Question to Austrians, Slovakians, Poles, Serbs, Croats, Ukrainians about Transylvania

[Dracula]

To whom should Transylvania belong in regards to its history - Hungary or Romania ? Was the majority of the population historically /pre-twentieth century/ hungarian or romanian ? Pls motivate yourselves.

I have decided to put the question to be solved by the neighbouring nations since nothing came clear from the many threads about it, the last being http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=332640 Hope the neighbours know better and not biased !

The question will still be valid if you think nobody had a majority, but it was an oasis of mixture and diversity. Yet it must be relevant did any of the two groups drop under a significant number in any point in history.

[Gromovnik]

As far as I know, it had a Romanian majority pre-1918., so it was a good decision to make it part of Romania, you can say it's fair. But I don't understand the part about to whom Transylvania belongs in history? For both Romanians and Hungarians that's a very important region throughout their history, so I wouldn't be so exclusive.

[cegorach]

Historically Poland enjoyed good relations with both countries, but at the time the name Transylvania ('seven cities' - Siedmiogród in Polish) gained some popularity here it was firmly in Hungarian hands.
Since the idea of friendship with Hungary* was formed in times betwen the XVIth (Stephen Bathory) and the XIXth (Józef Bem - his campaigns in Transylvania too) century the past of the region already belongs to Hungary. That is how the subject is seen in Poland.

Presence and future is Romanian and I guess that would be all about the subject.





*BTW Happy Polish-Hungarian Friendship Day guys!
I know it was on the 23rd, but it seems a good place to say it so someone will read it.

[Odovacar]

*BTW Happy Polish-Hungarian Friendship Day guys!
I know it was on the 23rd, but it seems a good place to say it so someone will read it.

To you too! Yes, someone did read it


I find it suprising that the romanians think the neighbouring countries can "decide" Transylvania's past. Past cannot be altered by now. I wish it could be.
I guess they wait for the nationalist comrades from neighbouring countries to overwhelm us hungarians with their hatred. However, they will always remain a mob, nothing else. Just as the most bloody mouthed nationalists in our ranks, who, in reality do nothing for their country.

[Slaytaninc]

I don't see what the deal is.

Other than deeply held tradition, there is little need for nationalists on BOTH sides to be arguing this. Transylvania is in Romanian hands. It has a Romanian majority. As long as Romania respects its Hungarian citizens, I don't see why the griping.

[bushbush]

Just as the most bloody mouthed nationalists in our ranks, who, in reality do nothing for their country.

quite a few of them here did not even grow up in romania.

[CiviC]

Historically Poland enjoyed good relations with both countries, but at the time the name Transylvania ('seven cities' - Siedmiogród in Polish) gained some popularity here it was firmly in Hungarian hands.
Since the idea of friendship with Hungary* was formed in times betwen the XVIth (Stephen Bathory) and the XIXth (Józef Bem - his campaigns in Transylvania too) century the past of the region already belongs to Hungary. That is how the subject is seen in Poland.

Presence and future is Romanian and I guess that would be all about the subject.

For Romanians, Transylvania is what Silesia is for Poles for example. Do the Poles think the past of Silesia belongs to Germans and only the present belongs to Poland? The only difference is Hungarians never managed to Magyarise Transylvania so thoroughly as Silesia was Germanised.

In Romania we see the history of Silesia as it was : an initially Polish land, conquered by Germans and subjected to centuries of Germanisation that returned after WWII to Poland (although I personally don't agree with the mass expulsion of German Silesians).

[cegorach]

For Romanians, Transylvania is what Silesia is for Poles for example. Do the Poles think the past of Silesia belongs to Germans and only the present belongs to Poland?

Actually more and more do. German history of Silesia (especially Lower Silesia with Breslau - now Wrocław) is being rediscovered. Denying it could only work for the communists just like denying Polish past of L'viv cannot work for Ukrainians.
The problem with Silesia is that it managed to form an important part in early medieval Poland, especially around the times of the Mongol invasions which also ended Silesian greatness. Everyone heard about the battle at legnica and the invasions so Polish Silesia will be remembered in some way.

From the XIIIth century history of Silesia has little to do with Poland, except some episodes where one or anothr duchy was associated with Poland.

XIXth and XXth century is a different matter, but only in Upper Silesia. Perhaps noone else but Bismarck himself made the Silesians a part of Poland. But that is recent history - German past of Silesia is undeniable and it si still uncharted territory to many in Poland.

Frankly all this noise about Polishness of Silesia (and Pomerania) was heard because of the possibiity that Germany would demand these territories, possibility which was announced by the propaganda of the communist era and played important part in justifying otherwise useless (and far from equal) alliance with the Soviet Union.
Since the Germans aren't coming (except the tourists), there is no Drang nach Ost - on the contrary it is poles who are buying property in depopulated eastern parts of Germany - there is no fear and no need to support doubtful historical and semi-historical mythology.

In Romania we see the history of Silesia as it was : an initially Polish land, conquered by Germans and subjected to centuries of Germanisation that returned after WWII to Poland (although I personally don't agree with the mass expulsion of German Silesians).

That is a thing of the past. The 'recovered territories' mythology is slowly dying out. It is due to improving relations with Germany. of course some populist-nationalist politicianss are trying to use the fear of revanchism, but it only works for eastern Poland where Germans were seen the last time when they were stealing chicken and burning houses 70 years ago.
It doesn't work in western Poland and since I am from this part of the country I've noticed the German past of the areas is given more and more recognision.
It is not much different in areas where Germans are still living.

Besides why not? German past of Silesia is a fact while presence and future is ours. It is not like they will come to 'take it back' so the scaremongering - the only thing which supports the mythology of 'recovered territories' loses influence.

It lost its purpose.

[CiviC]

Actually more and more do. German history of Silesia (especially Lower Silesia with Breslau - now Wrocław) is being rediscovered. Denying it could only work for the communists just like denying Polish past of L'viv cannot work for Ukrainians.
The problem with Silesia is that it managed to form an important part in early medieval Poland, especially around the times of the Mongol invasions which also ended Silesian greatness. Everyone heard about the battle at legnica and the invasions so Polish Silesia will be remembered in some way.

From the XIIIth century history of Silesia has little to do with Poland, except some episodes where one or anothr duchy was associated with Poland.

XIXth and XXth century is a different matter, but only in Upper Silesia. Perhaps noone else but Bismarck himself made the Silesians a part of Poland. But that is recent history - German past of Silesia is undeniable and it si still uncharted territory to many in Poland.

Frankly all this noise about Polishness of Silesia (and Pomerania) was heard because of the possibiity that Germany would demand these territories, possibility which was announced by the propaganda of the communist era and played important part in justifying otherwise useless (and far from equal) alliance with the Soviet Union.
Since the Germans aren't coming (except the tourists), there is no Drang nach Ost - on the contrary it is poles who are buying property in depopulated eastern parts of Germany - there is no fear and no need to support doubtful historical and semi-historical mythology.





That is a thing of the past. The 'recovered territories' mythology is slowly dying out. It is due to improving relations with Germany. of course some populist-nationalist politicianss are trying to use the fear of revanchism, but it only works for eastern Poland where Germans were seen the last time when they were stealing chicken and burning houses 70 years ago.
It doesn't work in western Poland and since I am from this part of the country I've noticed the German past of the areas is given more and more recognision.
It is not much different in areas where Germans are still living.

Besides why not? German past of Silesia is a fact while presence and future is ours. It is not like they will come to 'take it back' so the scaremongering - the only thing which supports the mythology of 'recovered territories' loses influence.

It lost its purpose.

So there is no Polish past for Silesia before 1945? That was my point, the past of Silesia was up to a point Polish, then Polish and German, then almost exclusively German, and now the present is exclusively Polish.

Transylvania always was multiethnic and multicultural, the Hungarians just want to exclude Romanians from the history of Transylvania before 1200's and they want to present Romanians just as some nomads that overwhelemed the "civilised" Hungarians. In their vision Romanians are just some "invited" people that shown to be ungreatfull to their hosts and steal Transylvania from the right owners. They deny the history of Romanians in Transylvania before 1200's and their Daco-Romanian roots just to have a suport for the argument above. Romanians don't deny the Hungarian share to the past of of Transylvania and the right of Hungarians to live there and keep their identity and culture, but want recognition of their own past.

[Mangalore]

...

In Romania we see the history of Silesia as it was : an initially Polish land, conquered by Germans and subjected to centuries of Germanisation that returned after WWII to Poland (although I personally don't agree with the mass expulsion of German Silesians).

How can Poles see it as Polish when between 900-1300 Bohemia and Poland squabbled over it and before that it belonged to another not very Polish enitity ? All the shifts and changes of Silesia until the Prussian Austrian wars were dynastic in nature so none has an actual claim to whose people were living in it. By the time of the latter just alot of Germans had immigrated there because it has been within the borders of the HRE for centuries (belonging to Bohemia, then Habsburg then inherited by Brandenburg). Historically however Silesia was always an entity in its own right just with shifting overlordship so neither German, Polish, Czech, Slovakian.

Not meaning to start an arguement over current claims but only about history.

[Visarion]

Only the present matters and Transylvania nowadays is Romanian so enough of this!

[Hrobatos]

It doesnt matter who had it before, its now Romanian....

I mean its so stupid to talk about "who has bigger right to own Transilvania", just moronic, like our opinion worths anything

I mean its not like we are talking about facts, we are talking about frikin opinions

Did Hugarians had right to conquer Panonia?
Did Romans had right to conquer lands around Mediteranian?

i mean WTF? how can some people keep posting such stupid questions

What you should be asking is: does Hungary has strong enough army and allies to take back Transilvania?

And does Romania has all these thing mentioned strong enough to, if war happenes, defend it, and perhaps expand?


now that would be a real question even do I dont like that kind of questions, it can be asked more diplomatic

[Slaytaninc]

To put it simply, it is simply for Nationalists to measure themselves against other Nationalists.

By which I mean Freudian.

[Dracula]

It doesnt matter who had it before, its now Romanian....

I mean its so stupid to talk about "who has bigger right to own Transilvania", just moronic, like our opinion worths anything

I mean its not like we are talking about facts, we are talking about frikin opinions

Did Hugarians had right to conquer Panonia?
Did Romans had right to conquer lands around Mediteranian?

i mean WTF? how can some people keep posting such stupid questions

What you should be asking is: does Hungary has strong enough army and allies to take back Transilvania?

And does Romania has all these thing mentioned strong enough to, if war happenes, defend it, and perhaps expand?


now that would be a real question even do I dont like that kind of questions, it can be asked more diplomatic

The question arose as I got tired with the endless hungaro-romanian threads as if it was actuall question and meant anything. Put up by hungarians mostly. So I thought it reasonable if any of them would hear international oppinion "close to borders" would be usefull. It's not about making decision but pointing ideal facts that have a reflection on the presence and future.

[HunGeneral]

*BTW Happy Polish-Hungarian Friendship Day guys!

To you too!! (I don't know how I missed this one... must be getting old.)

It doesnt matter who had it before, its now Romanian....

For now and as long as God wils it.

I mean its so stupid to talk about "who has bigger right to own Transilvania", just moronic, like our opinion worths anything.

True

I mean its not like we are talking about facts, we are talking about frikin opinions

Even more true.

I mean WTF? how can some people keep posting such stupid questions

Sometime I ask myself the same.

What you should be asking is: does Hungary has strong enough army and allies to take back Transilvania?

I ques the answer would be: NO - not nowadays.

And does Romania has all these thing mentioned strong enough to, if war happenes, defend it, and perhaps expand?

No idea on that one.

[CiviC]

What you should be asking is: does Hungary has strong enough army and allies to take back Transilvania?

And does Romania has all these thing mentioned strong enough to, if war happenes, defend it, and perhaps expand?

now that would be a real question even do I dont like that kind of questions, it can be asked more diplomatic

Hungary is 10 million people; Romania is 21 million people. Both countries have the same allies - NATO. If we exclude NATO from the picture, and we return to only national common interests and sympathies/antipathies, Romania could probably count on Slovakia and Serbia, both countries with significant Hungarian minorities and probably fearfull of Hungarian irredentism. So Hungary is kinda surrounded.

The strategic situation of Romania is also better, as Romania is protected by many mountain ranges and Transylvania itself has a geography like a fortress. Hungary is just a plain.

Romania don't have any desire to militarily expand into Hungary. Her only aspiration would be a peacefull reunification with Republic of Moldavia.

All this considerations are purely hypothetical of course, Romania has no intention on going to war with Hungary and only wants good neighbourly relations.

[Dracula]

If people think the questiuons are stupid, why do they answer them ? To only show dissatisfaction is stupidity. Clever people don't get involved.

[diegis]

Hungary is 10 million people; Romania is 21 million people. Both countries have the same allies - NATO. If we exclude NATO from the picture, and we return to only national common interests and sympathies/antipathies, Romania could probably count on Slovakia and Serbia, both countries with significant Hungarian minorities and probably fearfull of Hungarian irredentism. So Hungary is kinda surrounded.

The strategic situation of Romania is also better, as Romania is protected by many mountain ranges and Transylvania itself has a geography like a fortress. Hungary is just a plain.

Romania don't have any desire to militarily expand into Hungary. Her only aspiration would be a peacefull reunification with Republic of Moldavia.

All this considerations are purely hypothetical of course, Romania has no intention on going to war with Hungary and only wants good neighbourly relations.

Well, is even a little more then 22 millions, at least officialy. And a war i dont think can be even put in discussion in today situation. Even on absurd, lets be serious, not just that we have more then twice peoples and teritory, but hungarian army have just a bit more then 30,000 peoples and no tanks. It will be a massacre, probably even worse then in 1919. But is not the case for any war now, is not a serious problem, we are both in EU and NATO

[Visarion]

What you should be asking is: does Hungary has strong enough army and allies to take back Transilvania?

And does Romania has all these thing mentioned strong enough to, if war happenes, defend it, and perhaps expand?

Hungary? army? hahahaha

Romania has a good army that fought in Afghanistan and Iraq together with other NATO forces. We have many war factories, talented soldiers and war machines. SRI is one of the best secret services in Europe and we are going to buy second hand F-16 jets to replace the old MIG Lancers...

What do you say about that huh? Second hand jets!

Muahahahaha muahaha muaha haha ha...

ha ha hmm...

I don't think that in our times someone even thinks on starting a war for territorial gains. We are just provinces in an Economical Empire called the European Union! There are no more borders! There will be monetary and territorial unification!

We are part of an Empire! we are all client states! can't you see? Wars are fought only for petrol and markets this days!

Well some think they fight for world peace but their blind or stu... or... ahhh or they think they are contestants at Miss World.

Too bad we can't make war and peace... to bad we had to invent bullets... A sword and shield that was all we ever needed! Man against man not man against machine! In the ancient times wars were fought on battlefields and not in towns! Do you realy think it matters if Transylvania is Romanian or not?! who gives a f... except us Romanians and our brothers there and maybe Hungarians...

You know... to be honest I was flattered by the interest Hungarians have on the fate of Transylvania! Someone told me, a Hungarian, that he wanted Transylvania to be known for it's history and not for Dracula stories and that he doesn't mind that Transylvania is now Romanian as long as Romanians and Hungarians there live in peace... maybe they do care!

[HunGeneral]

Romania don't have any desire to militarily expand into Hungary. Her only aspiration would be a peacefull reunification with Republic of Moldavia.

That good to hear. Even more knowing that the "Greater Romania Party" are not in Romanias parlament anymore. We don't have any radicalsa in our parlament aswell so things don't seem to be getting out of hand.

All this considerations are purely hypothetical of course, Romania has no intention on going to war with Hungary and only wants good neighbourly relations.

Same here. Except the most radical Hungarians (less then 1% of the population) nobody here wants to go to war against any nearby country. Even most of the radicals are more concerned about bettering the Economy or putting an end to corruption then to expand in any way....

he wanted Transylvania to be known for it's history and not for Dracula stories and that he doesn't mind that Transylvania is now Romanian as long as Romanians and Hungarians there live in peace... maybe they do care!

I feel the same way about it. Transylvania deserves a better reputation than it has nowadays.