Causes of the Liberation and National Reunion War (1916-19)

[dragos]

The hard life and condition of Romanians in Transylvania before 1919 is not a myth. :nope:

[Najroda]

QUOTE

The hard life and condition of Romanians in Transylvania before 1919 is not a myth.  :nope:

Neither is the hard life condition of Hungarians in Transylvania after WW I. The question is whether we are willing to consider both situations, or if we are only interested in one side of the story and simply dismiss the other. The latter is no doubt the easy way, which unfortunately the majority of both Hungarians and Romanians choose.

[dragos]

QUOTE

The question is whether we are willing to consider both situations, or if we are only interested in one side of the story and simply dismiss the other.

The situations are different.

Until 1918, Romanians in Transylvania were regarded as "tolerated", and were deprived of the most elementary rights (from property to religion).

The Romanian Constitution of 1923 (extending the one of 1866), considered one of the most liberal in Europe, granted all Romanian citizens equal rights, no matter their ethnic origin, regarding law, education, property and freedom of association.

The question now is whether we are willing to accept the truth or an imaginary situation in order to maintain a false balance.

[dead-cat]

QUOTE

The Romanian Constitution of 1923 (extending the one of 1866), considered one of the most liberal in Europe, granted all Romanian citizens equal rights, no matter their ethnic origin, regarding law, education, property and freedom of association.

while this is true, promises to minorities, particulary to the german minority, which was actually in favour of the union, were not held.
so, the most liberal constitution isn't worth much, if it's not enforced.

and i'm not even talking about the hungarian minority.

[Victor]

QUOTE

while intresting to know, i fail to see how the post-1918 lifestyle fits in this particular question.

It seems we were addressing different issues.

I was addressing Najroda's idea about the fact the Romanians had a better situation before the war when they were led from Budapest than they would have had if they were led from Bucharest and only nationalism caused them to want something else. The fact that they had more rights and that the vast majority received land after WWI from the Romanian state shows that being ruled from Bucharest was not that bad.

Anyway you proved that Najroda's claim:

QUOTE

The same applied to a much lesser extent to Serbs and Romanians in A-H. They too had a considerably higher standard of living than their brethren in their respective homelands

is wrong. Having a GDP 1.18 times more than their co-nationals in Serbia was not considerably higher for the Serbs in Bosnia for example.

[Victor]

QUOTE

It's indeed not only about GDP, but also about social and educational factors. For example the illiteracy rate in Serbia and Romania at the turn of the century was higher than among Serbs, resp. Romanians in Hungary. More books in the Serb and Romanian language were printed in Hungary than in Serbia and Romania themselves, etc.

If this is true it was by no chance made by the Hungarian state, but by the Romanian community and Greek Catholic Church, which financed its own primary schools. After WWI, the Romanian state financed 562 Hungarian schools, high-schools, professional schools and theological schools.

QUOTE

Administrationon the local and regional level were mostly in the minority language, where minorities formed the majority of the population (imagine that in Mures, Harghita and Covasna today!).

I highly doubt that, since most of the Hungarian bureaucrats that were rehired in the local administration after the war did not know Romanian. Also, the voting for Romanian candidates was not that easy as you may think.

[Najroda]

QUOTE

The situations are different. Until 1918, Romanians in Transylvania were regarded as \"tolerated\",

No difference so far. Romania anno 2004 still identifies itself as a "unitary nation state" which implies that nationalities other than Romanian are tolerated, at best. See the failed attempts of the Transylvanian Hungarians' to achieve some form of self-determination or self-government.

QUOTE

and were deprived of the most elementary rights (from property to religion).

Can you be more specific? My greatgrandparents, orthodox Romanians owned a home in Gyula, and my ggrandfather owned his own business. I don't see what religious or property rights they were lacking...

QUOTE

The Romanian Constitution of 1923 (extending the one of 1866), considered one of the most liberal in Europe, granted all Romanian citizens equal rights, no matter their ethnic origin, regarding law, education, property and freedom of association.

So did the Hungarian constitution.

QUOTE

The question now is whether we are willing to accept the truth or an imaginary situation in order to maintain a false balance.

If you consider what you have come to believe "the truth" and dismiss everything else as "imaginary" there is not much of a point in discussing anything.

The purpose of this discussion should not be convinving eachother, I don't expect the end result to be that you agree with me, or I with you. Instead a everuone should be able to present facts, opinions and conclusions, that others on their turn may challenge. But you don't even try to convince me with sound arguments. It's worse than that: you expect me to believe a priori your version of "the truth"? On what grounds, may I ask?

[Najroda]

QUOTE

If this is true it was by no chance made by the Hungarian state, but by the Romanian community and Greek Catholic Church, which financed its own primary schools. After WWI, the Romanian state financed 562 Hungarian schools, high-schools, professional schools and theological schools.

Of course. my point was not that the state provided for these. It is correct that the intelectual life of the Romanians in Hungary depended on private inititiative, which in turn is dependent on their socio-economic strength.

QUOTE

QUOTE Administrationon the local and regional level were mostly in the minority language, where minorities formed the majority of the population (imagine that in Mures, Harghita and Covasna today!). I highly doubt that, since most of the Hungarian bureaucrats that were rehired in the local administration after the war did not know Romanian. Also, the voting for Romanian candidates was not that easy as you may think.

My statement isn't untrue because the grammatical opposite is untrue I said that the local administration in most majority Romanian regions was in Romanian, though not exclusively Romanian of course. And there were many regions and especially cities (including all provincial capitals that were dominated by Hungarians, Germans and Jews) that had no Romanian majority. Obviously for most Hungarian officials in these places there was not much of a point in learning Romanian.

[dragos]

QUOTE

No difference so far. Romania anno 2004 still identifies itself as a \"unitary nation state\" which implies that nationalities other than Romanian are tolerated, at best. See the failed attempts of the Transylvanian Hungarians' to achieve some form of self-determination or self-government.

This is ridiculous. How many european states did not consider themselves "unitary nations" after the First World War ? This is not an argument to prove that the situation of minorities in post-war Romania was the same with the one of Romanians in Transylvania before WW1.

QUOTE

Can you be more specific? My greatgrandparents, orthodox Romanians owned a home in Gyula, and my ggrandfather owned his own business. I don't see what religious or property rights they were lacking... QUOTE The Romanian Constitution of 1923 (extending the one of 1866), considered one of the most liberal in Europe, granted all Romanian citizens equal rights, no matter their ethnic origin, regarding law, education, property and freedom of association. So did the Hungarian constitution.

Have you ever heard of the Diet ? It was the organism which emitted laws in Transylvania. It was formed of Hungarians, Germans and Szecklers. No Romanians. In a territory where Romanians were majority of population. Romanian peasants in Transylvania did not have land. They were not allowed to build stone churches. Does this sound like the situation of minorities in Romania ?

QUOTE

The purpose of this discussion should not be convinving eachother, I don't expect the end result to be that you agree with me, or I with you. Instead a everuone should be able to present facts, opinions and conclusions, that others on their turn may challenge. But you don't even try to convince me with sound arguments. It's worse than that: you expect me to believe a priori your version of \"the truth\"? On what grounds, may I ask?

I'm not trying to convince you, instead I'm trying to make the readers of this thread to understand the situation of that times, and with facts. Till now you seem to be lacking facts, and instead you copy each of my arguments and try to make them work in the same way.

[petru]

1.I don’t think GDP is a good indicator for the living standard of those times. It didn’t matter how high your GDP is if the money is distributed among the members belonging to the preferred nations.

2.It is the first that I hear that Romanian is used in local administration. I always had the impression that it was used Hungarian, and in general Romanians had a hard time understanding it. In general if the Romanians had a petition, they were going to someone able to translate it.

3.Regarding the religious depravation, it should be known that several orthodox churches were destroyed. Because icons were burned, and painting a new one on wood required a special treatment of the wood, Romanians started to paint on glass. This is why the icons painted on glass developed in Transylvania. Probably on the eve of WWI the religious beliefs of the Romanians were tolerated, but my impression is that they had no real freedom.

[dragos]

"Tot ce a promis Titanul maghiarilor, Kossuth, prin constitutia ungara, prin proclamatiunile sale de la 1848 pana la 1861, prin conventiunile sale incheiate cu Cuza-Voda a devenit minciuna. Tot asa este si cu legea nationalitatilor. Limba romaneasca este isgonita din parlament, din comitat, din comuna, chiar din scoala, si romanului chiar numele, fara voie, i se maghiarizeaza. Nici o scoala romaneasca nu se ridica sau se intretine din fondurile statului, cand romanii contribuie toti si deopotriva cu toate celelalte nationalitati la fondarea si intretinerea tuturor asezamintelor de instructiuni ale maghiarilor, de la scoalele de stat, pana la universitati. Notarii de sate trebuie sa stie ungureste si sunt pedepsiti prin destituiri oricare intrebuinteaza limba romaneasc, chiar in desemnarea numelor de botez si de familie. Pe toata intinderea Ungariei si a Transilvaniei, chiar in localitatile locuite exclusiv de romani, nu este permis nici chiar spre indicarea drumului o inscriptiune, un aviz in limba romaneasca. Vai de conductorul postal, vai de conductorul caii ferate care ar cuteza sa se adreseze cuiva in limba romaneasca. In administratie, in justitie, petitiunile, dar chiar interogatoriul si inca mai putin pledarile nu sunt permise decat in limba ungara.
Maghiarismul a strabatut pana si in afacerile confesionale. In multe locuri deja este impus ca matricolele de nastere, de botez, de cununie sa se faca in limba maghiara. Si ca mijloc mai energic de maghiarizare, s-a infiintat pe toata intinderea Transilvaniei si a Banatului asa numite societati de cultura ungureasca, a caror menire este ca, cu orice pret, cu orice mijloc, fie chiar barbar sau coruptor, sa faca pe romani sa-si lepede nationalitatea si sa devina maghiar. (...)"

Mihail Kogalniceanu - Sedinta Camerei Deputatilor din 11 februarie 1886.

"Everything that Kossuth, the Titan of the Magyars, has promissed by his proclamations from 1848 to 1861, by his conventions signed with Cuza-Voda, is a lie. The same goes for the law of nationalities. Romanian language is banned from the parliament, from county, from village, even from school, and even the name of the Romanian is magyarized, contrary to his will. Not one Romanian school is erected or maintained by the state, when all Romanians contribute together with the other nationalities for founding and maintaining of all educational buildings of Magyars, from schools to universities. In villages notaries must know Hungarian language and are punished by dismissal when they use Romanian language, even when they state Romanian names or first names. In all Hungary and Transylvania, even in the localties with 100% Romanians, no road sign or stone is allowed in Romanian language. Poor postal worker or railroad mechanic that address somebody in Romanian ! In public administration, in court of laws, the petitions, the interogatory and pledging are allowed only in Hungarian language.
The Magyarism has infiltrated even in religious business. In many place it is already imposed that documents of birth, christening, wedding to be written in Magyar. And as a powerful mean of Magyarization, all around Transylvania and Banat were formed so called societies of Hungarian culture, whose goal, by every possible mean, even corrupt or barbaric, are to force Romanians to surrender their nationality and become Hungarian. (...)"

[Najroda]

QUOTE

QUOTE No difference so far. Romania anno 2004 still identifies itself as a \"unitary nation state\" which implies that nationalities other than Romanian are tolerated, at best. See the failed attempts of the Transylvanian Hungarians' to achieve some form of self-determination or self-government. This is ridiculous. How many european states did not consider themselves "unitary nations" after the First World War ? This is not an argument to prove that the situation of minorities in post-war Romania was the same with the one of Romanians in Transylvania before WW1.

I don't have to. You claimed that the situations are "uncomparable".

QUOTE

QUOTE Can you be more specific? My greatgrandparents, orthodox Romanians owned a home in Gyula, and my ggrandfather owned his own business. I don't see what religious or property rights they were lacking... QUOTE The Romanian Constitution of 1923 (extending the one of 1866), considered one of the most liberal in Europe, granted all Romanian citizens equal rights, no matter their ethnic origin, regarding law, education, property and freedom of association. So did the Hungarian constitution. Have you ever heard of the Diet ? It was the organism which emitted laws in Transylvania. It was formed of Hungarians, Germans and Szecklers. No Romanians. In a territory where Romanians were majority of population. Romanian peasants in Transylvania did not have land. They were not allowed to build stone churches. Does this sound like the situation of minorities in Romania ?

This was certainly not the case between 1867 and 1918. The things you speak of were true a few centuries ealrier. But in the second half of the 19th century Romanians did have land (before 1867 even under more favourable conditions that the Hungarians, as the Austrian rule discriminated against Hungarians, many reformed and catholic Hungarains even converted to orthodoxy in that period only be eligible for loans by Romanian banks to be able to buy land...), they did have their own schools, churches etc., and not only ones from wood...

QUOTE

QUOTE The purpose of this discussion should not be convinving eachother, I don't expect the end result to be that you agree with me, or I with you. Instead a everuone should be able to present facts, opinions and conclusions, that others on their turn may challenge. But you don't even try to convince me with sound arguments. It's worse than that: you expect me to believe a priori your version of \"the truth\"? On what grounds, may I ask? I'm not trying to convince you, instead I'm trying to make the readers of this thread to understand the situation of that times, and with facts. Till now you seem to be lacking facts, and instead you copy each of my arguments and try to make them work in the same way.

What do you think, is the difference between "making understand" and convincing?

Am I lacking facts or is it just that you don't like them?

I think I stop here because I don't want to give you an excuse to close this topic

[Najroda]

Petru,

ad 1: that's why I spoke about the specific situation of Transylvanian Romanians, not Transylvania in general

ad 2: Sure, when they handed a petition to the central governent in Budapest. What else would you expect? However, on the local level, the Hungarian administration was extremely tollerant and for a large part conducted in the language of the local nationalities. It could not have been else, because the vast majority of the nationalities could not speak or even understand Hungarian at all. The learning of the Hungarian language in minority schools only became compulsory in the late 19th century (apponyi's education law).

For example of the 1910 population of Maros Torda county, 57,4% were Hungarian, 36,2% Romanian and 4,0% German. Of all non-Hungarians only 34,1% could speak Hungarian... It was even more extreme in counties where the nationalities formed the absolute majority, like in Fogaras county, where 88,7% of the population were Romanians vs. 6,7% Hungarian. There only 4,5% of the Romanians were able to speak Hungarian...

ad 3: Actually, Transylvania was the first place in post-reformation Europe where formal and actual religious freedom existed. perhaps the edict of Torda rings a bell?

Orthodox churches destroyed. By whom? And were they more or less than the number of catholic and protestant churches and other properties destroyed and/or confiscated and not returned to their rightfull owners to this day?

[Najroda]

Dragos, the factual value of the propagandistic pamphlet you just posted is about the same as any of bishop Tõkés' speeches. In both there are doubtlessly some truths, but their tone is so tendencious that they are of no use in any serious discussion.

Instead, try to stick to real facts from preferably impartial sources.

[Carol I]

I guess Corruption and Reform in Hungary by R.W. Seton-Watson would be a valuable source of contemporary information.

I have seen references to this work, but unfortunately I have not seen the book itself.