The Vienna Arbitration

[mabadesc]

QUOTE

But that doesn't prevent the Fuhrer from pretending to scrap it as soon as the winds of German interests blow in a new direction

Very true.

QUOTE

I have a difficult time imagining that Antunescu in 44 still believed one word of what the Fuhrer could say.

Soon after this meeting (or the meeting in July, I forget), Antonescu told his close counselors that Hitler and his cabinet seemed like a bunch of gangsters...

QUOTE

So why is it \"worth\" mentioning Hitler's latest joke, I don't understand.

Because using the same logic, then the Vienna Arbitration could be considered just as much of a joke. You either disregard both of Hitler's stands (the one in 1940 and the one in 1944) or you take both of them seriously.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

Soon after this meeting (or the meeting in July, I forget), Antonescu told his close counselors that Hitler and his cabinet seemed like a bunch of gangsters...

Oh ? He just climbed one step in my esteem ;-)

QUOTE

So why is it \"worth\" mentioning Hitler's latest joke, I don't understand.

QUOTE

Because using the same logic, then the Vienna Arbitration could be considered just as much of a joke.  You either disregard both of Hitler's stands (the one in 1940 and the one in 1944) or you take both of them seriously.

Then in what regard is the Trianon Joke better than the Vienna Joke ?

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

QUOTE QUOTE After changing the topic's title, I'm interested which countries recognized officially the Vienna Arbitration, except Romania, Hungary, Germany and Italy? I'm not aware of any country officially protesting against it. What about the United Kingdom? (Great Britain) They went so far as to denounce the Vienna Treaty in all languages used by BBC for broadcast. :wink: Florin

UK ? Naturally. Were they not the guys who bribed Romania into the first world war ? They could not ignore the insult of a treaty dismissing their honorable effort.

[dragos]

QUOTE

Mmm. I think that I'm not going to make only friends here

Don’t worry. I would be glad get this matter clarified.

QUOTE

I'm not aware of any country officially protesting against it. However I must admit that many people in the West come to hold the view that the Vienna Arbitration was a more fair solution to the problems in that part of the globe than what the allies came up with at Trianon. Perhaps that explains why there was no great outcry in the world at the news of the new treaty.

If there was a lack of protest against the dictate, this was because it simply disregarded. They were in war with Germany, and it was naturally that they did not consider valid any pact signed by Germany or its allies.

QUOTE

Does the Hungarian majority in Northern Transylvania constitute the Hungarian Nation to which the country belonged until then ?

You must be careful when making such statements, because someone not familiar with this history may believe, reading your sentence, that the Hungarians were majority in Northern Transylvania. You should put it: the majority of Hungarian community.

QUOTE

Fundamentally the question is the following : does having a number of fellow countrymen living in a specific region of a neighbouring country gives you the morale right to take possession of that region by force of arms ?   Let's take a purely hypothetical example. Country A invites some citizens from country B to come to live in one of his regions. Along years more refugees from country B comes to live there and soon constitute a majority. Suddenly country B declares that it unifies with the region of country A, declares war and annexes that region.   Does this situation looks fair and just ?

Your example is wrong from the start, so we cannot comment on it here. There is no comparison with the situation in Transylvania. Romanians in Transylvania neither were invited by anybody, nor they invaded anybody. Contrary, many Hungarian and German ethincs were colonized here, since its occupation by the Habsburgs.

QUOTE

Generally speaking, I don't hold Mister Hitler's opinions in high regard. Almost every statement he made on international policy between 1933 & 1945 proved to be a disgusting pack of lies whose only goal was to provide the Fuhrer with short term political advantages. In those circumstances, that you manage to quote Hitler in order to provide an argument is simply astounding.

Mabadesc intuited what I wanted to say. It is how “strongly” supported was this dictate by its own initiator. This entitles me to say that it would not have survived in any case, and fortunately for Romania it is now a closed chapter of our history.

[Florin]

QUOTE

QUOTE QUOTE Generally speaking, I don't hold Mister Hitler's opinions in high regard. But it is obvious that his opinion was in high regard THAT time. Not after Poland. After Poland, people did'nt listen to what he said anymore, they only looked at the strength of his army :? ....................

Any breath Hitler did, any word Hitler spoke, was top news in 1940-1941.
Not only in the continental Europe, but also in the United Kingdom fighting with him, and in the United States still neutral. Doesn't this mean the following?

QUOTE

... his opinion was in high regard THAT time.

From Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, Seventh Impression 1992, page 1058: "regard2: attention to or concern for sb/sth; care for sb/sth"

From Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, page 984: "1 regard: ...2a: attention, consideration"

However, you have a good point about the strength of his army, and yes, regard has also the meaning of "esteem".
As you said, when you have the toughest army around, doesn't this mean you have the last word in any matter, regardless the respect you get?

Didn't everybody trembled about the Red Army, and bent under Stalin will, regardless how rude and peasant-like Stalin appeared to be?
Didn't everybody obey today what the United States want, even though president Bush is a preferred target for fun, not only in the foreign press, but also in the comic shows of the main American channels?

[dragos]

QUOTE

Fundamentally the question is the following : does having a number of fellow countrymen living in a specific region of a neighbouring country gives you the morale right to take possession of that region by force of arms ?

What about the peoples' will? Does not this enter your equation?

[Chandernagore]

[quote="dragos"][quote]Mmm. I think that I'm not going to make only friends here [/quote]

[quote]Don’t worry. I would be glad get this matter clarified.[/quote]

Oh ? I can't wait. I'm thrilled by menaces.

[quote]Let's take a purely hypothetical example. ...[/quote]

[quote]Your example is wrong from the start, ...[/quote]

But Dragos, how can a purely hypothetical example be wrong ?

[quote]Mabadesc intuited what I wanted to say. It is how “strongly” supported was this dictate by its own initiator. This entitles me to say that it would not have survived in any case, and fortunately for Romania it is now a closed chapter of our history.[/quote]

And Bessarabia is not ? Or is it that you only close the chapters when it's happy end for you ? Fortunately for Romania and all neighbors when/if Romania will join EU/NATO, all chapters will be closed.

[Chandernagore]

[quote][quote]Fundamentally the question is the following : does having a number of fellow countrymen living in a specific region of a neighbouring country gives you the morale right to take possession of that region by force of arms ?[/quote]

What about the peoples' will? Does not this enter your equation?[/quote]

Let's see. The foreigners living in some quarters of my capital are welcome as tourist, workers, whatever. They have many rights but they cannot call their mother country to annex those quarters of my city.

The second point is that of course people'will matters. But war and violence does not bring durable solutions in such situations.

[dragos]

[quote]Oh ? I can't wait. I'm thrilled by menaces.[/quote]

I'm not trying to menace anybody. Why this idea?


[quote][quote]Let's take a purely hypothetical example. ...[/quote]

[quote]Your example is wrong from the start, ...[/quote]

But Dragos, how can a purely hypothetical example be wrong ?
[/quote]

Because this example is not similar with the situation in Transylvania. If you want, you can post it at General Discussion.


[quote][quote]Mabadesc intuited what I wanted to say. It is how “strongly” supported was this dictate by its own initiator. This entitles me to say that it would not have survived in any case, and fortunately for Romania it is now a closed chapter of our history.[/quote]

And Bessarabia is not ? Or is it that you only close the chapters when it's happy end for you ? Fortunately for Romania and all neighbors when/if Romania will join EU/NATO, all chapters will be closed.[/quote]

I feel you have a virulent tone here. But why? :roll:

[dragos]

[quote][quote][quote]Fundamentally the question is the following : does having a number of fellow countrymen living in a specific region of a neighbouring country gives you the morale right to take possession of that region by force of arms ?[/quote]

What about the peoples' will? Does not this enter your equation?[/quote]

Let's see. The foreigners living in some quarters of my capital are welcome as tourist, workers, whatever. They have many rights but they cannot call their mother country to annex those quarters of my city.[/quote]

Romanians in Transylvania were not visitors, guests, tourists etc. Again, a wrong comparison.

[quote]The second point is that of course people'will matters. But war and violence does not bring durable solutions in such situations.[/quote]

Except for this case

[Dénes]

[quote]Denes, there never was a Hungarian majority in Northern Transilvania, only in Harghita/Covasna.[/quote]
That's not correct.
According to the 1941 census, conducted in Northern Transylvania, the Hungarian native speakers were in slight majority (51.7%), while the Rumanians were in minority (41.4%), or slightly greater considering Hungarian nationality (53.6%) vs. Rumanian nationality (39.9%), as the following official table proves:

[quote]Ethnic composition and according to native language and nationality in North and South Transylvania, 1941*
(x 1,000 persons)

a. In North Transylvania, according to native language
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total: 2,578.1
Hungarian: 1,344.0
Romanian: 1,068.7
German: 47.3
Yiddish: 48.5
Other: 69.6

b. In North Transylvania, according to nationality
------------------------------------------------------------
Total: 2,578.1
Hungarian: 1,380.5
Romanian: 1,029.0
German: 44.6
Jewish: 47.4
Other: 76.6

c. In South Transylvania, according to nationality
---------------------------------------------------------
Total: 3,332.9
Hungarian: 363.2
Romanian: 2,274.64
German: 490.67
Other: 204.5

Notes:
* In North Transylvania on 31 January 1941, in South Transylvania on 6 April 1941.

Sources:
Thirring 1943: p. 358. Anuarul demografic al Republicii Socialiste România 1974: pp. 142, 236. Manuilã 1992: p. 145. Buletinul demografic al României May 1940-July 1941.[/quote]

[Dénes]

[quote]The number of members in Dieta (the governing organization): 161 Magyars, 114 Szeklers, 35 Saxons, no Romanians[/quote]
That's clearly a historical unjustice to Transylvanian Rumanians according to today's democratic values.

[Dénes]

[quote]After changing the topic's title, I'm interested which countries recognized officially the Vienna Arbitration, except Romania, Hungary, Germany and Italy?[/quote]
I could not find information on this question, sorry. However, the Vienna Arbitration of 1940 was probably recognized only by Axis states and perhaps the USSR. The Allies disregarded all boundary changes after the 1938 Anschluß, including the reincorporation of Bessarabia and Bukovina to Rumania*.
However, that was done not necessarily because they considered it unjust, etc., but because of the Western Allies' disregard of any decision taken by Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy. A good point to illustrate this is that the Allies did not recognise the wartime Slovak and Croat States either (the USSR initially did), although today both Slovakia and Croatia are legitimate states.

Dénes

P.S. *Interestingly, the only wartime treaty involving territorial change in Central and Eastern Europe that remained valid after the war was the incorporation of Southern Dobrudja (the Quadrilateral) to Bulgaria.

[johnny_bi]

[quote]That's clearly a hstorical unjustice to Transylvanian Rumanians according to today's democratic values.
[/quote]

The other three nations were pretty democratic according to today's democratic values. :wink:


[quote]A good point to illustrate this is that the Allies did not recognise the wartime Slovak and Croat States either (the USSR initially did), although today both Slovakia and Croatia are legitimate states.[/quote]

Well, the situation is pretty different in this case... You have to say that Yougoslavia was virtually anihilated.
As we have earlier discussed within an other thread, the creation of Yougoslavia was an heritage of the A-H Empire and an unhappy heritage... The "explosion" of Yougoslavia in the 90's shows us how such a heteregenous country (such as A-H Empire or an eventually "democratic Hungary" in 1918) could have emerged into an ugly conflit or civil war... many, many years later...

[Dénes]

[quote]It is worth mentioning here that on 23 March 1944, Hitler told Antonescu, asking him not to make public his declaration, that Germany no longer considered herself a signatory of the Vienna "Award".[/quote]
On another hand, Hitler assured Horthy several times that Hungary's claims to Southern Transylvania will be discussed after the war. Moreover, in late August 1944, after the Rumanian coup d'état, Hitler directly offered to Hungary to reannex Southern Transylvania, if the German and Hungarian armies will take over that geographical area and secure the Eastern and Southern Carpathians, in attemp to stop the advancing Soviet and Rumanian Armies. That's how reliable Hitler was in 1944.