WorldWar2.ro Forum [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

WorldWar2.ro Forum > Ancient, Medieval and Modern History > Frontier agreement Austru-Hungarian M and Romania

Posted by: ciprianhugianu February 15, 2012 07:06 am

At this link http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3¶m=6292http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3¶m=6292 I have found this Treaty in Hungariaon. Does anybody know where can I find it in English or Romanian? Thanks!

Posted by: Dénes February 15, 2012 02:01 pm

This treaty reinforces the existing border between Hungary, Bukovina (both part of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy) and Rumania.

In a previous topic, related to the 1918/1919 Rumanian-Hungarian local war, it was stated that there was no defined border between Hungary and Rumania in late 1918. This document disproves that claim.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: Florin February 17, 2012 11:07 pm

QUOTE (Dénes @ February 15, 2012 09:01 am)

Bukovina was under Austrian administration.
The border along Bukovina and Moldavia was a border between Romania and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. After the collapse of this empire, Hungary was not automatically the inheritor of all the Austrians had before. Same applies to Romania.
As everywhere in Eastern Europe in those days, the land went to those having the strength to keep it. (And by the way, it previously belonged to a Romanian kingdom since the 1300's, and it was inhabited by Romanians more before that.)
Also, the document from that link is from 1888. It was already outdated not only by the events of WWI, but also by official documents: the Treaty of Buftea signed on 7 May 1918. It can be argued that the Treaty of Buftea was more advantageous for the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but while it replaced the previous treaty, it also collapsed like anything signed by the losing side during WWI.

Posted by: Dénes February 18, 2012 07:06 am

QUOTE (Florin @ February 18, 2012 05:07 am)

The border along Bukovina and Moldavia was a border between Romania and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. After the collapse of this empire, Hungary was not automatically the inheritor of all the Austrians had before.

Correct. After the collapse of the A-H Monarchy Hungary did not inherit anything from the Austrians. It only kept what was already part of the Hungarian Kingdom.

QUOTE

it previously belonged to a Romanian kingdom since the 1300's, and it was inhabited by Romanians more before that.

Rumanian Kingdom in Transylvania? Before 1300? That's new to me.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: ANDREAS February 18, 2012 10:31 am

QUOTE

This treaty reinforces the existing border between Hungary, Bukovina (both part of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy) and Rumania.
In a previous topic, related to the 1918/1919 Rumanian-Hungarian local war, it was stated that there was no defined border between Hungary and Rumania in late 1918. This document disproves that claim.

As I mentioned in the topic to which you refer, a State that ceases the control in terms of military, political, economic and administrative in his own territory (or part of it) to a different authority (CNRC in Transylvania in november 1918) can't claim a violation of his territory by a foreign army, as long as the loss of control over his territory is earlier to the foreign invasion. Similar situations can be found very often in the international law, so your's claims are unfounded! In November 1918, at the entry of the first Romanian troops in Transylvania, the Hungarian army, gendarmerie and administration does not control, de facto, 12 of the 22 counties from Transylvania, Banat, Crisana and Maramures, that will come later as part of Great Romania. This information is confirmed by the report of the commander of the hungarian VII. Gendarmerie District -Brasov to his superiors in 7 november 1918, which I lectured in the reading room of the Arad city library (in original and in translated form).

Posted by: ANDREAS February 18, 2012 02:42 pm

The document I quoted mentions the takeover of local administration and gendarmerie functions by organized Romanian revolutionary supported by armed formations called national guard, composed largely of former soldiers. The document speaks of many attacks on the gendarmes stations in urban areas of Brasov, Sibiu, Hunedoara and Bistriţa-Năsăud counties and significant defections in the troops who surrendered weapons to the armed romanian formations. He stated that in the 7 counties where he had troops, the Romanian militia had over 4500 armed men, far exceeded the capacity of its troops to act. He says he already asked help from the commander of I. Gendarmerie District -Cluj, but the situation there was as critical as his.
The idea is that, in these circumstances, what state are we talking about (Hungarian or Austro-Hungarian whatever), a state whose administration, police and gendarmerie forces had lost control, and whose authority was in dissolution?

Posted by: 21 inf February 18, 2012 05:32 pm

In 1918, following the colapse of AH monarchy, Hungary quicly dispensed her former partner, Austria, and made separate discussion with the Allies. Her hopes were that she will not put in the same bowl as Austria at the end (it was not a problem to her to make the 1867 compromise with Austria and have Transylvania united with her, under the benevolent eyes of austrians, with whom they fight to the death less than 20 years before, in 1848-1849). It is almost sure off-topic, but let's not forget that in 1848 hungarians acused transylvanian romanians as being fooled by austrians and were treated in Transylvania as treators cos they allied with austrian. Short memory from hungarian side, indeed, because in 1867 hungarians joined austrians for their own interess, but they didnt called themselfes treators or fools of their hungarian Motherland. They saw their 1848 dream fullfiled by austrians in 1867 (the union of Transylvania). Romanian's from Transylvania 1848 dream came true in 1918 by their own will - 1848/49 was only a rehearshal for 1918, as was probably for other non/german and non/hungarian nations from Austrian (later AH) empire.

And by the way, if in 1300 wasn't a proper romanian kingdom in Transylvania neither a hungarian one existed. In 1300's hungarian royalty was still expanding west in Transylvania and it's rule was not as extended or so well established as one can think (I exclude from this sentence the idiot and stupid history books wrote on the basis of theories as Roessler's about romanian "infiltration" in Transylvania in Middle Ages).

Posted by: Florin February 18, 2012 07:14 pm

QUOTE

QUOTE (Florin @ February 18, 2012 05:07 am)

Correct. After the collapse of the A-H Monarchy Hungary did not inherit anything from the Austrians. It only kept what was already part of the Hungarian Kingdom.

To make it very short:
Regarding the indivisible and continuous Kingdom of Hungary, since 1526 what is today Hungary was under direct Turkish administration, including mosques built in Budapest. Meanwhile Transylvania was an independent state, making its own politics. That include being in the winning coalition in the 30 year war: 1618-1648.

With some help from Poland, Wien survives the Turkish siege and after 1688 a big part of Europe is coming under the Habsburg Crown. From 1688 to 1867 Hungary as it is today has the same status as Transylvania, and later as Galicia, northern Italy, Bukovina. Then we have the new Kingdom of Hungary, a courtesy of the Austrians, who were in need for a partner. This new Kingdom of Hungary is as new as the modern Romania (Moldova and Wallachia united), and this time Transylvania was a gift from the Habsburg Crown.

QUOTE (Dénes @ February 18, 2012 02:06 am)

.................

QUOTE

it previously belonged to a Romanian kingdom since the 1300's, and it was inhabited by Romanians more before that.

Rumanian Kingdom in Transylvania? Before 1300? That's new to me.

Gen. Dénes

Obviously, I was mentioning Bucovina / Bukovina, part of Moldavia from the early 1300's until 1775.
Also, my text "As everywhere in Eastern Europe in those days, the land went to those having the strength to keep it" was also about Bucovina, but this quote can be applied to Transylvania as well.

Posted by: 21 inf February 18, 2012 08:38 pm

QUOTE

Regarding the indivisible and continuous Kingdom of Hungary, since 1526 what is today Hungary...

Was Transylvania before 1526 part of Hungary? Before this year it was also independent principality, having it's own "voievod". The szeklers had their own "comite", denomination also took by the most meritous voyvods of Transylvania. The 1.000 years ruling of Hungary upon Transylvania is a bad taste myth and only hot brains can accepted without reserves. The only times when Transylvania was under direct rule of Hungary was few months in 1848, between 1867-1918 (and here Hungary couldnt achieve this performance without the crucial help of austrians) and between 1940-1944. Make the arithmetics and one can see how many "1.000 years" Transylvania belonged to Hungary.

Posted by: Imperialist February 18, 2012 08:44 pm

QUOTE (Dénes @ February 15, 2012 02:01 pm)

Do you have a link to that statement/topic so we can look at the context in which it was made? Because it sounds a bit strange taken out of context.

Posted by: Dénes February 19, 2012 08:02 am

I will be honest with you, guys. I am sick and tired to repeat myself over and over again and try to always correct the many myths and legends (particularly regarding Transylvania and the relationship between Hungarians and Rumanians) that I see are still very much alive and kicking.

I saw from previous attempts (particularly the recent issue of the Referendum in December 1918) that very few people are actually open and ready to modify their views based on the facts. Most are simply pushing their agenda, without letting the information contradictory to what they know influence them. There are exceptions, of course. Among the participants of these hot topics I would like to mention 21inf, who shows that he is willing at least to listen what the other party has to say. And the moderators who are stepping in in time to cool down the overheated threads.

I have better things to do with my meagre spare time, like working on my books and articles I am behind with.

What I can do though is to post on a few Hungarian forums a note that anyone who wishes to engage in these debates should visit this forum. Perhaps they have more time at their hands.

Caveat: I don't know who these people will be (if any), so I do not bear even the slightest responsibility of what they may write.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: ANDREAS February 19, 2012 05:25 pm

ciprianhugianu, because it's not your fault that you're caught up in an old dispute between Denes, whose position on everything related to Romania you can guess, and other older and newer members of this forum, I'll try to return to the discussion topic, and say that I found the text in Romanian of the treaty in a book, but for technical reasons I can't post it. I can try, in the limited time I have, to post it, but in Romanian and not in English, if it is ok so?
Denes I would appreciate more your contributions (in other areas than aviation), if they would rely more on documents than on your opinions and interpretations, which I (and I guess many other members) already have had the opportunity to know! Thanks!

Posted by: 21 inf February 20, 2012 04:44 am

Denes, both romanians and hungarians have their miths, propaganda and ghosts of their pasts, as any nation in the world have. I was not spared by them, as you also wasnt. This is life, we are learning all the lifetime and we still die fools (as an old saying teach us). I learned some things from the discussions I had with you, maybe you also found something new speaking with me. Let's think like this: all the time there will be a newcomer who will present the miths, propaganda or ghosts from the past he learned, voluntarilly or not (and he can be either romanian or hungarian guy). Let it be!

Romanians and hungarians are 2 small nations in Eastern Europe who never counted for the big powers. The big ones disposed romanians and hungarians at their good will (bunul plac): sometimes they favored hungarians, sometimes romanians. We (romanians and hungarians) dont count on the map of Europe in the face of tens of milions of germans, tens of milions of french, hundreds of millions of russians. We are just 20 milions romanians (ok, 19 milions romanians and 1 milion hungarians) and 8 milions hungarians. We are a drop in the ocean...If we are not making for us a good neighbourhood, we all (romanians and hungarians) have to loose something and the only beneficials will be others from Europe. It's like the neighbour next door: if I dont have a good relation with him, we both loose. When 2 fight each other, the 3rd wins.

Romanians and hungarians are both having their good parts and less good parts. Maybe if we know each other better and try to understand ourselfs will be better for all. We are in the XXI century, it is suposed culture made it's way to surface and the Middle Ages has lived it's life and it's burried forever. Peace!

Posted by: Florin February 20, 2012 05:27 pm

Each serious participant in these exchanges has the best intentions, the deep belief that his writing is as close to the truth as possible, and the feeling that his conscience is clear.
...And quite often the result is hurt feelings, one side or another.

Posted by: Imperialist February 20, 2012 10:46 pm

I don't see what the big deal is. So what if there was a border between Hungary and Romania in late 1918? What is the relevance of that?

Posted by: ANDREAS February 21, 2012 05:30 pm

Imperialist,
if I understand well (maybe I'm wrong and then I want to be corrected!) Romania would be guilty of armed aggression against a state (Hungary), which border was internationally recognized, more than that, recognized even by Romania, military aggression which resulted in the annexation of parts of its territory (Transylvania), which was later legitimized by the Great Powers (Antanta) by the Trianon Diktat!
It seems to me that Denes's interventions followed this logic, though it's possible that I don't understood them good enough! Don't want to place Denes in this scenarios, though following the logic of his posts we can come to this! I read articles and even books who follow the logic mentioned by me above. Which doesn't mean that Denes thinks this way, I maybe misunderstood his postings!

Posted by: 21 inf February 21, 2012 06:15 pm

Andreas, hungarian propaganda is actually based on victimising

LOL so everything you said above might be true from hungarian propagamda point of view

so one who reads the logic you present might be outraged easily about the "injustice" made by Romania and Great Powers at Trianon. Congratulations, now you perfectly understood how hungarian propaganda works

)

Posted by: ANDREAS February 21, 2012 08:17 pm

Thank you, 21inf!
So we can learn something even from these debates, which seem, to often, to lead nowhere! Wait with interest what Denes has to say!

Posted by: Florin February 23, 2012 12:22 am

QUOTE (ANDREAS @ February 21, 2012 03:17 pm)

......So we can learn something even from these debates, which seem, to often, to lead nowhere! Wait with interest what Denes has to say!

If you read carefully what Gen. Denes wrote in his last post here, he will not write again. I hope this was only about Transylvania and who's rightful to claim it.
I sincerely regret that his feelings were hurt. On the other side, we have to write honestly our point of view in a matter, even with the risk that somebody else may get angry over it. If our writing does not reflect what we think we know, what is the point in having these exchanges?

Posted by: 21 inf February 23, 2012 07:04 am

Even if for one might seem to be off-topic (I believe it is not), an interesting continuation of the discussion would be about the natural right and the historical right (dreptul natural and dreptul istoric) - points of view which ruled the 1848 romanian revolution (but not only) and which greatly influenced WW1 arguments for going to war, at least for romanians on both sides of the Carpathians. The uprising of natural and historical rights are the things that boosted nations from Europe to throw away the feudal laws which ruled for centuries and who's ideas at least were valid for some politicians in the eve of WW1. Some ideas are still valid today...

Posted by: Radub February 23, 2012 09:18 am

QUOTE (ANDREAS @ February 21, 2012 05:30 pm)

if I understand well (maybe I'm wrong and then I want to be corrected!) Romania would be guilty of armed aggression against a state (Hungary), which border was internationally recognized, more than that, recognized even by Romania, military aggression which resulted in the annexation of parts of its territory (Transylvania), which was later legitimized by the Great Powers (Antanta) by the Trianon Diktat!

I am quite certain that when The Romanian Army was marching in Budapest in 1919 they did not need a treaty to tell that they were in Hungary.

How did a discussion about a treaty turn into a discussion about Denes's character? Play the ball not the player. Referee, this is a red card offence!

We are losing too many valuable members here... Shame...

Radu

Posted by: Florin February 23, 2012 04:35 pm

QUOTE (21 inf @ February 23, 2012 02:04 am)

............ The uprising of natural and historical rights are the things that boosted nations from Europe to throw away the feudal laws which ruled for centuries and who's ideas at least were valid for some politicians in the eve of WW1. Some ideas are still valid today...

Governments and whole nations care or don't care about their natural and historical rights, depending of their interest. Most often is the case when the same history is stretched by two neighbors, each trying to make it a tool for his own goals.

Posted by: Radub February 23, 2012 05:12 pm

QUOTE (Florin @ February 23, 2012 04:35 pm)

QUOTE (21 inf @ February 23, 2012 02:04 am)

Yeah, you are speaking of the "siege menatility" that stirs idiots to elect nazionanist morons.
Radu

Posted by: 21 inf February 23, 2012 05:57 pm

The natural right is the foundation, the angular stone of the modern Declaratia drepturilor omului...

And I dont think of being patriot or nationalist is such a bad thing as long as this does not lead to extremism. The nation is the mother of each individual and an individual without nationality is an orphan. I totally disagree extremism, but I cant deny the patriotism of any individual, regardless of nationality. It is him right to love his mother (to be readed nation) as long as it doesnt hurt other nationality...

Posted by: Radub February 23, 2012 06:52 pm

That is a beautiful theory. Almost like a song by John Lennon. The harsh reality is different.
Nationalism is not patriotism. They say that patriotism is loving everything related to your country while nationalism is hating everything not related to your country. Do not confuse the two and always be aware of the difference.
Radu

Posted by: 21 inf February 23, 2012 07:38 pm

Question of point of view (patriotism and nationalism). Hate is not good. How funny you mentioned some stuff related with John Lennon regarding my above post...it was the principles of 1848-49 romanian revolution in Transylvania. Being off topic already, when I'll have time I'll post a number of romanian proclamations from that era on this topic or on the blog I manage and link it here.

Posted by: ANDREAS February 23, 2012 08:32 pm

Radub,
because politeness required me to answer and not to ignore (as I think would be more suited to the content of your comment!) a comment that seems to be addressed (or related) to me, I understand to say that in the future I will simply ignore such comments! It is obvious that Denes's choice to stay or not in this forum belongs to him, independent of the opinions expressed by some or others in this forum, that can bother him just like any of us! Equally obvious is the fact that I addressed him a question (asking him a clarification) to which he did not answer yet, leaving place to speculations. I didn't talk about Denes character, I've only followed the logic of his posts! The fact that the Admin. have not intervened proves very clearly that that they understood my post correctly. The fact that we (me and you) never understand each other in any discussion topic we've met, didn't make me to ask your amend, observing that we think and feel very different (which is not a problem for me!). And with that I say: case closed!

Posted by: Florin February 23, 2012 09:53 pm

QUOTE (Radub @ February 23, 2012 01:52 pm)

.............
Nationalism is not patriotism. They say that patriotism is loving everything related to your country while nationalism is hating everything not related to your country. Do not confuse the two and always be aware of the difference.
Radu

I would not label "nationalist" as "hating everything not related to your country".
It is mostly like:

1. We are better (or the best).
2. How do they dare to criticize us (it does not matter that they may be right).
3. We invented it the first.
4. Because we did not get the first place (in an athletic contest), something is wrong, rotten, not fair etc.

You will recognize this pattern as quite common for Americans, French, Russians, British, Japanese, Asian Indians, and so on. Considering how common is this (let me name it a mental disease), why suddenly it is considered shameful or a crime if the "culprit" is a small nation - Romanian or Hungarian, for example.
I like a Romanian concept from the old Socialist days: "equal rights for all nations". I guess this was always utopia.

Posted by: Radub February 23, 2012 10:02 pm

Andreas,
You regularly take the role of prosecutor, judge and executioner when you do not like what other people say. Your usual method of execution is "character assassination". This is exactly what you did when you said that Denes has some sort of bad feeling in relation to "everything Romanian". That is an exaggeration, it is mean and untrue. Denes authored or co-authored many works related to Romanian aviation in which he always trated the subject with utmost dignity and care. This took him thousands upon thousands of hours of work. I know that aviation publishing does not pay a lot. So, spending thousands upon thousands of hours to write in good terms about Romania in exchange for little is hardly the action of someone who has bad feelings towards "everything Romanian."

If you want to win arguments, please do so by substantiating your points not by attacking the character of your intlocutor. You do this regularly. You must stop.
It is easy to hide behind the shield of anonmity and demean good people when you cannot win some argument on a forum. This is like a "cap in gura in careu" when you cannot score a goal. This hould not be be allowed. This must be a "red card" offence. The referee may let you get away with it (and you may show the middle finger to the crowds) but the "spectators" will remember.
It is evident hat this is the reason why Denes does not care to respond to you.

Radu

Posted by: ANDREAS February 23, 2012 11:48 pm

QUOTE

21inf,
Indeed, but the case of Hungary (speak only of the situation of 1848 revolution) seems to be partially framed in this case. In the book that I quoted before: Paul Lendvai -Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat (2003) he says with some notable exceptions (among them that of Kossuth) Hungarian revolutionary leaders came from among the great aristocrats (Lajos Batthyány led goverment) which, although introduced important reforms, have not really deconstructed the feudal system. Lower nobility constituted for example the main military force of the newly created Honved army, although it is obvious that there was a major change from the previously existing system (introduced by Metternich). No less significantly, the most important reformer and opponent of Kossuth, count István Széchenyi was itself a nobleman, from a an old and influential noble family of Hungary. What linked the weak Hungarian bourgeoisie and the important lower nobility was the idea of national emancipation, which animated most of hungarians after a long time since the Rákóczi's War for Independence (1703–1711) which is considered by the author as the first attempt of a independent Hungary. Unfortunately for all nations involved (hungarians, romanians, serbs, croats, a.o.) Hungarian nationalism collided with the desire for national emancipation of the other nations with the result well known.