1st December 1918, how it was made the union with Romania

I am sorry but I can't find any links from which you can download Hanak's book

Hy, Mina88, a few short questions, if you don't mind. What about Cehoslovakia, their territory was given to them as a reward their contribution in war, too? Or Poland.

This was a point at Arad negotiatons in 1919, between Oszkar Jaszy and Iuliu Maniu. Jaszy come with a plan to separate the two nations with a map of nationality blocks, but this was impossible, because were no territorial limits of separations, Romanians lived mainly in rural area, Hungarians in cities. This territorial separation was impossible, like it was the case later with ONU separation in Palestina in 1948, the two comunities were too interlinked.
Transylvania is like a whole, you cannot own only a part. The populations cannot be separated, that is the fact. The war started later in 1919, commies were at Budapest, Romanians win.

Maybe it is time for the Romanian historians to start writing about modern Croatia...
The one million Jews, Serbs, Gypsies and Muslims killed in four years while arrested would make a good start...

Florin, you know the rules. When you drift into warcrimes territory you have to provide sources for the claims or retract them. Furthermore you are blatantly off topic and unnecessarily aggressive.

Mina88 don't take this personally, but if you're goal is to stir up the spirits on the forum for your personal fun, the discussion will be cut short quickly.

I assure you that I am not some stupid guy who is trying to provocate anything:this is what I have found in a book called Men at arms Armies in the Balkans:
-on August 27th 1916 Romania declared war on Austro-Hungary in order to annex Hungarian Transylvania, defended by the Austro-Hungarian 1st army
-dismayed at the withdrawal of Bolshevik Russia from the war Romania ceased hostilities on 6 december 1917
- on 10 November 1918(only one day before German capitulation) Romania re-entered the war in time to joined the advance of the Arme de l)orient through the Western Balkans

So I wonder:
After the Treaty of Trianon Romania got Transylvania as a reward to their contribution in the Great war, but how did they contribute? their involvement lasted little more than a year and that period can't be described as succesful...
Their re-entrance in the war just day before it's ending clearly says that they didn't participate in breakthrough of Salonika front as others did (Serbs, British and French)
How is possible to give them whole Transylvania which had at the time 2,819,467 (54%) Romanians, 1,658,045 (31.7%) Hungarians and 550,964 (10.5%) Germans - 1910 census

It is a big minority of Hungarians and in my opinion it was a mistake to ignore their rights...

I think the fellow's agenda, level of expertise (Osprey's "Men at Arms" popular books?) and good faith are evident by now. For me that was obvious from the very beginning, considering the way he "asked" his "questions". You guys are just wasting your time.

Mina88, there were big tensions between Kingdom of Romania and AH empire well before WW1 because the bad treatment of romanians from Transylvania under hungarian administration. A certain visit of Franz Joseph was put at stake in 1880's or 1890's (I dont remember exactly, citing from memory) for this reason and the relations between this states were almost crumbling because of this. But the roots, the reasons of Transylvania being asked by romanians from Transylvania have to be searched in 1848/49 revolution in Hungary and Transylvania and this is a long and distinct discussion.

Refering stricly to WW1, the Great Powers didnt wanted to give Transylvania to Romania in 1919, even if they had a secret clause in the treaty they signed with Romania in 1916 (under extremelly big pressure from the part of Great Powers). (Anyway, AH empire wanted to give Romania Bessarabia from Russia, if Romania entered war on the side of AH - was that correct? ) The Treaty of Trianon was the follow-up of romanian entering in war with Hungary in 1919. You have to know that Great Powers stoped romanian army's advance in the middle of Transylvania and romanian army made her way in the rest of Transylvania and Hungary during late war in 1919. So, Transylvania was taken by the armed romanian force in order to protect the romanians from Transylvania. And the breakthru in Salonika front should happened in 1916 if Allies would respect their signed treaty with Romania

Another discussion would be the one "contras" forumist fellow hinted: what about the czechs, the slovaks, the ruthenians, the serbs, who broke from Hungary? And I would add as an apendix to your question about hungarian great minority: from the population Hungary had in AH empire in 1914, how many of them were hungarians and how many were romanians, croats, slovaks, saxons, ruthenians and others?

Another question: how could hungarians in 1848 to ask union of Transylvania with Hungary when then the romanians were more than 50% of the population, saxons almost 15% and only the rest were hungarians (1.250.000 romanians, 500.000 hungarians and szeklers, 200.000 saxons in 1848 in Transylvania)? Let me remind that Transylvania was during centuries an autonomous province and was not under Hungary's control. After 1700 Transylvania was an austrian province and it's Diet was composed from nobles under austrian control, even if most of them were hungarians, but this doesnt mean that Transylvania was part of Hungary (her herself just an austrian province). The 1000 years of Hungary's right upon Transylvania is just a mith for those who want to see it...

To conclude, maybe Imperialist was right: the one who has the power keeps the land...

Agarici, what if we let the guy speak ? Let him tell what he has to tell, not to say that we are just some "büdös oláh" or some "rettenetes móczok" unable to have a civilised discussion If the discussion goes to nowhere or to propaganda, we can stop it at any time...

I didn't want to provoke anyone..I wan't to be a good historian, I wan't to be able to understand political and cultural processes in Europe (especially in Southeastern part)

Since here in my university in Croatia nobody is interested in history of Romania (except me ) I don't see better way to understand Transylvanian question other than ask a romanian person to explain this to me...

Why do you think I am provoking you Agarici?this is forum I have every right to judge certain matter and ask question and debate without insulting anyone here...

Maybe it is time for the Romanian historians to start writing about modern Croatia...
The one million Jews, Serbs, Gypsies and Muslims killed in four years while arrested would make a good start...

Florin, you know the rules. When you drift into warcrimes territory you have to provide sources for the claims or retract them. Furthermore you are blatantly off topic and unnecessarily aggressive.

Mina88 don't take this personally, but if you're goal is to stir up the spirits on the forum for your personal fun, the discussion will be cut short quickly.

I assure you that I am not some stupid guy who is trying to provocate anything:this is what I have found in a book called Men at arms Armies in the Balkans:
-on August 27th 1916 Romania declared war on Austro-Hungary in order to annex Hungarian Transylvania, defended by the Austro-Hungarian 1st army
-dismayed at the withdrawal of Bolshevik Russia from the war Romania ceased hostilities on 6 december 1917
- on 10 November 1918(only one day before German capitulation) Romania re-entered the war in time to joined the advance of the Arme de l)orient through the Western Balkans

So I wonder:
After the Treaty of Trianon Romania got Transylvania as a reward to their contribution in the Great war, but how did they contribute? their involvement lasted little more than a year and that period can't be described as succesful...
Their re-entrance in the war just day before it's ending clearly says that they didn't participate in breakthrough of Salonika front as others did (Serbs, British and French)
How is possible to give them whole Transylvania which had at the time 2,819,467 (54%) Romanians, 1,658,045 (31.7%) Hungarians and 550,964 (10.5%) Germans - 1910 census

It is a big minority of Hungarians and in my opinion it was a mistake to ignore their rights...

I think the fellow's agenda, level of expertise (Osprey's "Men at Arms" popular books?) and good faith are evident by now. For me that was obvious from the very beginning, considering the way he "asked" his "questions". You guys are just wasting your time.

why don't you tell me your level of expertise?

If I have to compare Transylvanian question with something similar I have to say Istria. you had Hungarians we had Italians
after ww1 you got Transyilvania and after ww2 we got Istria because we were in the right moment at the right time...

I am not saying that this is a wrong thing I am just comparing two very similar things

Maybe it is time for the Romanian historians to start writing about modern Croatia...
The one million Jews, Serbs, Gypsies and Muslims killed in four years while arrested would make a good start...

Florin, you know the rules. When you drift into warcrimes territory you have to provide sources for the claims or retract them. Furthermore you are blatantly off topic and unnecessarily aggressive.

Mina88 don't take this personally, but if you're goal is to stir up the spirits on the forum for your personal fun, the discussion will be cut short quickly.

I assure you that I am not some stupid guy who is trying to provocate anything:this is what I have found in a book called Men at arms Armies in the Balkans:
-on August 27th 1916 Romania declared war on Austro-Hungary in order to annex Hungarian Transylvania, defended by the Austro-Hungarian 1st army
-dismayed at the withdrawal of Bolshevik Russia from the war Romania ceased hostilities on 6 december 1917
- on 10 November 1918(only one day before German capitulation) Romania re-entered the war in time to joined the advance of the Arme de l)orient through the Western Balkans

So I wonder:
After the Treaty of Trianon Romania got Transylvania as a reward to their contribution in the Great war, but how did they contribute? their involvement lasted little more than a year and that period can't be described as succesful...
Their re-entrance in the war just day before it's ending clearly says that they didn't participate in breakthrough of Salonika front as others did (Serbs, British and French)
How is possible to give them whole Transylvania which had at the time 2,819,467 (54%) Romanians, 1,658,045 (31.7%) Hungarians and 550,964 (10.5%) Germans - 1910 census

It is a big minority of Hungarians and in my opinion it was a mistake to ignore their rights...

I think the fellow's agenda, level of expertise (Osprey's "Men at Arms" popular books?) and good faith are evident by now. For me that was obvious from the very beginning, considering the way he "asked" his "questions". You guys are just wasting your time.

why don't you tell me your level of expertise?

It's not so much about the expertise as it is about the fact that, when you don't know something you ask, instead of making gross generalizations which might offend some people. That Transylvania that was "unfairlly taken" from Hungary had always had a Romanian majority, just to point out a capital fact about that, which you seem to ignore.

If some other members have the time and patience to tutor you, I have no objections to that, but I don't. On the other hand, from my point of view you are most welcome on the forum for discussing and clarifying things without clenching to unsubstantiated assumptions.

This post has been edited by Agarici on March 16, 2012 09:15 pm

So, Mina88, you are from Croatia if I understand well? Are you croatian, hungarian, serb or what? Just asking to try to understand your questions about Transylvania. Until now, they looked more a hungarian point of view...

Hy, Mina88, a few short questions, if you don't mind. What about Cehoslovakia, their territory was given to them as a reward their contribution in war, too? Or Poland.

This was a point at Arad negotiatons in 1919, between Oszkar Jaszy and Iuliu Maniu. Jaszy come with a plan to separate the two nations with a map of nationality blocks, but this was impossible, because were no territorial limits of separations, Romanians lived mainly in rural area, Hungarians in cities. This territorial separation was impossible, like it was the case later with ONU separation in Palestina in 1948, the two comunities were too interlinked.
Transylvania is like a whole, you cannot own only a part. The populations cannot be separated, that is the fact. The war started later in 1919, commies were at Budapest, Romanians win.

hey thanks for answering my question. I didn't know that there were direct negotiations about Transylvania..

I have to say I don't know czechoslovakian question after ww1, but I am going to do a research about their national movement during austro-hungarian rule..maybe I will be able to answer your question in two months or so

and agarici my apologies for not using proper words

Mina88, if you really want to understand about Transylvania, hungarians and romanians, my opinion is that you have to start with 1848 revolution in Hungary, Transylvania (both romanian and hungarian) as 1918 in Transylvania was the root of 1848, as it was also the 1867 Compromise between austrians and hungarians when AH empire was created. Also, you can take a glimpse to serbian 1848 revolutionary programe, czech and slovak and italian, as all of them fought on the side or against austrians and hungarians. 1918 fall of AH was only a delay of the result of what should happened in 1848.

Actually I am Montenegrin but I am living my whole life in Croatia. To be precise I am living in Pula (I know what it means in romanian ) which is a city located on Istrian peninsula
Well one of my favorite profesors in college was saying to me how in his opinion Transyilvania was unfairly given to Romania. I believe he said that because he spent 3 or 4 years studying in Hungary where I believe fell under influence of hungarian point of view...
I was always interested in History of southeastern Europe but unfortunately in my university there was no course on this region (a big error in my opinion) so during my free time (which was very short) I tried to learn more about SE Europe...Now I know something about Serbia,Montenegro but almost nothing about Romania and Bulgaria,so in order to understand better political processes between Hungaria and Romania I decided to ask my teacher who gave me that answer which was too harsh and I decided to ask you guys your opinion...

As soon as I get my degree I am going to read everything about Romanian history...I am going to learn romanian if I have to

Mina88, if you are really interested about those times in Transylvania, you have there some links, but only in Romanian, maybe you can translate with Google translation.

http://cristiannegrea.blogspot.com/2010/02...si-garzile.html

http://cristiannegrea.blogspot.com/2010/12...si-garzile.html

After you read that, maybe we can discuss about other problems. You will find there about negotiations, about all you are interested about this issue. Thank you and keep in touch.