That´s true, Laura, the majority should decide, but only in a democracy, and neither Hungary nor Romania were democracies at at time...
and of course, because it wasn't a democracy for centuries it should keep not being a democracy for the following years, just to suit the hungarian purposes... you do realiz how ridiculous that sounds, right?
Romania was first a kingdom, then a dictatorial kingdom and after 1947 a sovjet republic...
romania was a constitutional monarchy. like britain is today. in case you were wondering, britain is a democratic country
In none of these forms of gouvernment the people decides what is happening, so why should they have decided in this case? It was only a bad excuse of those in power who wanted to teach Hungary a lesson.
of course, the poor hungarians, the whole world decided that they were bad and decided to teach them a lesson. that's the worst conspiracy theory ever. no-one has anything against you, you lost transylvania because it shouldn't have been yours to begin with. you come up with all these reasons and here's an argument that can cancel each and every one of them:
Some reasons why Transylvania should belong to Hungary:
- belong for Hungary for hundreds of years
i repeat for the hundredth time: just because greece belonged to turkey for hundred of years, it doesn't been it should be a turkish province now. you still haven't cancelled that argument which cancels your argument. it also applies to transylvania, therefor it's invalid.
- of course there were Romanians there, but those who had money and influence where Hungarians (the Hungarians made 35 %, only 15% less than the Romanians). So it was the Hungarians who brought wealth to Transylvania, not the Romanians.
so, basically, what you are saying is that the people with money have more right to vote and decide what's going on with their country than people with no money. i find that nonsesical. in a democracy EVERYONE has a right to vote. and as i said, just because transylvania wasn't a democracy before doesn't mean it should never be a democracy. the 1923 constitution of romania granted everyone the right to vote. therefor romania was a democratic country.
another thing: romanians in transylvania had no money because they didn't have any right to do any job that would bring much money. most romanians were serfs for centuries. after they stopped being serfs they were mostly poor people, oppressed by the people who 'tolerated' them. according to you, a system that is not democratic should stay not democratic and because centuries of oppressions made the peasants poor and the nobles rich, only the nobles should have a right to vote.
i really hope you don't believe that.
- It was the most Hungarian parts of Hungary considering traditions, language, etc.
really?! have you ever been to transylvania? i lived there. i still go there a month a year. some houses look a little different but you know what the funny thing is: it's not the hungarian houses, it's the GERMAN houses that look different. the hungarian houses look just like the romanian ones. the towns look the same, the holidays are the same, the people look just like the other romanians, just that some of them (not most of them just some) speak a different language, and not because they don't know romanian but because they're too stubborn to use it. yes, there are hungarian communities and romanian communities, and some hungarian communities have different traditions, but i think we've already established that the romanian communities are more and bigger and so the romanian traditions are generally a majority.
any other arguments?
