Vienna, 30 August 1940 - Award or Diktat ?

WWI.

WWI.

WW1 was over when the Trianon treaty was signed.Or whatever,call it diktat if you please.

WWI.

WW1 was over when the Trianon treaty was signed.Or whatever,call it diktat if you please.

And, whats your point? Because you only repeated what I have said. And I dont know whats with that link you gave. Isnt that WWII discussed on that page?

The comparison is out of place. Hungary was part of Austria-Hungary, which was defeated after arguably waging an aggression war. The Treaty of Trianon also meant justice for million of peoples and the right of self-determination according to the principle of nationalities.

The Second Vienna Arbitration was an act of aggression against a neutral country, concerted by Germany, Italy and Hungary, with the not openly declared support of USSR. The great democratic powers of the time, Great Britain and USA, did not consent to these arbitrary repartitions of territory, and they were fortunatelly on the wining camp.

Yes, Hungary was part of Austria-Hungary. Transylvania too. Romania entered the war with the clear goal of snatching Transylvania away from Austria-Hungary. The latter did not cede the territory, but fought for it. Losing the war, the winners imposed a Diktat on A.H. by which Romania received Transylvania.
In 1940, Romania was faced with a Diktat hidden in Arbitration clothes. The rulers of Romania knew the result of the "Arbitration" would not be fair, and the arbiters were biased. Did the powers in question impose, or dictate a settlement of the issue after they militarily defeated Romania? No. Romanian politicians did not resist, but went and signed and ceded the territory, thus legitimising the Arbitration.

WWI.

WW1 was over when the Trianon treaty was signed.Or whatever,call it diktat if you please.

And, whats your point? Because you only repeated what I have said. And I dont know whats with that link you gave. Isnt that WWII discussed on that page?

No you said

As you phrase it one can say that Hungary opposed Trianon (which is obviously true) and they(Allied powers etc) forced this treaty "with war". And when you put it in the same context with August 30th 1944 things become even fuzzier.Is for that I asked you which war.Because Trianon/Versailles/Paris were direct result of a war.Not the other way around.
What I thought ,well, at least how I read it ,is that Hungary opposed Trianon and because of that another war broke.And the only conflict between the end of the war (WWI obviously) ,treaties negociacions and Trianon where Hungary was engaged was the one where Bela Khun attacked neighboring countries.

This post has been edited by Zayets on September 07, 2005 04:07 pm

I also second that.If you read the Trianon Treaty you could not notice the big number of parties/nations signing the document.Which is not the case in Vienna's arbitration/diktat/award. There is one big difference:Romania was a neutral country in 1940 ,Hungary a defeated country in 1920 (they played realy bad back then on the politics arena). In the first case we are talking about aggression/threatening with aggression,in the second case we talk about a decision/outcome of the war.
Yes, I do not think these cases can compare themselves.

Hasty and arbitrary considerations of momentous historical events.

I dont think so.
Romania had a choice -- refuse participation to that obviously biased "Arbitration". Hence Hungary's territorial claims would have been a Diktat, forced with war and aggression.
-- participate to the biased "Arbitration", sign it, withdraw the Army without firing a shot and cede the territory. Hence, making an actual Arbitration of what would have been a Diktat (legitimising it).
The fact that later Romania did not like the result of the Arbitration would not matter much, because Arbitrations will not result in all sides liking the result. So it would have been better to refuse it outright.
We were extremely lucky that the wheels turned around and the powers that arbitered lost their power to maintain their Order in Europe. Otherwise that Romanian signature on that "Arbitration" would have meant a long bye-bye to Transylvania.

edit -- the question of forcing the participation to an arbitration is another thing.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on September 07, 2005 06:30 pm

Yeah... we should have declared war to Germany, conquer it and install romanian way of living in all Europe - get real

This post has been edited by D13-th_Mytzu on September 07, 2005 06:31 pm

No, we should have defended our land.

We should have gone to Vienna and ask for Hungarian land, threatening to declare war on Hungary and Germany if they refused.

No, we should have defended our land.

When you were a kid in the school yard and you had an argument with some other one in your class ,which you knew you can beat the heck out of him, but that one had friends in a major class.And those friends grab your hands,twist them back and call that one saying : come , hit Imperialist now as much as you like! What would you do? Obviously you oppose as much as you can,but they are too strong.And that guy is pouring fist after fist,humiliating,isn't it?
What would you do? I tell you what you will do,wait for the right moment to solve the things once and for all.

I also say that we should fight for our land.But I do not point to the normal Romanians - which they'd fight anytime you call them - I point to the rotten political class back then (not like it changed a lot these days) for leaving these things happening.Romanians were not called to arms.For various reasons.Wether it was the right decision or not,we see today.And I don't suggest anything.

I said previously that I have learned this was diktat.I also said that I don't care if it is called arbitration.Call it as you want,fact remains : on August 30th 1940 Hungary got on top of the things and Germany won this regional conflict without a shot being fired.

Minority or not,Hungarians didn't had any or little problems during or after Northern Transilvania returned to Romania.Were Romanians a minority? Could be,there appears to be a lot of fake data on both sides.Discrimination?
Get real, everybody discrimiates , even the oppressed minorities.Do not for a moment assume that just because they have been discriminated against they won't do the same...afterall they have learned how to do it by being victims themselves.And that applies for both parties.

It seems it is difficult for some to realize what was at stake then, the disappearance of very Romania from the map.

Take Poland. You say we were lucky that the wheel turned around. Now think how lucky the Poles were.

Austria-Hungary started WWI. The Treaty was the consequence of the war, not motive for it.

Getting back to 1940, the Treaty of Vienna left both Romania and Hungary discontent and it helped Hitler get a better grip on both countries. He continued to play one against each other until 1944, promissing to both parties that he would review the treaty if they helped Germany more. He also difused a situation that could have become potentially dangerous to Germany, with Soviet troops occupying positions even closer to the Ploiesti oil fields or the fields themselves. Practically he gained more than Hungary did by this treaty.