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

In order not to have another topic closed, I propose a discussion about the period from october 1918 to 1st December 1918 in Transylvania. Let's have a document based discussion if posible. Let's see how Transylvania went united to Romania and why the other 2 choices (independence or union with Hungary) were ignored. I dont want an emotional discussion, let's just have the evidence we have.

No info or no guts?

No time, if you refer to me.

By the way, if you indeed intend to analyse the events, you must start with 1916 (secret deals with Rumania) and finish in 1920 (Trianon Peace Treaty and retreat of Rumanian army beyond the new Western frontiers).

Gen. Dénes

No,Denes, I didnt refered to you . Anyway, the idea you propose is a start!

I think the turning point of those events are Arad negotiations between Stefan Cicio Pop and Iuliu Maniu with Oskar Jassy. Those negotiations failed, and Romanians decided to ask the population via Alba Iulia referendum.

The negociations from Arad failed, but the decision of union was already issued at Oradea in october 1918 in the house of dr Aurel Lazar.

Wrong. The Rumanian National Committee did not ask the population in a referendum, but rather decided to issue a resolution on behalf of the Rumanian ethnics of Transylvania, Banat and the Hungarian Lands. Big difference.

A real and democratic way to ask the population would have been a real referendum in all territories affected by the proposal to unite with Rumania.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. The Hungarian Minister of Nationalities was properly called Oszkár Jászi.

This post has been edited by Dénes on December 19, 2011 12:26 pm

Denes, based on the structure and organisation of Marea Adunare Naţională, it was a referendum. The "credenţionale" presented at Alba Iulia from all localities inhabited by romanians show that it was a popular consultation. At a first glance, the referendum targeted the romanian population from Transylvania and other parts inhabited by romanians in Hungary.

The question is (I didnt studied the issue yet): the hungarian and saxon population was invited to this referendum? At the referendum's results the saxons later subscribed.

Other question is: was it compulsory to invite at the referendum the other nationalities?

Denes mentioned previously in another topic that there was a separate referendum of the Hungarian population, a kind of mirror of Alba Iulia, somewhere else in Transylvania. If he has time, he can refresh our memory with details or provide a link to the other topic in worldwar2.ro

This post has been edited by Florin on December 19, 2011 04:46 pm

An assembly of representatives can only ask for a referendum/plebiscite. Then, the population has to vote individually, one man=one vote. There are clear conditions as to what makes such a thing a referendum. The referenda/plebiscites MUST be clearly called so. If it is not clearly called a referendum, then it is just a vote or resolution. That is the case in all referenda. Check the constitution.

For example, our parliament is formed by representatives sent there by voters. In other words, when you send your local deputy to the parliament, he is your voice in the paliament. BUT, in the case of a referendum, if a deputy is sent there by 10000 votses, one deputy cannot vote on behalf of 10000 people in a referendum. Each of those 10000 people has to vote individually and the deputy is suddenly nothing more that just person No. 10001.

Is it compulsory for all people to participate in a referendum? That depends if it is mandatory or facultative. But the main rule of referenda is that everyone affected must have a say.

Radu

Eastern and Central Europe after WWI were of course not perfect. Transylvania was not the only place with a part of people unhappy regarding their status quo.
In Czechoslovakia there were the German and Hungarian minorities, in Poland there were the Ukraineans, in Jugoslavia there were the Croats, the Slovenians and the Hungarians.
What really made the situation difficult in Transylvania is the fact that the bulk of the Hungarian and German minorities were concentrated far away from the Hungarian border, and you cannot link those communities with Hungary unless you swallow big chunks of land with Romanian overwhelming majority.

This post has been edited by Florin on December 21, 2011 03:50 pm

Actually, the country with the "purest" ethnicity was Hungary, as it was quite harshly configured, ethnically and territorially... I don't exactly know of Austria, but from all the Central and East European states, Hungary had the smallest percentage of minorities - I suppose Denes could concur with that affirmation!

This post has been edited by MMM on December 19, 2011 05:14 pm

First of all, about what Radub mentioned how a referendum is to be organised, in 1918 there was no government in Transylvania, unless the govern from Budapest was considered legal after breaking apart from Austria. The hungarian government, in the person of Oszkar Jaszi, accepted in november 1918 the power of Consiliul Naţional Român as the representative political power in Transylvania.

Second, regarding the same issue, romanians organised actually this kind of referendum. In each locality inhabited by romanians were signed "credenţionale". This were documents in which any romanian from a locality could sign in favor of the union with Romania. The document was autentificated by a local authority. All credentionals were given to deputies from each locality and sent to Alba Iulia. All credentionals are still existing today and can be consulted.

Third: all the other nationalities who broke their teritories from AH in 1918 had NO referendum at all. They made their new states based on declarations of independence issued by a handfull of politicians. Only romanians held a referendum, even if a political declaration was issued in october 1918 at Oradea.

Forth> @MMM> I dont know from were you get the information about lower percentage of minorities in Hungary during AH empire. Can you point the percentanges and make a comparison with your reference in order to see if it was really like that?

This post has been edited by 21 inf on December 19, 2011 06:08 pm

2 examples of "credenţionale" from the thousands existing.

There is no denial that some people were deputised to represent a group, but in a referendum, each person must vote individually. One man one vote. That is the constitution.
A refereendum MUST be called a "referendum". Yes, politicians use the term haphazardly, like "this election is a referendum on our economy", but that is just rhetoric, it does not make it actually a referendum.
Radu