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

It was a referendum, a ballot vote. One person=one vote.

See details here (including a photo of the official ballot):
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksabstimmu...n_%C3%96denburg
[NB. The article is in German, written from the Austrian point of view]

Gen. Dénes

Not to be pedantic, but I repeat, "referendum" is not the correct description here.

Referendums are strictly related to constitutional matters. Referendums are ALWAYS called "referendum" or "plebiscit". Unless it is specifically called that, it is just a simple ballot.

All referendums are ballots, but not all ballots are referendums.

Radu

In Hungarian history the vote regarding Sopron's status is known as a referendum.

I checked Wikipedia and the description given for a referendum is exactly what has happened:
"A referendum (also known as a plebiscite or a vote on a ballot question) is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum]

I don't want to get into a debate on legal terms, as I am not a professional in this subject.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on December 20, 2011 01:56 pm

Denes,
Your quote from Wikipedia is only partial.
Here is the full quote:

referendum (also known as a plebiscite or a vote on a ballot question) is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to either accept or reject a particular proposal. This may result in the adoption of a new constitution, a constitutional amendment, a law, the recall of an elected official or simply a specific government policy.

Radu


This post has been edited by Radub on December 20, 2011 03:39 pm

Denes, you said "As regards Hungary, the Entente repeatedly refused to hold referendums in disputed areas, to ask directly the local population of their will how they want to shape their own future". What do you mean, if you are so kind? What was the power of Entente over Hungary to forbid this referendums? If it was like this, how it was then posible to be held the romanian gathering from Alba Iulia (before december 1918 part of Hungary) and how it was the hungarian one you mentioned (also in a then hungarian teritory)? Other situation when Entente had no authority was when romanian army started the 16th april 1919 offensive instead of staying on Clemenceau line.

Denes, my point of view might be like you said, as I readed only romanian history and let's supose that I'm (and romanian history is) biased. Isn't the hungarian history speaking the same way? I ask this only for the sake of "audiatur et altera pars".

Another subject, discussed by many of us lately, is the definiton of referendum. Ok, I understand that from constitutional point of view it was not a referendum because it was not one man, one vote. But what is if the facts were like in the period when 1st December 1918 was prepared: all romanians from a village were consulted and sent their delegated to Alba Iulia to express their will? What would be the proper name for such? Consultation of public? Mass will? Or how?



This post has been edited by 21 inf on December 20, 2011 03:52 pm

22 inf,
What you describe is what is known as "proxy voting". Google it.
Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on December 20, 2011 06:31 pm

Thanks for the answer, Radub. Now, that we see that even if it was not a real real referendum, at least it was a democratic act, not a dictatorial one or the will of a handfull of politicians.

There was no voting at Alba Iulia of any kind. There was a pre-drafted resolution proclaimed in the name of the Rumanians from Transylvania, Banat and the Hungarian Lands.

Gen. Dénes

Yes. It was no voting at Alba Iulia. The will of romanians was expressed in every village they lived. In Alba Iulia the delegates just presented the credentionals and expresed the will of those who they represented. It was legal.

Denes, I must express my doubts about the figures. You said between 40000 and 120000, first of all, it is a too large aproximation, about 80000. Second, if it was 120000, is more than Alba Iulia's assembly, about 100000. It cannot be, there cannot be put toghether so many Hungarians in this time.
And, in Cluj Napoca, one of the most crowded manifestation was in 1996, during the Constantinescu's electoral campaign, when the place in front of the National Theatre was full, and were just about 20000 people. I can't believe that in 1918 could be 40000 people in Cluj with Hungarian etnicity (the lowest figure you quote) get assembled.

In October 1918, Charles I informed the Allies of his idea of turning the A-H Empire into a federation. Transylvania would have remained part of Hungary, while the Czechs, Slovaks and so on would have gotten federal states. Did he organize a nice democratic referendum in order to consult the population of Transylvania before coming up with this solution? I doubt it.

For your info, Charles IV was the King of Hungary. He acted as the monarch of the country. Kings don't usually ask through referendum if their decision is accepted or not by the populace, now do they?

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on December 21, 2011 08:45 am

I merely took the figures from the quoted study. 120,000 people indeed sounds too much, but 40-50,000 people is realistic. Remember, delegates from all over Transylvania, Banat and the territory up to River Tisza (in short, Eastern Hungary), and not only Hungarians, but also representants of other ethnic groups, arrived to then Kolozsvar.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on December 20, 2011 10:19 pm

Indeed Denes,
other nationalities except the Romanian majority! The example you give about the romanian speakers, including the one in Arad, is eloquent! Only in Arad County, between November 1918 and February 1919 there were 301 murders committed by Hungarian national guards, gendarmes and even regular troops (elements of the 2nd Infantry (Honved) Regiment of the 23. Honved Infantry Division) identified by both romanians (testimonies of survivors - f.i. the family of the great-grandfather of a friend of mine who lived in the village Simand, Arad County, killed when returning from Alba Iulia! but also documents - Ion Clopoţel editor in chief of the journal Romanul from Arad back then in 1918 -Memories and portraits, Timisoara, 1975) but later also french troops! How stupid can sound that a romanian from Arad to support the maintenance of a state who terrorize his citizens and do everything possible to destroy their national identity from 1867 onwards?

This post has been edited by ANDREAS on December 20, 2011 11:42 pm

Andreas, the proves and facts of romanians in 1918 are clear. Romanians from Transylvania never wanted to be hungarian subjects and of course they fought for union with Romania. The insignifiant number of romanians who participated probably at the hungarian meeting from Cluj is equal to zero (there is no "pădure fără uscături" ). Denes can explain us why he reffer so often to this numbers. Andreas, the romanians from Transylvania didnt felt their national identity at threat since 1867, but from 1848. This was the main reason romanians fought in 1849 on the austrian side, as well as saxons from Transylvania. The hungarian government from Pesta gave in 1848 social rights in Hungary, leveling the national rights. It was it's business what he did in Hungary, but when the same laws were to be applied in Transylvania, unilaterally united with Hungary in 1848 by the Diet from Cluj, romanians held their national meetings from Blaj, were they declared they want also national recognition, as they had none (but this is a separate issue and was discussed on this forum on another topic).

Imperialist and Denes: You are both right. The person you speak was Charles I of Austria and Charles IV of Hungary in the same time. His oficial title was "His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty, Charles the First, by the Grace of God, Emperor of Austria, Apostolic King of Hungary, of this name the Fourth, King of Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, and Galicia, Lodomeria, and Illyria; King of Jerusalem, Archduke of Austria; Grand Duke of Tuscany and Cracow, Duke of Lorraine and of Salzburg, of Styria, of Carinthia, of Carniola and of the Bukovina; Grand Prince of Transylvania; Margrave of Moravia; Duke of Upper and Lower Silesia, of Modena, Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla, of Auschwitz and Zator, of Teschen, Friuli, Ragusa and Zara; Princely Count of Habsburg and Tyrol, of Kyburg, Gorizia and Gradisca; Prince of Trent and Brixen; Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and in Istria; Count of Hohenems, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Sonnenberg; Lord of Trieste, of Cattaro, and in the Windic March; Grand Voivode of the Voivodship of Serbia". The idea of federalisation of AH it was not his idea, the idea was older than 1918 and had at least a few decades since was emited.