Regarding Trianon and the Kingdom of Hungary

yeah right.............

Meaning?

Meaning that these good relations are the result of a temporary political compromise...

true. we are neighbors andpolitical neighbors hate each other. that is a universal rule

I think that you should compare the Greater Hungary with Greater Romania, not only with Transylvania.

It seems that this thread is turning sour just like most "friendly" Romanian -Hungarian discussions. I'd like to point out that although this accurately reflects most of our feelings, it doesn't really help anybody (not to mention not helping historical accuracy at all).

First of all, demographic statistics can hardly be considered a determining argument. They depend too much on the arbitrary choice of their scope. Try to make a worldwide ethnic statistic, and you will end up with a global 20% Chinese, 20% Indian population, thus granting these peoples a right to be represented in every governmental decision making body worldwide, as significant global minorities. More to the point, Romanians form the majority of Transylvania but Hungarians hold a relative majority in Harghita and Covasna. Statistics can be relevant, but they are only subsidiary to the political and historical orientations they serve. Denes' ability to play with the Greater Hungary statistics earlier on this thread only helps to prove my point. And I'm sure the Russians also held a majority in the Soviet Union. Just ask Chechens what they think about that...

As for the treaty of Trianon, which started the discussion, all treaties are wrong and unfair. After all, it is the treaties at the end of WWI and their subsequent implementation that got us to WWII. No matter what, we consider the provisions of Trianon regarding Romania as reparation for much older events in our medieval history. Let me stress the fact that the decision makers of the time (U.K., France and the U.S.A) did not care too much about this foreign medieval history. They only cared about the spoils of war and somehow implementing Wilson's declaration about self determination. The results were not perfect, but they served us. I am getting tired about people looking for acknowledgements and appologies on winning or loosing. International politics are run by context, opportunities and possibilities, not by wishfull thinking. Had the Central Powers won WWI, the Hungarians would have had what they considered a fair treaty and we would have got a kick in the butt.

Historical rights and legitimacy are to be judged on actual facts and events over significant periods of time, not on individual treaties. A status quo or another does not reflect legitimacy. It merely reflects the current balance of power and interests.

Somebody, at the beginning of this thread, said that Hungary did not try to assimilate minorities in the Middle Ages. That is because national issues as such only became relevant much later. You must keep in mind that even in France, the issue of people/state only came to prominence around the times of Joan of Arc. The ethnicity of kings and noblemen was quite irrelevant before that. You had French kings of England, French kings of Poland and Hungary, and so on and so forth. The real issue was not necessarily cultural assimilation, but rather access to positions in the administration, access to education, and most importantly the right to practice one's religion. The Eastern Othodox Church Romanians belonged to was never accepted and the Romanians were not among the official "Nations" of Hungarian Transylvania.

Only after the national aspect became historically relevant, did the fight for establishing primacy and legitimacy begin, with all the associated forgery and fact twisting.

As for nowadays, I don't think whining will help Hungary. The facts today are as follows:

Romania is twice Hungary's size (in terms of pouplation as well as surface);
Romania is part of the same alliances as Hungary;
Romania has more strategical potential than Hungary, and more to bargain on with the powerfull;
Romania still has the stronger heavy industry;
Romanian oil deposits are increasing again thanks to newly found oil under the Black Sea platform;
Romania is, ironically, less E.U. dependent than Hungary;
Romania has lost a big hostile neighbour with the latest changes in the Ukraine, while Hungary lost none of hers.

To put it bluntly, I don't think Hungary is currently in a position to revise the status quo.

Cheers!

It is more a "poetical firework"... because you have a Transylvania with a Romanian majority of 54% or a Transylvania with a " Hungarian majority" of 30-35% (depending on the year).

The only mistake was that there is a big difference between a province (for example Transylvania 54% ethnic Romanians) and a whole country (Greater Hungary 54% ethnic Hungarians)... While for example the Romanians in Greater Romania (including Transylvania) formed a big majority, the Greater Hungary had about 54% ethnic Hungarians - they were berely a majority... How could you justify a whole country formed in the "age of nations" with only 54% - well, only if you're backed up by an empire (AH empire)...

As Imanuel Geiss said in his "World's history" ( I recommend this book and not only in this matter) - for Hungarians it was pure suicide to even try to assimilate the other 46% (E. Geiss said about approx. 50% athnics Hungarians and 50 % other minorities - I do not think that the 4% difference would have played much role when talking about a system and assimilation) ... Geiss gave two typical examples of assimilation, one of them being Hungary (the other Turkey) ... Why did he chose Hungary? I think it is obvious...


This post has been edited by johnny_bi on March 17, 2005 01:09 pm

Although I don't fully agree with everything you wrote, Tudor, thank you for your enlightening and informative post.

Just to note one statement I don;t agree with:

Hungary is equally neighbour with the Ukraine, which is increasingly nationalistic.

Nevertheless, I only wish others would approach this controversial topic with the same open mindset.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on March 17, 2005 03:33 pm

Or, if simplified:
Transylvania had 54% ethnic Rumanians = O.K.
Greater Hungary had 54% ethnic Hungarians = not O.K.

C'mon Johnny, you can do better than this.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on March 17, 2005 03:38 pm

What I meant with the Ukraine is that from our point of view, a nationalistic Ukraine is better than one taking its orders from Moscow. Work on that controversial canal thy were building on the Danube has already stopped. Moldova is now between us and an Ukraine focused on its internal Ukrainian-Russian divide and its ambitions of independence from Moscow.

As for Ukraine's stance towards Romania and Hungary, your conclusions may differ according to who you think stands behind last year's "Orange Revolutions". Since Georgia, the Ukraine and our own D.A. campaign had a lot in common, I suspect it's the U.S. The E.U. might have been involved, but I think the Americans stole the show. This orange "area" is a pro American buffer, not a E.U. security cordon. We are trying to drive a hard bargain in between, but we cannot aford to take a leading role, so we're simply poking both sides (the E.U. and the U.S.) challenging them to raise the stakes. However, no matter what Basescu juggles between the two, the "orange" component of his policy is clearly pro-Washington. So one can only wonder about the nicely assorted orange governments in Kiev and Tbilisi.

That's also why I mentioned Hungary's dependence on the E.U. alone. Romanian foreign politics seem to be reverting to what they were between the two wars, and what they should have always been: playing aggressively and trying to make the most out of our strategic position. Being brazen is sometimes the only way to prominence for a small country.

Anyway, this does not mean that our relations with Hungary should not improve over time. As a matter of fact, that would be highly beneficial. After all we are the only weirdos in a large sea of slavs, and in times of crisis these things matter. This is epecially true now that we have already allowed the Americans to attack Serbia from our airspace. Our old friends, the Serbs, might not forgive our backstabbing easily. Many Romanians on this forum seem to forget that little detail and write as if we were living in the times of the siege of Belgrade and Iancu de Hunedoara.

Therefore, discussions are welcome, but otherwise "Hands off Transylvania!".

Read Geiss, you'll believe him...

As for the difference between a province and a state (Transylvania vs Hungary), Hungary was a system justified by 54 % ethnic Hungarians, while Transylvania was just a part of the system...
But you forgot the next phrase: "How could you justify a whole country formed in the "age of nations" with only 54% - well, only if you're backed up by an empire (AH empire)... "

But to use your logic for Transylvania:

30-35% Hungarians -ok
54% Romanians -not ok

This post has been edited by johnny_bi on March 17, 2005 09:44 pm

Ok, you're right... I understand. I'll stop reading Geiss and I'll watch the movie "Trianon... "

This post has been edited by johnny_bi on March 17, 2005 10:03 pm

I neither did read (yet) Geiss, not watched (yet) the movie 'Trianon', so your comment is pointless.

Gen. Dénes

Ofcourse they're stopped, because the Canal is already built!!!

source: http://www.mediauno.ro/tne-search.php?art=5406

So the Canal is already there. Fait accompli. Whatever the Orange Ukraine stopped, it was the second stage. Which I guess can take place anytime in the future, the first part was the hard part.

p.s. do you have a link/source for the Canal works being stopped? I found none. It would be interesting indeed.



take care

This post has been edited by Imperialist on March 17, 2005 10:34 pm

If you do the both ... you will understand...

This post has been edited by johnny_bi on March 18, 2005 02:06 am