Hungary-Romania: a possible union in the mid '20s

[Bernard Miclescu]

I found the following article in the 'Romania Libera' newspaper (only in romanian). Interesting!

http://www.romanialibera.ro/a136375/istori...si-ungaria.html

BM

This post has been edited by Bernard Miclescu on October 11, 2008 01:50 pm

[Dénes]

The first part of the article is indeed interesting. Still, it has to be ascertained how serious these formal and informal talks actually were.

The second part of the article (dealing with Vice-Admiral Horthy) is, however, less valuable, as it has many errors and misconceptions (in my opinion, of course).

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on October 11, 2008 02:05 pm

[MMM]

It was just some kind of hoax combined with an extremely far and improbable union such Czechoslovakia. It was based on the fact that Hungarians were "king-less", with only a regent. Anyway, who proposed that forgot the traditional enmity between the two people...

This post has been edited by MMM on March 07, 2009 02:05 pm

[bansaraba]

The people were not enemies, but the politicians and military men. Pretty much the same thing today.

[MMM]

You mean only the politicians and militaries did the massacres (too strong word - I wait suggestion) in the north-west of Transylvania (1940-44)?
Indeed, not the people as a whole were/are enemies, but some of them cross the line frequently. I don't know the name of the Hungarian Vadim Tudor, but I'm sure they have one of them (at least ). Denes, may you be of help?

[21 inf]

Some part of the article is based on real facts, as I found them described in the letters of Alexandru Vaida-Voevod. After the end of ww1, romanian leaders had some proposals to put on the head of Hungary a man who was to be more or less under the control of the romanian political class. There were some proposals in this direction made by romanian politicians of the era, but it never came to an final decision. The rest is history.

Some part of the article I dont know if the infos are real.

[MMM]

I've just re-read the chapter in Lucian Leuştean's book quoted above (in the article). This WAS a provocation and a diversion, as any politician who'd have proposed it back then would have risked been crucified in the first public square, either in Budapest or in Bucharest. Leuştean concluded with something like "if it quacks like a duck and it walks like a duck, then it's a duck" (aka diversion launched by some enemies of stability).

[bansaraba]

I hope this is the last offtopic about this subject. Generally, Romanians, Hungarians, Germans, get along very well. It's politics that rise rage and hate. I think many Romanians can say they have good Hungarian friends.

Mass-media is pretty much like propaganda though.

[MMM]

What's off-topic, then? Usually, the "normal/ordinary" people get on well with the minorities, unless they're educated or influenced otherwise! Then it gets uglier...

[Imperialist]

I have noticed that the newspapers article doesn't mention that Carol IV's attempts to return on the throne failed because Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia threatened war on Hungary and mobilised their forces. Obviously the relations were tense and not close to forming a union.

[radugb]

the union was also possible during the wave of revolutions of 1848. hungary wanted to get rid of austria and the romanian states wanted to escape from rusia/turks. there were disscusions between politicians but the hungarian ones sad tha russia would never accept this. and there were some misstrust betwen the 2 parts.
if somebody can come with some more details please share. i can't remember were i read this.
another one came from WWII when the great powers wanted to make a new map of europe, a map that would be stable. the union was taken into question but it fell pretty fast.