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

[Dénes]

Henri Berthelot was a well-known pro-Rumanian General, so his stance is hardly impartial.
Such general notes hold little historical value. If one truly wishes to investigate the topic, concrete events should be listed and checked by all involved sides' reports.
But this topic belongs to another, already existing thread.

[dragos]

So we should disregards all reports of the time, since all were consequently biased (be it Hungarian, Romanian or of other source) ?

[Dénes]

QUOTE

So we should disregards all reports of the time, since all were consequently biased (be it Hungarian, Romanian or of other source) ?

Of course not (and you know that well :? ). It's a senseless generalization.

However, since gen. Berthelot was fighting alongside the Rumanians for quite a while as head of the French military mission, playing a crucial part in reorganizing the Rumanian Army, he was hardly unbiased, wasn't he?

See, for example, the following book: 'Henri Mathias Berthelot:
General of France, Founder of Modern Romania 1861-1931'. Publisher: The Center for Romanian Studies (http://www.bookfinder.com/dir/i/Henri_Mathias_Berthelot-General_of_France,_Founder_of_Modern_Romania_1861-1931/9739432158)

[dragos03]

What i have to say is off-topic but i think it is interesting.
I live in Bucharest but i travelled a lot in Transilvania and i have many friends there. I also have Hungarian friends from Cluj and Sf. Gheorghe and they all told me that they went to Hungary to work and settle there but they came back because they were openly discriminated and considered "bastard Hungarians". Now they all say it's better here. They also told me that many young Hungarians from Transilvania did the same thing and returned.
So, if the Hungarians treat their own people so bad even today, how can some of you say that they didn't treat Romanians bad? Hungarians are one of the most nationalistic people in Europe, while Romanians are usually tolerant. I hope you agree on that.

[Dénes]

To Dragos 03: I use to live in Hungary for 4 years. Never, ever had any problems with the 'mainland' Hungarians. Not even once I was labeled 'bastard Hungarian', etc. And I didn't try to hide my Transylvanian roots at all, by the contrary.
True, I've heard of some Transylvanian-Hungarians being labeled various 'names', but that's not a general occurence.

If what you wrote: "Hungarians are one of the most nationalistic people in Europe..." is true, how come the Hungarians from Cluj/Kolozsvár and Sf.Gheorghe/Sepsiszentgyörgy are friends with you, a Rumanian? Apparently, you're contradicting yourself.

[Florin]

QUOTE

Dragos, considering your statement that the minority situations in Transylvania under Hungarian and Romanian rule are uncomparable, here is an impartial opinion (not Hungarian and not Romanian): ..................................... source: Michael Sozan, Hungarian Minorities and Minority Boundary Maintenance in Burgenland

The family name of Mr. Sozan sounds Hungarian to me. Even though he lives in Burgenland. So why did you write: "not Hungarian and not Romanian" ?

[Dénes]

Coming home, I checked a reliable source on Gen. Berthelot. Here's what I found:
Apparently, Gen. Berthelot was the Commander of the French 'Army of the Danube' from late 1918, Army created to help the Rumanian cause as well as the planned anti-Russian intervention (in the Ukraine, with the goal of capturing Odessa). It was the latter task for which he needed to secure the Rumanians' full co-operation, therefore he aided the Rumanian aspirations in Transylvania as much as he could. One such move was a decree issued by the "well-known Rumanophile" [underlines mine, D.B.] Gen. Berthelot on Dec. 12 - overstepping his mandate - unilaterally allowing the Rumanian Army to cross the Hungarian-Rumanian demarcation line, settled earlier within the Belgrade Convention of Nov. 13, 1918. He further encouraged the Rumanian Army to advance West as much as they can. He was (temporarily) stopped only by the firm order of Clemenceau, issued on Jan. 28, 1919.

[Florin]

QUOTE

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

But it seems the posts in the topic jumped from "...before 1919" to our times. Thanks to Najroda, we discussed again and again and again about our times. So here is my contribution to turn back the topic to "before 1919":

Georges Clemenceau, which became the prime minister of France during World War I, wrote in the French newspaper "La Justice" printed on 12 of May, 1894:

"The Romanian schools are maintained by personal subscription. In them the teaching must be made in the Hungarian language. The Romanians are deprived by any political rights. The Romanians from Hungary and Transylvania, numbering 3.5 millions, should have the right, proportionally, on 75 deputies from the 417 of the Legislative Room. And they have none. The freedom of the press is absolutely an illusion."

As Najroda would say... an impartial opinion (not Hungarian and not Romanian).

[Florin]

Lord Fitzmaurice wrote in 1890 in "Pallmall Gazette":

"The Hungarians are following a violent and blind policy against the nationalities subdued by the Hungarian Crown, and especially against the Romanians. In Transylvania, the provocative attitude of the Hungarian minority against the Romanians may trigger any day disturbance."


As Najroda would say... another impartial opinion (not Hungarian and not Romanian).

[Dénes]

According to my sources, Clemenceau's details are not entirely correct.

On April 26, 1884, a new influential Rumanian newspaper was created in Sibiu/Nagyszeben, titled 'Tribuna', with Ioan Slavici as director. Reportedly, it was very critical towards the Hungarian rule. And it wasn't the only Rumanian-language newspaper in Transylvania.

In the Hungarian Parliament, there were six deputies of the Rumanian National Party (I don't have the date since when was this valid). More Rumanians were MPs in Budapest respresenting other parties, like the leftist Social-Democrat Party. (As a sidenote, may I note that if the RMDSZ/UDMR will not reach the required 5% during the next general elections, due to the current political split within Hungarians from Rumania, the number of Hungarian PMs in the Bucharest Parliament will be... 1).

As for the minority rights in the A-H Monarchy, whoever is really interested in the topic should consult the pertinent law, No. 1868: XLIV tc., which is described as "liberal" of its times. I have not seen it, so I cannot comment. However, that particular law issued almost 150 years ago was certainly not as liberal as today's minority laws of Rumania. This would be a pointless comparison, though. Hindsight again...

[Florin]

The Norwegian playwright Bjornstjerne Bjornson said during the inter-Parliaments conference dedicated to peace, taking place in Budapest in 1907:
"In my youth I loved and admired the Hungarian nation. But later, knowing her closer, I started to loathe her chauvinism. These injustices will lead Hungary, sooner or later, to her destruction."

His words were published in September 1907 by the newspaper "A Ahir" from Budapest.
Well, this just sounds to me as... another impartial opinion (not Hungarian and not Romanian). 8)

[Florin]

QUOTE

According to my sources, Clemenceau's details are not entirely correct........................................................

Clemenceau was realistic in his quote, generally speaking. His quote: "The freedom of the press is absolutely an illusion." it is not equal to "The Romanians have no Romanian language newspapers."

But you may find interesting what Simion Barnutiu wrote to Valeriu Braniste, in those times: "For any word I am writing I am keeping in front of me the Criminal Code, and I imagine that at my back stays a gendarme. In our times only in this way a Romanian editor can write."

I do not know what your feeling was when you read the quote from Clemenceau, but you can understand now what the Romanians feel when they read one-sided pro-Hungarian quotes, issued in Western Europe, the United States and Canada, about what is happening in Romania today, or about what happened in recent times.

And if the Hungarian minority cannot reach 5% in the Romanian Parliament, now as they split politically, is because altogether they represent 6% of total population. In the days I lived in Romania, the Hungarian minority was like an example of unity to me (...and not only to me). I am surprised about their split.

[Najroda]

QUOTE

The family name of Mr. Sozan sounds Hungarian to me. Even though he lives in Burgenland. So why did you write: \"not Hungarian and not Romanian\" ?

I don't know what kind of name Sozan is, but it's definitelt not Hungarian.

[Najroda]

QUOTE

Georges Clemenceau, which became the prime minister of France during World War I, wrote in the French newspaper \"La Justice\" printed on 12 of May, 1894:   \"The Romanian schools are maintained by personal subscription. In them the teaching must be made in the Hungarian language. The Romanians are deprived by any political rights. The Romanians from Hungary and Transylvania, numbering 3.5 millions, should have the right, proportionally, on 75 deputies from the 417 of the Legislative Room. And they have none. The freedom of the press is absolutely an illusion.\" As Najroda would say... an impartial opinion (not Hungarian and not Romanian).

It is easy to establish how impartial his opinion was if you check the validity of his "facts". Let's take one that is easily verifiable: the number of Romanians in Hungary and Transylvania. It was 2.400.000 in 1880 and 2.950.000 in 1910. So in 1894 it must have been somewhere in between, almost 1 million short of mr. Clemenceau's claim...

Notwithstanding that I find his demands very honorable, and I can mostly agree with them.

But I find it utmost hypocrit comming from the pen of the PM of a country that was probably the most brutal and most efficient assimilator of it's minorities since 1800, at which time the vast majority of France's population were non-French such as Flemmish, Bretons, Alsatian Germans, Occitans, Basques etc. ...

[Najroda]

Florin, I will not comment your further quotations. Any of them, as I have admitted even Clemenceau's, has an undeniable core of truth.

Just consider a few things:

I could post an impartial, yet condemning opinion on Romania's minority policies for every one of your quotations. Would you want me to?

No matter if you believe the Daco-Roman continuity theory or you believe that the ancestors of the Romanians, the Vlachs started immigrating into Hungary from the 11th-12th century, somehow the Romanians miraculously "survived" it, and they were even the majority of the population in Transylvania at the beginning of the 20th century. Now isn't that quite remarkable, if you compare that with the fate of the indeginous people of Britain, the Scots, Welsh and Irish, who have lost their languages and of whose cultures not much more than some folklore remains. Or the mentioned nationalities of France... How could the Transylvanian Romanians have survived a millenium of Hungarian rule if it wasn't extremely tollerant.

Yet it seems as if you Romanians can only equate Hungary with the less tollerant period 1867-1918 (less tollerant than pre-1867 but not less tollerant than elsewhere in Europe, Romanian kingdom incluis), and ignore or dismiss Romania's own poor treatment of it's new minorities after 1918 at the same time. In any case, that's about all I hear here.

I wonder how many of you are aware of Hungary's first christian king's, saint Stephen's (István) advice to his son, Emeric (Imre):

QUOTE

Make the strangers welcome in this land, let them keep their languages and customs, for weak and fragile is the realm which is based on a single language or on a single set of customs (unius linguae uniusque moris regnum imbecille et fragile est.)

This was spoken almost 1000 years ago...

Or have you ever wondered how a Romanian (Hunyadi Mátyás/Matei de Hunedoara) could become the king (one of it's finest!) of the country that allegedly oppressed him?

I was hoping that my appeal to try to look at both side of the medals would have some following. I have tried to lead by example by admitting that Hungary's policy with respect to the nationalities in the compromise period was less fortunate, but not unique in Europe, nor of a different order than the treatment of minorities after 1918. Yet something seems to prevent you from doing the same. With salutations to the rare exception, like Alexandru. It seems that you just need to keep alive this myth at any cost. Perhaps as some sort of justification in hindsight, as even the name of this topic suggests... :cry: