Transylvania's choices in 1918, economic point of view

The entire discussion is futile until someone will point the romanian transylvanian who back in 1918 sustained the idea of an independent Transylvania or the idea of remaining to Hungary. Otherwise, all discussion is only a "what if" game between nowadays people.

C'mon, man!!!!! Somebody will get extremely offended!!!!
On topic, it is very much a comparison between apples and pears, because whereas (smaller) Romania was an independent country, Transylvania was not; thus, the "data" interpreted by the economists can be watched as irrelevant, or, at least, not very objective. One always tends to present the facts in a light that would havor his interpretation: "If the facts don't suit the conclusions, change the facts!"

It depends on the type of hole.

This post has been edited by Agarici on December 17, 2011 02:54 pm

@Florin: during Peace Conference at Paris in 1919-1920 the Allies tried to obtain war reparations from the so-called "state succesoare ale Austro-Ungariei" since the AH empire ceased to exist. Romania was included in this "state succesoare", together with Cehoslovacia and others, but Romania strongly oposed to be put in this category due to the fact that she didnt considered herself a succesor of AH empire, even if she included at the end of WW1 former teritories which were part of this empire. I dont know if Romania managed to opose to pay the war reparations owed in this manner, but I have to check my bibliography when I'll have time.

I agree with 21inf opinon about the usefulness of the discussion about Transilvania as an independent state, and also want to add that the economic viability of Transylvania as an independent state should be related to the evolution of economic relations with Hungary after 1918 (if we consider the economic ties created in the last 50 years when Transylvania was part of Hungary). Do not overlook the economic leverage who was in the hands of Hungarian, Jewish and German minorities in Transylvania before 1918 (closely related to the former Austro-Hungarian administration) which by virtue of inertia if not their own interests would had maintained close ties with Hungary, after 1918!

OFF TOPIC: People, wake up it's just a hypotetical discussion about a fact that already happen, we cannot change the past.

This is a discussion about the choice for Transilvania as a region (not the population) in 1918, and in my opinion it had had 3 options: A Independence; B Union with Romania; C Union with Hungary. But, and this is very important the fact, the majority, Romanians, wanted the union with Romania and this sealed the deal.

We are talking about the economy not the Romanians that lived in Transilvania and were considered "2 rate" people, most being part of the lower blanket of society.

And obviously like any discussion about a choice that happened it can be considered useless.

At least from the text presentation, it looks to me that no one taking part in this topic want to change the past (if that would be possible...).
Am I missing something ?

This post has been edited by Florin on December 17, 2011 05:58 am

Transylvania was better developed economically in 1918 than Romania, but was underdeveloped economically in comparison with other provinces of AH empire. Transylvanian economy in 1918 couldnt provide the basic needs for the population of the province if it wanted to go independently.

So eventually did Romania pay those war reparations or not? It seems to be another unclear subject among historians. The way I learned it (I don't have books on hand right now) is that Romania paid them.

In 1918...1919 all European economies were doing poorly and the people from the Central Powers and from the former Russian Empire were starving. And the Romanians were on the brink of starvation as well...
In normal times, I think Transylvania could survive on her own, if different nationalities could get along. It has planes and hills good for crops, it has all kind of raw materials, and in some parts, like Deva / Hunedoara, the industry was more than one century old by 1918.

P.S.: This does not mean I would like it, and of course I would not change the past, even if I could travel in time.

This post has been edited by Florin on December 17, 2011 06:11 am

I mean that during AH empire rule Transylvania was way underdeveloped economically in comparison with other AH provinces. Mentioning 1918 year was my mistake, I was not refering only to that year. Of course, even with this underdevelopment, Transylvania was above Romania economically, but unable to sustain itself. Generally speaking, AH empire had an old problem with its economy, starting from XVIIIth century. It managed to keep it's economy at a basis level, but this was well lower in comparison with other european western powers.

The mention with "not changing the past" means that we can have a relaxed discussion on this subject. As the emotional factor started to appear in a previous post made by 21inf regarding the will point of the romanian transylvanian in 1918. And no I don't want to change the past... well there might be some personal decisions that I would change but that's off topic.

AH problem was poor management not the absence of resources/industry. Transilvania had everything a small state needed, it would have been harder to be independent, but not impossible.

Well, it is possible that this is just an attempt to continue here the discussion closed there.


I am surprised no one is "offended" yet by the "notion" that Transylvania could be "anything other that Romanian."

Radu

Because, during the discussions, it was mentioned the higher economic development of Transylvania comparing to Romania, I give a exemple from the book "Populatia Romaniei" Dr. S.Manuila and D.C.Georgescu 1937, M.O. Imprimeria Nationala, Bucuresti situation available for 1930: Transylvania included a population representing 30,7% of that of Romania, had 31,8% of all households from Romania, had 31,5% of all buildings existing in Romania, had 34,5% of the total Romanian enterprises and contributed with 41,4% of industrial output of Romania. But I agree this situation is after more than 10 years from the unification with Romania!

This post has been edited by ANDREAS on December 17, 2011 11:45 am

Transylvania and the Old Kingdom were economically compatible. The Old Kingdom had oil but didn't have coal, something that Transylvania had. The O.K. had plenty of grains but not much timber, Transylvania had timber but needed wheat. And so on.

With the large Austro-Hungarian common market gone, the successor states adopted economic nationalism and each sought to industrialize themselves. So all kinds of barriers appeared that affected the free trade and subsequent economic specialization that the AH had established. They also sought to form large markets - the Czechs joined the Slovaks, the Croats joined the Slovenes and Serbs etc. I think it would have been economically difficult for an independent Transylvania and just as difficult for a Romania without it.

Oh, that book must be true, is it? What does it say about Bessarabia? I mean, with Hungary perceived as an all-time-present threat, the utmost interest was to presebt Transylvania as being Romanian! IMO, at least...