Talk:Satu Mare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 History
2 Hungarian interpretation vs Romanian interpretation
3 anti romanian actions
- 3.1 Mayor's name
4 Populatian

[edit] History

"and started to enjoy a prosperous life between the two world wars"

The truth is, Szatmarnemeti (Satu Mare) became a neglected city, hundred miles away from the new capital.

"The WWII was a catastrophic event in the life of Satu Mare as it was included in the area that fascist Germany took away from Romania and placed under the control of fascist Hungary (after the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact)."

In 1940 Szatmarnemeti's (Satu Mare) population was over 90% hungarian. As such the change was actually a welcomed event. Sadly, things got worse during March 1944 when the germans invaded the city and sealed the town's jewish population fate.

[edit] Hungarian interpretation vs Romanian interpretation

===I've ask you firmly to not remove the two different interpretation!!!=== Who's in charge here?!?!?

I'm saying: In 1919 Satu Mare was conquered by the romanian army.

the proof: april 1919, Aurel Lazar's official notice: "the romanian royal army have conquered and took possesion of municipal Satu Mare and county Satu Mare therefore these parts will be attached to the Kingdom of Romania"

The WWII part is completly misleading and untrue, it is the projecton of the former communist Romania history approach into our present days

--fz22 06:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

i'm going to edit this page. here is what i'll remove:

Common Romanian interpretation: - useless

Common Hungarian interpretation: - useless

After the Treaty of Trianon of 1920, Szatmarnémeti (Satu Mare) became - after 1918 Satu Mare became - criztu interpretation

The area was finally occupied by the Romanian 4th.army - the area was recovered, not occupied. -- Criztu 28 June 2005 13:13 (UTC)

Don't do that. After almost a hundred year there are many different point of views related the history of this part of Europe. 1918 did mean nothing in the city daily life ... Nevertheless it was the last year of the WWI, the collapse of the dual monarchy ... that's all... The city was occupied by the romanian forces in april 1919. In Kolozsvar/Cluj even indemntity was taken ...

indeed, 1919. but not occupied. the consequent Trianon Treaty recognised ROmania's sovereignty meaning it wasn't occupation, but legal -- Criztu 09:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

How fast you are ;) So, I'm not familiar with international law but we all know the history is written by the winner, and the Trianon "bandit-treaty" (as it is called by hungarians) did nothing but subsequently approved the status of that time. Many other hungarian cities were occupied (even Budapest in august 1919) and the hungarians could blame themselves (pers. opinion: and the most stupid prime minister of all times: Karolyi, and the red Bela Kun) leting all this happens. (just think on the turkish national defense againts Entente forces) This isn't unusual in our present day history, either. Do something than make it legal ... --fz22 12:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

then we have Hungarian Interpretation and Rest of The Nations that signed the Trianon and Paris Treaties Interpretation. BUT, "occupation of a territory" reffers to the situation when an army or state takes control of a teritory illegaly. You'll have to demonstrate that Romania took control of Satu Mare illegaly. Otherwise, the word "occupation of Satu Mare by Romania" even in "Hungarian version" is provocative -- Criztu 12:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Provocative or not this is another way of seeing things happens 85 years ago. We both know how the romanian army reach the gates of Zion ... sorry Satu Mare ;), but the keyword is when: in 19 April 1919. And the Treaty of Trianon was signed a year later in June 1920 ... I'm just saying that this takeover was made by force, one army made an attempt to keep the teritory the other one wanted to conquer ... This is quite simple. This act of conquest became an act of so called liberation after 4 June 1920.

Our knowledge of the realities of thos times is limited to what we read. I read that there was a treaty undergoing in 1918 in order to settle the matter of Transylvania, and that the Bolshevics attacked ROmania and Romania protected what considered to be its territory. recognised as such by the Treaty of Trianon. Your POV is no better or worse than my Pov, then what should be the criteria for the wording of the article ? since UN states that Satu Mare is Romania sovereign, then Romania couldnt be in the illegal situation of occupying Satu Mare, unless you can bring an official document of the Parliament of Hungary stating that Satu Mare is a teritory of Hungary occupied by Romania and it declares the Treaty of Paris void. This will be the "Hungarian interpretation" that i recognise as Hungarian interpretation -- Criztu 14:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

My grandfather was 14 year old when he saw the "glorious" romanian army, crossing the Eastern Carpathian Mountains. And he also have heard from his father what he said when the most stupid hungarian prime minister of all times and his ministry of "defense" declared: "I don't want to see soldier anymore" ... the hungarian army numbered around 1.5 million was almost intact, ... wasn't defetead but drawn back from the Italian and southern front lines ... smashed up by the bolshevics afterwards.

The first military convention which made mention of demarcation lines was accepted and signed in Belgrade on November 13, 1918, by the delegates of the Karolyi government and representatives of General D'Esperey. This new Convention among others prescribed a line of demarcation which ran across the whole of south and east Hungary from Beszterce in Eastern Transylvania, southward to the Maros River, west along the Maros through Szabadka. Baja, and Pecs to the Mur River. Though Allied troops were to occupy the region south and east of this line, Hungarian administration was to continue to operate. After November 13, 1918, however, the region was occupied by Serbian and Rumanian troops (Hungary had expected this area to be occupied by troops of the Great Powers). This action greatly alarmed Hungary in view of the territorial claims of Serbia and Romania to the area and the fact that the Hungarian administration was immediately deposed.

pls add info on the situation. I only object to formulations like "Satu mare was cut off from its ethnic kinsmen in Hungary" when it is known that Romanian ethnics from Transylvania were equally cut off from their kinsmen in Romania during the Kgdom of Hungary, with a difference: the romanians were prohibited from living in the cities of the Kgdom of Hungary. Also, using sentence "Romania conquered teritory that is now part of Romania" is provocative. Whats wrong with "Satu Mare became part of Romania" ? -- Criztu 07:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

That formulation is OK to me. That's another reason having two POW ... According to the census of 1910 Satu Mare had a population of 45,000, out of which 94.5% were Magyars. Etnic borders in general have nothing to do with countries borders. Doesn't matter if the HU-Ro border is near Predeal or Satu Mare, the etnic boundary in 1920 was east of Satu Mare, Carei, Oradea. Just take a look over an etnic map. Romanian colonies -Ianculesti, Lucãceni, Marna Nouã, Horea, Scãrisoara Nouã- were planted near the Ro-Hu border after 1920. (The peoples living in that regions called them even today colonies! They were settled from the Maramures, Salaj, Apuseni region). A clear policy by Romania to change the etnic composition of those areas.

The romanians were prohibited from living in cities?? Nonsense... just an urban legend. --fz22 06:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, gentlemen. Fz22 is right, the ethnic boundary was east of Satu Mare - I don't intend to be offensive, but - deep in your heart - don't you admit, Criztu, that it (I mean this new border) was not the optimum solution? You are right in stating that Romanians in Transylvania had the right of self-determination - but why on Earth these poor guys in Satu Mare were not given the same rights? They were "cut off" - and if railways, etc were a bit far west, then say, Debrecen would have been cut off as well. It is history now, but I think the POV of Fz22 is justified here. Vay 04:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Self determination? You're kiding me. Maybe you don't know, but there was so called Romanian Memorandum adressed to the Entente's representitives about the etnic composition of the teritories claimed by Romanians. These areas were as folow: historical Transilvania, Satu Mare, Bihor, Arad, Csanad, Maramures, Ugocsa, Bekes counties. The Banat region was not included in accordance of the agenda prescribed by the committee. Banat was a separate "game" played with the Serbians. In 1910 there were 2,346,478 Romanians, 2,012,090 Magyars and 322,383 Germans out of a total of 4,854,397. Sorry to say that, but the Romanian delegation members simply falsified these datas to be more suitable for their purpose. Thus they got 1,664,986 Magyars, 295,133 Germans and of course 2,519,215 Romanians. Ordinary arithmetics ... So much for the self determination--fz22 06:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

WWII question: as you can see for you the city was recovered, but occupied for me. As a matter of fact let me remind you the city was part of the Hungarian Kingdom for over 700 year, 260 was under habsburg occupation and 22 year under Romanian rule ... Thinking we are in 1944. Thank's a million.--fz22 07:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The Treaty of Trianon recognised the sovereignty of Romania over Satu Mare. Signed by Hungary. Signed by Romania, signed by France, Germany, etc.

agree with you

The Vienna Award placed Satu Mare under Hungary's control. Not signed by Romania (actualy not sure if ROmania didnt sign). Signed by Germany and Hungary and Italy.

Of course she signed it. Romania (threaten by Hungary) was who asking Axis power to be their adjudicator.

The Paris Treaty rendered the Vienna Award void. Signed by Hungary, signed by Romania, France, Germany etc.

Sure, but an international threaty is not only meant to settle the new/former borders ... The citizenship question, recompansation are also included into a treaty.

You can consider Wikipedia an encyclopedia that holds the truth that the UN and other International legal bodies are trying to hide and things like that. But I consider Wikipedia a reflection of what UN and International legal bodies currently consider as legal Treaties. That Satu Mare was not occupied but "became part of Romania" in 1919, and that Romania didn't occupy Satu Mare after WW2, but recovered it -- Criztu 12:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Until a new international treaty will render the Paris Treaty void, the situation is "Romania recovered Satu Mare at the end of WW2 -- Criztu 09:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

see my answer above--fz22 12:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] anti romanian actions

What anti-romanian action are you talking about? Add sources please otherwise I'll delete that line

[edit] Mayor's name

I've corrected to hungarian orthography ... His name was change from Gyula to Iuliu involuntary, like many others name during Ceausescu era ... Emanuil Gojdu's name was also changed to Gozsdu Mano, but nobody in Romania use this form ...

See http://www.satu-mare.ro/persoane/ilyes.html.en. In the english version of the mayor's office website, it's Iuliu. :D --Mihai -^talk 18:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

One question and the only two possible answers for it: Which country belongs now this town? if that country is Hungary then the Hungarian interpretation should be the valid one. If it's Romania then the Romanian interpretation should remain on wikipedia.

The previous phrase has no meaning. The rule for names is to use that one which the person and the media uses. Just google for "Gyula Ilyes" (excuse my Hungarian), you will find there's almost no mention of it.--Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)

19:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The Hungarians put their family name first, so you should be searching for "Ilyes Gyula", but yes, there are fewer results than for "Iuliu Ilyes". bogdan 20:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The name of the mayor is Iuliu Ilyes, not Gyula Ilyes. The website of the city gives the name Iuliu Ilyes in the Romanian, German and English versions (I haven't checked Hungarian). Thus, Gyula Ilyes is incorrect in the infobox.