Hungary's attitude toward Trianon

[dragos]

QUOTE

QUOTE But she entered the war to bring back Transylvania to the country, and the outcome of the war was just for her. I think the "bring back" note is inappropriate here, as Transylvania was not part of Rumania before 1919, not to mention the area West of the so-called "Western Carpathians". Dénes

Not part of the Romania as independent state formed in 1877, but part of the Romanian nation yes.

[Dénes]

Well, Dragos, just for the sake of argument, Transylvania is a geographical (or historical) notion, while the nation is a sociological one. Therefore Transylvania could not be part of the "Rumanian nation", its Rumanian ethnic population (majority in the area) can.

Dénes

[dragos]

Nice try, but no. The term of nation means a historical developed community of people with a territory, economic life, distinctive culture...

[Dénes]

O.K., Dragos, let's see who has a better dictionary
Here is what Encyclopedia Britannica (a quite authoritative source) says:

QUOTE

Nation Britannica Concise     People whose common identity creates a psychological bond and a political community. Their political identity usually comprises such characteristics as a common language, culture, ethnicity, and history. More than one nation may comprise a state, but the terms nation, state, and country are often used interchangeably. A nation-state is a state populated primarily by the people of one nationality. http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=398376&query=nation&ct=

See, no reference to territory whatsoever.

Dénes

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

Not part of the Romania as independent state formed in 1877, but part of the Romanian nation yes .

In this surprising new light, it appears then that Hungary has more rights to Harghita & Covasna than Rumania because not only are they part of the Hungarian nation, they were also fully part of the Hungarian independant state before being annexed without any sort justification (other than the will of French & Rumanian delegates) :roll:

Double standard someone ? :laugh:

I think it's time to unleash the "law of the jungle" argument again ! Unfortunately, it never solved anything, as we can witness. Nationalist mentalities only succeed to retrograde man to the middle ages.

[Dénes]

I think we are all reasonable people here. I also believe that with a proper set of arguments one can demonstrate (or not) the validity of a certain topic. Finally, I believe that one's mind can prevail over one's sentiments and can accept a proven fact, even if it doesn't match his/her preconveived ideas. After all, that's why we all are here, to learn something new, aren't we?
Maybe it sounds a bit idealistic, but this is what I believe in.

Dénes

[dragos]

To Chandernagore: I grow tired of this cliche "double standards". There are no standards here.

To Denes: We both have the knowledge and intellect to argue endlessly about whose is Transylvania, with more or less solid arguments, so I see no point continuing this discussion. I agree with your last statement though.

PS: I can and it would be interesting to post the meaning of the term "nationalism" from the Oxford dictionary of sociology (this one for Chandy), but there are several full pages to translate.

[Dénes]

I would like to make an issue very clear: I am not the other party, or the other side . I consider myself somewhere in the middle.
If you want to know the opinion of the real other party, you can check out several Hungarian revisionist sites, like "nem, nem, soha" (i.e., "no, no , never" ), etc. It happens that I am familiar with the arguments of both sides, not least by being fluent in both the Rumanian and Hungarian languages, which helps my trying to find the middle ground.
So please, don't label me erroneously.

Another clarification from my part: I'm not disputing at all whose Transylvania is. Politically it belongs to Rumania, no argument here.
What I am debating here are the historical roots and historical facts leading to the current situation. That's why we are here after all, for history, aren't we?

Finally, as an endnote to this topic, let me repeat what I just wrote:
"I also believe that with a proper set of arguments one can demonstrate (or not) the validity of a certain topic. Finally, I believe that one's mind can prevail over one's sentiments and can accept a proven fact, even if it doesn't match his/her preconveived ideas."

Dénes

[dragos]

So you consider us here to be the equivalent of the Hungarian revisionist sites? :shock:
Or you are in the middle like the arbiter in the Vienna "arbitration"/"award", which was a little sold arbiter

Yes I took notice and said I agree with your last statement, but that doesn't mean I reconsider my position (my "preconceived ideas").

[Dénes]

QUOTE

So you consider us here to be the equivalent of the Hungarian revisionist sites?  :shock:

No, definitely not. My point was that while you apparently represent the Rumanian side of the topic, I am not representing the Hungarian side of the same topic. I merely try to find the middle ground, historically speaking.

QUOTE

Or you are in the middle like the arbiter in the Vienna \"arbitration\"/\"award\"

He, he. Good one...

QUOTE

Yes I took notice and said I agree with your last statement, but that doesn't mean I reconsider my position (my \"preconceived ideas\").

O.K. Understood.
We still talk, don't we? :wink:

Dénes

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

To Chandernagore: I grow tired of this cliche \"double standards\".

Er, you feel targeted, perhaps for a good reason.

Fact is Dragos that you showed plenty of times how insensitive and uninterested you often were in trying to find a balance of arguments related to this difficult subject. Several people have already tried to present things under other angles, add information from different or contradictory sources or just discuss different aspects for the sake of understanding if not condoning. But you were always on the ultra-defensive like Davy Crockett in his Alamo : it has always been "my country right or wrong" and to hell with any form of balanced view. In last instance when arguments were failing you just usually shoved forward the "right of the winner". Relax. We're 90 years behind the events, it didn't happen yesterday. Try making the great leap forward.

I was surprised that you hammered a full page of one sided view on the subject without a single comment. That was really asking for some debate that, curiously, you now want to avoid. If you do not want to discuss the subject, why opening a folder for it ? Is this a tribune to the glory of Trianon, a platform for Hungary-bashing or what ?

[Victor]

QUOTE

Oh we talked about Trianon in quite a lot of other folders. But perhaps not in a generic sense. Personally I don't hold Trianon in higher esteem than Versailles. As one English historian put it, it was \"an insult to good sense, to justice and to pity\".

Do you have any idea of the peace imposed by the Central Powers on Russia and Romania? You will see that they are equally brutal, if not worse. And something similar was in store for France and England if Germany won. Either way we would have still had WWII in one form or another, as an Eu in 30s-40s would be inconceivable. Just think how hard it is today to find a common stand for all the European states. 70 years ago it would have been impossible.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

Do you have any idea of the peace imposed by the Central Powers on Russia and Romania?

If the strongest factor becomes "we did it because they did it" you don't elevate yourself above the object of your own contempt and critic. You just perpetuate the revenge cycle in which you are hopelessly stuck. Wilson did understand that to some degree. Not many listened to him, it was "hatred session" all over in the Versailles and Trianon rooms.

We paid for it dearly 20 years later. The construct of these treaties has not stood the test of time and what has remained of them is the sour taste of the great missed opportunities (witness Yugoslavia).

It wasn't clear at the time but the treaties ultimately nailed the coffin of European world power and influence. And yes, I disagree with you that it had to happen that way. There where voices for better solutions.

In the end we just digged our own graves over which the current EU Phoenix tries to rise. With a completely different mentality.

[Victor]

QUOTE

If the strongest factor becomes \"we did it because they did it\" you don't elevate yourself above the object of your own contempt and  critic. You just perpetuate the revenge cycle in which you are hopelessly stuck. Wilson did understand that to some degree. Not many listened to him, it was \"hatred session\" all over in the Versailles and Trianon rooms.

I am not trying to justify anything here, just present the facts. And the facts were that Central Powers were equally, if not more brutal, when imposing their will. That was the way everybody thought then in politics. Why are you trying to portray everything in black and white and make the Entente look like the big bad wolf and the Central Powers like the innocent lamb? Things are grey.

QUOTE

It wasn't clear at the time but the treaties ultimately nailed the coffin of European world power and influence. And yes, I disagree with you that it had to happen that way. There where voices for better solutions.

Those voices were but a few. The general mindset could not be changed by them.

QUOTE

In the end we just digged our own graves over which the current EU Phoenix tries to rise. With a completely different mentality.

It had to take 2 horrible wars for this to happen. One was unfortunately not enough.

[dead-cat]

the last 200 years are full of missed oportunities.

1814/15 was a missed oportunity
1870/71 again. there could've been a referendum in Alsace-Lorraine (like twice in the Saarland), which would've shown that they harbored absolutley no desire to return to Germany.
or Versailles ...

the next war, was just a logical consequence.