1848/49 in Transilvania, about those revolutionary years

Denes, I readed what you find. It seems that both the Romanians and Hungarians used only what they needed from the Kossuth's proclamation to Romanians

Both Romanians and Hungarians put only fragments of the speech, I also dont have a full Romanian translation of the documents. Maybe if we compile the 2 versions, Romanian and Hungarian, we'll have a better view of the speech.

I'll try to find the entire speech next days if I have time to search the old documents section of Romanian Academy Library, but I can't promise anything now.

LE: Denes, if you find the Romanian text in chirilic, please post it, as I can put it in Latin letters. Thank you!

I didnt managed to find a full version of the speech, in none of the languages (Romanian, Hungarian or English) on the Internet. I'll have to "dig" the Library of Romanian Academy, if they have it.

This post has been edited by 21 inf on January 05, 2013 12:51 pm

21inf, I appreciate your effort to post all that informations some of them unknown to me! On the other hand I haven't disagreed the fact that mistakes were committed by both sides but, being known the temperamental character of Kossuth which addressed the Romanians after the failed attempt to crush the Hungarian Revolution led by Count Jelačić and his army, it should be no wonder! Please deny if you can that in October 1848 the romanian leaders from Transylvania had prepared an peasant army, a fact well known in Budapest and Kolosvar, peasant army that was able to respond immediately when the Imperial Army Command from Nagyszeben ordered them to disarm by force the Hungarian National Guard from Transylvania, later in October. Kossuth speach was therefore a warning to a decision already taken by the Romanian leaders, the threat of use of force having the aim of preventing an action against Hungary similar to that started in Croatia! Regarding the program of the Hungarian Revolution, he not concerned only the Hungarian nation but also the nationalities who lived in Hungary, a proof in this respect was the adhesion of many Slovaks, Romanians from Crisana and Banat, some Ruthenians and even Serbs! Kossuth as a soul of the Revolution, regarded the national unity of the Nation as the only hope to be accepted by the neighboring great powers (Ottoman, Russian and German) having a wider perspective than some petty leaders of Romanian, Serbian and Croatian Nations (I do not intend to offend those nations as I am Romanian too!)! If you read like I did Kossuth statements, speeches, private discussions and letters written, you find out the fact that he has clearly expressed that "hatred between peoples and in general between humans is useful only to the tyrants" and "the mutual love of peoples, ethnicities and nations is the source of national well-being and is a deterrent for tyrants". Do you not find interesting the fact that rebellions (like the one of Jelačić and Iancu) took place only in provinces where the national border guard regiments were stationed? What happened in Slovakia? Why there took place no rebellion?
Do you know that on September 12, 1848, Kossuth in the Chamber of Deputies declared that "from among all of nationalities of Europe, the Hungarian and the Dacian have the mission to develop a mutual sympathy and harmony, if they want to survive". The speech you quote, which as good Denes warned, can have been translated wrong, can be understood as a desperate attempt to avoid conflict, and not as a call to hatred and war! Undoubtedly reprovable actions of Hungarian nobility in Transylvania have added fuel to fire, but the alliance between the Hungarian Transylvanian nobility and the Hungarian Revolution leadership was then a necessity imposed by maneuvers led by Vienna and the imperial administration! Maneuvers to which some Romanian leaders have fallen like fools, sorry to say, but their actions speak! Just as you said the Romanian nation gained nothing from his fight against the Revolution, the Imperials recognizing them no rights after the war!

This post has been edited by aidan zea on January 05, 2013 05:59 pm

Aidan, normaly, I should not respond you, as I said that if the discussion become "hot", I am out of it. Your tone is not proper for a civilised and normal discussion, so you dont deserve a response, normaly. I gave to you documents, please do the same if you want to prove something.

Now, just for the knowledge of other fellow forumists who might read this discussion and might have read your half-informed statements, here are some more info regarding what Aidan said:

1. From 3rd of October 1848, the Hungarian revolution was declared ilegal by the Austrians.
2. Between April and October Transylvania was left on the subordination of Hungarian administration from Pest, with the caracteristic Austrian emperor lack of decision (he was mentally impaired).
3. The Romanians from Crişana choose their own way in 1848 and were "led" by no more than 3 or 4 Romanians from intelgentsia, most of them of noble origins and raised in Hungarian spirit (as Ioan Dragoş)
4. The Romanians from Banat adopted at the National Gathering at Lugoj a proclamations almost similar with the one of the Romanians from Transylvania.
5. Romanians from Transylvania armed themselves in 18th of October 1848, so 8 days AFTER the Kossuth's "Apel...". The Hungarians from Transylvania armed themselves since SPRING of 1848 and since October 1848 they killed tens of Romanians just because they dare to speak about Romanian demands. None of the Romanians was killed in battle or with weapons in hand until October 1848! And since April to October, with tens of deads, Romanians didnt armed and didnt killed a single person in entire Transylvania!!! And Aidan is acusing Romanians because they "dare" to take weapons in 1848...Also, the arming of the Romanians was made with the aproval of General Comando, not as an insurection, without any aproval, as the Hungarians did earlier in 1848.
6. In 10th of October, Kossuth and the Hungarian revolution were already outlaw for a week (since 3rd of October).
7. Romanians from Transylvania didnt owed anything to Hungarians, nor from Hungary, neither from Transylvania. What Hungarians from Hungary did in Hungary with the revolution, was their problem, it was another country. What Hungarians from Transylvania did regarding the union of Transylvania with Hungary, concerned the Romanians and they owed nothing to Hungarians, as they declared the union without recognising Romanians as a nation and without taking care that the Romanians rejected the union discussion until they were declared legaly as a nation.
8. Kossuth's pacificist speaks were not believed or "buy" by any nation: not the Croats, Serbs, Romanians. By the way, Slovaks didnt fight, as they couldnt mobilise as the others.

After what Aidan said, that Kossuth regarded the national unity of his nation, what the crap is idiocy? Kossuth was entitled do to this and the Romanians, Croats and Serbs dont??? Come on, drop it! One should read more...and ask himself why all the nations fight against Hungarians and please, leave the story with "camarila" and "deceived by the Austrians". What wonder is that from all the nations from Austrian empire, the only ones who "saw" and "had" the truth were only the Hungarians! All the others, Croatians, Serbs, Slovaks, Romanians, all of them were idiots and couldnt see what is hapening in Europe and in the Austrian empire. Especially the Romanians were idiots, as they even didnt existed legaly in Transylvania as they were only tolerated and they needed the Hungarians to "show the way toward freedom"?

Instead of conclusion: all made mistakes, as all were humans, as we are. One thing is sure: Hungarians began their revolution in Hungary; the Romanians in Transylvania were not the first who started, actually in the Austrian empire, they were the last (I intentionally put the dates of all national proclamations, but it seems nobody read them).

In the discussion with Aidan Zea, Romanians were totaly wrong, Hungarians had no fault. I presented documents, he didnt. I am out of this discussion. Bye.

This post has been edited by 21 inf on January 05, 2013 08:06 pm

Those actions was the main reason for which Romanians fight back against Hungarians in that Revolution. Those actions just show that what some Hungarians leaders may said, it wasnt surely what everyone in their camp thought, and sooner or later (in case that Hungarian revolution might win) things can go even worse for Romanians (and even others around).

Wow, never thought that someone still believe the crap Engels wrote about the Revolutions of 1848, with the "Romanian counter-revolutionary people". Sure, he talk too about the bloody extermination of south-Slavs, another non-historic and counter-revolutionary people. Funny thing is he refused to take note of the conflict between landlords and peasants that is one of the roots of the national conflict between what he call historic and non-historic nationalities, going against his own doctrine.
As well he failled to mention that as the Austrian German, Poles and Magyars fought for their own national freedom, they denied elementary democratic rights to other nationalities.

Interesting that such ideas still floating around in some heads

The actions of Romanians back then was the logical course they can take, as they found themselves caught between two evils. If Hungarians really wanted to win the Revolution they would agree with everyone else rights and try to rally them under a common flag (anti-Habsburgic). However they seem to just wish to get rid of Habsburg domination but take control themselves of other nationalities around. Which obviously backfired

Aidan Zea, I don't know what the purpose of your posts is, but they hardly bring added value to our discussion, quite the contrary! I note that your strong beliefs prevents you see any major fault in Kossuth/leaders of the Hungarian Revolution/their supporters actions, your opinion is by no means moderate and/or objective! If you were curious to know other approaches/based on documents/ than the radical ones you mentioned, they can be found on the internet, in many libraries and by many booksellers! It seems to me useless to answer your presentations that seem to me taken after a pattern, endlessly repeated and immune to any contrary approach! If you'll bring documents on the opinions expressed, I will answer if I can, but over biased and malicious interpretations I can't answer! I am also out of this discussion!

Andreas the purpose of my post is to say what I think it was not said so far, because you and 21inf share the same views over the events of 1848-1849 in Transylvania. I think differently not because I had studied more (probably not!) but because I want to look at the events from a different perspective, who call spade a spade, even if it is unpleasant! I am not cataloging your posts but I can feel the irritated reaction of you which I dislike! What lie did I said that triggered such a reaction from you, by saying that the Transylvanian Romanian Revolution became a counterrevolution who has used only to the imperial camarilla which restored a dying empire for the next 70 years? Did I not said that the Transylvanian nobility (mostly Hungarian) was guilty of oppression of serfs and then by harsh repression over the serfs and the Romanian intellectuals who started their own Revolution? But guilt is not by only one Party of the Hungarian Revolution but also on the other Party too, the Romanian intellectuals of Transylvania who had chosen to support the reactionary Party led by the Imperial Court of Vienna! And the Romanian peasantry was the victim of manipulation! As unfortunately happens anywhere, anytime! And I do not want to continue this dirty game of manipulation of history because it eases our conscience!

@ Aidan: if you really want to make a different point of view, you should start studying better all the sides, in order to draw a conclusion and to be able to have a basis on which you can built your different view or new theories.

So, if you want to REALLY do this, think of these things:
- I (and I supose Andreas too) understand what Hungarian revolutionaries wanted and I understand that they wanted national freedom from the Austrians. After all, they previously fight for this in the curutz and lobonc war in 1710-1711.
- Romanians wanted the same. When the Hungarians denied this right from them, "s-au făcut frate cu dracul" and if you say you are Romanian, you understand the meaning of this saying.
- Romanians wanted their own state, which was suposed by Hungarians, but was hard for them to proove, althought used as "political ammo" against the Romanians in the face of Austrians.
- the Romanian peasants were not deceived. In the National Gatherings from Blaj they were explained what the leaders wanted from the Romanian revolution.
- when Romanians start to opose Hungarians in october 1848 and to colaborate with Austrians, a Romanian delegation was at Insbruck at the emperor since SPRING and it was there not to beg favours, but to DEMAND rights and NATIONAL RECOGNITION
- Hungarian revolutionaries understand well what Romanians wanted and also Romanian revolutionaries understand what Hungarians wanted. The diferent point of views were ireconciliable in 1848 and mid 1849. Do you know that at last Kossuth admited the Romanian demands and asked them to fight for the Hungarian cause in a Romanian Legion in Hungarian army?

But this is enough for the moment. Try to read more. If you want, I can give you a list of books, both Hungarian and Romanian, but you'll have to understand both languages well, as they are not translated into English.

21inf, I know very well that the crucial issue which separated the Romanians and the Hungarian revolutionaries, and who threw the first in the reactionary camp (the proponents of maintaining of the empire) was that of union of Transylvania with Hungary! The question is whether the purpose of the union from the Hungarian perspective was that of denationalization and non-recognition of any rights to the Romanian national community from Transylvania or maintaining a unite state, with a single army, administration, political leadership a.o. while ensuring broad rights to the other national communities inside the Hungarian state? Here split the perspectives, the Romanians believe the first the Hungarians the second! I say that the second, because I think I know what kind of man was Kossuth, which would not became onother Emperor or a Dictator for other nations. He understood that having around three great empires (with reactionary political regimes) Hungary would have had no chance of success or even survive if it would not have been a united and powerful state!

I dont know how much you "know Kossuth" but clearly the actions of Hungarian nobles or elites from Transilvania was toward the forced unification with Hungary (which i think even Kossuth wanted) and obviously the continuation (and even encreasing) of opression of Romanians.

And i mean actions, not just words. How do you imagine Avram Iancu and Romanians would trust anything Kossuth may said in such conditions?

As i said, Romanians was forced to chose between two evils (for them) and they chosed what they considered the lesser evil.

I agree that some of Hungarian leaders was a bit delusional and didnt thought clear and just thought they can get rid of Habsburg rule and replace that with their own rule over other rather large nationalities around.

Aidan, you see, that's why I told you to read more. You should read to see the Hungarian politics BEFORE 1848, in order to understand why not only the Romanians didnt trusted Hungary (try to start with 1842, maybe 1839 in Transylvania). And also, you need to read more to see what was Hungary in 1848 (before the revoluition) in the Austrian Empire. This time I will not give you all-ready info, you must show you want sincerelly to develop yourself by "sweating" a bit while reading.

Hint: your opinion about "Hungary would have had no chance of success or even survive if it would not have been a united and powerful state" should make you think more. Way more than that, if you want to see beyond what are you see now.

And also, you are right saying that Kossuth wasnt to become a new emperor, he doesnt has the capacity to be an emperor. I doubt about the dictator issue. Hint: try to see how he managed to become the head of the revolutionary Hungarian state.

Last, but not least, please tell us what was in your opinion the ethnic origin of Kossuth.

I agree udar about the Romanians had to choose between 2 evils, as they (the Romanians) had their own purposes...

That's irrelevant. Everybody is what he/she declares himself/herself is.

Gen. Dénes

I would enjoy more an opinion from Aidan, but, anyway, if the origin of one is irellevant and everybody is what he/she declares himself/herself is, then the opinion of Kossuth's familiy about him would bother no one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gy%C3%B6rgy_Kossuth

21inf posted on January 05, 2013, 11:53 am

Wrong! From existing documents published in this book: Süli Attila - A nemzetőrség, a honvédség és a Kossuth-szabadcsapat szervezése Erdélyben 1848-ban, result the formation of Romanian national guards in late june- early july 1848 in the Inner-Szolnok, Doboka, Fehér and Hunyad (where most of the population was of Romanian origin) and since mid-September 1848 the forming, training and arming process of Romanian militia is accelerated, being already supported by the Austrian military authorities! Now Romanian militia is formed in Küküllő, Fogoras and even in Királyföld (Saxon seats) supported by the border regiments of the Imperial Army! They have operated on orders given by the kk Siebenburgischen General-Kommando against the Hungarian National Guards and Army troops legally constituted in Transylvania, Kossuth's appeal from 10 October 1848 having perfect sense considering what was happening in the territory (of Transylvania, southern Hungary, Croatia!!!). I recommend you to study other documents than Romanian and Austrian, having an obvious partisan tinge!

21 inf posted on January 08, 2013, 06:45 pm

Kossuth was an Hungarian great leader and patriot, the ancestors of his family had lived in the county of Turóc (now Slovak: Turiec, northwest Slovakia) in the north of Hungary since the 13th century. The Slovak ancestry of Kossuth never became the topic of political debate for him because the family was part of the Hungarus nobility of the Kingdom of Hungary. Kossuth considered himself an ethnic Hungarian (Magyar) and stated that there was no Slovak nation in the Kingdom of Hungary. He wrote about himself that "I was born Hungarian and brought up as a Hungarian." Although Slovak nationalism from the XX century could lead us to the idea of a similar historical situation of that between Romanians and Hungarians from Transylvania, the reality of 1848-49 Revolution and Liberation War shows that Slovaks have supported in great numbers the Hungarian Revolution, as have enough Romanians from Partium, Banat or even Serbs from Southern Hungary (now Vojvodina)!

Sure, Aidan, you convinced now everybody on this forum to read also the Hungarian sources, which are right, instead of only Romanian and Austrian sources which are obviously, as you said, partisan and of course, biased.