1919 Romanian offensive, against bolshevism

In november 1918, after the meeting between Oszkar Jaszi, hungarian minister for nationalities in that period, and the members of Romanian National Council at Arad, the result was that romanians from Transylvania, Banat and some part from eastern provinces of Hungaries decided to break from Hungary and to unite with Romania. At the question of O. Jaszi adressed to romanians: "What do you romanians want?", Iuliu Maniu responded in hungarian "Teljes elszakadas" (hope I spelled well in hungarian), what in large lines means in english "total break" or in romanian "rupere totala". Romanian participants (almost 10.000) from the square of today Arad's townhall, wanted to proclame the union with Romania in the same day, but the leaders of RNC told to people that it will be better to have a national gathering in order to show to the World the free will of romanians from this 3 regions mentioned above. In those 3 regions mentioned romanian were in majority and they sent on 1st December 1918 delegates from all romanian villages of Transylvania, Banat and eastern parts of Hungary to Alba Iulia, were was decreted the union with Romania.

All the story above is to show that even if nowadays counties are not the same as 90 years ago, the decision of union with Romania was decided by romanian people, not by their leaders, and romanians from this part of the world were spread from Carpathian mountains to Theiss river. All decided union with Romania and so did those who lived in today Bihor county. Even in this situation, according to hungarian sources (which point that Bihar county existed in hungarian administration), from the former Bihar megye (county) of hungarian ww1 time, 3/4 is now to Romania and 1/4 is belonging to today Hungary, so in great lines is the same teritory with diferent nationalities, romanians being in majority. Some cities in Transylvania were in majority inhabited by other nationalities than romanians, as hungarians, germans and hebrews, but this was only in urban locations, the rest of the teritories were in overwelming majority inhabited by romanians. This can be seen from the population census from 1880, 1890, 1900, 1910 and 1920, the first 4 being made by hungarian authorities and the last by romanian one.

I will cite only the figures for Bihor county (total population in 1910 was 475.000, from which 242.000 romanians, but the census what made after declared mother language, not after declared nationality; numerically significant populations as hebrews are marked with zero members, even it is known that only in Oradea hebrews had before ww1 more than 30 schools. So, they are most probably included to those declared hungarians or germans, being known that hebrews in Transylvania rarely or never declared themselves romanians); for Arad county from 500.000 people, 300.000 were romanian; in Alba county from 330.000 people, 260.000 were romanian and the examples can continue. All the figures are for year 1910 and are from hungarian source mentioned bellow, with the reserve that the census was made on declared mother tongue and not on declared nationality.

The hungarian source that I cited for population and administration figures is Varga E. Árpád -ERDÉLY ETNIKAI ÉS FELEKEZETI STATISZTIKÁJA - épszámlálási adatok 1850-2002 között

So, if one can not see how Oradea was back in 1919 considered liberated, i hope that above is the answer, why romanians consider the event a liberation and why some can believe otherwise, based on anything.

Probably a romanian should put the same question regarding the 1940 taking of Transylvania by Hungary?! On what basis Hungary took in 1940 a great part of Transylvania were hungarian population was less than 50% per total and in some counties even in lower percent, as low as 30%? For example in 1941 Salaj county had 260.000 people, from which 175.000 romanians, 74.000 hungarians, 10.000 others and the rest different nations as slovacs, hebrews and gipsies. This county went then to Hungary. But this is already off-topic...

Are we to understand that the entire rest of 90% were Hungarian ethnics? Were there no other minorities "opressed" by the Austro-Hungarian rule?
Anyway, by liberation one can understand more than unifying with - in this case - Romania.
Isn't september 1940 also celebrated by some revisionist (no refference to any forumists, of course ) as the liberation of territories occupied because of the "unfair Trianon Diktat" by the Romanians?

To MMM:

The rest of 90% were not hungarian ethnics. According to the same hungarian source as above, in Oradea lived in 1910 a number of 69.000 people as following: 4.000 romanians (less than 10%), 63.000 hungarians, 1500 germans, 750 others, 25 ucrainians, 60 serbs and 300 slovacs. There were no hebrews mentioned in that census, but as I said before, hebrews had only in Oradea more than 30 schools. The figures above show a great number of hungarians because the census was made keeping acount only of the declared mother language and most if not all hebrews declared hungarian as mother language, so they were considered hungarians. On the scale of whole Bihor county the figures are very diferent, the percent of romanian show majority.

My point exactly! If things were so bleak as one of us would like to believe, why weren't there any massive population movements after 01.12.1918? The answer - one among many - could be that some people declared themselves to be what suited them most at the moment, aka Hungarians or Romanians; anyhow, most of them knew very well both languages and were "inter-cultural", so to say!
Either Romanians or Hungarians, the same people responded in the same way to the state's policy of nationalities (I couldn't say the official term, but be it Romanian royal or communist, be it Hungarian Austro-Hungarian, Horthy-Hungarian or Popular-Hungarian, every authority had the interest of "ethnical cleansing", especially near the borders). This should be the subject of a new topic...

Denes, please tell me your source of information (about 10% Romanian population in Oradea).

To contras: the 10% of romanian in Oradea in 1910 is from hungarian made census and it was real. In all major cities in Transilvania in those days romanian were in small number, as they were received in cities mostly as servants. Even major saxon cities as Sibiu were told to be hungarians in these years.

But majority of Transylvania land was inhabited by romanians, excepting probably Covasna and Harghita counties, as nowadays.

Thank you. About this subject, campaign against bolscheviks, are many books that apeared before ww2. You can find them in libraries.
Examples:
Gen Gheorghe Mardarescu, Campania pt dezrobirea Ardealului si ocuparea Budapestei, apeared in 1922.
Very intersesting in spite of military operations and battles. Many photos and maps. Is very complete, becqause gen Mardarescu was Comander in Chief of troops in Transylvania.
Other books:
Radu Cosmin, Romanii la Budapesta. (1920)
lt-col Draganescu Constantin, Campaniile din 1848/1849 si 1919 din Transilvania si Ungaria (1930).

The Rumanians didn't primarily fight against bolsheviks. They primarily fought against the Hungarians.
Had bolshevism not thrive in what was left of Hungary in that turbulent year of 1919, the Rumanians would had still attacked nevertheless, until their goal would have been achieved.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on January 01, 2010 08:56 pm

That's correct, Denes, the war between Romania and Hungary had 2 phases. First one, started in April, had the result occupation of territorry between Apuseni Mountains and Tisa. Here, in this phase, Oradea was liberated, by the way, by a single man, general Traian Mosoiu, alone, who came in one car, a few km in front of his troops. Hungarians fled without fight. There are some articles in Patria and Viitorul papers, published in May 1919.
Second phase begun in 20 July, when bolsheviks (now they were bolsheviks) attacked Romanian troops in 3 points, the main effort was in Szolnok area. Two weeks later, begining with 3'rd August 1919, Budapest was under Romanian occupation. The whole Hungary, the same. Romanian troops evacuated Budapest in 17 November, same year.

The post-WW1 conflict between Rumania and Hungary didn't start in April 1919, but rather half a year earlier, when the first Rumanian troops crossed the Rumanian-Hungarian borders lying on the Carpathian mountains in late November 1918.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on January 01, 2010 10:23 pm

You're wrong, Denes, there was not war between Romanians and Hungarians in November 1918.
At 6 November 1918, Regiment 15 Razboieni crossed the frontier of Transylvania, that one who was marked by peace of Buftea-Bucuresti (that one that king Ferdinand never signed or recognised) at Prisacani, without resistance. The Central Powers army, led by general Mackensen was retreating without resistance. At 8 November, Borsec was occupied. 9 November, Toplita, 11 November, Reghin, 12 November, Targu Mures, 15 November, Bistrita and Ludus.
Treaty signed at Belgrad, without Romanian participation, halted Romanian troops on the Mures line. There were not fights between Romanian and Central troops before this date. And, there is not war.
At Alba Iulia, at 1 December 1918, when all delegates of Romanian teritorries sent their will to be part of Kingdom of Romania, major part of Transylvania was not under control of Romanian army. Brasov was occupied in 27 November, Dej in 1 December and Cluj in 3 December. In 7 December Sibiu and Petrosani. Remember, Dej, Cluj, Sibiu and petrosani were occupied by romanian army after the 1 December 1918, the plebiscit at Alba Iulia.

It's not about me being wrong, it's about historical facts.
There was an internationally recognized and valid border between Hungary and Rumania, lying on the Carpathian mountains. That border was crossed by Rumanian soldiers in November 1918. The conflict between the two countries started with that very move.
There were skirmishes and minor fights immediately after Rumanian troops crossed the borders, with local Hungarian defence groups formed ad-hoc by individual soldiers and local civilians. No organised large scale armed resistance happened at that point, however; as the Austro-Hungarian Army was in disarray after more than four years of war, when the war was already officially over. Everybody simply wanted to go home and quit fighting any longer.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on January 01, 2010 11:24 pm

[QUOTE]
Recognised by who?

Hallo everybody,
Sorry to contradict you, Denes, but you must remember that the romanian-austro-hungarian frontier line was modified after Buftea so-alled Peace Agreement (even if in fact was not applied -the frontier line agreement I mean) so even between these two countries "the internationally recognised border" was in question. And please remember that Romania was in war with Austro-Hungary from august 1916 until march 1918 for the Transylvania issue, so it was no contradiction in these romanian actions. The Buftea so-called Peace Agreement was an obvious german diktat who was accepted (by the romanian government only) only to save the rest of Romania by a german-austro-hungarian military occupation.
On the other hand in november 1918 the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy was a dying state who was contested by the czech, croats, polish, romanian and even hungarian nations (remember the hungarian revolution on 31 october 1918 in Budapest?), so what are we talking about? What borders? Recognised by who?
Contras put a good question, so... Denes?

Of course that in April 1919 romanian army would atack hungarian army even if it was not the case that hungarian army turned comunist. It was the reason of Romania's entering ww1, back in 1916, to liberate the romanians under AH rule.

This fact was clearly stated in the treaty of alliance with England, France, Russia and Italy few days before romanian war declaration against AH monarchy, which says that Romania entered ww1 just with the condition that after the war ALL teritories inhabited by romanians in AH monarchy will be united to Romania.

Because Romania's peace treaty from Bucharest in early 1918, the Allies considered that Romania didnt fully respected their 1916 alliance treaty, so in late 1918 and early 1919, Allies succesively stopped Romanian advance in Transylvania to the so-called Clemenceau line at the end, which roughly went from eastern Maramures downwards to a line between nowaday Arad and Hunedoara counties. This line went spliting Transylvania in half from north to south. But this was not the entire teritory inhabited by romanians from former AH and for sure was not what romanian prime minister Bratianu requested as a condition for Romania joining the war.

Below is the romanian 1916 war declaration against AH monarchy.

"Ion Bratianu's Declaration of War Delivered to the Austrian Minister in Romania on 28 August 1916:

The alliance concluded between Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy, according to the statements of those Governments, had only a conservative and defensive character. Its principal object was to guarantee the allied countries against attack from the outside and to consolidate the state of affairs created by previous treaties.

It was in accordance with these pacific tendencies that Rumania joined this alliance.

Devoted to the development of her internal affairs and faithful to her resolution to remain as an element of order and equilibrium on the lower Danube, Rumania never has ceased in her devotion to the maintenance of peace in the Balkans. The last Balkan wars, by destroying the status quo, imposed upon her a new line of conduct, but her intervention gave peace and re-established the equilibrium.

For herself she was satisfied with the rectification of her borders which gave her the greatest security against aggression and repaired certain injustices of the Congress of Berlin, but in pursuit of this aim Rumania was disappointed by the failure of the Vienna Cabinet to take the attitude Rumania was entitled to expect.

When the present war broke out Rumania, like Italy, declined to associate herself with the declaration of war by Austria-Hungary, of which she had not been notified by the Vienna Cabinet.

In the spring of 1915 Italy declared war against Austria-Hungary. The Triple Alliance no longer existed and the reasons which determined Rumania's adherence to this political system disappeared.

Rumania remained in the peace group of States, seeking to work in agreement in order to assure peace and to conserve the situation de facto and de jure created by treaties. Rumania then found herself in the presence of powers making war for the sole purpose of transforming from top to bottom the old arrangements which had served as a basis for their treaty of alliance.

These changes were for Rumania proof that the object she pursued in joining the Triple Alliance no longer could be attained and that she must direct her efforts in new paths, especially as the work undertaken by Austria-Hungary threatened the interests of Rumania and her national aspirations.

Consequently Rumania resumed her liberty of action.

The neutrality which Rumania imposed upon herself in consequence of a declaration of war made independently of her will, and contrary to her interests, had been adopted as the results of the assurances that Austria-Hungary, in declaring war against Serbia, was not inspired by a spirit of conquest or of territorial gains. These assurances have not been realized.

Today we are confronted by a situation de facto threatening great territorial transformations and political changes of a nature constituting a grave menace to the future of Rumania. The work of peace which Rumania attempted to accomplish, in a spirit of faithfulness to the Triple Alliance, thus was rendered barren by the very powers called upon to defend it.

In adhering in 1883 to the group of Central Powers, Rumania was far from forgetting the bonds of blood constituting between them a pledge for her domestic tranquillity, as well as for the improvement of the lot of the Rumanians of Austria-Hungary.

In fact, Germany and Italy, who reconstituted their States on the basic principle of nationality, could not but recognize the legitimacy of the foundation upon which their own existence reposed.

As for Austria-Hungary, she found in the friendly relations established between her and Rumania assurances of tranquillity both in her interior and on our common frontiers, for she was bound to know to what extent the discontent of her Rumanian population found echo among us, threatening our good relations.

For a period of thirty years the Rumanians of Austria-Hungary not only never saw a reform introduced, but, instead, were treated as an inferior race and condemned to suffer the oppression of a foreign element which constitutes only a minority amid the diverse nationalities constituting the Austro-Hungarian States.

All the injustices our brothers thus were made to suffer maintained between our country and the monarchy a continual state of animosity. At the outbreak of the war Austria-Hungary made no effort to ameliorate these conditions. After two years of the war Austria-Hungary showed herself as prompt to sacrifice her peoples as powerless to defend them.

The war in which almost the whole of Europe is partaking raises the gravest problems affecting the national development and very existence of the States.

Rumania, from a desire to hasten the end of the conflict and to safeguard her racial interests, sees herself forced to enter into line by the side of those who are able to assure her realization of her national unity. For these reasons Rumania considers herself, from this moment, in a state of war with Austria-Hungary."
Source: Source Records of the Great War, Vol. V, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923

This post has been edited by 21 inf on January 02, 2010 02:54 pm