Regarding Trianon and the Kingdom of Hungary

[Zsoldos Tamás]

*** title changed by forum administrator ***

Greetings! / Üdvözletem!

I see you are having an 'arguement' about the Vienna treaty. Well, on my half, I do accept that it was a diktat. But here comes one question: why was that 'diktat'? Wasnt it because of another diktat? Wasnt it? Or you dont know about that!? Trianon was a diktat as well. The hungarian diplomats could only say their opinion when the treaty was put ont heir desks to be signed. They were not allowed to defend themselfes, they were not allowed to say a word! Now wasnt that a diktat? And that was about 110.000 km2!

Lets say both were diktat (they were, no matter how we argue about them).

But lets just see this thing: Romania annexed Erdély (Transylvania) in 1920, right? 1092719 (magyar), 450000 (székely), 276335 (German, Szászok), 187987 (jews) people were forced to live under romanian rule, which was -and this is fact- not too friendly with them. (The United States refused to sign this treaty because of its unjustified manner and signed an other treaty with Hungary later on) After that for 20 years both countries (Hungary and Romania) prepared for war, which is an obvious and logical consequence of the first diktat isnt it?

Germany needed peace in the Balkan so the offensive against the soviets would be safe, and he wouldnt have to fear from an incident here. (The same reason why Yugoslavia was attacked after the german orientated government failed -> required stability in the region so german allies could support Barbarossa with full power). And the Hungarian-Romanian hostility became dangeourus after a while. So they signed the 2nd Vienna Treaty which gave North Transylvania BACK to Hungary. I know this whole thing was because of the plans of Hitler and was for German purposes, but wheres the injustice? I dont see it...

To be honest I visited this website to see the other side. Im Magyar, yes. And I want to understand our history (which isnt easy...). I read a few articles here adn found things which are suprising! For example the conquest of Transylvania which is written with high detail. Yes true, the outnumbering romanian forces moved to those lines. But! How could they start the offensive when the war was only declared on the 27th of August? But you ever heard about that by October 2, there were no romanian troops in Transylvania? The reinforcements of the monarchy and germany arrived. Romanian forces were still outnumbering atleast 150%, and they were in defence, but despite their attempts of defense the smaller in numbers armies drawed them out of Erdély. This wasnt written in the document. And this is only one thing. Im not willing to prvocate anybody here, just trying to alert you on that, what you read here is not always the full truth. If you can be proud of victories, be proud of defeats as well. If you truly want to know your history, then speak about your losses as well. I want to know your opinion, your stance about our relationship. (I mean Hungary and Romania)

And here is a chance! We could discuss in a frienldy manner OUR history, because its a fact that hungaries and romanias future is tied, even if we dont like it. Im standing forth for a conversation about this 'matter'.

I was always interested, why do you feel the Trianon peace diktat (!) rightful, and justice? Please tell me about this! I bet you can tell me interesting thigs which i didnt know, and i bet I can say interesting thigs as well.

Thank you !

Better future! / Szebb jövőt!

[dragos]

Hello and welcome to the forum !

QUOTE

But lets just see this thing: Romania annexed Erdély (Transylvania) in 1920, right? 1092719 (magyar), 450000 (székely), 276335 (German, Szászok), 187987 (jews) people were forced to live under romanian rule, which was -and this is fact- not too friendly with them.

Maybe the Romanian rule was not the most fortunate for the minorities, but not to speak of the situation of minorities under the Kingdom of Hungary...

QUOTE

After that for 20 years both countries (Hungary and Romania) prepared for war, which is an obvious and logical consequence of the first diktat isnt it?

Romania didn't exactly prepared for war. At the begining of World War 2, she was quite unprepared for war, as a matter of fact.

QUOTE

To be honest I visited this website to see the other side. Im Magyar, yes. And I want to understand our history (which isnt easy...). I read a few articles here adn found things which are suprising! For example the conquest of Transylvania which is written with high detail. Yes true, the outnumbering romanian forces moved to those lines. But! How could they start the offensive when the war was only declared on the 27th of August? But you ever heard about that by October 2, there were no romanian troops in Transylvania? The reinforcements of the monarchy and germany arrived. Romanian forces were still outnumbering atleast 150%, and they were in defence, but despite their attempts of defense the smaller in numbers armies drawed them out of Erdély. This wasnt written in the document.

If you are refering to the article about the offensive of the 2nd Romanian Army in Transylvania, the article, as title says, is only about the offensive period (27-28 August to 26 September 1916). We will add more articles in time, we don't have time to publish everything at once. You may have been misleaded by the dates used, because they are recorded according to the old style calendar (add 13 days to get the dates according to the Gregorian calendar).

QUOTE

And this is only one thing. Im not willing to prvocate anybody here, just trying to alert you on that, what you read here is not always the full truth.

Please let us know what errors have you find in the published articles.

QUOTE

And here is a chance! We could discuss in a frienldy manner OUR history, because its a fact that hungaries and romanias future is tied, even if we dont like it. Im standing forth for a conversation about this 'matter'.

So what 'matter' do you want to discuss exactly? And what suggestion would you like to make, as stated by the topic title?

For those interested, the full text of the Treaty of Trianon can be found here:
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/versa/tri1.htm

Since the regulations were almost identical after the both world wars (see Treaty of Paris - 1947), this issue is clearly settled, in my opinion.

[dragos03]

I think that the only injustice made to Hungary by the Trianon treaty was that a strip of land at the border (inhabited by a Hungarian majority) was given to Romania. This had some strategic motives.
The rest of Transilvania had a Romanian majority, except an area in the middle of Romania, who couldn't have been given to Hungary by obvious reasons.
The Trianon treaty was an act of justice expected for hundred of years by the people oppresed by the Hungarian state. It is a mistery to me how a small nation like Hungary always had this empire dreams. It was possible for a small nation to opress bigger ones in the Middle Ages, but not in the 20th century. Like E. Rakosi said, the force of Hungary was the cauldron in which boiled the different nations.

[Zsoldos Tamás]

GReetings!

The 'matter' which i suggested to discuss is obvious I think. Thats what we started to speak about! (i already declared the suggestion, read again if you dont find it)

I know that the borderland was given to Romania because of the train lines and on some other reasons. But tell me, please (because I really dont know), what was so bad about the hungarian kingdom, for its miniorities? Tell me please how can that happen, if we were so cruel, and bad as you say, that all those miniorities could keep their languages and culture? They were never forced to give up them, thats how! Tell you what this small nation had all those lands, yes. And its not a small nation after all. But after the tatár invasion the numbers of magyars dropped dramatically (it was a massacre), and the same happened during the turk war, which lasted for a few hundred years, and the only independent state which called itself hungarian was Transylvania those times. During these hard periods many other nations emmigrated to the soil of hungary. Serbs from the south, being chased by the turks, and in fact romanians from the south and east. The first time when a chronicle mentions about romanians in Erdély, or in Hungary was in the 12th century long after the 'conquest' (which was the third conquest of the carpathian basin in fact) by the magyars. These times are still unclear because of the untrustable records (just think on the HErbert Illig theory for example). But i cant say that romanians were not here before, because i cannot know. But its clear that the huns were relatives of the magyars (2nd conquest) and the avars were also relatives to us. And this 'small' nation - really why do you say small? The numbers? 10 million in our current country, yes. But not small in acts. Every day the midday bellringing in all christian countries is dedicated to a battle fought between Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, Nándorfehérvár (which city is nowadays called as Belgrad), and which battle the hungarian won. Small in numbers as always, if we are speaking about battles and wars, there were rare cases when the hungarian army was outnumbering to its enemies.

Just a few more words: Romania did prepare for war during the period between the two wars, but instead of hungary, romania could rely on its allies (the small-entente). If it wouldnt prepare for it, I would call that foolishness, because it was obvious that such annexation will not be let to go without a reply by time. Or you say that the leadership during those years were fools?

The treaties signed in 1920 and in 1947 did NOT settle this problem as it lives even nowadays, just think on the refusal of the autonomy concept of the székelys. (or the incident 14 years ago in Marosvásárhely)

A few more quotes about that justice:
The romanians (54% of full population) in Transylvania in 1920 were mostly living in villages, not many in the towns, cities. In those times the cities were inhabitet by hungarians and germans. Kolzsvár (Cluj (?) ) 83,4 % hungarian, Temesvár (dont know romanian name) 43,9% german, 40,51% hungarian, Marosvásárhely, 89,31% hungarian.

I read the 'memorandums' of all countries during the "negotiations" (which infact wasnt negotiation after all, because it would have required Hungarys opinion as well). Well, you would understand why hungarians were upset by it. Nonsense lies were in them. (which is a fact). Lloyd George the english prime minister those days, was willingly against hungary, as most of the powers - but why? Lloyd George 8 years later, in 1928 said, that when they signed that treaty and forced Hungary to sign, they were mislead by the lies of their 'smaller' allies. If the french wouldnt have argued so hardly about Romanias stance in this, they wouldnt get anything (because Romania capitulated to Austria-Hungary).

facts: there was no voting in these areas about where they want to go. The hungarian government offered a voting held in all regions under the lead of the english-french-US. This request was refused. There was only voting in Sopron, where the city declared its will to belong to Hungary (even though its population was mainly german).

You still havent answered my question: why was it right, and justifiable? What was the direct reason? Please tell me about it! Facts!

-------
The Trianon treaty was an act of justice expected for hundred of years by the people oppresed by the Hungarian state. It is a mistery to me how a small nation like Hungary always had this empire dreams. It was possible for a small nation to opress bigger ones in the Middle Ages, but not in the 20th century.
--------

Most of those 'bigger' nations were fleding their country and found refuge in Hungary, was that an oppress if we know this? And those were not dreams. That empire existed for a THOUSAND years (896-1920) (not counting the years of the huns, and avars which gives another 600 years approved), instead your 'empire', Romania only exists for 84 years now.

I want to ask something: can you give me links to your history, which is written by romanians of course? English langauge pages of course, I dont speak romanian (but will learn it!) For example the dako-romanian theory. (which is interesting...)

And I can give you links as well, if interested (english pages of course), if required.

I really want to read about your ideas about why was that diktat rightful (trianon), because you haven't answered this question. (give me some details please!)

Thank you for your patiance!

P.S: I wont be here for a few weeks from tommorrow (holiday at Balaton) , so thats the reason why I wont answer (no net).

[dragos]

QUOTE

Most of those 'bigger' nations were fleding their country and found refuge in Hungary, was that an oppress if we know this? And those were not dreams. That empire existed for a THOUSAND years (896-1920) (not counting the years of the huns, and avars which gives another 600 years approved), instead your 'empire', Romania only exists for 84 years now.

In 896, when the Hungarians entered the actual territory of Transylvania, there were already several political formations called "voievodate" and "cnezate", under the leadership of "voievozi"and "cnezi". The first state-like formations are attested in Transylvania from IX and X centuries, and in Moldavia and Tara Romaneasca from the XIII century. In fact, the attestation is from the same period with the first political formations in Ireland, Scandinavia, Poland, Serbs, Russians etc. However, the migration of Hungarians followed by the invasions of cumans, tatars (1241) prevented the forming of an homogenous large state before XIV century. The first Romanian states were formed during mid XIV century, following the the defeat of Hungarian king Carol Robert d'Anjou by Basarab I (Tara Romaneasca), and the victory of Bogdan, against Hungarians again (Moldova). The will of unification of the three Romanian countries (Transylvania, Moldavia and Tara Romaneasca) is expressed in the XV century, when the ruler of Transylvania (voievod) is Iancu de Hunedoara (Janos Hunyadi under the magyarized name). He is in the same time "general leader" of Tara Romaneasca. However, the first unification of the three Romanian countries took place in 1599-1600, under the rule of Mihai Viteazul (Michael the Brave).

So statements like "your 'empire', Romania only exists for 84 years now" are quite shameful. The national independence of the modern Romanian state was gained in 1877.

QUOTE

The treaties signed in 1920 and in 1947 did NOT settle this problem as it lives even nowadays, just think on the refusal of the autonomy concept of the székelys. (or the incident 14 years ago in Marosvásárhely)

The incident at Targu Mures in 1990 has been discussed here: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/viewtopic.php?t=914 , eye witnesses including. And the autonomy issue was discussed many times again, and it was pointed out that here, as in every country, some can stir up the waters only to gain advantages in self-interest.
These examples you gave has nothing to do with the historical reasons behind these claims, and as I have said, the issue was settled.

QUOTE

I read the 'memorandums' of all countries during the \"negotiations\" (which infact wasnt negotiation after all, because it would have required Hungarys opinion as well). Well, you would understand why hungarians were upset by it. Nonsense lies were in them. (which is a fact). Lloyd George the english prime minister those days, was willingly against hungary, as most of the powers - but why? Lloyd George 8 years later, in 1928 said, that when they signed that treaty and forced Hungary to sign, they were mislead by the lies of their 'smaller' allies. If the french wouldnt have argued so hardly about Romanias stance in this, they wouldnt get anything (because Romania capitulated to Austria-Hungary).

Romania's joining the Entente in WW1 was conditioned from the begining by unification of Transylvania to the motherland. So it was no surprise for the delegations the claims of Romania at the peace conferences to follow. Yes, Romania capitulated in face of Central Powers, but the king did not sign the the conditions imposed, the armed resistance continued in Moldavia, and the end of World War 1 found the chimerical Austro-Hungarian Empire dead and buried.

[dead-cat]

QUOTE

But tell me, please (because I really dont know), what was so bad about the hungarian kingdom, for its miniorities? Tell me please how can that happen, if we were so cruel, and bad as you say, that all those miniorities could keep their languages and culture?

small reality check. after the Banat (the entire, not just the 2/3 belonging to Romania today) was given to Hungary 1867 a period of agressive "magyarisation" followed. schools were closed, priests replaced with hungarians, church service was switched to hungarian language (compulsory) even in towns with as little as 1-2% ethnic hungarian population. names were written in hungarian fashion, and administrative language was switched to entirely hungarian.

QUOTE

The romanians (54% of full population) in Transylvania in 1920 were mostly living in villages, not many in the towns, cities. In those times the cities were inhabitet by hungarians and germans. Kolzsvár (Cluj (?) ) 83,4 % hungarian, Temesvár (dont know romanian name) 43,9% german, 40,51% hungarian, Marosvásárhely, 89,31% hungarian.   ... You still havent answered my question: why was it right, and justifiable? What was the direct reason? Please tell me about it! Facts!

urbanization has absolutly nothing to do with self-determination. in Transsylvania, the romanian majority AND the german minority decided not to be part of hungary anymore. that's all the legitimacy that is needed.

[dragos]

As an interesting sidenote, the Romanian peasants revolt of 1784 in Transylvania, under the leadership of Horea, Closca and Crisan, had a revolutionary program on the same principles of the French Revolution, but it took place even before the French Revolution.

The brutal execution of the revolt's leaders (broken on wheel) make me think in the same time of the gruesome execution of William Wallace.

[johnny_bi]

QUOTE

That empire existed for a THOUSAND years (896-1920) (not counting the years of the huns, and avars which gives another 600 years approved), instead your 'empire', Romania only exists for 84 years now.

Just an observation here... The histoy of Transylvania is far more ancient than the arrival of the Maghiars and even the Huns... If you really want to understand the motives for which the Romanians wanted Transylvania you must take in consideration this period which, I saw, it is oversimplified by the Hungarian historians.

[Victor]

I would add that from 1541 to 1867, there was no Hungarian Crown and that Romania was not born in 1918.

[rcristi]

As a side note, the Hungarinas and the Huns have nothing in common.

[johnny_bi]

QUOTE

But its clear that the huns were relatives of the magyars (2nd conquest) and the avars were also relatives to us.

You've forgot to mention the Gepids (I hope I've spelled right) that were Germans and, as Imanuel Geiss says, the local population in Pannonia: the Slavs... All of them : Avars, Gepids, Longobards and Hungarians, they formed kingdoms over a local population that was of Slav origin (again Imanuel Geiss).

QUOTE

), what was so bad about the hungarian kingdom, for its miniorities? Tell me please how can that happen, if we were so cruel, and bad as you say, that all those miniorities could keep their languages and culture? They were never forced to give up them, thats how!

Actually until the XVIII century (the French Revolution) there was no interest in "assimilating nations", simply because there was no concept of nation. Until then it was enough just to rule a certain province or teritory to provide a certain homogenity to an empire or a kingdom.
Starting with the beginning if the XIX century, the concept of nation developed. That's why the problems with assimilation in Transylvania started only in the XIX century. Especially after the foundation of A-H empire, the assimilation started in Transylvania.

To quote again Imanuel Geiss, the Austrians realised that they have to give rights to minorities in order to keep the A-H Empire alive, but they were stopped by the Hungarians' atitude that wanted an asimilation of the minorities. (in the "Bigger Hungary" of that time, the proportion of the popupation was about aprox. 50% Hungarians and 50% non-Hungarians).

[Dénes]

QUOTE

in the \"Bigger Hungary\" of that time, the proportion of the popupation was about aprox. 50% Hungarians and 50% non-Hungarians).

More precisely, the population of 'Greater Hungary' in 1910 was 54,41% Hungarian (thus a majority, about the same percentage that of Rumanian in historical Transylvania), 16,14% Rumanian, 10,66% Slovak, 10,41% German, 2,54% Ruthenians, 2,53% Serbians, 1% Croats, etc. [Source: Hungarian Military Lexicon]

It's worth noting that despite the undoubtfully existing official trend coming frm Budapest to spread the Hungarian language and culture among ethnic minorities, thus to increase assimilation, the policy did not really work, as the number of Rumanians actually grew in Transylvania throughout the years, as follows:

7. táblázat.
A népesség számának alakulása a jelenkori Erdély területén anyanyelv, illetve nemzetiség szerint 1869-1920 között

Év Összesen Román Magyar Német Zsidó Egyéb összesen Szlovák Rutén Szerb
Összesen

1869 4224436 2492500 1053500 502900d . 175500 22600 16500 46900
1880 4032851 2297251 1046094 503777d . 185729 26226 14250 53833f
18904429564 2479422 1201183 553199d . 195760 28258 14696 47967
1900 4840722 2673325 1424237 576460d . 166700 29692 17821 47472
1900* 4874772 2685174 1438465 582545d . 168588 29940 18026 48294
1910 5262495 2830028 1663252 565107d . 204108 31657 22540 52084
1910* 5259918 2829389 1661967 565004d . 203558 31099 22615 52022
1919 5208345 2974951 1378189 513794 170943 170468 . . .
1920 5114124 2930120 1305753 539427 181340 157484 . . .
1920*5134828 2935092 1309476 550726 181251 158283 . . .

First column: census year, second column: total population, third column: Rumanians, fourth column: Hungarians, etc. The star means that one row is according to nationality, the other other according to mother tongue.

[Source: http://www.elib.hu/02000/02016/02016.htm, in Hungarian]

Of course, the picture is more complex than the above table [one should take into consideration natural growth among various ethnic population, child-deaths, even emigration (twice as mcuh Rumanians left Transylvania for North-America in the late 1800s and early 1900s than Hungarians), etc.,] but this is beyond my scope, spare time and capability.

Gen. Dénes

[dragos]

QUOTE

More precisely, the population of 'Greater Hungary' in 1910 was 54,41% Hungarian (thus a majority, about the same percentage that of Rumanian in historical Transylvania), 16,14% Rumanian, 10,66% Slovak, 10,41% German, 2,54% Ruthenians, 2,53% Serbians, 1% Croats, etc. [Source: Hungarian Military Lexicon]

According to Wikipedia

In 1910, the Hungarian population of the Kingdom of Hungary was about 45% of the entire population. The provinces Hungary lost in the treaty had a majority population of non-Magyars, but also a significant Magyar minority. The number of Hungarians in the provinces based on census data of 1910:

In Slovakia: 884,000 - 30%
In Transylvania (now in Romania): 1,662,000 - 32%
In Vojvodina (now in Serbia and Montenegro): 420,000 - 28%
In Transcarpathia (now in Ukraine): 183,000 - 30%
In Croatia: 121,000 - 3.5%
In Slovenia: 20,800 - 1.6%
In Burgenland (now in Austria): 26,200 - 9%

[Dénes]

QUOTE

According to Wikipedia In 1910, the Hungarian population of the Kingdom of Hungary was about 45% of the entire population. The provinces Hungary lost in the treaty had a majority population of non-Magyars, but also a significant Magyar minority. The number of Hungarians in the provinces based on census data of 1910: In Slovakia: 884,000 - 30%   In Transylvania (now in Romania): 1,662,000 - 32%   In Vojvodina (now in Serbia and Montenegro): 420,000 - 28%   In Transcarpathia (now in Ukraine): 183,000 - 30%   In Croatia: 121,000 - 3.5%   In Slovenia: 20,800 - 1.6%   In Burgenland (now in Austria): 26,200 - 9%

Wikipedia included Croatia, too, into the statistics. However, Croatia was never considered part of Hungary itself, it was more like a federation, Croatia being a 'co-state'.
Slovenia was member of the Austrian part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, so that should also be removed from the statistics.

Gen. Dénes

[dragos]

Croatia-Slavonia were not part of Hungary proper, but they were part of the Kingdom of Hungary. Therefor, when talking about the population of the Kingdom of Hungary, it would be correct to include Croatia-Slavonia too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrativ...ary#1867_-_1918