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

Hello everyone I am new on this forum and this is a very interesting topic. I would like to discuss it further with you. My opinion on Transylvania or Erdely is that this territory has been unfairly taken from the Hungarians and given to the Romania. I believe that the Entente powers said, in order to justify this act, is that giving the Erdely to the Romanians is a way of rewarding this state for its involvement in the WW1.

Hallo Mina88,
Your opinion it is based on what? Ethnical majority, historical right, sayings of some or others, books of certain authors? Detail your opinion!

My opinion is based historical right and ethnicity but more on historical right. I am studying history so I believe I've read quality books.

Peter Hanak History of Hungary
Darko Dukovski History of Central and Southeastern Europe in 19th and 20th Century?-this book is only available on croatian because this is a croatian historian

The romanian opinion of the rights of romanians toward Transylvania is also based in historical rights and majority of ethnicity of romanians in Transylvania. Another romanian opinion is based on natural right (see 1848/49 romanian revolution in Transylvania, the Proclamation from Blaj from 3/15 May 1848).

Romanians didnt asked in WW1 for the first time for Transylvania. The claim was made much earlier and was not made by romanians from Romania, but by romanians from Transylvania. In this fashion, please see the demands of Horea's Uprising from 1784 (there are hungarian sources - dr. Kosztin Arpad - that claims that romanians from Apuseni Mountains, the "motzes", "a mococ" in hungarian, asked even earlier than 1784 for Transylvania) and the 1848/49 romanian transylvanian revolution demands. WW1 for Transylvania was only the natural consequence of what happpened in 1848/49. If the Gtreat Powers didnt aknowledge Transylvania to romanians at the end of WW1, the romanians would enter anyway in WW1 for Transylvania.

This post has been edited by 21 inf on March 15, 2012 06:51 am

I am aware that Romanians from Transylvania wanted that part to become integral with their motherland but what about the Hungarians that lived in that region??nobody ask them anything....

Mina88, as you said you are studying history, would you agree to have a conversation based on arguments and evidence (documents)?

If one of romanian fellows from this forum would ask you in the same manner "what about the centuries when romanians were not legally recognised in Transylvania and were only tolerated by hungarian transylvanian laws?" the discussion would soon sink in an heated debate animated by hot spirits, more or less well intented...and no one will gain anything...

Please present your evidences and arguments for your opinions and at least speaking for myself, I promise to respect them, whatever they are. If you are really interested in romanian point of view in historiography, I'll try to help you with translations from romanian into english, from romanian documents from which period you desire (1784, 1848/49, 1918).

If you can point a link from were the book of Peter Hanak "History of Hungary" can be downloaded, it would be great! It can be in hungarian language if an english version is not available.

Mina88, what's your opinion about the book written by Pál Lendvai - Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat (2003). I refer to the book, please don't talk about the author, I know his biography!
I am also interested in the book you mentioned -Peter Hanak "History of Hungary", if there is an english version to download!

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...

This post has been edited by Florin on March 15, 2012 11:21 pm

Mina88, what's your opinion about the book written by Pál Lendvai - Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat (2003). I refer to the book, please don't talk about the author, I know his biography!
I am also interested in the book you mentioned -Peter Hanak "History of Hungary", if there is an english version to download!

I have never heard about this hungarian author that you mentioned

I will try to find out if there is a version I will try to provide you a link...

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...

Maybe it is time to start writing it..I would be proud if someone other than Croat can write a good book a bout croatian history

I know Darko Dukovski and guarantee you that he is a good author and objective historian, he didn't say that taking Transylvania from Hungary was a bad thing he just described the process...

what did you meant to say with these 1 000 000 deaths??

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.

None of the quality historical books I've read talks in terms like "territory unfairly taken".

As for historical right, the only right in history is might.

Hungarians held that territory for as long as they had the strength to do it. Their right to hold it was entirely based on their ability to hold it against any challenges. Whether the historical justifications they came up with were correct or not was not that relevant. Romanians had their own version of historical justifications for their claims but those justifications (whether right or wrong) didn't matter until Romanians had the power to overthrow the Hungarians' control.

Mina88, the document based discussion is still awaited, if you are so kind.

OK, I will not post again in this topic.

Regarding the sources: There is a new series of documentaries titled "Axis Collaborators” on the Military Channel. I know that these documentaries contain mistakes occasionally, but as a whole can be trusted. To make the matter very short, the whole episode dedicated to Croatian war criminals has shown things that (as proved there) made uncomfortable even their German allies. Toward the end it was mentioned that the Croatian leader of all these executioners ran to Argentina, where he lived a quiet and comfortable life. After 1990, he made the mistake to open his door to an Argentinian TV crew, so he suddenly became famous. There were international calls for trial, so Croatia asked for his extradition. Even though the guy was highly regarded in Croatia as a national hero (and that was after 1990), there was pressure from the Clinton administration to put him on trial, and president Franjo Tuđman was not indifferent regarding relations with the United States . During trial, he was so defiant (laughing several times during witness deposition), that the judge got upset. I forgot: did he get 20 years, or life in prison? After 10 years in prison, he fell ill and died in prison’s hospital. Today this guy, directly responsible for up to 700,000 people killed while arrested, under his direct orders, is buried in center of Zagreb, in the most honorable cemetery of the city, among real Croatian national heroes.
PS: I am confident all this matter is available in some books, too. I just don't know what are these books.

This post has been edited by Florin on March 16, 2012 07:51 pm

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...