What is your opinion of Austria-Hungary?

[Carpatz]

That flag is older than your country.

I will let you identify as Romanian if you take those words back

[Kökény]

I will let you identify as Romanian if you take those words back

Nem, nem, soha.

[Turul Karom]

OK maybe you have a point. Maybe they are too harsh sometimes with your activists, but our current political class also punishes Romanians in many ways, just to squeeze money from them as much as possible. As far as the Szeklerland autonomy thing, I don't have a strong opinion about it either way. I don't know what is the best solution for that, but you are right that there was a Hungarian or Magyar autonomous region there in the communist era before Ceausescu came to power. Many Romanians fear that an autonomous Szeklerland would persecute ethnic Romanians there and that it might try to gain independence and unite with Hungary on the Kosovo model.

Again, this all started with the talk about Transylvania to Romania after WW1. The entire point is that there should have been at least a Magyar corridor or something arranged, not some total annexation like it is, and to those who desired it, it should have been overwhelmingly obvious that it would cause problems long-term. Even Otto von Bismarck rejected Denmark joining the German Empire despite them being Germanic because he feared the ethnic conflicts it would create and the subsequent political instability.

If they fear that the Kosovo model would be replicated, then what is the plan for the Szeklers by the Romanian political class? Is the only option repression until the identity disappears? What is the surprise about any of this?

It's important to note that Szekler's autonomy was disbanded by Hungary not Romania. I'm not counting here the Szekler region founded by Stalin - that was just a Soviet bargaining chip against Romanians.

In terms of Szekler heraldry, they are present on the coat of arms of the Szekler counties (Harghita and Covasna). Sadly, a mutual agreement on the flag is still not reached. IMO the best proposal was to fly both flags (Romanian and Szekler) at the same time in the Szekler region.

Now, the organization that pushed the Szekler flag the most is an organization that advocates for autonomy, which is not well viewed at all (to put it in mild terms) in the unitary Romanian state, and so this flag has become sort of a secessionist symbol in Romania. I still think a rational solution can be reached.

I have no idea what you are talking about in regards to the "Hungarians removed autonomy" part. Transylvania never had "independence" so long as Hungary was independent itself and when Transylvania was a part of it. It was always a part of Hungary with unique tax laws because of legacy conqueror-era laws. It was always supposed to be an area where occupied Hungary could be retaken from if needed, and the Szeklers were cultural bastions for the restoration of the people of the land. Hence why it was "different" under Ottoman times and Hapsburg times.

They are present on the coats of arms because you cannot force a change of the coat of arms on a historical people. It makes no sense to do so, because they occupy the entire county as a massive % of total population.

The rational solution is the autonomy for the region, which it enjoyed under living memory, while still being a part of Romania, then. That is even charitable given the fact that it should not be so for these Szekler-specific counties, but I am being honest and not a hypocrite in that Hungary should not have been on the losing side of WW1, which its aristocracy set it up for decades earlier because of their desire to share power with Hapsburg rather than be independent.

My man, Hungary did exactly the same thing. The whole point of Apponyi's message at the peace conference was that Romanians are an inferior population, unable to govern itself. Let's stop bringing back this shit from the past.

I don't understand what you are talking about here. You will need to elaborate.

[Dušan]

This is better, from an American historical atlas from 1911.https://maps.lib.utexas.edu/maps/his...herd_1911.html

This is for year 1784.



Green - Romanians
Pink - Serbs
Orange - Hungarians
Blue - Croats
Yellow - Germans
Purple - Slovaks
Light Orange - Ruthenians

[ixulescu]

I don't understand what you are talking about here. You will need to elaborate.

These quotes are from Apponyi's memoranda submitted to the Great Powers during the peace negotiations after ww1:

“Intellectually and economically, Transylvania has a hundred-year advance compared to Romania. Thus, its union with Romania would have a negative influence over its evolution and could cause serious social unrest.”

“The majority (of Romanians) belongs to the peasant class, whereas the Hungarians are nobler than this peasant mass, since their social life is much more developed and are more intellectual. The social life of the Hungarian and Transylvanian Saxons is much differentiated. The percentage of those who have a qualified profession is higher than that of their population. Yet, the Romanians have an important contribution with their high illiteracy rates.”

“The superiority of the Hungarian and Transylvanian Saxons is not the result of the protection of the Hungarian state or of an oppressive system based on violence. This is an assumption that has been proved false by the statistical data which also shows that the inferiority of the Romanian race manifests itself in a striking manner each time they are allowed the freedom to have a private initiative.”

“The Romanian people could neither shed light on the individuality of its race, nor give a national specificity to the institutions of its country. Neither the Medieval institutions, nor the power of the Contemporary ideas could influence its politics and civilization. The Era of the Crusades, the feudal system, the Papacy, the Holy Roman Empire, Renaissance or the Reform did not leave a mark on this people. All to the contrary, the Hungarian nation took part in all these events"

“The backwardness of the Romanian civilization and economy should come as no surprise. It is a certainty that by living in a state neighboring other peoples, the Romanians cannot and, for a long time, could not rise to the level of the other states (…)”

“Yet, the inferiority of the Transylvanian Romanians is a result of their local history as well. The Romanian element was not native, it could not create its own state, yet it slowly insinuated itself across centuries. Just as volcanic lava penetrates under pressure the rifts in the Earth’s surface, the Romanian element infiltrated itself in the cracks of the national and economic edifice created by the Hungarians and Saxons in Transylvania. And as the volcanic lava cannot rise above, but goes lower inside the Earth, the Romanians in Transylvania remained at the lower end of the social strata.”

“The Romanians in Transylvania who came here from the Balkans in the 15th and 16th centuries did not have a constitutional life. Because of their intellectual and economic backwardness, the church offered the only civilizing opportunity (…) All of the old intellectual and economic institutions are exclusively Hungarian or German and the Romanian element did build its own intellectual and economic institutions only in the last 100 years under the positive influence of the Hungarian and German intellectual and economic environment. This is the reason why the Romanians in Transylvania bypassed their racial brethren who lived in their own countries (Moldova and Wallachia) outside this ethnic mix.”

“The immigrant Romanians were led by their own dukes (knyaz) who were the original leaders of the immigration. Thus, the Romanians settled initially on the uncultivated and uninhabited royal domains. Their relations with the agricultural Saxon and Hungarian populations were as bad as the ones with the Balkan peoples. Only after considerable efforts, did they manage to get accustomed (or not at all) to the economic, social and legal order of the Hungarian state. Because of this, there were numerous sanctions against them and the state authorities had to implement a lot of coercive laws against the Romanians (…) We can thus affirm that, according to all historic data, in the Middle Ages, the Romanians, ever since their first appearance, were everywhere considered a disturbing factor. The Romanians respected neither individual property, nor social order or judicial state institutions. It is thus obvious that such an element could not gather enough economic, political or social influence, in order to be a constitutional factor alongside the other three legal nations (…) It has been very hard for the authorities of Transylvania to accustom these people with a certain moral, social and legal order and the judicial institutions of the state – to cut a long story short:to transform these semi-nomadic people into an agricultural and hard-working nation, fit for civilization.”


This is like reading from Stears, it's this level of stupid.

[Varda]

This is for year 1784.



Green - Romanians
Pink - Serbs
Orange - Hungarians
Blue - Croats
Yellow - Germans
Purple - Slovaks
Light Orange - Ruthenians

In 1787. Serbs were 59.2% in Vojvodina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...Vojvodina#1787

[Turul Karom]

These quotes are from Apponyi's memoranda submitted to the Great Powers during the peace negotiations after ww1:

This is like reading from Stears, it's this level of stupid.

I understand the fact that Apponyi was not charitable to Romanians as a group. However, what I am saying is about the idea that we need to stop "bringing these things up" because these are issues that impact geopolitics of the Balkans and in Hungary today. Hence why I also said I don't understand what you're talking about in regards to Hungary being the one to remove Sekler autonomy. I don't get what time period or action you are mentioning. Also, problems can only be addressed if you are willing to talk about them. I appreciate this solution. I said here:

"The rational solution is the autonomy for the region, which it enjoyed under living memory, while still being a part of Romania, then. That is even charitable given the fact that it should not be so for these Szekler-specific counties, but I am being honest and not a hypocrite in that Hungary should not have been on the losing side of WW1, which its aristocracy set it up for decades earlier because of their desire to share power with Hapsburg rather than be independent."

Azerbaijan had a similar problem with their Armenian-held territories and having a non-contiguous border, too. I don't want to see Hungary and Romania replicate their conflict one day, especially with the EU and NATO breathing down our necks to take advantage, which I have mentioned time and again on this forum over the years.

[Italicus]

The prison of nations, including the ethnically Italian lands of my forefathers, Trentino and Istria. Good riddance, walking corpse.

[Varda]

If these serbs live near the borders then yes, otherwise i support serbian enclaves wich belong to Serbia.

Serbs in present day Croatia mostly lived in the area of former Military Frontier. Northern Dalmatia is one of the exceptions, it was not part of Military Frontier but had high concentrations of Serbs for centuries.

[Dušan]

In 1787. Serbs were 59.2% in Vojvodina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...Vojvodina#1787

In period between 1787 and 1910. percentage of Serbs fell from 59% to 34%.
While percentage of Germans grew from 12% to 21%, and Hungarians from 11% to 28%.