The Vienna Arbitration

[dragos]

[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]

You seems you have ignored my previos post:

[quote]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]

1688 - Habsburg occupation
1699 - Transylvania became part of Habsburg Empire
1867 - Birth of Austro-Hungarian Empire, Transylvania incorporated to Hungary

The oldest census I have, around 1841 (posted earlier), shows the majority of Romanians, before Transylvania became part of Hungary.

I don't understand the part of people migrating from country A to country B. Which is which? If you have a different story, I am ready to hear it. Why follow some abstract example without any historical fundament?

[Chandernagore]

I will post a caveat as well.

I will clearly defend the Hungarian position because nobody else will do. Not that I feel overqualified but I like to speak for the small side and somebody must do it to get a hot debate

[Florin]

[quote][quote][quote]
I'm not aware of any country officially protesting against it.[/quote]

What about the United Kingdom? (Great Britain).......Florin[/quote]

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.[/quote]

No, Chandernagore, not because of that. Assuming you are serious, or at least you are trying to be, you did not get it.

Consider how Europe was in August 1940: all continental Europe allied, or satellites, or occupied by Germany as defeated enemies, with the following notable exceptions:
- Soviet Union, a new close friend of Germany since the Non-Aggression Pact
- Sweden and Switzerland - neutral states, very afraid of Germany, thus collaborating with her (up to a point)
- Finland: exhausted after a recent war, demoralized by the unjust treaty imposed to her. In part grateful to Germany, as Germany and the United States interfered diplomatically to convince Soviet Union to negotiate.
- Yugoslavia - a neutral state, with older treaties with some surrounding countries, but also with a very new friendship treaty with Germany
- Greece, former follower of Fascism and Germany, but now involved in a "life or death" war with Italy
- Romania, subject of this threat and countless others on this site
- Turkey, a cautious young republic, trying to don't take parts unless things become more clear.

So the British were on our side because of their own interest. Everything wanted by Germany could not be desired by the British, right? They were alone in a war where only 33 km of water, their fleet and their aerial fleet kept Axis at distance.

By the way, it was the only time in history when Great Britain was on the side of Romania in a political matter (forget WWI, as that was a military alliance).

And why the other countries did not say anything against Germany? The answer is in this post, just above.

[Chandernagore]

[quote]1688 - Habsburg occupation
1699 - Transylvania became part of Habsburg Empire
1867 - Birth of Austro-Hungarian Empire, Transylvania incorporated to Hungary[/quote]

So at no time was Transylvania ever part of Romania. What's the legal basis for Romanian claim to the country ?

[Geto-Dacul]

Chandy wrote :

[quote]What's the legal basis for Romanian claim to the country ?[/quote]

:shock: :roll:

It was "never Romanian" but Romanians are 75% of the pop. there...! Isn't that a good claim?

Getu'

[Chandernagore]

[quote]No, Chandernagore, not because of that. Assuming you are serious, or at least you are trying to be, you did not get it.
...
So the British were on our side because of their own interest. [/quote]

So they cried foul on the Vienna Arbitration because of their own interest.

Big deal, indeed. Very useful to discover where justice lies.

[Florin]

[quote].......
I will clearly defend the Hungarian position because nobody else will do. Not that I feel overqualified but I like to speak for the small side and somebody must do it to get a hot debate [/quote]

...But there is a danger here.
While Denes is serious and his posts represent an intellectual challenge, yours may become soon without responses, as we will get tired or bored to explain things supposedly known since primary school.

However, I also take part of the smaller side, as a general rule of life.
So, whatever... go ahead!

Florin

PS: But BTW, Chandernagore: Hungary is the smaller side only here, in this threat and on this site. The Hungarians were very successful in promoting their points of view toward the European Union, the United States and Canada.

[Chandernagore]

[quote]Chandy wrote :

[quote]What's the legal basis for Romanian claim to the country ?[/quote]

:shock: :roll:

It was "never Romanian" but Romanians are 75% of the pop. there...! Isn't that a good claim?

Getu'[/quote]

At that time, those 75% were not Romanian, they were Hungarian citizens from Romanian origin.

So, no. It's not an excuse for waging war on his neighbor to grab a territory.

[Chandernagore]

[quote]...But there is a danger here.
While Denes is serious and his posts represent an intellectual challenge, yours may become soon without responses, as we will get tired or bored to explain things supposedly known since primary school.[/quote]

Nah, no risk Florin. I keep away from the technical details and stick to the higher principles. As a data source Dénes beats everybody.

I promise to post only the most unsettling, unerving general questions :wink:

[Florin]

[quote][quote]...
So the British were on our side because of their own interest. [/quote]

So they cried foul on the Vienna Arbitration because of their own interest.

Big deal, indeed. Very useful to discover where justice lies.[/quote]

... And the Germans were on Hungarian side because of their own selfish interests, blended with a little bit of revenge toward Romania (but not caring too much about neither Romania or Hungary).

The big difference: while Great Britain was trembling for her mere survival (with one canon at every 3 kilometers, on the coast facing the Channel) and it was far away, the German Army was right near the Romanian border (and the German army was invincible, as of 1940).

Well, we have now the full picture, eventually? :wink:

[Victor]

[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]

The same right Hungary had to try to forcely assimilate its minorities. The right of its bayonets. But Romania was more justified to do it, than Austria was to annex Hungary, Transylvania, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Northern Italy, Bukovina, parts of Poland etc, etc. If you are trying to find morality in politics, I think you are just blowing in the wind.

What you fail to understand here is that the Romanians of that period really wanted to unite in a single country and felt it was the right thing for them to do. And can you blaim people for looking after their own interest? Everybody does it, why would it be wrong for us to do it?

[quote]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 ?
[/quote]

And what does this has to do with our discussion?

[Victor]

[quote]
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).[/quote]

Neither the Buftea Treaty use the word dicatate, even though this is what it was.
Actually it was not as simple as you describe it. Hungary was generally well regarded by the US and UK representatives and even by the some of the French representatives. Clemanceau did not like Bratianu at all. The attitude of the Peace Conferance towards Hungary and towards the Soviet Hungarian Republic was not constantly hostile, on the contrary. And also not always friendly towards Romania either. Things got better, after a "certain" Standard Oil company got "certain" oil contracts in Romania and stuff like that. Also the fact that the Major Powers were put in a fait accompli situation, with the occupation of Budapest, helped a lot.

[Florin]

[quote]......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]

I know you try to annoy us, but at least do it in a reasonable way!
(Play fair, in other words.)

The Romanians in Transylvania were not foreigners welcomed as tourists or workers. They were there 8 centuries before the Hungarians, or more. Do not understand that I blame the Hungarians because they happened to settle later, but read again your quote and you'll see how far it is from what we are talking here. :nope:

[Dénes]

[quote][quote]
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).[/quote]

Neither the Buftea Treaty use the word dicatate, even though this is what it was.
Actually it was not as simple as you describe it. Hungary was generally well regarded by the US and UK representatives and even by the some of the French representatives. Clemanceau did not like Bratianu at all. The attitude of the Peace Conferance towards Hungary and towards the Soviet Hungarian Republic was not constantly hostile, on the contrary. And also not always friendly towards Romania either. Things got better, after a "certain" Standard Oil company got "certain" oil contracts in Romania and stuff like that. Also the fact that the Major Powers were put in a fait accompli situation, with the occupation of Budapest, helped a lot.[/quote]
Apparently, Victor, we are not reading always the same sources.

Based on what I've read, and sounded convincing to me, the Hungarian delegation to Paris was clearly sidelined and their arguments completely ignored. On the contrary, the Rumanian delegation's inflated claims were taken at face value.

Also, it was stated to the Hungarian delegation, lead by Count Apponyi, that Hungary has to take the brunt for the Bolshevik episode of 1919. Back then - one always have to place himself/herself in the spirit of those times he/she studies! - the emerging Soviet Union and the spread of Bolshevism into Europe was a major threat, not taken lightly by the Entente members.

As for the fact of France clearly siding with Rumania against Hungary in the Transylvanian case, it becomes clear if one follows the unofficial encouragmenet to Rumanian troops to keep advancing deeper into Transylvania, despite various cease fires and delimitation lines agreed upon and signed betwee the two parties, over and over again. The Hungarian party retreated without fight, then the Rumanian troops advanced further West. Then, post-factum 'permissions' was granted by the French.

If you wish, I can list some sources on the topic you might wish to consult regarding this matter (in French and English).

However, this is already off topic, isn't it?

[Alexandru H.]

It's so nice to see how numbers are used to explain the rights of Romania over Transylvania, but are completely neglected when referring to Harghita and Covasna. As always in nationalism, double standard. Romanians use numbers, Hungarians history; then they change places and arguments;

A state is not the same thing as a nationality. If it were so, Romania would try to conquer the United States, because there are several thousand Romanians living there. A state tries to have as many subjects as possible and preserve its independence through mass manipulation ("the common enemy" witch hunt). A state doesn't believe that a Romanian can be a Romanian without living in Romania. But I think that Geto-Dacu, Florin or the others do believe.

Ok, it may be offtopic, but the Dictat (or Agreement) was the bussiness of the state, not of those millions of Hungarians and Romanians, tossed into ecuation by both parties like every nationalist manual would recommend.

Edit: and yes, I am not a 100% Romanian.... :roll: