Romanian-Hungarian War 1918-1919

The conflict started earlier, in 15 August 1916.

Wrong. That was part of WW 1.
The 1918/1919 regional war started, as I said, in Nov. 1918.

Of course, there are connections between the two conflicts (like WW2 was greatly influenced by the outcome of WW1), but historically speaking these are two different events,

Gen. Dénes

Denes, in the law field if we analyze the existence or nonexistence of a crime we have to see if there is a causal connection which consists of the link between the deed and the result of it! If we transgress this in the discussed topic the deed (crossing the border in Transylvania) did not have an immediate result (a state of war with Hungary) since Hungary did not oppose militarily or politically to the Romanian "agression" until early 1919!

At the negotiations between the representatives of the Entente and of Hungary in Belgrade, on November 13, 1918, Romania was represented by her own delegation, or not?
Just a question from somebody learning from here.
One of the subjects of this meeting was the border between the fresh new Hungary and Romania reborn after occupation - border decided to be the Mureş River.
Obviously, a subject of concern for Romania as well.
* * *
One possible answer: Romania was member of the Entente Cordiale, so she was automatically represented by that delegation. I do not agree with this. I cannot recall any situation when the border of France, Great Britain, Italy or the United States was negotiated with that country not being aware of it, or not having delegates at that certain meeting.
The only situations when these kind of deals happened (thousands of years before 1918 and 90 years after) were arrangements between sides both hostile to the country supposed to lose from the deal - not her own allies.
(With 1 exception: Poland.)

This post has been edited by Florin on October 19, 2012 01:49 am

Where did you take this nonsense from? Of course, Hungary opposed the new situation created by the Rumanian troops crossing the border, but had no real means to oppose it. That's why Budapest had no choice but to sign armistice after armistice, losing more and more territory.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on October 19, 2012 05:09 pm

Florin, are you actually comparing Rumania with one of the great powers?
The fate of smaller countries was always decided by the big powers.

Coming to this particular example, why would the French delegation, representing the Allies, bother with fixing the demarcation line between Rumanian and Hungarian troops along the Mures River, had they not been delegated to doing so? At that point of time, the French were the masters of that region.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on October 19, 2012 05:22 pm

Unfortunately, you are right. I consider that any independent state should have equal rights like the other independent states, and I think you wish the same for Hungary as well. Both Romania and Hungary are "smaller countries".

Yes, correct, "At that point of time, the French were the masters of that region." But I understand very well and I agree with that Romanian generation (my grand-grandparents) that they did not accept something pushed over their heads.
I understand also why that Hungarian generation (your grand-grandparents) tried to stand and fight for something they considered their own right. Let's face it: the strongest prevailed. The Hungarian nation tried to defend her goal in late 1918 - middle 1919, and the finality was another lost war.

This post has been edited by Florin on October 19, 2012 06:03 pm

Maybe in early november 1918 they didn't but in mid december they had! Why didn't they?
Remember this: http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...indpost&p=74166 ?

[/QUOTE]Wrong. That was part of WW 1.
The 1918/1919 regional war started, as I said, in Nov. 1918.[QUOTE]

Motivations for Romanians were the same in August 1916 and in November 1918. For Romania was the same war, if you look at studies, even on the inscripts on the graves you will find 1916 - 1919.

Yet internationally WW1 is considered to have ended at 11.11.1918...
The "armistice" signed then meant "game over" on the Western Front, although things were far from over onthe other fronts; for example, the Russian Civil War lasted until 1920.
Oh, one more thing: during the first phase of the communist regime the 1919 conflict wasn't that "popular"; only in the 80's, when Ceauşescu felt that a little national-communism would be as good as food and heating for the people, did the conflict receive media coverage.

You can extend this to the more than 3 years of fighting against Red Army.
When I was in primary school and high school, our membership in Axis was regarded as a kind of shame that deserved only a half of page in the history manual.
In the late 1980's, when Gorbachev's policies set Soviet Union and Romania on divergent trajectories, suddenly more attention was paid to the "shameful" period.
Last time when I had history as teaching subject was in university, in the 3rd year. It was a satellite discipline, as I was trained to become electrical engineer. I went to the inter-universities history contest (they called it Olympics). I think the subject was about this 1941-1944 period, but the problem was that I did not bother to look into the history teaching manual to align myself with the official politics!

This post has been edited by Florin on October 28, 2012 04:48 am

Motivations for Romanians were the same in August 1916 and in November 1918. For Romania was the same war, if you look at studies, even on the inscripts on the graves you will find 1916 - 1919.

Contras, you're mixing history with politics, facts with sentiments.
History is a precise matter, not a sentimental one, ruled by "motivation".

Second thing I keep emphasising here for years now: this is NOT a Rumanian forum, but an international one (hence the mandatory English language), where history is (should be) discussed from a general, neutral point of view and not one from the specific Rumanian (or other local) history and leaving aside various pro-something or anti-something sentiments, which ruin the clear vision.

Finally, hindsight is a no-no when discussion history.

These are a general errors made by many, not only you, by the way.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. This is why MMM is right: WW 1 did end on 11.11.1918, at 11:00. What armed conflicts happened after were regional wars.

This post has been edited by Dénes on October 28, 2012 07:17 am

Your point of view is correct, and I am glad that this forum is in English language, otherwise it would be a waste of energy.

Nevertheless, I noticed that other websites/forums started by Germans, Russians, Americans or British do not resist to the challenge to be 100 percent objective, and usually you can find some degree of bias, depending of who is the host.

Of course, I agree with you, Florin. But the tendency for such international historical forums should be to be neutral and as less biased as possible (even if it would not be 100%).

Gen. Dénes

Yes, Denes, it is an international forum, but if it is an international forum, the Romanian point of wiew must not be told?

Otherwise, even it is a regional war after ww1, you can't delete the begining, it started from some causes and motivations, you can't say after ww1 was finished, we restarted everything from the beginig. The causes were the same, and the peace was signed only after the end of this regional war.