Did Austria, Croatia, Ukraine, Slovakia, Serbia, and Romania Steal Lands from Hungary?

[Aru]

oh come on, at least the Brits had an empire....you romanians...hm....., am i inviting a beating here?

They had Dracula, and I'm positive more people in the World know about him then about some long dead empire.

[Erebus Pasha]

Again I'm at a loss as to why the British Empire is now being referred to in this thread?

[Romano-Dacis]

Again I'm at a loss as to why the British Empire is now being referred to in this thread?

It depends on who you consider "started it" but I would suggest that we all stop it and stay on topic.

[Erebus Pasha]

It depends on who you consider "started it" but I would suggest that we all stop it and stay on topic.

Well I know somebody started banging on about balkan nationalism on the previous page but that wasn't me so i don't know why Carpathian Wolf and Aru needed to make the stupid comments. But yes we stay on topic.

[Carpathian Wolf]

I made the comment because the person in question didn't mind the 3 threads on England...but when it comes to this area "zomg those balkanz are at it agein lulz"

[Erebus Pasha]

I think maybe this thread has been derailed by the likes nikitin but the threads on England are about the Anglo-Saxon invasion theory, the military effectiveness of the Normans in their conquest of England and beginnings of feudalism in the same said country. These can hardly be seen as British nationalism in full flow my friend. I actually don't think any kind of Balkan or Eastern European nationalism can be scoffed at considering the break up of the great empires in that region (Russian, Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian) and ever-changing borders that have accured over the last 90 years or so since the end of WW1. The constant displacement of peoples and re-drawing of borders has left many people in the region often in state of anger and confusion.

[Carpathian Wolf]

I can't say I disagree. And I never thought there was anything wrong with nationalism so long as it doesn't over turn common respect for human life.

[Sher Khan]

Am I safe to assume these lands in question were lost in treaty negotiations?

I don't believe land can be actually stolen in that way. What happened was, through loss in conflict, the state of Hungary lost the rights of sovereignty in several provinces to its neighbors for various reasons (or maybe none at all). This may or may not have led to demographic shifts. So at one point there was a Crown of Hungary that, through Medieval and absolutist functions ruled over a large swathe of territory that included several ethnic groups. Now, however, there is the Hungarian state with the sovereign right to force within its internationally recognized borders.

So, then, in any of the above cases, why should the Hungarian government have the right to apply its laws to a region that is part of another sovereign state (let's say Transylvania)? I'd like to break down the reasoning to this (and similar) assertion, if someone would oblige me.

Also, my own map, since everyone's doing it.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Gotcha!

[snipa]

When did Romanians migrate to Hungary? Maybe you have some sort of Byzantine chronicle that details this? I mean such a migration (unless we're ninjas) would have to be noticed. It would be an even bigger migration than the slavic one and yet the only mention of Romanian migration is from NORTH to SOUTH.

13th century! End of 13th century only 3 villages had original rumenian name. Everything else were mostly hungarian but there were german and slav too.
Byzantine chronicles clearly said vlach lived in south balkan... The 3 nations of Transylvania was founded in 13th century which were hungarians, szeklers and saxons! No vlach as they number was really few, and the king wanted to collect all of them in 1272 by a law.
So yes, they came to Transylvania in 13th century.

This coming from Russia, Europe's big slow threatening retard. We didn't do anything except fight against enemies on all sides of our borders outnumbered. What did Russia do? Participate in the great social experiment and then when they went and made things for all their serfs they decided to export their crap some 20 + years later to everyone else.

lol, could you help me who attacked your country?
isnt Rumenia was the country who said we are not against A-H after they betrayal again and attacked Transylvania when most of the A-H army fought in Russia, Italy and France?
But even your betrayal attack vlach ass was kicked out from Transylvania and most of your country was annexed by Central powers within a few months. And you guys lost the war which was started by You!

Am I safe to assume these lands in question were lost in treaty negotiations?

I don't believe land can be actually stolen in that way. What happened was, through loss in conflict, the state of Hungary lost the rights of sovereignty in several provinces to its neighbors for various reasons (or maybe none at all). This may or may not have led to demographic shifts. So at one point there was a Crown of Hungary that, through Medieval and absolutist functions ruled over a large swathe of territory that included several ethnic groups. Now, however, there is the Hungarian state with the sovereign right to force within its internationally recognized borders.

The problem is that Rumenia lost the war in 1917 as they were defeated by A-H and Germany. Rumenia signed the cessation of arms in 1917. dec 9. After they signed the peace contract in 1918 may. 7 in Bukarest.
But they lost the war already in 1917! According to this contract they lost lands as well...

[CiviC]

The problem is that Rumenia lost the war in 1917 as they were defeated by A-H and Germany. Rumenia signed the cessation of arms in 1917. dec 9. After they signed the peace contract in 1918 may. 7 in Bukarest.
But they lost the war already in 1917! According to this contract they lost lands as well...

After Russians (Blosheviks) betrayed Entente, Romania remained alone on the Eastern Front and was forced to sign a armistice. There were peace negotiations where some border adjustments were agreed in favour of AH and Bulgaria. The treaty was voted by the Parliament but the King (a Hohenzollern by the way) refused to sign it to aquire the force of law. So the treaty was null. At the armistice Romania didn't agreed to unconditional surrending and it kept Moldavia under its jurisdiction and also the army mobilised. In the last days of the war, Romania broke the armistice and entered again to war against Central Powers. So there is no paralel between the Treaty of Bucharest - void of any legal power, and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk where Russia left the war as a defeated country. Romania was not part to any treaty in WWI where it recognises its defeat.

lol, could you help me who attacked your country?
isnt Rumenia was the country who said we are not against A-H after they betrayal again and attacked Transylvania when most of the A-H army fought in Russia, Italy and France?

Romania agreed to a defensive treaty with AH and Germany, so if Russia or France would attack AH or Germany, Romania would join Central Powers. The problem is that AH and Germany (by the game of alliances) were the agressors, especially AH was clearly the agressor of Serbia. Romania had no obligation to join a war of agression.

But even your betrayal attack vlach ass was kicked out from Transylvania and most of your country was annexed by Central powers within a few months. And you guys lost the war which was started by You!

Romanias were succcessfull against Austro-Hungarians in Transylvania, but then Germany (as always) had to come to the rescue, so Germans were in fact the ones to defeat Romania in 1916; also Romania was backstabbed strategically from Bulgaria, Wallachia couldn't be defended being surrounded from all parts by Central Powers territories so the Romanian Army retreated in Moldavia, more easily to defend. In 1917 Romanians defeated the Central Powers at Marasti, Marasesti and Oituz - thanks to these victories Romania could negociate a conditional armistice with Central Powers.

[Angrychris]

so the question is if taking lands is the same as stealing?

[CiviC]

so the question is if taking lands is the same as stealing?

As a specialist in Law, I can say real property (lands and buildings) can't be stollen, at least in Romanian Law. Stealing only refers to mobile/movable objects/property because you can steal only what you can move and take with you. The unlawfull ocupation of a real property is another kind of crime - roughly translated "possession disturbance".

[Angrychris]

Close this thread now.

[Armenum]

Germans=Austrians, I'll never recognize Austrian as nationality only as nation, they are Germans.

Ok so then that means you agree with:

Flemish = Dutch
Swiss (German) = German
Belarussian = Russian
Azeri = Turk
Croatian = Serb
Macedonian = Bulgarian
Irish = British

And the list goes on.

Here is the definition of an ethnic group: "An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed.[1][2] This shared heritage may be based upon putative common ancestry, history, kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance. Members of an ethnic group are conscious of belonging to an ethnic group; moreover ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness."

1) Identity: Austrians identify themselves as Austrians, not Germans (in fact calling an Austrian German, they will take great offense)
2) Common history: don't need to explain this
3) Common religion: Most are Roman Catholic, Germans are are mostly Lutheran
4) Common language: Austrians speak German however Austrian German is a dialect understood by many Austrians. Germans have hard time understanding this dialect which I've personally seen with my own eyes
5) Shared territory: self-explantory
6) Genetics: Austrians are close to South Germans, yes, but are not the exactly the same. Austrians are a Germanic ethnic group just like the Swiss, Dutch, English, etc.

Check this out:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/europe...logroups.shtml

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25106

Bottom line is, Austrians are a Germanic ethnic group, but it is wrong to just say Austrian = German

[snipa]

After Russians (Blosheviks) betrayed Entente, Romania remained alone on the Eastern Front and was forced to sign a armistice. There were peace negotiations where some border adjustments were agreed in favour of AH and Bulgaria. The treaty was voted by the Parliament but the King (a Hohenzollern by the way) refused to sign it to aquire the force of law. So the treaty was null. At the armistice Romania didn't agreed to unconditional surrending and it kept Moldavia under its jurisdiction and also the army mobilised. In the last days of the war, Romania broke the armistice and entered again to war against Central Powers. So there is no paralel between the Treaty of Bucharest - void of any legal power, and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk where Russia left the war as a defeated country. Romania was not part to any treaty in WWI where it recognises its defeat.

always funny to read how rumenians learn history! Russians lost the war they not betrayal Entente and they signed an armistice with central-powers in first days of december 1917. Rumenia also signed an armistice few days later so they didn't stay alone. It's mean Russia and Rumenia lost the war! To this point russian and rumenian soldiers fought together without russia you didn't hold moldavia. As 2/3 part of rumenia was captured by A-H, Germany and Bulgaria.

The betrayal was when Rumenie attacked and annexed bessarabia from Russia in 1918 jan.
so you attacked Russia who was your allies who helped rumenians to hold the front to 1917 dec.

But it was not the first betrayal by rumenians as they joined to central powers in 1882 and rumenain king stated "rumania will not attack A-H" in 1914. But even nobody attack your country rumania attacked A-H !

Romania agreed to a defensive treaty with AH and Germany, so if Russia or France would attack AH or Germany, Romania would join Central Powers. The problem is that AH and Germany (by the game of alliances) were the agressors, especially AH was clearly the agressor of Serbia. Romania had no obligation to join a war of agression.

again, nobody attacked your country!

Romanias were succcessfull against Austro-Hungarians in Transylvania, but then Germany (as always) had to come to the rescue, so Germans were in fact the ones to defeat Romania in 1916;

Rumenians were everything else just not successfully. When rumenian started the betrayal back attack against Hungary the hungarian forces had:
1st army deployed in Kolozsvár with 34,000 soldiers, 1000 gendarme and 74 cannons. Led by Arz general who was a transylvanian saxon officer.
To this army joined the hungarian border-guards mostly szeklers soldiers their number were around 30-35,000.
Its mean all A-H forces had around 70,000 soldiers.

The 3 rumenian armies which attacked Transylvania (burnt and destroy many towns like Brassó, Csíkszereda etc etc.) had around 450,000 soldiers.

Rumenian betrayal back attack began in 1916. aug. even their number was 6,4 times bigger like A-H army in Transylvania they just captured a small part of Transylvania so their attack was clearly unsuccessfully. This campaing was stopped in middle of sept. when general Mackensen attacked rumenia from bulgaria with 145,000 bugarian soldiers, 20.000 Ottoman soldiers and 15,000 german soldiers. In the south front of Rumenia had around 210,000 rumenian soldiers.
So even rumenian army was bigger in bulgaria they were defeated by Mackensen.

Back to Transylvania, the first A-H and German divisions arrived to Transylvania in middle of sept from different front like italy and russia. The 9th Germany army was deployed to Marosvásárhely with mixed A-H and German divisions.
The appointed general was Falkenhayn for the 1st A-H army and 9th Germany army. This 2 armies had around 270,000 soldiers around 150,000 A-H and 120,000 german soldiers.

So in Transylvania was around 270,000 central power soldiers against 400,000 rumenians.
The counter attack began in end of sept. the end of this camping was when A-H and German soldiers captured Bukarest 1916. dec. 6.

So the rumenian armies had around 660,000 soldiers against 450,000 mixed A-H, german, bulgar and ottomans soldiers.
The end was that rumenia lost the war and signed an armistice in 1917 dec. after signed a peace in first of 1918!

The next rumenian betrayal happened when they attacked Hungary again when A-H signed an armistice with Entente nov. 1918.

[Erebus Pasha]

always funny to read how rumenians learn history! Russians lost the war they not betrayal Entente and they signed an armistice with central-powers in first days of december 1917. Rumenia also signed an armistice few days later so they didn't stay alone. It's mean Russia and Rumenia lost the war! To this point russian and rumenian soldiers fought together without russia you didn't hold moldavia. As 2/3 part of rumenia was captured by A-H, Germany and Bulgaria.

The betrayal was when Rumenie attacked and annexed bessarabia from Russia in 1918 jan.
so you attacked Russia who was your allies who helped rumenians to hold the front to 1917 dec.

The government in power in Russia was different to the one the Romanians had allied with in 1916, added to the fact the Russia was in the midst of a civil war. Romania annexing Bessarabia (always a disputed territory between Russia and Romania) may be seen by you as a piece of opportunism but it was nothing compared to what the Central Powers snapped up.

Also Russian support for Romania was minimal from the middle of 1917 due to the demoralisation of the Imperial Army. The fact that Romania was able to hold for as long as it did (until December 1917) was in itself something of a miracle because by then any meaningful military aid from Russia had by then long since vanished.

But it was not the first betrayal by rumenians as they joined to central powers in 1882 and rumenain king stated "rumania will not attack A-H" in 1914. But even nobody attack your country rumania attacked A-H !

Well Italy too was part of the Central Powers until the eve of WW1 but joined the allies in 1915 lured by the prospect of gaining territory at the expense of Austria-Hungary. The Trentino region had, like Transylvania for Romania, been long disputed by Italy and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Rumenians were everything else just not successfully. When rumenian started the betrayal back attack against Hungary the hungarian forces had:
1st army deployed in Kolozsvár with 34,000 soldiers, 1000 gendarme and 74 cannons. Led by Arz general who was a transylvanian saxon officer.
To this army joined the hungarian border-guards mostly szeklers soldiers their number were around 30-35,000.
Its mean all A-H forces had around 70,000 soldiers.

The 3 rumenian armies which attacked Transylvania (burnt and destroy many towns like Brassó, Csíkszereda etc etc.) had around 450,000 soldiers.

Rumenian betrayal back attack began in 1916. aug. even their number was 6,4 times bigger like A-H army in Transylvania they just captured a small part of Transylvania so their attack was clearly unsuccessfully. This campaing was stopped in middle of sept. when general Mackensen attacked rumenia from bulgaria with 145,000 bugarian soldiers, 20.000 Ottoman soldiers and 15,000 german soldiers. In the south front of Rumenia had around 210,000 rumenian soldiers.
So even rumenian army was bigger in bulgaria they were defeated by Mackensen.

Back to Transylvania, the first A-H and German divisions arrived to Transylvania in middle of sept from different front like italy and russia. The 9th Germany army was deployed to Marosvásárhely with mixed A-H and German divisions.
The apointed genral was Falkenhayn for the 1st A-H army and 9th Germany army. This 2 armies had around 270,000 soldiers around 150,000 A-H and 120,000 german soldiers.

So in Transylvania was around 270,000 central power soldiers against 400,000 rumenians.
The counter attack began in end of sept. the end of this camping was when A-H and German soldiers captured Bukarest 1916. dec. 6.

So the rumenian armies had around 660,000 soldiers against 450,000 mixed A-H, german, bulgar and ottomans soldiers.
The end was that rumenia lost the war and signed a peace!

I think the initial entry into the war by Romania was probably not one of the greatest decisions in history mainly due to the fact that it almost at once found itself surrounded by hostile powers, added to the fact that Romania's army was totally unprepared for a modern war. Geographically Romania was doomed from the outset really with the only possible support coming from Russia which was already overstretched due to the Brusilov Offensives. You can throw numbers around and say that Romania outnumbered their enemies on paper, but considering that Romanian military resources were spread out all over the country facing multiple threats, this means little. Added to the fact that the Romanian army had little battle experience. The Germans and the Austro-Hungarian forces had been fighting in the Balkans for two years, whilst the Bulgarians and The Ottomans had been fighting for even longer (see the Balkan Wars of 1912-13).

[snipa]

The government in power in Russia was different to the one the Romanians had allied with in 1916, added to the fact the Russia was in the midst of a civil war. Romania annexing Bessarabia (always a disputed territory between Russia and Romania) may be seen by you as a piece of opportunism but it was nothing compared to what the Central Powers snapped up.

Rumenia annexed Bessarabia from Russia in jan. 1918! From Russia who helped them to hold the front to dec 1917. Its a betrayal even Russia had another government!

Also Russian support for Romania was minimal from the middle of 1917 due to the demoralisation of the Imperial Army. The fact that Romania was able to hold for as long as it did (until December 1917) was in itself something of a miracle because by then any military aid from Russia had by then long since vanished.

But there was Russian support and rumanians said a big "thanx comared" when they captured Bessarabia from their allies!

You can throw numbers around and say that Romania outnumbered their enemies on paper, but considering that Romanian military resources were spread out all over the country facing multiple threats, this means little. Added to the fact that the Romanian army had little battle experience. The Germans and the Austro-Hungarian forces had been fighting in the Balkans for two years, whilst the Bulgarians and The Ottomans had been fighting for even longer (see the Balkan Wars of 1912-13).

Rumenia was also participant in the Balkan war...

According to the rumenian statements they try to "defend" their country against aggressors who attacked them from every front.
The true that Rumanian was the aggressor when they attacked A-H with a bigger army! They choose a good time for this attack as most of A-H armies fought in Russia, Italy and France.
After they simply lost against a smaller mixed army and signed the peace.

[CiviC]

Rumenia annexed Bessarabia from Russia in jan. 1918! From Russia who helped them to hold the front to dec 1917. Its a betrayal even Russia had another government!



But there was Russian support and rumanians said a big "thanx comared" when they captured Bessarabia from their allies!

Romania had allied with The Empire of Russia not with the Bolsheviks. Also the new Bolshevik governement betrayed Romania and Entente by concluding separate peace and leaving Romania alone against Central Powers - what's so hard for you to understand?!? Russia never helped much Romania on the Romanian front and after Bolsheviks took power the Russian troops in Romania started Bolshevik agitation here so Romanian Army becomes Bloshevik too and replace the democratic governement with a Bloshevik one. Now if you still beleive Romania had a duty to remain loyal to Bolshevik Russia, then you have a problem.

Rumenia was also participant in the Balkan war...

It was a walk in Bulgaria to convince them to come to terms with their former allies as Bulgarians were very greedy; of course Romania took a fee for that service

Anyway there was no fighting and most deads were from cholera.

According to the rumenian statements they try to "defend" their country against aggressors who attacked them from every front.
The true that Rumanian was the aggressor when they attacked A-H with a bigger army! They choose a good time for this attack as most of A-H armies fought in Russia, Italy and France.

The agressor was AH against Serbia. Romania simply agressed an agressor, you can call it help for self defence of a victim. But I will not be hypcrite, Romania, a small country, used an opportunity against a huge Empire to liberate her nationals in Transylvania.

After they simply lost against a smaller mixed army and signed the peace.

To become valid, the treaty had to be signed finally by the King, something that Ferdinand I of Romania refused. Without his signature the treaty was just a worthless piece of paper. Also even if the treaty would have been valid, the Treaty of Versailles made all his provisions null.

[diegis]

Hahaha, well Snipa, we know, "ze rumenians" was bad, bad, and they beat the poor little A-H, or hungarians with no reasons.
Romania entered in war in 1916, after a plan was decided with Allies, meaning that french-british army from Salonic to atack Bulgaria, and Russia to start an offensive in north area (Brusilov one). In the same time western allies needed to start one in west, to tie there the germans, so the combined attack of russians and romanians to shatter and even take out as battle force the A-H. As well, russians who had a bigger army was supposed to send some troops to back up romanians at Danube against Central Powers armies from Bulgaria.
However, most of this didnt happened as planed. Western allies wasnt able to keep their promises and keep busy the Germany in west, nor the bulgarians, germans and turks in south, and Brusilov offensive doesnt had as well the wished result.
So russians wasnt able to send the troops needed for reinforcement since they needed more in other area, and even the comands of the romanian and russian armies disagree on some points, leading to a weak colaboration. But, in 1917, romanian army, even after some huge losses manage to reorganize, and pretty much alone, since russians (thus not all, but a big part of them) lost the morale for fight, and civil war break in Russia, some bolshevik propaganda spreading in their army as well, manage to defeat the germans and A-H who tried to ocupy the last free teritory, Moldova. And this, since you like the numbers, with romanians having an inferior number and less equipment then their germans and A-H enemies. After russians signed the Brest-Litovsk treaty, and a large part of Ukraine was ocupied by germans, Romania remain alone on all eastern front, with Germany, A-H, Bulgaria and Turkey as enemies, and with a volatile civil war in the neighbouring Russia, who just signed the peace and surendered an important teritory to Germany. This lead to "peace from Bucharest", but, to become legal and accepted by Romanian state, this was needed to be signed by the head of the state, the king. And the king refused to sign, so "de jure" that peace doesnt legally existed.

About Basarabia, its a romanian teritory who russians manage to took in XIX century, tooking profit from our weakneses back then, so it was just a normal thing to come back to Romania. Peoples from there voted in majority for that, and even Lenin said that peoples had the right for self-determination. Romanian army intervention there was becaue gangs of disintegrated russian army and bolsheviks tried to took control over the land, despite that majority of population was from romanian origin.

The same was in Transilvania, the majority of population, who was romanians, voted for union with Romania. German minority there voted for union with Romania as well. The only ones who was against was hungarian minority, and Hungary who during retreat make a lot of war crimes similar with those presented by Il Padrino in Serbia. So, romanian army and local peoples need to arm themselves and fight, and when hungarian army of bolshevik Hungary by then, encouraged by the victories against czechoslovakians, atacked us, Romanian Army defeat them, and ocupy almost all Hungary, including the capitol Budapest. You actualy should thank us, since we eliminated the bolsheviks there, and thank to France and UK, who forgot what we talked before the war, and pressed us to accept another border, and not one on Tisa river, how is normal. And that was wrong, since romanians left in Hungary was pretty quickly and forced desnationalized and maghyarized after that.

[Romano-Dacis]

always funny to read how rumenians learn history! Russians lost the war they not betrayal Entente and they signed an armistice with central-powers in first days of december 1917. Rumenia also signed an armistice few days later so they didn't stay alone. It's mean Russia and Rumenia lost the war! To this point russian and rumenian soldiers fought together without russia you didn't hold moldavia. As 2/3 part of rumenia was captured by A-H, Germany and Bulgaria.

I always find it funny that you list "A-H" first when as anyone who has read up on that history will tell you the Austro-Hungarian forces were token forces in comparison to the German and even Bulgarian participation in that front. The fact is the collapse of the Romanian front was entirely the work of German leadership (Mackensen and Falkenheyn) and almost entirely the work of German reinforcements with Bulgarian assistance.

The Austro-Hungarian forces in Transylvania quickly melted away in the first phases of Hypothesis Z.

The betrayal was when Rumenie attacked and annexed bessarabia from Russia in 1918 jan.
so you attacked Russia who was your allies who helped rumenians to hold the front to 1917 dec.

Except Basarabia actually declared its own independence first, then it was attacked by the Bolsheviks, and Romania was called in to deal with the chaos caused by them. BTW, Basarabia (like Transylvania) actually voted for unification with Romania, so it cannot be considered annexation.

I don't see how the fact that the Entente was allied with Russia made it a betrayal for them to send help to the White Army in the Russian Civil War. That is essentially your argument. Romania fought alongside the representatives of the White government in Russia (the Basarabian Independent Parliament) against the Bolshevik forces. There is literally no difference. The Basarabian local government asked for military assistance from the Entente through their delegation to Iasi (twice!), and Romania was sent in to pacify the region of Bolshevik anarchists, which we succeeded in doing. It is just like the White Army asking for assistance from the British and French after World War 1.

But it was not the first betrayal by rumenians as they joined to central powers in 1882 and rumenain king stated "rumania will not attack A-H" in 1914. But even nobody attack your country rumania attacked A-H !

Oh really, who betrayed who, hmmm? What about after the 2nd Balkan War, when Austro-Hungary sided with Romania's enemy Bulgaria in the peace treaties, even though the Germans told them explicitly that this would drive the Romanians out of the alliance. Austro-Hungary first betrayed Romania in the peace talks after the 2nd Balkan War, and more specifically the Hungayrian diplomats at the peace talks. Ever heard the saying "you reap what you sow"?
There's a reason Italy also remained neutral and then joined the Entente in WW1, even though it too was part of the Central Alliance. You see, both Romania and Italy knew that Austro-Hungary was fighting an offensive war, that it hadn't given Serbia enough diplomatic leverage, and we didn't want to die for your Balkan imperialism. The way I see it, in a democracy, two beats one, so clearly you are wrong. Austro-Hungary started the war, the alliance was defensive in nature, therefore your point is null. It's always amusing how Hungayrians learn history...

Rumenian betrayal back attack began in 1916. aug. even their number was 6,4 times bigger like A-H army in Transylvania they just captured a small part of Transylvania so their attack was clearly unsuccessfully.

To anyone who has read a history book on the Romanian Front this will sound like a complete manipulation of the historical truth. Yes, the Romanians advanced slowly, but no thanks to the Austro-Hungarian forces that vaporized on first contact. Rather, it was more:
a) crappy roads of Transylvania
b) Fear of outrunning supplies due to this
c) hesitation at encountering German reinforcements which were in the area.
The Austro-Hungarian forces almost contributed nothing to the campaign and only German reinforcements managed to drive the Romanians back.
BTW, it is interesting how Hungary betrayed the peace negotiations and armistice at the end of the war, since they attacked Romania under Bela Kun. I guess that is one part of your history you are not taught in school.

EDIT: BTW snipa, I see you are avoiding the issue at hand and diverting the discussion. The questions are clearly laid out below:
1) Was Transylvania given to Romania by means of a formal, internationally-acknowledged and legally binding treaty to which Hungary (as a successor of Austro-Hungary) signed? Yes, the Treaty of Trianon.
2) Is Transylvania demographically controlled by the Romanian population (i.e. are they the absolute majority of the region and were they at that time)? Without a doubt yes, even in the skewed Austro-Hungarian statistics.
3) If that is true, how does Romania's possession of Austro-Hungary fall under the Definition of "Theft"? It doesn't. Only in the minds of Hungarian nationalists like yourself maybe...