Romanian Army in the Second World War · Forum Guidelines | Help Search Members Calendar |
Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) | Resend Validation Email |
Pages: (10) « First ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... Last » ( Go to first unread post ) |
Bernard Miclescu |
Posted on September 25, 2003 04:24 pm
|
Plutonier major Group: Members Posts: 335 Member No.: 53 Joined: July 22, 2003 |
The Romanian disaster of 1940 is linked to the fall of France. No France, Romania is isolated and disaster strikes. But in April 1940, few in Romania believed that France will be beaten. Do not use hindsight, they did not have the benefit of knowing what will happen.[/quote]
Pauvre France!!! WW2 started at Versailles and Trianon in 1919 and 1920. But the Romanian policy was very "ill" also. But it's only a point of vue. BM |
Geto-Dacul |
Posted on September 25, 2003 05:12 pm
|
||||
Plutonier adjutant Group: Members Posts: 383 Member No.: 9 Joined: June 18, 2003 |
Bernard Miclescu wrote :
And what could France do to help us, if let's say, she was not attacked by Germany? (in the case that Romania received the ultimatums from SU, Hungary & Bulgaria)
I would not say so. France deserved in a way the defeat of 1940. France had been a lor more imperialist than Germany. G-D |
||||
Dénes |
Posted on September 25, 2003 05:14 pm
|
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4368 Member No.: 4 Joined: June 17, 2003 |
[quote]
Your answer to my post was a serious one, and you deserve the same. As we know, a Parliament is not enough to make a democracy. But you mentioned: "a vivid Parliament, who exercised actual power". Well, I trust you... Why not? There is only one thing missing to convince me that Hungary was democratic between 1920 and 1940. How often the main figures in the government were changed? Like Mr. Chaki and Mr. Teleki?[/quote] I can't remember off-hand how often were Hungary's Prime Ministers changed, but there were 5 or 6 from 1920 until 1944. I am sure you can find plenty of information in ths regards somewhere on the 'net. [quote]But Denes, you have to accept that Transilvania and her recuperation was the central obsession of the Hungarian leadership in those days[/quote] Yes, apparently the loss of Transylvania was regretted the most by all Hungarians; therefore, its recovery was one of the main goals of Hungarian inter-war policy. [quote] When my grandfather was in Zalau with his military unit, in 1938 or 1939, the Hungarians tried a deep intrusion in Transilvania. The situation was stabilized with the available Romanian troops on the border, before his battalion could arrive to help them.[/quote] That's an interesting detail I didn't know about. Could you find out more details about the described incident? I am certain, though, that the "deep intrusion in Transilvania" was actually nothing more than a border skirmish. [quote]Maybe because in the Middle Ages the North-Western border of Transilvania was on Tisza?[/quote] Prior to 1919, the Western borders of Transylvania were never even close to River Tisza, but much further to the East, approx. on the crests of the Western Carpathian Mountains. Transylvania, as a historical region, was mostly confined between the three parts of the Carpathian mountains: East, South and West, loosely coinciding with the geographical term of Transylvanian Plateau. It was only after W.W. 1 that the term Transylvania was enlarged to include areas West of the Western Carpathians, to coincide with all the territory incorporated into Rumania de facto in 1919 and de jure in 1921. Remember, the Declaration of Dec. 1, 1918 talks about "Transylvania, Crisana [this was not included, as noted below. D.B.], Banat, Maramures and Parts of Hungary", if I remember correctly. The term "Parts of Hungary" refers to the area West of the Western Carpathians, which was never part of Transylvania. [quote][quote=”Dénes”] they asked Romania to stop her counterattack against Bella Kuhn in 1919 at the border with Hungary - statement made by Florin ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again, what border? Rumanian troops crossed the actual Rumanian-Hungarian border in late November 1918 - statement made by Denes [/quote=”Dénes”] So, Denes, I can understand that for you the border between Romania and Hungary as part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, 1867-1916, reimposed in worse terms for Romania in May 1918 is the good one?[/quote] Where did you take from that for me the described 1918 border is “the good one”? Please, do not put words in my mouth that I did not say! All I stated was a historical fact, nothing more. As I mentioned earlier, in another thread: "I consider myself an (amateur) military historian, not a judge. Therefore it is not my intention and scope to label certain historical events as good or bad, right or wrong. I don't write political history, but rather military one. I am simply chronicling the historical events as they actually happened, without taking sides." [quote]But here is by far a more important question: Do you consider that in the Middle Ages Transilvania was an indivisible part of Hungary, a simple province of her? You have my word that I'll not make any joke this time, and I'll answer seriously. Regards, Florin[/quote] My detailed interest in history starts from the mid-XIXth Century, not earlier. Therefore I cannot answer to your question, sorry. There are many books published on this topic, most available in English, that might give you the answer you’re looking for. I hope I could answer all the questions you raised. Dénes |
Geto-Dacul |
Posted on September 25, 2003 05:25 pm
|
Plutonier adjutant Group: Members Posts: 383 Member No.: 9 Joined: June 18, 2003 |
Dénes wrote :
[quote]Remember, the Declaration of Dec. 1, 1918 talks about "Transylvania, Crisana, Banat, Maramures and Parts of Hungary", if I remember correctly. The term "Parts of Hungary" refers to the area West of the Western Carpathians, which was never part of Transylvania. [/quote] Be careful here... The area West of the Western Carpathians was actually Crisana with the major towns of Oradea and Arad. The December 1, 1918 Union talked of a border reaching Debrecen (Debretin), Szeged (Seghedin) and Mako (Macau)... Something very close to the Tisa. Those were the "famous" parts of Hungary + the area around Satu Mare which wasn't part nor of Maramures, nor of Crisana. The Crisana was the Hungarian "Partium" before 1918. Best regards, Getu' |
Dénes |
Posted on September 25, 2003 06:40 pm
|
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4368 Member No.: 4 Joined: June 17, 2003 |
See post below.
|
Dénes |
Posted on September 25, 2003 06:41 pm
|
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4368 Member No.: 4 Joined: June 17, 2003 |
I actually checked the text of the Declaration of Alba-Iulia of 1 Dec. 1918. I was wrong, because besides the "Hungarian Land", the declaration mentions only Transylvania, (the entire) Banat and Maramures (no word of "Crisana"):
"I. ADUNAREA NATIONALA A TUTUROR ROMANILOR DIN TRANSILVANIA, BANAT Sl TARA UNGUREASCA, adunati prin reprezentantii lor indreptatiti la Alba-lulia, in 1 DECEMBRIE 1918, DECRETEAZA UNIREA ACELOR ROMANI Sl A TUTUROR TERITORIILOR LOCUITE DE DANSII CU ROMANIA." (source: http://moldova.go.ro/fd/istorie/unirefd.ht...m#transilvania) Therefore I stand to my earlier comments about the area West of the Western Carpathian Mountains - including the region now called "Crisana" - being never part of historical Transylvania. Dénes P.S. Another lesson for me is that I should never rely solely on my (ever failing) memory... :wink: |
Dénes |
Posted on September 25, 2003 07:46 pm
|
||||
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4368 Member No.: 4 Joined: June 17, 2003 |
As mentioned earlier, there were 4 different versions of the would-be Western frontiers of 'Greater Rumania', in case the Rumanian Kingdom would join the Allies against the Central Powers in 1916. None of the 4 versions under negotiations was even close to River Tisza. The claims that River Tisza to be 'Greater Rumania's Western borders popped up only in 1919, in an attempt to cash in the fact that Rumanian soldiers stood already on the left side of the river. The Allies rejected this new territorial claim and stuck to the pre-1916 agreement, offering to Rumania the most convenient border version, as shown above. This was done mainly to secure the strategically vital railway line linking the major cities West of Transylvania. This borderline was then legalized by the Trianon Treaty.
Which localities with Rumanian majority are you referring to? Dénes |
||||
Florin |
Posted on September 26, 2003 12:25 am
|
||||||||
General de corp de armata Group: Members Posts: 1879 Member No.: 17 Joined: June 22, 2003 |
Hi Denes,
Some ideas as a fast answer:
I saw the northern half of medieval western Transylvania border on Tisza, on a map. To show you that I am trying to be reasonable, both Hungarian and Romanian historians may draw a map the way they like for it to look. However, most historical atlases published outside Romania or Hungary (I am talking about those in English language) show a Transylvania bigger than the one resulting from your statement highlighted above, or the first one immediately below.
And then, about what you may or you may not stated:
You said, not me, that "Rumanian troops crossed the actual Rumanian-Hungarian border in late November 1918". The border in late November 1918, before the Romanians crossed it, was the one imposed in May 1918, after Romania signed a peace treaty with the Central Powers. For Romania, it was a little worse than the border she had with the Austrian Empire, 1859-1867, converted into the Austro-Hungarian Empire, 1867-1916 ( I did not mentioned up to 1918, because the point is around that border) And you said this one was the "actual border" "actual" usually is used with the meaning of " real". You used it this way when you mentioned that Hungarian parliament exercised "actual power". This time I made the effort to open books. In Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition, page 12, actual is stated as: 1(obsolete): active 2. a. existing in act and not merely potentially b.existing in fact or reality c. not false or apparent 3. existing and occurring at the time: current. So much for the American English. In Oxford - Advanced Learners Dictionary, Seventh Impression-1992, page 13, actual is stated as: existing in fact, real Of course, we are now in the realm of British English. Well, from this headache, if I am thinking at the meanings of "real" I can claim that you consider the border as it was in November 1918 as the good one. If I am thinking of the meanings of "existing in fact", I cannot claim that you made that affirmation. Case dismissed! I am discharging you for this one. On my behalf (my whole quote is above, in my post here) I said: "So... I can understand that for you the border... is the good one?" That was the meaning of the question - the tricky usage of "actual". Another thing... You asked Dragos to specify what towns/villages had a Romanian majority in what remained to Hungary after 1919. If we are talking about towns, you may win your case. If we are talking about village, you are walking on mined ground. There were many, many villages in this situation. And now, the most interesting one:
Ok, Denes, I got it. You don't want to hurt feelings around. It is hard for me to be hurt now. I am not in my 20's any more. So if you want, and if you have time, please send an email to love_green_earth@yahoo.com (there is "_" between the words), and answer to me: Just in case, and only in the case you may think that in the Middle Ages Transilvania was an indivisible part of Hungary, a simple province of her, how it was happening that after the battle of Mohach, in 1526, Hungary was occupied, but Transylvania not? It was not the case that the Turks did not have the strength to do that. At that moment, the Turks were at the peak of their power, under Suleiman (Soliman) the Great. And how do you explain that, while Hungary was a Turkish province (1526-1688), Transylvania behaved as an independent state, including her participation in The Thirty Years War, 1618-1648. I am open to decent and logical explanations, and you have my email. Florin |
||||||||
Dénes |
Posted on September 26, 2003 02:18 am
|
||||||
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4368 Member No.: 4 Joined: June 17, 2003 |
Florin, I am not interested in great details in Medieval History. In fact, as stated, my interest starts at around mid-XIXth Century, therefore my knowledge regarding the time period prior to this date is limited. Moreover, the general topic of this forum is the 2nd W.W., so let's stuck to this, O.K.?
There is not need to go to such lengths to quote from various dictionaries, Florin, unless you have plenty of time on your hands. Although my English knowledge is far from perfect, I know exactly the meaning of the word 'actual', that's why I used it. To quote from your research: "actual=existing and occurring at the time: current". That is, the border that was existing at the time of the described event, i.e. in November 1918. To clarify the (non-)issue, let me rephrase that ominous sentence, without changing the meaning: "Rumanian troops crossed the Rumanian-Hungarian border in late November 1918, border that was official at that particular date." I don't consider it a good or bad thing, it's simply a historical fact.
The data from the 1920 Hungarian census should be on-line. You can check it for any particular locality, large and small, located in post-war Hungary. All I have available is the total numbers, which state that in 1920, 0.3% of Hungary's population declared him/herself Rumanian, which consisted of 23.695 persons.
I am not here to hurt anyone's feelings, it's not my intention. I am here to exchange information and meaningful ideas. I, too, am open to any positive approach to any topics I consider myself knowledgeable enough about. However - as a general note, not addressed to you - I won't engage in personal confrontations, as I have neither the willingness, nor the time for such sterile exercises. Dénes |
||||||
inahurry |
Posted on September 26, 2003 02:37 am
|
Sergent Group: Banned Posts: 191 Member No.: 61 Joined: July 28, 2003 |
http://www.unibuc.ro/eBooks/istorie/istori...-1940/13-10.htm
Aprecieri privind evolutia revizionismului maghiar si Romania Considerations regarding the evolution of Hungarian revisionism toward Romania "Semnalul de ofensiva al noii variante de revizionism a fost dat de lordul Rothermere, care a acceptat, în schimbul unor importante sume de bani, sa puna în slujba cauzei revizioniste ungare grupul de ziare pe care îl conducea (71 de ziare si reviste din Marea Britanie, Statele Unite ale Americii si Canada, în frunte cu “Daily Mail”, care avea un tiraj de 2 milioane de exemplare). La 21 iunie 1927, lordul Rothermere a publicat în “Daily Mail” un articol intitulat “Locul Ungariei sub soare”, în care folosind date false, puse la dispozitie de guvernul ungar, cu privire la numarul populatiei maghiare aflate în zonele de frontiera ale Cehoslovaciei, României si Iugoslaviei cu Ungaria, cerea retrocedarea acestor regiuni cu pretinsa populatie maghiara majoritara[1]. În realitate, în ceea ce priveste zonele frontaliere ale României cu Ungaria, de exemplu, populatia maghiara nu reprezenta decât 24%, pe când românii formau 54% (daca luam în consideratie numai populatia rurala, diferenta este si mai mare: 18,1% fata de 61,3%)." "The attack signal for the new variant of revisionism came from lord Rothermere who accepted, in exchange of a significant payment, to rally to the Hungarian revisionist cause the media group he ran (71 daily newspapers and magazines in UK, US and Canada, leaded by “Daily Mail” – 2 million copies circulation ). On June 21, 1927, “Daily Mail” published lord Rothermere’s editorial titled “Hungary’s place under the sun”, inside which, using false figures provided by the Hungarian government, regarding the number of Hungarian population living in Czechoslovakia’s, Romania’s and Yugoslavia’s areas alongside the frontier with Hungary, he asked the respective areas (allegedly holding a Hungarian majority) to be granted to Hungary. In truth, regarding, for instance, Romanian side areas near the Romania-Hungary border, Hungarian population represented only 24% whereas Romanians were 54% ( if we take into account only the rural population the difference was even bigger : 18.1% versus 61.3% ). " |
Victor |
Posted on September 26, 2003 03:21 am
|
||||
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4350 Member No.: 3 Joined: February 11, 2003 |
Dragos is referring here probably to the Serbian part of the Banat and Torontal. The Tisza river issue, which was debated hard at Paris during 1919 was more a military issue. The Romanian General Headquarters did not want to retreat its troops from there to the conviened border simply because it was a very good natural obstacle and an easily defendable line against the Red Hungarian troops. I do not remember reading Bratianu wanted the Tisza as frontier. |
||||
Florin |
Posted on September 26, 2003 03:51 am
|
||||||||
General de corp de armata Group: Members Posts: 1879 Member No.: 17 Joined: June 22, 2003 |
The above quote was forwarded by the Geto-Dac. This is a very tricky matter. In a situation like the one in May 1940, with the only exception that the German attack would fail for whatever reason (let say the success of the British counter-attack at Arras, combined with the success of the counter-attack of De Gaulle from the south), if Soviet Union or Hungary would dare to make ultimatums, I agree that France wouldn't do much, if anything. Obviously, because she was involved at her border. I used "dare" about ultimatums not supposing Soviet Union would be afraid of Romania, but because I think everybody around (Soviet Union, Hungary, Bulgaria) would wait for a clear end in the West. As I said, your question is very tricky. In the situation exposed in the paragraph above, I took Hitler and Nazi Germany as they were in 1940. If Germany would remain with the status she had during the Weimar republic, the alliances between Czechoslovakia-Yugoslavia-Romania, France-Czechoslovakia, France-Yugoslavia would still be in place. Poland and Finland would still be untouched independent states. In such a political situation, France may be we willing to do something - but I do not claim if she will do this in time, or with enough strength. And now about what you wrote in a message addressed to me. Yes, I believe you that United Kingdom and France were ready to betray us to Russia. But I will not believe you if you'll quote that was a long term situation, from 1920 to 1940. Maybe for a short moment - a conjunction. Many governments changed in United Kingdom and France in those years. During the Spanish civil war, both Soviet Union and France supported the Republicans with weaponry. The Russians offered the most modern airplanes they got. I don't know if France, when she sent airplanes to the Republicans, offered the best stuff. But, in such times, I wouldn't be surprised to see that somehow France sold us to the Russians.
Oh, I agree that. But in the same time I agree with what the Geto-Dac said:
How these two match? My quote would be: Poor France! She did not learn anything from the first world war. Such as: 1. Fortifications and sluggish static fronts are not a way to win a war. 2. You don't win a war by staying in defensive for ever. And did not adapt herself to a military technology much better than in 1918, and did not learn from the Spanish Civil War and the invasion of Poland that: 1. Unlike horses, tanks do not get exhausted - so use them for extended, deep offensives. 2. Airplanes and control of the sky are essential. So indeed, "France deserved in a way the defeat of 1940". But not because Getu' thinks:
Maybe France was imperialistic more years than Germany, thus a longer time, but I am not ashamed with Germany neither. OK, so here is the World War II site, so all of us know about Germany in 1933-1942. If that was not imperialism, you may call me .... (doesn't matter). But also before... Did you forget about the German colonial empire? And how Bismark unified Germany starting from Prussia? And the fact that Napoleon invaded Prussia one year after Austerlitz simply because Prussia declared war to him and mobilized against him? There was no provocation from the French Empire. Or how Frederick the IInd, seeing that the Austrian Empire is ruled by a young and non-experienced woman, considered that a good chance to take Silezia from her, for him. So, about "France had been a lot more imperialist than Germany"... I am not convinced at all. But it is unbelievable how many of the Napoleon mistakes were repeated by Adolph in the next century. Bad point for Adolph: his armies never reached so far as the "little Boney" (Napoleon in the British comics), both in North Africa/Middle East and in the northern half of Russia. Florin |
||||||||
Florin |
Posted on September 26, 2003 04:18 am
|
||
General de corp de armata Group: Members Posts: 1879 Member No.: 17 Joined: June 22, 2003 |
I am trying to get stuck around 1933-1945. But many things happened in those 12 years have roots in much older matters. You cannot explain those years using only those years. But I promise I'll not plunge into the Middle Ages again. Florin |
||
Dénes |
Posted on September 26, 2003 04:21 am
|
||||||||
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4368 Member No.: 4 Joined: June 17, 2003 |
That could very well be, indeed. The region of Banat was a problem between the new fledgling allies, Serbia and Rumania. Both parties wanted the entire Banat and because of it were armed skirmishes at the points the soldiers met, until they were separated by French troops. Eventually, the region was cut roughly in two, each party getting a half.
That indeed makes sense militarily. And that was an important aspect (see, for example, the issue of the strategic railway line linking the main Western cities, the Rumanian delegation managed to secure for them at the peace talks). Dénes |
||||||||
Dénes |
Posted on September 26, 2003 04:26 am
|
||
Admin Group: Admin Posts: 4368 Member No.: 4 Joined: June 17, 2003 |
I fully agree with you; however, we should stick to the forum's general topic (which I believe may include W.W. 1 and the 1918-1919 campaign, too). Dénes |
||
Pages: (10) « First ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... Last » |