1st December 1918, how it was made the union with Romania

The Entente's territorial promises were not conditioned by a certain result Romania's contribution had to achieve, it was conditioned on that contribution being made (entering the war).

The rights of the Hungarians were not ignored:

http://www.forost.ungarisches-institut.de/pdf/19191209-1.pdf

Mina88, I try to answer your questions point by point having as source of information the books that have read (when I can detail you wish):
-the Romanian enter in the war for Transylvania was a desire of all Romania's population but not all of the Romania's political class (there was a Germanophile group of politicians who feared more Russia than Austria-Hungary). An important role in the Romanian public opinion coagulation in the "Transylvanian problem" was the Hungarian authorities anti-Romanian policy in the the dualistic period (a problem that I can detail if you like), the effective actions of assimilating the Romanian population, the incorporation in the First World War of far more Transylvanian Romanians then Hungarians and sending them to the front in the first line (the losses suffered affected the Romanian population of Transylvania more than the Hungarian one!)
-Romania had to cease hostilities with Germany, Austro-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey in early 1918 because of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia (who took her from the war!), our country did not have any resources necessary to continue hostilities or effective support from our allies! The armistice signed with the Central Powers, put Romanian in an critical position, the conditions imposed to Romania through the Treaty of Buftea were extremely hard for Romania, and in addition its allies regarded Romania very bad, they probably expecting a continuation of fighting from Romania after the Serbia model from 1915 (retreat in Albania then in Greece).
Reentering the war of Romania was suspected by the enemy commands (especially the Austro-Hungarian one) there were plan made (unsupported) for a military occupation of Romania in the summer of 1918.
Romania did not enjoy as much support as suspect after the end of World War I from the victorious allies, the diplomatic and political efforts, especially the military ones, being very high.
The non-recognition of the act of December 1, 1918, as expressed desire of the majority of the population in Transylvania (not only romanian!), was and continues to be the cornerstone of revanchist actions of some politicians from Hungary, the Vienna Diktat from august 1940 imposed by Hitler but requested by Horthy, the attempts of the Hungarian delegation to the Paris Treaty of 1947, the actions from Hungarian communist leaders during the Cold War period (there are declassified documents that support what I say!), the policy of the Antall government in the '90s, can be registered in same line of politics toward Transylvania. So hot spirits are not only the result of an old and troubled history, but one quite recent, for not to say a present one!

Contras and Imperialist thank you for your links I will try to read them tomorow.It's going to be easier to understand Imperialist's link since it is already on english than yours contras because google translator is worthless but I will do my best to understand it at least with use of a proper dictionary

Andreas thank you for your time explaining some of the problems...well I am aware that Hungarians used all sorts of ways to expand or to strengthen their rule on specific territory...


and contras maybe this can help you with czechoslovakia after trianon http://www.kukuruz.ch/download/04_trianon_...choslovakia.pdf

[/QUOTE]and contras maybe this can help you with czechoslovakia after trianon http://www.kukuruz.ch/download/04_trianon_...choslovakia.pdf[QUOTE]

Thanks, Mina88 for your link, but this one don't answer at my first question: does Cehoslovakia receive its territory as a reward of its contribution in ww1, as you said about Transylvania? Or Poland?

then my answer stays the same:I will post about it when i find something out while researching for my thesis

this is a map of ethnic groups in Austro-Hungary

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...tria_ethnic.svg

Dear Mina, my apologies if I've been too blunt in my earlier posts. For modern Romanian history in general, I recommend you (any of) the works of Keith Hitchins, available in English. I think the fellow forum members will agree that it's a good starting point.

This post has been edited by Agarici on March 17, 2012 06:45 pm

Agarici no problem thank you for this book

The true story of Ilie Lazar:

http://cristiannegrea.blogspot.com/2012/03...ilie-lazar.html

Very interesting topic, and very interesting comments.

What happened in Alba Iulia was surely not a referendum. If it was, i'm sure that the result would have been the same, but i say again, it was no referendum.
The proclamation voted there stated that Transilvania will unite with Romania. If the hungarians would have been the majority, such a vote was not possibile.
Regarding the census from 1910, mentioned in an earlier post, that census did not show the ethnic composition, the results were based on the spoken language declared by each individual.
This is called "maghiarizare"

http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maghiarizare

I also remind you that in 1867, the constitutition of the Kingdom oh Hungary, stated that inside the Kingdom, there are no minorities, every body is considered hungarian; wich is a very narrow approach, more absurd then the claim for a democratic referendum in 1918 for Transilvania.
Regarding the referendum in Sopron,held on the 14th december 1921, the saime census made in 1910, shows that the most spoken language was the hungarian language, so the german "majority" was in fact a hungarian majority.
"Civitas Fidelissima" was the nickname given to the city after this event.
By the way according to that census, there were 33 romanians living in Sopron, double then the hungarians living in Albac...

http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comitatul_Sopron

After the completion of several books on the A-H dualist regime and his policy I dare say that this approach of nationalities (of Hungary) certainly not the most absurd one! But related on the Minorities problem I say that many european states not actually treat better their minorities considering them as nonexistent... the minorities issue is raised (by powerful states from Europe or America) only about weak states as blackmail policy to achieve certain goals there...

The question if at Alba Iulia was or not a referendum is just a smoke screen, useful only to hungarians. They forget to say what they did in 1848 when proclaimed union of Transylvania (then a austrian province), against clear expressed will of Romanians from Transylvania. They stated then Union or Death. Death to whom, to those who were against that union? So, guys, drop the question and discussion about referendum at Alba Iulia or not. It was the expression of Romanian will, in a moment they could do that. One doesnt have to ask permision from his master to raise and ask for his rights.

The question if at Alba Iulia was or not a referendum is just a smoke screen, useful only to hungarians. They forget to say what they did in 1848 when proclaimed union of Transylvania (then a austrian province), against clear expressed will of Romanians from Transylvania. They stated then Union or Death. Death to whom, to those who were against that union? So, guys, drop the question and discussion about referendum at Alba Iulia or not. It was the expression of Romanian will, in a moment they could do that. One doesnt have to ask permision from his master to raise and ask for his rights.

This was discussed before

Alba Iulia was not a referendum because referendums are ballots. There was no "ballot paper". There was no "proposition". There was no "campaign", neither "for" nor "against".
Yes, many, many, many people signed books. But that is not a "referendum".

Look at the referendum taking place in Romania right now. Compare this referendum with what happened in Alba Iulia. No similarity!

Radu

Radu, I agree with the fact that Alba Iulia Great National Assembly 1.XII.1918 was not a referendum, without actually having a less legal value! Considering it a different way you just back revisionist theses of some Hungarian extremists (some of them now leading Hungary!) and do a disservice to the Romanian cause, profoundly legitimate in its efforts towards national emancipation and freedom in end 1918!
21 inf, it's indeed as you say, the talk is useless as it only "give water to the mill" to some hungarian extremists and revisionists!

Aidan,
I am not questioning the "legal weight" of what happened in Alba Iulia on 1 December 1918. All I am saying is that if you "go by the book", there was nothing about what happened there to call it a "referendum". That is all. There is no denial that what happened there was of immense importance for the union of Transylvania with Romania. Call it the "will of the people", call it "divine will", "call it the spark that started the fire", call it whatever you want, but "legally" it was not a "referendum".

However, I am puzzled by why would any "Hungarian extremists" have so much trouble with 1 December 1918.
Transylvania did not join Romania on 1 December 1918. Officially, Transylvania was ceded by Hungary to Romania on 20 June 1920. If the "Hungarian extremists" wanted to revise any "legal document" in their favour, then that would be the Treaty of Trianon (or maybe the Treaty of Paris, which is the treaty in force today).

Radu

PS if your innuendo was that I may have some sort of Hungarian "sympaties", please allow me to explain to you that I am a proud Romanian and I define my patriotism by my love for my country not by hatred of Hungarians.