The Vienna Arbitration

[dragos]

It is worth mentioning here that on 23 March 1944, Hitler told Antonescu, asking him not to make public his declaration, that Germany no longer considered herself a signatory of the Vienna "Award".

[Florin]

QUOTE

Trianon oh well...sure.. a treaty imposed at gunpoint, just like the stealing of Bessarabia by the Soviets. I wonder what value it could have had in the eyes of the Hungarians  :roll:

Well, Denes answered to your question...

QUOTE

...the Hungarian majority in Northern Transylvania did accept it enthusiastically.

[Florin]

Hello, guys

The following is from my memory:

Hitler wanted to know for himself who is right in the Transylvanian matter, so he ordered a commission constituted from German historians, to search who is more entitled to have Transylvania: Romania or Hungary?

The conclusion of the German team: without doubt, Romania.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Regards,
Florin

PS: So why Hitler helped Hungary? Of course, politics. First of all, a reward for Hungary, for not being on the site of France and Great Britain before 1940. Also he was very pleased with the fact that with the border imposed in 1940 neither Hungary or Romania were happy, so he could keep them in balance and get their fidelity in exchange for future German help.

As far as I know, Hitler was well aware about the Romanian intention to attack Hungary once the war with Soviet Union would be ended with an Axis victory. Hitler had nothing against the idea. :wink:

PPS: Dragos is even more specific. Just read his mention about what Hitler told to Antonescu at March 23, 1944.

[Florin]

QUOTE

However, since our interest in history is more than a passing hobby and we try to do it seriously and in a professional manner, we should, at least try to regard history in an unbiased, neutral manner, relying on facts, not emotions.

On an average basis, I esteem you, Denes, for the polite way you write, for the informational background you have, for the intelligence you prove.
And everybody should agree with your statement quoted above.

QUOTE

Dragos, I fully understand your and other Rumanians' emotional approach to this sensitive topic. Believe me, the same topic is equally emotional to most Hungarians.

It is much more difficult to find 2 neighbors on the planet Earth who like each other, than 2 neighbors who have an apple of discord in between.
Here is the usefulness of a site like WorldWar2.ro - the chance to exchange ideas and to listen the other side.

But Denes, don't you think that when somebody reads a remark like...

QUOTE

QUOTE ....Romania was forced to sign it. Rumania was not forced to do so. It could have walked away.

...that person may feel that his or her intelligence is deeply underestimated?

What Romania could do?
To fight with Hungary and Germany in the same time? Maybe also, in addition, with Soviet Union and the puppet Slovakian state?

Just 3 months before, France faced a politically isolated Germany, and collapsed in 4 weeks. And France was not alone.
Just 4 months before, Holland, Belgium, Denmark collapsed in days against the same lonely Germany.
With Norway and Poland was somehow the same story, the only difference being the required time or some welcomed Russian help.
I remind you: Romania was supposed to fight with Germany and Hungary in the same time, and also maybe with Soviet Union, is she "walked away" from the Wienn round table.

Considering the Finnish story: they had just one enemy. The Swedish border was secure, and Sweden was sympathetic with Finland. And eventually Soviet Union got everything she wanted, with the exception of the puppet Finish Communists they could not install in Helsinki.

So do you know what do I think about...

QUOTE

Rumania was not forced to do so. It could have walked away.

...especially when it is combined with what you wrote in another post in this thread?

QUOTE

...the Vienna Arbitration ....awerted an imminent bloody war.

I feel that the same way we, the Romanians writing here, are sometimes ridiculous in our statements, the same way you are sometimes in yours.

Regards,
Florin

[dragos03]

Denes, there never was a Hungarian majority in Northern Transilvania, only in Harghita/Covasna.
I hope that when we will all enter the European Union, this issues will finally end.

Dragos

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

After changing the topic's title, I'm interested which countries recognized officially the Vienna Arbitration, except Romania, Hungary, Germany and Italy?

I'm not aware of any country officially protesting against it.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

QUOTE Trianon oh well...sure.. a treaty imposed at gunpoint, just like the stealing of Bessarabia by the Soviets. I wonder what value it could have had in the eyes of the Hungarians  :roll:   Well, Denes answered to your question... QUOTE ...the Hungarian majority in Northern Transylvania did accept it enthusiastically.

Does the Hungarian majority in Northern Transylvania constitute the Hungarian Nation to which the country belonged until then ?

Fundamentally the question is the following : does having a number of fellow countrymen living in a specific region of a neighbouring country gives you the morale right to take possession of that region by force of arms ?

Let's take a purely hypothetical example. Country A invites some citizens from country B to come to live in one of his regions. Along years more refugees from country B comes to live there and soon constitute a majority. Suddenly country B declares that it unifies with the region of country A, declares war and annexes that region.

Does this situation looks fair and just ?

Of course it's never good to over simplify complex situations but it does appear that, in hard facts if not in words, Trianon was no less a diktate for Hungary than Vienna or Bessarabia was for Romania. The whole bullshit happened apparently because large segment of populations were originally denied political rights. There lies a lesson: take care of the people in peace time, or pay the price during less happy days :roll:

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

It is worth mentioning here that on 23 March 1944, Hitler told Antonescu, asking him not  to make public his declaration, that Germany no longer considered herself a signatory of the Vienna \"Award\".

Generally speaking, I don't hold Mister Hitler's opinions in high regard. Almost every statement he made on international policy between 1933 & 1945 proved to be a disgusting pack of lies whose only goal was to provide the Fuhrer with short term political advantages. In those circumstances, that you manage to quote Hitler in order to provide an argument is simply astounding.

However I must admit that many people in the West come to hold the view that the Vienna Arbitration was a more fair solution to the problems in that part of the globe than what the allies came up with at Trianon. Perhaps that explains why there was no great outcry in the world at the news of the new treaty.

[Chandernagore]

Mmm. I think that I'm not going to make only friends here

Hey, what, there must be some advocates for the other side too, otherwise we don't have much of a debate ! 8)

[johnny_bi]

QUOTE

Generally speaking, I don't hold Mister Hitler's opinions in high regard.

But it is obvious that his opinion was in high regard THAT time.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

QUOTE Generally speaking, I don't hold Mister Hitler's opinions in high regard. But it is obvious that his opinion was in high regard THAT time.

Not after Poland. After Poland, people did'nt listen to what he said anymore, they only looked at the strength of his army :?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[johnny_bi]

A little bit off-topic but interesting article about unification of Transylvania with Hungary:
http://countrystudies.us/romania/12.htm

....

"The essential elements of the Transylvanian problems and of the evolution of European diplomacy until the Vienna Diktat of August 1940, have been familiar to students of European diplomacy and of Eastern European problems for some time now"
"It is also evident that after Munich and particularly after the First Vienna Diktat, which, on November 2, 1938, awarded southern Slovakia and southern Ruthenia to Hungary, neither Hitler nor Mussolini"
"It is in this context that the intervention of Russia, which took place during the five days preceding the Vienna Diktat, assume great significance."
"And it is undeniable that the Romanians and the Hungarians remain aware of Russia's interests in Transylvania forty years after the Vienna Diktat."
...

- all these from Corvinus library :wink:
http://www.net.hu/corvinus/lib/transy/transy16.htm

It seems that according to Corvinus library it was a Diktat that Awarded Hungary... It is pretty clear. There was no arbitration.

[mabadesc]

Chander replied to Dragos:

QUOTE

dragos wrote:   It is worth mentioning here that on 23 March 1944, Hitler told Antonescu, asking him not to make public his declaration, that Germany no longer considered herself a signatory of the Vienna \"Award\".   Generally speaking, I don't hold Mister Hitler's opinions in high regard. Almost every statement he made on international policy between 1933 & 1945 proved to be a disgusting pack of lies whose only goal was to provide the Fuhrer with short term political advantages. In those circumstances, that you manage to quote Hitler in order to provide an argument is simply astounding.

Considering the fact that Hitler (and Germany) was the main enforcer of the Vienna Arbitration, I think that Dragos has a valid point.
While it is true that Hitler's diplomacy was based on gaining short-term political advantages for himself, one could then say that the Vienna Arbitration was just as "valid" from this point of view as Hitler's statement of March 23, 1944.
The only difference is that the Vienna Arbitration has the benefit of having been written down on paper and signed.

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

The only difference is that the Vienna Arbitration has the benefit of having been written down on paper and signed.

But that doesn't prevent the Fuhrer from pretending to scrap it as soon as the winds of German interests blow in a new direction. Like he always did with treaties which lost their usefulness. I have a difficult time imagining that Antunescu in 44 still believed one word of what the Fuhrer could say. So why is it "worth" mentioning Hitler's latest joke, I don't understand.

[Florin]

QUOTE

QUOTE After changing the topic's title, I'm interested which countries recognized officially the Vienna Arbitration, except Romania, Hungary, Germany and Italy? I'm not aware of any country officially protesting against it.

What about the United Kingdom? (Great Britain)
They went so far as to denounce the Vienna Treaty in all languages used by BBC for broadcast. :wink:

Florin