Vienna, 30 August 1940 - Award or Diktat ?

The same I could say of using Ribbentrop affirmations for supporting the idea that Romania somehow wanted an arbitration.

If you know more about this why don't you tell when did Romanian government specifically asked for the advice of Hitler and Mussolini. How comes then that when the two Romanian officials were summoned at Vienna, they were totally surprised by the purpose of the meeting?

The same I could say of using Ribbentrop affirmations for supporting the idea that Romania somehow wanted an arbitration.

Ribbentrop was there. And the quoted diplomatic document was for internal, close circuit use, not one for the large masses; therefore, questioning its veradicity is rather lame.

I will let you find that out. The Rumanian archives are much closer to you than to me. Anyhow, I did my part in finding a pertinent document that clarifies the issue - no matter if you like it or not.

They should not have been surprised at all, as the purpose of the meeting was apparently known to both parties. They didn't go to Vienna for sightseeing...

Gen. Dénes

I will let you find that out. The Rumanian archives are much closer to you than to me. Anyhow, I did my part in finding a pertinent document that clarifies the issue - no matter if you like it or not.

You came up with this claim, it's your task to prove it. The diplomatic assertions of Ribbentrop are simply not enough.

I just did it.

For you, perhaps. That's fine with me.

Gen. Dénes

Letter send by Hitler to Carol II on 15 July 1940:

O.K. And your point (related to the topic) is?

Gen. Dénes

P.S. First you dismiss Ribbentrop, not you quote Hitler...

It illustrates the threats for forcing Romania into giving in to the demands of Hungary and Bulgaria. It certainly doesn't look like a Romanian initiative, how the telegram of Ribbentrop "approximates".

Hi Imperialist,

If Hungary was the only problem, then I have little doubt that Romania would have fought and, according to German estimates of the then strengths of the two armies, probably with fair prospects of success.

However, any fighting would have threatened Germany's oil supplies, a vital proportion of which came from Romania. The Romanians, with British assistance, had demolished their oil fields in WWI rather than let them fall into German hands. Germany could not afford a repetition. Hitler thus required a peaceful resolution. He therefore moved mechanised divisions both to eastern Austria and the south-eastern General Gouvernment to put pressure on the two governments to agree to peaceful arbitration. The Hungarians agreed first, leaving the Romanians facing possible German intervention if they refused. This was the threat that forced the Romanian politicians to agree to arbitration. There was more than Transilvania at stake if Romania refused arbitration.

On top of this, Romania could not deploy its full forces in Transilvania because of the continuing Soviet and Bulgarian threats and Italy, for what it was worth, agreed with Germany.

Cheers,

Sid.

Denes do you agree that:

1. Majority of population in that area was romanian
2. Romania was forced to agree with this "arbitration"
3. It was by all means a bad thing for Romania
4. The 2 main leaders who forced this on Romania were dictators who choped EUrope to suit their own selfish needs without any regard to human rights (not to speak of nation's rights to exist)

?

Austro-Hungarian state/empire/whatever ceased to exist when Versailles/Trianon etc took place.I am too lazy to look for the source(on the net),but because this entity did not existed it made the process difficult. The winners wanted to deal with Austro-Hungary and not with Austria AND Hungary.Hence,the harsh (but well deserved) ruling.Combine that with the smart moves Romanians polticians did and there you have it.Anyway,we debate here about this but I believe we'll reach no compromise.Is beating the old horse again.Fine with me.

Hi D13th-Mytzu,

By "the area" do you mean Transilvania or just Northern Transilvania?

According to the 1910 Austro-Hungarian census, Romanians were the majority in Transilvania as a whole, but it is not quite so clear cut with regards to the area designated Northern Transilvania by the Vienna Arbitration. Inward Romanian migration to Northern Transilvania between the wars may have changed the ballance in some areas. I think the Hungarians expelled about 200,000 Romanians after the Vienna Arbitation, many on the grounds that they were recent immigrants.

Cheers,

Sid.

No matter how you take it,is the same

Hi Zayets,

But is it?

If I remember rightly, Romanian claims were that 51% of the population of Northern Transilvania was Romanian. Suppose that using Romanian population figures the Vienna Award had drawn a slightly different line that shifted 2% of the Romanians into Romania, putting Romanians into a clear minority in Northern Transilvania of 49%. Would this have given a border that was acceptable? I doubt it. I would suggest that both countries were after a settlement that was to the maximum in their favour, regardless of population figures or local will.

The fact is that whatever the population statistics, Northern Transilvania became legally Romanian after WWI, was legally Romanian in 1940 and is still legally Romanian today. Furthermore, the Romanian proportion of the population has grown significantly so that today, in practical terms, this is a dead issue.

Cheers,

Sid

So.. do you think the rest of 49% were of hungarian origins ?

The fact that there was a Romanian majority in the area (be it simple or absolute), proves that the award was not grounded on ethnical principles. It was merely a seizure of territory by which the Reich was extending its influence close to the Romanian oilfields.