Romanian-Hungarian War 1918-1919

actually there was a peace signed in may 1918, which ended the participation of the Kingdom of Romania in WW1.

and yes, the military activities after the conclusion of WW1, are a regional war, which of course has the roots in the unresolved issues of WW1 (just as the russian civil war, which also has been only made possible by WW1, still it is not treated as part of WW1 but as a distinct military and political affair. or the civil war in Germany for that matter).

Yes, sure, it can be told, but then the Hungarian, or Russian version must also be told, which is usually exactly the opposite to the Rumanian version. Then what? How do we move forward?

Gen. Dénes

Of course, we move forward, but for this we must see the past, there is the reason of this forum. You don't answered the main question about the 1919 war:

That is the true, you can't extract the war between Romania and Hungary in 1919 from the motivations of ww1.

I'm sorry that you continue to support your theory despite evidence, Denes. We recently concluded that not lack of the means or men was Budapest problem those days, but their unwillingness to fight another war, at least in late 1918! I remind you that not Romanian but Hungarian sources mention that in early to mid december 1918 the new raized 38. székely gyaloghadosztály /38. Szekler Infantry Division (former M.kir.38. honvéd gyaloghadosztály) disposed in Cluj area had more man and hardware than the romanian troops present at that time in central Transylvania. I obviously agree that in a possible fight with the romanian army, this unit would be left alone as no other major units were ready for battle on the Hungarian territory, but still... you can't blame Romania about Hungary's people unwillingness to fight for Transylvania in late 1918!

Guys, if you think that the Romanians / Hungarians / Russians etc. are over-nationalistic, you should see some Asians. Some of them reached the insanity level: deafness to any equidistant reasoning.

I'm sorry that you continue to support your theory despite evidence, Denes. We recently concluded that not lack of the means or men was Budapest problem those days, but their unwillingness to fight another war, at least in late 1918!

We are actually saying the same thing.
It was I who said that war fatigue (initially) hindered Hungarian soldiers returning from the front zones to pick up arms again and fight the Rumanians. Only locally raised units, acting independently, showed some resistance. Later, it was the pacifist government of Budapest, which did not allow any organised armed resistance, and rather signed some more armistices. And so on.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 14, 2012 06:21 am

Which one was that?

Of Count Mihály Károlyi.

Gen. Dénes

... which lasted 15 days! So much for pacifism...

... which lasted 15 days! So much for pacifism...

Where did you take this from?

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 14, 2012 06:59 pm

But of course, wikipedia!!!! Why would you even ask?
I'm talking about the govern led by "Count of Carei" (aka Karolyi), which lasted from 1 to 16 Nov. 1918, not the entire period of his "presidency", which lasted until 21.03.1919...
Do you agree with these data?
Wiki Karolyi Gov't
Later Edit: at the Romanian language users of the forum: What is "Mâjă-deToamnă"?!?!?!?!
Karolyi Mâja

This post has been edited by MMM on November 14, 2012 07:23 pm

The left-leaning, pacifist Count Karolyi handed over power to Komissar Bela Kun at the end of March 1919. As usual, I would not go after what Wikipedia states.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 14, 2012 07:29 pm

This "pacifist" Karoly says he gives the power to proletars (workers), to Bolsheviks. He gives power to those who claimed that the Revolution must go on, to the ones who proclaimed the ever revolution and war until the Bolshevik revolution will prevail.

Why are you using quotation marks? Karolyi was indeed a pacifist with leftist views.

There was no alternative political party to hand power over to when the Allies (French) came with yet another dictate, which Karolyi could not take any more. Also, Bela Kun was ready to fight to restore territorial integrity of the country what Karolyi was unvilling to do (as I said, he was pacifist). Horthy was not yet ready to enter into the political scene.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on November 15, 2012 06:44 am

Please elaborate... Which "another"?