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

[rcristi]

QUOTE

... 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...

Clemenceau's claim was 3.5 mil, your is 2.95 mil. The difference is exactly 550.000, a little bit over half mil. Sorry for the math lesson... hope you'll not gonna take it personally.

Cheers

[rcristi]

Seems that I was kinda fast in my latest post and I did a "small" mistake. Nothing was wrong in your estimate... He he. Sorry. I'm still half asleep "ready" to go to work...

Cheers

[Najroda]

QUOTE

Seems that I was kinda fast in my latest post and I did a \"small\" mistake. Nothing was wrong in your estimate... He he. Sorry. I'm still half asleep \"ready\" to go to work... Cheers

OK, just stay awake at work

[Dénes]

QUOTE

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?

Just a small correction to your otherwise balanced post, Najroda. King Hunyadi Mátyás (in Rumanian known mostly as Matei Corvin, or sometimes Matei Huniade) was only 25% Rumanian (if we can use percentage figures here). Anyhow, back then nationality was not relevant. Religion was. King Mátyás was Catholic, AFAIK.

[dragos]

QUOTE

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...

The Liberation and National Reunion War (Razboiul de Eliberare si Reintregire Nationala) is the Romanian name of the conflict of 1916-1919, broadly used in Romanian historiography. It's like the Great Patriotic War (USSR - 1941-45) or the Winter War (Finnland - 1939-40)

[Dénes]

Since this is an English language, internationally frequented history forum, I think we should stick to widely accepted, neutral historical terms, not forms peculiar only to Rumanian historiography. Therefore we use W.W. 2 between 1941-1945, instead of the Soviet 'Great Patriotic War' term (or the Nazi 'Anti-Bolshevik Crusade' ). Similarly, IMHO, we should use the 'W.W. 1 between 1916-1918' and the 'Rumanian-Hungarian war of 1918-1919' terms, not the one used as title of this thread, which might be unclear and confusing to non-Rumanian reeaders. It reminds me a bit of the official verbague used up to 1989 to describe the coup d'état of August 23, 1944 (remember?): "Revolutie de eliberare sociala si nationala, antifascista si antiimperialista", or "The Social and National Revolution of Anti-Fascist and Anti-Imperialist Liberation.

[dragos]

In my opinion, this kind of information is worth mentioning, especially because it gives the foreign reader a clue in the goals of Romania during WW1. However I'm not looking to standardize this term on the site.

[Dénes]

I agree with you, Dragos, that these terms specific to Rumanian historiography should be mentioned - with an explanation, though, so the non-Rumanian readers would know what's all about.

[Florin]

QUOTE

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. ..................... :cry:

I think people on this Forum may witness that I am not an inflexible person.

QUOTE

...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.

Are you trying to make me to admit that the Romania's treatment of her minorities, in 1918-2004, is the same as the Hungary's treatment of her minorities during 1867-1918? Sorry, I cannot do that. Also, your quote about Hungarian policy for minorities in 1867-1918: "less tollerant than pre-1867 but not less tollerant than elsewhere in Europe, Romanian kingdom incluis" is plain wrong.
So you are a little annoyed that I am not ready to "confess"... I guess you don't know the Romanian joke with the rabbit hanged by his ears, beaten over his buttocks and asked by the people of the Security Service: "Do you recognize you are a wild boar?"

But may be you don't expect this for me. I am sorry, but as long as you are making your usual...:

QUOTE

...Romania's own poor treatment of it's new minorities after 1918 at the same time.

...without mentioning something clear, without giving clear examples (rather usual on your behalf), it is not clear to me what I am supposed to accept / recognize. My comment "rather usual on your behalf" strictly refers to the so called disregarded rights of minorities in Romania after 1918.

And to end this post... This topic refers to the period before 1918. Thus you are mentioning about Hungary as having the less tolerant period 1867-1918. What about a topic discussing the Hungarian less tolerant period 1940-1944? But instead of creating a new topic, let discover what topics were already opened in the Forum for that. And even so... I am getting tired, as before. I am in the middle of my life (the optimistic approach), and I have better things to do than translating in English countless proofs about what happened in Northern Transylvania in 1940-1944.

[Florin]

QUOTE

Yet it seems as if you Romanians can only equate Hungary with the less tollerant period 1867-1918 .............. With salutations to the rare exception, like Alexandru. ....

Alexandru wrote himself, in one of his posts, that he is not Romanian. This is OK to me, as we are all human beings. But your words, Najroda, do not fit: ...you Romanians...with salutations to the rare exception, like Alexandru.

[Najroda]

QUOTE

Are you trying to make me to admit that the Romania's treatment of her minorities, in 1918-2004, is the same as the Hungary's treatment of her minorities during 1867-1918?

Actually, no Dragos made a claim that Hungary minority treatment was uncomparable (because worse) than Romania's. Neither he, nor anyone else has been able to back up this claim.

I would be happy with the admission that your Romanian education, and exposure to Romanian media and politics have lead you to believe that that's the case, but actually you don't really know wether it's true, and that you would be glad to explore it, and abstain from a definite opinion untill then

QUOTE

Sorry, I cannot do that. Also, your quote about Hungarian policy for minorities in 1867-1918: \"less tollerant than pre-1867 but not less tollerant than elsewhere in Europe, Romanian kingdom incluis\" is plain wrong.

OK then, be specific in what areas Hungary was less tollerant towards it's minorities than other European nations such as Great Britain, France, Russia, Romania, Germany or Spain.

Of course it would be most interesting if you would limit your comparisson to Hungary's treatment of the Transylvanian Romanians vs. Romania's treatment of the Moldavian Hungarians.

So you are a little annoyed that I am not ready to "confess"... I guess you d on't know the Romanian joke with the rabbit hanged by his ears, beaten over his buttocks and asked by the people of the Security Service: "Do you recognize you are a wild boar?"

QUOTE

...without mentioning something clear, without giving clear examples (rather usual on your behalf), it is not clear to me what I am supposed to accept / recognize.

Before we continue, let me first let me know if this sounds familiar to you at all, or whether this is the first time in your life you hear of this:

- Right after the Romanian occupation of Transylvania, for many Hungarians with their families (mostly civil servants and publuic workers) life had become impossible after they their employment was terminated, because the Hungarian language had been completely banned from public life, and moved to Hungary. Others were refused Romanian citizenship and were expelled. In total 200.000 Hungarians left Transylvania between 1918-1923 allone.

- The American Committee for the Rights of Religious Minorities reported: "The administrative oppression, the violent enforcing of the Rumanian language, the aggressive hostility... all these are aimed for the total destruction of the established school system. The laws of 1925 serve as oppressive political and nationalistic tools against the minorities." (Religious Minorities in Transylvania, The Bacon Press, Boston, 1925).

(my mother who was born in 1935 in Oradea, when my grandparents lived there for a couple of years, was registered as "romanian orthodox" even though my grandparents weren't, and my grandfather protested, but the clerc refused to register her as seventh-day adventist...)

In light of the Romanian saying "where there is smoke, there is fire" you might find reading this interesting: http://www.net.hu/corvinus/lib/kosztin/kosztin.pdf
(I admit: not an impartial source, and I have no doubt Hungarians equally commited atrocities against Romanians throughout history, only this author is interested in only one side of the story, just as most writers of Romanian history books are... But if only 10% of it is true, shouldn't it be enough to make you think again?)

Finally a few words by foreign interwar commentators to put things back in perspective:

- Stephen Fischer-Galati in his book "The Great Powers and the Fate of Transylvania Between the Two World Wars":

"Mistreatment and other forms of discrimination against national and religious minorities are a rule of modern history in Eastern Europe. The Hungarian rulers of Transylvania were as intolerant of the Romanians before World War I as the Romanian rulers of Transylvania"

- and Hugh Seton­ Watson wrote in his book "Eastern Europe Between the Wars":

"The Hungarians became second class citizens in Transylvania."

[Najroda]

QUOTE

QUOTE Yet it seems as if you Romanians can only equate Hungary with the less tollerant period 1867-1918 .............. With salutations to the rare exception, like Alexandru. .... Alexandru wrote himself, in one of his posts, that he is not Romanian. This is OK to me, as we are all human beings. But your words, Najroda, do not fit: ...you Romanians...with salutations to the rare exception, like Alexandru.

He will have to confirm this, but I believe Alexandru described himself as a Romanian of (partially) German descent.

[Florin]

QUOTE

QUOTE Alexandru wrote himself, in one of his posts, that he is not Romanian. This is OK to me, as we are all human beings. But your words, Najroda, do not fit: ...you Romanians...with salutations to the rare exception, like Alexandru. He will have to confirm this, but I believe Alexandru described himself as a Romanian of (partially) German descent.

If he will mention that he never wrote this, which could make me sound as a lier, I'll waste some time to look in his posts and prove it.
However, other than the possible touch of my credibility, the problem really doesn't matter.

PS: I already took a look in his posts, and it is like charging windmills in Don Quihote style. He mentioned the matter as the last row in one of his posts, and in the "See all posts by..." I can see only the first rows from the posts.

[Florin]

Najroda,

I went to the site you mentioned: http://www.net.hu/corvinus/lib/kosztin/kos...sztin.pdf[/url]

I went directly to page 133, were the "after 1989" part starts.
Do you know how do I feel? Frightened... Or like after a cold shower.

You said:

QUOTE

I admit: not an impartial source.

.

The way I felt it: Blindly partisan. Aggressively partisan.

And about the rest... Yes, some of it I read it for the first time in your post.
Maybe I'll add some text for my side, maybe not. I cannot match your energy in writing, and you have the advantage that you have available your sources in English, while I must make the effort to translate mine.

[dead-cat]

what does the ethnicity of some of the forum members have to do with the argumentations in this discussion?
since most active forum members are romanians they will tell the other side of the story. besides, the corvinus library is not really something like a neutral and unbiased source.

the problem is, unless you are a member of an ethnic minority, you can't really picture how it is like to be a minority. it doesn't do any good for the romanian mistreated in 1940 to know that pre-1867 hungary was more liberal, nor does it help a member of an ethnic minority in post 1945 Romania, who is digging with a shovel the "danube-black sea channel", and whose parents had their assets confiscated in 1921, to know that the treatment of minorities in Romania is actually better than it was in pre-1918 Hungary. to both it is plainly opression.

i guess it should be obvious that since then the treatment of national minorities in Romania improved. it's not yet where it should be today, but it's far from being opressive.