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