Romanian-Hungarian War 1918-1919

It is at local library, not bookstore, so I had no idea. You can borrow it, not buy it.

From my memory: under the agreements signed in 1867 (or shortly after), Hungary was responsible to provide 37% of the strength of the Austro-Hungarian army. It ended providing almost 50% of this army in World War One (that included the other conscripted nationalities serving under Austria or Hungary).
What "dead-cat" knows and did not mention is that the same person was in the same time Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, so his words "personal union between the emperor of austria and the king of hungary" do not give a clear idea of that situation.

This post has been edited by Florin on December 31, 2011 02:07 am

what else could "personal union" possibly mean other than uniting 2 or more titles in one person?

"personal union" maybe it's an euphemism for sex!

OK, I learned something with this occasion. Good for me !

It is interesting to note that there were "officers with patriotic feelings" even in those troubled times, during the dissolution of the empire, I mention here the Major General Szabó Zoltán, Capt. Stomm Marcel (and maybe others) who tried, in end-oktober 1918, to keep under control and ready to fight the 216th independent Honved Infantry Brigade deployed in the area Targu Secuiesc - pass Oituz. They blamed the Karolyi Mihaly government action to demobilize the troops, and the socialist agents who encouraged the soldiers to not obey orders anymore and to rebel and desert from their units. So that in November 1918 the whole brigade disintegrated. Stomm Marcel believes that the situation would have been quite different if the brigade had been maintained, it could stop the entering of the Romanian Army in Transylvania.

I doubt only 1 brigade could forbide the access of romanian army in Transylvania. Even if the brigade was well entrenched into a mountain pass, romanian army could just simly by-pass it.

I agree 21 inf,
Capt. Stomm Marcel conviction is indeed doubtful from several points of view:
1. I don't know the ethnic composition of the brigade troops, and even if it was mostly Hungarian (I seriously doubt it!), given that their own government (Karolyi) decrees demobilization it's hard to believe that a group of officers could maintain control and discipline over their troops;
2. the captain was later involved in organization and command of the Székely Division in December 1918, so in terms of failure to stop the Romanian army (as a leading officer of Székely Division), he may feel guilty and try to justify his actions!
3. from the military point of view his claim is, as you well say, not serious, as it is obvious that, with one brigade, he could defend all the passes in the Eastern Carpathians. As I said some time ago, in mid-December, the Székely Division had superiority in troops and armament in face of then existing Romanian troops in Transylvania, and yet not engaged in combat with them! From another point of view he may be right if he think at all the forces subordinated to the Siebenburg Group Command of Feldmarschall Goldbach which forces were deployed in East Transylvania in October 1918 : 1st (strengthened) Cavalry Division (6 infantry battalions, 6-7 cavalry divisions, 10 artillery batteries), 216th Honved Infantry Brigade (10 infantry battalions, 2 artillery batteries), 204th Infantry Regiment (4 infantry battalions) with about 14.000 troops and 82 artillery guns. But this is already an alternative history that is interesting to talk about, yet useless! Source of these informations: http://www.hhrf.org/kisebbsegkutatas/kk_20...cikk.php?id=246

Sorry Contras you're wrong! The line of the Mureş river was the demarcation line agreed by the representatives of the Entente and of Hungary in Belgrade, on November 13, 1918. This line was crossed by the Romanian Army in december 1919, move allowed by the Allied Command lead by the French general Franchet d'Espèrey. But the new line of the Western Carpathians was not officially settled by a document!

The problem is not as simple as you present it, Denes. I mean the moment when the conflict arises between Hungary and Romania was surely not when the romanian troops crossed the border on the Carpathian Mountains in mid-November 1918 simply because the line of demarcation imposed by the Western Powers to Hungary (Military convention of Belgrade 13 novermber 1918) was initially respected (the upper and middle course of the Mures river)! Then " the weakness of the leftist Hungarian Government who disbanded the Army" was in fact another condition imposed by the Western Powers by the Armistice Convention and also consequence of the actions of the socialists, very aware of the unpopularity of war among the population! But I agree with you when you say that "labelling of this conflict as "Anti-Bolshevik Campaign" is used to cover up the essence of the events" as it's obvious to me that this conflict was about Transylvania and not on ideology!

This post has been edited by aidan zea on October 07, 2012 07:55 pm

Actually the situation developed quickly. There was one reason to enter the war (Transylvania) but there were more reasons to end it (one of the reasons became "anti-Bolshevik" by ricochet).
The fact that Hungary was to become another Soviet state added more determination for Romanians to go up to Budapest and finish the Soviet regime. It was a real fear that Romania was to be squeezed between two Soviet states: Hungary and Ukraine. There were letters between Bela Kun and a Soviet leader (Christian Rakovski), and even Lenin, mentioning a possible joint strike against Romania ( source Florin Constantiniu "O istorie sincera a poporului roman", page 284-285,287).

And signed, from French part, by whom?

The problem with theory this is that the first Rumanian troops crossed the Hungarian border in the Eastern Carpathians before the armistice was signed at Belgrade. Probably news reached the Hungarian delegation, who presumably decided to save what could still be saved then signed the document. Thus, the moment the first Rumanian soldier crossed the border is the moment when the Rumanian-Hungarian conflict of 1918/1919 started.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on October 10, 2012 05:48 am

Correct. The "anti-bolshevik crusade" was a (welcomed) addition to the campaign that started in early November 1918.

Fact is, had the Hungarian government been a green, pacifist one, Rumanian troops would still advance further and further until they would occupy Budapest and throw out the government no matter what colour and orientation it was.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. The actual reason (i.e., territorial aim) of the conflict was not only the overtaking of the hole Transylvania, but the entire Banat , as well as the area West of the Western Carpathians, up to the River Tisza.

This post has been edited by Dénes on October 10, 2012 05:56 am

Denes, this is not a fact, this is more a speculation... If we stick to the facts, the chain of events was different. The Romanians already occupied the Banat and they were already on Tisza river (and not pushing further), they didn't need to go to Budapest to keep these territories.

According to Constantiniu, Bratianu explained that going to Budapest had a double motivation: security and prestige (in this order).

For security:
There were also Hungarian politicians that sustained, like Vazsonyi (ex prime minister) that: "... the only force capable to eradicate the Bolshevism in Central Europe is Romania. Only with your help, we can save our country and reestablish peace and order in the heart of Europe", in the same time they were calling for help (Florin Constantiniu --- O istorie sincera a poporului roman).
Moreover, it is not without significance the fact that Soviet troops crossed Dniestr on May 27 occupying Tighina in Besserabia while the decisive Romanian attack on Hungarian front on Tisza started on July 20 after an initial Hungarian offensive . The fear of getting caught between two Soviet states was real and was a serious reason not just a simple excuse to get to Budapest, especially in a context of communication between Bela Khun and Rakosvski and Lenin.

For prestige: we all know.

I think that people just got "stuck" on this idea of fighting for Transylvania and the extra-territories, oversimplifying as I said, a situation that was far more complex. As for "crusade", it is a bad word chosen, but the fact remains that the Romanian offensive overthrown the Bolshevik state in Hungary.