DOCSLIB.ORG

Download Chapter (PDF)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download Chapter (PDF) Note on Nomenclature I have used place names in this book either in their English form—if such exists—or in the form officially adopted by the states in control during the time period in question. Thus I refer to the capital of Transylvania as “Cluj” between the two world wars up to the Second Vienna Arbitration (August 30, 1940) and after 1944, and as “Kolozsvár” from 1940 to 1944 when the city was under Hungarian state control and prior to Trianon. For the first refer- ence to each place, a footnote will contain alternative versions of the place name for that location (i.e. Cluj [R], Klausenburg [G]). It will be helpful for the reader to note the following abbreviations G = German H = Hungarian R = Romanian SL = Slovak SR = Serbian The only exception to the above is when the name of a place is mentioned in a source I quote directly, in which case I use the author’s version of the name. Here are the most frequently mentioned city and other place names in their various forms, for quick reference. German Hungarian Romanian Klausenburg Kolozsvár Cluj (Cluj-Napoca since 1974) Kronstadt Brassó Braşov Torda Torda Turda Großwardein Nagyvárad (or Várad) Oradea (or Oradea Mare) Hermannstadt Nagyszeben Sibiu Temeschwar Temesvár Timişoara Arad (or Altarad) Arad Arad Weißenburg (or Gyulafehérvár Alba Iulia Karlsburg) xviii Note on Nomenclature Names and Labels People’s names—and here I mean both the first and last names of individuals, as well as the categories used to assign individuals to national-ethnic groups (“Hungarians,” “Romanians,” etc.)—are famously deceptive in this region. In the case of individuals’ names, there is frequently considerable variation even within a given document, as orthographies were one of the primary windsocks of state hegemony, and could also prove a valuable means of defense or advantage for individuals who wielded them skillfully and at the right moment. For example, someone who bore the name János Jankó when presenting himself to Hungarian state officials, might use the romanianized version of the same name, Ion Iancu, with Romanian state officials. Similarly, state officials could “decide” someone’s nationality for them by arbitrarily as- signing them a Hungarian- or Romanian-sounding name. For the most part, I have opted to avoid the use of individuals’ full real names found in archi- val sources altogether, in accordance with Hungarian law (1995.LXVI.32.§). The real names I do use are those of public figures for whom I settle on a single, representative orthography, or of persons whose names appear in published sources. For other individuals, in lieu of real names I have chosen pseudonyms that reflect ambiguity when it is present (the name “Maria,” for example, could be Hungarian, German, or Romanian), and national-ethnic preference when such is explicitly stated by the individual (for someone who gives their nationality as Hungarian, for example, I might render their pseud- onym as “János” rather than “Ion”). This is an imperfect solution, as not all individuals who declare they are of Hungarian nationality on one occasion would do the same on any other, but it has the advantage of reflecting some agency and perhaps even utility to the process of national identification. East-Central Europe East-Central Europe is the term I use to describe the region at the center of my analysis, and although I am unwilling to define its precise limits or assign to it the status of an enduring geopolitical entity, I will say that in my mind it includes both Hungary and Romania in all their historical and pres- ent state forms. Transylvania Historically, Transylvania (Ardeal (or Transilvania) [R], Erdély [H], Sieben- bürgen [G]) meant the principality of Transylvania, a rather small triangular piece of land tucked into the easternmost curve of the Carpathian Moun- Note on Nomenclature xix tains. After the Treaty of Trianon (1920), Transylvania came to be understood as all the territory annexed by Romania from Hungary, which included the historical province of Transylvania, part of the Banat, and the so-called Partium. For the purposes of this work, I will use the term Transylvania in this latter sense, unless otherwise indicated. Felvidék and Délvidék These are the territories that Hungary lost to Czechoslovakia and Yugo- slavia respectively with the Treaty of Trianon. The Felvidék (literally “upper region”) includes all of present-day Slovakia and Carpatho-Ukraine, while the Délvidék (literally “southern region”) I use in reference to the territories reannexed to Hungary from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia (including parts of Bačka/Bácska, Baranja/Baranya, Prekomurje/Muravidék and Medjumurje/ Muraköz) in April 1941. Regat This term refers to the Romanian Kingdom or the “Old Kingdom” as it was prior to 1918, including the Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia (the latter encompassing Muntenia and Oltenia), and Northern Dobruja. The Regat does not include Bessarabia, Bucovina, or Transylvania, which were added only after World War I. It also does not generally include Southern Dobruja, though that territory was annexed in 1913. The term Regaţeni refers to individuals from the Regat. Second Vienna Arbitration The name of the Axis-arbitrated agreement that gave Northern Transyl- vania to Hungary on August 30, 1940, is highly politicized. Indeed the very words used for the agreement clearly reflected the two countries’ differences of opinion on its nature. While the Hungarians called it a döntés (decision), Romanians referred to it as a dictat (dictate). (It is interesting to note, as well, that the Treaty of Trianon, which gave Transylvania to Romania in 1920, is often called a békediktátum (peace dictate) by Hungarians.) The term is often translated into English as the “Second Vienna Award,” but I have chosen here to translate it as “Second Vienna Arbitration,” which I believe best re- flects the nature of the agreement and is an exact translation of the German Schiedsspruch. This page intentionally left blank Between States And now, today, yet again on the verge of a new era, Europe must see its own conscience in the reflection of the two [states’] history. —From the introduction to Hungary and Romania: Two Countries on the European Stage, published in Budapest during the summer of 1940 If Europe did not exist today, it would have to be invented. —Romanian Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mihai Antonescu in a speech on “Why we fight” from March 19, 1942 This page intentionally left blank .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Stage Approach to Transnational Migration Migrant Narratives from Rural Romania
    A Stage Approach to Transnational Migration Migrant Narratives from Rural Romania Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philodophy to the Department of Sociology at the University of Osnabrück By Ruxandra Oana Ciobanu From Constan ţ a Osnabrück, 2010 PhD thesis defended at the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Osnabrück, under the supervision of Professor Dr. Michael Bommes, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Osnabrück and Dr. Christina Boswell, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Edinburgh 2 To my extended family 3 Acknowledgements For me sociology is a life style and the interaction with others is an everyday reality without which it is very difficult for me to exist. This has been proven in the spring of the year 2007 when I was writing up my PhD thesis and I was forced to live alone, because my flatmates left for their fieldworks. The advantage was that I was fully immersed in the writing, whereas when they returned I was more immersed in our conversations. I thank them for encouraging and distracting me when necessary. I think I am a very lucky person because I have had the honour to meet wonderful people. Many of them influenced me and my work more or less intentionally. I thank very much all those who discussed with me, smiled to me and encouraged me in my work. Migration is not only a subject of study for me. It overlaps with my biography – given that I experienced internal migration for studies by moving to Bucharest, and later on lived in Budapest, Hamburg, Edinburgh, Geneva and Lisbon.
    [Show full text]
  • BRIEF HISTORY of the ROMANIAN PEOPLE Romania Has Its Unique Culture, Which Is the Product of Its Geography and of Its Distinct H
    BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ROMANIAN PEOPLE Romania has its unique culture, which is the product of its geography and of its distinct historical evolution. Like Romanians themselves, it is fundamentally defined as the meeting point of three regions: Central Europe, Eastern Europe, and the Balkans, but cannot be truly included in any of them. The Romanian identity formed on a substratum of mixed Roman and quite possibly Dacian elements, with many other influences. During late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, the major influences came from the Slavic peoples who migrated and settled in near Romania; from medieval Greeks, and the Byzantine Empire; from a long domination by the Ottoman Empire; from the Hungarians; and from the Germans living in Transylvania. Modern Romanian culture emerged and developed over roughly the last 250 years under a strong influence from Western culture, particularly French , and German culture. The Romanian literature began to truly evolve with the revolutions of 1848 and the union of the two Danubian Principalities in 1859. The Origin of the Romanians began to be discussed and in Transylvania and Romanian scholars began studying in France, Italy and Germany. The German philosophy and French culture were integrated into modern Romanian literature and a new elite of artists led to the appearance of some of the classics of the Romanian literature such as Mihai Eminescu, George Coşbuc, Ioan Slavici. Although they remain little known outside Romania, they are very appreciated within Romania for giving birth to a true Romanian literature by creating modern lyrics with inspiration from the old folklore tales. Of them, Eminescu is considered the most important and influential Romanian poet, and is still very much loved for his creations, and especially the poem Luceafărul – The Evening Star – the longest love poem in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Heritage, Landscape and Conflict Archaeology
    THE EDGE OF EUROPE: HERITAGE, LANDSCAPE AND CONFLICT ARCHAEOLOGY by ROXANA-TALIDA ROMAN A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Classics, Ancient History and Archaeology School of History and Cultures College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham May 2019 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT The research presented in this thesis addresses the significance of Romanian WWI sites as places of remembrance and heritage, by exploring the case of Maramureș against the standards of national and international heritage standards. The work provided the first ever survey of WWI sites on the Eastern Front, showing that the Prislop Pass conflictual landscape holds undeniable national and international heritage value both in terms of physical preservation and in terms of mapping on the memorial-historical record. The war sites demonstrate heritage and remembrance value by meeting heritage criteria on account of their preservation state, rarity, authenticity, research potential, the embedded war knowledge and their historical-memorial functions. The results of the research established that the war sites not only satisfy heritage legal requirements at various scales but are also endangered.
    [Show full text]
  • 1768-1830S a Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate
    A PLAGUE ON BOTH HOUSES?: POPULATION MOVEMENTS AND THE SPREAD OF DISEASE ACROSS THE OTTOMAN-RUSSIAN BLACK SEA FRONTIER, 1768-1830S A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History By Andrew Robarts, M.S.F.S. Washington, DC December 17, 2010 Copyright 2010 by Andrew Robarts All Rights Reserved ii A PLAGUE ON BOTH HOUSES?: POPULATION MOVEMENTS AND THE SPREAD OF DISEASE ACROSS THE OTTOMAN-RUSSIAN BLACK SEA FRONTIER, 1768-1830S Andrew Robarts, M.S.F.S. Dissertation Advisor: Catherine Evtuhov, Ph. D. ABSTRACT Based upon a reading of Ottoman, Russian, and Bulgarian archival documents, this dissertation examines the response by the Ottoman and Russian states to the accelerated pace of migration and spread of disease in the Black Sea region from the outbreak of the Russo-Ottoman War of 1768-1774 to the signing of the Treaty of Hünkar Iskelesi in 1833. Building upon introductory chapters on the Russian-Ottoman Black Sea frontier and a case study of Bulgarian population movements between the Russian and Ottoman Empires, this dissertation analyzes Russian and Ottoman migration and settlement policies, the spread of epidemic diseases (plague and cholera) in the Black Sea region, the construction of quarantines and the implementation of travel document regimes. The role and position of the Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia as the “middle ground” between the Ottoman and Russian Empires
    [Show full text]
  • The Treaty of Trianon – Different Views
    Președinte The Treaty of Trianon – Different Views Celebrations, anniversaries and commemorations are part of civilized peoples’ everyday life. We have in mind both defeats and victories, from time to time we bring them back to our memory because they all are a source from which we can learn. There are political regimes and peoples which emphasize tragedies, and there are others that glorify fulfilments. Romanians have never thought insistently of their historical failures – and there have been quite enough over the course of time! – preferring to remember victories, sometimes too vividly. On the contrary, our Serbian neighbours, for instance, turned the tragic battle of Kossovopolje in 1389 (after which the Turks took the lead in the region) into a moment of reference for their national identity and a symbol of their sacrifice for faith. Our Hungarian neighbours chose to turn certain defeats in their history into important events or even national holidays: for instance, in the history of Hungary the Modern Epoch begins in 1526, when the “disaster” of Mohács took place; 15 March 1848 (when, among other things, the “union of Transylvania with Hungary” was decided) marks the glory of a lost revolution; 23 October 1956 is the date of another violently stifled revolution, this time by the Soviet tanks; 4 June 1920 is the day considered the “catastrophe” of Trianon, etc. Lately we keep hearing of the name Trianon, connected with signing a peace treaty a century ago. At the end of World War II all winning powers together concluded a treaty separately with every single defeated state.
    [Show full text]
  • Romania, December 2006
    Library of Congress – Federal Research Division Country Profile: Romania, December 2006 COUNTRY PROFILE: ROMANIA December 2006 COUNTRY Formal Name: Romania. Short Form: Romania. Term for Citizen(s): Romanian(s). Capital: Bucharest (Bucureşti). Click to Enlarge Image Major Cities: As of 2003, Bucharest is the largest city in Romania, with 1.93 million inhabitants. Other major cities, in order of population, are Iaşi (313,444), Constanţa (309,965), Timişoara (308,019), Craiova (300,843), Galati (300,211), Cluj-Napoca (294,906), Braşov (286,371), and Ploeşti (236,724). Independence: July 13, 1878, from the Ottoman Empire; kingdom proclaimed March 26, 1881; Romanian People’s Republic proclaimed April 13, 1948. Public Holidays: Romania observes the following public holidays: New Year’s Day (January 1), Epiphany (January 6), Orthodox Easter (a variable date in April or early May), Labor Day (May 1), Unification Day (December 1), and National Day and Christmas (December 25). Flag: The Romanian flag has three equal vertical stripes of blue (left), yellow, and red. Click to Enlarge Image HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Early Human Settlement: Human settlement first occurred in the lands that now constitute Romania during the Pleistocene Epoch, which began about 600,000 years ago. About 5500 B.C. the region was inhabited by Indo-European people, who in turn gave way to Thracian tribes. Today’s Romanians are in part descended from the Getae, a Thracian tribe that lived north of the Danube River. During the Bronze Age (about 2200 to 1200 B.C.), these Thraco-Getian tribes engaged in agriculture, stock raising, and trade with inhabitants of the Aegean Sea coast.
    [Show full text]
  • Hungary: Jewish Family History Research Guide Hungary (Magyarorszag) Like Most European Countries, Hungary’S Borders Have Changed Considerably Over Time
    Courtesy of the Ackman & Ziff Family Genealogy Institute Updated June 2011 Hungary: Jewish Family History Research Guide Hungary (Magyarorszag) Like most European countries, Hungary’s borders have changed considerably over time. In 1690 the Austrian Hapsburgs completed the reconquest of Hungary and Transylvania from the Ottoman Turks. From 1867 to 1918, Hungary achieved autonomy within the “Dual Monarchy,” or Austro-Hungarian Empire, as well as full control over Transylvania. After World War I, the territory of “Greater Hungary” was much reduced, so that areas that were formerly under Hungarian jurisdiction are today located within the borders of Romania, Ukraine, Slovakia, Poland, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, and Yugoslavia (Serbia). Hungary regained control over some of these areas during the Holocaust period, but lost them again in 1945. Regions that belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary before the Treaty of Trianon (1920): Burgenland (Austria), Carpathian Ruthenia (from 1920 to 1938 part of Czechoslovakia, now Ukraine), Medimurje/Murakoz (Croatia), Prekmuje/Muravidek (Slovenia), Transylvania/Erdely-inc. Banat (Romania), Crisana/Partium (Romania), Maramures/Maramaros (Romania), Szeklerland/Szekelyfold (Romania); Upper Hungary/ Felvidek (Slovakia); Vojvodina/Vajdasag (Serbia, Croatia); Croatia (Croatia), Slavonia (Croatia); Separate division- Fiume (Nowadays Rijeka, Croatia) How to Begin Follow the general guidelines in our fact sheets on starting your family history research, immigration records, naturalization records, and finding your ancestral town. Determine whether your town is still within modern-day Hungary and in which county (megye) and district (jaras) it is located. If the town is not in modern Hungary, see our fact sheet for the country where it is currently located. A word of caution: Many towns in Hungary have the same name, and to distinguish among them, a prefix is usually added based upon the county or a nearby city or river.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legal Status of the Danubian Principalities in the 17Th Century As Reflected in the Şikayet Defteris
    Güney-Doğu Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi Yıl: 2014-1 Sayı: 25 S. 1-23 THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE DANUBIAN PRINCIPALITIES IN THE 17TH CENTURY AS REFLECTED IN THE ŞIKAYET DEFTERIS Nándor Erik KOVÁCS* Abstract The present study is devoted to the political relationship between the Moldo-Wallachian Principalities and the Ottoman Empire within the framework of the imperial grievance ad- ministration in the second half of the 17th century. Examinations are based on the so-called şikâyet defteris, imperial registers archiving decrees issued in response to petitions of sub- jects by the Ottoman Imperial Council. Since this corpus gives insight into the social and institutional links between the Ottoman administration and its exponents, it proved to be a significant source for a more nuanced understanding of the nature of relations between the Porte and the Danubian vassal states and of the specific status of voievods involved in the Ottoman administration. Keywords: imperial council; registers of grievances; Moldavia; Wallachia; vassal states; petitioning. This study focuses on some characteristics of the relations between the Ottoman central administration and the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia in the second half of the 17th century as articulated in the imperial system of petitioning process. The pres- ent study relies on the results of my general research concerning the formal and con- textual description of the so-called şikâyet defterleri („registers of grievances”) from the second half of the 17th century.1 I. On the Source Material The şikayet defterleri („registers of grievances”) contain copies of decrees (emr, hüküm, ferman) issued by the Ottoman imperial council (divan, Divan-i Hümayun) as a response to the subjects’ petitions for a redress from the middle of the 17th century on- wards.
    [Show full text]
  • Country Coding Units
    INSTITUTE Country Coding Units v11.1 - March 2021 Copyright © University of Gothenburg, V-Dem Institute All rights reserved Suggested citation: Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, Carl Henrik Knutsen, Staffan I. Lindberg, Jan Teorell, and Lisa Gastaldi. 2021. ”V-Dem Country Coding Units v11.1” Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) Project. Funders: We are very grateful for our funders’ support over the years, which has made this ven- ture possible. To learn more about our funders, please visit: https://www.v-dem.net/en/about/ funders/ For questions: [email protected] 1 Contents Suggested citation: . .1 1 Notes 7 1.1 ”Country” . .7 2 Africa 9 2.1 Central Africa . .9 2.1.1 Cameroon (108) . .9 2.1.2 Central African Republic (71) . .9 2.1.3 Chad (109) . .9 2.1.4 Democratic Republic of the Congo (111) . .9 2.1.5 Equatorial Guinea (160) . .9 2.1.6 Gabon (116) . .9 2.1.7 Republic of the Congo (112) . 10 2.1.8 Sao Tome and Principe (196) . 10 2.2 East/Horn of Africa . 10 2.2.1 Burundi (69) . 10 2.2.2 Comoros (153) . 10 2.2.3 Djibouti (113) . 10 2.2.4 Eritrea (115) . 10 2.2.5 Ethiopia (38) . 10 2.2.6 Kenya (40) . 11 2.2.7 Malawi (87) . 11 2.2.8 Mauritius (180) . 11 2.2.9 Rwanda (129) . 11 2.2.10 Seychelles (199) . 11 2.2.11 Somalia (130) . 11 2.2.12 Somaliland (139) . 11 2.2.13 South Sudan (32) . 11 2.2.14 Sudan (33) .
    [Show full text]
  • Minority Politics of Hungary and Romania Between 1940 and 1944
    ACTA UNIV. SAPIENTIAE, EUROPEAN AND REGIONAL STUDIES, 16 (2019) 59–74 DOI: 10 .2478/auseur-2019-0012 Minority Politics of Hungary and Romania between 1940 and 1944. The System of Reciprocity and Its Consequences1 János Kristóf MURÁDIN PhD, Assistant Professor Sapientia Hungarian University of Transylvania (Cluj-Napoca, Romania) Faculty of Sciences and Arts e-mail: muradinjanos@sapientia .ro Abstract . The main objective of the paper is to highlight the changes in the situation of the Hungarian minority in Romania and the Romanian minority in Hungary living in the divided Transylvania from the Second Vienna Arbitration from 30 August 1940 to the end of WWII . The author analyses the Hungarian and Romanian governments’ attitude regarding the new borders and their intentions with the minorities remaining on their territories . The paper offers a synthesis of the system of reciprocity, which determined the relations between the two states on the minority issue until 1944. Finally, the negative influence of the politics of reciprocity is shown on the interethnic relations in Transylvania . Keywords: Transylvania, Second Vienna Arbitration, border, minorities, politics of reciprocity, refugees Introduction According to the Second Vienna Arbitration of 30 August 1940, the northern part of Transylvania, the Szeklerland, and the Máramaros (in Romanian: Maramureş, in German: Maramuresch) region, which had been awarded to Romania twenty years earlier, were returned to Hungary (L . Balogh 2002: 5) . According to the 1941 census, the population of a total of 43,104 km2 of land under Hungarian jurisdiction (Thrirring 1940: 663) was 2,557,260, of whom 53 .6% were Hungarian and 39 .9% were Romanian speakers .
    [Show full text]
  • Ana-Teodora Kurkina Department of History Graduate School for East and Southeast European Studies Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich / University of Regensburg
    East European Quarterly Vol. 44, No. 1-2, pp. 53-76, March-June 2016 © Central European University 2016 ISSN: 0012-8449 (print) 2469-4827 (online) WORDS AND WITS: A TERRITORIAL DEBATE AND THE CREATION OF AN EPISTEMIC COMMUNITY IN INTERWAR DOBRUJA (1913-1940) Ana-Teodora Kurkina Department of History Graduate School for East and Southeast European Studies Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich / University of Regensburg Abstract This article establishes a link between a creation of an epistemic community and a territorial debate while addressing the Romanian-Bulgarian dispute regarding Dobruja. Moving beyond approaches centered on an investigation of similar territorial debates over contested lands and their immediate outcomes, the paper primarily analyses the potential of a political conflict for generating a community of intellectuals who become involved in propagating their respective state and nation-building causes. Putting the case of interwar Dobruja into the context of “entangled history”, the study clarifies its place within the framework of similar debates regarding other borderlands. Relying on the publications of the participants of the debate, the article claims that a conflict over a territory and the possibilities of its integration binds together influential public actors, various representatives of the local intellectual elite, uniting them in an unlikely epistemic community. Keywords: epistemic community, social networking, state-building, Dobruja Introduction A borderland is not only a contact zone (Pratt 1992, p. 4), but a constant source of political creativity for the local public actors. Territorial frames of an idealized nation-state are usually vague, contested, based on various interpretations of multiple historical legacies and their application to practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Agata Tatarenko Another Tension in Romanian-Hungarian Relations
    Editorial Team: Beata Surmacz (Director of ICE), Tomasz Stępniewski (Deputy No. 195 (98/2020) | 16.06.2020 Director of ICE), Agnieszka Zajdel (Editorial Assistant), Aleksandra Kuczyńska-Zonik, Jakub Olchowski, Konrad Pawłowski, Agata Tatarenko ISSN 2657-6996 © IEŚ Agata Tatarenko Another tension in Romanian-Hungarian relations At the end of April 2020, the Romanian Parliament dealt with a bill aimed at establishing an autonomous region covering areas inhabited by the Hungarian-speaking ethnic group Székelys. The bill was rejected by the senate, however, the initiative caused a number of controversies on the political scene in Romania, including, above all, the statement of President Klaus Iohannis. The President’s statement was criticized by the Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Romanian National Council for Combating Discrimination. The whole matter is more contentious because of the 100th anniversary of the signing of the Trianon Treaty, which was celebrated this year. June 4th, 1920, was marked differently in the history of these two countries: as the emergence of Greater Romania and as the end of Greater Hungary. In the region of Central Europe, history plays a special role, which was clearly demonstrated by the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Trianon. This uneasiness can be observed in the area of bilateral relations and it is particularly clear in the case of Hungary and Romania. (The anxieties in the region can be observed in the context of bilateral relations and they are particularly clear in the case of Hungary and Romania). The source of tension in the Hungarian-Romanian relations lies in Transylvania (Rumanian Transilvania or Ardeal, Hungarian Erdély).
    [Show full text]