December 19, 2011 09:30 pm |
| The resolution of the general meeting held at Kolozsvár (Cluj) on 22 December 1918 was the following: „Kelet-Magyarország 1918. december 22-én Kolozsvárott összesereglett, különböző vallású és fajú népei kijelentik, hogy a Wilson-féle elvek értelmében gyakorolt önrendelkezési jogok alapján továbbra is a magyar népköztársaság és a magyar állam kereteiben kívánnak élni s az egységes és csorbítatlan Magyarország keretein belül követelik minden itt lakó nemzet számára a teljes egyenlőséget, szabadságot és önkormányzatot.” (I will translate later on). [See: http://www.hhrf.org/kisebbsegkutatas/kk_2000_02/cikk.php?id=246] Shortly, in this popular meeting of between 40,000 and 120,000 people, including representants of 300 Saxon villages, as well as several Rumanians (two names are mentioned: the social-democrat Sava Strengar-Demian from Arad and Gheorghe Avramescu, the Rumanian workers' leader), it was declared that the participants and the people they represented intended to stay within the Hungarian state, in line with the Wilson doctrines. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Radub December 19, 2011 09:38 pm |
| Andreas, I do not know why you addressed all that to me.  I never referred or even hinted at any of the stuff you listed in your address to me. Maybe you intended it for someone else?I am strictly referring to the legal understanding of the term "referendum" and how it applies to 1 December. What happened on 1 December 1918 was great and historic, but nothing about it (purpose, format, procedure, voting method) meets the criteria of a "referendum". "Marea Adunare Nationala" (Great National Assembly) does not describe a "referendum". This does not invalidate or even detract from the declaration issued taken there. Equally, calling it "referendum" does not give it a grater importance. It will still remain a historic and important event by just calling it what it was always called: "Rezolutiunea Adunarii Nationale". Referendums are usually called when constitutional matters need to be addressed. Here is the list of referendums held in Romania http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum Radu |
| Posted by: ANDREAS December 19, 2011 10:08 pm |
| @Denes Indeed, the meeting was attended also by representatives of several Saxon communities from Transylvania, but the call to meeting was from the start made to the non-Romanian communities from Transylvania! And indeed two romanians you mentioned made speeches in which they expressed the maintenance of Transylvania in the Hungarian State! However, as one of the two speakers was from Arad, it is easy to imagine his representativeness |
| Posted by: ANDREAS December 19, 2011 10:19 pm |
| @Radub What I wanted to point out is that the process of popular expression (in the form of Great National Assembly from Alba Iulia) in that time was not less representative, an attempt to imitate it was also tried by the Hungarian community from Transylvania! But now I understand your position! |
| Posted by: 21 inf December 20, 2011 12:16 am |
| Denes, you seem to search all the time for "cuiul lui Pepelea". Albac was not "curat românească" only because there were 16 hungarians at more than 6.000 romanians (you bet those 16 hungarians were functionaries and not locals? ); 2 romanians were involved in a hungarian meeting, so the romanians were the same opinion with hungarians, hm. You have the same ideas before and I kindly asked you to explain yourself why this insignifiant numbers make the difference for you, but you replied nothing. I am very curious why you take on this insignifiant numbers, what you want to prove. You operated with historical documents writing about history of aviation, you aplied the same measurement there too? I dont take on you, I just try to understand your point of view. No offence! |
| Posted by: Dénes December 20, 2011 12:38 pm | ||
It was a referendum, a ballot vote. One person=one vote. See details here (including a photo of the official ballot): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksabstimmung_in_%C3%96denburg [NB. The article is in German, written from the Austrian point of view] Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Radub December 20, 2011 01:43 pm | ||
Not to be pedantic, but I repeat, "referendum" is not the correct description here. Referendums are strictly related to constitutional matters. Referendums are ALWAYS called "referendum" or "plebiscit". Unless it is specifically called that, it is just a simple ballot. All referendums are ballots, but not all ballots are referendums. Radu |
| Posted by: Dénes December 20, 2011 01:55 pm |
| In Hungarian history the vote regarding Sopron's status is known as a referendum. I checked Wikipedia and the description given for a referendum is exactly what has happened: "A referendum (also known as a plebiscite or a vote on a ballot question) is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum] I don't want to get into a debate on legal terms, as I am not a professional in this subject. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Radub December 20, 2011 03:31 pm |
| Denes, Your quote from Wikipedia is only partial. Here is the full quote: referendum (also known as a plebiscite or a vote on a ballot question) is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal. This may result in the adoption of a new constitution, a constitutional amendment, a law, the recall of an elected official or simply a specific government policy. Radu |
| Posted by: 21 inf December 20, 2011 03:42 pm |
| Denes, you said "As regards Hungary, the Entente repeatedly refused to hold referendums in disputed areas, to ask directly the local population of their will how they want to shape their own future". What do you mean, if you are so kind? What was the power of Entente over Hungary to forbid this referendums? If it was like this, how it was then posible to be held the romanian gathering from Alba Iulia (before december 1918 part of Hungary) and how it was the hungarian one you mentioned (also in a then hungarian teritory)? Other situation when Entente had no authority was when romanian army started the 16th april 1919 offensive instead of staying on Clemenceau line. Denes, my point of view might be like you said, as I readed only romanian history and let's supose that I'm (and romanian history is) biased. Isn't the hungarian history speaking the same way? I ask this only for the sake of "audiatur et altera pars". Another subject, discussed by many of us lately, is the definiton of referendum. Ok, I understand that from constitutional point of view it was not a referendum because it was not one man, one vote. But what is if the facts were like in the period when 1st December 1918 was prepared: all romanians from a village were consulted and sent their delegated to Alba Iulia to express their will? What would be the proper name for such? Consultation of public? Mass will? Or how? |
| Posted by: Radub December 20, 2011 06:03 pm | ||
22 inf, What you describe is what is known as "proxy voting". Google it. Radu |
| Posted by: 21 inf December 20, 2011 06:31 pm |
| Thanks for the answer, Radub. Now, that we see that even if it was not a real real referendum, at least it was a democratic act, not a dictatorial one or the will of a handfull of politicians. |
| Posted by: Dénes December 20, 2011 08:53 pm |
| There was no voting at Alba Iulia of any kind. There was a pre-drafted resolution proclaimed in the name of the Rumanians from Transylvania, Banat and the Hungarian Lands. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: 21 inf December 20, 2011 08:56 pm |
| Yes. It was no voting at Alba Iulia. The will of romanians was expressed in every village they lived. In Alba Iulia the delegates just presented the credentionals and expresed the will of those who they represented. It was legal. |
| Posted by: contras December 20, 2011 09:23 pm | ||
Denes, I must express my doubts about the figures. You said between 40000 and 120000, first of all, it is a too large aproximation, about 80000. Second, if it was 120000, is more than Alba Iulia's assembly, about 100000. It cannot be, there cannot be put toghether so many Hungarians in this time. And, in Cluj Napoca, one of the most crowded manifestation was in 1996, during the Constantinescu's electoral campaign, when the place in front of the National Theatre was full, and were just about 20000 people. I can't believe that in 1918 could be 40000 people in Cluj with Hungarian etnicity (the lowest figure you quote) get assembled. |
| Posted by: Imperialist December 20, 2011 09:34 pm | ||
In October 1918, Charles I informed the Allies of his idea of turning the A-H Empire into a federation. Transylvania would have remained part of Hungary, while the Czechs, Slovaks and so on would have gotten federal states. Did he organize a nice democratic referendum in order to consult the population of Transylvania before coming up with this solution? I doubt it. |
| Posted by: Dénes December 20, 2011 10:06 pm |
| For your info, Charles IV was the King of Hungary. He acted as the monarch of the country. Kings don't usually ask through referendum if their decision is accepted or not by the populace, now do they? Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Dénes December 20, 2011 10:17 pm | ||
I merely took the figures from the quoted study. 120,000 people indeed sounds too much, but 40-50,000 people is realistic. Remember, delegates from all over Transylvania, Banat and the territory up to River Tisza (in short, Eastern Hungary), and not only Hungarians, but also representants of other ethnic groups, arrived to then Kolozsvar. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: ANDREAS December 20, 2011 11:39 pm |
| Indeed Denes, other nationalities except the Romanian majority! The example you give about the romanian speakers, including the one in Arad, is eloquent! Only in Arad County, between November 1918 and February 1919 there were 301 murders committed by Hungarian national guards, gendarmes and even regular troops (elements of the 2nd Infantry (Honved) Regiment of the 23. Honved Infantry Division) identified by both romanians (testimonies of survivors - f.i. the family of the great-grandfather of a friend of mine who lived in the village Simand, Arad County, killed when returning from Alba Iulia! but also documents - Ion Clopoţel editor in chief of the journal Romanul from Arad back then in 1918 -Memories and portraits, Timisoara, 1975) but later also french troops! How stupid can sound that a romanian from Arad to support the maintenance of a state who terrorize his citizens and do everything possible to destroy their national identity from 1867 onwards? |
| Posted by: 21 inf December 21, 2011 05:57 am |
Andreas, the proves and facts of romanians in 1918 are clear. Romanians from Transylvania never wanted to be hungarian subjects and of course they fought for union with Romania. The insignifiant number of romanians who participated probably at the hungarian meeting from Cluj is equal to zero (there is no "pădure fără uscături"  ). Denes can explain us why he reffer so often to this numbers. Andreas, the romanians from Transylvania didnt felt their national identity at threat since 1867, but from 1848. This was the main reason romanians fought in 1849 on the austrian side, as well as saxons from Transylvania. The hungarian government from Pesta gave in 1848 social rights in Hungary, leveling the national rights. It was it's business what he did in Hungary, but when the same laws were to be applied in Transylvania, unilaterally united with Hungary in 1848 by the Diet from Cluj, romanians held their national meetings from Blaj, were they declared they want also national recognition, as they had none (but this is a separate issue and was discussed on this forum on another topic).Imperialist and Denes: You are both right. The person you speak was Charles I of Austria and Charles IV of Hungary in the same time. His oficial title was "His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty, Charles the First, by the Grace of God, Emperor of Austria, Apostolic King of Hungary, of this name the Fourth, King of Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, and Galicia, Lodomeria, and Illyria; King of Jerusalem, Archduke of Austria; Grand Duke of Tuscany and Cracow, Duke of Lorraine and of Salzburg, of Styria, of Carinthia, of Carniola and of the Bukovina; Grand Prince of Transylvania; Margrave of Moravia; Duke of Upper and Lower Silesia, of Modena, Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla, of Auschwitz and Zator, of Teschen, Friuli, Ragusa and Zara; Princely Count of Habsburg and Tyrol, of Kyburg, Gorizia and Gradisca; Prince of Trent and Brixen; Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and in Istria; Count of Hohenems, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Sonnenberg; Lord of Trieste, of Cattaro, and in the Windic March; Grand Voivode of the Voivodship of Serbia". The idea of federalisation of AH it was not his idea, the idea was older than 1918 and had at least a few decades since was emited. |
| Posted by: Dénes December 21, 2011 08:52 am |
| Andreas and 21inf, you're drifting off topic. Please do not let your strong feelings prevail over facts related to the topic. I could also start to write the list of attrocities, killings, tortures and so on done by Rumanian troops and paramilitary in Transylvania and beyond in 1918/1919, and believe me the list would be long. However, this is not the purpose here. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Dénes December 21, 2011 08:57 am | ||
It may sound stupid to you (the beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, as they say), but this is a fact. And, again, that person came to Kolozsvar as a representant, not as an individual. How many people did he represent? God knows. Same with the other identified Rumanian guy. And yet again, these were two Rumanians who actually spoke to the crowd. Many more were probably in the crowd. But again, I cannot give you mor precise details. These are the facts and let's stick to them. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: 21 inf December 21, 2011 09:58 am |
| Denes, dont take it very hard from me, but the presence of those 2 romanians at the hungarian meeting from Cluj means nothing. Even if they represented some numbers of romanians. Maybe they were there on their own. Who knows? And who cares about 2 guys when the will of milions was represented at Alba Iulia by more than 1.000 delegates? Since when the opinon of 2 men can counterbalance the will of much greater number? This kind of thinking it's odd. What would be your opinion if you'll find out that 2 hungarians spoke to the crowd at Alba Iulia? About the atrocities, there is a separate discussion and is not the case here. Probably Andreas wanted to point that it's twisted that one can sustain that majority of romanians from Transylvania could think at a living in Hungary instead of Romania. But I cant speak on his name, maybe he'll tell us exactly what he wanted to say. |
| Posted by: Radub December 21, 2011 01:09 pm |
| I do not want to shatter any illusions, but the Romanian Electoral Law does not permit proxy voting with such lists because of some obvious reasons... Imagine someone walking into a polling station with a piece of paper saying "here are 1000 votes for Baian Trasescu". If he does not get lynched first, he will soon be arrested. Radu |
| Posted by: 21 inf December 21, 2011 01:52 pm |
| Radub, probably you shatter no ilusion as you probably speak of today romanian electoral law. We started the discussion here based on what existed in 1918. Somehow related to the subject and as material for study for a comparison with 1st of December 1918 in Transylvania, here http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/czechstate_declaration.htm is the declaration of independence of Cehoslovacia, which was given in ... Paris! (not even in the teritories declared independent!). This is not for going off-topic, but as a paranthesis. |
| Posted by: Radub December 21, 2011 02:14 pm | ||
You raise a very interesting point. In your many books on the subject, did you find if there was a "Comisie Electorala"? Was there a "Regulament"? Who tallied the votes? Who supervised/authenticated the tally? What legal framework was applied? Radu |
| Posted by: Agarici December 21, 2011 02:40 pm |
| Half of the discussions here is, unfortunately, off topic. To link the 1918 events with today’s Romanian Constitution - and the definition of referendum in the Constitution (!) - or to current day’s electoral legislation is simply absurd. Radub and Denes, you steered the discussion towards a dead-end by completely ignoring a simple and well-known fact - the universal suffrage is a post-WW 1 innovation in the majority of the states. And even so it is improperly called universal, since in many cases it was “universal” without including women. So, what are you talking about? We are discussing about a context still dominated by the censitary vote, in 1918 (at least in AH and Romania), and you claim that the 1 December event was not enough democratic and can’t be equated with a referendum because of the provisions of today’s Romanian Constitution! What’s the point of all that?? Since (according to 1910 AH census) the Romanians were largely majoritary in Transylvania, Banat and Partium, and by the “credential” system they were consulted before the gathering, sending their representatives there, the process is the equivalent of a referendum and more democratic than the usual electoral mechanisms of the day in those lands. Whether you like that or not (and your “neutral“ posts” make that thing obvious) is a completely different matter. By the way, Radub, talking about proxy voting, why don’t you make a search on Wikipedia in order to see how the US president is elected, even nowadays? |
| Posted by: Dénes December 21, 2011 03:11 pm |
| Agarici, before you'd jump in this topic heads on, a few pieces of advice (valid for everyone, including myself): 1, read carefully (and not selectively) what has already been written. By doing so you will learn that the referendum (or ballot vote, whatever the legal term is) was in use in those years, in that area, to clarify the status of the disputed areas. See the case of Sopron (Oedenurg). What happened at Alba Iulia in Dec. 1918 was anything but a vote. Same with Kolozsvar (Cluj) later the month. 2, do not try to group people as you wish ('bisericute'). Everyone here is an individual, posting individually. 3, try to regard the issue without relying on your sentiments, but judging the facts as they were. History cannot be changed, only explained and debated. 4, stick to the topic, do not derail, so it would be somewhat controlled. 5, last and foremost, do not label people. Attack the messages, if you wish, not the people. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: 21 inf December 21, 2011 03:26 pm | ||||
Who needed all of this, when doesnt want to recognise a power upon himself? Which slave asks the masterslave "Master, what regulations allows me to revolt against you?" (and this not emotional from me or biased, as one can label it ). See the declaration of independence of Cehoslovacia, which I posted at a link above. It is the same atitude. All nationalities from former AH empire wanted to be free on national basis and thought the same way. If one like more the romanian from Transylvania "legal" fight for national rights, one can read Teodor Păcăţian's book about all the ways romanians from Transylvania fought "legally" in XIXth century.Radub, you might as well ask what was the legal frame which allowed the 1989 romanian revolutionaries to overthrow Ceausescu... In the many books and documents that I readed (romanian, of course, to be no doubt what I readed mostly, as "biased" as a romanian history book can be when a romanian speaks about Transylvania, I wonder if the british historian Seton-Watson is as biased as romanians, as he suported the same ideas as romanians), the term used for what happened in Transylvania in late 1918 is "revolution", one can like it or not and I hope that one will not give the nowadays definition of a revolution. I eagerly wait to see "unbiased" foreign documents, which are not speaking "halftruths", pointing the other sides point of view. For now, almost nothing pushed the discussion forward on document basis, most posts drived to nowhere, were offtopics or "paranteze" responding to other "paranteze" |
| Posted by: ionionescu December 21, 2011 03:33 pm |
| Of topic: @Denes, I see you edited your last message, your original post was: ”Agarici, before you'd jump in this topic like a bull” and then your original no.4 was ”last and foremost, do not label people.”. I must say: I had a good laugh!!! !!! |
| Posted by: Radub December 21, 2011 03:47 pm |
| 21 Inf, But since this thread uses terms such as "referendum", "poll", "vote", all of which have distinct and clear legal definitions that are regulated by legislation, those are reasonable questions. A "legal framework" is what gives a "poll" its validity. Without "legal framework" to make it valid, a "vote" is nothing more than "opinion" and is not binding. It may feel good, but no one has to listen to it. But as you said, this was more like a "revolution". It definitely looks less and less like a "poll" and by now the whole idea of "referendum" went out of the question altogether. Radu |
| Posted by: Imperialist December 21, 2011 06:20 pm | ||
So you have no problem with Charles I not consulting the population of Transylvania on whether it still wanted to be part of Hungary, but you expect the Romanians in Transylvania to act at the highest standards of democracy? BTW, I don't think monarchy and referendums are incompatible. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom#List_of_major_referendums |
| Posted by: ANDREAS December 21, 2011 06:20 pm |
| Ok, I read carefully all what you wrote, and I want to make some remarks: - about the impartiality of information sources - it was told (not directly but keeping this ideea) that Romanian documents are questionable, so when we quote from them, our claims are not covered by reality (our claims are questionable and biased), but then the question is : when are the documents authentic, impartial and unbiased? Because if we quote from foreign documents (other than Hungarian who are also questionable and biased) we are either ignored or accused of talking out of topic... To be no doubt, I mean exactly Denes proceed in this way! I do not attack him, I'm only reading his posts! - about what I wanted to point out the example given (of Hungarian troops and militia atrocities in Arad district) was the lack of credibility of the statements related to the desire of nationalities (including Romans) to remain in the Hungarian State (in the borders of the former Transleithania). On the other hand, I have to say that there were many Hungarians who have demonstrated their honest and decent quality, even in those troubled times, who defended their romanian neighbors and friends, often becoming themselves victims of the criminals! - about the legal situation concerning the validity of the "National Assembly of all Romanians from Transylvania, Banat and the Hungarian Country" from December 1, 1918, the romanian constitutional law recognizes the plebiscitary character of the decisions taken at Alba Iulia. The 1,228 delegates were mandated by the Romanians in the existing constituencies (five representatives for each constituency) with a precise mandate. So in terms of legitimacy, they stood high above the Members of Parliament in Budapest, and obviously other parliaments of that era! (the parliamentary system of Austro-Hungary is a problem that can be discussed separately). Furthermore the decisions taken in Alba Iulia were supported by the population, not only in Alba Iulia, but also in many other places in that period (f.i. some are recorded in the newspaper "Romanul" from Arad). Consequently the National Assembly from Alba Iulia had a legal character for only one point - that of union with Romania! |
| Posted by: 21 inf December 21, 2011 06:51 pm |
| Even if not very many documents were presented here, I think we are close to a conclusion soon |
| Posted by: Agarici December 21, 2011 07:21 pm | ||
I think that was illustrative enough for who the man is. I rest my case with this one for now. |
| Posted by: Dénes December 21, 2011 07:35 pm |
| Agarici, I don't know what you're taking about. Can you be more clear? I edited my post on: This post has been edited by Dénes on December 21, 2011 09:20 pm IonIonescu posted his post on: December 21, 2011 09:33 pm I don't know what IonIOnescu saw or believed to see underlined, but there was nothing like he mentioned posted on the forum. Other than jumping on this peculiar incident, do you have anything meaningful to say related to the topic? Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: 21 inf December 21, 2011 07:45 pm |
| We are going nowhere like this, gentlemen. Documents, gentlemen, documents |
| Posted by: Agarici December 21, 2011 07:58 pm | ||
Other than the fact that you call people names and in the same time urge them to do the opposite no, I have nothing more to say right now. Case closed in this concern, on my side. On topic, I think that it is already obvious that 1 December was the equivalent of a referendum, organized ahead of its time in regard to what could be called by then "democratic mechanisms". The capital fact that it was organized in a period when the census vote was still the rule speaks for itself. I think there's no point in repeating over and over tha same arguments for those who do not like that, hence they do not want to accept the reality. |
| Posted by: ionionescu December 21, 2011 08:04 pm |
| @Denes, I'm talking about this post of yours: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=6363&view=findpost&p=84047 ”Posted: December 21, 2011 04:11 pm” and you edited it nine minutes later: ”This post has been edited by Dénes on December 21, 2011 04:20 pm” I saw very well what you have written, laughed a lot, and I posted my reply on ”Posted: December 21, 2011 04:33 pm”, the underlining is mine but the words are yours, your original post was: ”Agarici, before you'd jump in this topic like a bull”/ ”4, last and foremost, do not label people.” Am I right or not? I posted my ”of topic” because it was so funny, any other hidden intent of my part is purely speculation |
| Posted by: Dénes December 21, 2011 08:57 pm | ||
Well said. Quote from the memorandum submitted by the Rumanian delegation on the territorial claims, Paris 8.02.1919 (translated from Hungarian): "(...)From peak Stroi (1655 m) to the line of Rivers Tisza and Viso until the village of Trebusa, until the effluence of Szamos into Tisza down 4 km (Vásárosnamény stays in Rumania), the line goes down south-southwest to a point 6 km East of Debrecen, from there to the Körös, down 3 km at the meeting point of the three Körös rivers, then north of Szeged, then west of Orosháza and Békéssámson up to Algyő back to the Tisza. From the lower Tisza to the effluence into the Danube." "The total area of Transylvania and the regions adjacent to Hungary: 85,000 sq. km, Banat: 28,000 sq. km." "The Rumanian population counted by Hungarian census is 2,5 million (54%), while the Hungarian 1,1 million (23,6%) [rounded figures] In reality, the Rumanians should be at least 2,9 million (62,5%) and the Hungarians (without the szeklers) 700,000 (15%)." "Up until the peace treaty is signed, Transylvania will enjoy autonomy". Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Dénes December 21, 2011 09:06 pm |
Map of territorial claims against Hungary: [From: Trianon. Nemzet és emlékezet. Osiris, 2008] Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: dragos December 21, 2011 10:02 pm |
| This is how a proper referendum is done http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/838/stimmzettelanschluss.jpg/ Uploaded with http://imageshack.us |
| Posted by: Cantacuzino December 22, 2011 05:55 am | ||
Ya, that the real democracv. Vote Basescu !!! Vote NSPDL http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/88/stimmzettelanschlussg.jpg/ Uploaded with http://imageshack.us  |
| Posted by: 21 inf December 22, 2011 07:33 am |
| Denes, can we stay in the discussion about 1st of December 1918? The Alba Iulia Great National Gathering was a romanian transylvanian one, what was at Paris was another thing, there were also romanians from Romania, not only romanians from Transylvania. |
| Posted by: Radub December 22, 2011 08:47 am | ||
21 Inf, Actually NO, it has been amply demonstrated that this had absolutely nothing to do with a "referendum". And most of the evidence of the contrary has been provided by you. It is evident that you think that such a "grand" event needs a "grand" label. It is also evident that you think that "referendum" is such a "grand" word as a symbol of "democracy". "Referendums" have nothing to do with democracy, they were used by all kinds of forms of government, from the cruelest dictatorships to what may appear to be democracies. You can paint a Dacia Solenza red and decorate it with a prancing horse, and you may even manage to convince a few that you have a Ferrari, but the majority of the people will see it for what it is. Calling it a "referendum" is the same thing. What happened on 1 December was a "proclamation". You may think that this word is not "powerful" enough. But the concept of "proclamation" goes back to the Roman Empire and is powerful enough. Radu |
| Posted by: Dénes December 22, 2011 09:56 am | ||
Good one. I appreciate your pun. However, a proper plebiscite ballot about the disputed territory should have looked like this:  [Source: Wikipedia. Referendum on Sopron, 1921] If a similar ballot with Rumania on it existed, I'd also place it here. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Dénes December 22, 2011 10:11 am | ||||||
Wrong. It has already been demonstrated.
Again wrong. Check previous posts.
Very much right. At least, we agree on a principle. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: 21 inf December 22, 2011 12:27 pm |
| All here leads to nothing. I'm out. |
| Posted by: Dénes December 22, 2011 12:51 pm | ||
I agree with you, 21inf. This all leads to nothing as long as people are not ready to accept that not all historical events happened the way it was told repeatedly by only one side's sources they frequent. That's why one must consult the sources of all involved parties and foremost to look at the issue with an open mind, not dogmatically, and ready to accept facts over myths. As I said earlier, this forum and thread is not about changing history, which luckily cannot be undone, but about discussing and clarifying the details surrounding a particular event. As long as heart prevails over mind, sentiments over facts, there is no reason to continue the dialogue of the deaf. Too bad, because almost 100 years (!) after the event, we should be able to discuss it openly. The fact that we cannot means there is something that is not yet closed and settled. I am out of this thread, too, which for me has run its course. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Agarici December 22, 2011 11:47 pm | ||||||||
??? All you did in this topic was to declare that this or that are right or wrong, without motivating, and to avoid adressing the issues. I very much doubt that people are interested in your (well known) agenda. NOTHING was proven by you here, only perhaps your true colors and hypocrisy (see your edited post, "that peculiar incident" as you called it). The 1 December referendum WAS organized in a period when the census voting was the rule, do not persist in your ignorance. Even a Wikipedia search can edify you about that. I don't need your posts to "learn" about that, nor to declare it right or wrong because you feel so. |
| Posted by: Agarici December 22, 2011 11:54 pm | ||||
Outstanding judgment, breath-taking example. Dude, you should really improve your Wikipedia search skills or find some alternative sources. A bit of formal logic won't hurt either. I'm also out of this mockery of a discussion. |
| Posted by: ANDREAS December 22, 2011 11:59 pm | ||
| I agree with Agarici, in this regard please read the following comment that talks also about the Austro-Hungarian electoral system: http://www.zoltech.net/h/portrait.html
|
| Posted by: ANDREAS December 23, 2011 12:40 am |
| The comparison with Austria-Hungary is useful because Hungary led by Mihaly Karolyi had continued the policy of defunct Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, to maintain the integrity of the Hungarian State! Read this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mih%C3%A1ly_K%C3%A1rolyi |
| Posted by: Radub December 23, 2011 09:37 am | ||
Play the ball not the player. I have no idea why you keep referring me to Wikipedia. My "source" is my law professor. What is your "source"? I do not know anything about your credentials or even your education, but I studied constitutional law and as it happens I know exactly what a "referendum" is. I explained it clearly. Where did you explain it? Instead of giving explanations you mock? Looking at the "new book in my library" thread, 21Inf has tens upon tens of books about 1 December. All he nees to do is to scan the poster, leaflet, invitation, propaganda, whatever, that uses the word "referendum", or a scan of the "terms and conditions" that make this a "refeendum", or scan the "ballot paper". Until then, he is using the word "referendum" without any reason or excuse. As Denes said, this is a history forum. Let us talk history, not nationalism. Radu edited by admin |
| Posted by: Agarici December 23, 2011 10:40 am |
| Nevertheless, I end the "discussion" here, because it has reached (courtesy to you, but not for the first time) new records of law standards. Have a nice day, dude! edited by admin |
| Posted by: Imperialist December 23, 2011 11:22 am | ||
Report filed by German consul in Brasov to Chancelor Max von Baden (November 8, 1918):
http://www.cimec.ro/Istorie/Unire/ardeal.htm#Ra |
| Posted by: Radub December 23, 2011 12:36 pm | ||
There is not one single word you said here that is fair or true... Radu edited by admin |
| Posted by: dragos December 23, 2011 03:28 pm |
| Gentlemen, please refrain from personal attacks. |
| Posted by: Victor December 23, 2011 06:37 pm |
| It's almost Christmas Eve. Even the Germans and the French buried the hatchet for this occasion in the trenches in 1914. |
| Posted by: Agarici December 23, 2011 06:54 pm |
| That's true, Victor. Merry Christmas everyone! |
| Posted by: MMM December 23, 2011 07:07 pm | ||
OoT: 1. "almost" is the key-word 2. The German-French feud is nothing compared to the Romanian-Romanian feud... Now, really, Merry Christmas to everyone! |
| Posted by: ANDREAS December 23, 2011 09:03 pm |
| Merry Christmas! I wish to all members and all their loved ones! May God enlighten our minds and hearts! |
| Posted by: Dénes December 24, 2011 07:56 am |
| Indeed, merry Christmas to everyone! I believe, if we'd sit down to a beer, we'd discover that we, Transylvanians, have much more in common than separates us. Pending that all parties (Rumanians, Hungarians, Szeklers, Saxons, Jews, etc.) acknowledge the others have a right to be integral part of the history of Transylvania and would look at our common history with an open mind, free of dogmatisms. So, I wish all of you in in a transylvanian spirit: Craciun fericit! Boldog Karacsonyt! Frohe Weihnachten! Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Agarici December 24, 2011 02:37 pm |
| Off-topic: Transylvanians… I’d say more than that, I think our identity is not complete without “the other”. Long time ago, I was returning home from my first (long) stay abroad. I had to cancel a plane ticket and then to take a bus for Budapest, the closest destination to Romania available. I started to feel “at home” when, with the ticket in my hand and asking for the bus destination, the trip attendant answered, with Hungarian accent, “Budapeşt”. |
| Posted by: 21 inf December 24, 2011 05:44 pm |
| Off topic: Some years ago being on the other side of the world with a number of fellow romanians, some of them went drunk. Of course they started to sing "Noi suntem români", "Treceţi batalioane..." and other stuff like this. After few minutes, they stoped, saying that it's no fun to sing something like this when everybody around us was or black, or indian, chinese or God knows what. Actually, my fellows started to miss the hungarians and thought how nice is back in Transylvania, whith all our goods and bads So, one needs to go far away for sometime to realise that "rău cu rău, dar mai rău fără rău".Merry Christmas to all of you! Bogdan |
| Posted by: Mina88 March 14, 2012 04:40 pm |
| Hello everyone I am new on this forum and this is a very interesting topic. I would like to discuss it further with you. My opinion on Transylvania or Erdely is that this territory has been unfairly taken from the Hungarians and given to the Romania. I believe that the Entente powers said, in order to justify this act, is that giving the Erdely to the Romanians is a way of rewarding this state for its involvement in the WW1. |
| Posted by: ANDREAS March 14, 2012 07:48 pm |
| Hallo Mina88, Your opinion it is based on what? Ethnical majority, historical right, sayings of some or others, books of certain authors? Detail your opinion! |
| Posted by: Mina88 March 14, 2012 10:30 pm |
| My opinion is based historical right and ethnicity but more on historical right. I am studying history so I believe I've read quality books. Peter Hanak History of Hungary Darko Dukovski History of Central and Southeastern Europe in 19th and 20th Century?-this book is only available on croatian because this is a croatian historian |
| Posted by: 21 inf March 15, 2012 05:44 am |
| The romanian opinion of the rights of romanians toward Transylvania is also based in historical rights and majority of ethnicity of romanians in Transylvania. Another romanian opinion is based on natural right (see 1848/49 romanian revolution in Transylvania, the Proclamation from Blaj from 3/15 May 1848). Romanians didnt asked in WW1 for the first time for Transylvania. The claim was made much earlier and was not made by romanians from Romania, but by romanians from Transylvania. In this fashion, please see the demands of Horea's Uprising from 1784 (there are hungarian sources - dr. Kosztin Arpad - that claims that romanians from Apuseni Mountains, the "motzes", "a mococ" in hungarian, asked even earlier than 1784 for Transylvania) and the 1848/49 romanian transylvanian revolution demands. WW1 for Transylvania was only the natural consequence of what happpened in 1848/49. If the Gtreat Powers didnt aknowledge Transylvania to romanians at the end of WW1, the romanians would enter anyway in WW1 for Transylvania. |
| Posted by: Mina88 March 15, 2012 01:52 pm |
| I am aware that Romanians from Transylvania wanted that part to become integral with their motherland but what about the Hungarians that lived in that region??nobody ask them anything.... |
| Posted by: 21 inf March 15, 2012 07:16 pm |
| Mina88, as you said you are studying history, would you agree to have a conversation based on arguments and evidence (documents)? If one of romanian fellows from this forum would ask you in the same manner "what about the centuries when romanians were not legally recognised in Transylvania and were only tolerated by hungarian transylvanian laws?" the discussion would soon sink in an heated debate animated by hot spirits, more or less well intented...and no one will gain anything... Please present your evidences and arguments for your opinions and at least speaking for myself, I promise to respect them, whatever they are. If you are really interested in romanian point of view in historiography, I'll try to help you with translations from romanian into english, from romanian documents from which period you desire (1784, 1848/49, 1918). If you can point a link from were the book of Peter Hanak "History of Hungary" can be downloaded, it would be great! It can be in hungarian language if an english version is not available. |
| Posted by: ANDREAS March 15, 2012 10:45 pm | ||
Mina88, what's your opinion about the book written by Pál Lendvai - Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat (2003). I refer to the book, please don't talk about the author, I know his biography! I am also interested in the book you mentioned -Peter Hanak "History of Hungary", if there is an english version to download! |
| Posted by: Florin March 15, 2012 11:17 pm | ||
Maybe it is time for the Romanian historians to start writing about modern Croatia... The one million Jews, Serbs, Gypsies and Muslims killed in four years while arrested would make a good start... |
| Posted by: Mina88 March 16, 2012 08:29 am | ||||
I have never heard about this hungarian author that you mentioned I will try to find out if there is a version I will try to provide you a link... |
| Posted by: Mina88 March 16, 2012 08:33 am | ||||
Maybe it is time to start writing it..I would be proud if someone other than Croat can write a good book a bout croatian history I know Darko Dukovski and guarantee you that he is a good author and objective historian, he didn't say that taking Transylvania from Hungary was a bad thing he just described the process... what did you meant to say with these 1 000 000 deaths??  |
| Posted by: Victor March 16, 2012 09:10 am | ||||
Florin, you know the rules. When you drift into warcrimes territory you have to provide sources for the claims or retract them. Furthermore you are blatantly off topic and unnecessarily aggressive. Mina88 don't take this personally, but if you're goal is to stir up the spirits on the forum for your personal fun, the discussion will be cut short quickly. |
| Posted by: Imperialist March 16, 2012 09:15 am | ||
None of the quality historical books I've read talks in terms like "territory unfairly taken". As for historical right, the only right in history is might. Hungarians held that territory for as long as they had the strength to do it. Their right to hold it was entirely based on their ability to hold it against any challenges. Whether the historical justifications they came up with were correct or not was not that relevant. Romanians had their own version of historical justifications for their claims but those justifications (whether right or wrong) didn't matter until Romanians had the power to overthrow the Hungarians' control. |
| Posted by: 21 inf March 16, 2012 09:23 am |
| Mina88, the document based discussion is still awaited, if you are so kind. |
| Posted by: Florin March 16, 2012 03:03 pm | ||
OK, I will not post again in this topic. Regarding the sources: There is a new series of documentaries titled "Axis Collaborators” on the Military Channel. I know that these documentaries contain mistakes occasionally, but as a whole can be trusted. To make the matter very short, the whole episode dedicated to Croatian war criminals has shown things that (as proved there) made uncomfortable even their German allies. Toward the end it was mentioned that the Croatian leader of all these executioners ran to Argentina, where he lived a quiet and comfortable life. After 1990, he made the mistake to open his door to an Argentinian TV crew, so he suddenly became famous. There were international calls for trial, so Croatia asked for his extradition. Even though the guy was highly regarded in Croatia as a national hero (and that was after 1990), there was pressure from the Clinton administration to put him on trial, and president Franjo Tuđman was not indifferent regarding relations with the United States . During trial, he was so defiant (laughing several times during witness deposition), that the judge got upset. I forgot: did he get 20 years, or life in prison? After 10 years in prison, he fell ill and died in prison’s hospital. Today this guy, directly responsible for up to 700,000 people killed while arrested, under his direct orders, is buried in center of Zagreb, in the most honorable cemetery of the city, among real Croatian national heroes. PS: I am confident all this matter is available in some books, too. I just don't know what are these books. |
| Posted by: Mina88 March 16, 2012 05:04 pm | ||||||
I assure you that I am not some stupid guy who is trying to provocate anything:this is what I have found in a book called Men at arms Armies in the Balkans: -on August 27th 1916 Romania declared war on Austro-Hungary in order to annex Hungarian Transylvania, defended by the Austro-Hungarian 1st army -dismayed at the withdrawal of Bolshevik Russia from the war Romania ceased hostilities on 6 december 1917 - on 10 November 1918(only one day before German capitulation) Romania re-entered the war in time to joined the advance of the Arme de l)orient through the Western Balkans So I wonder: After the Treaty of Trianon Romania got Transylvania as a reward to their contribution in the Great war, but how did they contribute? their involvement lasted little more than a year and that period can't be described as succesful... Their re-entrance in the war just day before it's ending clearly says that they didn't participate in breakthrough of Salonika front as others did (Serbs, British and French) How is possible to give them whole Transylvania which had at the time 2,819,467 (54%) Romanians, 1,658,045 (31.7%) Hungarians and 550,964 (10.5%) Germans - 1910 census It is a big minority of Hungarians and in my opinion it was a mistake to ignore their rights... |
| Posted by: Mina88 March 16, 2012 05:07 pm | ||
I am sorry but I can't find any links from which you can download Hanak's book  |
| Posted by: contras March 16, 2012 06:27 pm | ||||
Hy, Mina88, a few short questions, if you don't mind. What about Cehoslovakia, their territory was given to them as a reward their contribution in war, too? Or Poland.
This was a point at Arad negotiatons in 1919, between Oszkar Jaszy and Iuliu Maniu. Jaszy come with a plan to separate the two nations with a map of nationality blocks, but this was impossible, because were no territorial limits of separations, Romanians lived mainly in rural area, Hungarians in cities. This territorial separation was impossible, like it was the case later with ONU separation in Palestina in 1948, the two comunities were too interlinked. Transylvania is like a whole, you cannot own only a part. The populations cannot be separated, that is the fact. The war started later in 1919, commies were at Budapest, Romanians win. |
| Posted by: Agarici March 16, 2012 07:31 pm | ||||||||
I think the fellow's agenda, level of expertise (Osprey's "Men at Arms" popular books?) and good faith are evident by now. For me that was obvious from the very beginning, considering the way he "asked" his "questions". You guys are just wasting your time. |
| Posted by: 21 inf March 16, 2012 07:57 pm |
| Mina88, there were big tensions between Kingdom of Romania and AH empire well before WW1 because the bad treatment of romanians from Transylvania under hungarian administration. A certain visit of Franz Joseph was put at stake in 1880's or 1890's (I dont remember exactly, citing from memory) for this reason and the relations between this states were almost crumbling because of this. But the roots, the reasons of Transylvania being asked by romanians from Transylvania have to be searched in 1848/49 revolution in Hungary and Transylvania and this is a long and distinct discussion. Refering stricly to WW1, the Great Powers didnt wanted to give Transylvania to Romania in 1919, even if they had a secret clause in the treaty they signed with Romania in 1916 (under extremelly big pressure from the part of Great Powers). (Anyway, AH empire wanted to give Romania Bessarabia from Russia, if Romania entered war on the side of AH - was that correct? ) The Treaty of Trianon was the follow-up of romanian entering in war with Hungary in 1919. You have to know that Great Powers stoped romanian army's advance in the middle of Transylvania and romanian army made her way in the rest of Transylvania and Hungary during late war in 1919. So, Transylvania was taken by the armed romanian force in order to protect the romanians from Transylvania. And the breakthru in Salonika front should happened in 1916 if Allies would respect their signed treaty with Romania Another discussion would be the one "contras" forumist fellow hinted: what about the czechs, the slovaks, the ruthenians, the serbs, who broke from Hungary? And I would add as an apendix to your question about hungarian great minority: from the population Hungary had in AH empire in 1914, how many of them were hungarians and how many were romanians, croats, slovaks, saxons, ruthenians and others? Another question: how could hungarians in 1848 to ask union of Transylvania with Hungary when then the romanians were more than 50% of the population, saxons almost 15% and only the rest were hungarians (1.250.000 romanians, 500.000 hungarians and szeklers, 200.000 saxons in 1848 in Transylvania)? Let me remind that Transylvania was during centuries an autonomous province and was not under Hungary's control. After 1700 Transylvania was an austrian province and it's Diet was composed from nobles under austrian control, even if most of them were hungarians, but this doesnt mean that Transylvania was part of Hungary (her herself just an austrian province). The 1000 years of Hungary's right upon Transylvania is just a mith for those who want to see it... To conclude, maybe Imperialist was right: the one who has the power keeps the land... |
| Posted by: 21 inf March 16, 2012 08:04 pm |
| Agarici, what if we let the guy speak ? Let him tell what he has to tell, not to say that we are just some "büdös oláh" or some "rettenetes móczok" unable to have a civilised discussion If the discussion goes to nowhere or to propaganda, we can stop it at any time... |
| Posted by: Mina88 March 16, 2012 08:29 pm |
| I didn't want to provoke anyone..I wan't to be a good historian, I wan't to be able to understand political and cultural processes in Europe (especially in Southeastern part) Since here in my university in Croatia nobody is interested in history of Romania (except me ) I don't see better way to understand Transylvanian question other than ask a romanian person to explain this to me...Why do you think I am provoking you Agarici?this is forum I have every right to judge certain matter and ask question and debate without insulting anyone here... |
| Posted by: Mina88 March 16, 2012 08:31 pm | ||||||||||
why don't you tell me your level of expertise? |
| Posted by: Mina88 March 16, 2012 08:39 pm | ||
If I have to compare Transylvanian question with something similar I have to say Istria. you had Hungarians we had Italians after ww1 you got Transyilvania and after ww2 we got Istria because we were in the right moment at the right time... I am not saying that this is a wrong thing I am just comparing two very similar things |
| Posted by: Agarici March 16, 2012 09:03 pm | ||||||||||||
It's not so much about the expertise as it is about the fact that, when you don't know something you ask, instead of making gross generalizations which might offend some people. That Transylvania that was "unfairlly taken" from Hungary had always had a Romanian majority, just to point out a capital fact about that, which you seem to ignore. If some other members have the time and patience to tutor you, I have no objections to that, but I don't. On the other hand, from my point of view you are most welcome on the forum for discussing and clarifying things without clenching to unsubstantiated assumptions. |
| Posted by: 21 inf March 16, 2012 09:51 pm |
| So, Mina88, you are from Croatia if I understand well? Are you croatian, hungarian, serb or what? Just asking to try to understand your questions about Transylvania. Until now, they looked more a hungarian point of view... |
| Posted by: Mina88 March 16, 2012 09:53 pm | ||||||
hey thanks for answering my question. I didn't know that there were direct negotiations about Transylvania.. I have to say I don't know czechoslovakian question after ww1, but I am going to do a research about their national movement during austro-hungarian rule..maybe I will be able to answer your question in two months or so  and agarici my apologies for not using proper words |
| Posted by: 21 inf March 16, 2012 09:59 pm |
| Mina88, if you really want to understand about Transylvania, hungarians and romanians, my opinion is that you have to start with 1848 revolution in Hungary, Transylvania (both romanian and hungarian) as 1918 in Transylvania was the root of 1848, as it was also the 1867 Compromise between austrians and hungarians when AH empire was created. Also, you can take a glimpse to serbian 1848 revolutionary programe, czech and slovak and italian, as all of them fought on the side or against austrians and hungarians. 1918 fall of AH was only a delay of the result of what should happened in 1848. |
| Posted by: Mina88 March 16, 2012 10:08 pm | ||
Actually I am Montenegrin but I am living my whole life in Croatia. To be precise I am living in Pula (I know what it means in romanian ) which is a city located on Istrian peninsulaWell one of my favorite profesors in college was saying to me how in his opinion Transyilvania was unfairly given to Romania. I believe he said that because he spent 3 or 4 years studying in Hungary where I believe fell under influence of hungarian point of view... I was always interested in History of southeastern Europe but unfortunately in my university there was no course on this region (a big error in my opinion) so during my free time (which was very short) I tried to learn more about SE Europe...Now I know something about Serbia,Montenegro but almost nothing about Romania and Bulgaria,so in order to understand better political processes between Hungaria and Romania I decided to ask my teacher who gave me that answer which was too harsh and I decided to ask you guys your opinion... |
| Posted by: Mina88 March 16, 2012 10:11 pm | ||
As soon as I get my degree I am going to read everything about Romanian history...I am going to learn romanian if I have to  |
| Posted by: contras March 16, 2012 10:20 pm | ||
Mina88, if you are really interested about those times in Transylvania, you have there some links, but only in Romanian, maybe you can translate with Google translation. http://cristiannegrea.blogspot.com/2010/02/revolutia-din-ardeal-si-garzile.html http://cristiannegrea.blogspot.com/2010/12/revolutia-din-ardeal-si-garzile.html After you read that, maybe we can discuss about other problems. You will find there about negotiations, about all you are interested about this issue. Thank you and keep in touch. |
| Posted by: Imperialist March 16, 2012 10:55 pm | ||
The Entente's territorial promises were not conditioned by a certain result Romania's contribution had to achieve, it was conditioned on that contribution being made (entering the war). The rights of the Hungarians were not ignored: http://www.forost.ungarisches-institut.de/pdf/19191209-1.pdf |
| Posted by: ANDREAS March 16, 2012 11:03 pm | ||
Mina88, I try to answer your questions point by point having as source of information the books that have read (when I can detail you wish): -the Romanian enter in the war for Transylvania was a desire of all Romania's population but not all of the Romania's political class (there was a Germanophile group of politicians who feared more Russia than Austria-Hungary). An important role in the Romanian public opinion coagulation in the "Transylvanian problem" was the Hungarian authorities anti-Romanian policy in the the dualistic period (a problem that I can detail if you like), the effective actions of assimilating the Romanian population, the incorporation in the First World War of far more Transylvanian Romanians then Hungarians and sending them to the front in the first line (the losses suffered affected the Romanian population of Transylvania more than the Hungarian one!) -Romania had to cease hostilities with Germany, Austro-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey in early 1918 because of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia (who took her from the war!), our country did not have any resources necessary to continue hostilities or effective support from our allies! The armistice signed with the Central Powers, put Romanian in an critical position, the conditions imposed to Romania through the Treaty of Buftea were extremely hard for Romania, and in addition its allies regarded Romania very bad, they probably expecting a continuation of fighting from Romania after the Serbia model from 1915 (retreat in Albania then in Greece). Reentering the war of Romania was suspected by the enemy commands (especially the Austro-Hungarian one) there were plan made (unsupported) for a military occupation of Romania in the summer of 1918. Romania did not enjoy as much support as suspect after the end of World War I from the victorious allies, the diplomatic and political efforts, especially the military ones, being very high. The non-recognition of the act of December 1, 1918, as expressed desire of the majority of the population in Transylvania (not only romanian!), was and continues to be the cornerstone of revanchist actions of some politicians from Hungary, the Vienna Diktat from august 1940 imposed by Hitler but requested by Horthy, the attempts of the Hungarian delegation to the Paris Treaty of 1947, the actions from Hungarian communist leaders during the Cold War period (there are declassified documents that support what I say!), the policy of the Antall government in the '90s, can be registered in same line of politics toward Transylvania. So hot spirits are not only the result of an old and troubled history, but one quite recent, for not to say a present one! |
| Posted by: Mina88 March 16, 2012 11:49 pm |
| Contras and Imperialist thank you for your links I will try to read them tomorow.It's going to be easier to understand Imperialist's link since it is already on english than yours contras because google translator is worthless but I will do my best to understand it at least with use of a proper dictionary Andreas thank you for your time explaining some of the problems...well I am aware that Hungarians used all sorts of ways to expand or to strengthen their rule on specific territory... and contras maybe this can help you with czechoslovakia after trianon http://www.kukuruz.ch/download/04_trianon_and_czechoslovakia.pdf |
| Posted by: contras March 17, 2012 12:11 am |
| [/QUOTE]and contras maybe this can help you with czechoslovakia after trianon http://www.kukuruz.ch/download/04_trianon_...choslovakia.pdf[QUOTE] Thanks, Mina88 for your link, but this one don't answer at my first question: does Cehoslovakia receive its territory as a reward of its contribution in ww1, as you said about Transylvania? Or Poland? |
| Posted by: Mina88 March 17, 2012 12:17 am |
| then my answer stays the same:I will post about it when i find something out while researching for my thesis |
| Posted by: Mina88 March 17, 2012 07:23 am |
| this is a map of ethnic groups in Austro-Hungary http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Greater_austria_ethnic.svg |
| Posted by: Agarici March 17, 2012 06:45 pm |
| Dear Mina, my apologies if I've been too blunt in my earlier posts. For modern Romanian history in general, I recommend you (any of) the works of Keith Hitchins, available in English. I think the fellow forum members will agree that it's a good starting point. |
| Posted by: Mina88 March 18, 2012 10:42 am |
| Agarici no problem thank you for this book |
| Posted by: contras April 01, 2012 02:13 pm |
| The true story of Ilie Lazar: http://cristiannegrea.blogspot.com/2012/03/un-roman-uitat-ilie-lazar.html |
| Posted by: Speedy July 17, 2012 10:02 pm |
| Very interesting topic, and very interesting comments. What happened in Alba Iulia was surely not a referendum. If it was, i'm sure that the result would have been the same, but i say again, it was no referendum. The proclamation voted there stated that Transilvania will unite with Romania. If the hungarians would have been the majority, such a vote was not possibile. Regarding the census from 1910, mentioned in an earlier post, that census did not show the ethnic composition, the results were based on the spoken language declared by each individual. This is called "maghiarizare" http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maghiarizare I also remind you that in 1867, the constitutition of the Kingdom oh Hungary, stated that inside the Kingdom, there are no minorities, every body is considered hungarian; wich is a very narrow approach, more absurd then the claim for a democratic referendum in 1918 for Transilvania. Regarding the referendum in Sopron,held on the 14th december 1921, the saime census made in 1910, shows that the most spoken language was the hungarian language, so the german "majority" was in fact a hungarian majority. "Civitas Fidelissima" was the nickname given to the city after this event. By the way according to that census, there were 33 romanians living in Sopron, double then the hungarians living in Albac... http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comitatul_Sopron |
| Posted by: aidan zea July 18, 2012 10:36 am | ||
After the completion of several books on the A-H dualist regime and his policy I dare say that this approach of nationalities (of Hungary) certainly not the most absurd one! But related on the Minorities problem I say that many european states not actually treat better their minorities considering them as nonexistent... the minorities issue is raised (by powerful states from Europe or America) only about weak states as blackmail policy to achieve certain goals there... |
| Posted by: 21 inf July 19, 2012 08:53 am | ||
The question if at Alba Iulia was or not a referendum is just a smoke screen, useful only to hungarians. They forget to say what they did in 1848 when proclaimed union of Transylvania (then a austrian province), against clear expressed will of Romanians from Transylvania. They stated then Union or Death. Death to whom, to those who were against that union? So, guys, drop the question and discussion about referendum at Alba Iulia or not. It was the expression of Romanian will, in a moment they could do that. One doesnt have to ask permision from his master to raise and ask for his rights. |
| Posted by: Radub July 19, 2012 11:07 am | ||||
This was discussed before Alba Iulia was not a referendum because referendums are ballots. There was no "ballot paper". There was no "proposition". There was no "campaign", neither "for" nor "against". Yes, many, many, many people signed books. But that is not a "referendum". Look at the referendum taking place in Romania right now. Compare this referendum with what happened in Alba Iulia. No similarity! Radu |
| Posted by: aidan zea July 20, 2012 01:23 pm |
| Radu, I agree with the fact that Alba Iulia Great National Assembly 1.XII.1918 was not a referendum, without actually having a less legal value! Considering it a different way you just back revisionist theses of some Hungarian extremists (some of them now leading Hungary!) and do a disservice to the Romanian cause, profoundly legitimate in its efforts towards national emancipation and freedom in end 1918! 21 inf, it's indeed as you say, the talk is useless as it only "give water to the mill" to some hungarian extremists and revisionists! |
| Posted by: Radub July 20, 2012 06:29 pm | ||
Aidan, I am not questioning the "legal weight" of what happened in Alba Iulia on 1 December 1918. All I am saying is that if you "go by the book", there was nothing about what happened there to call it a "referendum". That is all. There is no denial that what happened there was of immense importance for the union of Transylvania with Romania. Call it the "will of the people", call it "divine will", "call it the spark that started the fire", call it whatever you want, but "legally" it was not a "referendum". However, I am puzzled by why would any "Hungarian extremists" have so much trouble with 1 December 1918. Transylvania did not join Romania on 1 December 1918. Officially, Transylvania was ceded by Hungary to Romania on 20 June 1920. If the "Hungarian extremists" wanted to revise any "legal document" in their favour, then that would be the Treaty of Trianon (or maybe the Treaty of Paris, which is the treaty in force today). Radu PS if your innuendo was that I may have some sort of Hungarian "sympaties", please allow me to explain to you that I am a proud Romanian and I define my patriotism by my love for my country not by hatred of Hungarians. |
| Posted by: Dénes July 20, 2012 07:15 pm | ||
This is a political statement, biased against Hungary and Hungarians, and as such has no place on this forum. Please discuss the topic from a historical point of view, in a neutral way, and refrain labelling people. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: ANDREAS July 21, 2012 08:22 am |
| Speedy, aidan zea, I agree with your views only in part - I say this because to have a referendum you (I mean the organizer) you need local structures -administrative and/or political type to handle the organization and holding of vote process... but you need also a tradition in this sense... Transylvania was in 1918 neither United States nor England, with a long democratic tradition! Transylvania had indeed a tradition, but a tradition of abuse, of will imposed by force by of a minority (be it hungarian, turk or austrian) ruling by intimidation, persecution, cheatings and broken promises, and even murder! In the context of events of the end of year 1918, the Great National Assembly in Alba Iulia have the legitimacy of a referendum, and from historical point of view is a referendum as was that understood in England or US in XVII and XVIII centuries! Radu, your precisions are welcome and I'm glad to hear them! 21 inf, I share your point of view, but I don't think that all hungarians look the same at the events of December 1, 1918 from Alba Iulia, there are some (I hope many) who understand that the events of Alba Iulia express an historical truth and justice happened after to many years (centuries in fact) of abuses, villains and injustice! |
| Posted by: 21 inf July 21, 2012 09:18 am |
| Andreas, of course not all hungarians looked the same at 1st of December 1918, but if was some of them having another opinion, i wonder how many they were. Anyway, the point was if there was or not a referendum, mainly expressed from hungarian ideas and minds. I believe that the question is futile from romanian point of view and that romanians doesnt even bother to showed it as a referendum, as they didnt needed the opinion of others, but only the romanian point of view as a majority in Transylvania and from the point of view of the oportunities offered by the moment. It was a national assembly, as it was in 1848 in May at Blaj, proclaiming freedom for romanians, even if the national assembly from Blaj was forbidden by hungarian authorities of the time. The very idea of revolution make old rules obsolete and in national struggle romanians knew that they dont need the agreement of former masters to gain their rights. |
| Posted by: Radub July 21, 2012 09:55 am | ||
21 Inf, This is exactly where you failed to see the point in previous discussion. You say "the Hungarian opressor would not have allowed a referendum". Then you go on to say that it had to be a "referendum" simply because it was not allowed to be a "referendum". It simply does not make sense. You cannot say that the absence of evidence is evidence in itself. A referendum is a very precise legal instrument that needs to meet certain legal criteria to be legally binding. If the "Hungarian masters" did not allow for such precise legal requirements to be in place for a referendum, then it was not a referendum. QED So, if the "masters" did not allow the "subjects" to express their opinion, yet the "subjects" expressed this forbidden opinion, what is that? It is the pure definition of "revolution". And you used the word "revolution" yourself. And I agree. To me, "revolution" as an expression of will is hundreds of times more powerful than "referendum". Look at how the "referendum" taking place in Romania these days is so controversial. Romania experienced a lot more change through "revolution" that "referendum". In "revolutions" people change the world, in "referendums" vested interests use the people to change what they want. Want to place what Ponta is doing these days in the same cateogry as what happened in Alba Iulia? I would not! Radu |
| Posted by: aidan zea July 21, 2012 10:32 am | ||
I think we are a little ridiculous sometimes, and I do not say this with the intent to offend anyone, but finding that the diversionary effect of Denes sayings pushed the discussion on referendum as you see above! In this respect I appreciate Speedy opinion and also 21inf, who abandoned diversionary argument of Denes (diversion in terms of attention deviation from the real significance of events!) for the factual significance! I also agree with the proper explanations of Radu, noticing correctly the real consequences of a revolution much more significant and with legal and social effects more important than a referendum! Andreas, I agree with Radu about the effects, including legal ones, of what happened in Alba Iulia at December 1, 1918! But it's not less true what you say about the historical events that lead to the Great National Assembly! |
| Posted by: 21 inf July 21, 2012 10:40 am |
| Radub, my ancestor participated directly at 1848-1849 events as decurion de lancieri in Auraria Gemina Legion and he passed to us (his descendents) the atitude they had back in 1848, so as a motz myself I can understand a little better why we didnt need to have a referendum neither in 1848, neither in 1918 ) probably if we would speak in romanian instead of english i would be more clear what i wanted to say. |
| Posted by: Radub July 21, 2012 11:17 am |
| And right there, summarised in a couple of sentences, is why this is so hard to explain to you. You are looking at this from an emotional perspective, not a legal perspective. The legal requirements for a "referendum" were not met. That is all I am saying. And deep inside you know that is true! What happened there was many times more powrful than a referendum and many more times more effective. Calling it a what it was not does not actually strengthen its case, it actually plays right in the hands of detractors. It is like using the title "doctor" because it sounds good even though none of the necessary steps to use such a title were met. Since the act of Alba Iulia did not bring Transylvania into Romania the next day, I fail to see how saying anything other than gushing praise about it may be a bonus for Hungarians. Radu |
| Posted by: 21 inf July 21, 2012 12:28 pm |
| Radub, if one has learned history from family doesnt mean it goes emotional, maybe only in your mind, as you dont know me or my family personally. One does have to learn history from books in order not to be emotional?! anyway, discusing in this fashion leads to nowhere, so from my part...full-stop. |
| Posted by: Radub July 21, 2012 01:04 pm |
| So, what you are saying is that the only evidence you have that this was a "referendum" is membership of your family? And then you dismiss me with mock sarcasm? How does that even get close to "making your case". Your argument only proves that you are hindered not boosted by your own personal bias. Radu |
| Posted by: Dénes July 21, 2012 02:58 pm |
| Here are the historical facts, once again. The bottom line is that at Alba-Julia (Alba Iulia) on 1 December 1918 there was a gathering of Rumanians, who penned a Resolution in the name of the Rumanians from Transylvania, Banat and The Hungarian Lands (a not clearly defined area). Check the original document, for details: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_eg4RyNmPMYM/TNFDk5wdpuI/AAAAAAAALeU/BM0f80hpgvM/s1600/Proclamatia_de_la_Alba_Iulia.jpg A similar gathering of Hungarians from Transylvania (including a few Rumanians and Germans as well), ending with a resolution (declaration), happened at Kolozsvar (Cluj) a couple of weeks later. The fate of Transylvania was not decided by either gatherings and resolutions, but at the bargaining table with the Allies, who granted a large territory (the whole Transylvania, about half of Banat and a good part of the area West of Transylvania, which was referred to by Rumanians as The Hungarian Lands and by the Hungarians as Partium, i.e. parts of Hungary proper) to Rumania, but much less than the Rumanians had originally claimed, for their previous military activity in WW 1. Naming the facts as they actually happened does not diminish at all the Rumanian cause for Transylvania. These are the actual facts, briefly. Anything else is smoke and mirrors, politics, over-explanations (rastalmaciri), outbursts of emotions mixed with anti-this, anti-that feelings, coming from both sides. Finally, a personal note. After almost 100 years from those events, we should be able to discuss them openly, as an important piece of history, without letting our emotions and feelings overcast the facts and impair our judgement. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: 21 inf July 25, 2012 05:30 am |
| Good point, Denes, and well said! |
| Posted by: Dénes August 02, 2012 07:38 am |
| I found reference to Legea Unirii (Law on Union), published on 1 January 1919. It would be extremely interesting to read it, and could shed light to many obscure details on this topic. Can anyone check out the relevant Monitorul Oficial and perhaps photograph it, then share it? Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: 21 inf August 02, 2012 04:24 pm |
| Try to find that MO on www.dacoromanica.ro, there are a lot of MO published in PDF format. |