About the Szekely Division in 1918-1919 battles, Were they beaten or just unsupported

Thank you very much Contras,
And I agree with you!
I found in a book written by Stelian Vasilescu, published in 1994 called "Calvarul Bihorului (1918-1919)", Ed. Galant, Oradea, new informations about the actions of some units of this famous division. Some soldiers of the 21. (Honved) Infantry Regiment from Cluj and 24. (Honved) Infantry Regiment from Zalau (especially szekely-origin soldiers from this units) are responsible of abuses, beatings, hold-ups and even killings in the Poieni, Ciucea, Bologa and Huedin villages (all documented!), some of them admited by the division high-command and even by the hungarian authorities (january-february 1919). Also true is that some of the officers take measures (sometimes) against the soldiers who were responsable, and this happen only in this Division. It was probably a reminiscence of the training and behaviour called and provided in the A-H Army, and the feeling of responsability of these people.
Also interesting is that at the end of 1918 the division had much more soldiers (even twice so many) as in april 1919, and my supposition is that some of them (probably hungarian, not szekely) get home or deserted, not unusual for that time in the hungarian army...
My belief is that the division was so famous by the uniqueness of it, discipline, cohesion and relative good morale to the rest of hungarian forces our army faced in spring-sommer 1919.
What do you think?

I don't know very much about their discipline, morale and other facts. I looked just on their combat valour, their resistance and their behavior in fighting. There are many Hungarian units who opposed fiercer resistance against Romanian troops, and their odds were many times against them, and fought better. All Hungarian units were poor about manoever, and ready to flee, but many of them opossed greater resistance and will to fight, like Szekely Division.
My personal opinion, the combat value and brilliant tactics of Szekely Division was just an act of Hungarian propaganda, after the battle. Just because the Szekely Division, with many soldiers recruited in 3 Transylvanian counties (Trei scaune, Ciuc and Odorhei) were looked like men who defended their "homeland against Romanian invaders". That is the only truth why they had a such propaganda in Hungarian media, after the war.

It's very possible contras,
and it is a eventuality to consider! It's true that the combat value and praise of this division arised after the war (in the hungarian nationalistic media) and our army documents speak about it with some apprehension only in late 1918 when our troops in Transsylvania were unready to fight with it... But no, can't speak for sure about their discipline, cohesion and morale since their officer feelings were against the bolsheviks and the repeated promises made to the romanian troops (no idea if real or just tactics?) to fight along with them against the bolsheviks could show a different perspective. Can't say for sure!

Even in the eve of April 1919 romanian ofensive, Sekler division was apreciated by romanian planners from Supreme HQ as being a great force, in numbers, weapons and morale. That's why romanian plans pointed that a direct confrontation with Sekler division was to be avoided. The northern arm of romanian army's pincer has the ofensive strategy based on this recomendation, so the romanian units avoided direct fight with Sekler division, atacked it's neighbouring hungarian units which were weaker, ending with the enveloping of Sekler division and making it to surender almost without fight and almost intact in ranks.

I think it were just tactics, look at their parliamentary in 22-23 April, just to take much time. About their desire to fight along Romanians against bolsheviks, I don't believe it, personally. I'm very sure officers from Szekely Division hated more the Romanians who "invaded their homes" like the bolsheviks who fight for comunism and, also, to retake the Transylvania, Czechoslovakia, and other "historical" lands. These promises, I trully believe were just tactics to deal with the time. Don't forget, every time when they sent men to negociate, they continued their manouvres or escape tentatives.

Very true, but almost in first part of the battle. In 16 and 17 April, when Romanians resisted their attacks and tried to conterattack just to fix their troops on the positions, to made them flanked by other units in south. After their first retreat, SD combat value diminished fast. Their notable resistance was at Nyreghhaza, were they were superior in troops, but the next day, when Romanians send reinforcements from the south, they surrender. In rest, all their fight was on retreating defensive positions, where they were quick rejected with relative light losses by Romanians. Example, between 21 - 24 April, in fierce attack battles in Kis Kocsard and Matesalka, Div 2 Cav and elements from 7 Inf Div attached to them had 2 officers and 32 troops dead and 5 officers and 82 troops wounded.

Thanks to contras I found an excellent article including references about the Székely Hadosztály (Szekely Division) -a good analysis I believe :
http://cristiannegrea.blogspot.com/2011/02...ml#comment-form

It's actually a bad analysis, truncated history mixed with politics.

I don't know who this Cristian Negrea is, but I was unimpressed, to say the least, of what he posted in his blog.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on February 12, 2011 07:23 am

Why this analisis was bad and which are the part missing to make it a good article?

I am only repeating myself over and over again, but it seems old myths die hard. Only a few points:
1, the Rumanian-Hungarian local war started not in April 1919, but in November 1918. This is an often repeated error in Rumanian historiography.
2, until 21 March 1919, one cannot talk of "Communist" or "Bolshevik" Hungary and until early April of the "Red Army". Therefore, the Rumanians' drive to extermine the "Communist infection" that appeared in Central Europe (stârpirea unui focar comunist apărut pe harta Europei Centrale) of Europe until that date is untrue and is only a political statement attempting to boost the Rumanian intervention, in an attempt to justify the repeated advance over the demarcation lines, in violation of the various peace agreements they signed.
3, the Sekler Division (i.e., Székely Hadosztály) was not a bunch of undispicplined and ineffective soldiers, as described by Mr. Negrea, but the only combat unit, formed on 1 Dec. 1918 by volunteeers to fight against the Rumanian units penetrating into Transylvania through the Carpathian Mountains. They often clashed with the Hungarian "Red Army", too, so were under two-side pressure. Many wanted to go home to defend their own families and assets in Eastern Transylvania.
See more here, in Hungarian (although this article of Wikipedia is also incomplete and occasionally unbalanced, but it's a good start):
http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sz%C3%A9kely_Hadoszt%C3%A1ly

It is also mentioned an interesting detail, namely that the local population of an area of the Sekler Land rose against the new Rumanian rule and for a few day restored Hungarian administration until they were defeated by the force or arms.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on February 12, 2011 11:14 am

There are some facts pointed by Denes that are true: Sekler Division was an elite division. Others, I think may be a little different: the romanian-hungarian war started in 15 august 1916, when romanians entered ww1, in order to liberate transylvanian romanians under hungarian rule, as they were hungarian subjects, from the eastern part oh AH monarchy. I might be wrong, as I cant remember well enough, but the romanian declaration of war in ww1 was adressed to Hungary only and not to AH monarchy?

For the romanians there was no need to be established a demarcation line, as like maybe hungarian side wanted: the principal guarantee offered by the Allies was that Transylvania will be acknowledged to romanians if they enter ww1 on the Allied side. When Romania signed 1918 Buftea treaty, Allied quicly declared that Romania didnt acomplished it's duty as Allied, so they didnt wanted to recognise Transylvania to romanians at the end of the war. The same Allies forgot that they desperately needed Romania to enter war in 1916 in order to decrease preasure on western front. They also forget to mention that also other condition guaranteed by the Alliance Treaty were not acomplished by the Allies, to mention only poor sending contracted daily war material quantities required by romanian front, lack of russian offensive and Allied offensive of Salonika, which were mentioned in the agreement. It was a typical atitude of westerners as they had at the end of the war toward serbs, greeks, czechs and slovaks, as well as toward romanians, all small nations, sided on the Allied.

In this situation, in 1918, romanians just continued what they started in 1916. In November 1918 they entered regions inhabited by szeklers in order to avoid them to be recruited by hungarian army. The Buftea Treaty was never took seriously by King Ferdinand, that's why he never sanctioned it. This treaty was imposed in the situation at the end of 1917, when Russia left Romania alone on the front. So, in late 1918, Romania went back to her original intention from 1916, liberation of Transylvania. 1919 was just a continuation of 1916 and 1918.

To be mentioned that from all the teritories lived mainly by non-hungarians before 1918, Transylvania was the only one who decided to break ties with Hungary, based on a plebiscite (held in 1 December 1918 at Alba Iulia). The other teritories, now belonging to Serbia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, Ukraine, declared their independece solely by the will of their non-hungarian political class. The Union declared in 1 December 1918 by romanians at Alba Iulia were preceded for some weeks at Arad by discussions with Oszkar Jaszi, the minister for nationalities, where romanians informed Hungary about their wills, but they were ignored. Austrian emperor, in his late 1918 "declaration for his nations", adressed to every nation in AH, except the romanians from Transylvania, so romanians from Transylvania feeled entitled to decide their own fate and to break ties with AH monarchy and Hungary, to which they were subjects.

This post has been edited by 21 inf on February 12, 2011 11:54 am

Hallo 21 inf,
My question, after I read, translated in english, some pages from hungarian writings about this division, is why is this unit considered "a elite"? Was it a battle-experienced division? No, her soldiers were recruited in large part from eastern Transylvania, at the end 1918, and the veterans returned from the Italian Front were low in numbers (less than half of the divisions manpower) and eager to return home. The officers and NCOs were divided in serving or not the Hungarian Leadership (especially the non-hungarians) and, let's not forget that less then half of the troops were non-hungarians (only 45% of the divisions troops were hungarians in july 1918 when the division fought on the italian front). Of course I was speaking about the Honved Infantry Division nr. 38, based on which the Szekely Division was established.

Szekler Division was suposed to have a great number of szeklers as members. Szekler individuals were always considered as of great combative value, mainly due to their agresiveness and determination, as well as better fighters were moţii for the romanians and scots and ghurka for british army. On the other hand, it was apreciated by romanian HQ to be better armed than other hungarian divisions.

Romanian HQ considered not to fight face-to-face with this division and designed a plan of operations which wanted to avoid this division, forced it to retreat until a point where she was suposed to be captured almost or without fight. Such a situation developed when Szekler Division was pushed in Satu Mare area, were a lot of it's members were forced to surrender of face anihilation due to unfavorable odds.

I understand now 21inf,
The "elite szekely division" was related more to perception than reality, as will be seen in the unfolding events of spring 1919. The fact that the division was better armed was also wrong, since I just read that they had less rifles than men wanted to join it in december 1918. And also that the division was unsupported by the hungarian government (not the communist one but the Karoly before it) as the commander often complained.
Denes,
If you can help please give a link or information regarding this : according to
http://www.austrianphilately.com/dixnut/dn6a.htm
the A-H Army Gruppe Siebenburgen commanded by FML Goldbach in october 1918 didn't included the 38th Honved Infantry Division as I earlier thought. I read in the book "In apararea Romaniei Mari Campania armatei romane din 1918-1919" Ed. Enciclopedica Bucuresti 1994, page 40, that the Goldbach Command from East Transylvania included the 37 and 38 Divisions, part of the 51 Division and also the 125 Brigade. The point is - when and how did appeared the 38 Division in the Transylvanian area -was it before or only after the armistice signing by Austro-Hungary?

21 inf, I don't find this, even in Mardarescu memories. In the first stages of Romanian offensive in April 1919, Romanian HQ planed to advance in centre, and to push slowly and fixed the Szekely Division, who was in northern part of Romanian front. The job was done by gen Olteanu's detachament. Later, when the tactic situation required (after occupation of Satu Mare - Carei - Oradea line), Szekely division was pushed on front by general Olteanu, and later forced to surrender after it was almost encircled, with its retreat lines to Tisa intercepted by Romanian cavalry. Mardarescu's orders were not to avoid confrontation, were orders "to destroy or throw over Tisa" all enemy elements in that region