Frontier agreement Austru-Hungarian M and Romania, 1888 Treaty

Imperialist,
if I understand well (maybe I'm wrong and then I want to be corrected!) Romania would be guilty of armed aggression against a state (Hungary), which border was internationally recognized, more than that, recognized even by Romania, military aggression which resulted in the annexation of parts of its territory (Transylvania), which was later legitimized by the Great Powers (Antanta) by the Trianon Diktat!
It seems to me that Denes's interventions followed this logic, though it's possible that I don't understood them good enough! Don't want to place Denes in this scenarios, though following the logic of his posts we can come to this! I read articles and even books who follow the logic mentioned by me above. Which doesn't mean that Denes thinks this way, I maybe misunderstood his postings!

Andreas, hungarian propaganda is actually based on victimising LOL so everything you said above might be true from hungarian propagamda point of view so one who reads the logic you present might be outraged easily about the "injustice" made by Romania and Great Powers at Trianon. Congratulations, now you perfectly understood how hungarian propaganda works )

Thank you, 21inf!
So we can learn something even from these debates, which seem, to often, to lead nowhere! Wait with interest what Denes has to say!

If you read carefully what Gen. Denes wrote in his last post here, he will not write again. I hope this was only about Transylvania and who's rightful to claim it.
I sincerely regret that his feelings were hurt. On the other side, we have to write honestly our point of view in a matter, even with the risk that somebody else may get angry over it. If our writing does not reflect what we think we know, what is the point in having these exchanges?

Even if for one might seem to be off-topic (I believe it is not), an interesting continuation of the discussion would be about the natural right and the historical right (dreptul natural and dreptul istoric) - points of view which ruled the 1848 romanian revolution (but not only) and which greatly influenced WW1 arguments for going to war, at least for romanians on both sides of the Carpathians. The uprising of natural and historical rights are the things that boosted nations from Europe to throw away the feudal laws which ruled for centuries and who's ideas at least were valid for some politicians in the eve of WW1. Some ideas are still valid today...

I am quite certain that when The Romanian Army was marching in Budapest in 1919 they did not need a treaty to tell that they were in Hungary.

How did a discussion about a treaty turn into a discussion about Denes's character? Play the ball not the player. Referee, this is a red card offence!

We are losing too many valuable members here... Shame...

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on February 23, 2012 01:32 pm

Governments and whole nations care or don't care about their natural and historical rights, depending of their interest. Most often is the case when the same history is stretched by two neighbors, each trying to make it a tool for his own goals.

This post has been edited by Florin on February 23, 2012 04:42 pm

Governments and whole nations care or don't care about their natural and historical rights, depending of their interest. Most often is the case when the same history is stretched by two neighbors, each trying to make it a tool for his own goals.

Yeah, you are speaking of the "siege menatility" that stirs idiots to elect nazionanist morons.
Radu

The natural right is the foundation, the angular stone of the modern Declaratia drepturilor omului...

And I dont think of being patriot or nationalist is such a bad thing as long as this does not lead to extremism. The nation is the mother of each individual and an individual without nationality is an orphan. I totally disagree extremism, but I cant deny the patriotism of any individual, regardless of nationality. It is him right to love his mother (to be readed nation) as long as it doesnt hurt other nationality...

That is a beautiful theory. Almost like a song by John Lennon. The harsh reality is different.
Nationalism is not patriotism. They say that patriotism is loving everything related to your country while nationalism is hating everything not related to your country. Do not confuse the two and always be aware of the difference.
Radu

Question of point of view (patriotism and nationalism). Hate is not good. How funny you mentioned some stuff related with John Lennon regarding my above post...it was the principles of 1848-49 romanian revolution in Transylvania. Being off topic already, when I'll have time I'll post a number of romanian proclamations from that era on this topic or on the blog I manage and link it here.

Radub,
because politeness required me to answer and not to ignore (as I think would be more suited to the content of your comment!) a comment that seems to be addressed (or related) to me, I understand to say that in the future I will simply ignore such comments! It is obvious that Denes's choice to stay or not in this forum belongs to him, independent of the opinions expressed by some or others in this forum, that can bother him just like any of us! Equally obvious is the fact that I addressed him a question (asking him a clarification) to which he did not answer yet, leaving place to speculations. I didn't talk about Denes character, I've only followed the logic of his posts! The fact that the Admin. have not intervened proves very clearly that that they understood my post correctly. The fact that we (me and you) never understand each other in any discussion topic we've met, didn't make me to ask your amend, observing that we think and feel very different (which is not a problem for me!). And with that I say: case closed!

I would not label "nationalist" as "hating everything not related to your country".
It is mostly like:

1. We are better (or the best).
2. How do they dare to criticize us (it does not matter that they may be right).
3. We invented it the first.
4. Because we did not get the first place (in an athletic contest), something is wrong, rotten, not fair etc.

You will recognize this pattern as quite common for Americans, French, Russians, British, Japanese, Asian Indians, and so on. Considering how common is this (let me name it a mental disease), why suddenly it is considered shameful or a crime if the "culprit" is a small nation - Romanian or Hungarian, for example.
I like a Romanian concept from the old Socialist days: "equal rights for all nations". I guess this was always utopia.

This post has been edited by Florin on February 24, 2012 12:39 am

Andreas,
You regularly take the role of prosecutor, judge and executioner when you do not like what other people say. Your usual method of execution is "character assassination". This is exactly what you did when you said that Denes has some sort of bad feeling in relation to "everything Romanian". That is an exaggeration, it is mean and untrue. Denes authored or co-authored many works related to Romanian aviation in which he always trated the subject with utmost dignity and care. This took him thousands upon thousands of hours of work. I know that aviation publishing does not pay a lot. So, spending thousands upon thousands of hours to write in good terms about Romania in exchange for little is hardly the action of someone who has bad feelings towards "everything Romanian."

If you want to win arguments, please do so by substantiating your points not by attacking the character of your intlocutor. You do this regularly. You must stop.
It is easy to hide behind the shield of anonmity and demean good people when you cannot win some argument on a forum. This is like a "cap in gura in careu" when you cannot score a goal. This hould not be be allowed. This must be a "red card" offence. The referee may let you get away with it (and you may show the middle finger to the crowds) but the "spectators" will remember.
It is evident hat this is the reason why Denes does not care to respond to you.

Radu

21inf,
Indeed, but the case of Hungary (speak only of the situation of 1848 revolution) seems to be partially framed in this case. In the book that I quoted before: Paul Lendvai -Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat (2003) he says with some notable exceptions (among them that of Kossuth) Hungarian revolutionary leaders came from among the great aristocrats (Lajos Batthyány led goverment) which, although introduced important reforms, have not really deconstructed the feudal system. Lower nobility constituted for example the main military force of the newly created Honved army, although it is obvious that there was a major change from the previously existing system (introduced by Metternich). No less significantly, the most important reformer and opponent of Kossuth, count István Széchenyi was itself a nobleman, from a an old and influential noble family of Hungary. What linked the weak Hungarian bourgeoisie and the important lower nobility was the idea of ​​national emancipation, which animated most of hungarians after a long time since the Rákóczi's War for Independence (1703–1711) which is considered by the author as the first attempt of a independent Hungary. Unfortunately for all nations involved (hungarians, romanians, serbs, croats, a.o.) Hungarian nationalism collided with the desire for national emancipation of the other nations with the result well known.