Vienna, 30 August 1940 - Award or Diktat ?

The disappearance from the map... Oh my! OK, lets cede Transylvania and Bassarabia, we dont want Romania to disappear from the map...
What appals me is that romanians were ceded easily to foreigners so that other "romanians" could continue to "stay on the map".
By the way, Poland disappeared 4 times from the map. But its still there.

Imperialist you think polish people wished their country dissapear from the map ? Somehow it seems you have a suicide wish for this country, why is that ? People DO NOT want war so why do you decide everyone should go fight and die ?

I am well aware, thank you. The Romanian participation in the war was the result of Romanian claims that were later put down in the Treaty by virtue of the Entente winning the War.
Romanian claims on Transylvania did not start with the war, war was a means to impose those claims with the force of arms. That was what I meant by Diktat. Hungary was constrained to accept the Treaty as it could no longer resist militarily.
However, it did resist militarily initially, didnt just cede Transylvania.

That's what I'm asking.How?Because if we take as reference December 1st when National Assembly decided joining with what was then Romania,then there were no major conflicts ,except the one I have told you.

Suicide of the country? Can you explain what that means, please?
And what country? Should we understand that Transylvania and Bassarabia were/are expandable, they are not part of the country? They are ceded so that the "country" Vechiul Regat can "stay on the map"?
My point is, try to look it from the other side too, not exclusively from Bucharest. Millions of Romanians were just ceded, because the people in Bucharest didnt think they have to fight for them. What Unity are we talking about then?

You're right. Saving one's skin is always far more important in Romania. Why should we fight and die for some romanians in Transylvania and Bassarabia. Let them go, its their problem...

Imperialist, you said:

and before:

It seems that as long the historical outcome supports your ideas, you are not readily to use the same arguments, just benefit of the hindsight.

Suicide of the country? Can you explain what that means, please?
And what country? Should we understand that Transylvania and Bassarabia were/are expandable, they are not part of the country? They are ceded so that the "country" Vechiul Regat can "stay on the map"?
My point is, try to look it from the other side too, not exclusively from Bucharest. Millions of Romanians were just ceded, because the people in Bucharest didnt think they have to fight for them. What Unity are we talking about then?

You're right. Saving one's skin is always far more important in Romania. Why should we fight and die for some romanians in Transylvania and Bassarabia. Let them go, its their problem...

Watch out,this can degenerate,I suggest we stick closer to the topic
I tell you what,incidentally,politics are made in Bucharest,say Vechiul Regat.If it was Iasi or Cluj ,probably we will say the same about them.Nobody in their right minds are happy with Romanian politics these days.Or back then.

and before:

It seems that as long the historical outcome supports your ideas, you are not readily to use the same arguments, just benefit of the hindsight.

I dont get your point, the 2 quotations show what?

Imperialist, people fought and died for Bessarabia and Transylvania. It is no need to insinuate otherwise.

Hi Guys,

There is an old military dictum that may be appropriate here:

"He who fights for everything holds nothing."

Cheers,

Sid.

I thought it is obvious. You don't use the same acerb argument when dealing with the case of Poland. Obviously Poland is still there because it benefited of the same "luck" Romania had with Transylvania. And in the case of Poland it was not just a part of it, but all of it. The sufferings of the Polish civilians are one of the most terrifying of all the others. But it's no need to think about that when we can propagate our great ideas safe behind a computer.

I thought it is obvious. You don't use the same acerb argument when dealing with the case of Poland. Obviously Poland is still there because it benefited of the same "luck" Romania had with Transylvania. And in the case of Poland it was not just a part of it, but all of it. The sufferings of the Polish civilians are one of the most terrifying of all the others. But it's no need to think about that when we can propagate our great ideas safe behind a computer.

You are hanging on to the sufferings of the Polish people. Those sufferings were inflicted by the Germans, not by the Polish. The Germans attacked. They were the aggressors. Blaming the polish politicians that refused to be cajoled by the germans for the suffering of the polish during the fight for their country is one of the most defeatist idea I have ever heard.
Also, trying to defend the fact that there was no shot fired for Transylvania and it was simply ceded, and moreover imply that it was some kind of great statesmanship baffles me. Blaming the attacked for resisting and forcing him to make compromises for the sake of "peace" and avoidance of "useless" suffering and preservation on the map, had a name during the late '30s, you know.

I'll just say that I do find nothing glorious or great in what had happened then, nor do I blame the leading class for the decision taken, at that moment. It's just a dark chapter in the history of Romania.

The rest of your post does not worth answering.

Ofcourse...

Off-topic post deleted