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

[ShockBlast]

1 - the historical argument - We were inhabiting this land uninterupted since the dacian and roman times and we are the true descendants of romans and dacians.

It's a good thing but it doesn't carry any weight.

Plus we had a great majority in this land that allowed us when we had the chance to take it.

This is what matters.

2- the selfdetermination argument - We always respected the selfdetermination of all people and it was an unalienable right of the romanians in Transilvania when the central powers were defeated to take all the lands we can get.

Self-determination if it serves the winners if not bye bye.Don't try to make us look like self-declared defenders of self-determination.Not only we were on the winning side but we had the majority and the people there voted the union.

But can you show me documents that romanians continually inhabited Transilvania for the last 2000 years? Somehow i don't see this to be undisputed fact among the international historical community.

You have to be kidding me.So what? We pack our bags we go wonder around the planet and then we return and take back our land with no documents stating any migration of people speaking a Latin language?Both the Dacians and the Romans were known for packing their bags and taking a break for a few hundreds of years.
Romanian is the most Latin language and there are records of the Eastern Roman Empire about a population that was in the north of Danube and spoke a language close to Latin,guess who... .
And if you want years speak with RD.

Secondly Romania itself not always is in total support of the right of selfdetermination and there are enough examples of that.

Kosovo?Give me a break,the Albanians just made more children and now they leave with the region,nice.We all now that is was USA's decision. We aren't the self-entitled champions of democracy and freedom.

And in the end i would like to say that if the romanian members of this forum stated clearly - Look we had some rights over this land, but most importantly we were on the winning side, so the situation is this and you have to accept it - Than i would have no problem. But the Hypocricy comes abit too much.

What?Did you pissed a Romanian that much that he asked Thrace back?

@il Padrino - i never said that personaly have no objections at all for the Kosovo split. But then again using your words - You lost it in a war, there was a treaty, accept it and move on. Just like we did (with some exceptions ofcource| with Macedonia and Thrace

The Serbs didn't sign anything stating that they agree with it,unlike Bulgaria and Hungary who both did.

Until then ShockBlast was only arguing an obvious factual inaccuracy made by snipa. He was not saying that us being there first justifies our possession of Transylvania.

Spot on.

[Kara Kolyo]

@RD - on one page Shockblast claims that

we are Dacians and Romans,we only want the territories that have Romanians.

and on the next he says that it doesn't carry any weight. According to your post i won on page 8, but not on 9. Please guys make up your mind...
2 - about the social darvinism - you mean that Monsanto somehow produced all the albanians in Kosovo? And Romania never took part in what was it -

We're against "social darwinism" politics as practiced by Hitler and the Axis, where right is granted by military power

Probably hundreds of thousands romanians just decided to play turists in USSR and visit the famous city on Volga.... c'mon.

It's an honest question since you still do not understand our position.

So you honestly believe that i'm an idiot. Well thanks for being sincere.

Atleast ShockBlast gave a honest answer about the reasons he believe to be right.
@Shockblast - obviously you didn't get the paralel i made for il Padrino with Kosovo and Thrace. Maybe for you i should make some paralel about Southern Dobrudja?

[Romano-Dacis]

@RD - on one page Shockblast claims that and on the next he says that it doesn't carry any weight. According to your post i won on page 8, but not on 9. Please guys make up your mind...

I can't believe you are still arguing this. Let me break down ShockBlast's statement.
FACT 1: we are Dacians and Romans
FACT 2: we only want the territories that have Romanians
Word-for-word from ShockBlast's post. Sure, maybe he made a mistake in punctuation, but the statements still are not logically connected. They have NO RELATION to each other. He even said "territories that have Romanians", not "territories that belonged to Trajan", not "territories ruled by Burebista", not "territories where the Dacians used to live."
No, it is not that at all. If we wanted that we could claim a lot more than Transylvania.
But we don't, we only want territories with Romanians. We have no intention of building an empire.

Probably hundreds of thousands romanians just decided to play turists in USSR and visit the famous city on Volga.... c'mon.

We were invaded first my friend.
And no, Romania had no intention of annexing Stalingrad, unlike the Soviet Union which annexed and kept two territories populated mostly by Romanians, one of which never even belonged to the Russian Empire.

So you honestly believe that i'm an idiot. Well thanks for being sincere.

If it makes you feel better.

[ShockBlast]

@RD - on one page Shockblast claims that and on the next he says that it doesn't carry any weight.

You begin to piss me off.I said to you what are Romanians not that our heritage gives us the right to take people's lands.

And Romania never took part in what was it - Probably hundreds of thousands romanians just decided to play turists in USSR and visit the famous city on Volga.... c'mon.

Your understanding of Romania in WW2 is under sea level.We had to chose between Germany and USSR because we lost land to Hungary given by Germany and to USSR.We when with Germany to get half of Moldova back,today's republic of Moldova, so we didn't attack the USSR out of pleasure.

So you honestly believe that i'm an idiot. Well thanks for being sincere.

Don't get into debates you have no idea about.

Atleast ShockBlast gave a honest answer about the reasons he believe to be right.

Yeah because we were and are the most numerous in that land.

@Shockblast - obviously you didn't get the paralel i made for il Padrino with Kosovo and Thrace. Maybe for you i should make some paralel about Southern Dobrudja?

Exchange of population?

Romanians might have the most Latin language but we don't claim to be Romans,we are Dacians and Romans,we only want the territories that have Romanians.

Enlighten me my Bulgarian friend what you don't understand?I said that we don't claim to be Romans so we don't want their lands or what lands they had.Don't take words out of a preposition and don't forget there was a , between those two statements.

[clandestino]

You lost it in a war, there was a treaty, accept it and move on. Just like we did (with some exceptions ofcource| with Macedonia and Thrace

Uh, lost war from the Albanians? There was a treaty with the Albanians? A treaty said anything about giving up Kosovo and Metohija? Please enlighten me, which war and treaty that would be?

[mircea]

Irrelevant only for You as the Russian commander had no authorization to accept the annexation and Germany had an unofficial support for this... Thats not mean it was a legal issue! And we all know that today Bessarabia is not part of Rumenia!

The union of Bessarabia with Romania is legitimate not because of consent of both Romania's allies and enemies, nor because of the consent of a Russian official, the union is legitimate because of the opinion expressed by the people of Bessarabia, thus respecting the right of self-determination.

Even more, the union respects entirely the international law. Before 24 Jan. 1918, Bessarabia was part of the Russian Empire (from 1917, of the Russian provisional government). When on Oct-Nov 1917,the Russian provisional government falls because of the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia is thrown in a state of anarchy, without a recognizable central authority, Bessarabia was left to decide its own destiny, as such, on January 24, 1918, Moldavia Democratic Republic, formally proclaimed its independence. Even more, teh 1918 Constitution of URSS (more or less legitimate successor of the Russian Empire) in art 1 was stating "to conclude a general democratic peace without annexations or indemnities, upon the basis of the free determination of peoples.", as such further legitimizing the course of action taken by Bessarabia. As such, the act of union between Romania and Moldavia Democratic Republic was signed by two independent countries, so Romania never annexed something for an ally (more, in the moment of the union, that ally was already gone).

[Kara Kolyo]

clandestino - you lost against NATO, the albanians had better allies than you.
Shock blast - i'm quite fammiliar with WW2, we were on the side of the Reich as well - but didn't send troops to the eastern front. We had the same choice as you and yet made slightly better decision.
If you are going to reject your own words from page to page - well be more carefull with the grammar or say your points clearer, because it's not much of a fun to try to get your position on every page.
And shockblast - the exchange of population came later...
Seriously guys you can do better than just insult and change your mind every page.

[il padrino]

clandestino - you lost against NATO, the albanians had better allies than you.

Although off topic,i'm still waiting for you to show me a treaty we signed,where we gave up on Kosovo.

[diegis]

Shock blast - i'm quite fammiliar with WW2, we were on the side of the Reich as well - but didn't send troops to the eastern front. We had the same choice as you and yet made slightly better decision.

Hmm, you was encircled from almost all directions by enemies, and lost a huge part of your teritory and population? Didnt know that, where i can read about this?

[Kara Kolyo]

il Padrino - I appologise for my mistake - you haven't signed a treaty yet. But it's a matter of time with your EU aspirations. The fact is that getting it back is for the moment impossible and a large part of the world has recognised it's independance.
Diegis- maybe you should read about the Balkan entante and the pre war situation on the Balkans? Plus first USSR and then Germany came with strong offers to join their camp else... At least the germans had a carrot with the stick.

[ShockBlast]

Shock blast - i'm quite fammiliar with WW2, we were on the side of the Reich as well - but didn't send troops to the eastern front.

So we should have stood there and watch our land is taken away?You didn't lost any territory unlike us.We would have done the same if our territory would have been the same.

We had the same choice as you and yet made slightly better decision.

We also did a good choice we still ended with the part of Transylvania that was given to the Hungarians back.

If you are going to reject your own words from page to page - well be more carefull with the grammar or say your points clearer, because it's not much of a fun to try to get your position on every page.

My position was clear you got it wrong.Me and Snipa were arguing over who was first as a fact not as an excuse to take Transylvania.

[clandestino]

clandestino - you lost against NATO, the albanians had better allies than you.

Ah, then NATO can have it, wait NATO is not a state they can't annex other country's terriories. And again, where is the treaty, except the one that explicitly says that Serbia remains it's sovereignty at Kosovo ? Don't put Serbia in same basket with Bulgaria, especially in the case of Macedonia. Macedonia was conquered from the Ottoman empire by the Serbian army in the First Balkan war and that was made official in Treaty of Bucurest, signed by Bulgaria, actually Bulgaria haven't lost it cause it wasn't Bulgarian in the first place. If Serbia ever sign some treaty to give up Kosovo, then we can talk to parallel with Trace.

[il padrino]

il Padrino - I appologise for my mistake - you haven't signed a treaty yet. But it's a matter of time with your EU aspirations. The fact is that getting it back is for the moment impossible and a large part of the world has recognised it's independance.

Fine,at least you admit your mistake

But anyways,i wouldn't be so sure that the Kosovo question is over.Until we sign a paper,where we admit of loosing it,we have the possibility to take it back,when the conditions arise,like it happens in history.And what does EU aspirations have to do with Kosovo problem ?The EU doesn't recognize countries,but the member do it on their own.I'm anti-Eu,but if we enter there(and as the things are,we will in some near future) we have a better chance of blocking Kosovo econimicly and by other means,so it will eventualy be ours again.

[Erebus Pasha]

Erebus26, sorry mate, but I think that you start from the wrong point. The union of Bessarabia with Romania is legitimate not because of consent of both Romania's allies and enemies, nor because of the consent of a Russian official, the union is legitimate because of the opinion expressed by the people of Bessarabia, thus respecting the right of self-determination.

Even more, the union respects entirely the international law. Before 24 Jan. 1918, Bessarabia was part of the Russian Empire (from 1917, of the Russian provisional government). When on Oct-Nov 1917,the Russian provisional government falls because of the Bolshevik Revolution and Russia is thrown in a state of anarchy, without a recognizable central authority, Bessarabia was left to decide its own destiny, as such, on January 24, 1918, Moldavia Democratic Republic, formally proclaimed its independence. Even more, teh 1918 Constitution of URSS (more or less legitimate successor of the Russian Empire) in art 1 was stating "to conclude a general democratic peace without annexations or indemnities, upon the basis of the free determination of peoples.", as such further legitimizing the course of action taken by Bessarabia. As such, the act of union between Romania and Moldavia Democratic Republic was signed by two independent countries, so Romania never annexed something for an ally (more, in the moment of the union, that ally was already gone).

Actually mircea I'm on your side on this as you will see from previous posts answering Snipa and the posts of Romano-Dacis who went into better deal on this matter. I've already tried to explain the right of self-determination...and the problems within Russia at the time. I think you would better off explaining this to snipa who seems to have a hard time grasping the reasons behind the annexation by Romania of Bessarabia.

[ShockBlast]

Actually mircea I'm on your side on this as you will see from previous posts answering Snipa and the posts of Romano-Dacis who went into better deal on this matter. I've already tried to explain the right of self-determination...and the problems within Russia at the time. I think you would better off explaining this to snipa who seems to have a hard time grasping the reasons behind the annexation by Romania of Bessarabia.

Mate we have to thank Snipa because you now know Romania's WW1 history and it's ethnic conflicts.

[Romano-Dacis]

Mate we have to thank Snipa because you now know Romania's WW1 history and it's ethnic conflicts.

Man, half of what I learned about Romania's history this year has been the result of me reading snipa's comments and thinking "that can't possibly be right..."

[Carpathian Wolf]

@Shockblast - I actually follow this discussion and the albanian one quite closelly, so no it's not for the sake of saying something.
My point was to mock the romanian Wunderwaffe in TWC - wheter the discussion is about, Hungary, Bulgaria, albanians, even greeks, their territories in the past or historical figures - there are always romanians who will use The argument to end all arguments - Hey we were here first and we are still the only pure nation around, so you must shut up and go away in shame.

C'mon before starting calling people nationalists (even if they deserve it) look in the mirror and remember the thing about the first to throw stones

Edit - Sorry Romano you posted while i was typing.
So you mean that i cannot find in this thread alone atleast five posts by romanians who use as counterargument the "We were here first"? I saw snipa getting in the argument about first came first serve just after romanians brought it up. And this time arround you cannot squeeze yourself out saying that this is not the romanian position, because it was posted by two of your countrymen.
Actually the bulgarian position is on the contrary - We unlike Romania recognised Kosovo and the selfdetermination option. Try to counter me on this please.

And please i can see that the mods are tolerating your position, but try to restrain from personal insults

I'm going to PM you and ask you directly WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT PURITY!?

Sorry il Padrino but we either use the selfdetermination for everybody or not use it at all - We can apply your standart then to the topic at hand - the romanians in Transilvania had their country, so they should stay quiet and remain in the country that they were before.

Now i'm off to watch Avatar so will be able to enjoy your responces in couple of hours

They were in the country that they were before. They didn't migrate to Transilvania.

Also Kara why do you keep bringing up Kosovo? Can you comprehend 1244?

[Hrobatos]

i wonder what do you think
did we, Croats stolen land ( Croatia) from Magyars as well?

[snipa]

Wife?University?
Mate we do predate you with more then 2000 years.All historians agree that we are Daco-Romans.End of story.
NOTE that i said historians.

only in your dream!

[snipa]

i wonder what do you think
did we, Croats stolen land ( Croatia) from Magyars as well?

as a hungarian i can say you dude, NO!
in Hungary nobody thinking about "croatia" was stolen from Hungary by Croats!

That is a stupidity like many other false statements which are simply provocations by the thread creator Romano-Dacis against us!