Well made film, When you have gun control....

You are right, Denes, it was Tara Ungureasca.

The whole of Dobruja used to be part of Bulgaria until 1877, not just the Cadrilater.

As for "Aromanian"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aromanians This is very interesting and enlightening reading, especially the etymology of the name "Aromanian". Remember the other thread about "Rumelia" as the "Land of Romans"? This ties in quite neatly.

Radu

Now, the main question is: how far this "Tara Ungureasca" span, in view of the 1918 December events (taking into consideration that Rumania's current Western borders were arbitrarily traced by the Entente Powers at the Trianon Peace Treaty of 1920)?

This post has been edited by Dénes on March 05, 2011 07:56 pm

I personally dont know what Tara Ungureasca use to mean. The western border of Romania was drawn in 1920 by Allies in conection with the railway which crossed the Crisana Plain from north to south and in Banat giving to serbians 1/3 of Banat. Romanians asked for more than that but were not given.

I also don't have a reliable confirmation on how large "Tara Ungureasca" actually was. I checked Enciclopedia României, but found nothing.

Perhaps this title by the renowned historian Nicolae Iorga could shed a light on the issue: 'Neamul romanesc in Ardeal si Tara Ungureasca la 1906'. Has anyone read it?

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on March 05, 2011 08:03 pm

Fortunately for us never! Bulgaria does not exist as a state before 1878, only as an ottoman province (and even this province did not include the entire future bulgarian country, only the eastern part with Dobrogea included). I mentioned this in order to discourage the stupid ideas of some Bulgarian revisionists which even today claim Dobrogea as old bulgarian land (no matter how embarrassing it sounds )

According to the book "Granita de vest" ("The western border") written by Stefan Manciulea and published by Tipografia Seminarului Teologic Greco-catolic, Blaj, 1936, the name "Tara Ungureasca" was given to the territory known in the Middle Ages as "Partium". There are no further details on territorial delimitation of this land but we can get an idea about how large it was.

It is true that Dobrogea was never part of Bulgaria. Before 1877 Bulgaria didnt even existed, it was just a otoman province. This kind of affirmation that Dobrogea was part of Bulgaria until 1877 show a "great" knowledge of era's history and is unusefull and damaging. Today, the bulgarians are teached at school that russians freed them from turks in 1878. The romanian contribution to liberate nowadays Bulgaria is never remarked and if one tells this to a bulgarian, it is very probably to be look very unfriendly and with suspicion. For bulgarians, only the russians fought in 1877-1878 in Bulgaria. The Tutrakan (Turtucaia) battle from 1916 is praised by bulgarians as "Tutrakan Epopeea", being considered one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) bulgarian military victory ever achieved. Bulgarians regard Cadrilater as valuable for them as romanians consider Transylvania, just to have a image how they look at the issue.

Bulgarian propaganda, even today, it is beating the drum that Dobrogea used to belong to Bulgaria. Dobrogea was bulgarian as much as Cadrilater was romanian, but try to explain this to square wooden heads of nationalists, being they bulgarian or romanian.

Partium (literally, Parts), is still used today by Hungarians, denoting only the area up to the Western Carpathian Mountains in Rumania - thus not part of Transylvania - which were formerly part of the Hungarian Kingdom. However, this term, as it is used today, exists only from 1920 on, when Rumania's Western borders were drawn at Trianon, by the winning Powers.

However, historically Partium covered a much larger area, as shown in beige in the map below:



In 1920, this area was divided between Czechoslovakia, Rumania and Hungary.

I haven't heard before this term being used by the Rumanian historiography. Therefore, I am not convinced in 1918 "Tara Ungureasca" actually meant only historical Partium.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on March 06, 2011 10:41 am

Because I have not read the original version of the Leopold diploma (Diploma leopoldina) from 4 december 1691, who functioned as a constitution for the habsburgic contolled Transylvania, I can't say for sure if what I read is text quote or not :
the Western Territories "Partium" are included in Transylvania, so Maramures, Satu Mare, Crasna, Solnocul de Mijloc, Bihorul, Zarandul, Aradul with parts of Ugocea, Szabolcs, Hajdu, Bekes, Cenad are now parts of the Principality of Transylvania. The territories liberated from the Turks from Banat (Caransebes, Lugoj, Orsova) are also included in Transylvania at that time. What I wanted to emphasize was that, apparently, the name Partium for the western territories of Transylvania was known and used (I repeat and say "apparently"!). Maybe 21inf can help us?

Another wikipedia-inspired piece of science?

That's hopeless!

C, back to the topic (hopefully): even if initially I was against such a perspective, I must admit that the way you put it has an appealing logic. Of course it could had led to (more) violence, but on the one hand in this case the violent acts took place nevertheless (but unilaterally, perpetrated by the Hungarians against the Romanian civilians), and on the other the it is hard to imagine a war-related situation (as the whole cession of NW Transylvania under the threat of force was) without violence.

I must admit that I never before gave a chance to this type of "militia-type" (in the sense of the American Independence War) resistance, but the truth is that it could had been a strong anti-violence deterrent, AND it would had made possible a more appropriate (from the perspective of the majority of the Romanian citizens) stance for Romania than that taken by its then-government. Remember that the rank and files in the army, the majority of the officer corps, and the public opinion were overwhelmingly pro-resistance in August-September 1940, as mentioned by the (secret) official reports.

The existence/tradition of a weaponry practice among the civilian population could had also radically improve their performance as conscripts and their proficiency in a war, especially in a defensive one, as clearly seen in the case of Finland in the Winter War.

Any other opinions?

This post has been edited by Agarici on March 06, 2011 11:49 am

Agarici,
is indeed an interesting problem, that it's worth thinking at... With the risk of saying a dumb I remember the tactics used by the JNA (Jugoslav Federal Army) in his "withdrawal" (apparent withdrawal of course) from the serb-populated regions from Croatia and Bosnia... they withdrew a portion of heavy weapons, the officers and NCOs and a small part of the troops in Serbia, leaving in the barracks mostly of light weapons and ammunition taken immediately by the Serb local militias, in fact territorial troops already mobilized... Of course this happened in 1992 not in 1940! But the idea was interesting and I guess applicable in 1940... Of course with the assistance of High Military Command of our Army... What do you think?

Just because you do not like what it says, it does not mean that wikipedia is wrong. Look at the really, really, I mean really long list of books quoted as references in that Wikipedia article. Are they ALL wrong?
Another flaw in the "argument" of "Wikipedia deniers" is that anyone, including YOU, especially YOU, can write there, so if there is a mistake, any mistake, YOU have opportunity (if not the duty) to correct it. If YOU do not correct what YOU know is wrong, then YOU are just as (if not more) guilty for any mistakes there.
Radu

A slight difference exist, I think. While I am not aware for Romanian radio channels to use "bozgor" in their broadcasting, radio broadcasting from Hungary was using in 1939...1940 "budos olah" quite often. I agree with you that "stupid and incult people, easily influenced by daily politics, exist everywhere" on all sides, but when official radio channels lower themselves to this, it is actually like a slap over their face, not to their target.

Now I got into this, instead of staying in sidelines. As I got involved, I have another one:
There was a case of a pregnant Romanian woman being impelled through her uterus with a cart's pole by some Hungarians. It was mentioned in at least one Romanian book, and people may ask themselves if it was a true story. Not only it was real, but she happened to be the niece of Nazarica Balaneanu, who was the landlord of my grandparents and my mother when they were tenants in Zalau, Salaj county.

I am optimistic regarding a common peaceful future for all nations belonging to the European Union, but I do not see anything wrong in remembering and reminding real things happening in the past.

Also, even though this is sensitive and might be used as a pretext for self-inflaming by some, I would not equate the two offensive labels, even thought they are both irremediably disqualifying those using them.

For our non-Romanian (or Hungarian) speaking fellows from the forum, budos olah literally means “filthy (or stinky) Wallachian”. It was used largely in the state-sponsored Hungarian revisionist propaganda (brochures, leaflets, etc) during the interwar years. That was made on such a scale that it led to at least one official protest by the Romanian ambassador in Budapest to the Hungarian prime-minister Csaky. According to a (non Romanian) historian, in between-the-wars Hungary, the shop owners who would refuse to publicly display the map with “the crime from Trianon” or the (in)famous slogan “Nem, nem, soha!” (“No, no, never!” - with reference to the acceptance of the Hungarian post-1918 borders) were subjected to constant harassment by the police or by various “patriotical organizations”. Since those materials were regularly distributed - officially in Hungary and clandestinely in Transylvania - the common public (and private) use of such terms after the Diktat was not simply the deed of some “stupid and ignorant” people, and the violence & the abuses against the Romanian civilian did NOT appear out of the blue, or because some isolated civilian sniped on a Hungarian army column in the middle of the day, from the church tower. The anti-Romanian prejudices and hatred were build in time and systematically, from 1919 to 1940, by that type of propaganda, with the blessing (or rather under the guidance) of M. Horthy government. If someone would find discussing this part of pre-1940 Hungary official policy in any way inappropriate, I think this would rather be his problem.

Bozgor or boanghen have no strict literal sense, meaning “people without a country”. From what I know they are post WW 2 "creations", and were (and unfortunately are still used) in some less educated (or with less discernment) social environments. When I first heard about these terms, in secondary school, I didn't know what they mean either. From some of my Hungarian friends, I also heard that the terms were used in the military (with/among the conscripts). I never heard any source claiming that these insulting terms were officially or publicly used by the Romanian side in any sort of anti-Hungarian propaganda, ever. The comparison speaks for itself, and I will stop here with this subject.

This post has been edited by Agarici on March 06, 2011 03:37 pm