Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (8) 1 [2] 3 4 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Romanian Army in Budapest 1919
Geto-Dacul
Posted: July 30, 2003 03:20 am
Quote Post


Plutonier adjutant
*

Group: Members
Posts: 383
Member No.: 9
Joined: June 18, 2003



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...
PMUsers Website
Top
johnny_bi
Posted: July 30, 2003 03:35 am
Quote Post


Sergent major
*

Group: Members
Posts: 214
Member No.: 6
Joined: June 18, 2003



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
PM
Top
inahurry
Posted: July 30, 2003 03:51 am
Quote Post


Sergent
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 191
Member No.: 61
Joined: July 28, 2003



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.
PM
Top
Victor
Posted: July 30, 2003 10:13 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4349
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE
I quoted objective foreigner eyewitnesses (actually they were not really objectives, because they were allies of the Rumanians, NOT the Hungarians).


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.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
dragos
Posted: July 30, 2003 10:55 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 2397
Member No.: 2
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE
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.


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.
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Dénes
Posted: July 30, 2003 12:52 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4365
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



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 :lol: ).

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
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
inahurry
Posted: July 30, 2003 03:05 pm
Quote Post


Sergent
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 191
Member No.: 61
Joined: July 28, 2003



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.
PM
Top
Dénes
Posted: July 30, 2003 10:05 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4365
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



QUOTE
 
Actually the Entente and the US were friendlier in those years to Hungary than to Romania

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
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
Dénes
Posted: July 30, 2003 10:12 pm
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4365
Member No.: 4
Joined: June 17, 2003



inahurry wrote:
QUOTE
I think the understanding of the english word 'loot', upon which I insisted, remains a key factor

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
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
inahurry
Posted: July 31, 2003 02:22 am
Quote Post


Sergent
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 191
Member No.: 61
Joined: July 28, 2003



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.
PM
Top
inahurry
Posted: July 31, 2003 02:38 am
Quote Post


Sergent
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 191
Member No.: 61
Joined: July 28, 2003



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.
PM
Top
inahurry
Posted: July 31, 2003 02:44 am
Quote Post


Sergent
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 191
Member No.: 61
Joined: July 28, 2003



Sorry, 2 months after his arrival. For a couple of other minor language mistakes I apologize. Hey, trying to be thorough here.
PM
Top
Victor
Posted: July 31, 2003 06:47 am
Quote Post


Admin
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 4349
Member No.: 3
Joined: February 11, 2003



QUOTE
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


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.

QUOTE
No mentioned if he whipped or not a Romanian general, too bad


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.
PMEmail PosterUsers Website
Top
inahurry
Posted: August 02, 2003 01:10 am
Quote Post


Sergent
Group Icon

Group: Banned
Posts: 191
Member No.: 61
Joined: July 28, 2003



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/istori...18-1940/2-2.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."
PM
Top
Florin
Posted: November 23, 2003 07:33 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE
The Rumanians collected and confiscated everything: from raincoats till bycicles... I have very long official lists, inahurry.


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
PM
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (8) 1 [2] 3 4 ... Last » Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0317 ]   [ 14 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]