Transylvania's choices in 1918, economic point of view

Mihnea posted this on the thread about December 1:

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...indpost&p=83810

What makes you think an independent Transylvania would have been economically feasible or that joining Romania was not so good choice?

p.s. I post this because the "December 1" thread was closed and I believe this discussion would have been off-topic there anyway.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on December 16, 2011 09:34 am

Transilvania had the same chance other now (in 1918) independent countries had, see Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. The organization, industry etc in Transilvania were developed like in the rest of the AH empire and in my opinion were superior to those in Romania that was devastated by a war that it fought on it's own territory. The industry before WWI was underdeveloped not to mention organization, even today in the old cities and villages from Transilvania you can see very clearly the influence of the occidental organization. Compared to the chaotic Muntenia and Moldova were the village is along the main road and the absence of a central square.

And Transilvania had everything a country needs: industry around it's main cites, fields for agriculture, natural resources and enough population. So I don't see why an independent Transilvania wouldn't have worked.

Well, that's the thing, is your opinion based on hard data?

The national wealth produced by Romanian industry went from 1.171 million Lei in 1912-1914 (Old Kingdom) to 1.837 million Lei in 1920-1922 (Great Romania).

Transylvania's mainly extractive industry was created by Austrian capital in order to supply the manufacturing centres in the West with mineral resources. So Transylanian economy was shaped by being part of a larger market, one that disappeared after 1918.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on December 16, 2011 11:28 am

Back in 1918 the only choice that romanians from Transylvania choosed was union with Romania. This the documents are saying. A lonely and inefective voice sustaining a Transylvania federalised in AH empire (nota bene: NOT in Hungary) was of bishop Vasile Mangra, who was extremelly powerfull rejected by romanians from Transylvania. About an indepedent Transylvania romanians didnt take it like a choice in 1918 and perhaps never. I believe that the idea that in 1918 romanians from Transilvania thought about independence is a suposition apeared in the minds of some modern historians. I am not aware of such an idea or scenario in 1918 or earlier.
LE: in 1918 economical factor and development better in Transylvania that in Romania had no influence regarding the decision of union with Romania. Romanian transylvanian politicians from 1918 were aware about the economical superiority of Transylvania upon Romania, but didnt take it into account when they decided to unite with Romania. The same thought the romanian masses from Transylvania. National aspirations prevailed overwhelming upon economical ones.

This post has been edited by 21 inf on December 16, 2011 11:40 am

Your "proof" is totally wrong, Imp. What you have shown is what Rumania could produce with the industry it gained following the annexation of Transylvania and the other regions to the pre-war "smaller Rumania".

You must compare apples to apples and so on. In this case, you have to find data on the industrial output of the regions in Transylvania, Banat and the "Hungarian Lands" while under the AH Monarchy, and compare those to the difference in the industrial figures between the so-called "smaller" and "greater" Rumania.

It would be interesting to see the actual results.

Gen. Dénes

Your "proof" is totally wrong, Imp. What you have shown is what Rumania could produce with the industry it gained following the annexation of Transylvania and the other regions to the pre-war "smaller Rumania".

You must compare apples to apples and so on. In this case, you have to find data on the industrial output of the regions in Transylvania, Banat and the "Hungarian Lands" while under the AH Monarchy, and compare those to the difference in the industrial figures between the so-called "smaller" and "greater" Rumania.

It would be interesting to see the actual results.

Gen. Dénes

The data I provided shows that the amount of industrial wealth that the new provinces added to Romania was not that great. Slightly above 50% of pre-union levels.

Number of industrial establishments with over 20 employees:

Old Kingdom - 1886 - 236
Transylvania - 1890 - 210

I'll try to find out more in-depth data on Transylvania but doing so is difficult because after T. became part of Hungary all economic data was tallied for the whole of Hungary, and was not province-specific.

The general picture I got after swifting through the material I had at my disposal is that Transylania was indeed better industrialized, but not by a huge amount.

@Imperialist: You are comparing pears and apples, the national wealth before and after a war that involved Romania 100% (percentage wise WWI is the hardest war for our country) so even if you would compare "Small" Romania pre and post war the result would show a very abrupt decline in wealth.

No I have no data I'm basing my statement on common sense and knowledge of the situation around those years. Arad had some important factories and the industry was not based solely on raw materials.

EDIT: You also have to compare % (reporting to poupaliton) not just numbers.

This post has been edited by mihnea on December 16, 2011 03:39 pm

I was not the one that made a table comparing national wealth by sector in 1912-1914 with national wealth by sector in 1920-1922, a bunch of economists did.

BTW, in the meantime I found another bit of crucial data that may seal the deal so to speak.

Here is the contribution to the country's industrial potential after the Union:

Old Kingdom - 41% of number of industrial companies, 55% of production value
Transylvania - 37% of number of companies, 27% of production value*

The difference to 100% consisted of Basarabia's and Bucovina's contribution.

*Istoria Economiei, Editura Economica, 2003, pg.215

This post has been edited by Imperialist on December 16, 2011 03:41 pm

At what date are those % and the investments made by the central government immediately after war gun manly in the part of the country affected more by the war and that is Muntenia.

Those economists were stupid to compare apples and pears.

But this only supports my statement that Transilvania was able to support itself if they would have been independent. But we all know that the decision from 1918 was manly emotional and was probably the wright one in the long term.

Transylvania most likely had a lead in the industrial sector throughout the second half of the 19th century but after the Old Kingdom gained independence it started to catch up fast.

The idea of Transylvania as an industrial power-house that joins a largely agrarian Old Kingdom turns out to be just another myth. At best both were similarly industrialized. And for both the main industry was the extractive one.

One important difference though was that having a smaller population meant that T. had a higher GDP per capita, hence better standards of living. Although one has to wonder - given the fact that most Romanians were living in rural areas, how much of that well being actually trickled down to them?

Transylvania most likely had a lead in the industrial sector throughout the second half of the 19th century but after the Old Kingdom gained independence it started to catch up fast.

The idea of Transylvania as an industrial power-house that joins a largely agrarian Old Kingdom turns out to be just another myth. At best both were similarly industrialized. And for both the main industry was the extractive one.

One important difference though was that having a smaller population meant that T. had a higher GDP per capita, hence better standards of living. Although one has to wonder - given the fact that most Romanians were living in rural areas, how much of that well being actually trickled down to them?

Mihnea, I see no comparison between apples and pears there.

I fully agree with Imperialist.

To be clearer this is what I consider stupid (I did not see the post with % when I made that statmen the posts are 8min apart):

The rise is obvious, bigger country, bigger economy. It' exactly like comparing apples and pears.

I fully agree with your statement, Transilvania was not anymore very far ahead in front of the "Old Kingdom" but still it's capabilities were not to be underestimated and further more it didn't needed Romania to survive in 1918. On the other hand the Romanian poulation of Transilvania was considered 2 rate and faced a series of disadvantages as well as discrimination. But I was referring to Transilvania as a hole not only the Romanians that lived there and they were obviously going to gain a lot from the unification.

I do not recall to read in the previous messages posted here that the agreements signed in France after WWI asked Romania to take over a part of the war reparation asked toward the Austro-Hungarian Empire, on the reasoning that by taking over a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Romania should be responsible with a part of the war reparation. Maybe my mind is biased as Romanian, but I think this was not fair from our Western Allies, considering how much the Romanian nation sacrificed during WWI.

If Transylvania would start as an independent state in 1918, would be very short lived (see Ukraine in the same period). One of the neighbors around would try to grab it (either Romania or Hungary), igniting a war with the other part. This also happened in the real world: the war between Romania and Hungary in 1919 happened of course because of Transylvania. The ideological differences (Communist vs. Capitalist) were less important at that moment.

This post has been edited by Florin on December 16, 2011 05:57 pm

C'mon, man!!!!! Somebody will get extremely offended!!!!
On topic, it is very much a comparison between apples and pears, because whereas (smaller) Romania was an independent country, Transylvania was not; thus, the "data" interpreted by the economists can be watched as irrelevant, or, at least, not very objective. One always tends to present the facts in a light that would favor his interpretation: "If the facts don't suit the conclusions, change the facts!"

This post has been edited by MMM on December 16, 2011 09:07 pm