So apparently 70% of Romanians agree with that powerful slogan.
When I was in Romania, their libs were telling me only marginal freaks supported reunification with Moldova. But evidently, they were wrong. It is more like 70% of the population as that map shows.
I actually think Moldova is pretty interesting as a comparator for Ukraine/Belarus.
While Ukrainians are basically Polonized Russians and Belorussians are Lithuanized Russians, the Moldovans can be thought of as Russified Romanians.
As I understand it, opinion on uniting with Romania vs. Russia usually hovers around 50/50 in Moldova (though generally Romania has the edge). Transnistria is, of course, Crimean-level pro-Russian, even though it’s really a “Soviet” ethnicity that’s comparable parts Russian, Ukrainian, and Moldovan.
I think that every reasonable person will agree – even Moldovans – that theirs is a fake country that should be done away with, it is my long standing contention that there should be a deal where Russia gets Transnistria and Romania gets historical Bessarabia. (In an ideal world Hungary would also then get Transylvania, but unfortunately the demographics no longer work out).
Another point this illustrates is that the libs are often wrong and have no connection with their own people. For instance, they also told me that only 10% of Romanians approve of Ceausescu. However, my powerful commenters corrected me, pointing out that it is actually more like 50%. This is further evidence for the stereotype that liberal elitists often have hazy ideas about the countries they live in.
Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.
If you are new to my work, start here.
I agree regarding possible partition (though) it will never happen. But if it did, there are parts of Moldova outside of Pridnestrovie that would not want to join Romania, both in the north and — especially — in Gagauzia. The electoral map of 2016 showing support for Dodon is instructive:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Alegeri_preziden%C8%9Biale_%C3%AEn_Republica_Moldova_2016.jpg
If that were to happen, Gagauzia has the right to leave.
Some svidos want Pridnestrovie (Transnistria) – never minding that the ethnic Ukrainians there seem like they’re to a good extent kind of like the ethnic Ukes in Crimea.
Check how ethnic Moldovans in Moldova (with or without Pridnestrovie) feel about becoming a part of Romania. Centuries ago, there was an entity known as a Moldova (Moldavia) principality, which if I’m not offhand mistaken, included part of modern day Romania. Romania as a national concept came later.
Which leads to the question of how accurate it is to say that only pro-Dodon Moldovan support means against becoming a part of Romania? Is there not a noticeable Moldovan element which is non-supportive of Dodon, but also opposed to Moldova joining Romania?
The level of analysis provided herein is getting a bit primitive. I like the original one best, its stood the test of time:
These referenced polling results concur with my prior comments:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_of_Romania_and_Moldova#Public_opinion
A proposal:
https://www.eurasiareview.com/10012012-pridnestrovies-present-and-future%C2%A0-analysis/
Excerpt –
Will add that under this scenario, the hypothetical Union of Moldova & Pridnestrovie could join the Eurasian Economic Union.
Today Moldova, tomorrow Belgium
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64DCO2sI7fI
Actually I think that even the whole country of Romania came pretty close to being assimilated into the Slavic world.
It’s perhaps a little known fact that Romania is the only non-Slavic country to ever use the Cyrillic alphabet – for a few hundred years – before they become uppity and switched to Latin.
Romanians are known to seamlessly commingle with the Slavs. There is a huge Romanian diaspora in the Balkans – called Vlachs – who live in many Slavic countries and are usually well respected and not discriminated against in those countries.
I guess you can say that the Vlachs contribute to the multicultural milieu of the Balkans. Actually, not only to the multicultural milieu, but also to the multicultural kilometreau of the Balkans (just trying to be funny).
You seriously think they would stop at that, Mr. Chamberlain?
http://www.alternativaonline.ca/images/CINE%20A%20PIERDUT%20LA%20TRIANON01_1805.jpg
http://www.alternativaonline.ca/images/CINE%20A%20PIERDUT%20LA%20TRIANON05_1805.jpg
http://www.alternativaonline.ca/images/CINE%20A%20PIERDUT%20LA%20TRIANON04_1805.jpg
The liberal elite thing is true everywhere I think
Americans Liberals came up with a lunatic theory about Russia rigging the election in order to explain how so many people voted for Trump, you could often hear the phrase “I don’t know anyone who voted for Trump”
Russian liberals on R*ddit will tell folks that the average Russian wants Crimea to be returned to Ukraine
In Serbia, Liberals will tell you most people do not think we should continue to lobby for Kosovo to be returned to us, this is contrary to what 80%+ of the population thinks (some polls show 90%)
I resent the idea that these folks are liberal because they have high IQs, since that’d mean even the average intelligent person is lacking in common sense
We used to have a Romanian cleaning woman who believed not only that Moldova was part of Romania, but also that the whole of the Banat, Bucovina, Northern Transylvania, etc. etc. are historically and rightfully part of Romania (i.e. “Romania mare”). I suspect that sort of thinking is fairly common in the Romanian countryside.
In any case, this woman emigrated to the US a few years ago to join her Romanian emigre husband where she is now a committed Trump supporter.
If they give Transsylvania to Hungary and Transnistria to Russia in exchange for Moldova, they should also give Dobrogea (Dobrudja) to Bulgaria.
To quote a certain video game villain – “Your preference doesn’t signify, girl.”
Dniester border (some parts are on the wrong side like Dubasari). When Ukropistan is butchered Romania gets the Budjak and Cernauti too. Everyone satisfied
https://i.imgur.com/eTrf4HJ.png
This is usual talking point of right wingers. The libs have their high falutin edjukashioon, but we have COMMON SENSE.
LIBS ARE OWNED!
Great if true, but is it true?
What, exactly, is “common sense”?
IQ, according to HBDIQ science, can be easily and exactly measured with decimal point accuracy, but how do we judge common sense?
According to fount of all world’s knowledge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense
Common sense is sound practical judgement concerning everyday matters
This seems to be well accepted “commonsensical” definition.
Common sense is about one’s everyday common life, not about one’s beliefs and political opinions (unless they infringe on one’s personal life, negatively or positively).
Common sense can be easily measured by observing how succesful is subject’s personal life.
And on this test, liberals pass with flying colors.
High IQ and high education are correlated with income, wealth, longevity and success in life in general.
https://brainsize.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/even-among-college-graduates-iq-and-income-are-correlated/
https://www.gwern.net/docs/iq/2007-strenze.pdf
As our host noticed, the basic problem of the Right is lack of human capital.
If the Right wants to prevail, if must find a way to recruit highly educated, high IQ succesful people. This means boring and square normies and mundanes, not Mensa freaks who can solve IQ test puzzles in record time, but are complete losers otherwise.
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-rights-human-capital-problem/
But the Right’s human capital problem makes it very hard to attract the high IQ, which results in Swine leaders, which lowers the prestige associated with being on the Right, exacerbating the human capital problem even further, etc.
Which is why I’m pretty skeptical about nationalism’s prospects in the long-term.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KugpuHRwBo0/TP-9bkr0xUI/AAAAAAAAALw/r4jOR6VXEL4/s1600/romania+harta.jpg
This is just a random map for “Romania adevarata” (“true/real Romania”) and isn’t even close to the maximum program (which would include Uzhgorod, Ruse and possibly even Crimea).
Why exactly would it be ideal for Hungry to get Transylvania!? Can you even tell without checking the internet (but do it anyway because you don t know) for how many years Transylvania belonged to Hungary? And by the way, never in their entire history since they arrived in Europe the Hungarians were not a majority in Transylvania.
They are also correlated with low fertility rates and cuckoldry, not good long term prospects
It often seems the smaller and more economically and historically insignificant a country is, the more likely they are to engage in territorial jingoism and irredentism.
I suppose it’s not really surprising, if a country doesn’t have a glorious past (or present) then the tendency is to invent one or justify not having one by saying that the neighbouring countries have stolen it from them.
https://external-preview.redd.it/kIVc43_6m8yedRI22L_-dXUudOWvjm3Mdo5xhAvjHwY.jpg?auto=webp&s=8def33364e3d2441905b7fd5dd2993aae4fc18fb
Western propagandists have tried many approaches for proving that Romanians are Untermensch who must settle for farm jobs, while paying dearly for Western remdesivir. One direction, which triggered me lately, is how Radio “Free” Europe pays a broadcaster solely for his loud opposition to protocronism. This is the theory that Romanians wuz kang, and, according to RFERL employees, is a blasphemy on a par with Hitler’s claim to German supremacy. Both are of course strawmen, but the loot of Transylvania filling museums in Vienna and the neverending list of prehistorical archeological findings upsets all those nationals who base their supremacist beliefs in God’s choices.
Among the strategies used in Romania by Western agents, we have pollution, which, despite propaganda, cannot be that high in a country where half of the people live on subsistence farming. There’s also poor education, although we have more than the regional share of software engineers, and they all work for multinationals. (Not a lot of programming goes on in subsistence farms.) Supposedly, we have the highest rate of alcoholism in the world, per Wikipedia, although that, in Wiki table, the Romanian ethanol intake is inflated with a 50% “unmeasurable contraband”, the only country in the list to have this problem. We were slave masters, based on the Wikipedia page for Gypsies, which supports its claim with a slave-selling ad written with the Latin alphabet, 15 years before Wallachians gave up on Cyrillic.
Lots of these things don’t stick. The one thing that stuck is corruption. Almost everyone who never left homeland thinks Romanian corruption is worst on the planet. Many of the people who traveled abroad for menial jobs confused the lack of interest from foreign policemen with lack of corruption. To my mind, it’s obvious a German official won’t waste his time trying to fleece the equivalent of a local homeless, while the limits to the job market are a more obvious form of corruption. For example, this year, during the strictest limitations on travel, thousands of Romanians congregated on given dates in specific airports, to get on charter flights to Germany. They could not work in Romania due to covid, but the Romanian and German authorities were able to facilitate their travel to German farms. Covid was not an issue for the export / import of farm workers.
And here’s the problem. Many Romanians believe Bessarabia is even more corrupt than the mainland. Last week,, I read on many Romanian news sites about some women stealing the pavement form a Kishinev street. But you can’t read a word about the looting in America, or about the lack of testing on remdesivir. And, of course, there is still no explanation on how, in April, Romanians were not allowed to travel more than 10 km, yet some of them were chartered flights to German farms.
Many Romanians are honestly terrified by an Union with “the Republic”. If propaganda on Moldovan corruption was as effective as that on Romanian corruption, the union will not happen in our lifetimes, even if Russians disappear.
Moldovans are most definitely not “russified Romanians”. I would suggest Mr.Karlin familiarizing with the basic data on genetic composition of Moldovans and Romanians (both autosomal and uniparental markers). For instance: http://xn--c1acc6aafa1c.xn--p1ai/?page_id=5561
One of the most mysterious enigmas of modern Russian nationalism remains these weird attempts to propitiate Romania that has never been and will never be a friendly nation and is hardly politically relevant in an event of redrawing borders in Eastern Europe. Lightheartedly ceding territories inhabited by a mixed group of half-Russian half-Vlach origin that remains divided on its final civilizational alignment is hardly the first option Russians should contemplate in the pursuit of reunification.
For the atrocities committed against Russian civilians in Pridnestrovie by Romanian nationalists back in the 1990-ies I would suggest quite a different treatment of this wonderful country that shall teach other European nations an important lesson about the value of Russian lives.
The study measured the extent of unionist feelings in a theoretical poll question, but your analysys misses the point by ignoring the intensity of those feelings, which is very low.
When we talk politics in Bucharest we talk about the economy, corruption, traffic, pollution, education, highway construction and illegal logging, not about Basarabia.
There is no relevant political force campaigning for union, the only nationalist party remaining in our Parliament is that of the hungarian minority, our current president is a german and the prime minister is mostly hungarian and the rising political force, USR, is focused against corruption, is very pro-european and has progressive sympathies.
Most Romanians will approve of union in the right circumstances, but at the same time most Romanians don’t care that deeply about union. Most of us would simply prefer that Moldova joins the EU and the long suffering basarabians have a shot at a more prosperous and peaceful life.
Your liberal acquaintances were more correct then you are.
https://jakubmarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/iq-europe.jpg
“When we talk politics in Bucharest we talk about the economy, corruption”
Look this fool.
Unless you are extremely stupid, you know, the sort that believes rates of covid are measured by the same rules in Germany, US, Sweden, and India, you would refrain from showing that sort of maps.
For example, we don’t know how many people live in Romania. I was recorded twice in the previous censuses. We are likely the only country in the world where the number of ICU beds decreased during the pandemic. (It seems many of them were imagined.) I explained earlier how we don’t have a grasp on the ethanol consumption. And you are telling me you can measure Romanians’ or Kosovans’ IQ?
Maybe your IQ numbers come from Oxford, where they still show US and UK as the best prepared countries in the world for a pandemic, like here https://specials-images.forbesimg.com/imageserve/5e2eaf8d8b6cf300071d03bb/960×0.jpg?fit=scale
Making up numbers that show Western Europe superiority is one of the favorite hobbies of Westerners. You can shove your maps in your Western hole.
Few countries would produce as many brain workers as Romania, if you were in our shoes. Who of your lot would go to college, if you’d be asked for a degree in order to qualify for seasonal farm work in Spain? (True fact, happened to my generation.) And still, a majority of foreign doctors in Germany are Romanians, and 1% of those at home work in IT.
Broke: Crimea belongs to Ukraine
Woke: Crimea belongs to Russia
Bespoke: Crimea belongs to Romania
https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/romania-85.jpg
Do you even know how many times Russia invaded Romania, how many hundreds of thousands of Romanians Russians murdered and how much land you stole from us? Even now you have your armies on Romanian soil. And you wonder why Romania is not a friendly nation!? Can you be friendly to a murderous thief that keeps banging on your door?
maybe most of you USR voters would prefer that
A counterpoint:
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FT_17.06.28_sovietStalin.png
“Even now you have your armies on Romanian soil.”
I agree. Free Mihail Kogalniceanu and Deveselu now, imperialists.
Even now, after hundreds of years of russification and deporting the population, almost 32% of the Transnistrians think of themselves as Moldavans/Romanians. I guess that you are too focused on the globalists from the west to notice the Russian menice from the east; i can understand that.
Agree/Thanks/LOL, lol. I have bad luck with pictures today, everything I pick has % or + in the URL.
The claim to Crimea is not as absurd as it might sound – the last princess of Theodoro happened to marry the gospodar of Moldova (or voivode, or whatever they had back then). Also, given Theodoro is often considered to be the last surviving shard of Byzantium, it’s also their argument in the coming struggle for Byzantine Inheritance.
I’m a little bit puzzled by your affirmation: “In an ideal world Hungary would also then get Transylvania, but unfortunately the demographics no longer work out”
As of 2011 census there are 6,8 million people in Transylvania of whom 1,2 million magyars which make almost 18 %. Romanians are 5,2 millions (more then 75%).
Population declined in this time, but the magyar population declined even faster comparative with romanian population. There in not a single town bigger than 60.000 with a magyar majority (8! towns in total).
So if it is not demographic justified that Hungary get Transylvania what other arguments exist?
Brexit Britain and the EU come to mind.
Canada isn’t like that about the US. And Mexico definitely has a case. (Saw the most recent version of The Alamo yesterday, where the Mexicans take them in a 20 minute long dawn raid).
But then we elected Theresa May who cut back on the practice run. After that Johnson …
Of course, Bessarabia remained Moldovan because the British, French, Turks and Sardinians defeated Russia in the Crimean War. The British handed it to Moldavia. Maybe Moldova should join the Commonwealth? All those post Brexit trade opportunities. Undercut the Romanian fruit pickers.
The adoption of Cyrillic alphabet has two main causes. The political one has to do with the intention to distinguish themselves from “Latinized” Catholic Hungary, that made claims and wanted to conquer the territories occupied by Romanian speaking people. The two Romanian principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia have come to life as an opposition to this conquest. Second, monks from Bulgaria and Serbia spread the chirilic alphabet, and that was opportunism from Romanian leadership.
And assimilation of slavs by Romanians is incontestable, the Latin “dick” (pula) ended up fckng the Slavic vulva (pizda)…
Why not just use the maps and demographics employed in Paris 1919 to see why Transylvania was as plurality (majority in fact) populated by Romanians. Check your official history mate, not nutjobs…
Check your history mate. Bessarabia was illegally ceded by the Ottomans to Russians in 1812 prior to the Napoleonic invasion of Russia. The Turkish Dragoman, of Greek origins, was in the pay of Russia and he hid from the sublime porte the issue of the imminent invasion. He got beheaded for this. However, Bessarabia, through a national referendum rejoined Romania only in 1918, with Lenin’s blessing. only after he died, the Soviets established a RSS of Moldavia where Transitria is now, to keep their claim alive. Britain gave nothing to Romanians. If anything, what they have, Romanians have it on their own sweat and blood.
Bellend!
The Western Powers gave only 3 counties back to Moldova at the end of the Crimean War, Russia took them back less than 20 years later in 1878. These 3 counties are now part of Ukraine, not Moldova.
Mate, you really don’t know how to make an argument and practically gave it to him. The answer is that the demographic maps produce by the Magyar administration and used at the Paris Peace conference in 1919 showed Romanians as the majority. It also helped that at the time, the Romanian Army was occupying Budapest and the Eastern part of Hungary, which was convulsed by a communist revolution (Hungarians went for it because Bela Kun also promised a Great Hungary).
The author should have also looked into how many Romanian passports have been issued to citizens of the Republic of Moldavia. Yes, there is opportunism involved, as in any enterprise, but not only…
These “rankings” were published in late 2019. Theresita dindu nuthin for your shit show.
Some Western countries silo their elderly and delegate their ass wiping to similarly siloed helots from the developing world. We knew that Rona is worse for the elderly since March. But UK and US urban centers could not un-silo their elderly, and condemned their more state-fed elderly to death. It’s not something Theresita can fix. You just hate your grand parents.
Of course, Western stats showing square meters of housing per Englishman did not include elderly, and showed British quality of life. Statista must have a chart on that as well.
They don’t hate their grandparents. It is that they love their profits so much more…. Reminds me of the Ferengi tradition that after death, the body was cut in small pieces and sold to auction…
Brexit is surely the opposite of territorial jingoism and irredentism? Unless you’re implying it’s jingoistic of British people to think they should have complete control of their own country?
There’s a significant percentage of English Brexiteers who would be prepared to lose Scotland, NI and maybe Wales if it meant winning back total independence for England, hence why people often call them “little Englanders”.
Brexit is in many ways a rejection of the globalist, expansionist mindset that many Tories and “big business” liberal types have. Brexit idealism is trading with the world as equals, not ruling the world or them ruling us.
What national referendum? This was a pure military conquest and a stab in the back of a supposed ally.
They were circumstantial allies. Same as when in 1877-78, Romania was allied with Russia against the Turk, fought and defeated them in Bulgaria and helped Russians to get close to Istambul. And then in 1878 the Russian army, in its retreat, started chasing the Romanian king through Romanian territory to force them to sign and cede some pieces of land a the Danube mouth. But that is small potatoes. Bessarabia (what is now Republic of Moldavia) was part of Moldavian principality until 1812, when the Turks were conned and illegally (it wasn’t their to give) ceded to Russia. So all that action in 1918 was restitution. Still pending another re-unification. time will tell.
Backstabbing my A#$
Sorry to break anyones hopes, but even in the census of 1910 in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Romanians were a little over 50% in Transylvania,and among the rest were also Germans, Ukrainians, Serbians and so on. There were not only Hungarians and Romanians there. So that ideal world was only a Hungarian imperialist fantasy, who are really convinced that they were the majority 1000 years ago (on what basis, other than cretin Roslerian theories, I dont know). Most of Transylvania was majority Romanian in 1919; the Hungarians were a majority only in 3 counties in central Transylvania, in the city of Cluj and along a strip of land on the border. Even if ethnic division would have been fully respected, it would have never been possibe to claim the entire Transylvania. And, finally, if “Krim” is “nash”, then yes, ” Basarabia e România”. An act depends on power;a wish does not.
I don’t see Romanians assimilating any Slavs. The only ones that Romania ever succeeded assimilating in their “culture” were the Gypsies. It’s no coincidence that the Gypsies are called Roma – sharing the name with their assimilators with whom they are basically the same, you stupid monkey.
What is your answer to that question?
I guess you count the Principality of Transylvania (roughly 1541-1690) as “not Hungary” despite it being governed by Hungarian aristocrats. (Even during that period it was united twice for short periods of time.) Also, the principality literally started as the eastern half of Hungary, when the half supporting the House Szapolyai (the Hungarian “national” king who descended from the Hungarian nobility) was put under Ottoman suzerainty by Suleiman the Magnificent. It started its life literally as the eastern part of the Kingdom of Hungary, but then it lost much of its area in the west and then the most important part of it became Transylvania. Its rulers also now didn’t have access to the Holy Crown of Hungary, they were not crowned by the Archbishop of Esztergom (temporarily in the city of Nagyszombat, presently Trnava in Slovakia, because Esztergom was under Ottoman occupation), and they were mostly Protestants, and as Ottoman vassals they were called princes rather than kings. I can read and easily understand their letters, since each of them wrote in Hungarian.
I hope you are not in the (very large) camp of Romanians who believe that the Principality of Transylvania was some kind of Romanian state. The three “nations” governing it were Hungarians (i.e. Hungarian nobility and aristocracy), Székelys (who enjoyed “collective nobility” and were thus separate from the nobles who held regular nobility, not as a part of some collective), and Saxons (the German speaking cities in the southern part of Transylvania).
That’s difficult to know, and might actually depend on how you define Transylvania (present borders, historical borders of Transylvania, or the Principality of Transylvania which included the so-called Partium, i.e. a changing set of counties in Hungary proper).
One interesting data point is the city of Gyulafehérvár (now Alba Iulia), which was the seat of the Principality of Transylvania, and which is currently in the middle of a sea of Romanians, with almost no ethnic Hungarian population at all. Basically the only Hungarians there are the people belonging to the Catholic Archbishopry of Alba Iulia. Needless to say that the neighboring villages are entirely Romanian, and were so already in the late 19th century, not much trace of Hungarians there. Therefore it perhaps comes as a surprise that there are some documents from 1602 and 1603 (lists of the households and officials in the city) which prove that the majority of the population at the time were Hungarian, including all of the city councilors and the mayor. Interestingly Kassa (Košice in Slovakia) can be shown to have a large Slovakian population (though never a majority; nor were Hungarians a majority there) throughout history, so it’s certainly not like these sources somehow couldn’t see ethnic minorities. Romanians were Orthodox, so they should be more visible in the sources than Slovaks, who, after all, belonged to the same denominations as Hungarians.
So while it’s certainly possible that Romanians were an ethnic majority throughout the period in question, it’s far from a certainty.
Some Hungarians believe that we don’t need a military unless we have irredentist goals. Well…
It’s obvious that Romanians had a majority since the 18th century (when large masses of Romanians entered Transylvania after a botched uprising against the Ottomans; they were welcomed by the local Hungarian lords), possibly earlier (the Turkish wars mostly devastated the valleys m, which usually had a Hungarian population, and not the mountainous parts, where the Romanians lived; there is some limited evidence that nobles often invited Romanians to depopulated villages after each successive war). It’s undeniably possible that Romanians had an ethnic majority even before that, in which case they likely have had it throughout the past millennium. Anyway, the border could’ve been drawn perhaps 50 kilometers to the southeast of the Trianon line without adding many Romanians to Hungary. I’m fairly sure Karlin is familiar with this, especially since I’ve written about it to him here and elsewhere.
Well here you are talking some sense. That strip of land on the border populated by Hungarians could have gone to Hungary. OTOH, Hungary would have still claimed the entire Transylvnia, Maramureş and our part of Banat, so we would have had a big problem still.
There is not such thing as any “botched uprising against the Ottomans” in the XVII-XVIII century which would triggered “large masses of Romanians entered Transylvania”. Neither any net romanian immigration in Transylvania in the last milleniumm (quite the opposite). Except probably your own secret documents. Or what the UFO-s are telling you.
Instead is documented in XVI – start of XX century a steady emigration from Transylvania to Moldova and Muntenia east and south of Carpathian. For example in the end of XVIII century -XIX century romanian form Transylvania populated Baragan (east of Muntenia ) and Dobdruja ( further east) .
Of course, with Trianon, the border could have been put directly on Tisza river 100 km west actual border without adding many hungarians to Romania. Only that Budapesta would had had even less subjects to assimilate which it probably meant the end of a hungarian state and hungarian nationality.
Curios to ask: where did you finish the studies, at the technical school? Surely not history…
“Romanians were Orthodox, so they should be more visible in the sources than Slovaks”.
Romanian status in XVI-XVIII century in Transylvania was quite similar with that of irish catholics in Ireland in the same period: no political rights, almost no civil rights (quite close of legal definition given by the english Lord of Justice to irish in XVIII century – The law does not recognise such a person as an irish romano-catolic”.
Of course in such circumstances is very difficult to be visible in anyway except as the invisible hands who do all the work.
“Some documents from 1602 and 1603 (lists of the households and officials in the city) which prove that the majority of the population at the time were Hungarian”
The majority of the population at the time were Hungarian in most of the cities and towns. Which counted for 10-15% of the population. The rest ¬90% countryside was almost entirely romanian (with two exceptions: south east Transylvania- the szekelys and small german enclaves in south).
That means +70% romanian majority in Transylvania.
Please take note of my previous comment: in the last millennium Transylvania was a demographic reservoir for romanian ethnos with a substantial net contribution. There are many romanians who have ancestors who came from Transylvania in Moldova and Muntenia but very few romanians from Transylvania had forebears who came the opposite.
Hmm, so little Cyrano is a gipsy! A loudly and lousy, frustrated gipsy!
Oh dear!
That’s questionable. I’m not sure how aware you are, but long before 1914 many in the Hungarian elite were aware of the issue that huge areas of the country had minimal or no presence of Hungarians, and actually this was the main reason why the majority of the elite accepted the Habsburg monarchy. The idea being that without the Habsburgs we wouldn’t be able to hold on to those areas. While in the propaganda the “thousand year borders” were used, it was never taken seriously, because it was understood that we wouldn’t be able to rule so large minority populations. For example in March 1939 there was a chance to occupy Slovakia, but the Hungarian government was the first to recognize Slovakia.
With Romania the biggest issue was the Székely land, which has been for a very long time (probably all the way since the 12th century when the Székelys were settled there) in the middle of a sea of Romanians. But actually it was not planned to take this area back, instead various ideas were floated, the maximalist approach being to add a few hundred thousand Romanians to Hungary and then use them as kinda mutual hostages to ensure the minority rights for the Székelys (and the Romanians in Hungary in exchange).
Nothing came of it in 1940, when instead mutual atrocities against the people on the wrong side of the border became the norm. Also, the Romanians themselves would’ve accepted some border changes, but instead Hungary went for the possible maximum. It must be noted that the Hungarian leadership wasn’t really satisfied with the new borders, because it was militarily indefensible. Instead they wanted simply the Trianon borders pushed perhaps 100 kilometers or so to the southeast. (So they wanted roughly as much as they got, but different areas.) But it couldn’t be stated openly. Also many were happy with the Székely land, after all. But I view it as a failure of the Hungarian leadership that they couldn’t come to a mutually acceptable agreement with the Romanians.
It was a romanian military intervention in January-march 1918. And a referendum which showed that the majority of population wanted union with Romania. No difference of this with the russian intervention – Crimean referendum of 2014 and subsequent (legal) reunion with Russia.
In 1918 power in Russia was taken by Bolsheviks. I think that Russia itself as a historical state was completely obliterated. So it wasn’t any stab in the back of an ally.
From all points of view in 1918 a historical teritory populated by a romanian majority was united with the core country. Please don’t forget that all (romanian, russians, ukranians etc) benefited from this. At the very bottom the Bolshevik genocide was delayed for 30 years.
I’m not overly familiar with Romanian history. I was referring to the events when the Romanian princes turned on the Ottomans and as a result were replaced by the Fanariots. This happened early in the century. Our own botched uprising against the Habsburgs (ending nearly two centuries of warfare) had resulted in a partial depopulation of especially the Hungarian populated areas. As far as I know the Fanariot rule resulted in very high taxes, which made the temporarily depopulated areas in Transylvania relatively attractive to them. Obviously the Hungarian nobles weren’t unhappy with peasants moving in to their estates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phanariots#1711%E2%80%931715
Perhaps. I know little to nothing about this. Except Hungarian historiography generally considered a Romanian immigration in the 16th and 17th centuries and perhaps earlier. (It’s not clear if Romanians had been there in Transylvania before the 12th century, but the continuity, which the Romanians like to believe was uninterrupted since Roman times, is certainly not impossible.
This opinion made me question the things you wrote previously. Not a very reasonable opinion.
True that some gypsies were assimilated, but a lot have remained beholden to their culture (while being fully bilingual), which was captured beautifully in some Serbian and Soviet/Moldavian movies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJyDmvV5k9A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZf00ad3G6o
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001437/
However, the Slavic population that didn’t cross the Danube ( https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9zxk57/how_did_the_slavs_manage_to_cross_the_danube_in/ ) is nowhere to be found in Romania. Just words that one cannot use to string a meaningful sentence… Assimilated…
The issues are very well studied by specialists. The emptying of Transylvania started to be peddled by Hungarians, first by non-historians when the times started to change and groups started to express a more coherent political will. That horrified the Hungarian minority that also was the landlord (like the descendants of Spanish colonists in Latin America, not including Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay). So wild stories began to be spun, and the most famous storyteller is one Robert Rösler…
https://www.quora.com/What-do-Romanians-think-about-Robert-R%C3%B6slers-immigrationist-theory
The problem is that all around Romania claim that Romanians came from somewhere else, and on fellow, writing in “An enigma and a historical miracle the Romanian People” couldn’t stop from concluding that it seems Romanians landed there from the sky…
Medieval Vlyakh/Vlach language was so Slavic influenced that many foreigners mistook it as a member of Slavic languages. Vlakh has undergone heavy modification under nationalist linguists and writers. Estimates of the ratio of Wallachian/Romanian words directly inherited from Latin range between around 20% to 40%.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-latinization_of_Romanian
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_influence_on_Romanian
Sadly few young nations lacking of ancient past choose the honorable way of the Finns and Dutch, both of those nations and people are relatively young, but they have decided to be proudly themselves and forge their own future by their own hands. But Vlach-Romanians are just one of the many fake nations, who lack of healthy self confidence and therefore steal imaginary and glorious past from the successes of others. Like Albania, like Macedonia, like Romania….
Wallachs, as they were named by outsiders in certain parts of present Romania, comes from German and it refers to people speaking a form of Latin/romance language. This moniker is quite old and it likely comes from the various Germanic waves that swept through that area, prior to the Slavic movement.
And you have obviously not been through Romania, if you speak so nonchalantly about the lack of confidence of Romanians, and accuse them of being a fake nation.
Everyone knows that there are Slavic words in Romanian Language, it is never denied. Everyone knows about the adoption of first of Cyrillic Alphabet and then Latin Alphabet were politically motivated, first by the intention of Catholic Hungarian Kingdom to occupy what became Wallachia and Moldavia principalities in 1300s , and then by the Russian expansion in the west and south. Affirming Latin origins was a political stance as well as an identity stance you dimwit, and it was embraced by the population at large, because it wasn’t very difficult and it had the ring of truth to it.
And about borrowing from others as a mantle of success, this is quite ridiculous. If anything, they gave others.
I know that Vlach and Wallachia are exonyms, just like Wales and Welsh are. Still before Vlakhs called themselves Romanians, they were called by the name of Vlakh by their Slavic and Greek neighbours already in 6th and 7th Centuries. First time when the name of the Rome was mentioned in connection with Vlachs, was in Hungarian chronicles of 12th or 13th Century, and it was not that they were Romanians, but that Vlachs were Shepherds of the Romans. That they were left behind when their Roman masters fled. But as somehow usually happens in the Balkans stories grow bigger year by year, so one day those Shepherds of Romans became the Romans and their land was even called Romanland!
No one was denying the Latin origin of Romanian/Wallachian language, just that it has gone huge artificial modifications like Turkish, which too had very different vocabularity with more Persian and Arabic influence, before Mustafa Kemals language reforms. I hope that there will never be Alfred Edward Anglofather who would strive to purify English from foreign influence and bring back the Anglo-Saxon or Anglisch. But wait a minute, English are a real and proper nation, why to do so? Why to delete Shakespeare and Milton? Hmm strange then that real nations of Romania and Turkey engage with such shenanigans?
(HINT: a HUGE lack of self confidence arising from not being a real ….. and without any …….., but dont worry for Pinocchio too became a real boy, but only after stopping lying, so there’s a lesson there!)
Sorry for not understanding your Roman wisdom, but really could you explain it little bit more clearly so my Barbarian brains would get it?
In Hungarian Romanians were called “oláh” until relatively recently. (It’s now a derogatory term, but in the 19th century and earlier it was a pretty neutral expression.) Interestingly, Italians are called “olasz” to this very day, and I read it originates from the same exonym as “oláh” or “Vlach.” This exonym was used to describe any Latin speaking peoples.
The term “olasz” is as neutral and official as possible, whereas the term for Romanians is now “román” instead of “oláh,” with “oláh” basically never being used in polite company.
So you Hungarians should proudly continue using olah and not let the Romani dictate your behaviour or language. Magyars are a great nation with real achievements and unique culture, which truly enriches the mankind and should never be lost! Truly Russias behaviour in 1849 was one of the greatest mistakes in its history.
Huge Turkic modifications? You must be delusional to think that balcon, batic, baclava, sarma, dusman, kiftea and a couple of others are a huge addition!
As for culture, you obviously are not familiar with the Romanian language, literature, and culture, including folklore, which was always used as a source of inspiration, not only in words, but songs as well. You can always check Bartok.
You very likely haven’t read “The Little Ewe” in Romanian to know they didn’t really need a Shakespeare, to express their feelings for them, those shepherds of Romans…
Oh you dont understand written English? Then debate with you is impossible.
Not when is not idiomatic.
” Our own botched uprising against the Habsburgs (ending nearly two centuries of warfare) had resulted in a partial depopulation of especially the Hungarian populated areas”
It is true that was hungarian depopulation but in the battle zone between Habsburgic Empire and Ottoman Empire (Buda eyalet and Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary – practic entire teritory of Hungary from today). This didn’t affect Transylvania at all.
If you are referring at the Kuruc uprising this was a minor war (small number armies involved) which affected very little the civilian population. The magnats had the labour force intact so there was no romanian immigration to Transylvania.
“Except Hungarian historiography generally considered a Romanian immigration in the 16th and 17th centuries and perhaps earlier.”
Wonder if it is possible that historiography to be biased by subjective reasons…
“But the continuity, which the Romanians like to believe was uninterrupted since Roman times, is certainly not impossible”.
We could say so. Or to be total respectful to the truth we should say continuity was uninterrupted since Roman times. Proofs? Archeology, etnography, old cronicles (including Gesta Hungarorum), historical logic, reason. Not at all place to believe.
“Not a very reasonable opinion.”
So your statement “the border could’ve been drawn perhaps 50 kilometers to the southeast of the Trianon line” it is more reasonable?