Talk:Transylvanian Memorandum

Confusing sentence in article
"However, the outcome was procrastinated until after World War I and the Treaty of Trianon, with Romania itself oscillating between alliances with the Central Powers and the Entente, and with the parallel offer made by Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria (the heir apparent) to negotiate for a United States of Greater Austria: I can't sort this out, and the fact that "procrastinated" is not a transitive verb looks to be only part of the problem. - Jmabel | Talk 01:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do have my minor flaws :). What I had meant to say was that activism for the union per se was partly postponed by the offer launched by Fr. Ferdinand to negotiate a federal system for the Empire instead of dualism. Of course, as we all know, he died before that could be. I was a little cryptical about it, mainly because I thought that people who want to know more about the United States of Greater Austria can just click the link (to cut out redundancies). The text was also meant to indicate that Romania itself was not getting involved, mainly because it was in a process of deciding whether it should stick with the Entente or with the Central Powers - the latter option made all backing of unionism quite impossible. The two attitudes are also intimately connected, IMO: Transylvanians became more likely to accept negotiating a US of Austria because Romania was attached to Austria and Germany.
 * Thank you for helping sort this out, Jmabel. Dahn 23:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wording clarified, per your remarks here. - Jmabel | Talk 01:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not use the books of the official war propagandist Seton-Watson as references
Do not use the fantasy books of official paid war-propagandist Seton-Wattson as references. All of his family lived from paid state-financed paropaganda before and after the war.

Robert William Seton-Watson (August 20, 1879–July 25, 1951), commonly referred to as R.W. Seton-Watson, he also used the pseudonym Scotus Viator, was a British historian who also played an active role in encouraging the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire during and after World War I.[1] In 1917-1918, Seton-Watson served on the Intelligence Bureau of the War Cabinet in the Enemy Propaganda Department where he was responsible for British propaganda to the Austrian and Hungarian peoples. [2] His son was Hugh Seton-Watson, who also became involved in propaganda in the 1970s with the Institute for the Study of Conflict.
 * Despite, he may be referred as a reliable source and a support for an opinion etc. see, WP:RS. However In case you consider any of his source is citing a clear fiction, explain here or present any source for that, so we may discuss in case.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC))
 * I fully agree with KIENGIR, you are welcome to bring your own sources that tackle the subject (the electoral irregularities in the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen between 1867 and 1918) and clarify (with independent, NPOV sources) why do you think that the facts presented by Seton-Watson are fantasy and propaganda. Mentatus (talk) 07:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

There are hundreds of books, which speak about Seton-Wattson as official propagandist during and after WW1. READ ABOUT HIM in THESE BOOKS: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Seton-Watson%22+propagandist&client=firefox-b-d&sxsrf=ACYBGNSxp6-1ltyj7LOk8IfnsSs4ebHfsw:1573502399215&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjSvbuc-eLlAhUJp4sKHamuBG0Q_AUIFygB&biw=2374&bih=1402

So he was a propagandist officially, and he worked for British Intelligence Services. HE is well known from his anti-German and Anti-Hungarian sentiment before the WW1.--Regtraht (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Regtraht, this I think we understand, however you have to show something that would tell us what did not happen or happened in a different way as it is now described, or at least present something particular regarding the electoral subject in Hungary that time, otherwise we cannot do much of your concern.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC))

There two types of lie or misleading the public or a person. First (and most primitive) is the so-called direct lie, when somebody tells a statement which is not true. The second category is a more sophisticated and sly version of lies: When you tell only some parts of the truth, but you remain silent about some important relevant parts /factors of the truth, which can make a very different effect/result or which can transform of the outcome of the statement. Seton-Watson as propagandist belongs to the second version.

Gerrymanders occoured frequently in the contemporary Western democracies, and it was easier to implement them than in the 21th century. There were a lot of gerrmandering in Kingdom of Hungary too. They were mostly not organized by the government, rather the local power-houses (like MEPS) during the elections, and the very same types of gerrymandering - what Seton-Watson described - happened even more often in the Hungarian majority areas. But Seton-Watson concentrated only to the events which happened in the minority areas, and did not mention that the same tactics was often used in the Hungarian majority areas, and it was even more frequent than in minority areas. Yes, Seton-Watson did niot want to speak or mention that, because it can weakiening his arguments. (it happened often in his own country, the UK too, so it is a bit hypocrisy from him)

Second important factor factor: The ethnic minority political parties were not even allowed in the UK, France or Germany, it is another hypocrisy from Seton-Wattson, because the legal system of his country the UK, the pre-WW1 France and Germany the minority rigts were taboo, these rights simply did not exist in their legal system!

The most dominant factor: The ethnic minortiy parties were not popular among ethnic minority areas, which had a lot of reason: They did not trust in minority parties, because thery were often fragmented fight against each other, or often tries to erase/discredit their rivals, and they did not trust that they could form government. The most popular part of minority areas were the Hungarian Liberal Party, led by Kálmán Tisza, and Later István Tisza, which transformed into the National Party of Work. They were the far the most popular favourite party of Slovaks Germans Serbs and Romanians in Hungary. Ethnic Hungarians have never voted to the liberal party of the Tisza family, because the liberals of Tisza were often considered and depicted as anti-Hungarian party by the nationalist opposition.

The naationalist coalition parties had only 1 successful election in 1906, and they lost the election in 1910. All famous claims and stories about "Magyarization" related to the short period of the nationalist parties.

And more very important and interesting fact: The ethnic minorities were able to dominate all elections, and the will of Hungarian voters realized only in the 1906-1910 victory of the nationalist. Yes, they were the minorities who held power the Liberals in most of the A-H era, and maintained the Ausgleich. Whitout them the Ausgleich and Austria-Hungary would not exist. Yes, Minorities in Hungary had key importance for the survival of Austria-Hungary, since the Hungarian voters wanted independence.

A good reading about the ethnicity and Hungarian elctions: András Gerő (2014). Nationalities and the Hungarian Parliament (1867–1918) LINK: http://www.geroandras.hu/2014_Nationalities_and_the_Hungarian_Parliament.pdf --Regtraht (talk) 11:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Regtraht, I see, I never debated Seton-Watsons overexaggerations and less objectivity comparing to other states, since Hungary was a top liberal state on those times, however given the fact Hungary introduced the first minority laws, she was the first pool as well regarding appliance, given the chance to debate and handle a phenomenon of treating minority rights and demands on a higher level, along with all the positive and negative distractions of it. I see no other chance as I referred, in a new pharagraph discuss - maybe aftermath/evaluation/critics section - where along with something related material what you presented here may be summarized. I.e. Grigore Moldovan's open response/reaction to the Memorandum as a Transylvanian Romanian may do it.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC))