Vienna, 30 August 1940 - Award or Diktat ?

Mytzu is right, let's get back to the topic.

I could say the same about some romanians

This is also true.But yes,lets get back to the topic.

O.K., right.
So, "Vienna, 30 August 1940 - Award or Diktat ?"

Gen. Dénes

P.S. Admin., please do no start a poll for the answer...

This post has been edited by Dénes on September 06, 2005 07:50 pm

Read the topic, maybe you'll find out.

I learned that this was a diktat.Call it agreement , but definitely can't be called award.

I think it was an arbitration.

I also believe that's the proper historical term.
Neither 'Award', nor 'Diktat' is historically accurate. I tried to prove it accordingly.

I can't - and won't - add anything else to the topic, unless new documents/proofs - not personal opinions - surface (or I am personally referred to).

Of course, everyone is free to use whatever adjective he/she prefers.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on September 06, 2005 09:26 pm

Yes,an arbitration seems to be a proper definition.

I believe the term diktat suggest better the historical reality than award or arbitration. An arbitration suggest something demanded by both parties. The claim that Romania wanted the arbitration defies the historical truth and the logic itself.

Proof that Romania did not expect an arbitration at Vienna:
- the Romanian officials were summoned unexpectedly at Vienna, while the Romanians were preparing to meet the Hungarians for new negociations in Hungary
- the two Romanian officials arriving on 29 August at Vienna were not entitled with powers of decision regarding territorial changes
- the Crown Council was summoned in the night of 29/30 in order to decide if Romania accepts or not the decision of Ribbentrop and Ciano
- the second day, Romania issued an official announcement denouncing the aggression. The Germans were upset and requested that Romania retract the announcement, but Romania did not comply.

The only proof presented by Denes in favor of the theory that Romania wanted the arbitration, is a telegram of Ribbentrop to Molotov. It seems that the same theory was alleged by Hungarians at the Peace conference of 1947, trying not to lose everything they gained in 1940.

Follow-up.
Of course,when I mean arbitration I speak about Italy&Germany one one side and Hungary on the other.I never thought/known that Romania wanted these terms of diktat/arbitration.
But question is,what today books/history say? And let's leave Romanian & Hungarian books aside.

I think you should be more precise about what kind of books.. you need a VERY expert opinion on this, not just any opinion.

I think you should be more precise about what kind of books.. you need a VERY expert opinion on this, not just any opinion.

Why?Does that matter?If that really matters then read : what's the general oppinion sometimes expressed in books,articles,essays or any mediatic/historical channel.
And who can give a VERY expert opinion on this (as long as it is only one oppinion won't make it acceptable for everybody)?

Hi Guys,

There was an Arbitration at Vienna. However, it was an arbitration that Romania did not ask for first, an arbitration to which it was forced to submit and an arbitration the results of which it was forced to accept due to the weight of outside, non-Hungarian, pressure brought to bear.

I see no problem in using the word "diktat" to accurately describe the Vienna Arbitration, especially from the Romanian point of view. Romania was acting under outside compulsion throughout and it was not Hungarian compulsion that forced Romania into agreeing to an arbitration in which it could only be a loser.

However, on purely technical grounds, I object to the occasional use of the capitalised formulation "Vienna Diktat".

Cheers,

Sid.

The question of "wanting" is not of interest here. Hungary didnt want to sign Trianon either, so? You signed it, thats it. The same for Romania. Signed it, gave up the territory, withdrew the Army, thats it.
Moreover, compared with Hungary and Trianon, Romania didnt even fight for the territory, while Hungary is far more entitled to call Trianon a Diktat because it was actually forced on them with war.
Lets be real about this. If Germany's Order in Europe was not going fall, the Arbitration would have meant a long bye-bye to the ceded territories.

Which war? This? : http://www.procesulcomunismului.com/martur...iu/rechizit.htm