Romanian-Hungarian War 1918-1919

Breaking up a campaign into several pieces and presenting it as a separate war (instead as an episode or a battle) is incorrect and historically unjustifiable. So much for Wikipedia...

Gen. Dénes

Also from Wikipedia :
http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/1919-es_magya...%C3%A1bor%C3%BA
http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vita:1919-es_...%C3%A1bor%C3%BA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hungaria...ian_War_of_1919

The "conflict" between Romania and Hungary was a war, i.e., a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations.

This war included several campaigns, i.e., connected series of military operations forming ... distinct phase(s) of a war

What is "incorrect" or "historically unjustifiable" here?

The main purpose of the wars Romania was involved in at the beginning of the last century, was to gain sovereignty over all territories with Romanian national majority previously part of Austria-Hungary. This same purpose was followed by Romania both when it entered WWI in 1916, and when it reentered WWI in 1918. The fact that shortly afterwards (in 1918) the enemy was nolonger Austria-Hungary but Hungary changes nothing to the matter. One can argue that a second purpose was to be able to hold these territories, which implies the necessity of weakening Austria-Hungary/Hungary to a point where it can't take them back by force. As we all know, Romania succeeded on both accounts - with some help from Fortuna ;-).

Cheers!

Cezarprimo, I assume you attempted to have an input to what I said in connection to the Wikipedia article. However, I see no real rebuking to what I wrote. Therefore, I must repeat myself: "Breaking up a campaign into several pieces and presenting it as a separate war (instead as an episode or a battle) is incorrect and historically unjustifiable."

Let me rephrase it, for better understanding: attempting to present the Rumanian-Hungarian local war of Nov. 1918-Aug. 1919 as somehow starting only in April 1919 with the offensive of the Red Hungarian army against the Rumanian army merely holding on their positions (mind you many hundreds of km away from Rumania's borders' is clearly incorrect and historically unjustifiable.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on April 22, 2011 10:39 am

Denes, you seem not to have read the article with enough care. Phase I of the conflict covers the fighting between 11.1918 and 04.1919. So I believe you have a problem with naming the article with respect to 1919, but I see no problem there as well.

To start with, at the moment the first Romanian troops entered Transylvania in 1918, that was still part of WWI. The armistice with Hungarian representatives, was signed the same day, and the "new" Hungary come into being a few days later. We can argue here if you want, if advancing up to a demarcation line agreed with Hungarian representatives, upon them signing the armistice, is an act of war or not...

Furthermore, as to the Romanian soldiers holding the front hundreds of Kms away from the borders of the old Romanian Kingdom... What's the problem here? The fact that the Romanian soldiers were in Transylvania? Well taking Transylvania with its Romanian majority was the reason the Romanians entered the war... In this light, the fact that they were there is a measure of their success. Or you mean the fact that the Romanian Army was occupying positions slightly westwards from the demarcation line agreed in the armistice? Well this can be politically questionable, but militarily, holding a front easier to defend is perfectly OK. I believe there is a "sentimental" aspect to this problem as well, as I think the Romanians were trying to bring as much Romanian population under their control as possible to protect them from eventual acts of revenge.

So, I see no problem with that article, it covers the conflict starting 11.1918 - as part of WWI - but it names it with respect to 1919, when most of the fighting took place - and when the Red (Hungarian) Army tried to push the Romanian army out of Transylvania. In 1918, and later during the first phase of the conflict, the Romanians just advanced to successive demarcation lines, the first established by an armistice, signed by Hungarian representatives and the later agreed by Entente representatives.

Regards,
C

This post has been edited by Cezarprimo on April 22, 2011 04:52 pm

The line in Apuseni Mountains was estabilished by Franchet dEsperey, commander of French/Serb army in Balcans with Hungarian representatives of Karoly gouvernement at 13 November 1918. This line was attaked by Red Hungarian Army at 16 April 1919.
The next line was estabilished by Entente in March 1919 ant it was the cause of regime change in Hungary and their offensive in April.

Denes,
first Romanian military units have crossed the former Austro-Hungarian border by 10-11/23-24 november 1918 after the failed negotiations from Arad (1-2/13-14 november) between RNCC and the Hungarian government representatives, after the call-protest in the newspaper "Romanul" in Arad ("To the peoples of the world") by the Grand Council of the Romanian Nation (former Romanian National Central Council) from 7/20 november, after the convening of the Grand National Assembly in Alba Iulia (7/20 november). From any point of view we speak, Hungary's eastern border was more than questionable at the moment the romanian troops cross it! Hungary by his representatives of state authority had no control at that time than some counties in northern and eastern Transylvania (probably 9 from 20 without including the 3 counties from Banat) so based on what do you say that in 11/24 november there was an real eastern border and not illusory one?

Actually, it is the question if Hungary did exist in november 1918 or it was still part of AH empire? AH empire began to disintegrate in october 1918 and was de facto inexistent probably in the same month. The question is when AH empire ceased to exist "de jure": when the Peace Treaty of Paris went into effect?

hungary existed also before november 1918. the dual monarchy was a personal union between the emperor of austria and the king of hungary. as it was a peronal union, the 2 states forming it, did not cease to exit.

Who has knowledge about the online book of Nicolae Tănăsescu aka Radu Cosmin "Românii la Budapesta", 2 volumes, published in 1920 or it's most recent version published at Arad in 2000's?

21 inf,
I wish you Merry Christmas! I will ask at the county library, and search at some bookstores for this book in the next week!

This post has been edited by ANDREAS on December 25, 2011 01:07 pm

Indeed dead-cat,
But the question remains standing, as it comes also when we speak about the dissolution of the former Soviet Union: will this moment be at "the jure dissolution" - when Gorbachev resigned from his office on December 25, 1991 or at "the facto dissolution" - in 1990 - when six Republics (Lithuania, Moldova, Estonia, Latvia, Armenia and Georgia) had declared their national sovereignty, or after august 1991 military coup, when other 10 republics (without Russia) declared their independence? In any case, the problem is questionable, because when a state no longer controls by the army, police and administration his own territory, it practically ceases his sovereignty over that territory!

Thanks, Andreas! Merry Christmas to you, too!

This book is available at local library in Baia Mare (latest edition, from Arad), and I have a copy of the first volume of original edition, the interbelic one.

Contras, how much does it cost, can you tell me, please?