The Vienna Arbitration

[Dénes]

[quote]The following is from my memory:

Hitler wanted to know for himself who is right in the Transylvanian matter, so he ordered a commission constituted from German historians, to search who is more entitled to have Transylvania: Romania or Hungary?

The conclusion of the German team: without doubt, Romania.

Please correct me if I am wrong.[/quote]
Florin, I cannot comment something that is not taken from verifiable sources. Your above recollection might be right or wrong. On what proves and facts did the 'German historian team' base its decision?

About politics and the Vienna Arbitration, everything was (and still is) influenced by politics...

[quote]
But Denes, don't you think that when somebody reads a remark like...

[quote][quote]....Romania was forced to sign it.[/quote]
Rumania was not forced to do so. It could have walked away.
[/quote]

...that person may feel that his or her intelligence is deeply underestimated?

What Romania could do?
To fight with Hungary and Germany in the same time? Maybe also, in addition, with Soviet Union and the puppet Slovakian state?[/quote]
These are only suppositions and speculations. Who knows what may have followed had Rumania (or Hungary) refuse the results of the Vienna Arbitration?
Another plausible scenario could have very well been that Germany would have sided with Rumania (remember, the Rumanian oilfields, abundance in grain and other valuable resources, proximity to the Soviet Union, etc.) and would have attacked Hungary and finished with the Hungarian and Transylvanian 'problem' once for all.
Or, Germany could have invaded both Rumania and Hungary and subsequently would place Transylvania under German rule, as Hitler did with Southern Banat in 1941, territory claimed by both Bucharest and Budapest.
And so on...

But these are hypothesis only and I am not interested in them. I am mainly intersted in historical facts. That's why I won't engage in any 'what-ifs' or 'imagine the following example', and other theoretical discussions, currently fought between Chander, Dragos et al.

[Geto-Dacul]

Dénes wrote :

[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]

Dénes, I have a little objection here, regarding Hungarian methods of census (used for example at the 1910 census)...

"The basis of nationality is what which is used in the Census Report, namely "mother tongue." Controversy rages round the meaning which is to be attached to this term ; it is alleged, for instance, that a visitor may find that the majority of the inhabitants of a commune speak German although the Census Report states that these villagers are almost all Magyars. Again, it is asserted that the Census officer, who is necessarily a Magyar, will include as Magyars those of other nations who state that they speak Magyar "more willingly" than the speach they learnt in childhood. A somewhat specious argument is put forward in the case of the Germans in Hungary ; it is stated that the Census officer records a letter "m" for Magyars and a letter "n", from the word "német," for Germans, and that in computing the totals he misreads many of the n's as m's. After working at the Census Report for many months I am of the opinion, however, that the report is substantially accurate, and that on the whole the varied objections are probably based upon isolated instances. The results, which are indicated on the "nationality" maps, are probably true within an error of two or three percent."

Source : B.C. Wallis, NATIONALITIES IN HUNGARY, The Royal Geographical Society, London, 1916, page 179.
:keep:

Getu'

[Florin]

[quote]Florin, I cannot comment something that is not taken from verifiable sources. Your above recollection might be right or wrong. On what proves and facts did the 'German historian team' base its decision?
..................
[/quote]

Even if I would have on hand the source again, the only thing I would be able to add would be the name of the leader of the German commission (a professor or doctor in history), and maybe the name of the commission.

As I was not a member of the commission, I cannot say how the Germans reached their conclusions. My second statement is not a joke. It is a fact.

Considering the rest of your message:
You said Romania had options. I think the military threat from Germany and Hungary was crystal clear (also Italy, but we both know that Italy was just on paper, regarding Transylvania). Do you think Romania would abandon half of Transylvania if it wouldn't be under very clear military threat, from overwhelming forces?
About what you mentioned regarding the oil fields: by pinpointing the new border like a claw directed to the South, Germany (via Hungary) was anyway close to the oil fields. Also, as I think you know, if it wouldn't be the serious German concern about the safety of the Romanian oil fields, the Russians were willing to advance up to Siret, or up to the Carpathian Mountains.

As I said, the arrangement which left unpleased both Hungary and Romania pleased very much Germany, especially because of that.

Your mentioning of the possible German stand on the Romanian side is pure fiction. And I can understand this: Romania had a duplicitary policy, and only after June 1940 tried to be much closer with Germany. I don't know how duplicitary Hungary was, if it was, but its very clear option in the previous years was Germany.

Florin
PS: If you want to correct your answer to me, introduce a "/" in "[quote]", in that area were the Slovakian are mentioned. :wink:

[Dénes]

[quote]Dénes wrote :

[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]

Dénes, I have a little objection here, regarding Hungarian methods of census (used for example at the 1910 census)...[/quote]
Getule, I already wrote this earlier: if we consider the official census data unreliable, then what is reliable enough? And then why consider only the Hungarian censuses unreliable and not the Rumanian ones, too?
In this case, we would not have any solid starting point whatsoever to base our answers on...

As for the problem of mother tongue, that's why I also included the data on nationality, as declared by the respective person. You may see that there is a slight variation, as it normally is.

[Geto-Dacul]

Dénes, here is what our good friends the Soviets recognized as true :

From : Capitala, Anul 5, No. 1393, Vineri 6 Septembrie 1940.

"Se spune RADIO MOSCOVA despre ARBITRAJUL dela VIENA"

MOSCOVA, 5. (Telca-Press). -
Postul de radio Moscova a difuzat eri la ora 23 si 50 (ora Bucurestilor) pentru presa sovietica urmatorul comunicat al agentiei oficiale sovietice "Tass" :
"Dupa datele statistice, populatia tinuturilor transilvaniene cedate Ungariei in urma deciziei arbitrale dela Viena, a atins la 1 Ianuarie 1940, cifra globala de 2.609.007 suflete, din cari romanii 1.034.903 sau 49,9 la suta, ungurii 968.064 sau 37,1 la suta, germanii 72.109 sau 2,8 la suta, evreii 148.649 sau 6,7 la suta, rutenii 28.098 sau 1,1 la suta, alte nationalitati 87.194 sau 3,4 la suta.
Comunicatul agentiei oficiale sovietice se abtine de alte comentarii.

[Dénes]

[quote]Dénes, here is what our good friends the Soviets recognized as true[/quote]
We have to ask ourselves: what facts did the Soviets base their estimate on (since there was no official Rumanian census in January 1940)?
I am still waiting to hear your answer to my question posted above...

[Dénes]

[quote][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]
Johnny, I didn't get your point, sorry.

We have to remember that back then, it was not nationality, or ethnicity that counted (in fact, the term 'nationality' emerged only after the French Revolution of 1789, so it's nonsense talking about nationality earlier on), but rather wealth and power.

In the XIXth and early XXth Centuries, when nationality was an issue, the Rumanians did have sizeable representation in the Hungarian Parliament.

[Geto-Dacul]

Dénes wrote :

[quote]We have to ask ourselves: what facts did the Soviets base their estimate on (since there was no official Rumanian census in January 1940)?
[/quote]

You don't really need to make a census each year to know the aproximate population of a region... I cannot really answer your question, but it is obvious that Radio Moscow didn't declared that for the love of it...

I'll continue my research then...

Best regards,

Getu'

[Chandernagore]

[quote]I'm not trying to menace anybody. Why this idea?[/quote]

I must have misinterpreted

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

It discussed some generic theories completely related to the topic. That you find the situation non similar with Transylvania only reflects your own opinion. But perhaps you would only tolerate those opinions to be posted here ?

[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]

[quote]I feel you have a virulent tone here. But why? :roll:[/quote]

What you feel is my undying love for the double standards dear to all nationalist

[Dénes]

[quote]Dénes wrote :

[quote]We have to ask ourselves: what facts did the Soviets base their estimate on (since there was no official Rumanian census in January 1940)?
[/quote]

You don't really need to make a census each year to know the aproximate population of a region... [/quote]
Agree.
The internationally accepted time span between censuses is 10 years. Since the last Rumanian census was done in 1930, the next one ought to be be held in 1940, as data may change significantly in 10 years. The Hungarian census in Northern Transylvania and the Rumanian census in Southern Transylvania was done in 1941, so it's closer to reality than the 1930 census. However, we have to consider also the population exchanges, expulsions and migration in both directions following the handing over of authority of Northern Transylvania to Hungary. Even so, I'd say the 10% (or 13%) difference, as originally quoted, is well above the margin of error.

[Florin]

[quote]
Getule, I already wrote this earlier: if we consider the official census data unreliable, then what is reliable enough? And then why consider only the Hungarian censuses unreliable and not the Rumanian ones, too?
In this case, we would not have any solid starting point whatsoever to base our answers on...[/quote]

Very good point, Denes.

From the Magyar Census of 1910

The nationalities in Transylvania:
- Romanians 2,909,260 - 46.20%
- Magyars 1,617,231 - 25.70%
- Szeklers 441,656 - 7.0%
- Germans 731,964 - 11.6%
- Serbs-Croatians 287,122 - 4.6%
- Ruthenians 164,443 - 2.6%
- Slovaks 42,674 - 0.6%
- Others 119,606 - 1.7%

Total (as of 1910): 6,304,172

However, the frontier decided by the Trianon Peace Treaty amputated a part of Arad, Bihor, Satu Mare and Maramures counties, in favor of Hungary. This changed the percentages mentioned above (assumed correct, for the sake of dialogue and in the spirit of my post and what I quoted from Denes). In the Transylvanian territory as it was left in 1920 to Romania, the percent of Romanians was even higher, the percent of the Hungarians even lower.

[johnny_bi]

[quote]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
[/quote]


"Of Northern Transylvania's Jewish population, approximately two-thirds claimed Hungarian nationality; as a result, the security of their lives and property was guaranteed until the spring of 1944, when the German deportations began, abetted by a Germanophile Hungarian government."
- taken from http://www.net.hu/corvinus/lib/minor/min02.htm#_50

With a simple calculus we could see that 2/3 of Jewish population that declared an Hungarian nationality was 48.5X2=97... Almost 100.000 of the Hungarians were not actually Hungarians ...

Then ...

"Another result of the Second Vienna Award was, of course, that Hungary gained all of Northern Transylvania's population: 1,380,758 (or 1,380,506) Hungarians, 1,029,343 (or 1,029,470) Romanians, some 45,645 Germans,49 and about 124,626 persons of other nationalities. Southern Transylvania, which remained part of Romania, then had a population that consisted of 2,274,138 Romanians, 490,000 Germans, 363,000 Hungarians, and about 205,000 belonging to other nationalities.50"

- taken from the same source...

So, we have a population of about 2,580,372 ... out of which 1,380,758-97,000=1,283,758 were Hungarian ... so ... about 49.75% of the population was actually Hungarian...
And I didn't make the calculus on the figures you gave ... in your figures you have some less 35.000 Hungarians and some more 40.000 Romanians.

And I found this "?" in 5 minutes... :wink:

[Chandernagore]

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

[quote]Except for this case [/quote]

No, surely not in this case, Dragos. The chapter is not closed for everybody. You know why ? Because with the territory come the responsibilities toward the population of both Romanian and non Romanian origin. Wether you like it or not Romania's relations with the big European organizations is affected by that situation. Oh I'm off-topic ! This belongs to the NATO/EU folder.

[Dénes]

Florin,
I have already mentioned, twice I guess, that no serious person, student of history - including myself - denies that in Transylvania in 1918, the Rumanians were more numerous than Hungarians and Szeklers combined. However, based on your table, the Rumanians were not in majority (i.e., 50%+ 1 person) in Transylvania, only the most numerous ethnic minority. Moreover, recent historical decisions not always followed the ethnic composition of a certain territory (see Bessarabia & Northern Bukovina, for example).

What I try to say here, and emphasized earlier, is that the incorporation of 'geographical Transylvania, Northern Banat and the Hungarian Lands' to the so-called 'Greater Rumania' in 1919 was the result of Rumania ending W.W. 1 on the victors' side and Hungary on the losers' side, the Rumanians significant influence with the French - the real masters of the Peace Treaty of Trianon (please note that I did not use the term 'diktat', or dictate', often used in Hungarian sources) - and the realpolitik of those times (e.g., punishing Hungary for its part i W.W. 1, as well as the 'Bolshevik menace' of 1919).

Let me post a caveat (warning, disclaim) here, valid for all my past and future postings:
when discussing these sensible topics, all I want is to clarify a few historical details and facts, for the sake of our common interest in history, and not, by any means, question any current political issues.
Also, some persons posting here suggest that I may represent or defend the Hungarian side of the 'story'. I am definitely not.
What I try is to cast a neutral, unbiased light on several sensitive issues for both the Rumanian and Hungarians, showing the stand of both sides, in hope that by exchanging data and ideas we all will learn something positive and we all will come closer to the (otherwise untangible) historical truth. Dixit.

[Dénes]

[quote]
So, we have a population of about 2,580,372 ... out of which 1,380,758-97,000=1,283,758 were Hungarian ... so ... about 49.75% of the population was actually Hungarian...
And I didn't make the calculus on the figures you gave ... in your figures you have some less 35.000 Hungarians and some more 40.000 Romanians.
And I found this "?" in 5 minutes... :wink:[/quote]
Again, your point, Johnny?
The 2/3rd estimate could be 60% (or 70%), definitely not 66.66%.
Moreover, by the same logic, we might consider that some Jews declared themselves as Rumanian, to escape persecution, or that some Hungarians declared themselves German, to entitle themselves to certain advantages (remember, the German minority had a 'special' situation from the Vienna Arbitration of 1940 on, both in Hungary and Rumania), and so on.
The bottom line, Johnny, is - as I have previously shown to Getu' - that we should not interpret ('rastalmacire') the various censuses and take them at face value, if we want to have some solid bases to build our views on.