Vienna, 30 August 1940 - Award or Diktat ?

That's right, Radu. I could not have said it better myself.

Off topic. When I started writing in English in the mid-1980, Rumania was a widely used form of the English (not Rumanian, or româna !) version of the country's name. Nowadays, its usage diminished; nevertheless, it remains a perfectly accepted spelling version, particularly when talking about the history of the country (NB. The spelling 'Romania' was started to be used first in the USA, only from the 1970s, it did NOT exist during WW 2, or earlier).
Therefore, it does NOT mean any sort of "disrespect" from my side against the country or its people, only consistency in usage. No UK or US publishing house where I published books or articles have ever objected to the usage of this spelling form.

Finally, if Mr. Focsa is so upset by this spelling form of the name, with a 'u', I ask him why he does not object the pronunciation of the country's name in French - a language I believe he claims he speaks - where the name, Roumanie, is pronounced with a 'u'...

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 14, 2014 06:20 pm

Foreign languages have a pervasive way of spelling places differently. Like for example, calling ""London" Londra, "Wien" Vienna/Vienna, "Munchen" Munich and "Bucuresti" Buhcharest/Bukarest. The "Battle of Blindheim" is known in the UK as "Battle of Blenheim". The Americans insist on spelling Ploiesti "Ploesti". That is just the way the world is. Foreigners, eh?
Radu

"Ploesti" is an older form for Ploiesti, I have seen Ploesti everywhere in Romanian, in ww2 papers, maps, etc. Maybe this is the reason.

"Vineri, 30 august <1940>

Vine, pe urma, stirea hotararilor, care intr-adevar, sunt ceva nemaipomenit. Ni se traseaza o noua granita (...) Cand am auzit aceasta, am fost ca lovit de o maciuca in cap si indignarea mea n'a mai avut culme. (...) Urmand impulsul meu de lupta, l-am si chemat pe <generalul Gh> Mihail spre a lua masurile necesare.Totusi, trebuie foarte multa chibzuinta, am eu dreptul de a impinge Tara la un dezastru sigur ? (...)

La ora 20, soseste Nindi de la Viena, aducand protocoalele. Povesteste atmosfera de acolo si felul in care nici n'a avut vreo putinta de aparare. El considera ca daca am fi rezistat la injonctiunile Axei eram stersi de pe suprafata pamantului". (...) Suntem siliti a inghiti cele ce ni s-au intamplat si sa lasam istoriei sa judece daca este bine. " (...)

Azi de dimineata a fost un incident cu Fabricius, care a protestat impotriva comunicatului de azi-seara, cerand sa se stearga cuvintele cari arata ca totul ne-a fost impus. Ar dori sa zicem ca am primit arbitrajul de buna voie. S-a refuzat, spunandu-i ca este prea tarziu, caci s-a si publicat".

(Carol al II-lea, Intre datorie si pasiune. Insemnari zilnice, vol II, Bucuresti, Edit. Sansa, 1996, pp 250 - 252).

I think it is very clear, there was no arbitration, Romania was forced to accept the diktat.

This post has been edited by Daniel Focsa on November 14, 2014 08:24 pm

http://transilvaniareporter.ro/esential/di...am-de-pe-harta/

Very interesting article.
Radu

Very interesting article, indeed. The most accurate, by far, what I read from a Rumanian historian (I assume he considers himself Rumanian, if he talks like "ai nostri"). Thanks, Petre, for sharing.

I met Ottmar at the military archives in Pitesti many years ago, where he was part of a group of historians from Cluj who studied for a certain topic, as beneficients of a generous grant (I was there on my own money and time). We discussed, in details, many issues, including controversial ones, like the 2nd Vienna Award. I was impressed by his point of view and knowledge. However, there were, and still are, points where I believe, based on the documents I saw and books I read, that he is not completely right. Nevertheless, I am glad he bases his conclusions primarily on documents and facts, not sentiments, and not simply copying others.

I am looking forward to reading more of his publications.

Gen. Dénes

I am very surprised to see that your main "proof" is a diary, even if it was King Carol the II's.

I am also surprised that you were not taught at the University of History you attended that personal views on events, included in diaries, memoirs, recollections, etc., cannot be taken as absolute proof for certain historical events. These personal views tend to be, and usually are, biased, later on altered - as was, for example, Mihai Antonescu's on the same topic. They are useful in understanding the atmosphere of those times, certain behind-the-scene moves, etc. However, these sources can easily be used as justification for the next generations for certain historical events, and can be modified easily to fit a certain agenda. That's why I do not rely, for example, on the memoirs of Horthy...

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 15, 2014 12:53 pm

I am very surprised to see that your main "proof" is a diary, even if it was King Carol the II's.

I am also surprised that you were not taught at the University of History you attended that personal views on events, included in diaries, memoirs, recollections, etc., cannot be taken as absolute proof for certain historical events. These personal views tend to be, and usually are, biased, later on altered - as was, for example, Mihai Antonescu's on the same topic. They are useful in understanding the atmosphere of those times, certain behind-the-scene moves, etc. However, these sources can easily be used as justification for the next generations for certain historical events, and can be modified easily to fit a certain agenda. That's why I do not rely, for example, on the memoirs of Horthy...

Gen. Dénes

Mr Denes, I do not can spend my time to make a serious study to proof you or others on a forum an well known and obviuous fact, that Vienna 30 august was really a diktat. If you are not convinced on this fact, you may lokk yourself for referebnce books on this subject, if you not trust romanian historian, go to archives, go to sources. (Any need to give me a lesson about how an historian must consider his sources, because I am historian. A diary is or may be a important source, of course among all others. My proffesors in History Faculty teached me that a resercher must study, coroborate and consider ALL the sources: archives, published documents, memoires, diaries, letters, contemporary press, oral testimonies, and of course all is already published on the main subject) Not like Mr Antoniu who published a book 'Aviatia romana in prima zi de razboi" (2007) with a bibliography based ONLY on archives, but NOTHING ELSE.
About 30 august 1940, others historians already did it, in last 70 years. So, I only quote few extracts on the king's diary, that's all, for it's interest. Of course this is an very important document. Do you want now I study an entire bibliography on this subject to demonstrate here that the world is round ? Sorry, I have other projects, for example concerning aviation's history.

This post has been edited by Daniel Focsa on November 15, 2014 04:02 pm

Reading the excrepts from Balogh L. Beni was rather a waste of time. They brought nothing new, only general affirmations, some of them normative statements without being backed in archives - at least not in the scanned fragments. All of us involved into the discussion know the general facts, at least this is what I hope. But apparently Denes did not even read carefully my previous posts, a fact which upsets me, because it took minutes/hours from my time to bring forward FACTS, otherwise accessible in the literature, to prove him that he is wrong. I do not insist on the term DICTAT because I want to, I prefer it, or I think this is what it was, but because of some clear facts.

Before (and after) the negociations at Turnu-Severin, the two delegations were, more or less, emphasizing two different perspective. The Romanians insisted on the ethnic/populational perspective (reuniting the Hungarian community with Hungary and the Romanian enclaves with Romania, even by using population exchange) and the Hungarian delegation emphasized the territorial thesis, invoking “historical rights”. The negotiations were broken by the Hungarians, which offered satisfaction to the Romanian leaders (see the memoirs), because it seemed to confirm for the international public opinion that Romania was willing to discuss and solve the Hungarian claims, which proved to be unreasonable. Now, dear Denes, please use and quote Romanian or German documentary resources to contradict or elaborate one of the following facts (I do not mention the Hungarian documents because they were not directly a part of it):
- The letter sent by Ribbentrop, asking the Romanian government to send its envoys to Vienna, mentioned a discussion about the Romanian-Hungarian problem, BETWEEN HUNGARIANS AND ROMANIANS, and said nothing about an arbitration
- Romania DID not ask for arbitration. The fact that the arbitration was mentioned by Ribbentrop at Vienna generated protests of both Manoilescu and Pop, the amazement of the Romanian ambassadors present there and of the Romanian administration in Bucharest, and it is mentioned in the memoirs and accounts of the direct and indirect participants. Please do mention ANY Romanian-issued document from the German archives indicating an arbitrage request from Romania
- The decision, and its timing, was imposed on the Romanian delegation by sheer pressure and blackmail, constituting an ultimatum. A member of the Romanian delegation protested, indicating that even the Soviets have granted a longer time-span to the Romanian government
- The Romanian communiqué mentioned, deliberately and expresis verbis, that the decision was IMPOSED under threat on the Romanian government, and refused any request to change that. Here, again, apparently Mr. Beny L Balogh got it wrong.

Now, unless you present some documentary materials to infirm the facts mentioned by me, which are relatively well-known by many average historians, I will not bother to answer anymore to any reply which would only show that you disagree with me on the sole basis of your mood or opinion.

This post has been edited by Agarici on November 16, 2014 01:13 am

I am very surprised to see that your main "proof" is a diary, even if it was King Carol the II's.

I am also surprised that you were not taught at the University of History you attended that personal views on events, included in diaries, memoirs, recollections, etc., cannot be taken as absolute proof for certain historical events. These personal views tend to be, and usually are, biased, later on altered - as was, for example, Mihai Antonescu's on the same topic. They are useful in understanding the atmosphere of those times, certain behind-the-scene moves, etc. However, these sources can easily be used as justification for the next generations for certain historical events, and can be modified easily to fit a certain agenda. That's why I do not rely, for example, on the memoirs of Horthy...

Gen. Dénes

A very supperficial observation. What is written, on that account, in the diary, corroborates with MANY other written accounts (Gigurtu, Manoilescu, Pop, the members of the Crown Council). The fact that you (choose to) ignore them does not mean that they do not exist.

EDIT: by the way, the term "dictat" was not a communist invention. It was used, for the first time, in the crown councils from August 1940, as a reaction to what happened in Vienna.

This post has been edited by Agarici on November 15, 2014 09:50 pm

Another interesting and almost unknown testimony, Rosa Waldeck, American journalist, born German (Jew ?), who was in Bucharest in 1940, with many connections among diplomats:

"Nimic nu parea sa tulbure linistea romanilor pana vineri 30 august. In dupa-amiaza aceea l-am intalnit pe dr Neubacher care arata foarte palid. Imi spuse ca Hitler hotarase ca romanii vor trebui sa cedeze 45 000 kilometri patrati din Transilvania. (...)
Se pare ca Ribbentrop si Ciano nici nu s-au ingrijit sa treaca prin procedura de arbitraj ci au pus in fatab ungurilor o propunere care nu admitea nicio discutie, iar romanilor le-a dat un ultimatum in sensul ca trupele germane, ungare si rusesti se vor pune in miscaree daca nu acceptau arbitrajul in termen de sase ore".

(RG Waldeck, Athenee Palace, traducere din limba engleza de Ileana Sturdza, Bucuresti, Humanitas, 2000, pp 124 - 125.)

Dear friends, I sent to Dragos an extensive series of scans from Mircea MUŞAT, Ion ARDELEANU, Romania dupa Marea Unire, vol. II, Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică, Bucureşti, 1986. It includes mainly documents, official accounts and declarations, fragments from memoirs - of course (and unfortunately) in Romanian. I asked him to post them here, or on a different web host. Hope this would further clarify some aspects related to the Vienna award/dictat.

The scans from Mircea MUŞAT, Ion ARDELEANU, Romania dupa Marea Unire, vol. II, Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică, Bucureşti, 1986 are online. many many thanks to Dragos.

Reading them is a must before pushing of with the thesis that the second Wienna award was an arbitrage, and not a diktat.

http://imgur.com/a/DUoJm#0