Without King Michael's Coup, do you think that Romania would have still gotten Northern Transylvania back after WWII?

[Futurist]

Without King Michael's Coup, do you think that Romania would have still gotten all of Northern Transylvania back after WWII? Any thoughts on this?

[Futurist]

@wm and Steve: Any thoughts on this?

[steppewolf]

My memory is kind of blurry on this subject but I recall I read somewhere that Stalin expressed the will to give Transylvania back to Romania because Hungary attacked Soviet Union without any territorial claim. At least Romania had a reason to go for Bessarabia. Besides, the majority of the population, except 2 counties, was still Romanian in Northern Transylvania (despite thousands of ethnics Romanian being sent to Stalingrad with Hungarian 2nd Army).

Certainly Michael's coup probably helped Stalin decide, after all shorthened the war with few months and made it easier for Soviets to reach Berlin.

[Peter89]

The coup made no difference.

The Wallies had no intention to respect neither the concessions they gave to the Axis nations (ie. Munich agreement) or the border changes they made themselves (ie. First & Second Vienna Awards). The Soviets handled their agreements with the Axis nations the same way (ie. Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact). The vicorious powers seen these concessions as a direct cause for the Axis agression.

The coup had one direct result, namely that Romania wasn't occupied by the Soviet forces (unlike other Eastern bloc countries).

If the Hungarians rebelled against the Germans before the Romanian coup, they might (might!) have stood a chance to have some minor concessions. But please keep in mind that Ruthenia was taken away from Czechoslovakia, Bessarabia from Romania, and huge territories from Poland - and the Baltic states remained incorporated into the SU. So whatever the Soviets modified in C-E Europe, they always modified it into their own favor.

And, by the way, both countries were subjugated by the Soviet regime, both nations lost their sovereignties, etc. The minority rights were not taken seriously anywhere in the Eastern bloc (except Yugoslavia), so even with the widely known, unspeakable crimes committed against the minorities in Transsylvania, it is questionable, whether they would have fared better under Hungarian rule (just take a look at the ethnic Germans in Hungary). And by the time Hungary and Romania became free countries again, territories meant nothing, especially after they joined the EU.

[Futurist]

The coup made no difference.

The Wallies had no intention to respect neither the concessions they gave to the Axis nations (ie. Munich agreement) or the border changes they made themselves (ie. First & Second Vienna Awards). The Soviets handled their agreements with the Axis nations the same way (ie. Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact). The vicorious powers seen these concessions as a direct cause for the Axis agression.

The coup had one direct result, namely that Romania wasn't occupied by the Soviet forces (unlike other Eastern bloc countries).

If the Hungarians rebelled against the Germans before the Romanian coup, they might (might!) have stood a chance to have some minor concessions. But please keep in mind that Ruthenia was taken away from Czechoslovakia, Bessarabia from Romania, and huge territories from Poland - and the Baltic states remained incorporated into the SU. So whatever the Soviets modified in C-E Europe, they always modified it into their own favor.

And, by the way, both countries were subjugated by the Soviet regime, both nations lost their sovereignties, etc. The minority rights were not taken seriously anywhere in the Eastern bloc (except Yugoslavia), so even with the widely known, unspeakable crimes committed against the minorities in Transsylvania, it is questionable, whether they would have fared better under Hungarian rule (just take a look at the ethnic Germans in Hungary). And by the time Hungary and Romania became free countries again, territories meant nothing, especially after they joined the EU.

Just how much minor concessions do you think that Hungary could have gotten had they rebelled against the Germans before the Romanian coup?

[Peter89]

The coup made no difference.

The Wallies had no intention to respect neither the concessions they gave to the Axis nations (ie. Munich agreement) or the border changes they made themselves (ie. First & Second Vienna Awards). The Soviets handled their agreements with the Axis nations the same way (ie. Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact). The vicorious powers seen these concessions as a direct cause for the Axis agression.

The coup had one direct result, namely that Romania wasn't occupied by the Soviet forces (unlike other Eastern bloc countries).

If the Hungarians rebelled against the Germans before the Romanian coup, they might (might!) have stood a chance to have some minor concessions. But please keep in mind that Ruthenia was taken away from Czechoslovakia, Bessarabia from Romania, and huge territories from Poland - and the Baltic states remained incorporated into the SU. So whatever the Soviets modified in C-E Europe, they always modified it into their own favor.

And, by the way, both countries were subjugated by the Soviet regime, both nations lost their sovereignties, etc. The minority rights were not taken seriously anywhere in the Eastern bloc (except Yugoslavia), so even with the widely known, unspeakable crimes committed against the minorities in Transsylvania, it is questionable, whether they would have fared better under Hungarian rule (just take a look at the ethnic Germans in Hungary). And by the time Hungary and Romania became free countries again, territories meant nothing, especially after they joined the EU.

Just how much minor concessions do you think that Hungary could have gotten had they rebelled against the Germans before the Romanian coup?

A lot of historical references (Nagybaczoni Nagy Vilmos: Végzetes esztendők, percentages agreement, etc.) suggest that the Soviets were interested in pushing their sphere of influence westwards and the push the Wallies out of C-E. So they were ready to make concessions to the Hungarians against Romania. The Wallies (especially Churchill) were interested in the opposite, and presented an idea that would divide Germany into 3 parts, West-Germany, North-Germany and South-Germany, and the last would have included Hungary (with the occupied / returned Kárpátalja) as well.



Hungarian loyality to the Third Reich successfully prevented both plans, and the Soviets only withdrew from Eastern Austria in 1955.

[Futurist]

Which concessions did the Soviets want to give Hungary in relation to Romania? As for Churchill, it's quite interesting that he was willing to let Hungary keep Subcarpathian Ruthenia considering that both Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union had stronger claims to it on ethnic grounds.

[Peter89]

Which concessions did the Soviets want to give Hungary in relation to Romania? As for Churchill, it's quite interesting that he was willing to let Hungary keep Subcarpathian Ruthenia considering that both Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union had stronger claims to it on ethnic grounds.

Hard to say, the Soviet-Hungarian relations were somewhat normalized by 1941. Molotov gave the Hungarians back the 1848/1849 flags in return for a few political prisoners (including the later dictator, Mátyás Rákosi) and such. When the SU was attacked, Molotov expressed his wish to support the Hungarian claims to Transsylvania. But the Hungarians refused immediately, so no further discussions took place.

I cannot emphasize this anymore... both Romania and Hungary became part of the Eastern bloc in 1945, so it didn't really matter to which country Transsylvania belonged to. Maybe - maybe! itcould have fared better under Hungarian rule, but I have my doubts about it. It was either the Hungarians suppressing Romanians and Germans or the Romanians suppressing Hungarians and Germans. I am not fan of either, and the Soviets didn't care.

Did they care, a more reasonable approach would be to think about the borders Popovici developed. So the Hungarian majority areas near the current border, and a Székelyföld with a corridor through Kolozsvár.

Again, I would like to state here that I am no fan of this idea either, because it would inevitably lead to the suppression of other nationalities.
---
Neither had any claims on ethnic grounds, the Ruthens are neither Czechs or Russians (or Hungarians, for that matter).

[Futurist]

Was the Soviet offer to support Hungary's claim to Transylvania in 1941 made in an attempt to get Hungary to agree to a separate peace with the Soviet Union?

As for ethnic grounds, the Soviet Union viewed Ruthenians as Ukrainians, no? So, the Soviet acquisition of Subcarpathian Ruthenia was viewed as simply the completion of the Ukrainian national unification process under Soviet rule.

A Hungarian corridor would have been quite interesting:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e4/76/81 ... a109ea.png



Of course, Romania would have had to have a bridge and/or a tunnel so that it could bypass this Hungarian corridor.

[steppewolf]

A Hungarian corridor would have been quite interesting:

I am not sure how a corridor passing Apuseni mountains would work (remember 1848 ). And why is Republic of Moldova in the respective map? Compensation or ... ? Did somebody asked Moldovans if they want back to Romania? Or even Romanian if we're willing to receive back Moldova with its Russian speaking minority and big socialist KGB led party?

[Peter89]

These fictional maps are, in essence, games of a child.

People and the actual choices of an adult life are different. For example: just look at Triest. The Italians got it, the fourth biggest city of the A-H Empire, a prospering port, a beautiful city, with universities, astronomy, business... but so it happened, it was inhabited mostly by Italians. Look at it now. A blasted ruin. It turned out that mother Italy did not want to occupy Trieste to make it great - but to exterminate a rival in trade and business.

Mother Hungary did not want to have this or that region, because they wanted to invest a stellar amount to develop the Hungarian-inhabited parts of Transsylvania to the level of Sopron or Győr. They wanted to exploit these regions with loyal subjects.

Or I can mention you the fact that Vojvodina/Hungarian couples in the '70s and '80s all moved to Yugoslavia. Because that country was more free, exciting, prosperous... because that is a choice of an adult. Yes, people deliberately choose to live under "foreign rule", because it was good!

If the quality of life, freedom and prosper is present in a land, then people are happy, and they do not want to change borders. Simple as that.

Now, as the quality of life in Transsylvania nears the quality of life in Hungary, and the discrimination against Hungarians is on an acceptable level, ethnic Hungarians suddenly started to stay in Romania or even return there from Hungary. (A third group leaves Romania for the West, but that's a different story.)

[Futurist]

Peter, do you think that life for Hungarians is better right now in Serbia (in Vojvodina or in some other part(s) of Serbia) or in Hungary?

"They wanted to exploit these regions with loyal subjects."

Loyal subjects who are Transylvanian locals or loyal subjects from other parts of Hungary?