| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > WW1 and Regional Wars (1912-1919) > Ţara Ungurească or Partium? |
| Posted by: 21 inf March 13, 2011 05:52 am |
| Guys, we were talking on another topic on this forum about what mean Ţara Ungurească and Denes said that it might be the so called Partium in hungarian history, a name that it is not used by romanian history. Anyway, because the discussion was somehow related in other topics about the western frontier of Romania and the reasons Romania entered ww1 on Antante side, I found the text of the secret treaty between Romania, Russia, England, France and Italy, from 1916, which mentioned the borders which will be recognised to Romania if she entered ww1 on the Allied side. I reproduce it in romanian, as I dont think my english is good enough to translate it acuratelly. The Treaty was signed at 4/17 august 1916 and our subject is on point IV: "de la vârful Stog (cota 1655), frontiera urma linia de separaţie a apelor Tisei şi Vişeului pentru a atinge Tisa în dreptul satului Trebuza, mai sus de locul unde se uneşte cu Vişeul; de aici ea cobora talvegul Tisei până la 4 km în josul confluenţei sale cu Someşul, lăsând comuna Vasarosnameny la România; continua apoi în direcţia S-SV până la un punct situat la 6 km est de Debrecen; de aici atingea Crişul la 3 km în josul confluenţei Crişului Alb cu Crişul Repede; apoi se orienta spre Algyo la vest de comunele Oroshaza şi Bekessamson, la 3 km de care făcea o mică îndoitură; urma din nou talvegul Tisei, începând din dreptul satului Algyo, la nord de Szeged, continuând pe talvegul Dunării până la vechea frontieră româno-bulgară." By this treaty, Romania had recognised for herself a teritory bigger with 9.000 square km than it was recognised at Trianon. This part could be Ţara Ungurească. For sure this part is named in hungarian history as being the Partium. |
| Posted by: bansaraba March 13, 2011 10:45 am |
| This might be of help: |
| Posted by: 21 inf March 13, 2011 11:32 am |
| This map i know from a romanian book, it is 100% identical, except legend, which is in romanian. |
| Posted by: Dénes March 13, 2011 03:02 pm |
| Looking at the map it strikes me the obvious question: on what ground did the Western Powers offer foreign territories to another country, only to lure her to their side? What legitimacy their various offers, borderlines drawn at random, had? Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: 21 inf March 13, 2011 04:41 pm |
| On the same basis they always did: they are powerfull and can do whatever they want? The history repeats on and on all the time - the great powers use the right of power, not the power of right. In 1848 hungarians were denied by austrians to have their own country, in 1916 it was only a game of chance that Romania received what she asked and what she fight for, short before ww2 started Czechoslovakia was erased from the map without being at least consulted, Poland was split between Germany and USSR, Romania was choped in 1940 and the examples can continue forever, until our days, with creation of new states or choping some countries in favour of others. Other countries were beneficiaries on the other side's grief...only because the great powers wanted so. In the early moments imediate after ww1 was over, Hungary has a big capital of simpathy from western great powers, even if she was on defeated side. The fact might be odd, that a former enemy has a so good image, but the reason is simple: american businessmen learned that in Hungary is a very big oppotunity for business and they can earn easily a lot of money. Romania was not so open to foreign investments, so initially she was denied the rights aquired by the secret treaty. So, the great powers did what they wanted, were they had the bigger interess in earning money. The source for this info's is the documents and letters from the Peace Conference from Paris between 1919/1920. |
| Posted by: bansaraba March 13, 2011 04:42 pm |
| The right of the winner. |
| Posted by: 21 inf March 13, 2011 04:52 pm |
| The winners are writing the history. You know what Brennus the Gaul said to romans when they complained that the gauls are cheating when measuring the gold paid by the romans as ransom for Rome to be spared of burning and pillaging: throwing his heavy sword on the balance which was measuring the gold, he said "Vae victis!" (Woe to the vanquished (ones)). In the case we are discussing, the winners were not favorited even a state who was allied, Romania, which was dragged in ww1 by the very great powers: England and France. Russia was not counting anymore as it's former form of organisation vanished under bolshevic revolution and USA didnt signed the secret treaty. For Romania to receive what she was promised in the secret treaty and for what she fight in ww1, having a high death toll to pay, she had to make very big pressure on the great powers, who put in discussion a lot of arguments in order not to have to recognise the secret treaty. If this is the way to treat a ally, it is odd, at least. |
| Posted by: soim1 March 14, 2011 07:32 am |
| Something to read: Masacrele comise de unguri împotriva populației românești din Transilvania de Nord (1940-1944) http://soim.ro/story.php?title=masacrele-comise-de-unguri-impotriva-popula%C8%9Biei-romane%C8%99ti-din-transilvania-de-nord-1940-1944 |
| Posted by: 21 inf March 14, 2011 11:17 am | ||
Let's not go off-topic, please. |
| Posted by: Dénes March 14, 2011 01:12 pm |
| I agree. Soim's post is off topic and should be moved where it belongs. As for the topic's main question, as I've said earlier, for Hungarians Partium (i.e., Parts in Latin) is a term used only after the 1920 Trianon Peace treaty, meaning the Hungarian territories West and North-West of Transylvania, attached to Rumania. The Rumanians do no use it. As for "Tara Ungureasca" (i.e., Hungarian Lands) - as it was used by Rumanians in December 1918 - I believe it meant a territory delimited by natural borders (see for example 'Tara Romaneasca', or Wallachia). If so, it must have meant the Hungarian territory up to River Tisza/Tisa/Theiss, although I do not have a proof of this claim. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: bansaraba March 14, 2011 02:25 pm | ||
Here's some info about Medieval Partium: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partium |
| Posted by: ANDREAS March 14, 2011 07:08 pm |
| As I write earlier I read a comment about the Leopold diploma (Diploma leopoldina) from 4 december 1691, who functioned as a constitution for the habsburgic contolled Transylvania, but I can't say for sure if this text is quote or not : the Western Territories "Partium" are included in Transylvania, so Maramures, Satu Mare, Crasna, Solnocul de Mijloc, Bihorul, Zarandul, Aradul with parts of Ugocea, Szabolcs, Hajdu, Bekes, Cenad are now parts of the Principality of Transylvania. The territories liberated from the Turks from Banat (Caransebes, Lugoj, Orsova) are also included in Transylvania at that time. The question remains : Does anyone know if in the original document the term Partium is expressed as such, or not? |
| Posted by: Speedy June 27, 2012 02:43 pm |
| I think there is no Tara Ungureasca or Partium..i think we are speaking about Crisana. Before 1920, Crisana was entirely inside Romania's borders. after Trianon, the regoin was split in 2, the western part was given to Hungary. |
| Posted by: Dénes June 27, 2012 06:40 pm | ||||
Read the 1 Dec. 1918 proclamation of Alba-Iulia and you'll see, there was. There are other examples taken from Rumanian historiography, using the same term, "Tara Ungureasca".
Can you clarify this? It makes no sense as you wrote it. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: 21 inf June 28, 2012 09:50 am |
| Before 1920 Romania's western border was on the Carpatian Mountains. Atfer Trianon was establish were it is today. |
| Posted by: Speedy June 29, 2012 10:03 am |
| @21inf: I want to be more precise, Romania's western border was on the peaks of the Carpathians Mountains until august 1916, the moment when Romania enters the war. In 1919, a year after the war ended on the western front, Romania and bolsevic Hungary clash and fight. Below a link to some articles that describe with many details what has happened. http://cristiannegrea.blogspot.ro/2011/02/prea-putin-s-spus-si-s-scris-despre-una.html The main ideea is that in the period of 1918-1920, Romania's border was on the Tisa River, The entire region of Crisana was inside Romainia's borders. The same situation is for Maramures, that was under Romanian control until Trianon. When the peace talks began, Take Ionescu, the foreign affairs minister of the time, insisted that the border between Romania and Hungary to be on the river Tisa, unfortunatly this did not happened. To conclude, from my point of view, Crisana is trully the region we are discussing about. Our neighbor, Hungary, received half of Crisana, eventhoe it was on the loosing side. |
| Posted by: 21 inf June 29, 2012 01:41 pm |
| Speedy, when I was talking about Romanian borders in 1916 and 1920 I was talking about those recognised by international law. Of course in 1920 Romania controlled all the teritory toward Tisa, but in this fashion one could say that Romania's border in 1919 included Budapest, because there was the Romanian Army ocupying the terrain. It is about the force of the right or the right of the force... My reference from previous posts was linked with borders recognised by law (good or bad). |