Open letter to the Unibomber: 
 These people would make a great example. Send them one of your special 
letters! Then they may get the idea!
                  -John
--My Opinions may or may not be my own

Open letter to the Unibomber: 
 These people would make a great example. Send them one of your special 
letters! Then they may get the idea!
                  -John
--My Opinions may or may not be my own

In article >,
Wally Keeler > wrote:

>When you flush your toilet it drains into the Danube don't it? You can always
>rest assured that bigiots (bigot+idiot) like Mark Cristian and his lover, the
>infectious drag-queen Liviu Grigore, get their drinking water downstream from
>your flush.

Hmmm ...  Now there is an idea! 

Joe

In article >,  (Dan Pop) writes:
|>In >  (Janos S
zamosfalvi) writes:
|>
|>>Alexander Bossy ) wrote:
|>>
|>>: 	Sure, Joe.  But, in our reality, Romania got Transylvania because the 
|>>: majority of the population was ethnic Romanian. 
|>>
|>>But Romania also got some parts of Hungary proper where the majority of
|>>population was not ethnic Romanian.
|>
|>And other parts with a Romanian majority remained to Hungary.  So, what
|>was your point, if any?
|>
|>Dan
|>--
|>Dan Pop
|>CERN, CN Division
|>Email:  
|>Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland
|>

All three villages, Dan ;-)

Or even if more, was the number of Romanians left in Hungary equal to
the number of Hungarians given to Romania ?

Pal

In article >,
 > wrote:

>Bring the champagne guys, Fuck Trianon ! Who cares !!!

Yeah! Hookers for everyone! A hooter in one hand, and a bottle of champagne in 
the other, could it get any better?

>Any Hungarian babe out there teaching the horizontal czardas ?

There are plenty. I guess, Adrian old dog, you're just too shy to find out...

Gabor

Where is the best place to find a list of personal homepages in Hungary?

Thanks!

R.A. Cormier

In >  (hargitai) writes:

>I agree. Imperial dreams were/are hard to give up. 
>Moldavia? -):

What about Moldavia?  From Suceava to Galati, all the Moldavians seem
to be happy about the union with Wallachia, which happened in 1859.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email:  
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

In article >,
Janos Szamosfalvi > wrote:
>Nameg az e'kezetek -- azt ma'r kifigura'ztam egy fe'lnapi veszo"de's
>uta'n hogy hogyan lehet az e'kezetes betu:ket megjeleniteni, de
>me'g mind a mai napig nem tudtam ra'jo:nni arra hogy hogy tudom
>o"ket beu:tni.  (DECStation w/Ultrix + Tektronix Xterm's)

Pedig nadon egyszeru. Fogj egy kalapacsot, es ugyesen usd be oket a kepernobe.

Gabor

What is this Gypsy language doing here anyway?!?
I thought, the Official Language of the Net is either English or Magyar!



DR. LASZLO   THYC43A @Prodigy.com.

In >  (hargitai) writes:

 (Illes Eszterhas) writes:
>
>>DBrutus ) wrote:
>
>>: this group. I find the Hungarian position either badly argued or
>>: simply lacking in merit. Of course, this could be the self-serving
>>: justification of someone who is personally biased. but can anyone
>>: really doubt that if there would be a plebescite held today that
>>: the large majority of Transylvanians would vote again for union
>>: with Romania?
>>So sure? If I compare the GDP/person or the standart level of life
>>in Hungary and in Romania I do have some doubts.
>>Illes
>
>
>and of course let's not forget the third option, of going it 
>alone.

Did the population of Transylvania express its interest in this "option"?
As far as I know, only some extremist Hungarian organizations in USA did.
Maybe they know better than the Transylvanians.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email:  
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

Gabor Barsai ) wrote:

: Pedig nadon egyszeru. Fogj egy kalapacsot, es ugyesen usd be oket a kepernobe
.

Tul drasztikus.   Akkor ma'r inka'bb fogok egy ecsetet e's ra'festem 
o"ket a ke'pernyo"re.

>Did the population of Transylvania express its interest in this
"option"?
>As far as I know, only some extremist Hungarian organizations in USA
did.
>Maybe they know better than the Transylvanians.
>
>Dan
>--
>Dan Pop
>CERN, CN Division
>Email:  
>Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland


There are no extremist groups.

Ors Deak

In article >, Dan Pop > wrote:
>
>And other parts with a Romanian majority remained to Hungary.  So, what
>was your point, if any?

Just what do you estimate the proportions of the two "remainders" are in 
the two countries?

Joe

Olivier Clary writes:
> Moldavia and Wallachia under Hungarian suzeranity? I never heard of it,
> were they not rather under Cumanian (kun) control? I seem to remember 
there
> were ba'nsa'g areas only at South (modern Bosnia to Belgrad area), not at
> South-East of Hungary? Surely not East of Olt river?

Sorry Olivier, Alexander is correct. After the Mongols there was not much 
Cuman control in the area.

Regards,Jeliko

In article >, DBrutus > wrote:
>
>Welcome to N. Ireland II, and III, IV, V, VI.

Why should drawing the border along ethnic lines invoke the situation of
N. Ireland?  If anything, it would reduce the chances of N. Ireland
where the main problem is the mixing of two different groups in one
country. 
>
Joe

.... Step by step the Magyar nationalists wrung fresh legislative concessions
from the crown: and in 1843 Parliament introduced Magyar as the exclusive 
language of the legislature, the Government and official business, and also,
in theory, of public instruction, though this latter decision was left to 
be worked out in detail and was therefore still hanging over the non-Magyar
races as a sword of Damocles, when the supreme crisis of 1848 arrived. Popular
enthusiasm for the "national language", as Magyar was now habitually called in
this most polyglot of European states, was fanned to fever by Louis Kossuth -
himself the son of a Magyarised Slovak "gentry" family. The mad illusion that
Hungary could be Magyarised at a stroke of a pen - a proposition which at that
time was equivalent to every two Magyars in existence securing three renegade
recruits for their nation - revealed itself in the repressive measures of the
fourties against Slovak nationalism, in systematic attempts to use churches as
instruments of the Magyar propaganda, and abova all in the Parliament's attitud
e
towards Croatia [...]

In the autumn of 1846 the Transylvanian Diet again met, and in the following
July introduced and adopted a comprehensive Language Law, by which
the Magyar became the language for the Gubernium, the Diet, the law-courts,
and for the entire administration in the teritory of the Magyar and Sze'kely
nations. [...]

May 29, 1848 - the diet opened at Cluj (Kolozsvar) [...] The Romanian majority
was not represented, and the tiny remnant of twenty-two saxons were terrorised
into compliance, though reserving their their existing traditional and
linguistic rights and municipal institutions.

August 24, 1848: Baron Wesselenyi pleaded the Romanian cause in a memorable
speech [...] 

Unhappily the effect of this noble appeal was destroyed by Wessele'nyi's
former ally Kossuth, who spoke of the Romanians as "the spirit of conspiracy
against Hungary", and refused to recognise the special existence of Serb,
Wallach or Slovak, still less to fill official posts on a basis of nationality,
since that would be an attack upon "the unitary state".

The general attitude of the Romanians to the trial of strength between
Hungary and Austria, of which their question was as yet but a fragment, was a 
logical sequence from their earlier attitude under Joseph and Leopold. They
looked above all to the dinasty for equality and justice, openly repudiating
the accusations of reactionary leanings and declaring their belief in a
constitutional monarchy, in which all the nations had they share [...]



Bem followed up his victories by an attempt at civil administration, and as
his main principles were conciliation and amnesty, he at once came into
accute conflict with Kossuth, who now dominated the Government in Pest and
Debreczen, and his delegate Csanyi, who declared Bem's amnesty to be invalid
and set up military tribunals to execute "traitors" and confiscate their
property. Csanyi's manifesto to the Romanians is a clssic revelation of the
Kossuthist mentality. It would deserve to be quoted in full, but a few sentence
s
must suffice. It begins at the top note: "You, unhappy Wallachs, deceived
and led into false paths by intrigues and by Austrian officers. There is no 
trace in human memory or in the pages of history of a free national life on 
your part. You were slaves under the Romans, slaves under the migrant people,
slaves too in the last 1000 years, and only the Magyars have extended to you
also in the past year the dawn of liberty..." They have given the peasant
equal rights, but "indulgence has its limits" [...]. Kossuth's attitude
towards the Saxons and the Romanians does not stand alone. On the eve of 
the revolution he had in open Parliament scoffed at Croatia as "so small that
it is not enough for a breakfast". He had met the demands of a Serbian
deputation in the early summer of 1848 with the fatal phrase "Then the sword
will decide between us". He had roused Serbian indignation still further
by his plan for settling the Sze'kels in the Banat, and a year later he was
writing to Bem that "among the Serbs the only surety is to take the women,
children and priests as hostages". But worst of all was the terrorist attitude
towards his own people of origin, the Slovaks [...]. Kossuth's large measure of
responsability for the racial war cannot seriously be denied.[...] 

Already in March Maghieru, from his exile in Baden, had written to Kossuth, war
ning 
him of the imminence of Russian intervention and pleading for a 
Magyar-Romanian alliance, but subject to the recognition of the
nationality and political rights of all Romanians under the hungarian crown,
through an official "organic Statute" and on a federalist basis.
Kossuth only received this overture when the victories of Dembinski and
Gorgei had fired him with optimism: he rejected it and ordered measures to
crush Iancu's resistance. But meanwhile Balcescu found a hearing with Szemere
and Casimir Batthyany, and a draft convention was submitted, providing for the
recognition of the Romanian name, for free use of the language in church,
school and local assembly, a national Guard and autonomy for both Churches.
This time Kossuth accepted in principle, though a few days earlierhe had
said: "For the Romanians I have only bullets and cannon". [...]

.... On his side Butean, Iancu's right hand, has shown complete scepticism and 
had
answered Balcescu's appeal for a united front against Russians with the bitter 
words, " Your freedom is the gallows, your equal rights means that the 
other nations who share the soil with them should be swallowed up by the 
Magyar element" His doubts were soon to be hideously confirmed.[...] 

It was now decided to send a deputy Dragos, a Romanian of Magyar sentiments,
on a mission to negotiate a compromise with Iancu: but his motives and
prospects of success may be gathered from Kossuth's letter of instructions
to him, denouncing Saguna as a traitor on whose head rested the the bloodshed 
of the civil war and to whom pardon could never be granted! While, then, Dragos
was actually treating with Iancu and Butean, another confident of Kossuth,
Major Hatvani, with a detachment of 1500 men, broke in upon them and, in
clear violation of the armistice just concluded, arrested a number of the 
Romanian leaders. The prefect Butean was hanged next day, and his
colleague Dobra disappeared and was never heard of again. Iancu, naturally
regarding this as an arrant treachery, made an armed attack, sacked the town
of Abrudba'nya, and put Hatvani to flight; and it has been alledged that
as many as 4000 persons were massacred, though this is almost certainly an
enormous exaggeration. Dragos, suspected of treachery, though probably quite
innocent, was cut down and killed. This ended all hope of conciliation, and
Iancu held out in his mountains until the Russo-Austrian troops could advance.
Bem's passing hope of winning armed support from Wallachia met with no response
 
whatsoever, mainly because of the Magyar intransigent attitude. [...]





 ------------------------------------------
 Reference:  "A history of the Roumanians, 
 from Roman times to the completion of unity"
 by R. W. Seton-Watson. Cambridge [Eng.], The University press, 1934.
 viii, 596 p. XVI pl.(port.,incl.front.)fold.map. 25 cm.

The Hermanstadt Diet ...

The Transylvanian Diet was now convoked (15 July 1863) no longer to Koloszvar,
that centre of Magyarisation, but to the predominantly Saxon town of
Hermannstadt. A Saxon petition and a Romanian deputation, led by Bishop Saguna,
had already been graciously received by Francis Joseph [...] In this brief
breathing space, however, there occured two events of great importance in the 
social history of the Romanians. The foundation of the "Association for the
Cultivation of the Romanian Language and Literature" by the efforts of Cipariu
provided them with a cultural centre for publication, museum collections and
literary effort. But above all, Saguna at last obtained the separation of the
Romanian Orthodox Church from the serbian patriarchate, and the erection of his
own see of Sibiu (Hermannstadt) into an archbishopric, with two
other bishoprics at Arad and Caransebes (June 1863) [...]

                      
                        After the Ausgleich (I)


The abrupt fall of Schmerling in the summer of 1865 was soon followed 
by the dissolution of the Hermannstadt Diet and the annulment of all its
legislation - and therefore of the law assuring equal rights to the Romanians,
which, it is true, had never been carried into actual force. A new Diet was
convoked at Koloszvar, on the old unreformed franchise, so modified as not 
to exclude the Romanians altogether, but to assure an overwhelming Magyar
majority [...] The Magyars, who the formed only 29% of the population, elected
89 deputies as against 31 Saxons and only 13 Romanians, while out of the
190 Regalists they had 132 -with the result thart they easily outnumbered
Saxons and Romanians combined [...] The Diet met with re-endorsement of the
Union as its sole agenda, and the Magyar majority forthwith an address 
to the crown in this sense, requesting that Transylvanian representatives
should be summoned to tha Parliament of Budapest [...] It was not until Februar
y
1867 that Andrassy was appointed first premier of the new 
constitutional Hungary. The Ausgleich or Compromise, making the empire
of Austria and the Apostolic Kingdom of Hungary two equal sovereign states, 
only linked by certain common affairs at home, but forming a single unit
to the outer world, obtained parliamentary sanction in March [...] In
Hungary [...] while Croatia was allowed to preserve her ancient autonomy
under new forms, the other non-Magyar nationalities - Germans, Slovaks,
Ruthens, Serbs, and not least of all Romanians - were relegated to the 
position of mere political helots and predestined for assimilation
by the ruling race.


             
"The secondary school", wrote a well-known Magyar political writer,
Bela Grunwald, the accomplice of Koloman Tisza in destroying the Slovak
Gymnasia, "is like a huge machine, at one end of which the Slovak youths are
thrown in by hundreds, and at the other end of which they come out as Magyars"

The Romanians took their part in the parliamentary debates. The classical
plea of Alexander Mocsonyi (30 June 1870) in favour of racial equality
and compromise - listened to with marked attention by Dea'k himself - was
the last speech of its kind from non-Magyar benches. Already one deputy had
already warned them that "those whom the Act of Union does not please
can emigrate, but he who remains must make the best of it". The appeals
of Saxon and Romanian alike were more and more greeted by cries of
"Go to Dresden" or "Go to Bucharest": their request for a subvention
for a Romanian national theatre was rejected almost as an insult.

With Dea'k in retirement, Eotvos dead, and Andrassy transferred as foreign
minister to the Ballplatz, Koloman Tisza came rapidly to the front as leader 
of the reconstituted Liberal party, and for the fifteen years of his 
premiership (1875-1890) was far more truly dictator than Kossuth or Dea'k
had ever been, establishing his predominance on a far-reaching system
of electoral corruption and administrative trickery. The Magyars of the central
plain had always formed the backbone of Kossuth's following, and still elected
many deputies of the Party of Independence. Tisza therefore hit upon the 
ingenious method of turning the parliamentary scale by his control of the
non-Magyar districts of the periphery: and for this purpose the 
non-Magyars either had to be reduced to complete subservience 
or kept from the polls by special devices. This explains the revised 
Electoral Law of 1874, which, in the words of the official government organ,
was so involved that "the confusion of Babel had really been erected into
law" Gerrymandering, unequal distribution, a highly complicated franchise,
public voting, inadequate legal checks upon corruption and a deliberate 
mobilisation of officialdom in favour of the Government candidates - all this
combined in order to produce Koloman Tisza's famous "Mameluke" system. This
law still further increased the difficulties of election for non-Magyar
candidates and did more than anything else to turn the scale in favour of
abstention [...] the Romanians and Slovaks adopted and maintained the fatal
policy of passivity. [...]
         




 ------------------------------------------
 Reference:  "A history of the Roumanians, 
 from Roman times to the completion of unity"
 by R. W. Seton-Watson. Cambridge [Eng.], The University press, 1934.
 viii, 596 p. XVI pl.(port.,incl.front.)fold.map. 25 cm.

.... The trial took place before a Magyar chauvinistic jury at Koloszvar, and a
t
an early stage in the proceedings counsel for the defence - among whom, it is
significantly to note, three leading Slovak advocates of the day
(Milos Stefanovic, Matthew Dula, Stephen Fajnor) were serving as volunteers -
found it necessary to withdraw from the court owing to the attitude of its
president. Elaborate precautions were taken to supply the foreign press with a
garbled version of the trial and to prevent the true facts from leaking out: an
d
on the second day the minister of the interior sent urgent instructions to all
country authorities to arrest any "agitators" whom they might find stirring up
the people [...] 

In the name of all his colleagues the party chairman Dr Ioan Ratiu, read aloud 
a fiery declaration, declining to recognise the jurisdiction of a court
"where the Magyars figure both as accuser and judge".


"What is under discussion here is the very existence of the Romanian 
people, and the national existence of a people is not discussed, 
but affirmed... There can be no question of judgement : you can condemn us
as individuals, but not as representatives of our people ... But even though 
you are not competent to judge us, there is none the less another tribunal,
larger, more enlightened, and assuredly more impartial - the tribunal of the
civilised world, which will condemn you yet more severely than it has hitherto
done. By your spirit of medieval intolerance, by a racial fanaticism which has
not its equal in Europe, you will, if you condemn us, simply succeed in
proving to the world that the Magyars are a discordant note in the concert
of European nations" (Dr. Ioan Ratiu at the Trial) [...]

.... Dr. Ratiu, on his return to Turda was greeted by a Magyar mob, 
who attacked his house and broke up his furniture. Ratiu came out 
of the balcony and called out "Thank you, gentlemen, that's how I always
pictured you!" [...]


One Budapest newspaper even went so far in its comments on the
trial, as to regret that the good old practice of affixing the heads of the
traitors to the city gates had fallen into disguise [...]

With sudden candour the public prosecutor, Jeszenszky, as he left the court,
had greeted one of the accused with the words 

"You are the condemned but we are the vanquished"[...]
 

The intervention of Sturdza and Kalnoky in no way
allayed the Magyarising tendencies, and indeed chauvinism grew still more extre
me
under the premiership of Baron Bannfy (Jan 1895-Feb 1899). His awowed aim was t
o create
the "Unitary Magyar State", and to create it at top speed: and the remarkable
Millenary Exhibition of 1896 was from one aspect an attempt to convince Europe 
that
the experiment was succeeding, and of course relegated all the
non-Magyars entirely to the background. The ardent demonstrations to which
the exhibition gave rise and the crop of the controversial literature on
Magyar claims, not unnaturally provoked counter-demonstrations in neighbouring
countries. 

The use of the heraldic symbols of Hungarian medieval suzeranity aroused the
resentment of Balkan chauvinists, and the Hungarian tricolour was burnt first o
n
the streets of Belgrade and then, in imitation, by the students of Bucharest
before the statue of Michael the Brave[...]

Bannfy pursued his racial policy quite unabashed. The campaign for the wholesal
e
Magyarisation of family-names was conducted from the ministry of the interior
itself[...]


Baron Bannfy on 11 July 1906 declared:

"The legal state is the aim, but with this question we can only concern ourselv
es
when we have already assured the national state... Hungary's interests demand
its erection on the most extreme Chauvinist lines".



 ------------------------------------------
 Reference:  "A history of the Roumanians, 
 from Roman times to the completion of unity"
 by R. W. Seton-Watson. Cambridge [Eng.], The University press, 1934.
 viii, 596 p. XVI pl.(port.,incl.front.)fold.map. 25 cm.

.... Despite all handicaps the devotion of the common people to the ancient fai
th
was truly touching: and the latent demand for an Orthodox bishop and freedom of
religion slowly became more vocal and was roused by the Uniate example. In
1759 a poor priest named Sofronie acquired a remarkable ascendancy
among the peasantry along the southwest frontier and brought many back to
Orthodoxy. When arrested by the authorities, he was forcibly released and then
guarded and kept in hiding by the peasantry employed in the royal mines in
Abrud. For a time they were in virtual revolt and openly declared that "the
power of the lords is at an end, it is we who are now the masters". Finally
General Buccow was sent to pacify them and win them over to enlistment, and
Sofronie was eventually captured by the aid of the soldiers. But it was
long ere the repugnance of the Orthodox peasantry could be overcome. In 1763
a petition was addressed in these terms from the district of Bistritz to
the Serbian bishop of Buda, Novakovic, whom the Government had allowed to make
a visit of enquiry -
"We are being ruined body and soul, we die without confession or
communion, like the beasts, and like sheep without a shepherd. If you will
not take pity on us and bring us aid an consolation, we shall not turn back hom
e
wards, where arrest and punishment awaits us, but we shall go other lands, wher
e
 we can hold peacefully to our religion: for we are firmly resolved to
perish rather than accept the Union"



 ------------------------------------------
 Reference:  "A history of the Roumanians, 
 from Roman times to the completion of unity"
 by R. W. Seton-Watson. Cambridge [Eng.], The University press, 1934.
 viii, 596 p. XVI pl.(port.,incl.front.)fold.map. 25 cm.

Sorry, yet another piece of TS history.
I missed it at the first try.. Its place should be in between
"After the Ausgleich (3)" and "The Trial ..." 


> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

.... The party of "activism" lost ground steadily after Saguna's death, and the
barren policy of abstention carried the day. It was not till 1881 that any 
serious attempt was made to define more clearly the Romanian political 
attitude. In May of that year a conference of 153 delegates from all the
Romanian constituencies was summoned to Sibiu - the initiative coming 
from the veteran Baritiu and from Nicholas Popea, formerly Saguna's 
vicar-general and now bishop of Caransebes. The result was the foundation
of the "Romanian National Party", which at once issued a statement of
policy and a new programme of action [...] There was nothing in the programme
which could seriously be regarded as "irredentist", but it was of course
denounced in Budapest as "dangerous to the state" [...] From the very
outset no compromise was possible between the two ideals. The Romanians 
could not accept "the idea of the Magyar state", without dooming
themselves to ultimate extinction [...]


....The controversy was beginning to widen. We have already seen that in the ye
ar
1891 the Romanian Cultural League was founded in Bucharest as the direct
result of the ill-treatment of the Romanians north of the Carpathians,
and as an answer to the activities of various Magyar cultural leagues. 
The main initiative came from a group of teachers and students at the two
Romanian universities, and the latter circulated a manifesto which aimed at
enlisting foreign opinion on the side of the non-Magyars. A no less outspoken "
Reply", published by the magyar students of Budapest, led the younger 
generation of Romanians in their turn to abandon the mistaken passivity of
their fathers and to issue, under the title of
"The Romanian Question in Transylvania and in Hungary" a lengthy "Replique",
describing with a great array of detailed information and legal argument,
but often in tactless and provocative language, the many wrongs and
grievances of their race. The only result was to draw upon their heads a 
savage sentence from the jury court of Koloszvar - Aurel Popovici, the
student mainly responsible for the Replique, being sentenced to five years,
and N.Roman, as director of the printing press, to one year's imprisonment,
for incitement against the Magyar nationality [...]

It was in this sort of atmosphere, and in the view of an impeding general
election that a fresh party conference took place at Sibiu on 20 January 1892
and resolved the long postponed memorial to the crown [...] On 1 June a
deputation of 300 Romanians conveyed this "Memorandum" to the Hofburg in Vienna
;
but not merely were they not admitted to an audience with Francis Joseph,
but some weeks later the document was returned to them unopened by the
Hungarian premier, Count Szapary, with the remark that its signatories
had no legal right to speak in the name of "Hungarian citizens of Romanian
tongue"!  In July, it is true, in answer to an interpellation, the minister
of Justice, Szilagyi, admitted the clear constitutional right of all citizens 
to petition the crown, even for illegal things, and for a time the 
Government wavered in its attitude. But eventually the chauvinistic current
definitely gained the upper hand, and as meanwhile the rejected document
had been printed and made public, the entire committee of the Romanian National
Party was brought to trial for "incitement against the Magyar nationality"
incurred in this very petition (7 May 1894) [...]


 ------------------------------------------
 Reference:  "A history of the Roumanians, 
 from Roman times to the completion of unity"
 by R. W. Seton-Watson. Cambridge [Eng.], The University press, 1934.
 viii, 596 p. XVI pl.(port.,incl.front.)fold.map. 25 cm.

In >  (Pal Hidas) writes:


>Or even if more, was the number of Romanians left in Hungary equal to
>the number of Hungarians given to Romania ?

A broken argument, if I ever saw one.

1. Who "gave" them to Romania?

2. Do you have a clue where most of the Hungarians "given" to Romania
   lived?  Hint: it was not near the border with Hungary.

3. Was your "principle" of tracing borders ever applied in a real case?
   If not, why?

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email:  
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

In article >,
Hermes  > wrote:
>
>He is trying to help you, dummy ! Knowing how great it feels to be Romanian,
>he hopes that 'adopting' you may aleviate your delusions and paranoia.

Hermes boy,
you have no idea how I like these exhibitions of Romanian civility for
all to see!  Thanks for your contributions in making the contrast between
you and us so obvious. e

Joe

In article >, Alexander Bossy > wrote:
>
>	I know that your grip on reality is tenuous at best, so let me 
>just remind you that in our reality, Serbia is part of Yugoslavia.  
>Anyway, wouldn't a vote be a fairer way to decide what country it 
>should belong to?

Bossy,
I like you a lot better now as the phoney pompous mask is peeled off from
your posts and shows your pitiful self.  Just one more step in this
progress and even your inclination to sophistry might be gone one day.
But I know that's a pipedream on my part; you would have to change
profession for that. 

What they call "Yugoslavia" today has no resemblance to the country
Voivodina was given.  Vote would be fine as to where Voivodina should
belong, provided the recent Serb settlers would not participate but the
recently chased out refugees would.  ... and we both know what the
likelyhood is of that happening.
>
As to your offer on how Croatia came under the Hungarian Crown ...

>	Give us your version, and I'll cross-post it to 
>alt.history.what-if.

Thanks but no thanks.  I think a better idea for you would be to embark
on another of those "historical research" projects of yours on how other
countries came under the crown of their neighbors in the same time
frame.  How about starting with Scotland?  Some recent movies might give
you an easy ride on this one.

Oh, and BTW, why do you think the relationship between Hungary and
Croatia is friendly if that past releationship was so bad?  (Yes, I am
aware of some bad episodes, like the 1848-49!) 

Joe

 wrote:
: In article >, Alexander Bossy > wrote
:
: >
: >	I know that your grip on reality is tenuous at best, so let me 
: >just remind you that in our reality, Serbia is part of Yugoslavia.  
: >Anyway, wouldn't a vote be a fairer way to decide what country it 
: >should belong to?

: What they call "Yugoslavia" today has no resemblance to the country
: Voivodina was given.

	Given that you were propossing a division of Voivodina between 
Serbia and Yugoslavia, I'm not sure what the relevence of the above 
statement is.  In today's world, Serbia is constitutent republic of 
Yugoslavia.  Voivodina is a Serbian province.  If you don't believe me, 
look at any map.

: Vote would be fine as to where Voivodina should
: belong,

	Good, Joe, you are progressing.  I'm glad to see that you've 
started to recognize that states should exist to serve the interests of 
their populations, not the other way around.  If only you could extend 
that belief a hundred years into the past...

  ... and we both know what the
: likelyhood is of that happening.

	Not any more likely than before 1919.

: As to your offer on how Croatia came under the Hungarian Crown ...

: how other
: countries came under the crown of their neighbors in the same time
: frame.  How about starting with Scotland?

	Actually, England came under the crown of Scotland - not that I 
expect you to know western European history, since you don't know your 
own central European history either. :-(

: Oh, and BTW, why do you think the relationship between Hungary and
: Croatia is friendly if that past releationship was so bad?

	And while we're about it, why do you think that the relationship 
between Hungary and Turkey, or Hungary and Austria, for that matter, are 
friendly, if the past relationships were as bad as you think they were?

	Alexander

<<<
In article >, DBrutus > wrote:

> As for Romanians getting Transylvania, I see
>little wrong with a compact ethnic group with fairly easily defined
>borders getting its wish of independance from an abusive colonial
>master.

You can repeat that lie all you want, but that won't make it true.
It's an all too obvious attempt of selfjustification by squatters. 

Joe
>>>

 OK, folks, here it goes : let's search a little bit through the
 archives and (re)post some fragments of Transylvanian history.
 They can be found in the book "A history of the Roumanians, 
 from Roman times to the completion of unity"
 by R. W. Seton-Watson. Cambridge [Eng.], The University press, 1934.
 viii, 596 p. XVI pl.(port.,incl.front.)fold.map. 25 cm.
 Bibliography: p.[569]-578. One can find below a list
 of selected publications of the author, Robert William Seton-Watson 
 (1879-1951). Enjoy reading. One has to face _at least_ the plain
 facts of the history.  
  
 


[1]  The Balkans, Italy and the Adriatic. / Seton-Watson, R. W. n.d.
[2]  Britain in Europe, 1789-1914, a survey of foreign policy. / Seton-Watson,
          R. W. 1938.
[3]  Dalmatia and the Jugoslav movement. / Vojnovic, Lujo. [1920].
[4]  Disraeli, Gladstone and the Eastern question, a study in diplomacy and
          party politics. / Seton-Watson, R. W. 1935.
[5]  From Munich to Danzig. / Seton-Watson, R. W. Being the 3d ed., rev. and
          much enl., of 'Munich and the dictators'. [1939].
[6]  German, Slav, and Magyar, a study in the origins of the great war. / 
          Seton-Watson, R. W. 1916.
[7]  A history of medieval Austria. / Leeper, Alexander Wigram Allen. 1941.
[8]  A history of the Czechs and Slovaks. / Seton-Watson, R. W. 1965.
[9]  A history of the Roumanians, from Roman times to the completion of unity.
              / Seton-Watson, R. W. 1934.       
[10] Masaryk in England. / Seton-Watson, R. W. 1943.
[11] The new Slovakia. / Seton-Watson, R. W. 1924.
[12] Prague essays, presented by a group of British historians to the Caroline
          University of Prague on the occasion of its six-hundredth
          anniversary. / Seton-Watson, R. W. [1969, c1949].
[13] Racial problems in Hungary. / Seton-Watson, R. W. 1972.
[14] The rise of nationality in the Balkans. / Seton-Watson, R. W. 1917.
[15] Slovakia then and now, a political survey by many Slovak authors. / 
          Seton-Watson, R. W. [1931].
[16] The southern Slav question and the Habsburg monarchy. / Seton-Watson, R.
          W. 1911.
[17] The tombs of the popes, landmarks in papal history. / Gregorovius,
          Ferdinand. 1903.
[18] Tudor studies, presented by the Board of Studies in History in the
          University of London to Albert Frederick Pollard, being the work of
          twelve of his colleagues and pupils. / London. University. Board of
          Studies in History. [1969].

In the following winter the Serb deputy Dr. Polit ventured to interpelate the
premier on this drastic action and to suggest that the funds should at least
be restored to the original donors, in other words, to the Slovak nation. It
was on this occasion, that Tisza made his famous retort "There is no Slovak
nation". Less known is his earlier sally against the Romanian deputy Vincent
Babes, who had urged the non-Magyars also should be taught their national 
history in school, There was no such thing as a "national" history of the
non-Magyars, Tisza hotly contented. The reason why Babes hated the magyars 
(here he begged the question) was clearly enough: he had always gone to a
non-Magyar, to a German, school, if indeed he had ever visited a school
at all!

While in Hungary proper the the Liberal press law passed in 1848 was
revived after 1867, Transylvania was left saddled with the reactionary old
press law which had been imposed by an arbitrary decree under
the Bach regime. This gave public prosecutors special discretionary
powers, which he was able to use against the Romanian press. This is one
reason why the leading Romanian newspapers of the Dualist period 
came to be published in Arad and Budapest.

While in Hungary proper the the Liberal press law passed in 1848 was
revived after 1867, Transylvania was left saddled with the reactionary old
press law which had been imposed by an arbitrary decree under
the Bach regime. This gave public prosecutors special discretionary
powers, which he was able to use against the Romanian press. This is one
reason why the leading Romanian newspapers of the Dualist period 
came to be published in Arad and Budapest.

Another peculiarity of the regime was the establishment, in 1871, by
ministerial order, of special Jury Courts for press offences. The
high income qualification for jurymen deliberately handicapped the
Romanians, who were man for man so much poorer, and thus left the courts
mainly in the hands of Magyars and Saxons. But as in Hermannstadt the
jurymen were mainly Saxons, and often acquitted the Romanian editors
brought before them, the minister of the interior abolished that court
in 1885* , and Romanian cases came before the ultra-chauvinistic court
of Koloszvar [...]


 -----------------
 * In Feb 1885 there occured the centenary of the execution of Horea
   and Closca, and the veteran historian Baritiu wrote an article in the
   "Observatoriul", to the effect that the event could only be celebrated
   "after a Hungarian Plevna, when the Romanian nation recovered 
   those inalienable rights and liberty of which the Dualist Pact 
   had robbed it". The court in Sibiu acquitted him on 13 December 1884.

The wellknown deputy Helfy (formerly Heller) boldly argued that "there should
be no nationalities, but only a Magyar nation" [...] 

Orban, after contrasting the modest claims of the Magyars with the action
of the English, "who have violently Anglicised ten million Irishmen and
Scotsmen" (SIC), declared that the new law would only be effective if beside
the Magyar-speaking teacher were placed the Magyar-feeling and Magyar-speaking
priest. [...]




 ------------------------------------------
 Reference:  "A history of the Roumanians, 
 from Roman times to the completion of unity"
 by R. W. Seton-Watson. Cambridge [Eng.], The University press, 1934.
 viii, 596 p. XVI pl.(port.,incl.front.)fold.map. 25 cm.

In 1883 the same tendencies were applied to the secondary education, and
here their success was really phenomenal. On the eve of this law there were
151 "middle schools" in Hungary, of all categories, and of these all save
fourteen were Magyar. By 1903 the number had risen to 190, but the 39 new 
institutions were exclusively Magyar [...]

Meanwhile the Romanian language was not tolerated officially. Public notices,
and even danger warnings, whether on a railway, in a post-office or on the
streets, were exclusively Magyar. Expulsions were frequent, from schools or
seminaries, of young men who dared to use their mother tongue, or to
speak it "ostentatiously" in the streets [...]

There were continual incidents due to the prohibition of Romanian songs or
national colours. A classical example was that of the funeral of Muresianu,
the poet of "Desteapta-te Romane" (Romanian, Awake!). A wreath decorated with
the Romanian tricolour had been sent by the Society of Journalists in
Bucharest, but as the coffin was being carried to the hearse, gendarmes
appeared and forcibly removed the colours [...]


At the same time constant pressure was put upon all non-Magyars, especially
those in subordinate positions, to Magyarise their family names, and the 
ease with which this could be done gave rise to the nickname of
"Crown Magyars" (the price of registration being one krone). But while Hungary
thus was rapidly filled with Magyarised Slavs and Germans in high positions,
and while Jews availed themselves of the opportunity by thousands, it is 
remarkable that the Romanians once more opposed the most stubborn resistance.
The number of Romanian renegades was relatively small, and this is one 
reason why the number of Romanian officials so steadily decreased. In all the
long lists of public men in Hungary who have taken fresh names since 1867,
hardly a Romanian is to be found: and it became more and more the practice
among Romanian intellectuals in Hungary not only to give their children
specially Romanian or Roman Christian names, but wherever possible to 
select such names as do not lend themselves to Magyarisation. Julius
becomes Gyula, alexander Sandor, but nothing could be made out of
Octavian, Virgil, Ovid, Tiberius, Hortensia, Lucretia, Caius, and so on [...]

During the whole period under review Koloszvar (Cluj) was the centre of the 
Magyarising current in its most exaggerated and aggressive form. 
It was in this spirit that a new university was founded there in 1876: 
and at it the Romanians were only in sufferance, though the disabilities 
imposed upon students going from Hungary to foreign universities made 
it almost impossible for young Romanians to escape from the hateful atmosphere 
and study at Bucharest or Vienna - just as the Slovaks found it hard to make 
their way to Prague and on their return found all avenues closed to them as
"Panslavs"[...] The Magyar nobility had town houses and gave the social tone [.
..]

They also made it (Cluj) the centre of the "Emke" 
(Transylvanian Magyar Cultural League), the richest and more active of a group
of similar bodies, whose whole "raison d'etre" was Magyarisation in every
sphere of public life. [...]



 ------------------------------------------
 Reference:  "A history of the Roumanians, 
 from Roman times to the completion of unity"
 by R. W. Seton-Watson. Cambridge [Eng.], The University press, 1934.
 viii, 596 p. XVI pl.(port.,incl.front.)fold.map. 25 cm.

.... By the end of 1909 the Coallition Government had crumbled, and early in 19
10 
the Liberals were re-constituted as the Party of National Work. The new premier
was Count Khuen-Hedervary who during his twenty years as Ban of Croatia had
corrupted a whole generation and played off Serb and Croat against each other. 

The Khuen elections of 1910 eclipsed even Bannfy's record for bribery and viole
nce: 
and the premier's understudy, Jeszenszky, devoted special attention to his old
enemies the non-Magyars. Troops were employed in 380 constituencies, and when t
his was
criticised in Austria an official "COMMUNIQUE" explained that "only" 194 batall
ions
of infantry and 114 squadrons of cavalry were used. Ten romanians electors were
 killed
and the vanquished spoke bitterly of "a real civil war".

Under the impression of this victory Count Stephen Tisza addressed the House on
 the
Racial question and defined the pre-War Magyar policy more authoritatively than
 ever
before. 

The whole house without distinction of party must, he agreed, welcome with
"patriotic joy" the fact that the elections had "virtually wiped the nationalis
t
agitators out of the public life"

[...] There was a deep gulf fixed between the Magyar ruling class and the 
Romanian peasantry, whose landhunger was still unassuaged and which still
occupied (mutatis mutandis) the same position of political and social 
helotry in which its ancestors had lived for generations. Virtually banished fr
om
towns, or at least relegated on sufferance to the suburbs, excluded from public
office and deliberately cramped in education and culture, they found a focus of
democratic resistance in church and school alone, and this the Apponyi Laws wer
e
steadily setting themselves to undermine [...] A fresh conflict with the crown 
over
the army question led to Khuen's fall in April 1912, and his successor,
Dr.Ladislau Lukacs, in taking over the pledge of universal suffrage, defined it
"in such a way as to preserve the due influence of the more developed and riper
 strata
of society and also the unitary national character of the Hungarian state" [...
] At
last on June 1913 Count Tisza again became premier and set himself at one and t
he same
time to crush parliamentary obstruction, even by an armed guard; to check the
democratic onslaught by a carefully doctored Franchise Reform resting 
on differentiation by age literacy and taxation; and finally to reach a
settlement with the nationalities, or at any rate the Romanians, whom alone he
regarded as a real danger. His genuine desire to reach an agreement was never i
n doubt
but its prospect was vitiated by his feudal and arrogant outlook: to him the
Magyar must be "master in his own house", and the Romanian was a citizen of the
 
second rank, whose mere survival was a proof of the unexampled generosity
of the "Herrenvolk" (az uralkodo' nemzet).




 ------------------------------------------
 Reference:  "A history of the Roumanians, 
 from Roman times to the completion of unity"
 by R. W. Seton-Watson. Cambridge [Eng.], The University press, 1934.
 viii, 596 p. XVI pl.(port.,incl.front.)fold.map. 25 cm.

.... When The Bishop (Ioan Inocentiu Klein) presented a memorial
"in his own name, and in that of the whole nation of Wallach
name in Transylvania, this first public confession of faith
roused storms of abuse on all sides and cries of "There is no
wallach nation, there is only a Wallach plebs". Even the
word "gens" was disallowed as applied to Romanians. But Klein
this time refused to retract a single word. "Our nation", he
uncompromisingly declared, "is not inferior to any in
Transylvania, either in virtue, in knowledge or in judgement
of affairs". In 1873 the Uniate headquarters were once more
transferred, this time to the little market town of Blaj,
half way between Alba Iulia and Sibiu, which was henceforth to be
the main centre of Romanian culture till the liberation. [...]

He insisted that the clergy of the Greek rite were entitled to
full equality with their Latin fellow clergy; that proper houses and
endowements must be provided for them; that they should be free to
erect a church in every parish with an Uniate majority, even if a
roman Catholic church was already there; that the sons of a clergy must
remain free from feudal obligations to the lord, and that Romanian
children must no longer be deliberately prevented
from attending schools. [...]

Maria Theresa was sympathetic, but could not, amid the conflict with
Frederick the Great, afford to offend Magyar opinion. The question was
again referred to a comission and again nothing happened [...]

The Diet doubly resented the proposal [...]. It therefore sent in a
"Supplicatio" of its own "contra Valachos", and meanwhile altered the
imperial draft in many respects.


When the daring bishop protested on behalf of a people "wounded to
marrow" and accused the Diet of running counter to the wishes of the
crown, he was challenged on all sides and forced to withdraw his words.
There was a cry, "The Wallachs are mere vagabonds", to which Klein
replied, "It cannot be otherwise since they are bloodly oppressed".
"They are only peasants and serfs", said another deputy, but the bishop
pointed to the Romanians of noble race in the district of Fagaras, and
the freemen on Saxon teritory. Then come shouts "They are brigands, they
are lazy thieves", to which the bishop retorted, "You cannot wonder, for to
the poor you left nothing but their skins, on which to live. Do the romanians 
not work the salt and iron and gold mines for you, and some you actually dont
despoil of their skins also?". 

His plea that it was unfair to force the Romanians to contribute to the
support of the Protestant clergy while their own priests were in the direst
straits, is unanswerable to-day: but to an audience mainly drawn from the
landed nobility his arguments were as offensive and unconvincing as his tone.
A joint petition of Roman and Greek catholics, reminding the crown that the
Uniates were far more deserving than "the stubborn Arians, Calvinists and
Lutherans" and looked for help neither to the Patriarch of Constantinople,
like the schismatics, nor to England, Holland and Prussia, as the Magyar
Protestants notoriously had done in the past, but to Rome and to
the imperial house - such tactics only stiffened the Diet still further [...]

In his isolation he appears to have feared that he was to be confined to
a Graz asylum. Under pretext of pilgrimage to Maria Zell, he escaped from
Vienna, made his way to Rome and appealed to the Pope on behalf of his
unhappy flock. But he thereby played straight into the hands of his
enemies: for though Curia was sympathetic, it could not quarell with Vienna
over the obscure Uniates. His memorial to the Empress remained unanswered,
and meanwhile the authorities ordered all his properties to be sequestrated,
thereby reducing him to destitution in Rome and forcing him to sell his
pectoral cross. [...] The transylvanian Government ordered that Klein
should henceforth be ignored by the faithful, and in 1751 there was nothing
left but surrender. He abandoned his see and lived on in his Roman exile
till 1768. He lived too in the hearts of his people, of both faiths, and
for many a year the peasants would greet some preacher with sad cries
"Our Bishop, our Bishop!"




 ------------------------------------------
 Reference:  "A history of the Roumanians, 
 from Roman times to the completion of unity"
 by R. W. Seton-Watson. Cambridge [Eng.], The University press, 1934.
 viii, 596 p. XVI pl.(port.,incl.front.)fold.map. 25 cm.