| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > WW1 and Regional Wars (1912-1919) > Romanian Army in Budapest 1919 |
| Posted by: Victor July 28, 2003 07:31 am | ||
There was looting in Budapest in 1919. Just like the Central Powers did in all Romania during the war. |
| Posted by: Geto-Dacul July 28, 2003 02:22 pm | ||
Victor wrote :
This is a very "fast" comment... Is there any list of the looted objects / things by the Romanians in Budapest? |
| Posted by: Dénes July 28, 2003 03:35 pm | ||
Geto-Dacul wrote:
When researching the air war over Hungary in 1918-1919, I came upon original documents preserved in the Hungarian Military Archives, detaling hundreds or airplanes, aero engines, machine tools, etc., taken away by Rumanian troops in 1919. Even the serial numbers of the railway cars (also captured MAV waggons), heading towards Rumania, are noted, including the date of their departure, etc. The fact of well over one hundred ex-Hungarian serviceable airplanes existing in Rumanian inventory from 1919 on (including individual serial numbers, etc.) is confirmed by a ground-breaking article, signed by Dr. Valeriu Avram, published in the Aeronautica magazine. AFAIK, he was scorned soon after by his military superiors for this article... Dénes |
| Posted by: Victor July 28, 2003 06:59 pm | ||
The armistice imposed by Romania to Hungary asked for the following: -the Hungarian Army must be reduced to 15,000 -all the equipment that remained unused was confiscated -the munitions factories and their equipment were confiscated -half of the rolling stock was confiscated (including the equipment necessary for their maintenance) -30% of the cattle and other living stock was confiscated -30% of the agricultural machines was confiscated -20,000 wagons of grain, 10,000 wagons of corn and 5,000 wagons of barley were also taken -all the Romanian ships that had been taken between 1916-18 were to be returned and half of the Hungarian river ships were confiscated - the Hungarian side was going to take care of the expenses for the support of the Romanian troops during the occupation and for their moving on the railroad |
| Posted by: Csaba Becze July 28, 2003 08:19 pm |
| The Rumanians collected and confiscated everything: from raincoats till bycicles... I have very long official lists, inahurry. |
| Posted by: inahurry July 29, 2003 08:55 pm |
| Typical.
Of course imposing harsh compensation conditions can be considered an act of robbery but I would like to know when was 'loot' used in serious historical writings to describe the conditions from an armistice agreement. The peace treaty imposed to Germany after WW1 and many other examples can be considered pure robbery but, strangely, in the historical references they are mentioned in many ways but not 'loot'. Not even the occupation of Bucharest, that was mentioned before, is to my knowledge, described as 'looting' even if it may have all the charactheristics. The choice of this word and its later circulation is successful Hungarian propaganda relying on the known effect the word has on the reader. Checking an english dictionary for those less familiar with the english language nuances could help. Looting is synonym with sacking or plundering a city in times of riots or wars. To be more graphical the Los Angeles riots showed what looting means. This didn't happen in Budapest. Congratulations anyway to the Hungarian propagandists, they knew their job well. |
| Posted by: Dénes July 29, 2003 09:48 pm |
| Excerpt from the diary of Gen. Harry Hill Bandholtz, titled 'An Undiplomatic Diary', ed. by Fritz Konrad Kruger (New York: Columbia University Press, 1933), p. 30:
"(...)in my opinion, the Roumanians were doing their utmost to delay matters in order to complete the loot of Hungary (...)" P.33 "The Roumanian on their part immediately begun to loot Hungary, removing all (...) war material they could find, and then proceeded also to clean the country (...)" Etc., etc. General Harry Hill Bandholtz of the United States Army was appointed to head the Military Mission to Hungary, along with three other Allied Generals. You may find further details in his aforementioned diary, available on-line: http://www.hungary.com/corvinus/lib/bandh/bandh.pdf Dénes |
| Posted by: Csaba Becze July 29, 2003 10:14 pm |
| inahurry:
this is offtopic here, but I have some comments (BTW, I didn't use the looting expression before) The Rumanian troops' behavior was not sympathetic at all for the Entente officers (British, Italian, Ameriacan) also. About the looting a British officer said, that the Rumanians stole everything (from individual persons too), he said:"they took the nails from planks also". The American general Bandholtz knocked out Rumanian general Serbescu and his guys with his riding-whip from the Hungarian National Museum, because the Rumanians wanted to loot this also, etc... I think, the 'loot' expression in not exaggeration at all (gen. Bandholtz used this expression also in his diary). Hmm, Plutonier Dénes was faster |
| Posted by: inahurry July 29, 2003 10:22 pm |
| Thank you for proving my point so quickly.
Now the 'looting' extends to the entire country, great. At least when refering to a country you add a literary dimension which, well, brings as into literature's realm. More of this a bit later. I know for a Hungarian is infuriating. As it is infuriating for a Romanian who can say, unfortunately, after many bitter experiences Romania was looted repeatedly, many, many times in history. Doesn't matter you pretend you didn't get my point. You certainly know the exact meaning and when the word 'loot' is to be used. Still, the 'looting' of Budapest is the most often encountered piece of successful Hungarian propaganda in terms of language subtleties. Obviously because the 'looting' of an entire country would have no impact for an english speaking person because then he would immediately understand it is not actual loot but a figure of speech. Looting = sacking or plundering of a city in times of riots or war. It implies violence perpetrated in a disorderly fashion either by soldiers or civilians. Otherwise, except for desired emotional impact, everything in history is 'loot' - a peace treaty forcing the losing side to pay heavily, cession of a province, confiscation of a national treasury, like archives for example (hint), and so on. |
| Posted by: inahurry July 29, 2003 10:33 pm |
| Certain "anecdotes" if the word lies seems too harsh are just that even when only one party kept a diary (or especially then). Americans again, hmmm, they must have a thing with museums. Brave man though, he succeeded better than his grand-sons. How many anecdotes about the Hungarian army behaviour do you want ? |
| Posted by: Dénes July 29, 2003 11:06 pm |
| I am sure, Gen. Bandholtz, as an American, doesn't need a dictionary to know the exact meaning of loot(ing) and when to use it.
I am also convinced that the General, being an actual eye witness, doesn't recall the facts he experienced in an anecdotal manner. It's another issue that you, 'inahurry', apparently cannot be convinced of the untrue nature of your pre-set opinions, no matter the proofs (not personal opinions) lined up to sustain a certain point. This appears to be valid for all controversial issues you've raised throughout this forum. Therefore I suggest to you to return to the actual profile of this forum, namely the military aspects of the Rumanian Armed Forces in W.W. 2. Shall we? Dénes |
| Posted by: Csaba Becze July 30, 2003 12:18 am |
| inahurry, I quoted objective foreigner eyewitnesses (actually they were not really objectives, because they were allies of the Rumanians, NOT the Hungarians). If you want Hungarian remembrances, I'll enclose some (or official reports) For example not just about looting depots, firms, factories, inhabitants: about killing innocent people also... |
| Posted by: inahurry July 30, 2003 01:31 am |
| Denes,
We are there already. Thank you for monitoring my posts, maybe I’ll reciprocate. But your post is very revealing and shows I hit a nerve. Not everything you (or others) quote is true or, to be very clear, the content of what you or others quote isn't always true. I was merely ironic about the 'fact' but this stirred a storm. Propaganda is not done by Hungarians for the Hungarians only. Most often is by foreigners for foreigners but serving Hungarian purposes. 'Looting' of Budapest is not WW2, ok, so I end this here. Unfortunately, the entire orientation of this site sometimes is not so clear. Too bad for some genuine effort to gather elements of military information but you will allow me to suspect other purposes are not so candid. Up to a point it’s understandable as we all have parti-pris. If I choose to ignore some of the posts is entirely my decision. There are certain controversies that never bear fruit. Also, as you know, devil is in the details and devil tempts us all so, please, allow me from time to time to run away from this temptation. I can as I’m no historian so I don’t have a professional obligation to be extremely thorough. Sure I can bring my share of quotes and sources, though I don’t carry them in my map, and especially where these are electronically available it’s common courtesy to do it. If I extended the scope in other topics is again my decision because, as we plainly see these days, some events in the past have direct and critical consequences in the present. If you can't stand this reality check with the present times, which justifies my previous assertion, I very much doubt you are interested in finding unbiased information as long some authors have rather transparent interests in presenting their reality serving other purpose than history. You can ban me anytime you want as long this is your site. If I can’t say, in a polite manner, that some author is lying, even if I may be wrong, then there’s not much to be added. While some topics are certainly technical and probably raise no polemics, other are very sensitive as the irritation to a little “sting” proved. My interpretation was logical and I didn’t dispute much of the assertions just one word. Well, as I made my point and because I don’t find any pleasure in this polemic I shall stop here. For other topics concerned address your criticism there, shall we ? |
| Posted by: inahurry July 30, 2003 01:34 am |
| Not necessary Csaba, I have my own sources too, far more direct than any book or diary. And you don't want to be off topic from something already off topic. We probably both select what hurts us most. |
| Posted by: Dénes July 30, 2003 02:00 am |
| Amen, inahurry.
Dénes P.S. To add credibility to your posts, I suggest using your real name, so we would know whom are we having the pleasure to... |
| Posted by: Geto-Dacul July 30, 2003 03:20 am |
| Actually, the armistice was signed between Bolshevik Hungary and Romania... Hungarian nobles and bourgeoisie were terrified by Béla Kuhn's régime and Szamuely's bands, for example, who really executed innocent people, that "collaborated with the bourgeoisie and the Romanians"... Count Istvan Tisza (nationalist Hungarian) was happier with a Romanian occupation than a Bolshevik onslaught... |
| Posted by: johnny_bi July 30, 2003 03:35 am |
| Denes, talking about WWI and "looting Hungary" there are many causes. This is not a lonely event, isolated in history, showing how merciless the Romanians were... It was a long story that didn't start in 1919.
My grand - grand father was a soldier in the Romanian Army that time. In 1919 he was in Debrecen, 82nd Regiment (I may be wrong) ... My grand-grandfather told to my father what the Romanian soldiers felt when entering Hungary. I can not say because these could rise polemics and it is not even the thread. But it has something that deals with hundreds of years of being igonorated and so on... They felt entitled, I think that for them it was a fade compensation for those years and the looting of Central Powers in Romania... I do not know if they were right or not, even if it is true or not... but i think that this could make you imagine the motive. An interesting site: http://membres.lycos.fr/dgrecu/Artindx.html |
| Posted by: inahurry July 30, 2003 03:51 am |
| Denes, a rather strange request. I didn't subscribe to the 3rdR forum because Marcus wanted my real name and I didn't want to provide a false one. I have nothing to hide but I don't provide personal information on the internet and I'm too lazy to lie, I might forget the lie.
Johnny, my grandfather was there too but I suppose many thousands silent grandfathers should be left to rest in peace. Which I advocate for other much more prominent and important characters. |
| Posted by: Victor July 30, 2003 10:13 am | ||
Actually the Entente and the US were friendlier in those years to Hungary than to Romania. Col. Romanelli, the chief of the Italian mission in Hungary, telegraphed to Paris on 4 August that: the enemy is 5 km from Budapest. The enemy were the 3 squadrons of the 6th Rosiori Regiment, a Romanian unit, a country that was allied with Italy at that time. Gen. Bandholtz was also pretty biased against the Romanians and he actually admitted that he loved his Hungarian "enemies" and hated his Romanian "allies". His claims that the Romanian authorities did not take any measures to supply Budapest and the other occupied cities are false. Gen. Holban took immediate measures to secure the supplies for Budapest and to stop the speculants. |
| Posted by: dragos July 30, 2003 10:55 am | ||
inahurry, this site and this forum is intended to serve people all over the world. You understand that such contradictory debates are inevitable. What an administrator can do is to let people express their personal opinions up to a point where these can harm or injury other peoples. And this is not an easy task, but fortunatelly it was not the case so far. I can assure you this site was born by passion for our military history, and it does not serve some hidden purposes. In all topics, both me and Victor tried to bring information based on various sources, and not just make gratuitous affirmations such us X are the bad guys or Y are the good guys, or we are flawless. I encourage to listen to everybody's opinion and try to understand what stands behind this opinion before we post an answer. |
| Posted by: Dénes July 30, 2003 12:52 pm |
Well said, Dragos. Indeed, the role of such a discussion forum is to let people freely change information and ideas, regardless of the sensibility of the topic. If this is done without the discussions degenerating in 'flame' and name calling - like this forum so far succeeded - it's a significant achievement. It's a compliment to both the posters and the moderators. It's also a clear sign that time and attitudes do change (albeit slowly), people do get more open and tolerant even to ideas that are not exactly to their respective liking, therefore sensible topics can be discussed in a civilized manner. I believe such a positive situation would have not been possible even ten years ago (also because back then the moderators were heading to the playground rather than the library  ).
I would like to publicly thank Victor and Dragos for their effort in maintaining and moderating this forum, which appears to be highly successful in bringing together people and ideas from all over the world. I am glad to contribute something to this thriving micro society. Dénes |
| Posted by: inahurry July 30, 2003 03:05 pm |
| Dragos,
It seems to me that my "intervention" managed to balance a bit the discussion. Not that a perfect balance is the ultimate purpose of any polemics, truth is not necessarily "at the middle". Still, once you opend a new thread, from those more knowledgeable than I, why the "looting" of Budapest is the brief and in my opinion very inaccurate but with a high emotional impact for the english reader who might have no special interest in neither the Hungarians or Romanians. I think the understanding of the english word 'loot', upon which I insisted, remains a key factor. The Hungarian propaganda was quite successful after WW1, embarassingly so at some point and, indeed, the connections the Hungarians, nobility, politicians had in the West were very strong nad hence a larger sympathy for their cause, at least in certain circles and countries. |
| Posted by: Dénes July 30, 2003 10:05 pm | ||
This seems to be a bit far fetched. Why would the Entente be friendly with their former enemies? Moreover, almost everyone hated Béla Kun's Hungarian Bolsheviks - even most Hungarians - and considered them a major treat to Europe's security and dealt with them accordingly. Even if the Italians, Americans or British would had been friendly towards the Hungarians, their position was practically irrelevant, as the real power brokers of the region were the French (similarly to the IInd W.W.'s end, when the real masters in Eastern Europe were the Soviets, despite the symbolic US and British presence in the so-called 'Allied Commission'). I think we can fully agree that the French were very supportive towards the Rumanians and very antagonistic towards the Hungarians. Just a single quote: "Gen. Franchet D'Esperey [the Allied Commander in Chief for the Southeastern theatre] (...) reproached them [the Hungarian delegation to Paris] bitterly for being accomplices of the Germans: "You marched with them, you will be punished with them. You offended France and we will not forget. " (see: http://www.hungary.com/corvinus/lib/maj/maj03.htm) Dénes |
| Posted by: Dénes July 30, 2003 10:12 pm | ||
inahurry wrote:
That's exactly why I quoted from the diary of an American General, whose mother tongue is English; therefore, he most probably knew how and when to use that particular word, as it's neither a translation/interpretation issue, nor the act of Hungarian "propagandists". Dénes |
| Posted by: inahurry July 31, 2003 02:22 am |
| Well, you probably didn't read one of the previous posts but that's ok.
He knew the meaning of the word alright and simply, well, seems I'm left with very few euphemisms, lied. The general himself may or may not have been involved in a deliberate propaganda effort, my guess is he just expressed his own resentments. Anyway, the propaganda effort starts afterwards. When it is necessary to make sure the 'loot' variant gains large circulation. Which is not so difficult with persistance. |
| Posted by: inahurry July 31, 2003 02:38 am |
| http://www.usembassy.hu/bandh.htm
"The statue in the center of the park on Szabadság tér, facing the Embassy, is that of Harry Hill Bandholtz, Brigadier General, US Army, who was Provost Marshall to General Pershing at the end of World War I. On August 11, 1919, General Bandholtz arrived in Budapest as one of four generals (English, French, Italian, American) to become the Inter-Allied Control Commission for Hungary, primarily to supervise the disengagement of Romanian troops from Hungary. He became famous when, on the night of October 5, 1919, as President of the Day of the Commission, mainly through bluff, armed only with a riding crop, he prevented a group of Romanian soldiers from removing Transylvanian treasures from the National Museum. The statue was erected in 1936, and stood throughout World War II with the inscription, in English, "I simply carried out the instructions of my Government, as I understood them, as an officer and a gentleman of the United States Army." In the late 1940s the statue was removed "for repair." It lay in a statue boneyard until the 1980s, at which time it was placed in the garden of the US Ambassador's Residence, at the request of then-Ambassador Salgo. It was re-placed in Szabadság tér at its original location in July 1989, just a few days before the visit of President Bush. The new inscription on the back reads: "General Harry Hill Bandholtz, head of the American Military Mission, who on October 5, 1919 blocked the removal of the treasures of the National Museum to Romania." Each year, the US Embassy's Defense Attache lays a wreath honoring Bandholtz on his birthday." The 'looting' of Budapest looks more like preventing the removal of "Transylvanian treasures from the National Museum" (which are just a tiny, little bit Romanian too), when the Romanian Army was retreating 3 months after the general's arrival in Budapest. Of course, the inscription on the statue omits the "Transylvanian". No mentioned if he whipped or not a Romanian general, too bad. Well, it's not a history book merely a web page. |
| Posted by: inahurry July 31, 2003 02:44 am |
| Sorry, 2 months after his arrival. For a couple of other minor language mistakes I apologize. Hey, trying to be thorough here. |
| Posted by: Victor July 31, 2003 06:47 am | ||||
The US and the British were not that irrelevant, since the Romanian economy and population depended on their aid in 1919. This is why large quantities of goods were confiscated from Hungary, as the government was trying to make Romania more self-sufficient. Unfortunately most of the railway equipment taken ended up unused and rusting in several depots in the 1920s.
I am skeptic regarding the "generals" he whipped. He could have intimidated common soldiers and lower ranks, but generals I doubt it. In fact gen. Mosoiu made it clear to the Allied Commission in Budapest that he represented the armed forces there, while they only represented their ordinances. Btw, I split the original topic not Dragos. |
| Posted by: inahurry August 02, 2003 01:10 am |
| regarding the relativity of who is who's friend and that nothing is for granted :
Ioan Scurtu & others - University of Bucharest - ISTORIA ROMÂNILOR ÎNTRE ANII 1918–1940 apud C. de Saint Aulaire, Confession d’un vieux diplomate, Paris, 1953, p. 484 http://www.unibuc.ro/eBooks/istorie/istorie1918-1940/2-2.htm the translation here : Andre Tardieu [ French plenipotentiary at the Paris Peace Conference (1919) ] on the Peace Conference ambience regarding the Romanian question "I fought heavy battles in order Bratianu and Romania to be recognized as allies. I had against me Clemenceau who wasn’t forgetting his armistice, Wilson who was declaring he disregards our alliance treaty from 1916, all the jurists for whom the April 24/May 7 1918 peace with Germany stripped Romania of its quality as an ally. I was consuming my time until now to show them this peace [agreement] can not be held against Romania neither morally, neither politically, the big allies hadn’t accepted it, nor from a juridical point of view, the king hadn’t sanctioned it and he re-mobilized from the first contact with the allied armies [coming] from Salonic. Concluding, in the name of justice, a grave injustice is about to be committed wishing to punish Romania for its miseries for whom are responsible our allies, ourselves, because we didn’t uphold our agreements from Salonic, next and notably so Russia." |
| Posted by: Florin November 23, 2003 07:33 am | ||
Hi, My following note does not forgive the Romanian army for anything to be blamed about the 1919 moment, but. . . Could you give me an example of a country, if any, who during World War I or during World War II DID NOT loot the occupied enemy territory? Florin |
| Posted by: Florin November 23, 2003 07:46 am | ||
You are so right. . . When the Romanian army started her successful counterattack against the Hungarian agression, Londra and Paris sent messages after messages to stop, to don't over-react, and so on. It is said that Ferdinand, the king of Romania, sent a letter in accordance to the will of the Western Powers to the Romanian general commanding the campaign, but the latter, guessing what the letter is about, broke the seal and opened the letter after the Romanian army reached Budapest. Florin |
| Posted by: Bernard Miclescu November 30, 2003 06:25 pm |
| I come on putting some gas on the fire. I was surprised that Mr Nagy Talavera in the introduction to his study about the life of N Iorga, talks about the Romanians injusties in Hungarian territory in 1919. But he is also telling that those injustice (loot, murders, rapes etc.) were less important than the injustice done by the Hungarian administation from the last decade of XIX century till 1918. So maybe those injustice made by Romanian troops ( documents approve (documents à l'appui) in french) had a cause.
Unfortunatly both people didn't knew (even know) how to live together in peace. BM |
| Posted by: Bernard Miclescu November 30, 2003 07:09 pm |
| Even if i'm a little bit off topic, when I was in "première" in France (clasa a 11-a in Romanian in English = ???) my History teacher was quite interested about Romania. Those days he was teaching about the WWI and he mentioned to the class the predominent role of the Romanian Army between the wars to maintain the democracy system and security in the Balkans against the communist/socialist threats comming from Russia. After him, the Western democracies let the formation of Great Romania for beeing a wall in front of the borning URSS and its ideas. He described also the" well done" anti-comunist action in Hungary in 1919.
Yours, BM |
| Posted by: Korne November 30, 2003 07:57 pm | ||||
I quote from Lucian Leustean's book "Romania, Hungary and the Trianon Treaty - 1918-1920"(Ed. Polirom, 2002): The British diplomat George Russel Clerk said, referring especially to the British and American Generals (Gorton and Bandholtz): "Now the generals are all very comfortably lodged in various palaces of Hungarian magnates, they are smiled over by all Hungarians, and they have about as much sense of political realities as a stuffed dog". General Bandholtz was clearly biased against the Romanians, as his diary (which was to be published later) proved. "There are some extenuating circumstances for Bandholtz' attitude: it was hard to come from somewhere in the Midwest and to understand such complex realities of a Europe whose century old history could not be anything but enigmatic for beginners [as Gen. Bandholtz was]. This didn't prevent Bandholtz - probably an enthusiastic stamp collector - to request stamps from the Romanian authorities for his own private collection". |
| Posted by: codrin December 16, 2003 06:19 pm |
| hmm...as far as I am concerned, I know that Hungarian elites were very enthousiastic about Romanian troups staying in Budapest...perhaps their ideas were that Romanianans are 2nd class humans and a nation of peasants.I have read a book (forgot its name) in which a member of aristocracy described her fear for the Romanians, but later, she said, she loughed about her fear, when talking with Romanian officers, that spoke french and had impecable manners...after the Bela Kuhn regime which she describes whith horror-she did not left Budapest for Wien, as her husband and other aristocrats did : nationalisation, her house being nationalised and forced to live with all sorts of people("jewish" mostly, she said...), the hunger-there was not any food in Budapest because the bolsheviks "au rechizitionat"(??) everything, the irrational arrest of her father after the well known formula now etc who was worse: the communist hungarians or the romanians... |
| Posted by: dragos December 17, 2003 10:40 am | ||
However, there was a great rift between the officers and the bottom ranks, mostly illiterate peasants and sheperds. This was a characteristic of most armies of that time, but more pronounced in the East. |
| Posted by: Scipio December 20, 2003 11:44 pm |
| How much resistance was there to repel the Romanian invasion? :oops: |
| Posted by: aerialls December 21, 2003 02:35 am |
| i really need some links on that.. someone? besides Corvinus.
"invasion"... yes it could be. read again the causes. |
| Posted by: dragos December 21, 2003 04:03 pm |
| The last major battle was during 20-26 July 1919 along the Tisza river. There were two phases: 20-23 July - the Hungarian offensive, 24-26 July - the Romanian counteroffensive. On 20 July Hungarian troops launched their offensive, establishing bridgeheads on the eastern bank of Tisza, at Szolnok and Tokaj. The Romanian counteroffensive, aimed at maneuvering the Hungarian forces and throwing them over Tisza was successful, on 25 July Hungarian army starting general retreat, which turned into a rout, Hungarians abandoning weapons and wagons as they crossed the Szolnok bridge. On 3 August Romanian troops entered Budapest. |
| Posted by: Victor January 17, 2004 08:35 am | ||||
Not exactly true. You make it sound like everything the Romanians asked, they received. It was not that easy. The Romanian delegation was not at all treated that well, especially because Bratianu's stubbornness not to sign the minorities treaty, which allowed the Major Powers to intervene in the internal affairs of the country. Wilson, especially, did not like him as did Clemanceau. The borderline was actually not the one asked by Bratianu initially, but one settled by a Commission of experts. And there were many times when even this was not sure, because of the very changing attitude of the Peace Conference towards both Romania and Hungary. I believe that this fragment of Stefan Cicio-Pop's letter to Alexandru Vaida-Voevod is pretty suggestive: The world had never seen a more disgusting comedy like the one played by this Entente! It ties down the hands and feet of its allies and on the other hand screams after help and forces Romania to supply troops to defend it against Russian Bolshevism! Not even among madmen we see such things. We can find more logic in a mental institution.
Not exactly true. Wilson was initially ready to negotiate with the Bolshevik government, as did Lloyd George. With the exception of France, which was the main promoter of the anti-Bolshevik intervention, the other two Major Powers were not that radical at all. |
| Posted by: aerialls January 20, 2004 12:37 pm |
canteen of the romanian army in Budapest. |
| Posted by: dragos January 20, 2004 01:00 pm |
| It seems to me they are distributing food to civilians. |
| Posted by: Dénes January 20, 2004 02:44 pm |
| It seems to me that it's a typical propaganda photo. Have you seen photos of Soviet troops distributing food to German civilians in 1945?
Of course, the Rumanian army did serve food for the needy, no question, but based on what I've read it was hardly the norm. |
| Posted by: johnny_bi January 20, 2004 03:09 pm | ||
Yeah, sure ... and the Romanians were pretty diabolic since they did that propaganda some 25 years sooner than the Soviets in '45 :wink: ... |
| Posted by: Dénes January 20, 2004 03:22 pm |
| Your point, Johnny?
Which part of my above post you wish to deny? |
| Posted by: aerialls January 20, 2004 03:24 pm | ||
yes, and only the "soft skin" vehicles of the Arr wear concade on the eastern front... pls. pls.. tell me what you have read? It makes me so courios! I asked once and nowone replied. yes, ive seen soviet troops distribuiting food to german civilians..and i also seen a short movie on it. It was on an soviet soldier who somehow "adopted" an german girl.. feeding here everytime from his can. And based on what sick mental criteria you classifie distribuiting food to the population as propaganda !?! |
| Posted by: Dénes January 20, 2004 03:42 pm | ||
| Mr. Aerialls, before you post in anger, please take your time to read carefully the message you're replying to.
Let me quote myself:
As for details on the Rumanian Army's 1918-1919 Hungarian Campaign, I can list details only tomorrow, as currently I am at work and cannot access this site from my home computer. |
| Posted by: aerialls January 20, 2004 04:45 pm | ||
again, what's wrong with this picture? it's a picture of an action that has occured. you can see there a kid looking into the can... another one looking at the photographer and taking cover with his hand from the sun... Or you are maybe thinking that they were payd at comming to taste some "mamaliga"? :roll: I'm looking into your post tomorow.. and everybody i think in this forum whould aprecciate the references on that. |
| Posted by: Chandernagore January 20, 2004 05:41 pm |
| If this is a propaganda picture, it is either very well done (too well) or it only accidentally suited propaganda services because it looks so natural to me. There is one thing that I find strange however. The officer on the left appears to be high ranked, I would not expect him in such a scene. |
| Posted by: dragos January 20, 2004 06:06 pm |
| If a humanitarian action was initiated, I don't find it is unusual that high ranking officers were attending, especially if reporters were expected. |
| Posted by: aerialls January 20, 2004 06:40 pm |
| ok.. maybe i am the "stupid" here: could we classifie an humanitarian action when reporters are expected as propaganda?
Or maybe the reporter was not so much expected afterall... watheva... |
| Posted by: Victor January 20, 2004 08:12 pm |
| aerialls there is no need for hostility.
As for the humanitarian actions of the Romanian occupational forces in Budapest, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. There was no intention to starve the inhabitants of Budapest, but the Romanian army wasn't a UN peace keeping force and abuses occured. |
| Posted by: Dénes January 21, 2004 03:48 pm | ||
As per your request, here are some data of the effect of Rumanian occupation of Hungary in 1919: 1.292 locomotive engines, 2.006 passenger and 32.154 freight railway cars moved to Rumania, as well as the complete equipment, machinery, product and material depots of several factories, including the entire gun factory of Györ, in a total over 8.000 machine tools and other materials, loaded onto 37.756 railway cars. Approximately 627 airplanes (many disassembled or damaged), several Zeppelins and hundreds of aero engines were captured and moved out of Hungary, along with an assortment of aviation building materials. The total damage caused by the Rumanian occupation on the post-Trianon territory of Hungary was estimated at 29.650 billion Hungarian korona (at Aug. 15, 1919 value). |
| Posted by: Alexandru H. January 21, 2004 05:59 pm |
Sounds like Romanian behaviour  |
| Posted by: Victor January 21, 2004 08:48 pm | ||
Well, you could have at least mentioned that part of this equipment did not actually belong to Hungary. Some of it was of Romanian origin, being taken as war booty by Austro-Hungarian and German armies, or it was left there by retreating German forces. The Romanian army also requisitioned goods that belonged to non-Hungarian citizens (neutrals). Also you did not expect Romania to leave to Hugary factories which it could use to build up its army. |
| Posted by: Dénes January 21, 2004 10:05 pm |
| I don't think that during those turbulent times the Hungarians had a chance to document the material randomly left behind by retreating German forces. And the figures I mentioned above refer to items that were documented.
I would say the ex-German matériel captured by Rumanians is on the top of the statistics given. As for ex-Rumanian goods being recovered, although it could certainly happened, the percentage of such items in all materials removed from Hungary by the Rumanian Army is negligable. |
| Posted by: Alexandru H. January 21, 2004 11:18 pm |
Denes, look at this problem from this angle: the equipment was useless. I, for one, can't feel the difference created by its confiscation. Cursed guns  ... |
| Posted by: Dan Po May 16, 2004 05:48 pm |
| In a few days after they conquer of the teritory were the annumition factory from Dudesti was placed, in 1916, the germans remove all this factory with all machines to Germany. This was a loot?
We just have to study the documents about the rulled imposed by germans in ocuppied part of Romani in 1916 - 1918 to see how many toons of warm clothes they took from the population how did they took the cows and oxes and another animals from the peasants in the winter time ... but there weren t any allied officer to wrote down this facts in a diary ... We have to understand that was war or post war times when the economy was down, a big miserry and everybody was lookingfor compensations and new sources of food or wealth ... A loot is not a reason to be proud. But any army, in a war time can be charged with this guilt. |
| Posted by: mateias December 05, 2007 08:28 pm |
| Could anybody provide gen. Bandholz's biography? When did he retire from active service ? Did he die before his memoirs book was published in 1933 ? If so, who did it on his behalf ? Wife, children, lover ? Thank you. |
| Posted by: Dénes December 05, 2007 09:05 pm |
| I found the following on the 'net: General Harry H. Bandholtz (1864-1925). I also stumbled across the complete version of his memoirs: http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/bandh/bandh.pdf Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: 21 inf December 05, 2007 10:18 pm |
| The book from the link above was written by Andrew Simon, profesor at The University of Akron. Other book written by the same gentleman above, "JOHN HUNYADI-Hungary in American History Textbooks" states that "[..]Seton-Watson [...] published a book, [I]Racial Problems in Hungary (London, 1908) and numerous anti-Hungarian articles afterward." [/I]It is known that mr. Seton-Watson was a great friend of nations as czech, slovak, serbs, romanians and others. The clasification "anti-hungarian" of Seton-Watson writings shows clearly the side choosed by mr Simon. As a mater of fact, the book linked states in it's foreword, writen by mr Simon, that "[...]Bandholtz writes far more about atrocities by the “Allied” Romanian Army[...]" The same gentleman writes that "Major General Harry Hill Bandholtz was America’s representative to the Inter-Allied Supreme Command’s Military Mission in Hungary at the end of World War I." That's one should ask: Bandholtz, as representative to the Inter-Allied Supreme Command’s Military Mission, was in the position to consider Romanian Army as "Alied" in this way, with " " ? He was a official person! Or that comment represents the opinion of mr Simon? and in this case, his side is very clear shown by his opinions. And one can see that his side was not wearing red-yellow-blue colours... |
| Posted by: Dénes December 05, 2007 10:58 pm | ||
That's incorrect. Andrew L. Simon only edited the book (see first page). The actual book, written by Maj. Gen. H. H. Bandholtz, starts on page 23. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: 21 inf December 06, 2007 02:10 am |
| Introduction is by Andrew L. Simon. And he just edited the book. I'm glad that you noticed what is incorect! That means that the rest of the post is corect  We have in front of our eyes a book which is serving hungarian propaganda. I'm wondering: this was the only memoires available? Those comented by a pro-hungarian gentleman? After all, Bandholtz was from the USA! |
| Posted by: Dénes December 06, 2007 06:47 am | ||
Incorrect, again. This is a contemporary diary of a high ranking US soldier-diplomat, who witnessed the tumultuous events in the occupied Budapest, and Hungary, first hand. Being a military man and an American, thus coming from far away, he had no reasons whatsoever to be a mouthpiece of Hungarian propaganda. He mainly observed and described the events he encountered on site and made notices while the events were still fresh. That's why his diary is such an interesting read. If his work was also used by certain Hungarians to further their cause, that's a totally different matter, and does not detract anything from its value... Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Victor December 06, 2007 07:06 am |
| Bandholz's objectivity is a dellicate issue, which would require some further study. I would recommend Lucian Leustean's book Romania, Ungaria si Tratatul de la Trianon (1918-1920) for this subject. |
| Posted by: Imperialist December 06, 2007 08:57 am | ||||
It seems to me Bandholtz was against Romania's action per se (of counterattacking and eliminating the Bolshevik government) not simply against the controversial or not issue of serizure/looting.
http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/books.php?op=viewbook&bookid=4&post=1 |
| Posted by: mateias December 06, 2007 08:20 pm |
| For Denes, 1. Good idea for everyone to read gen. Bandholtz's diary and better understand why he was biased. He died in 1925, the diary was published in 1933, so that anybody could have it dressed up to look better or worse, according to whatever interests might fit. Admiral Horthy's interests (by the way, thanks to the Romanian blood lost on the field of honour fighting the Reds, the admiral without a fleet had plenty of time to build up his ragged army in the French zone of Szeged - in fact, at that time Hungary was practically divided like Germany and Berlin in WW2 - part of it occupied by the Romanian army after battling, the other peacefully by the French, Serbs and the Czechs (the Czech Army was a joke, they needed the French gen. Pelle to take the reins there). Poor Hungary, to suffer so much after occupying and looting Romania for 2 years (Nov 1916- Dec 1918), together with Germany, Bulgaria and Turkey. By the way, who was the first to say that the winner takes it all? Before Stalin and ABBA ! The real problem of the inter-allied mission in Budapest was that it did not include a Romanian delegate. This was underlined at that time by the diplomats of the Foreign Office (UK), but everyone knows that everywhere in this world the military branch has priority over civilians exactly when it must be the other way around ! 2. The first, ever, international Red Brigade (before those in Spain), fought against the Romanian army and lost lamentably. I am interested to know some names, maybe they surfaced later to build the communist society in their own countries. Everybody should know that POLAND (fighting against Red Russia) and ROMANIA (fighting against the Red Hungary) delayed communism for 25 years. Not USA, not Britain, not French. They did a lot of business with Lenin and Stalin (especially the Americans, long before Germany after Rapallo). But this is another story. |
| Posted by: mateias December 06, 2007 08:41 pm |
| For Victor and Denes, Leustean's book is based on very serious documents, including papers from the American State Department of those years (1916-1920). Is a must for everyone eager to better understand the intricacies of policies of the so-called super powers at the conference in Paris. Bandlholz's diary is only one of the diaries and memoirs written by other contemporary military people of those days. His greatest merits for someone coming from the American Midwest, a colonel before being dispatched to Budapest (he had to be promoted a general on paper, because all the other members of the interallied mission were generals !). I wonder what were his previous merits on the battlefields in France. From my point of view, the only military people qualified are those who actually fought along with or against the Romanian army. There are books written by Gen. Berthelot and Gen. Victor Petin (from the French Mission and the Danube Army, later figthing against the bolchevicks), Hindenburg, Ludendorf, Falkenheyn and many others. Also Lord Thompson of Carington wrote something (he was involved in the British sabotage mission of the oilfield area - they promised to pay for it and afterwards, just like many other times, they forgot about it after WW1 !). And the war correspondents also wrote some interesting things (I do not know many names, but everybody was so happy for MARASTI, MARASESTI, OITUZ, and so sad after BUDAPEST !) |
| Posted by: Dénes December 06, 2007 09:19 pm | ||||
What facts are you actually basing your allegations on? According to this logic, all diaries of renowned persons - which, by the way, are usually published after they pass away - cannot be trusted, as all of them could have been manipulated after their death.
Yet another major problem with this post, which repeats a myth perpetuated for years. The Hungarian Red Army was actually formed only on March 24, 1919! Before that, the Rumanian Army fought against the remnants of the Royal Hungarian Army, which was disintegrating and demoralized after over four years of war and the news of the end of W.W. 1, as well as against ad-hoc local defence units from Transylvania. Actually, the Rumanians - taking advantage of the positive circumstances for their cause existing in late 1918/early 1919 - would have fought against the Hungarians until they would reach the pre-set goal of defeating Hungary and occupying most of its territory no matter what colour the Hungarians were labelled with: red, blue or green... Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: dead-cat December 07, 2007 12:23 am | ||
as the Freikorps dispatched the "Bavarian Soviet Republic" by mid 1919, there was nothing for the Reds to export, because they were busy with their own troubles. by 1919 Lenin perilously decided it was a great idea to start "bringing the revolution abroad" against the good advice of a more temperate Trotzki. And we all know the "success" of that enterprise from the outcome of the Soviet-Polish war. On the same line, thanks to Pilsudski, who saw the reds as a better discussion partner in a peace conference, for a Poland eyeing for the whole of Belarus, than the more nationalistic whites, stopped a final push which had send the surrounded reds flying into the well deserved oblivion in mid 1919. So if one comes along to tell that the Polish-Soviet war wasn't about grabbing as much territory as possible, but a noble last-stand to save the europe from communism, he will have to hear that Pilsudski is also guilty for not erradicating the communism in Russia when he had an allmost fool-proof occasion to do so. Because, after all, the whole war was about the defence against communism, wasn't it? |
| Posted by: mateias December 07, 2007 11:52 am |
| For Denes, 1. The Romanian Royal Army did not fight at all, against any Hungarian army, between December 1918 and 16th April 1919. All they did was to advance to the line imposed by the superpowers in Paris. They were attacked by the Red Army on 16th April and afterwards it was attack followed by counterattacks, up to Budapest on 3rd August 1919. 2. Everyone should agree on the big mistake made by the so-called allies when not including a Romanian member in the inter-allied mission in Budapest. This is why it was possible for gen. Bandholtz to thank in public to the Romanian generals in Budapest for everything, and sending disgusting messages back home about the so-called naughy Romanian childrens. By the way, what happened to Bandholtz's stamp collection, much of it provided by the Romanians at his most unusual request ? Or to the highest war decorations bestowed to him by the Romanian Royal Family when he travelled to Bucharest WITHOUT THE PROPER AUTHORIZATION GRANTED FROM PARIS ? 3. Romanian army cut the lines connecting the Red army from Russia and Ukraine sent by Lenin and the Hungarian Reds. Everyone knows that the Romanian army had to fight in Pocutia together with the Polish army and in Slovakia (my grandfather's regiment fought at Rakamaz with 2nd Hunters Division) to help the Czechs. 4. Very interesting attitude at that time had the Italians. Colonel Romanelli (interallied mission) and Prince Borghese on the one hand, Gen. Picione on the other hand (he commanded the Czech army and had to be replaced by the French Gen. Pelle for very dubious actions). All of them encouraged Bela Kun's defiant attitude because Italy had territorial interests (Trieste) and economic interests. 5. I still need data on Hungarian kommissars surfacing later as brand-new philosophers, film directors in the West or communist prime-ministers (like Nagy Imre), general secretaries (Rakosi Mathias) and ministers. 5. Not all war diaries were published AFTER somebody's death. You must consider Hindenburg, Ludendorf, Falkenheyn, Averescu and even Nicolae Iorga. You seem to neglect the very damaging statement made by President Hoover on the looting of Budapest pediatric hospital, proved to be a fake. Just like COFARIU, a Romanian beaten to death at TARGU MURES in March 1990 (broadcasted all over the world as a Hungarian beaten to death by Romanians !). |
| Posted by: dead-cat December 07, 2007 01:02 pm | ||
I don't think anybody said that. The question is whether the statement, that Bandholtz' diary has been "dressed up" because it was published a few years after his death is enough. However, if Bandholtz was biased towards the hungarians, why "dress up" the diary? Now either he was biased or his diary has been adjusted to a pro-hungarian stance. Both don't fit the same time as accusations. Having read the first 100 pages last night, i found lots of statements i'd like to cross-check as it isn't clear to me, whether his obvious dislike of romanians in general, is rooted in his experiences in hungary or if it has been allready present before his arrival. However, I certainly found the introduction by Fritz-Konrad Krüger to be very one sided. |
| Posted by: 21 inf December 07, 2007 02:54 pm |
| It seems that those who added plenty of notes to the diary of Bandholtz didnt remembered what germans, hungarians and austrians looted from Romania and from romanians from Transylvania. They are just complaining that now they were "looted". As I said before: hungarian propaganda, cos the diary is too comented by notes, near introduction and editor's note, trying to persuade the reader from the begining, in one certain direction. It is not impartial at all. One can recognise all the signs of hungarian propaganda: hungarians are opresed, hungarians are looted, hungarians are killed, hungarians are beated by every surrounding nations: serbs, romanians, czech and so on. Not a word at all about hungarian deeds, only in the case they are presented as the guiding light of european civilisation. |
| Posted by: Imperialist December 10, 2007 08:10 am | ||
The Russian communists retook Odessa on April 6 1919. The Hungarian communists attacked Romanian forces on April 10. Lenin was known to have ordered troops sent to aid Hungary as early as March. The French were the most ardent supporters of a united front against communism, with Poland and Romania its main pillars in the region, while the British and Americans were pretty much resigned with the victory of communism in Russia. Later the West did plenty of business with the industrialising Russians and then helped them out withstand Barbarossa. |
| Posted by: mateias December 10, 2007 11:08 am |
| Gen. Stefan Holban died in 1939. In Bandlholtz's diary there is a very curious note on him (page 29, note 1), stating that he committed suicide on the eve of an investigation ordered by the Romanian government after George Clerk's visit. Can somebody clarify this matter for me ? 1. Year of Clerk's visit. 2. Year of the investigation ordered by R. government. 3. Actual reason of Holban's death. Thank you. |
| Posted by: mateias December 10, 2007 11:58 am |
| For Dead-Cat, I am not sure I understand what you say about Poland's role in fighting against Lenin and Tukhachevsky. Do you really like the Communists ? I strongly believe that the strong cooperation between Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania helped this part of Europe to contain them into the limits of Lenin's and Stalin's quarters. Otherwise, the axis Moscow-Budapest-Vienna-Berlin was still possible. Do you really dislike Europe had a lot more fresh air for at least 25 years " This is a link to an interesting paper, from the Commie point of view (lot of sadness for losing such a "historic opportunity" !). http://www.workersliberty.org/node/9629 The Ukrainian Revolution 1917-1921: Deciding the fate of European socialist revolution (Chris Ford) “… The Ukrainian question decides the fate of European revolutions Amidst meltdown the demand for the reconstitution of Soviet Ukraine received support from THE HUNGARIAN SOVIET REPUBLIC FOUNDED IN MARCH 1919, SOON FOLLOWED BY THE BAVARIAN AND SLOVAK SOVIET REPUBLICS. The resolution of the Ukrainian question was urgent, for it was from here that direct aid could be provided to the Hungarian and European revolution. The Hungarian leaders sought to act as mediator, proposing an independent Ukraine with a government including the Nezalezhnyky and Borotbisty. THE RED ARMY COMMANDER ANTONOV, UNDER ORDERS TO GO ON A WESTWARDS OFFENSIVE echoed their demands. All their efforts were shunned by Rakovsky. From Budapest Bela Kun wrote to Lenin that: “Forcing Rakovsky on the Ukrainians against their wishes, in my opinion, will be an irreparable mistake”. THE HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY WAS LOST. THE ROMANIAN AND POLISH ARMIES CLOSED THE ROAD TO HUNGARY.” |
| Posted by: dead-cat December 10, 2007 02:03 pm |
| what i am trying to say is, that the Soviet-Polish war was about grabbing territory and not an anti-boshevik war, proven by the passive polish stance in mid 1919. also i am saying, that once the "revolution" was defeated in germany, it had no chance whatsoever, given the restricted military capabilities of the reds during the entire 1920ies. |
| Posted by: BG7M December 25, 2007 11:22 pm | ||
1292 locomotive engines??? I wonder if today exists so many locomotives in both Hungary and Romania... 34.160 railway cars... that means a train long of at least 350 km. What was the length of hungarian railways at that time? Wasn't it a bit crowded? |
| Posted by: mateias December 26, 2007 10:05 am |
| Maybe as the inheritor of the defunct Austro-Hungarian Empire they had lots of stuff in big numbers. |
| Posted by: 21 inf December 26, 2007 12:46 pm |
| The hungarians "forgot" to mention that romanian troops get actually back a lot of railcars still inscripted with romanian marks, as those were war spoils taken in previous years by hungarian army from Romania. The rest of the numbers were taken by romanians as war compensations for the loses inflicted by hungarian troops when they occupied Romania. |
| Posted by: Dénes December 26, 2007 01:27 pm | ||||
It's irrelevant how many railway engines are in Rumania and Hungary today, almost 90 years after the described event. As for your original question, let's not forget that back then Transyvania was part of Hungary, so most MAV railway rolling stock was evacuated in front of the Rumanian troops' advance. Those were then captured by Rumanians in 1919 and moved to Rumania proper.
I cannot answer this specific question. All I can say is that Hungary - as part of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy - had a rather developed and extensive railway system, which back then was considered highly strategic from the military point of view. That was one of the reasons why the territory that included the railway lines linking Satu Mare (Szatmárnémeti)-Oradea [Mare] (Nagyvárad)-Arad was eventually attached to Greater Rumania at the Trianon Peace Treaty. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: dead-cat December 26, 2007 01:51 pm | ||
"today" is not much of a comparision, as the engines are much stronger and the railcars much bigger, coupled with the fact that the railroad has a much lower share in goods and person transport than back in the early 1900s. in the 1910s, the most common railcar was a 2 axle 15t load boxcar, while today 40-60t load, 4 axle cars are common. by 1913, the german railroad had 30.000 locos and about 750.000 railcars. today, in numbers, the rolling stock is around 35-40%. numbers for austria-hungary are hard to come by, but an estimate would give around 20.000 locos and about 500.000 railcars for the entire A-H. Of this, hungary should have inherited 20-25%, so 34.000 cars should represent about 1/4-1/3 of the hungarian rolling stock. i did a project, around 4 years ago, for the romanian railway. there i spoke with with an official who told me that CFR marfa has around 60.000 railcars today. would the railway operators have an efficient way of tracking railcars, they'd need much less, since most of the time they idle somewhere in a railyard, often not being known they are where they are. thus the need for a larger number of railcars than strictly required. |
| Posted by: Dénes December 26, 2007 03:34 pm | ||||
Where did you take this from? What is the source of this claim?
When did Hungarian troops occupy Rumania? As far as I know, during late 1916-late 1918, very few Hungarian troops stationed in the Rumanian Kingdom. Most of the occupying Central Powers troops were Austrian, Bulgarian, Turkish, etc. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: New Connaught Ranger December 26, 2007 05:00 pm | ||
With regards the Bavarian Soviet Republic, Which I think lasted about a month!!, so a very poor example:  The Bavarian Soviet Republic, also known as the Munich Soviet Republic (German: Bayerische Räterepublik or Münchner Räterepublik) was a short-lived government established after the assassination of Kurt Eisner. It sought to replace the fledgling Weimar Republic in its early days. Its capital was Munich. Kurt Eisner: On 7 November 1918, the anniversary of the Russian October Revolution, Kurt Eisner of the Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany (USPD) declared Bavaria a "free state" – a declaration which overthrew the monarchy of the Wittelsbach dynasty which had ruled for over 700 years. Eisner became Minister-President of Bavaria. Though he advocated a "socialist republic", he distanced himself from the Russian Bolsheviks, declaring that his government would protect property rights. For a few days, the Munich economist Lujo Brentano served as Minister of Trade (Volkskommissar für Handel). After Eisner's USPD had lost the elections, he decided to resign from his office. On 21 February 1919, as he was on his way to parliament to announce his resignation, he was shot by Anton Graf Arco-Valley, who was rejected from membership in the Thule Society because of Jewish ancestry on his mother's side. This assassination caused unrest and lawlessness in Bavaria, and the news of a soviet revolution in Hungary encouraged communists and anarchists to seize power. Politics of the Soviet Republic: On 6 April, a Soviet Republic was formally proclaimed. Initially, it was ruled by USPD members such as Ernst Toller, and anarchists like Gustav Landauer, Silvio Gesell and Erich Mühsam. However, Toller, a playwright, was not very good at dealing with politics, and his government did little to restore order in Munich. His government members were also not always well-chosen. For instance, the Foreign Affairs Deputy (who had been admitted several times to psychiatric hospitals), declared war on Switzerland over the Swiss refusal to lend 60 locomotives to the Soviet Republic. Rumours also had him send cables to both Pope Benedict XV and Vladimir Lenin, asking as to the whereabouts of the key to the lavatory. As such, the regime collapsed within six days, being replaced by the Communist Party, with Eugen Levine, sometimes characterized as a "potential German Lenin", as their leader. Levine began to enact Communist reforms, which included expropriating luxurious apartments and giving them to the homeless and placing factories under the ownership and control of their workers. Levine also had plans to abolish paper money and reform the education system, but never had time to implement them. Levine refused to collaborate with the regular army of the city, and also organized his own army, the Red Army (Rote Armee) under Rudolf Egelhofer, similar to the Red Army of Soviet Russia. In order to support the revolutionary government, thousands of unemployed workers volunteered; soon the ranks of the Rote Armee reached 20,000. The Red Guards began arresting suspected counter-revolutionaries and on 29 April 1919, eight men, including the well-connected Prince Gustav von Thurn and Taxis, were accused as right-wing spies and executed. The Thule Society's secretary, Countess Hella von Westarp, was also murdered. Demise: Soon after, on 3 May 1919, the German army (called the "White Guards of Capitalism" by the Communists), having a force of 9,000, and Marinebrigade Ehrhardt, having a force of 30,000 men, entered Munich and defeated the Communists, after bitter street fights in which over 1,000 volunteer supporters of the government were killed. About 700 men and women were arrested and executed by the victorious Freikorps. Levine was condemned to death for treason. Kevin in Deva. |
| Posted by: mateias December 26, 2007 08:23 pm |
| I see that very few understand the importance of putting down the wave of RED REVOLUTIONS over an Europe exhausted by WW1, at a distance of MONTHS or EVEN WEEKS keeping them apart. It's quite clear that Lenin and Trotzky had very good followers at that time. Unfortunately, Reich's and American money funnelled to Lenin was not enough. |
| Posted by: pgarland6 April 26, 2008 12:53 pm |
| Hello All: I am a new subscriber and have been reading this thread with a great deal of interest. No question, many people have far more knowledge than I. I am writing a bio on General Harry Bandholtz, and his name appears frequently on these pages. There are some errors however. Many are trivial, but should be corrected. In a post dated Dec 6, Mateias writes that General Bandholtz was promosted on paper to General, when he was assigned to Budapest. Not true. He was first promoted to Brigadier General, as Chief of Philippine Constabulary, in the Philippines during 1907, however this was a temporary promotion. His permanent grade was not realized until 1917, when he served as Brigade Commander, 58th Infantry Brigade, and took that unit to the battlefields of France. He remained on the front until September of 1918, when he was assigned as Provost Marshal General, American Expeditionary Forces. His Budapest assignment followed during 1919. Regarding his stamp collection, he was an avid collector most of his adult life, and had a fantastic collection from around the world. After his death, his widow sold the collection. How many Romanian stamps were in the collection is anyone's guess. Another comment was that General Bandholtz had no authority to visit Romania. He was invited by King Ferdinand, a special train was provided, and he and his staff were guests of the King and Queen Maria, at their Summer Palace, in Sinaia. My interest in joining this forum is to learn more about the Romanian Generals whom General Bandholtz was most acquainted, namely Holban and Mardarescu.Would anyone be so kind as to provide me with dates and places of birth and death, plus any information regarding what commands they had? By the way, I have found no reference to General Bandholtz knocking down any Romanian General, or any other person, with his riding crop! |
| Posted by: Victor April 26, 2008 02:07 pm | ||
I have created two topics in the Biography section of the forum. See there. |
| Posted by: pgarland6 April 26, 2008 03:34 pm |
| Viktor: Thank you! That is exactly what I was looking for! |
| Posted by: dacliber January 06, 2009 09:01 am |
| Romanian soldiers enter Budapest 4 aug 1919 Source e-bayhttp://imageshack.us http://g.imageshack.us/img211/romaniansoldiersenterbubv4.jpg/1/ |
| Posted by: contras January 03, 2010 04:05 pm | ||
She's name was Baronees Dora de Taxis. |
| Posted by: contras January 03, 2010 10:09 pm |
| About feeding of Hungarian population in Budapest: Five days after entering in Budapest, Romanians opened the biggest antreposit in Budapest, that one of the "Change and scount Hungarian Bank" keeped by bolsheviks. From here, were gave to budapestan population: 170 tons wheat, 28 tons wheat mixed with rye, 400 tons flour, 10 tons marmalade, 700 tons sugar, 20 tons coffe, 400 tons alimentar oil, 650 tons salt, 20 tons paprika, 40 tons dry vegetables, 10 tons dry onion, 35 tons dry apples, 700000 meat tinned conserved, etc. There were just the firsts measures to evoid Budapest population from starving. I'll come sooner with other measures, and about the "looting" of Hungaria, with figures. By the way, I quotted by declaration of Major E. Nancovici, who was detached with suplly (Intendenta) at Central Romanian Commision in Budapest. |
| Posted by: Dénes January 04, 2010 04:00 pm |
| The biggest problem with these posts - containing statements and quotes from various Rumanian secondary sources (books and articles) - is that they lack the most basic attribute a credible historical overview should have: a balanced, unbiased presentation of the events, drawing from sources from both sides, as well as third parties, if possible. The quoted Rumanian books already show the events of the 1918/1919 campaign solely from the Rumanian side, filtered of any negative aspects that were unquestionably part of this regional war, including attrocities, crimes and widespread looting (some of them were already detailed on this forum, check the appropriate threads). The same problem would exist if only Hungarian sources were used. In order to have a more balanced view we would need someone to present the same events from the Hungarian side. Until then, the picture remains incomplete, unreliable and one sided. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: 21 inf January 04, 2010 08:45 pm |
| A secondary info from a hungarian language newspaper from Bihor county, issued sometime in 2007 or 2008 (i cant rem exactly) , internet edition, who stated about "romanian atrocities" which occured at the begining of romanian offensive in April 1919: in a hungarian village from Bihor county a young 19 years old hungarian peasant was shot dead by romanian troops while he runing after he refused to give up his light machine gun and it's ammo. The young hungarian peasant fellow was clothed in civilian and he was inhabitant of that very village. Was it atrocity from romanian side? Was it something else, like shooting armed enemy non-regular combatants? For sure was an romanian atrocity, this is the opinion of that nowadays hungarian language newspaper from Romania, clearly stated as it. A sample of hungarian view of the events, not to be said that no one listen the other side as well. Readed in original hungarian language by yours trully. PS: didnt posted the above post to take one someone or to inflame the spirits, just giving an example not suitable for "listening the other side too", cos there are a lot of biased examples in hungarian sources, too, primary or secondary sources, as everywere around the world. |
| Posted by: contras January 05, 2010 02:26 pm | ||
@Denes
And what about baronnes Dora de Taxis? Is she on "Romanian side"? |
| Posted by: contras January 05, 2010 06:36 pm |
| Look bellow, it represents Romanian troops delivering bread daily to the Budapest population. http://img511.imageshack.us/i/imagc.jpg/http://g.imageshack.us/img511/imagc.jpg/1/ |
| Posted by: Dénes January 05, 2010 07:26 pm |
| This event, and other positive ones mentioned in the previous posts, might have very well been true. No question that good things also happened during the Rumanian occupation of Hungary. However, as I've stated above, these events included in various published published Rumanian sources are filtered of any negative aspects of the occupation. For example, at the same time this mass feeding took place in Budapest, it might very well have happened that in the countryside entire livestock of Hungarian peasants were confiscated by the Rumanian military authorities, leaving those families hungry and pennyless. This is why I strongly recommended to use sources from all warring parties, and if possible third (supposedly) neutral ones, too. Otherside the picture drawn is biased and misleading, thus practically pointless. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Dénes January 05, 2010 07:29 pm | ||
Just as much as a Rumanian princess (let's say Ms. Catherine Caradja) was pro-Soviet after having a pleasant chat at her estate at Nedelea while drinking a cup of tea with a well educated high ranking Soviet officer during the "liberation" of Rumania by the Red Army in 1944. Is this relevant to the general picture? Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: contras January 05, 2010 08:36 pm |
| It a difference between, a baronnes who endured the bolshevik regime and later stayed 3 month under Romanian occupation, and a princess who drank a cup of tea with an soviet officer. The last cannot distiguesh the reality, but the first had seen it with their eyes, during 3 month of occupation. And I never saw photos, even in German, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Austrian or Turks sources, of their soldiers feeding local population in Bucarest during occupation, that lasted not 3 month, but almost 2 years. |
| Posted by: contras January 05, 2010 08:48 pm |
| Bellow, a sample of "lootings": A Romanian church big bell, stolen from Romania by retreating Hungarian troops, and find in Hungary by Romanian troops. http://img39.imageshack.us/i/foto0027u.jpg/http://g.imageshack.us/img39/foto0027u.jpg/1/ |
| Posted by: contras January 05, 2010 09:07 pm | ||
I didn't find the episode you talk about, but I give you so information about this princess, from where you can find why it is believed she was a prosovietist. By the way, she escaped from Romania in 1952, by boat. Hardly to imagine for a prosovietist. "The princess first became known internationally as a result of her opposition to Romania's alliance with Nazi Germany during the Second World War (see Romania during World War II). When the oilfields at Ploieşti were bombed by the Allies in August 1943 in Operation Tidal Wave, she personally took custody of surviving Allied crews, saw that they were cared for in her hospitals, and facilitated their escape to Italy.[1] During the Allied bombings of spring and summer 1944, several American airmen landed on her estate at Nedelea, after either emergency landing or parachuting. Throughout the war, she eased the burden of captivity for more than one thousand flyers who had been shot down.[2] Those deeds earned her the nickname "Angel of Ploieşti" among the airmen.[1][4] One of the pilots who survived crash landing, and escaped thanks to her efforts, was Richard W. Britt, who recounted the story in a book, many years later.[4][5] According to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, Princess Caradja had an affair during the war with Frank Wisner, who was working in Bucharest as chief of OSS operations in southeastern Europe. Claiming that Caradja was a Soviet agent, Hoover passed that information to Senator Joseph McCarthy, who was investigating at the time Wisner and the Office of Policy Coordination.[6] After the Communist regime was established in Romania, her orphanages and foundation were nationalized in 1949. Her daughter, who had left for Paris in 1948, helped the princess escape in early 1952, with assistance from the French secret services;[4] she left the country on a Danube tanker, arriving after 8 weeks in Vienna.[1] During the winter of 1954-55, the princess directed relief efforts for children in Algiers, in the wake of the September 9, 1954 earthquake.[2] She traveled widely, giving talks in France on "Life Behind the Iron Curtain", and speaking at the BBC.[1][3]" If you want to find more, about her activity in ww1 and later, look here: Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Caradja |
| Posted by: Dénes January 06, 2010 11:53 am | ||
Another sample of lootings (without quote marks): 1292 steam engines, 2006 passenger rail cars and 32,154 freight cars of the Hungarian National Railway (MAV) were taken to Rumania in 1919/1920 (obviously not empty). [Source: Encyclopaedia of Hungary in W.W. 1]. I don't have the relevant figures handy, but I would say this huge number exceeded the total train park of Rumania. I can post more examples, if requested. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: contras January 06, 2010 01:04 pm |
| Bellow, romanian sanitar material, taken during occupation of Romania, and find later in large quanrities in military deposits of Hungarian army. You can read an the boxes, in Romanian: Pansamente. Bandaje mici (Pansaments. Small bandages). http://img138.imageshack.us/i/foto0028f.jpg/http://g.imageshack.us/img138/foto0028f.jpg/1/ |
| Posted by: Alexei2102 January 06, 2010 01:48 pm |
| Gents, @contras @Denes, I fail to understand the point and reason of this debate... what do we have to learn from all this argument ? Personally, when I do my research, I try to see the points of view of all parts involved... just as Denes said, and I am trying to find a middle line... as they say in "Dune" - the history of the losing side will always be the more interesting one that the victor's... Just my 02 cents on the matter. Happy New Year all, Al |
| Posted by: SATHOR January 06, 2010 02:45 pm | ||||
Another sample of lootings (without quote marks): 1292 steam engines, 2006 passenger rail cars and 32,154 freight cars of the Hungarian National Railway (MAV) were taken to Rumania in 1919/1920 (obviously not empty). [Source: Encyclopaedia of Hungary in W.W. 1]. hello to all, i saw that this post is very ...hot for one reason or other... so i decide to speak a bit about it. we can discuss all month about looting and atrocities and everything and not haveing an final answer. so my opinion is that mr.denes is a bit alone in this topic and i dont understand why is trying to change a perception which is all ready well formed in each side about what happent.no one from this topic wasnt born at that time and all what we talck is what other want to left to posterity whit good and bad so in my opinion this discussion is regardles.i thinck our ancesters talck about it enough... regarding the looting stuf that i quote.... maybe thouse things that are presented to being stolen from MAV where in romania at the begining and belong to it ... you konw i notice that many times hungarian history present the things in her defend on her one interes (which is good some time) pasing the evident truth.i read many books which i dont remeber the titles now, but in all you can fell the injustice made to all the opresed people from tha AH monarchy and not only to us and one thing i can say that some time i fell that the romanian was the most opresed....when you think that somwhere in 15 century a diet give a law that say that anybody who is not a hunagian declared must die ... and only in 19 century a hungarian noble decide to talck about injustice made in translivania...or what can we say as humans about what happent at ip and traznea where a 2 years old child was kiled by a grenade given by a hungarian soldier to play whit .... many hunagarians which are now revisionits have to think at 900 years of atrocityes in transilvania and not only...and after speak about this to other peoples....maybe they will find an answer .... is sad to talck about this i visit all transilvania in tha past year and i talcked whit everybody that i meet (hunagarian or romanian) about this problem and at the end my conclusion was that comon people dont have anything to do whit the bad things that happent in the past and they are liveing now togheter in peace  excuse my bad english ,hope that everyone understand what i wrote p.s. by the way i'm an hungarian ethnic |
| Posted by: dead-cat January 06, 2010 03:47 pm |
| the whole point is against any attempts of whitewashing, what should not be whitewashed. it's against justification of deeds that should not be justified, especially not if it is supposed to make someone feel better because of an association by nationality. this is just as stupid as trying to beat up your hungarian neighbour, because allegedly "they" murdered Mihai Viteazul. or any other example the other way 'round. also it is against generalization. for example such as "900 years of atrocities in Transsylvania". or against picking sides. |
| Posted by: Victor January 06, 2010 05:57 pm |
| contras, The forum has clear http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=27 regarding the posting of images. Please comply. Thank you. Regarding the debate, I really do not see any point in it. It is a historical fact that the Central Powers (including Hungary) took whatever they could find from Romania. When Romania occupied parts of Hungary, it acted in the same way: it took whatever it could find, including some of the Romanian goods taken by Hungary earlier. The difference was that while Hungary probably did not take the lion's share from the Romanian spoils, being the smaller ally, Romania took the lion's share from Hungary, being the main occupation force. From memory, this was one of the problems with the Western Allies who desired a division of the spoils according to the overall war contribution, which the Romanian government feared could have lead to Romania not recovering even the goods taken by Hungary from Wallachia (I remember reading this either in Leustean's book or Constantin Bratianu's book on the 1919 militry and political situation). |
| Posted by: ANDREAS January 06, 2010 08:51 pm |
| Regarding the issues in discussion, need to say that I do not want to repeat dispute but there are some questions: - did Hungary give back voluntary between december 1918 and april 1919 any goods stolen from Romania by A-H or German Armies (Mackensen Army Group for instance) which were stationed on his controlled territory? - did Hungary need after her new borders (I mean here with his less territorial area) as many locomotives and wagons f.ex. as he possesed in late 1918? Don't want to justify a theft, no way, only to ask if in Transylvania were left sufficient locomotives and wagons after the hungarian (troops and administration) retreat from december 1918 -january 1919? I am a person who judge the facts, not legends or vague memories, but the documents even real, but false set, could bring us to false conclusions! No intention to deny a robbery, even Romanian, if the took place, but first make the documents (or memories as well) speak, not statements subordinate to a purpose other than the truth! Than, if it proves true, no problem to accept it... |
| Posted by: contras January 07, 2010 09:39 am | ||
Sorry, the sorce of images I posted is Gen Mardarescu's book, Campania pentru desrobirea Ardealului si ocuparea Budapestei, apeared in 1921. |
| Posted by: dead-cat January 07, 2010 10:16 am | ||
rolling stock was a precious good in the immediate post-war era. a large quantity of railroad equipment was damaged and/or lost during the war. this coupled with a drop in rolling stock production during the war years led to a general shortage. nobody had "sufficient" rail equipment. it's precisely why you find rolling stock on the list of every reparation request. |
| Posted by: contras January 07, 2010 10:25 am |
| If I upset somebody on this forum, I'm appologise. About the debate, I think both me and Denes (which I respect very much), came with arguments and documents that must be noted. Both we have a decent language, and everything we said it come with proofs. That I apreciate very much. Just with some kind of debates, all we can find thruth. Thank you, And I appologise again if I upset somebody. |
| Posted by: contras January 07, 2010 10:36 am |
| About the sense of the debate, I think is important. Because I find some sources about ww1 and regional wars, and it was written that Romanians looted Budapest in 1919. Same sources, don't said a word about lootings of Bucarest, Belgrad and even Brussels and other cities or towns under occupation. I'm agree, there were some lootings, as everywere under occupation, whatever was the occupation. But looting of Budapest was so bad that it is important to be mentioned, only just looting? That I want to know, and I need some arguments and figures. On the other hand, I looked about pictures or other proofs about good gestures made by Central Powers army in Bucarest under occupation. I find none. But I find many photos, reports, thanks, and other proofs about corect comportantion of Romanian Army in Budapest. |
| Posted by: horia January 07, 2010 12:18 pm |
| off topic, but interesting... http://www.banaterra.eu/romana/imagini/expozitii/intrarea_armatei_romane/index.htm |
| Posted by: contras January 13, 2010 08:46 pm |
| I don't want to start another debate, but at this topic, I think it is important to know more about the facts, and proofs. Here is another proof about the Romanian army in Budapest (I had some more). This is again from gen Mardarescu's book, Campania pentrui desrobirea Ardealului si ocupatia Budapestei, 1922. Here are the poor children of Budapest, feeding by Romanian army. http://img163.imageshack.us/i/f26.jpg/ |
| Posted by: contras January 29, 2010 07:32 pm | ||
I find some figures and I need your help, Denes. At 21 November 1918, a number of 6 French-Romanians boards were disposed at main passes in Carphatians mountains to had a surveillance at retreated Mackensen army. The retreat lasted in 28 November. I find some figures, that at least 260 steam engines and 5000 railway cars, 60 of them loaded with agricol machines, avoioded these commissions. These were stollen from Romania, only in 7 days. Before that date, during 2 years of ocupation, who knows? In 5 december, at Ramnicu valcea was a meeting between military representatives of Romania (gen Ludovic Mircescu), French, Hungary and Germany (Mackensen army, col Schwarzkoppen, head of staff). He related that Mackensen army was listed along railway Brasov-Arad-Szolnok-German frontier, the bulk in Hungary, and there were about 170000 men and 50000 horses. Mackensen was interned, or arrested, in Hungary, and many parts of these materials were retained in Hungary. Do you have some figures about the cantities of steam engines and railway cars were retained in Hungary from Mackensen army? Thank you. |
| Posted by: contras February 22, 2010 10:26 pm |
| I recomand the book written by Radu Cosmin, Romanii la Budapesta, apeared in 1922 and edited again, after 2000, about the wiews of Romanian corespondent in this war. |
| Posted by: contras April 03, 2010 08:52 am |
| It looks like the book written by Gen Gheorghe Mardarescu, Campania pentru desrobirea Ardealului si ocuparea Budapestei, was reedited, with other veterans memories from this war. http://www.marist.ro/aparitii_campania_ardeal.htm |
| Posted by: 21 inf April 03, 2010 05:37 pm |
| Thanks for the info! I ordered it following the link you posted! I just cant wait to read it! General Mardarescu is the one who named the two romanian soldiers who put the "opinca" on hungarian parliament in 1919 and described the event. |
| Posted by: contras April 05, 2010 10:42 am | ||
Their names are sgt. Iordan and cprl. Bivolaru. It apears also in gen. Marcel Olteanu book, Huzarul negru, printed in 1926. |
| Posted by: 21 inf April 05, 2010 04:57 pm | ||||
Yes, you are right. My mistake, citing from memory. Sorry |