The Vienna Arbitration

[Chandernagore]

Genuine question :

What is being done by the current Romanian governement to diminish ethnic tensions in Transylvania, to create conditions for mutual respect of cultural difference and erase the bad karma from the past ?

Or is the current situation judged satisfactory ?

[Chandernagore]

[quote]If you are trying to find morality in politics, I think you are just blowing in the wind.?[/quote]

So, basically, you agree that every Romanian trying to justify the landgrab on Transylvania with population numbers is just blowing in the wind ?

[quote]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]

What I generally find wrong is to dispossess your neighbour by waging a war of agression on him.

[johnny_bi]

[quote]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.
[/quote]

Denes, this was a demonstration on how relative are the figures... nothing more ... It was not my intention to sustain that the Romanians formed the majority...
But the text was pretty clear... 2/3 of the Jews declared themselves as Hungarians... It is my turn to say that read the text from Corvinus at it is... and do not interpret it.

If you think that 66.66% is too scientific, you may think of 2/3 as follows: "The number of Jews that declared themselves as Hungarians was twice bigger than the number of the Jews that actually declared their true identity."

as for ...

[quote]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.
[/quote]

Again, it was not my logic, it was the Corvinus' statement... read my post carefully... and check the link...

Well, to be a Romanian seemed to be more dangerous... until 1944 ... if you know what I mean... I see no reason for Jewish to declare themselves as Romanians... As the Romanias say: "Ar cadea din lac in putz!".
As for Hungarians... let's be serious... they were about to be a part again of Hungary... At least try to sustain your statement with facts...
What you say is just a speculation as long as even Corvinus library does not mention it as possibility.

[Victor]

QUOTE

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

Yeap. We can continue the discussion in another thread.
I have recently discovered a pretty balanced and objective work, entitled: Romania, Ungaria si Tratatul de la Trianon by Lucian Leustean, published by Polirom (http://www.polirom.ro) in 2002.

QUOTE

So, basically, you agree that every Romanian trying to justify the landgrab on Transylvania with population numbers is just blowing in the wind ?

Actually the % and historical argument became more important in the historical works (most of which were biased) after the Union (and especially during the Communist period).
Ion I C Bratianu (the prime-minister) mentioned in front of the Peace Conference the fact that the Romanians were the most numerous in Transylvania, but his major argument was that Romania had the right of the winner.

QUOTE

What I generally find wrong is to dispossess your neighbour by waging a war of agression on him.

You seem to have forgotten who had started the war and who was the initial aggressor in WWI. The Austrian-Hungarian Empire was far from being the innocent lamb you claim it to be. As you said about Nazi Germany on many occasions: If you seed trouble you harvest whirlwind. Why the double standards?
(Seems that they are not limited just to our nationalistic members).

I personally cannot qualify the war of 1916-19 as the same type of aggression as Austria-Hungary generally employed throughout its history. To you it may seem as the same type, but for the men who did it, it was not. They felt it was the right thing to do in order to unite with their brothers. It was probably a selfish act, but no country/nation does unselfish and uninterested acts.

[dragos]

Please note that the discussion on the Peace Conference of Trianon has moved:

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/viewtopic.ph...?t=145&start=30

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

So, basically, you agree that every Romanian trying to justify the landgrab on Transylvania with population numbers is just blowing in the wind ?

QUOTE

...major argument was that Romania had the right of the winner.

Here we are, at last. The law of the jungle. Like the Soviets in Bessarabia.

QUOTE

What I generally find wrong is to dispossess your neighbour by waging a war of agression on him.

QUOTE

You seem to have forgotten who had started the war and who was the initial aggressor in WWI.

No, I remember well. Romania declared war on Austria Hungary and was the initial aggressor between these 2 countries. As far as I know, until Romania attacked Austria-Hungary, a state of peace existed between the 2 countries. The only reason a war erupted between the two was Romanian appetite for Transylvania.

QUOTE

The Austrian-Hungarian Empire was far from being the innocent lamb you claim it to be.

I never said that. Why do you put those words in my mouth ? We are discussing the war (and reasons behind it) between Austria-Hungary & Romania.

QUOTE

As you said about Nazi Germany on many occasions: If you seed trouble you harvest whirlwind. Why the double standards?

No double standard here. Romania did not invade Austria Hungary to correct the wrongs done to Serbia but to grab Transylvania. Lets' not loose ourselves in unrelated topics.

QUOTE

I personally cannot qualify the war of 1916-19 as the same type of aggression as Austria-Hungary generally employed throughout its history. To you it may seem as the same type, but for the men who did it, it was not.

What has it to do with Transylvania ? We are not analyzing historical events between Austria Hungary and Shangri La or Dacia and the Roman Empire. You obviously try to drag AH into the mud to somehow justify the annexation of Transylvania. But there is none, you said it yourself : it was the law of the strongest, the law of the winner.

[dragos]

Chandernagore, we had to be winner in the war in order to express our will at the Peace Coference. But unless you are searching for the answer in the question: why have Transylvania?, you will go on and on with empty conclusions and inappropriate comparisons.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

Chandernagore, we had to be winner in the war in order to express our will at the Peace Coference. But unless you are searching for the answer in the question: why have Transylvania?, you will go on and on with empty conclusions and inappropriate comparisons.

YOUR WILL ?

Ha.

So we are left with the hard facts : Romania took advantage of AH difficulties during WWI to jump into the arena, wrest control of Transylvania from it's original owner and get away with it like a thief at night.

From a moral point of vue this is questionable.

0f course you may dismiss morality and flatly state something like "Vae Victis". But then the pendulum of history may strike back. Something acquired by violence can be lost by violence. That's why it is so important to know what use the Romanian government has made of it's usurped rights on Transylvania. If the use has been good, positive to every segment of the population (whatever the origin) the international community will forget/forgive/rejoice at the act.

If not, violence may well one day come back to haunt Romania over it's utter comtempt for moral imperatives, which today are much more valued than during WWI.

By being too cynic you well become victims of your cynicism.

Why can't anyone answer my question over minority status in Transylvania ?

[Victor]

QUOTE

Here we are, at last. The law of the jungle. Like the Soviets in Bessarabia.

The only difference being that more inhabitants of Transylvania welcomed the Romanians liberators, as did Bessarabians to the Soviets. Nor was the social order changed.

QUOTE

No, I remember well. Romania declared war on Austria Hungary and was the initial aggressor between these 2 countries. As far as I know, until Romania attacked Austria-Hungary, a state of peace existed between the 2 countries. The only reason a war erupted between the two was Romanian appetite for Transylvania.

I was referring to the Austrian attack on Serbia. You seem to portray Austria-Hungary as the innocent victim-like lamb as Romania as the big bad wolf. Things were not like that. Austrian troops had invaded Romanian soil many times, even annexed parts of it (and I am not referring to Transylvania here).

QUOTE

I never said that. Why do you put those words in my mouth ? We are discussing the war (and reasons behind it) between Austria-Hungary & Romania.

No, you did not say it, but this is the way you present things. And things are not just black and white, as some would like to believe (this is not directed only to you). Like it or not the picture is much bigger and if you truly want to comprehend it, you should keep an open mind, that is if you really are interested.

QUOTE

No double standard here. Romania did not invade Austria Hungary to correct the wrongs done to Serbia but to grab Transylvania. Lets' not loose ourselves in unrelated topics

Yes, you apply double standards. When somebody complained about the US bombings over Europe and especially over Romania this is what you replied. Yet Romania did not attack the US. As a side note, neither did Germany. It was them who got involved in the war in Europe.
The same here. Austria started a war of aggression and it should have been prepared to "harvest the whirlwind", following your logic.

No, Romania did not declare war to Austria-Hungary because of Serbia, but because of Transylvania. I do not see why this is "unrelated" to August 1916. It was the same war and goes to show the lamb was also a big bad wolf.

QUOTE

What has it to do with Transylvania ? We are not analyzing historical events between Austria Hungary and Shangri La or Dacia and the Roman Empire.

It has a lot to do with our discussion.
First, I am not trying to drag Austria (and Austria-Hungary) through the mud. But the truth is that, as an Empire, it did waged many wars of aggression and annexed many territories were there wasn't a single Austrian ethnic. I do not know how the Austrian soldiers (in case there were not mercenaries, like in the 17th century) felt during those wars. I can choose any other Empire if you have some affinities to the Habsburgs and this troubles you.
On the other hand, among the Romanian troops that crossed the Carpathians in 1916 there was a true feeling that this was the right, natural thing to do.
This is why I cannot say that it was the exact same thing, because it was not.
And it was probably not the same thing for the Hungarian troops that marched into Slovakia or NW Transylvania in 1940. They probably also felt that it was the right thing to do.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

Here we are, at last. The law of the jungle. Like the Soviets in Bessarabia.

QUOTE

The only difference being that more inhabitants of Transylvania welcomed the Romanians liberators, as did Bessarabians to the Soviets. Nor was the social order changed.

Population number is no valid factor. This has been demonstrated by yourself in the name of realpolitik. Blowing in the wind, remember.

QUOTE

I was referring to the Austrian attack on Serbia. You seem to portray Austria-Hungary as the innocent victim-like lamb as Romania as the big bad wolf. Things were not like that. Austrian troops had invaded Romanian soil many times, even annexed parts of it (and I am not referring to Transylvania here).

Once again please stick to the subject : Romanian agression of 1916.

QUOTE

Yes, you apply double standards. When somebody complained about the US bombings over Europe and especially over Romania this is what you replied. Yet Romania did not attack the US.

A state of war existed between US and Romania.

What did I reply ?

QUOTE

No, Romania did not declare war to Austria-Hungary because of Serbia, but because of Transylvania. I do not see why this is \"unrelated\" to August 1916. It was the same war and goes to show the lamb was also a big bad wolf.

It only related to WWI in the sense that the Franco-British diplomats managed to sell to Romania a territory they did not even own in order to save their own skin. In itself, a truly disgusting maneuver.

QUOTE

On the other hand, among the Romanian troops that crossed the Carpathians in 1916 there was a true feeling that this was the right, natural thing to do.

Oh ? Sure. A truly wonderfull justification. I'm sure the Hungarians have even better ones to conclude that the natural thing to do was to defend against the agressor.

QUOTE

And it was probably not the same thing for the Hungarian troops that marched into Slovakia or NW Transylvania in 1940. They probably also felt that it was the right thing to do.

Yes it was.

My dearest wish today is to see Hungarian and Rumanians forgive each other and be friends. That Romanians living in Hungary have full rights and respect and vice-versa. I'm not intent on changing frontiers. I'm intent on changing mentalities.

Cheers

Chandy, EU representative :wink:

[Victor]

QUOTE

So we are left with the hard facts : Romania took advantage of AH difficulties during WWI to jump into the arena, wrest control of Transylvania from it's original owner and get away with it like a thief at night.

A rather too simplistic view, I would say. Following your logic, the Austrians were also thieves, for stealing it away from the Ottoman Empire, the Ottomans "thieves" for stealing it from the Hungarian Kingdom, the Hungarians were also "thieves" for stealing it from the local Romanian/Pecheneg/Slavic lords and we could go on and on to the midget dinosaurs which inhabited Transylvania in the Cretacic Period.

QUOTE

0f course you may dismiss morality and flatly state something like \"Vae Victis\". But then the pendulum of history may strike back. Something acquired by violence can be lost by violence.

Rarely territories exchange hands without violence.
I find it strange though, that you, the advocate of peace and European Unity, would bring about the idea of another war on the continent.

QUOTE

That's why it is so important to know what use the Romanian government has made of it's usurped rights on Transylvania. If the use has been good, positive to every segment of the population (whatever the origin) the international community will forget/forgive/rejoice at the act.

Well, you asked for what the Romanian government did in Transylvania during the inter-war period.
The most important thing done after WWI was the Agricultural reform, which was the most radical reform in Europe at that time (excepting the Soviet Union). The major landowners (both Romanian and Hungarian) lost large pieces of their domains, which were distributed to the landless peasants, no matter the nationality (this means also Hungarians).
Many of the Hungarian bureaucrats, who initially refused to serve the Romanian government, eventually (after 2 or 3 years) swore allegiance to the Romanian Crown and the Romanian Government organized courses of Romanian language for those who did not know it or claimed they did not. Some chose to emigrate to Hungary, but because of the "white terror" most remained.
The Hungarian state schools were obviously transformed into Romanian schools, where there was a Romanian majority. However, the state also financed 562 Hungarian schools plus numerous, high-schools, professional schools, theological schools. The Government also financed the Hungarian Churches. For instance, the Romanian Orthodox Church in Transylvania received 4.72 lei/faithful, while the Unitarian Church (do not mistake it for the Romanian Greek Catholic Church) received 11 lei/faithful yearly.
Politically, the Hungarian Community was represented by several parties, which entered Parliament, both the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies.

QUOTE

By being too cynic you mell become victims of your cynicism.

Well, then we would not be the first, nor the last.

[Chandernagore]

Mmm many posts are disappearing here. My latest one, that of mg42...

What happens ?

[dragos]

Look in general discussion. It was way off-topic.

[Florin]

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

Alexandru,
Did you ever visit Harghita and Covasna in person?
I did it twice, last time in the summer of 1989.
There are some things to be told, but as Dragos say, it would be off-topic.

[Chandernagore]

[quote]Did you ever visit Harghita and Covasna in person?[/quote]

Before or after forced population displacement ?