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

This is a political statement, biased against Hungary and Hungarians, and as such has no place on this forum.
Please discuss the topic from a historical point of view, in a neutral way, and refrain labelling people.

Gen. Dénes

Speedy, aidan zea, I agree with your views only in part - I say this because to have a referendum you (I mean the organizer) you need local structures -administrative and/or political type to handle the organization and holding of vote process... but you need also a tradition in this sense... Transylvania was in 1918 neither United States nor England, with a long democratic tradition! Transylvania had indeed a tradition, but a tradition of abuse, of will imposed by force by of a minority (be it hungarian, turk or austrian) ruling by intimidation, persecution, cheatings and broken promises, and even murder! In the context of events of the end of year 1918, the Great National Assembly in Alba Iulia have the legitimacy of a referendum, and from historical point of view is a referendum as was that understood in England or US in XVII and XVIII centuries!
Radu, your precisions are welcome and I'm glad to hear them!
21 inf, I share your point of view, but I don't think that all hungarians look the same at the events of December 1, 1918 from Alba Iulia, there are some (I hope many) who understand that the events of Alba Iulia express an historical truth and justice happened after to many years (centuries in fact) of abuses, villains and injustice!

This post has been edited by ANDREAS on July 21, 2012 08:27 am

Andreas, of course not all hungarians looked the same at 1st of December 1918, but if was some of them having another opinion, i wonder how many they were. Anyway, the point was if there was or not a referendum, mainly expressed from hungarian ideas and minds. I believe that the question is futile from romanian point of view and that romanians doesnt even bother to showed it as a referendum, as they didnt needed the opinion of others, but only the romanian point of view as a majority in Transylvania and from the point of view of the oportunities offered by the moment. It was a national assembly, as it was in 1848 in May at Blaj, proclaiming freedom for romanians, even if the national assembly from Blaj was forbidden by hungarian authorities of the time. The very idea of revolution make old rules obsolete and in national struggle romanians knew that they dont need the agreement of former masters to gain their rights.

21 Inf,
This is exactly where you failed to see the point in previous discussion.

You say "the Hungarian opressor would not have allowed a referendum".
Then you go on to say that it had to be a "referendum" simply because it was not allowed to be a "referendum". It simply does not make sense. You cannot say that the absence of evidence is evidence in itself.
A referendum is a very precise legal instrument that needs to meet certain legal criteria to be legally binding. If the "Hungarian masters" did not allow for such precise legal requirements to be in place for a referendum, then it was not a referendum. QED

So, if the "masters" did not allow the "subjects" to express their opinion, yet the "subjects" expressed this forbidden opinion, what is that? It is the pure definition of "revolution".

And you used the word "revolution" yourself. And I agree.

To me, "revolution" as an expression of will is hundreds of times more powerful than "referendum". Look at how the "referendum" taking place in Romania these days is so controversial. Romania experienced a lot more change through "revolution" that "referendum". In "revolutions" people change the world, in "referendums" vested interests use the people to change what they want. Want to place what Ponta is doing these days in the same cateogry as what happened in Alba Iulia? I would not!

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on July 21, 2012 09:57 am

I think we are a little ridiculous sometimes, and I do not say this with the intent to offend anyone, but finding that the diversionary effect of Denes sayings pushed the discussion on referendum as you see above! In this respect I appreciate Speedy opinion and also 21inf, who abandoned diversionary argument of Denes (diversion in terms of attention deviation from the real significance of events!) for the factual significance!
I also agree with the proper explanations of Radu, noticing correctly the real consequences of a revolution much more significant and with legal and social effects more important than a referendum!
Andreas, I agree with Radu about the effects, including legal ones, of what happened in Alba Iulia at December 1, 1918! But it's not less true what you say about the historical events that lead to the Great National Assembly!

Radub, my ancestor participated directly at 1848-1849 events as decurion de lancieri in Auraria Gemina Legion and he passed to us (his descendents) the atitude they had back in 1848, so as a motz myself I can understand a little better why we didnt need to have a referendum neither in 1848, neither in 1918 ) probably if we would speak in romanian instead of english i would be more clear what i wanted to say.

And right there, summarised in a couple of sentences, is why this is so hard to explain to you.
You are looking at this from an emotional perspective, not a legal perspective.

The legal requirements for a "referendum" were not met. That is all I am saying. And deep inside you know that is true! What happened there was many times more powrful than a referendum and many more times more effective. Calling it a what it was not does not actually strengthen its case, it actually plays right in the hands of detractors. It is like using the title "doctor" because it sounds good even though none of the necessary steps to use such a title were met.

Since the act of Alba Iulia did not bring Transylvania into Romania the next day, I fail to see how saying anything other than gushing praise about it may be a bonus for Hungarians.

Radu

Radub, if one has learned history from family doesnt mean it goes emotional, maybe only in your mind, as you dont know me or my family personally. One does have to learn history from books in order not to be emotional?! anyway, discusing in this fashion leads to nowhere, so from my part...full-stop.

So, what you are saying is that the only evidence you have that this was a "referendum" is membership of your family? And then you dismiss me with mock sarcasm? How does that even get close to "making your case". Your argument only proves that you are hindered not boosted by your own personal bias.
Radu

Here are the historical facts, once again.

The bottom line is that at Alba-Julia (Alba Iulia) on 1 December 1918 there was a gathering of Rumanians, who penned a Resolution in the name of the Rumanians from Transylvania, Banat and The Hungarian Lands (a not clearly defined area).
Check the original document, for details:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_eg4RyNmPMYM/TNFD..._Alba_Iulia.jpg

A similar gathering of Hungarians from Transylvania (including a few Rumanians and Germans as well), ending with a resolution (declaration), happened at Kolozsvar (Cluj) a couple of weeks later.

The fate of Transylvania was not decided by either gatherings and resolutions, but at the bargaining table with the Allies, who granted a large territory (the whole Transylvania, about half of Banat and a good part of the area West of Transylvania, which was referred to by Rumanians as The Hungarian Lands and by the Hungarians as Partium, i.e. parts of Hungary proper) to Rumania, but much less than the Rumanians had originally claimed, for their previous military activity in WW 1.

Naming the facts as they actually happened does not diminish at all the Rumanian cause for Transylvania.

These are the actual facts, briefly. Anything else is smoke and mirrors, politics, over-explanations (rastalmaciri), outbursts of emotions mixed with anti-this, anti-that feelings, coming from both sides.

Finally, a personal note. After almost 100 years from those events, we should be able to discuss them openly, as an important piece of history, without letting our emotions and feelings overcast the facts and impair our judgement.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on July 21, 2012 03:42 pm

Good point, Denes, and well said!

I found reference to Legea Unirii (Law on Union), published on 1 January 1919.
It would be extremely interesting to read it, and could shed light to many obscure details on this topic.
Can anyone check out the relevant Monitorul Oficial and perhaps photograph it, then share it?

Gen. Dénes

Try to find that MO on www.dacoromanica.ro, there are a lot of MO published in PDF format.