Vienna, 30 August 1940 - Award or Diktat ?

Dragos, I won't repeat myself. See my previous post:

Gen. Dénes

I know Denes, but as everyone can see, I'm not the one concerned about the credibility issue...

Here is another passage about 30 August 1940 moment from the book "O istorie
sinceră a poporului român" written by another romanian historian, Florin Constantiniu (I posted in romanian language to be also more concise):

"[...]
Sub presiunea germană, la Turnu Severin au avut loc discuţii româno-ungare care au eşuat. Delegaţia ungară a pretins 69.000 kmp., cu 3.9 milioane locuitori (dintre care 2,2 milioane români). Teritoriul revendicat cuprindea spaţiul transilvan de la nord de Mureş, trecând Ungariei Aradul, Alba Iulia şi Braşovul, dar lasând României Blajul, Meduaşul şi Sighişoara. Delegaţia română s-a plasat pe poziţia schimbului de populaţiei cu rectificări minore de frontieră, ca urmare a sporului de populaţie al Ungariei.
Eşecul negocierilor de la Turnu Severin părea să mute disputa româno-ungară de la masa tratativelor pe câmpul de luptă. Pentru a evita o astfel de escaladare, Hitler a impus arbitrajul de la Viena, care a fost ÎN FAPT UN DICTAT (Mihai Manoilescu, ministrul de Externe al României NEFIIND LĂSAT MĂCAR SĂ FACĂ O DECLARAŢIE, după ce fusese comunicată decizia arbitrilor - Ribbentrop şi Ciano - a leşinat). România pierdea un teritoriul de 43.492 kmp., cu 2.667.007 locuitori, majoritatea (50,1%) fiind români. Este de remarcat cî intinderea teritoriului anexat de Ungaria se afla sub limita programului minimal ungar, printre care şi prim-ministru, Pal Teleki, întors de la Viena, "zdrobit sufleteşte", cum ]l descrie ministrul Învîţământului, istoricul Balint Homan.
La Bucureşti, Consilul de Coroană, considerând că avea de ales ,,între salvarea fiinţei politice a statului nostru şi posibilitatea dispariţiei lui" a hotârât cu 19 voturi pentru, 10 contra şi o abţinere acceptarea deciziei de la Viena.
[...]"
(Florin Constantiniu, "O istorie sinceră a poporului român",Ed. Univers Enciclopedic, Bucureşti, 1999, pag. 352-353)

P.S. Mr. Deneş, with all my respect, what do you want to prove with the fact that Vienna 30 august 1940 was a "award" not a diktat. You can see very clearly that all romanian historian (even I quoted here only two of them...if you want I can quote from another historian) consider that Vienna, 30 august 1940 was a DIKTAT, because it was imposed by Hitler, Romania lossing a part from Transylvania to Hungary's side.
And BTW again with all my respect , Mr. Deneş, you are a hungarian (even you had born here in Romania) and you see the situation from Hungary's advantage (so you can't be impartial). For Romania Vienna, 30 august 1940, was a DIKTAT.

Fratello

So Denes, are you saying that the Romanian leaders were afraid of the "might" of the Hungarian army? That's ridiculous. Without allies, Hungary would have been defeated quickly, like in 1919.
The border change with population exchange and compensations for the displaced population would have been the best option, ending most of the problems between the two countries. Look how a similar solution solved most of the issues between Romania and Bulgaria.

Of course, in 1940 the Hungarian Army was weaker than the Rumanian one. The main reason for that is that Hungary was allowed to openly arm only from Sept. 1938 on, when the Bled Agreement took effect.

The key here was, as you rightly pointed out, the alliances. Italy was firmly on the side of Hungary, with Germany more like neutral, slightly leaning towards Rumania, for economical reasons. And let's not forget the wild card, the Soviet Union. Therefore it's uncertain how an open Rumanian-Hungarian war in 1940 would have ended.

The comparison with 1918/1919 is improper, in my view, as back then Hungary crumbled from inside, also being attacked from three directions: south, east and north. Defeat for Hungary left without alliances was inevitable.

The problem with a population exchange, as you put it, is how far the Hungarian-Rumanian border should have been pushed to east into Transylvania, so a certain number of ethnic Hungarians could have been exchanged with a similar number of ethnic Rumanians.

Moreover, how would one deal with the approach of persons like your name sake, Dragos, had earlier:

?

Let me note, Dragos03, that all these scenarios are 'what-ifs' only. History is an exact science and is not defined by such alternative versions.
It happened the way we know it, because otherwise simply it could have not happened...

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on March 06, 2005 04:51 am

Here is anothe passage from "Istoria Românilor în secolul XX" (by Ioan Scurtu and Gheorghe Buzatu) about Vienna 30 August 1940 moment registred by the newspapares from another countries (posted in romanian laguage like the original text from the qouted book):

"[...]
Dictatul de la Viena a fost condamnat de opinia publică internaţională. Astfel Agenţia "Reuter" califica dictatul de la Viena ca o nouă şi uriaşă înşelăciune nazistă şi arăta că cea dintâi reacţie a opiniei bublice faţă de capitulare a fost stupefacţia generală pentru felul cum a fost prădată România. Cunoscutul cotidian "New York Herald Tribune" aprecia că in acele zile:,,Dicatele impuse de dictatori au avut întotdeuna soarta făuritorilor lor. Nimic nu se poate clădi într-adevăr pe violenţă, după cun nimic nu se poate clădi pe nisip: nici dictaturi şi nici dictate"
Ziarul turc "Yeni Sabah", după ce relata împrejurările în care s-a produs dictatul de la Viena, conchidea:,,Este de datoria noastră de a exprima prietenilor noştri români regretul şi simpatia noastră pentru tratamentul neuman la care au fost supuşi. Înţelegem că în aceste clipe dureroase întreaga naţiune este cufundată în doliu adânc. Dar amicii noştri români, care sunt curajoşi, tenaci şi harnici, vor găsi în nenorocirea lor o nouă forţă şi vor munci cu solidaritatea mărită. Ei vor păstra, fără nici o îndoială, locul importamt ce-l ocupă în Balcani"
"Gazette de Lausanne", unul dintre cele mai cunoscute ziare elveţiene, scria că România a fost lovită în mod crunt prin sentinţa de la Viena, avându-se în vedere, în primul rând, câ ,,în ansamblul Transilvaniei elementul românesc constituie majoritatea populaţiei"
Premierul engley W. Churchill declara în Camera Comunelor, la 5 septembrie 1940:,,România a suferit o severă mutilare teritorială. Nu avem de gând să recunoaştem vreuna din schimbările teritoriale ce se fac în timpul războiului, afară de acelea ce s-ar produce ce liberul consinţământ şi cu bună voinţa părţilor interesate". La rândul său, lordul Halifax, liderul diplomaţiei britanice, declara că guvernul englez ,,nu recunoaşte nici o cesiune de teritorii făcute sub presiunea şi în special nu recunoşate arbitrajul de la Viena"
[...]"
(Ioan Scurtu, Gherghe Buzatu, Gheorge Buzatu, "Istoria Românilor în secolul XX", Ed. Paideia, Bucureşti, 1999, pag. 384)

P.S. So, you can see very clearly that not only Romania cosidered that Vienna 30 August 1940 was a diktat.

and from the same book anothe passage about 1918-1919 moment when Romanian Army conquered Budepesta (also in romanian laguage):

"[...]
Vii discuţii a suscitat proiectul tratatului de pace cu Ungaria cu Ungaria, deorece delegaţia maghiară, precum şi unele cercuri politice şi financiare din Marea Britanie, Franţa, Italia şi din alte ţări se pronunţau împotriva destrămării Ungariei "milenare". Pe de altă parte, delegaţia română, susţinută de numeroşi lideri politici, a demonstrat, pe bază de date concrete, faptul că Transilvania este un străvechi teritoriul românesc, că populaţia acesteia şi-a exprimat în cadrul Adunării Naţionale de la Alba Iulia din 1 decembrie 1918 hotărărea de a se uni cu România.
Guvernul comunist de la Budeapesta - acţionând în comun acord cu cel bolşevic de la Moscova - a refuzat şă-şi retragă trupele din Transilvania şi a atacat armata română, aflată în Munţii Apuseni. În urma unor lupte grele (16-18 aprilie) atacul a fost respins; a urmat un nou taca ungur, la mijlocul lunii iulie; de această dată armata română a declanşat o contaraofensivă de amploare, ocupând Budapesta la 4 august. După restabilirea ordinii, trupele române s-au retras în limitele teritoriului naţional (martie 1920). În ziua de 4 iunie 1920, a fost semnat la Trianon trtatul de pace cu Ungaria, prin care se recunoştea unirea Transilvaniei cu România [...]"
(Ibidem, pag. 10-11)

I have same opinion. Romanian leaders were afraid the avoid a war with Germany and Italy, not with Hungary (Hungary was used by internatinal contex )

?

It is part of the series of aggressions started by Germany before the outbreak of WW2, aggressions because they are violation of the treaties and conventions signed after WW1.

Translation:

The Vienna Dictate was condemned by the international public opinion. “Reuter” press agency qualified the Vienna Dictate as a “new and huge Nazi trickery” and showed that the first public opinion’s reaction was the general stupefaction for the way Romania was plundered. The “Herald Tribune” daily newspaper stated that: “The dictates imposed by dictators had always the fate of their doers. Nothing can be built on the ground of violence, as nothing can be built on sand: neither dictatures nor dictates”.
The Turkish newspaper “Yeni Sabah”, after relating the circumstances of the Vienna Dictate, was concluding: “It is our duty to express our regrets and sympathy to our Romanian friends, for the inhuman treatment they had to endure. We understand that in these painful moments the whole nation is wearing the weed. But our Romanian friends, that are brave, tenacious and hard working, will find in their tragedy a new force and they will work in higher solidarity. They undoubtedly will keep their important role in Balkans.
“Gazette de Lausane”, one of the most known Swiss newspapers, read that Romania was hit hard by the sentece of Vienna, considering that, in the first place, “in Transylvania ensemble, the Romanian element constitutes the majority of population”.
The British prime minister W. Churchill declared in the House of Commons, on 5 September 1940: “Romania suffered a severe territorial mutilation. We have no intention to ratify any of the territorial changes during the war, excepting the ones made with the free will and consent of the involved parts.” Also, Lord Halifax, the leader of the British diplomacy, declared that the British government “does not ratify any territorial ceding under pressure, and does not ratify the Vienna Dictate”.

IMO a discussion of what the arbitration from Vienna should be named is only the top of the iceberg in an issue that might not be ever accepted by the Hungary part.

Nobody, at least on this topic, said anything about why Hungary should have any part of Transilvania? (the iceberg I mentioned).

Attenion: thin ice.

For now I would point that I don't understand what means that Romania would have dissapear if the arbitration was rejected by the Crown Council.

What if Romania rejected the treaty?
What Hitler would do, thinking of Romanian oil and army? The Hungarian ally was more important? Italy could be convinced not to interfere?

So as the topic goes one could think: Hungary was one of the great powers (?!)determined to get Transilvania and would not accept anything else and everybody should listen. No way.

It would start a war with Romania.
OK, so what? Romania was interested in defending it's land and would have defeat the Hungarian Army. Hitler would not have his oil nor Romanian Army support.
Maybe Germany would have conquered Romania. Maybe it would be better for us, at the end of the war. Maybe we could set on fire all Ploiesti fields and Hitler wouldn't have the oil anyway.

IMO, Romania should have refuse the "diktat" and play hard balls.

Denes, I am very curious to find out how a "maghiar" see the Greater Hungary and how he motivate the right to regain any land. What are the territories that Hungary considers it is intitled to get them back?

Barbosu

Many thanks to you, Dragoş, for english translation

Fratello

You've really outdone yourself this time Mr.Denes,
coming here with this topic is like going to an Israeli history forum and trying to
deny the Holocaust.
I, myself at least half hungarian, and at least two friends of mine of the
same ethnical background, see these facts as history and i see no point trying
to convince a dozen people on this forum that they are all wrong while you alone are right...
The true paradox is that while you try your best to be "more catholic than the Pope" and fight for a cause that real Hungarian (and indeed most of the world) don't care much any longer (see the results of the polls in Hungary)
you will never be more than a Romanian-Hungarian, never a real one...

If you think that i cant't back my words, i can produce many quotes from your books that contradict your so called objectivity , i'm just not in the mood to read them again...


Over 'n' out!

Mr. Eduard Badescu (a.k.a. '109'). This is not the first time you resort to personal attack against me on various internet forums.
From now on please refrain maliciously commenting anything regarding my person and mind your own business, would you?

Or in Rumanian, for clearer understanding: D-le Badescu, incetati atacul personal impotriva mea si vede-ti va de treaba.

Gen. Dénes

To 109 and to everybody posting in this thread: resume the subject of the topic.

If Romania rejected the Vienna Diktat, it would have had the same fate as Yugoslavia: attacked from all sides and divided between greedy neighbours. Or perhaps the fate of Poland: divided between USSR and Germany/other Axis states.
Until the defeat of France, Romania could reject any Diktat. After that, all of Europe was at the mercy of Germany.
As for the population exchange, i think that Hungary could get Crisana from the border to the mountains.
The comparison with the 1919 campaign is fair in my opinion. Hungary crumbled from inside only after its army was crushed on the battlefield by Romania. Hungary was indeed surrounded by enemies but at the time of the Tisa battle only this front was active. Romania had a much larger army but only a part was sent on the Hungarian front. The Hungarians even had advantage in numbers but they were quickly defeated.

First was the betrayal of Czechoslovakia. Next followed the crushing of Poland. The French response? The funny war. France was the main pillar around which the net of alliances was formed in the East. The main blow was not her conquest but her lack of action to honour those commitments. The domino effect did the rest.

I think its false. If Romania would have stood her ground, Yugoslavia would not have been so easily invaded later, and moreover the Romanian example might have made the serbs realise that their turn was next if they stood on the sidelines.
The Yugoslav example is rather a later consequence of/facilitated by the Romanian decision, therefore it cannot be applied retroactively to justify the latter!!!

But whatever the 'what ifs', resisting and fighting for that land was the most decent and the most normal thing to do. Because the present discussion of award vs. diktat would have never existed if the Romanian resistance would have proven for history that it was an act imposed by force upon an unwilling state/leadership and a resisting population, and therefore, a DIKTAT.
Because that did no happen, I totally agree with Mr. Denes, it wasnt a Diktat!!

The Romanian leadership's disastrous decision will testify that for years to come, and it should remind every generation that it has to be careful how it acts, it has tremendous responsibilities.

take care

This post has been edited by Imperialist on March 06, 2005 09:44 pm