Vienna, 30 August 1940 - Award or Diktat ?

I have already shown before why "diktat" is not the proper historical word for the Vienna Award of August 1940 (BTW, only certain Rumanian sources use this word, which has a clear political connotation - not a good practice when writing about history, as politics and history should not mix).

As you very well know, Rumania did manage to keep the larger part of Transylvania (despite Hungary's inital request), so it wasn't a defeated party.

As Victor wrote earlier:

Col. Dénes

P.S. Why is that we have to return, again and again, to the same topic, already discussed to the bone?

In conclusion you don't consider the Vienna Diktat for Romania as "a harsh settlement unilaterally imposed".

I didn't know that when a country losses land - but not the larger part of a region, and gains nothing, we are not talking of a defeated country. So in your opinion, how much more land had Romania to lose in order to be the defeated party?

Actually, I am not sure if you're serious or only joking.

The whole Transylvania (only a 'what-if' scenario, of course).

Col. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 15, 2004 10:49 pm

The conclusions one can draw from your response is that being forced to cede 103,093 km2 of legitimate territory means defeat, while losing "only" 43,492 km2 is ok.

I say that stealing even one square km is an aggression.

Now you start to sound like one of those regulars on Hungarian extremists sites.

Nobody stole anything. What sort of historical term is 'stealing land', anyway?

Or, approaching the topic from another angle, was the Quadrilateral (Southern Dobrudja) 'stolen' as well in Sept. 1940 (as the circumastances of the territorial changes were similar to those discussed in this thread)?

As I've pointed out repeatedly on this forum, in my view, the role of a historian (professional and amateur alike), who wants to earn respect, is to be impartial and show the events as they were, turning back into the discussed time period, without using hindsight, no matter if that particular issue is of his/her liking or not.

Personal feelings and history should not mix.

Of course, everyone is entitled to write what he/she wants. It's democracy, after all. However, with a biased approach and choice of words, which fits the person's particular agenda, no-one - except certain special interest individuals and groups - would take him/her seriously.

Col. Dénes

[edited by admin]

This post has been edited by Victor on September 23, 2006 06:00 am

I don't know those forums because I don't visit them. But I don't think I have said anywhere such an enormity like "Rumania did manage to keep the larger part of Transylvania, so it wasn't a defeated party."

"Diktat" is an historical term, isn't it? But because it does not suit your agenda, it must not be used as having "clear political connotation".

This leads to nowhere.
What I wanted to say I've said.

Let others decide for themselves who's right and who's not.

Col. Dénes

Your original question was this, not other. I've shown you not one, but several sources using the "Trianon Diktat" in a manner unrelated to Hungary. Faux pas, Dragos.

Ok, you showed me one link (http://www.bruenn.org/de/radnitz1.html) that from what I understand (because I can't read German), uses the term Diktat for Versailles, and maybe somewhere else for Peace Treaty of 1947. I showed you another non-Hungarian article that uses the term diktat for Trianon in quotes.

Now this is a good attitude in your opinion: the Trianon (where the Western Powers tried to put an end to many years of dissent in central Europe and to prevent another war, at least in their intention) is more a "diktat" than Vienna - arbitrated by the peace-loving Hitler and Mussolini, interested in the stability of the region. No comment.

The history is full of paradox
One of the this is Hungary in Wold War II. Hungary ruled by a regent-admiral Horty- hwo didn't have a navy fleet or a sea way, declared war to U.S.A, but Hungary dind't claim somethin from this country; Hungary was claiming from Romania, who was from the same side

These are not my words, and belong to Mr. Mihai Retegan, a romanian historian and also teacher from History University from Bucharest (Universitatea Bucureşti)

It was a story about the momment when hungarians give to american representant the letter with DoW. A funny one! Like mr. teacher words.

Iama

So correct.

It is a paradox only to someone with superficial knowledge of Hungary's history.

Vice-Admiral Horthy, Regent of Hungary, was a legitim navy officer, from the times when Hungary did have access to sea and did have a large seagoing fleet - during the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He was the commander of one of the largest ships of the k.u.k. Kriegsmarine, the SZENT ISTVAN.
During W.W. 2, Hungary did have a sizeable Danube flotilla. Also, there were quite a few Hungarian seagoing ships as well, including on the Black Sea.

Not all declaration of war were for territory claims. For example, Hungary declared war on the Soviet Union on June 27, 1941 even if it did not have any territorial claims against it.

Hungary and Rumania became (uneasy) allies only after the Transylvanian issue was temporarily settled.

Gen. Dénes

...and 30 August 1940 is "award" only to someone with superficial knowledge about Romania's history

Here is a passage from the romanian history magazine "Dosarele Istoriei" about 30 August 1940 moment (I posted in romanian language to be more concise):

"[...] Discuţile cu Ungaria, care a avut loc la Turnu Severin, între 16-15 august, nu au dus la rezultatul pozitiv, deoarece guvernul de la Budapesta pretindea nu mai puţin din două treimi din teritoriul Transilvaniei. În aceste condiţii, la 27 august 1940, Hitler a trasat cu mâna sa noua graniţă între România şi Ungaria, care a fost comunicată celor două părţi de miniştri de Externe ai Germaniei şi Italiei, la Viena, la 30 august.
Consiliul de coroană, întrunit de două ori - în noaptea de 29/30 august şi în cea de 30/31 august - a acceptat "arbitrajul Axei", precum şi verdictul acesteia. Dar de această dată, populaţia a ieşit în stradă pentru a protesta împotriva Dicatului de la Viena [...]" ("Situaţia internaţională a României în anii celui de-al doilea război mondial" by Ioan Scurtu* in DOSARELE ISTORIEI, nr. 7(59)/2001, pag 5.)

Mr. Ioan Scurtu* is master in history, university teacher to Bucharest University and headmaster of "N. Iorga" History Insitute

The excerpt you posted is historically correct, but it's incomplete.

It does not include a couple of crucial facts.
First, it does not mention that Rumania was ready to cede about 6000 sq. km of Western Transylvania, proposing a complete, simultaneous population exchange. This could not be accepted by the Hungarian party.

Second, after the talks at Turnu Severin broke down, the Hungarian Army mobilized and prepared to attack Rumania. Rumania apparently wanted to avoid an open war, fearing that Germany and perhaps Italy might intervene. The Soviet Union could also intervene in this situation.

In the meantime, both Rumania and Hungary asked Germany and Italy for an arbitration in this thorny topic, woving to accept the results a priori .

I seriously doubt that Hitler traced the new borders with his own hands. There were specialists who could do it. Also, Italy had an equal part in the arbitration, which is often conveniently overviewed. Hitler and Mussolini were not present. Instead, the foreign ministers represented their countries at Vienna.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. As for your previous comment "and 30 August 1940 is "award" only to someone with superficial knowledge about Romania's history" is only your opinion, of course. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion.

This post has been edited by Dénes on March 05, 2005 05:20 pm

This was the main reason for accepting the diktat. Not because Hungarian army started mobilization