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

Andreas and 21inf, you're drifting off topic. Please do not let your strong feelings prevail over facts related to the topic.
I could also start to write the list of attrocities, killings, tortures and so on done by Rumanian troops and paramilitary in Transylvania and beyond in 1918/1919, and believe me the list would be long. However, this is not the purpose here.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on December 21, 2011 08:54 am

It may sound stupid to you (the beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, as they say), but this is a fact. And, again, that person came to Kolozsvar as a representant, not as an individual. How many people did he represent? God knows. Same with the other identified Rumanian guy. And yet again, these were two Rumanians who actually spoke to the crowd. Many more were probably in the crowd. But again, I cannot give you mor precise details.
These are the facts and let's stick to them.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on December 21, 2011 08:59 am

Denes, dont take it very hard from me, but the presence of those 2 romanians at the hungarian meeting from Cluj means nothing. Even if they represented some numbers of romanians. Maybe they were there on their own. Who knows? And who cares about 2 guys when the will of milions was represented at Alba Iulia by more than 1.000 delegates? Since when the opinon of 2 men can counterbalance the will of much greater number? This kind of thinking it's odd. What would be your opinion if you'll find out that 2 hungarians spoke to the crowd at Alba Iulia?

About the atrocities, there is a separate discussion and is not the case here. Probably Andreas wanted to point that it's twisted that one can sustain that majority of romanians from Transylvania could think at a living in Hungary instead of Romania. But I cant speak on his name, maybe he'll tell us exactly what he wanted to say.

I do not want to shatter any illusions, but the Romanian Electoral Law does not permit proxy voting with such lists because of some obvious reasons...

Imagine someone walking into a polling station with a piece of paper saying "here are 1000 votes for Baian Trasescu". If he does not get lynched first, he will soon be arrested.

Radu

Radub, probably you shatter no ilusion as you probably speak of today romanian electoral law. We started the discussion here based on what existed in 1918.

Somehow related to the subject and as material for study for a comparison with 1st of December 1918 in Transylvania, here http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/czechs...declaration.htm is the declaration of independence of Cehoslovacia, which was given in ... Paris! (not even in the teritories declared independent!). This is not for going off-topic, but as a paranthesis.

You raise a very interesting point.
In your many books on the subject, did you find if there was a "Comisie Electorala"? Was there a "Regulament"? Who tallied the votes? Who supervised/authenticated the tally? What legal framework was applied?
Radu

Half of the discussions here is, unfortunately, off topic. To link the 1918 events with today’s Romanian Constitution - and the definition of referendum in the Constitution (!) - or to current day’s electoral legislation is simply absurd. Radub and Denes, you steered the discussion towards a dead-end by completely ignoring a simple and well-known fact - the universal suffrage is a post-WW 1 innovation in the majority of the states. And even so it is improperly called universal, since in many cases it was “universal” without including women. So, what are you talking about? We are discussing about a context still dominated by the censitary vote, in 1918 (at least in AH and Romania), and you claim that the 1 December event was not enough democratic and can’t be equated with a referendum because of the provisions of today’s Romanian Constitution! What’s the point of all that?? Since (according to 1910 AH census) the Romanians were largely majoritary in Transylvania, Banat and Partium, and by the “credential” system they were consulted before the gathering, sending their representatives there, the process is the equivalent of a referendum and more democratic than the usual electoral mechanisms of the day in those lands. Whether you like that or not (and your “neutral“ posts” make that thing obvious) is a completely different matter.

By the way, Radub, talking about proxy voting, why don’t you make a search on Wikipedia in order to see how the US president is elected, even nowadays?

Agarici, before you'd jump in this topic heads on, a few pieces of advice (valid for everyone, including myself):
1, read carefully (and not selectively) what has already been written. By doing so you will learn that the referendum (or ballot vote, whatever the legal term is) was in use in those years, in that area, to clarify the status of the disputed areas. See the case of Sopron (Oedenurg). What happened at Alba Iulia in Dec. 1918 was anything but a vote. Same with Kolozsvar (Cluj) later the month.
2, do not try to group people as you wish ('bisericute'). Everyone here is an individual, posting individually.
3, try to regard the issue without relying on your sentiments, but judging the facts as they were. History cannot be changed, only explained and debated.
4, stick to the topic, do not derail, so it would be somewhat controlled.
5, last and foremost, do not label people. Attack the messages, if you wish, not the people.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on December 21, 2011 03:20 pm

You raise a very interesting point.
In your many books on the subject, did you find if there was a "Comisie Electorala"? Was there a "Regulament"? Who tallied the votes? Who supervised/authenticated the tally? What legal framework was applied?
Radu

Who needed all of this, when doesnt want to recognise a power upon himself? Which slave asks the masterslave "Master, what regulations allows me to revolt against you?" (and this not emotional from me or biased, as one can label it ). See the declaration of independence of Cehoslovacia, which I posted at a link above. It is the same atitude. All nationalities from former AH empire wanted to be free on national basis and thought the same way. If one like more the romanian from Transylvania "legal" fight for national rights, one can read Teodor Păcăţian's book about all the ways romanians from Transylvania fought "legally" in XIXth century.

Radub, you might as well ask what was the legal frame which allowed the 1989 romanian revolutionaries to overthrow Ceausescu...

In the many books and documents that I readed (romanian, of course, to be no doubt what I readed mostly, as "biased" as a romanian history book can be when a romanian speaks about Transylvania, I wonder if the british historian Seton-Watson is as biased as romanians, as he suported the same ideas as romanians), the term used for what happened in Transylvania in late 1918 is "revolution", one can like it or not and I hope that one will not give the nowadays definition of a revolution.

I eagerly wait to see "unbiased" foreign documents, which are not speaking "halftruths", pointing the other sides point of view.

For now, almost nothing pushed the discussion forward on document basis, most posts drived to nowhere, were offtopics or "paranteze" responding to other "paranteze"

Of topic: @Denes, I see you edited your last message, your original post was: ”Agarici, before you'd jump in this topic like a bull” and then your original no.4 was ”last and foremost, do not label people.”. I must say: I had a good laugh!!! !!!

21 Inf,
But since this thread uses terms such as "referendum", "poll", "vote", all of which have distinct and clear legal definitions that are regulated by legislation, those are reasonable questions.

A "legal framework" is what gives a "poll" its validity.
Without "legal framework" to make it valid, a "vote" is nothing more than "opinion" and is not binding. It may feel good, but no one has to listen to it.

But as you said, this was more like a "revolution".
It definitely looks less and less like a "poll" and by now the whole idea of "referendum" went out of the question altogether.

Radu

So you have no problem with Charles I not consulting the population of Transylvania on whether it still wanted to be part of Hungary, but you expect the Romanians in Transylvania to act at the highest standards of democracy?

BTW, I don't think monarchy and referendums are incompatible. Example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_i...jor_referendums

Ok, I read carefully all what you wrote, and I want to make some remarks:
- about the impartiality of information sources - it was told (not directly but keeping this ideea) that Romanian documents are questionable, so when we quote from them, our claims are not covered by reality (our claims are questionable and biased), but then the question is : when are the documents authentic, impartial and unbiased? Because if we quote from foreign documents (other than Hungarian who are also questionable and biased) we are either ignored or accused of talking out of topic... To be no doubt, I mean exactly Denes proceed in this way! I do not attack him, I'm only reading his posts!
- about what I wanted to point out the example given (of Hungarian troops and militia atrocities in Arad district) was the lack of credibility of the statements related to the desire of nationalities (including Romans) to remain in the Hungarian State (in the borders of the former Transleithania). On the other hand, I have to say that there were many Hungarians who have demonstrated their honest and decent quality, even in those troubled times, who defended their romanian neighbors and friends, often becoming themselves victims of the criminals!
- about the legal situation concerning the validity of the "National Assembly of all Romanians from Transylvania, Banat and the Hungarian Country" from December 1, 1918, the romanian constitutional law recognizes the plebiscitary character of the decisions taken at Alba Iulia. The 1,228 delegates were mandated by the Romanians in the existing constituencies (five representatives for each constituency) with a precise mandate. So in terms of legitimacy, they stood high above the Members of Parliament in Budapest, and obviously other parliaments of that era! (the parliamentary system of Austro-Hungary is a problem that can be discussed separately). Furthermore the decisions taken in Alba Iulia were supported by the population, not only in Alba Iulia, but also in many other places in that period (f.i. some are recorded in the newspaper "Romanul" from Arad). Consequently the National Assembly from Alba Iulia had a legal character for only one point - that of union with Romania!

This post has been edited by ANDREAS on December 21, 2011 06:26 pm

Even if not very many documents were presented here, I think we are close to a conclusion soon

I think that was illustrative enough for who the man is. I rest my case with this one for now.