| QUOTE |
| I already found some hungarian sites and it is in my intention to invite them to this forum. |
Oh boy, here we go... The gates of hell are opened...
| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > Romanian Army at War > ROMANIA'S TERRITORIAL ISSUES |
| Posted by: Barbosu March 07, 2005 10:54 pm |
| The limits of this topic are of course the forum guidelines, but I feel it can be a good place to discuss face-to-face any territorial issue that Romania had or has with it's neighboroughs. And they are not so many. Of course, I hope to "steal" the postes from Denes' topic related to Vienna Diktat/award (an effect) and search the causses of the issue. Another "HOT ISSUE" is Bassarabia and Bucovina (with Ukraine) and Cadrilater (with Bulgaria). With or without this topic, theese issues exists and as you all agree, ignorance is not an option - for both sides. So, come with proofs, comments and let's study the problems. I'll put the first question: what are the reasons for Hungary to claim Transilvania and what territory would that be? Do they have an historic right for this claim? I'll come back with an answer myself Cheers, Barbosu |
| Posted by: Dénes March 07, 2005 11:04 pm |
| Barbosu (and others), in order to get a more balanced view on these hot issues, you should invite knowledgeable persons from those countries involved in the territorial issues you mentioned, to present their side of the topic. Otherwise it will be a one sided deal. Gen. Dénes P.S. Don't forget Banat from your list. |
| Posted by: Barbosu March 07, 2005 11:28 pm |
| Denes, Thank you, and I hope you will help me by inviting whoever you think it could help. I already found some hungarian sites and it is in my intention to invite them to this forum. I will do the same with Ukraine, Rep. Moldavia, Bulgaria and Serbia. AFAIK Romania and Serbia settled any territorial issue a long time ago, but ... ok! Please do the honours and give an answer to my questions. I asked you the same on the topic on Vienna and got no answer (no reproach, maybe it's not the place, but this one is). Thanks again, Barbosu |
| Posted by: Imperialist March 07, 2005 11:41 pm | ||
Oh boy, here we go... The gates of hell are opened... |
| Posted by: Barbosu March 08, 2005 12:03 am |
| So, according to http://www.magyarorszag.hu/angol/orszaginfo/tortenelem all began in 895 with: "The Conquest - Arriving from the East, the Hungarian tribes conquer the Carpathian Basin under Árpád's leadership". In 895, the Hungarians arrived in Pannonia coming from the steppes of Niper River, being chased out from there by the Pecenegs (Vlad Georgescu - The history of Romanians, Ed. Humanitas, 1992). For this point both parts will agree. Should we start the debate from 895? |
| Posted by: Barbosu March 08, 2005 12:09 am |
Thank you "Imperialist" for appreciation.  I count on your help on this topic. Barbosu |
| Posted by: Dénes March 08, 2005 02:02 am | ||||||
That depends what do you mean by "long time ago". In 1919, Rumanian and Serbian soldiers repeatedly clashed in Banat, as both sides wanted to secure the largest territory possible before the demarcation line would be drawn in the newly acquired territory.
That's the right thing to do, IMHO. However, I'll try not to get involved much in this 'hot' issue, as I have already received enough flak from certain members who appear to loathe me, probably due to my Hungarian ethnicity and can't see beyond this. Luckily, they are in minority here. If you wish, however, I can give you the addresses of a couple of Hungarian history forums and you can post your invitation directly over there. But first, I would suggest you to write a PM to those Hungarians, who are already members of this forum.
I have to disappoint you again, Barbosu, as I am not going to answer the questions you raised. This mainly because I am not knowledgeable enough in the pre-1848 history. Also, despite the efforts of some to cast me as such, I am not representing the point of view of the Hungarian historiography. I noted this repeatedly on this forum. Instead, I try to reach a balance and look at the historical facts with impartiality. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Barbosu March 08, 2005 12:30 pm |
| Thank you Denes. I don't know any hungarians on this forum so please PM me their nicks |
| Posted by: Iamandi March 08, 2005 01:17 pm | ||||
You put the " ' " on "i", Mister Imperialist! Iama PS - so, finally a dedicated (from birth mommnet) topic to this... Let's prepare for the show.. Hey, were i can find some real good popcorns? More serious - i wish to this topic 2 things: 1. - life (don't close it, yet) 2. - bun simt(z) - somebody translate this in hungarian lang., and in english, please. |
| Posted by: dragos March 08, 2005 01:30 pm |
| Iama, forum guidelines are applicable in every topic. |
| Posted by: Fratello March 08, 2005 02:11 pm | ||||
| Gentelmen, the situatin is very simple. Romania doesn't have any territorial issue with Hungary, may be Hungary has with us. Transilvania is romanian land (see the Chronicles of Anonymus - Gesta Hungarorum- the notary of Bella the Hun). The "hot issues" are now Bassarabia, Bucovina and Cadrilater.
Mr. Denes not your Hungarian ethnicity is the problem [Really I don't have anything with your Hungarian ethnicity] and with your "attitude" about Romania and anything related to Romania. ( the proof is that you started to talk about a number of hot issues rerlated to the historical Hungarian and Romanian feud.
This IS the problem because you are not impartial when it comes to the so called issues between Hungary and Romania. I kind of understand this because of your ethnicity. |
| Posted by: Barbosu March 08, 2005 02:43 pm |
| FRATELLO: "Gentelmen, the situatin is very simple." Well Fratello, is not so simple. It's not even far as simple as you say. One could tell you: OK, who is this "Anonymus" guy, do we know him? No, serious, even if this is A BIG ONE for Romanian side (like an autogoal of Hungarians, if you want  ) I think it would be interesting for you to know the other part proofs.And please, everyone's help is needed, so can't you post all what you know on that fragment from "Gesta Hungarorum"? Don't be so "chary of words" (I found that in the dictionary, means: zgarcit la vorba  )Cheers, Baebosu |
| Posted by: Iamandi March 08, 2005 02:47 pm |
| Fratello: why Cadrilater? We talk here from Burebista's days, or from other leaders when our borders were ... in present Bulgarian teritory, or much closer? Please, give some explanations. Denes: you have your part of sparks from the fire, when it is fire on this forum for hungarian-romanian "problem". So, assume (*?) your responsability. If you don't believe, please, re-read your posts. Even you was an romanian citizen, your posts about Romania is ... you are more like an emigrant from Hungary, not from Romania! So, why do you expect according to your posts (on this subjects)? It's a problem of "attitude" like our co-forumist Fratello says... Anyway, PEACE! I want to read good posts, not flaks, flames, etc. I think my post don't was take like an flak, or something like a personal attack to nobody from the 2 forumists. Iama |
| Posted by: dragos03 March 08, 2005 03:02 pm |
| Unfortunately, this forum lacks an objective poster from the Hungarian side. Denes seems to consider every Romanian history book as "communist propaganda" or nationalistically biased. For him, the only true history is the Hungarian one. In another thread i wrote about a Hungarian massacre commited against Romanian civilians in the village of Treznea, after talking to all survivors, Romanians and Hungarians alike. For Denes, these tesimonies had no importance, as a book written by a Hungarian told a different (and ridiculous) version of this story. Maybe we can find another Hungarian ethnic, less biased, who would be useful in discussing these issues. |
| Posted by: Iamandi March 08, 2005 03:08 pm | ||||
And it is A BIG ONE for Hungarians to! The only problem is -> it can be a nice talk thing, with solid and credible sources, or even Dragos says this topic is like all others under the forum guidelines and rules umbrella.. we see something bad here, and just another closed topic? Thanks Barbosu for "chary of words"! Iama |
| Posted by: Dénes March 08, 2005 03:22 pm |
Admin., can you split this thread and open a new one, titled 'The Anti Dénes (or even better: Deneş) Thread'?  It appears that people line up here, one after the other, to chastise me (the minority of forumists I was talking about is apparently rather numerous). This is not something unexpected; nevertheless, it's saddens me to actually see it happening. Apparently, I am like a lightning rod here for all kind of people who have some kind of agendas. Therefore a separate thread would help the rest of the forum stay clean from such flame.  Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Iamandi March 08, 2005 03:35 pm | ||
Hey, mr Denes, don't consider yourself such an VIP! Iama |
| Posted by: Fratello March 08, 2005 03:35 pm | ||||
Mr. Barbosu what do you want the prove, in fact?..that Transylvania is not a romanian land? (Bring same argument the prove the opposite). Yes I repet: the situation is very simple, because Transylvania belong now to Romania (this is the GOD will)...so the "copmlex" is from Hungarian side (because this territory is not part from Hungary like "the old time"). And who are you Mr. Barbosu (are you hungarian?)? You seem to be like Mr. Denes's spokesman or more like his "vassal".
Yes Iamandi, I think here you are right. So, no comment. Fratello |
| Posted by: Dénes March 08, 2005 03:51 pm |
| Below are the links to 4 Hungarian language forums that deal also with the recent history. Although the language is Hungarian, there are young people there who should speak (some) English. Mind you, I found them while searching with google, as I don't freqent them and therefore I don't take any responsibility. http://www.pcdome.hu/forum/forum.php?action=ll&fid=50&tid=8069 http://forum.index.hu/Article/showArticle?t=9015704&la=42229138 http://www.fabulis.hu/f_forumok_frameset.php http://www.pumaszallas.hu/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=7&sid=3ae12ad32e03a309b22086b3f93d1ccc Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Fratello March 08, 2005 03:53 pm | ||
Mr Denes Do you think this is a "Anti-Denes Thread"? Wrong! I repeat I don't have anything with you because of your Hungarian ethnicity or with you like person (may be we can be "good friends"). The problem is "your attitude" (why you don't understand?) and your "defiance" of some Romanian History aspects. So, in future don't open again some of this "hot Romanian-Hungarian issues" because you will say again that "you are a victim and all of us peresecute you". Peace! Fratello |
| Posted by: Barbosu March 08, 2005 03:55 pm |
| I think Treznea was another discussion, another topic. I read it and I found Denes' story highly improbable. Denes, IMHO someone without an agenda is just dead or stupid. I have on my agenda to find out as much truth as I can about my life, people, country, neighboroughs and so on. And believe me I do not have you on my agenda (maybe just as a men to whom I can speak interesting things. About the sources we should consult. If I have to consult everyone of them I could die before the end the consulting!!!!  If there are 1001 sources, can I start thinking after the first 500?  Anyway: QUESTION - DID ROMANIA GO TO VIENNA WITH A DOCUMENTATION SO THE "JUDGES" GERMANY AND ITALY COULD KNOW WHAT THEY ARE JUDGING? DID HUNGARY? Thanx, Barbosu PS I have the strange feeling that this issue became "politically incorrect" to talk about because it instantly sets on fire everything!!! Be cool, guys. You don't like Denes? pick up some proofs and "show" him. And I hope he will not be alone here soon. I hope he will do the same "treatment" to you. |
| Posted by: Barbosu March 08, 2005 04:03 pm |
| Fratello So you don't know all about "Gesta Hungarorum" ? BTW, a hell of an "attitude" you have. You see? IT IS SO SIMPLE: I wanted to talk, even with you, You didn't know what to answer so YOU INSULT me. Geeeet out, man, NO WAY you can make me answer to this simplicity. And BTW, I am mongolian. Barbosu |
| Posted by: dragos March 08, 2005 09:55 pm | ||
Fratello, Barbosu asked in his initial question:
Nowhere did he imply that Transylvania is not Romanian land. So drop unfounded aggressive tone and let's have a discussion based on arguments. |
| Posted by: Barbosu March 08, 2005 11:30 pm |
| Denes, You gave us four links in Hungarian. Can you point one forum in English about Hungaria? Everyone Sorry, but after this last page of nothing in this topic, I cannot understand how could you post so much on Vienna diktat/award issue? Was it safer to discuss the same BIG ISSUE under this screen? The diktat/award was only an effect, a detail in the big picture. And THE BIG PICTURE can be resumed in two phrases (so Fratello can understand and will stop send me sh**t on PM): 1. ROMANIANS have the strong belief that TRANSILVANIA WAS ALWAYS ROMANIAN because DACS and then ROMANS were HERE way BEFORE and they formed ROMANIAN PEOPLE and that HUNGARIANS CAME ONE DAY AND STOLE TRANSILVANIA FROM ROMANIANS, but ROMANIANS GOT IT BACK. THE END. 2. HUNGARIANS have the strong belief that they CONQUERED A VIRGIN LAND AND FINALLY SET UP AFTER A LONG TIME OF MIGRATION and that TRANSILVANIA IS A PART OF THIS CONQUEST and they had it FOR HUNDREADS OF YEARS and a lot of their BROTHERS STILL LIVE IN TRANSILVANIA so THEY MUST GET IT BACK (correct me if I'm wrong!) ........................................... Now, IMHO that is what we are talking here. Let's suppose that the Hungarian part has proofs that only deers and buffalos (zimbri) were here when their ancesters arrived in Transilvania. LET'S HERE THE PROOFS. I am ready and hope everybody is to study them. If there are no proofs, let's move to Basarabia, Cadrilater, Banat (as pointed Denes). ................................................ and now smthg Off-topic (!?) As for my part, I once was in a village near Odorheiul Secuiesc, in ROMANIA where not one person was Romanian, so they don't speak Romanian at all, NEVER, JUST WHEN THEY HAVE ROMANIAN GUESTS. Our hosts were a family with two children and the man had a Hungarian-Romanian dictionary and searched everytime a word. We ate "GULAS" of "BIKO" (veal, IIRC) and drank our brains out with PALINKA in their pension. I hope I will go there again this year, when I have to travel again with my work for 3 days in Odorheiul Secuiesc. PS. FRATELLO, I expect appologies for your "PSh..."  |
| Posted by: Fratello March 08, 2005 11:41 pm | ||
Ok Dragos !. I'll try to be just to the subject. I don't want to became a "V.C.Tudor" in this topic. |
| Posted by: Fratello March 08, 2005 11:54 pm | ||
Mr. Barbosu I don't want to have a personal "vendetta" with you. Please, follow your way and leave me alone (I'm not from your class, like you said) And please don't threaten me anymore in PM! Peace and let's have about our disscution in a decorous way. |
| Posted by: Dénes March 09, 2005 12:23 am | ||
I don't know any English language forums on the history of Hungary. Just post on those 4 forums your invitation in English. Whoever understands it and is willing to participate, he'll show up here. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Fratello March 09, 2005 12:51 am |
| Here is passage from the book "O Istorie sinceră a poporului Român" by Florin Constantiniu about the controversy of Anonymus's Gesta Hungarorum (I posted in romanian language to be more concise): " O dată cu închierea etnogenezei românilor, izvoare de mare diversitate, prin origine şi caracter, semnalează în cuprinsul ariei locuite de acesp popor formaţiuni teritoriale de întindere restrânsă, aflate în diferite stadii de închegare a instituţiilor politice, administrative şi militare. Cele mai vechi sunt semnalate în interiourul arcului carpatic de un izvor controversat, Gesta Hungarorum (Faptele ungurilor), o cronică scrisă de notarul sau secretarul regelui Bela; autorul nu-şi dezvăluie identitatea (de aici termenul utilizat în istoriografie de Anonymus) şi nici nu arată cărui rege numit Bela i-a fost notar (majoritatea istoricilor înclină spre Bela al III-lea, 1173-1196). Potrivit relatării acestei cronici, ungurii, stabiliţi în Câmpia Panonică la sfârşitul secolului IX-lea, ar fi întâlnit în incursiunile lor în interiorul arcului carpatic trei formaţiuni statale: cea a lui Menumorut, care îşi avea reşedinţa în cetatea ,,Byhor", aşadar, în Ţara Crişurilor, cea a lui Gelu, arătat a fi ,,un oarecare român" (quidam Blacus) şi ,,duce (în înţelesul de conducător militar) al românilor" (dux Blacorum), a cărui formaţiune este desemnată cu numele ,,Terra Ultrasilvania" - ,,ţara de dincolo de pădure", o variantă a numelui "Transilvania", care are acelaşi înţeles- , prin urmare, în zona Podişului transilvan (s-ar putea ca reşedinţa lui să fi fost în cetatea descoperită la Dăbâlca, jud. Cluj) şi, a treia, cea a lui Glad, cu reşedinţa la Keve, pe malul stâng al Dunării (în Banatul sărbesc), despre a cărui armată Anonymus spune că era alcătuită din ,,cumani, bulgari şi români" (întrucât la aceea dată cumanii pătrunseră în spaţiul românesc, este de presupus că autorul îi avea în vedere pe pecenegi). Istoriografia ungară contestă autenticitatea acestor informaţii şi consideră că Anonymus, care a scris la peste două secole de la desfăşurarea evenimentelor relatate, a inventat aceste personaje (de pildă, Gelu ar fi fost derivst din localitatea Gilău). N. Iorga păstra şi el mari rezerve faţă de istoricitatea episoadelor narate de notarul anonim: ,,avem aface cu o înjgebare literară târzie, din vreme Asăneştilor (Iorga consideră că e vorba de regele Bela al IV-lea 1235-1270 - n.n.), în care elemente de geografie contemporană se unesc cu o interpretare raţionalistă a legendelor venirii ungurilor, a cântecelor epice despre cucerire; se adaugă şi ca a treia parte constitutivă încercarea stângace de a scoate fapte istorice din înţelesul obişnuit al numelor geografice". Pe temeiul examinării critice a acestui izvor, istoricul conchidea: ,,Nimic nu se poate păstra din această povestire decât că, la intrarea lor în părţile de dincolo de Tisa, ungurii au găsit o populaţie băştinaşă româno-slavă sau românească pe urma slavilor, având voievozi în fruntea ei, ba chiar cnezi". Într-adevăr, din textul lui Anonymus, importante pentru cercetarea istorică nu sunt peripeţiile - reale sau imaginare - a le luptelor dintre băştinaşi şi invadatori, ci realitatea fundamentală, a cărei amintire se păstrase la curte regală ungară: la venirea lor în ,,ţara de dincolo de pădure" (Transilvania sau, în limba ungară Erdely, de unde a derivat românescul Ardeal), ungurii i-au găsit pe români, care le-au opus rezistenţă. Subliniem că atăta vreme cât problema vechimii/autohtoniei rom\nilor ]n Transilvania nu a fost invocată ca argument pentru drepturile lor în/sau asupra Transilvaniei (aşa cum se va întâmpla în secolele XVIII-XX), în cercurile politice şi culturale ale Regatului ungar, anterioritatea românilor faţă de maghiari în interiorul arcului carpatic era o realitate istorică deasupra îndoileii. [...]" (Florin Constantiniu, O istorie sinceră a poporului Român, Bucureşti,Ed. Univers Enciclopedic, 1999, pag. 57-58) |
| Posted by: Fratello March 09, 2005 12:56 am | ||
Here is passage from the book "O Istorie sinceră a poporului Român" by Florin Constantiniu about the controversy of Anonymus's Gesta Hungarorum (I posted in romanian language to be more concise): " O dată cu închierea etnogenezei românilor, izvoare de mare diversitate, prin origine şi caracter, semnalează în cuprinsul ariei locuite de acesp popor formaţiuni teritoriale de întindere restrânsă, aflate în diferite stadii de închegare a instituţiilor politice, administrative şi militare. Cele mai vechi sunt semnalate în interiourul arcului carpatic de un izvor controversat, Gesta Hungarorum (Faptele ungurilor), o cronică scrisă de notarul sau secretarul regelui Bela; autorul nu-şi dezvăluie identitatea (de aici termenul utilizat în istoriografie de Anonymus) şi nici nu arată cărui rege numit Bela i-a fost notar (majoritatea istoricilor înclină spre Bela al III-lea, 1173-1196). Potrivit relatării acestei cronici, ungurii, stabiliţi în Câmpia Panonică la sfârşitul secolului IX-lea, ar fi întâlnit în incursiunile lor în interiorul arcului carpatic trei formaţiuni statale: cea a lui Menumorut, care îşi avea reşedinţa în cetatea ,,Byhor", aşadar, în Ţara Crişurilor, cea a lui Gelu, arătat a fi ,,un oarecare român" (quidam Blacus) şi ,,duce (în înţelesul de conducător militar) al românilor" (dux Blacorum), a cărui formaţiune este desemnată cu numele ,,Terra Ultrasilvania" - ,,ţara de dincolo de pădure", o variantă a numelui "Transilvania", care are acelaşi înţeles- , prin urmare, în zona Podişului transilvan (s-ar putea ca reşedinţa lui să fi fost în cetatea descoperită la Dăbâlca, jud. Cluj) şi, a treia, cea a lui Glad, cu reşedinţa la Keve, pe malul stâng al Dunării (în Banatul sărbesc), despre a cărui armată Anonymus spune că era alcătuită din ,,cumani, bulgari şi români" (întrucât la aceea dată cumanii pătrunseră în spaţiul românesc, este de presupus că autorul îi avea în vedere pe pecenegi). Istoriografia ungară contestă autenticitatea acestor informaţii şi consideră că Anonymus, care a scris la peste două secole de la desfăşurarea evenimentelor relatate, a inventat aceste personaje (de pildă, Gelu ar fi fost derivst din localitatea Gilău). N. Iorga păstra şi el mari rezerve faţă de istoricitatea episoadelor narate de notarul anonim: ,,avem aface cu o înjgebare literară târzie, din vreme Asăneştilor (Iorga consideră că e vorba de regele Bela al IV-lea 1235-1270 - n.n.), în care elemente de geografie contemporană se unesc cu o interpretare raţionalistă a legendelor venirii ungurilor, a cântecelor epice despre cucerire; se adaugă şi ca a treia parte constitutivă încercarea stângace de a scoate fapte istorice din înţelesul obişnuit al numelor geografice". Pe temeiul examinării critice a acestui izvor, istoricul conchidea: ,,Nimic nu se poate păstra din această povestire decât că, la intrarea lor în părţile de dincolo de Tisa, ungurii au găsit o populaţie băştinaşă româno-slavă sau românească pe urma slavilor, având voievozi în fruntea ei, ba chiar cnezi". Într-adevăr, din textul lui Anonymus, importante pentru cercetarea istorică nu sunt peripeţiile - reale sau imaginare - a le luptelor dintre băştinaşi şi invadatori, ci realitatea fundamentală, a cărei amintire se păstrase la curte regală ungară: la venirea lor în ,,ţara de dincolo de pădure" (Transilvania sau, în limba ungară Erdely, de unde a derivat românescul Ardeal), ungurii i-au găsit pe români, care le-au opus rezistenţă. Subliniem că atăta vreme cât problema vechimii/autohtoniei românilor în Transilvania nu a fost invocată ca argument pentru drepturile lor în/sau asupra Transilvaniei (aşa cum se va întâmpla în secolele XVIII-XX), în cercurile politice şi culturale ale Regatului ungar, anterioritatea românilor faţă de maghiari în interiorul arcului carpatic era o realitate istorică deasupra îndoileii. [...]" (Florin Constantiniu, O istorie sinceră a poporului Român, Bucureşti,Ed. Univers Enciclopedic, 1999, pag. 57-58) |
| Posted by: Barbosu March 10, 2005 12:12 am |
| I found right on the forum an old topic on Trianon where are some interesting posts on the subject debated here. http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=1294&st=0 Please read especially Zsoldos Tamas point of view, because he is "from the other side" and we can find out what we are dealing with in the BIG Picture which is the subject of this topic. I have for now two observations after reading ALL that topic on Trianon: 1. I am a sad because in that topic Denes did not correct any of many faults of his co-national Tamas. But besides the faults Zsoldos wrote some interesting fragments. 2. About the history during the communism - There is no doubt that communists used history (like any other possible mean) to manipulate and brain-wash the people, especially the youngs. I found a high school history book printed in 1978 for XII grade. The most manipulated chapters are the ones where the Communist Party (PCR) could gain some merit and fabricate itself a history. Maybe I will translate some fragments from the book the next days. - I use as source a democratic historian (romanian), Vlad Georgescu, arrested as disident by the communists in 1977. He left Romania in 1978 and lived his last 10 years in USA where he died eventually in '88. His book: The History of Romanians - from the origins to our days was published in Romania finally in 1992, by Humanitas Publishing House. ----------------------------------------------------------- About last message posted by Fratello (too bad is not in English) Vlad Georgescu (the proved disident and democratic historian) an Florin Costiniu , the historian quoted by Fratello share the same opinion. Maybe Costiniu is more detailed in some asprcts, Georgescu in other, but the general idea is the same: Hungarians found three Romanian states in Transilvania: one in Crisana, ruled by Menumorut from Biharea, the capital, near todays Oradea; one in Banat ruled by Glad from Morisena (alias Cenad, today) and one in the heart of Transilvania, with the capital at Dabaca, near Cluj/Kolosvary, ruled by Gelu. (the capitals are stated as in Georgescu's book). The aerhologists found the remains of around 20 settlements/villages in Menumorut's kingdom, 60 in Glad's and over 40 in Gelu's, according to Georgescu. |
| Posted by: Aleks March 13, 2005 12:35 pm |
| Hi Barbosu and others, Thanks a lot for discussion invitation. It’s not actually my sphere of interest so I can help only in very modest way. Please don’t get me wrong but my opinion is that we all must be very careful or “all hell breaking loose” will happened for sure. I know that beside Greece only country without problems on borderline with Serbia is Rumania. Besides some “territory hunting” that Denes mentioned in 1919 everything else is OK. It was if I may say so “normal” at that moment. After collapse of K und K Monarchy a lot of borders were changed on Balkans. There was much more problems for Serbia with Italians on the west border. In some reports I saw that only minor army forces were positioned on Rumanian border, so it speaks for itself. From Serbian point of view there was no serious threat from Rumanian side. I’m not absolutely sure but I think that even after WW2 borders between Serbia and Rumania remains the same. Maybe we are lucky because Danube is natural frontier between Rumania and Serbia. Considering 1919 there is a lot of material in Military Archive in Belgrade but it needs a loooot of time for studying. Cheers, Aleks PS Serbian soldiers in WW1 that were in POW camps on Rumanian soil taken by Germans were full of gratitude for Rumanian people who helped them as much as they can especially during escapes from camps. There is lovely book about it published in Serbia couple of years ago. It’s off topic but I just want to mention it. |
| Posted by: Imperialist March 15, 2005 10:35 pm |
| Barbosu, if you're still interested on the hungarian view, you should visit this site and read all the documents there (maybe specifically the ones under romanian-hungarian relations category): http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/ However, dont do it without professional medical supervision... your blood pressure could go through the roof... dont say I didnt warn you! that applies to Fratello too. Or should I say especially...? take care |
| Posted by: Fratello March 16, 2005 02:54 pm | ||
???Mr. Imperialist, I don't understand what do you mean. |
| Posted by: Imperialist March 16, 2005 03:53 pm |
| I meant that if you read the things written on that site, you'll probably be very angry. Not that I hold that against you or something, it was just a friendly observation. Have you read some of that stuff? take care |
| Posted by: Fratello March 17, 2005 09:51 pm | ||
It's ok Imperialist, I understood for the first time but I was joking a little with you. I read the things writtent on that site and I'm astonished  , but if I'm thinking that are written by some hungarians I understand that these guys are haunted by a complex because Transylvania don't belong anymore to Hungary . |
| Posted by: 21 inf October 27, 2007 02:10 pm |
| Oficial atitude during ww2 (with roots in ww1) regarding romanians (or sandalled-walachians?). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMVqjr3BVtk |
| Posted by: Dénes October 27, 2007 03:53 pm |
| The link you posted, Bogdan, is primitive anti-Hungarian propaganda of the worst (or best?) kind (as far as the first minute goes), paired with sub-standard English. It's historical value is nil. Why you posted it here, on this forum, which we try to establish as a credible, reference source on Rumanian military history for years now, is beyond me.  Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: 21 inf October 27, 2007 04:35 pm |
| Just some figures at the begining of the slide show about a teritorial issue as stated in the name of the subject. They have NO historical value? Are they not true? Is the map presented wrong? I'm just asking... As about the sub-english, I am not a english language expert to assess the level of english language level. In this spirit, I'll not post anymore on this forum, because I also speak a bad english, giving my poor english gramar The very presence of this subject on this military forum ... As about the post on a military forum of a such called "anti-hungarian propaganda", let me remind the topic which can be found here http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=1252 . I believe that it is about politics and no military history, and I didnt asked why was started such a subject. It has no mentioned sources, to be credible. How are the subjects from the link mentioned here http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=3906&hl= ? But to conclude, I dont want to start waves. One has mind to judge, so one can discern the facts presented here or there or elsewhere. It is up to the reader. If the post above is not fitting with the rules of this forum, I'm deeply sorry and I obey the decision of the admins to be deleted. All the best, 21 Inf. |