Vienna, 30 August 1940 - Award or Diktat ?

Hi Imperialist,

I asked you a straight question.

You chose to be evasive and not to answer.

That is your choice.

It is now a matter of public record.

That is the end of it.

Cheers,

Sid.

A matter of public record is also:

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.phpsho...indpost&p=38641

I am sure you missed it when you decided to ask me a deliberately rhetorical question. Like I said, if you want to say something regarding the consequences of the refusal of the Arbitration, just say it, damn it stop fooling around.

Hi Imperialist,

As I asked the question, only I am in a position to say whether it is rhetorical. It was not rhetorical. It was a straight question.

This is not the first time you have hidden behind this entirely spurious defence in order to avoid answering something.

That is your prerogative. You don't have to answer anything you don't want to.

However, you do have an obligation to tell us this straight instead of falsely pretending you had answered it earlier, when you had not, or trying to pretend that the question you were asked was not designed to be answered, which it was.

As far as I can tell so far, you are in favour of Romania fighting rather than accepting arbitration in 1940 without any regard to the likely consequences. It would appear on current evidence that you have not thought your position through as you are not prepared to answer my non-rhetorical question:

What do you think the result would have been if Romania had decided to reject arbitration and fight for Transilvania in 1940?

Cheers,

Sid.

I did not pretend I answered your question earlier (truly, how was I to answer your question before you asked it?), but I did say:

Can you ever let go of an issue? You are unbelievable...

Hi Imperialist,

I rather think that you have not included that result in the conclusions you have expressed on this thread.

Which still leaves my question unanswered:

What do you think the result would have been if Romania had decided to reject arbitration and fight for Transilvania in 1940?

You seem determined that Romania should have fought, but you have yet to offer an opinion on the likely consequences of your recommended course of action.

Cheers,

Sid.

Why should I not mix them? Both were aggressors looking to exploit the achievements of Germany, for their illusionary imperialistic dreams.

Quote: "Don't forget that (...) there is a different topic."

Would you be so kind to specify what did Horthy actually do? (in the separate topic, of course).
As for the "illusionary imperialistic dreams" quote, I really have no comments. It sounds like an excerpt from CVT's or GF's speech.

They were illusionary imperialistic dream because Mussolini wanted to create a new Roman empire and Horthy the old kingdom of Hungary. These plans were illusionary because they were simply not achievable. They were incompatible with the course of civilization.

Horthy actually violated the international laws by taking hold of territories, as a direct consequence of German's aggression in Europe.

I will let you find that out. The Rumanian archives are much closer to you than to me. Anyhow, I did my part in finding a pertinent document that clarifies the issue - no matter if you like it or not.

You came up with this claim, it's your task to prove it. The diplomatic assertions of Ribbentrop are simply not enough.

Finally, I could find the complete, official text of the 2nd Vienna Arbitration, in a book I just received [Horváth, Csaba; Lengyel, Ferenc: 'A Délvidéki hadmüvelet' (Combat Operations in Lower Hungary), 1941 April, Puedlo Publ. (no publication date, but fairly recent). ISBN 963 9477 41 9].

I compared it to the text published in a Rumanian collection of documents I have [Scurtu, Ioan; Mocanu, Constantin; Smârcea, Doina: 'Documente privind istoria României intre anii 1918-1944', Ed. Didactica si Pedagogica, Bucuresti, 1995, page 536].

The main body of the resolution is identical in both books; however, the preamble was left out in the Rumanian version, the missing area being marked with a row of dots.

Here is the original preamble [translated ad verbatim by myself]:
"The Government of the Rumanian Kingdom and the Government of the Hungarian Kingdom turned towards the Government of the Reich and the Government of the Italian Kingdom with the request related to the pending question of territories to be transferred to Hungary to be settled through an arbitration.

This request has been based on the statement formulated by both the Government of the Rumanian Kingdom and the Government of the Hungarian Kingdom in effect that the results of the arbitration will be accepted outright and will be considered as mandatory for both parties.

Acting on this request, Joachim Ribbentrop, the Reich's Foreign Minister, and Count Galeazzo Ciano, Foreign Minister of His Highness, King of Italy and Albania, and Emperor of Ethiopia, after repeated conversations with Mihail Manoilescu, Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Rumania, reached the following resolution on this day:"
[From here on comes the text published in the aforementioned Rumanian and Hungarian books].

I hope this quote settles the issue of Rumania's official request, alongside Hungary, for this arbitration to take place.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on May 17, 2006 01:42 am

On 29 August 1940 the Romanian officials were summoned to Vienna where they were informed for the first time of the arbitration (this is why they were surprised). They were recommended to accept the arbitration. The first Crown Council decided to accept the arbitration, while the second Crown Council, within 48 hours submitted to the verdict.

Source: Revista A.F.T. "Dictatura regelui Carol al II-lea sau despre cum s-a incercat
gestionarea crizei acesteia"
http://www.armyacademy.ro/revista4/rev4_art8.html


The policy of reconciliation promoted by Carol II in internal (towards
legionary movement) and external (towards Axis) affairs did not save the
country from isolation. Hungary, stimulated by the Romanian submission
to the Soviet ultimatum, started to press categorically in the issue of
Transylvania, and Hitler advised king Carol II on 3 June to start
negociations with Hungary and Bulgaria regarding the territorial claims.
The negociations of Turnu Severin (16-24 August) did not satisfy the
Hungarian side, having as a result the summoning of the foreign ministers of Romania and Hungary to Vienna on 29 August, where they were informed that Ribbentrop and Ciano have assumed the role of "arbiters".

[...]

Carol II, under the pressure of the events, summoned on 29 August the Crown Council, which issued the communique of accepting the arbitration (in fact a dictate) "following an ultimative demand of the Axis".

Obviously this quote proves absolutely nothing. The preamble of the Diktat is as void as the Diktat itself. Just one more lie in a document that the Romanian side was forced to sign.

If you consider this to be a reliable source, you may as well trust Goebbels' propaganda broadcasts. Their historical value is the same.

Obviously this quote proves absolutely nothing. The preamble of the Diktat is as void as the Diktat itself. Just one more lie in a document that the Romanian side was forced to sign.

If you choose to ignore a historical document, signed by the Rumanian Government and thus obviously an official document of the time - because you happen to dislike it - it's your choice, of course. However, it speaks volumes of your personal view of history.

Remember, however, one cannot pick and choose only what he/she likes from history. Facts still remain facts.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on May 17, 2006 11:42 pm

Actually, i think the document that you quoted speaks volumes about your view of history. You are ready to believe any document (even obviously biased and false ones) if it helps to justify your opinions.

Hi Guys,

I see no contradiction between the wording Denes gave being accurate and the Vienna Award being a dictat.

It is perfectly clear that, already being in full possession of the disputed territory, Romania had nothing to gain and everything to lose by the proposed German-Italian arbitration. It was therefore only duress that obliged Romania to attend and accept the result.

However, it is unhistorical to talk of the Vienna Diktat in capital letters. Formally speaking, there was no such thing. However, it is perfectly reasonable to talk of the Vienna Award being a dictat as far as Romania was concerned. Hungary might similarly claim that the post-WWI treaty by which it lost Transilvania in the first place was also a dictat for similar reasons.

Cheers,

Sid.

Only one of the tragic consequences of Vienna diktat, over romanian people.

This is the photocopy of original declaration of my grandfather, survivor of Ip massacre, Salaj county, Transilvania, massacre form the night of 13/14 september 1940, 2 weeks after the diktat.

157 romanian people was assasinated with cold blood.
The youngest romanian was in diapers, the elder age above 80.
Childrens and women killed, even one pregnant woman bayoneted in street, the fetus being pulled out from his mother's belly with bayonet.

My grandfather lost his wife, age 30, and his daghter, age 7, killed by hungarian army, backed up by hungarian people from the village, organised by hungarian baron Farago, from the same village of Ip. The name of the killers can be clearley read on the declaration, being identified by my grandfather in that horible night. The killers was never punished.

Tonight I've heard an interesting interview aired on the main Hungarian radio station (Kossuth), in its daily program 'Without borders". The interview was made with the Rumanian historian Ottmar Trasca, with the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the so-called 'Vienna Resolution'.

During the interview Trasca stated that based on recently discovered diplomatic papers, fond in the archives in Bucharest, it turns out that the Rumanian diplomats actually asked Berlin to come up with a resolution regarding the partition of Transylvania. The reason was that after loosing Bessarabia, the Rumanian diplomats knew well that there was no way they could 'sell' to the Rumanian public the loss of another chunk of territory. Therefore, they thought by asking Berlin (and, secondary, Rome), they would get away with a minimal loss, namely a few Western Transylvanian counties, e.g., Bihor, Satu-Mare and a portion of Arad, totalling about 4000-5000 sq. km. However, on 30 Aug. it turned out that a much larger territory was taken away (about 2/5th of Transylvania). That's why Manoilescu fainted when he saw in Vienna's Belvedere Castle the map with the redrawn borders.

Trasca also mentioned that Hungary received less than the absolute minimum Budapest asked for, and as a direct consequence Count Teleki - the foreign Minister - handed over his resignation to Horthy (which was not accepted, however).

Finally, he clearly stated that based ont these facts, the event in Vienna was anything but a "diktat', and properly it should be called what it was - a Resolution, or Arbitrage. The term 'diktat' - so said he - was used predominantly during the Communist era, and it's still being used by historians of "old school' and their followers.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on August 31, 2010 07:55 pm

Was that Ottman's conclusion? Good grief!

What happened in Vienna has nothing to do with an arbitration since it fails to observe the most basic principles listed in the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/pacific.asp

Article 2
In case of serious disagreement or dispute, before an appeal to arms, the Contracting Powers agree to have recourse, as far as circumstances allow, to the good offices or mediation of one or more friendly Powers.

Germany and Italy can hardly be called friendly Powers towards Romania. In a normal situation Romania would have called on France and/or Britain to mediate. France was gone, Britain was far away and at war with Germany.

Article 5
The functions of the mediator are at an end when once it is declared, either by one of the parties to the dispute or by the mediator himself, that the means of reconciliation proposed by him are not accepted.

Article 6
Good offices and mediation undertaken either at the request of the parties in dispute or on the initiative of Powers strangers to the dispute have exclusively the character of advice, and never have binding force.

Article 7
The acceptance of mediation cannot, unless there be an agreement to the contrary, have the effect of interrupting, delaying, or hindering mobilization or other measures of preparation for war.

If it takes place after the commencement of hostilities, the military operations in progress are not interrupted in the absence of an agreement to the contrary.


Romania was in no position to refuse Germany and Italy's "mediation" or to ignore their imposed solution. Threats of use of force were made by the "mediators".

Article 37
International arbitration has for its object the settlement of disputes between States by Judges of their own choice and on the basis of respect for law.

Hitler and Mussolini were not judges of international law and hardly did they have any respect for it, nor were they arbitrors at the Permanent Court of Arbitration as per Article 56.