Why didn't Hitler give the heavily German parts of Transylvania to Hungary in 1940?

Ficino

Ad Honorem
Apr 2012
7,035
Romania
Because he wanted to hope to get Romania as an ally in the future?
Maybe so, maybe not. I don't know.

A smaller corridor can look like this:



Please note that this is an alternate history map.
That kind of corridor is a joke which would have angered Hungary and Romania in the same degree, and please keep in mind that during the times of the Second Vienna Award Hungary was on the German side, while Romania was not.

By leaving the Axis and joining the Allies, of course. Interestingly enough, I read that this Romanian move actually saved a huge part of Budapest's Jewish population--who were scheduled to begin being deported to Nazi death camps on August 27, 1944 but Romania's switch of sides as a result of King Michael's Coup on August 23, 1944 caused the Nazis to temporarily abandon their plans due to the much more precarious military situation that the Axis found itself in after Romania's defection to the Allies.
I don't think that Romania's switch of sides has ever been seriously regarded by someone as an atonement.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,750
SoCal
That kind of corridor is a joke which would have angered Hungary and Romania in the same degree, and please keep in mind that during the times of the Second Vienna Award Hungary was aleady on the German side, while Romania was not.
I know, but this corridor would have been a bit fairer to Romania in comparison to the one in real life.

I don't think that Romania's change of sides has seriously ever been regarded by someone as an atonement.
Then why did article 19 in the 1944 Armistice Agreement between the Allies and Romania nullify the Second Vienna Award and promise to return most or all of Transylvania to Romania? :

 

Ficino

Ad Honorem
Apr 2012
7,035
Romania
I know, but this corridor would have been a bit fairer to Romania in comparison to the one in real life.
I explained you some of the reasons for Hitler's decision, thinking that you are able to understand what I write. I hope that your impediment in understanding is not due to the fact that English is not my mother tongue and I express my thoughts far worse in English than in my native language.

Then why did article 19 in the 1944 Armistice Agreement between the Allies and Romania nullify the Second Vienna Award and promise to return most or all of Transylvania to Romania? :

Because Romania switched the sides in time, unlike Hungary. BTW, when the communists came to power they made plans for the creation of a Transylvanian state, but they finally renounced those plans as unrealistic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,675
Europix
I know, but this corridor would have been a bit fairer to Romania in comparison to the one in real life.



Then why did article 19 in the 1944 Armistice Agreement between the Allies and Romania nullify the Second Vienna Award and promise to return most or all of Transylvania to Romania? :

Firstly, because art. 4 confirmed the 1940 Soviet-Romanian agreement. (And that's something the professor would love it: France, BE and US agreeing with and confirming one of the secret clauses Ribbbentrop-Molotov's pact!). After Czechoslovakia ... Romania!.

Secondly, because the peace treaty was signed only in 1947. (It's odd, when one thinks that from august 1944 the third largest European field army fighting against Germany legally wasn't and Allied army but an Axis army ... ).

And of course, as Ficino said, Hungary didn't had the time to switch sizes.

In conclusion, they had to give a little something ... therefore art 19.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,750
SoCal
I explained you some of the reasons for Hitler's decision, thinking that you are able to understand what I write. I hope that your impediment in understanding is not due to the fact that English is not my mother tongue and I express my thoughts far worse in English than in my native language.
I actually did get your point here. :)

Because Romania switched the sides in time, unlike Hungary.
Do you think that, had Romania not switched sides, it would have still gotten northern Transylvania back at the end of the war?

BTW, when the communists came to power they made plans for the creation of a Transylvanian state, but they finally renounced those plans as unrealistic.
When did these plans take place? As in, when were they being created and discussed?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,750
SoCal
Firstly, because art. 4 confirmed the 1940 Soviet-Romanian agreement. (And that's something the professor would love it: France, BE and US confirming one of the secret clauses Ribbbentrop-Molotov's pact!). After Czechoslovakia ... Romania!.
That makes sense--the USSR throwing Hungary under the bus so that it could keep its own loot from Romania. Interestingly enough, Bulgaria also got to keep its loot from Romania in the form of southern Dobruja.

Secondly, because the peace treaty was signed only in 1947. (It's odd, when one thinks that from august 1944 the third largest European field army fighting against Germany legally wasn't and Allied army but an Axis army ... ).
The peace treaty was signed only in 1947 but in regards to this issue, the 1944 armistice agreement indicated just what the peace treaty is going to look like.

And of course, as Ficino said, Hungary didn't had the time to switch sizes.
Well, Horthy did try switching sides but this ironically caused his country to get occupied by Germany and most Hungarian Jews to get murdered in the Holocaust. Frankly, Horthy would have been wiser remaining in the war until the very end. At least that way Hungary's Jewish population would have likely been spared.

In conclusion, they had to give a little something ... therefore art 19.
Yep. :)
 

deaf tuner

Ad Honoris
Oct 2013
14,675
Europix
The peace treaty was signed only in 1947 but in regards to this issue, the 1944 armistice agreement indicated just what the peace treaty is going to look like.
Doesn't change what I said: at the end of the war, Romania was sitting on the side of table where Hungary and Germany stood, not on another side.

. Interestingly enough, Bulgaria also got to keep its loot from Romania in the form of southern Dobruja
I wouldn't call that (and else either) "loot".

The region is awfully complicated, and in a lot of cases both sides are right, as both sides are wrong in the same time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist