Frontier agreement Austru-Hungarian M and Romania, 1888 Treaty

At this link http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3¶m=6292Frontier Agreement I have found this Treaty in Hungariaon. Does anybody know where can I find it in English or Romanian? Thanks!

This treaty reinforces the existing border between Hungary, Bukovina (both part of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy) and Rumania.

In a previous topic, related to the 1918/1919 Rumanian-Hungarian local war, it was stated that there was no defined border between Hungary and Rumania in late 1918. This document disproves that claim.

Gen. Dénes

Bukovina was under Austrian administration.
The border along Bukovina and Moldavia was a border between Romania and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. After the collapse of this empire, Hungary was not automatically the inheritor of all the Austrians had before. Same applies to Romania.
As everywhere in Eastern Europe in those days, the land went to those having the strength to keep it. (And by the way, it previously belonged to a Romanian kingdom since the 1300's, and it was inhabited by Romanians more before that.)
Also, the document from that link is from 1888. It was already outdated not only by the events of WWI, but also by official documents: the Treaty of Buftea signed on 7 May 1918. It can be argued that the Treaty of Buftea was more advantageous for the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but while it replaced the previous treaty, it also collapsed like anything signed by the losing side during WWI.

This post has been edited by Florin on February 17, 2012 11:36 pm

Correct. After the collapse of the A-H Monarchy Hungary did not inherit anything from the Austrians. It only kept what was already part of the Hungarian Kingdom.

Rumanian Kingdom in Transylvania? Before 1300? That's new to me.

Gen. Dénes

As I mentioned in the topic to which you refer, a State that ceases the control in terms of military, political, economic and administrative in his own territory (or part of it) to a different authority (CNRC in Transylvania in november 1918) can't claim a violation of his territory by a foreign army, as long as the loss of control over his territory is earlier to the foreign invasion. Similar situations can be found very often in the international law, so your's claims are unfounded! In November 1918, at the entry of the first Romanian troops in Transylvania, the Hungarian army, gendarmerie and administration does not control, de facto, 12 of the 22 counties from Transylvania, Banat, Crisana and Maramures, that will come later as part of Great Romania. This information is confirmed by the report of the commander of the hungarian VII. Gendarmerie District -Brasov to his superiors in 7 november 1918, which I lectured in the reading room of the Arad city library (in original and in translated form).

The document I quoted mentions the takeover of local administration and gendarmerie functions by organized Romanian revolutionary supported by armed formations called national guard, composed largely of former soldiers. The document speaks of many attacks on the gendarmes stations in urban areas of Brasov, Sibiu, Hunedoara and Bistriţa-Năsăud counties and significant defections in the troops who surrendered weapons to the armed romanian formations. He stated that in the 7 counties where he had troops, the Romanian militia had over 4500 armed men, far exceeded the capacity of its troops to act. He says he already asked help from the commander of I. Gendarmerie District -Cluj, but the situation there was as critical as his.
The idea is that, in these circumstances, what state are we talking about (Hungarian or Austro-Hungarian whatever), a state whose administration, police and gendarmerie forces had lost control, and whose authority was in dissolution?

In 1918, following the colapse of AH monarchy, Hungary quicly dispensed her former partner, Austria, and made separate discussion with the Allies. Her hopes were that she will not put in the same bowl as Austria at the end (it was not a problem to her to make the 1867 compromise with Austria and have Transylvania united with her, under the benevolent eyes of austrians, with whom they fight to the death less than 20 years before, in 1848-1849). It is almost sure off-topic, but let's not forget that in 1848 hungarians acused transylvanian romanians as being fooled by austrians and were treated in Transylvania as treators cos they allied with austrian. Short memory from hungarian side, indeed, because in 1867 hungarians joined austrians for their own interess, but they didnt called themselfes treators or fools of their hungarian Motherland. They saw their 1848 dream fullfiled by austrians in 1867 (the union of Transylvania). Romanian's from Transylvania 1848 dream came true in 1918 by their own will - 1848/49 was only a rehearshal for 1918, as was probably for other non/german and non/hungarian nations from Austrian (later AH) empire.

And by the way, if in 1300 wasn't a proper romanian kingdom in Transylvania neither a hungarian one existed. In 1300's hungarian royalty was still expanding west in Transylvania and it's rule was not as extended or so well established as one can think (I exclude from this sentence the idiot and stupid history books wrote on the basis of theories as Roessler's about romanian "infiltration" in Transylvania in Middle Ages).

Correct. After the collapse of the A-H Monarchy Hungary did not inherit anything from the Austrians. It only kept what was already part of the Hungarian Kingdom.

To make it very short:
Regarding the indivisible and continuous Kingdom of Hungary, since 1526 what is today Hungary was under direct Turkish administration, including mosques built in Budapest. Meanwhile Transylvania was an independent state, making its own politics. That include being in the winning coalition in the 30 year war: 1618-1648.

With some help from Poland, Wien survives the Turkish siege and after 1688 a big part of Europe is coming under the Habsburg Crown. From 1688 to 1867 Hungary as it is today has the same status as Transylvania, and later as Galicia, northern Italy, Bukovina. Then we have the new Kingdom of Hungary, a courtesy of the Austrians, who were in need for a partner. This new Kingdom of Hungary is as new as the modern Romania (Moldova and Wallachia united), and this time Transylvania was a gift from the Habsburg Crown.

Rumanian Kingdom in Transylvania? Before 1300? That's new to me.

Gen. Dénes

Obviously, I was mentioning Bucovina / Bukovina, part of Moldavia from the early 1300's until 1775.
Also, my text "As everywhere in Eastern Europe in those days, the land went to those having the strength to keep it" was also about Bucovina, but this quote can be applied to Transylvania as well.

This post has been edited by Florin on February 18, 2012 07:56 pm

Was Transylvania before 1526 part of Hungary? Before this year it was also independent principality, having it's own "voievod". The szeklers had their own "comite", denomination also took by the most meritous voyvods of Transylvania. The 1.000 years ruling of Hungary upon Transylvania is a bad taste myth and only hot brains can accepted without reserves. The only times when Transylvania was under direct rule of Hungary was few months in 1848, between 1867-1918 (and here Hungary couldnt achieve this performance without the crucial help of austrians) and between 1940-1944. Make the arithmetics and one can see how many "1.000 years" Transylvania belonged to Hungary.

Do you have a link to that statement/topic so we can look at the context in which it was made? Because it sounds a bit strange taken out of context.

I will be honest with you, guys. I am sick and tired to repeat myself over and over again and try to always correct the many myths and legends (particularly regarding Transylvania and the relationship between Hungarians and Rumanians) that I see are still very much alive and kicking.

I saw from previous attempts (particularly the recent issue of the Referendum in December 1918) that very few people are actually open and ready to modify their views based on the facts. Most are simply pushing their agenda, without letting the information contradictory to what they know influence them. There are exceptions, of course. Among the participants of these hot topics I would like to mention 21inf, who shows that he is willing at least to listen what the other party has to say. And the moderators who are stepping in in time to cool down the overheated threads.

I have better things to do with my meagre spare time, like working on my books and articles I am behind with.

What I can do though is to post on a few Hungarian forums a note that anyone who wishes to engage in these debates should visit this forum. Perhaps they have more time at their hands.

Caveat: I don't know who these people will be (if any), so I do not bear even the slightest responsibility of what they may write.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on February 19, 2012 08:23 am

ciprianhugianu, because it's not your fault that you're caught up in an old dispute between Denes, whose position on everything related to Romania you can guess, and other older and newer members of this forum, I'll try to return to the discussion topic, and say that I found the text in Romanian of the treaty in a book, but for technical reasons I can't post it. I can try, in the limited time I have, to post it, but in Romanian and not in English, if it is ok so?
Denes I would appreciate more your contributions (in other areas than aviation), if they would rely more on documents than on your opinions and interpretations, which I (and I guess many other members) already have had the opportunity to know! Thanks!

Denes, both romanians and hungarians have their miths, propaganda and ghosts of their pasts, as any nation in the world have. I was not spared by them, as you also wasnt. This is life, we are learning all the lifetime and we still die fools (as an old saying teach us). I learned some things from the discussions I had with you, maybe you also found something new speaking with me. Let's think like this: all the time there will be a newcomer who will present the miths, propaganda or ghosts from the past he learned, voluntarilly or not (and he can be either romanian or hungarian guy). Let it be!

Romanians and hungarians are 2 small nations in Eastern Europe who never counted for the big powers. The big ones disposed romanians and hungarians at their good will (bunul plac): sometimes they favored hungarians, sometimes romanians. We (romanians and hungarians) dont count on the map of Europe in the face of tens of milions of germans, tens of milions of french, hundreds of millions of russians. We are just 20 milions romanians (ok, 19 milions romanians and 1 milion hungarians) and 8 milions hungarians. We are a drop in the ocean...If we are not making for us a good neighbourhood, we all (romanians and hungarians) have to loose something and the only beneficials will be others from Europe. It's like the neighbour next door: if I dont have a good relation with him, we both loose. When 2 fight each other, the 3rd wins.

Romanians and hungarians are both having their good parts and less good parts. Maybe if we know each other better and try to understand ourselfs will be better for all. We are in the XXI century, it is suposed culture made it's way to surface and the Middle Ages has lived it's life and it's burried forever. Peace!

Each serious participant in these exchanges has the best intentions, the deep belief that his writing is as close to the truth as possible, and the feeling that his conscience is clear.
...And quite often the result is hurt feelings, one side or another.

I don't see what the big deal is. So what if there was a border between Hungary and Romania in late 1918? What is the relevance of that?