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

21 inf., I really appreciate your efforts to present the idealistic view on the events surrounding the 1 Dec. 1918 resolution. This by trying to present some documents and sources, without calling the others idiot, etc. Very commendable attitude.

However, as I've already said, almost every sentence of yours can be countered. Not because you willingly twist the facts, but because the facts are presented in Rumanian literature unilaterally and biased. This is why in a reasonable dispute one MUST ALWAYS consult the other side, too. Otherwise the story is a biased and historically inaccurate one.

The definition of a referendum is clear and there is no room for interpretation: one person=one vote, done individually, without influence, and not through a representative. The 1 Dec. 1918 events were anything but referendum, it was a statement done in the name of the Rumanian ethnics living in Transylvania, Banat and the Hungarian Lands. That's it.

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. This because the facts have already been decided long before Dec. 1918.

However, there was one single exception, when the local population earned with armed resistance the right to hold a referendum on their future. That was Sopron (Oedenburg) and surrounding areas. The result of the referendum was that a German speaking majority voted to stay within Hungary and not to be annexed to Austria.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on December 19, 2011 07:29 pm

Radub, if readed carefull, in the second "credenţional" it is stated: "Prezent:poporul din comuna politică Surduc". In the first one is written: "întreg poporul din comuna curat românească Albac". So, everybody who participated voted as you say>one man, one vote. This is one point.

Another point is that you speak about today constitution and how a referendum is to be organised. All the other guys from here reffer to the era of WW1. If you want to make refference to the constitution of 1918 in Transylvania, could you mention at what constituiton you make the refference?

In november 1918 we dont even know if it was talking about a referendum as we understand today. We here said referendum, but we have no clue in this point of discussion if back in 1918 it was named like this.

C'mon, 21inf. There institution of the referendums was well known before Dec. 1918!
As for referendum in disputed areas of Hungary, please see my above note.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. For the sake of accuracy, I cheked Wikipedia and in "comuna curat românească Alba" out of the 6519 people of the village 6473 were Rumanian, 16 Hungarian and the rest unidentified (data from 1910). Very close indeed, but not "purely Rumanian".

This post has been edited by Dénes on December 19, 2011 07:29 pm

What constitution? Which one? Modern constitution, in our times, is like you pointed. In 1918 there was not the "universal vote", it was one called "censitar vote", to vote zou may fulfil some conditions. And in 1918 there was not any form of regulamentar referendum, the term and the practice was not in use. Alba Iulia assembly, with "credentials", delegats and so on, was the most democratic form of referendum for those times. Other forms, like today, were not technicaly possible.

Without having to stray too far from the topic, I want to emphasize a point which can not be ignored - but before I have to mention that I don't know whether and to what extent this aspect was the reason or just the consequence of the convening of the Grand National Assembly in Alba Iulia! For not to be misinterpreted!
This point was numerous military incidents, punitive actions and even organized military action from the the hungarian national guards and and Szekler militia, against the Romanian delegates mandated to represent the Romanian communities from all over Transylvania. Not necessarily say they were led by the government of Budapest but they were a reality nobody can deny! Do not say that they have prevented the Grand National Assembly from Alba Iulia but I say that a referendum in the current meaning of the word don't think it would have been possible under the circumstances...

21 Inf,
Referendums are very precise and specific procedures. They do not happen all the time. They have very strict rules and procedures. They tend to be needed when a major change is required in the fundamental law of the state, the constitution. It takes more than "vote by the people" to make a referendum.
- First of all, a referendum MUST be called a "Referendum". In Romania they were also called "plebiscit". For example, the Senate of Romania was created in the first Romanian "plebiscit" during the time of A.I. Cuza. Also, Carol I was elected by "plebiscit".
- Secondly, referendum MUST have a "proposal" - this specifies clearly what amendment must be made to the constitution. The "proposal" MUST be pointed out clearly and advertised/announced in advance so that people can discuss and understand it. Referendums do not happen ad hoc, on the spot.
So, if the words "referendum"/"plebiscit" were not used, then this was just a regular run-of-themill garden-variety vote. If there was no "proposal" announced well in advance, then this is not a referendum. Those "credentionals" are just the instruments by which people appointed a deputy to vote for them in an assembly.
THAT in itself points out very clearly and unequivocally that this WAS NOT a referendum. In a referendum each person votes , one man=one vote. Referendumns do not permit "lists of votes" in order to avoid rigged votes.
But do not take my word for it... I studied constitutional law, but you tend to think little of me... So, please ask a constitutional lawyer.
So, find the word "plebiscit" ("referendum") and "propunerea" and you have your proof.
Radu

Apparently, some people don't bother reading others' posts and keep repeating the same nonsenses.

So, Contras, please read what I wrote above:
"However, there was one single exception, when the local population earned with armed resistance the right to hold a referendum on their future. That was Sopron (Oedenburg) and surrounding areas. The result of the referendum was that a German speaking majority voted to stay within Hungary and not to be annexed to Austria."

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on December 19, 2011 08:15 pm

Denes, no offense, but when I write my post, yours was not put into topic.

Can you tell us more, which was the modality to vote? It was "universal vote" or "censitar vote"? Or were sent delegates to express the comunity option? It is interesting to know.

Radu,
to operate with the same units of measurement, if we want objectivity, we need to see what the other part (the leaders of the hungarian community from Transylvania) intended to do and what they actually did! The Transylvanian Hungarian Central Government Committee led by Apathy, the hungarian replica to the CNRC, made serious efforts in organizing a large popular gathering in Cluj (indeed after Alba Iulia, in mid december 1918) with the stated purpose of proclaming a Transylvanian Independent Republic! Indeed a large-scale meeting was held in Cluj in December 22, 1918, in which Apathy expressed the intention to maintain the integrity of the Hungarian State (which, by the way, was in contradiction with the intent of the meeting!). The resolution pronounced by those present there called for maintaining the integrity of the Hungarian State, in which all nationalities enjoy the broadest rights, without prejudice the unity of the state! The meeting elected a Governing Council of Transylvanian Hungarians, in order to lead the Independent Republic of Transylvania (not comment on the nature of the so-called independent republic that was almost exclusively Hungarian by his representatives!). A similar phenomenon occur in Szekely Region where, in 28 november, a Szekely Republic was proclaimed! Only the Romanian Army advance beyond the Carpathians in Szekely Region prevented further recruitments of ex-combatants for the Division led by Kratochvil.

This post has been edited by ANDREAS on December 19, 2011 09:04 pm

The resolution of the general meeting held at Kolozsvár (Cluj) on 22 December 1918 was the following:
„Kelet-Magyarország 1918. december 22-én Kolozsvárott összesereglett, különböző vallású és fajú népei kijelentik, hogy a Wilson-féle elvek értelmében gyakorolt önrendelkezési jogok alapján továbbra is a magyar népköztársaság és a magyar állam kereteiben kívánnak élni s az egységes és csorbítatlan Magyarország keretein belül követelik minden itt lakó nemzet számára a teljes egyenlőséget, szabadságot és önkormányzatot.”
(I will translate later on). [See: http://www.hhrf.org/kisebbsegkutatas/kk_20...cikk.php?id=246]

Shortly, in this popular meeting of between 40,000 and 120,000 people, including representants of 300 Saxon villages, as well as several Rumanians (two names are mentioned: the social-democrat Sava Strengar-Demian from Arad and Gheorghe Avramescu, the Rumanian workers' leader), it was declared that the participants and the people they represented intended to stay within the Hungarian state, in line with the Wilson doctrines.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on December 19, 2011 09:40 pm

Andreas,
I do not know why you addressed all that to me. I never referred or even hinted at any of the stuff you listed in your address to me. Maybe you intended it for someone else?

I am strictly referring to the legal understanding of the term "referendum" and how it applies to 1 December. What happened on 1 December 1918 was great and historic, but nothing about it (purpose, format, procedure, voting method) meets the criteria of a "referendum".

"Marea Adunare Nationala" (Great National Assembly) does not describe a "referendum". This does not invalidate or even detract from the declaration issued taken there. Equally, calling it "referendum" does not give it a grater importance.
It will still remain a historic and important event by just calling it what it was always called: "Rezolutiunea Adunarii Nationale".

Referendums are usually called when constitutional matters need to be addressed. Here is the list of referendums held in Romania http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum

Radu

@Denes
Indeed, the meeting was attended also by representatives of several Saxon communities from Transylvania, but the call to meeting was from the start made to the non-Romanian communities from Transylvania! And indeed two romanians you mentioned made speeches in which they expressed the maintenance of Transylvania in the Hungarian State! However, as one of the two speakers was from Arad, it is easy to imagine his representativeness

@Radub
What I wanted to point out is that the process of popular expression (in the form of Great National Assembly from Alba Iulia) in that time was not less representative, an attempt to imitate it was also tried by the Hungarian community from Transylvania! But now I understand your position!

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

Denes, you seem to search all the time for "cuiul lui Pepelea". Albac was not "curat românească" only because there were 16 hungarians at more than 6.000 romanians (you bet those 16 hungarians were functionaries and not locals? ); 2 romanians were involved in a hungarian meeting, so the romanians were the same opinion with hungarians, hm. You have the same ideas before and I kindly asked you to explain yourself why this insignifiant numbers make the difference for you, but you replied nothing.

I am very curious why you take on this insignifiant numbers, what you want to prove. You operated with historical documents writing about history of aviation, you aplied the same measurement there too? I dont take on you, I just try to understand your point of view. No offence!