OPPapers.com

Separating Myths And Facts

Separating Myths and Facts
In the History of Transylvania
Dr. Sandor Balogh
Much has been said and written lately about the Human Rights Issue concerning Rumania.* It
can be said, without any exaggeration, that the entire civilized world is upset and ready to condemn
the treatment of native ethnics who achieved minority status after World War One with the stroke of
a pen in Transylvania, now part of Ceaucescu.s Rumania.
For most people it is hard if not impossible to even understand the policies that Ceacescu
carries out in Transylvania, and for many of the Rumanians abroad it is both upsetting and embarrassing.
The United Nations has been investigating the problem. The prestigious Reader.s
Digest in its February 1989 issue has a compilation of articles from newspapers the world over that
condemn the events in Rumania and Transylvania. The Rumanian dictator is the most despised
person in international politics next to Hitler and Stalin.
Without attempting to explain the entire Rumanian culture and national character, using the
tools of the historian and the political scientist, I would like to clarify a few issues concerning the
history of Transylvania and the Rumanian attitude toward Transylvania.
The Rumanian Bias.
The Union and League of Rumanian Societies in America publishes in Cleveland America, a
monthly periodical. Not every Rumanian living in the U.S. agrees with its editorial policy and the
articles. Yet, it has a great deal of influence both in American and Rumanian circles, and does a
great deal of harm by presenting the problem of Transylvania and the Hungarian Rumanian
relationship through the distorted lens of this paper and its articles (some in English), which are full
of half truths, and often outright, irresponsible lies.
This .official organ. of the Rumanian Union and League carried a large map of .Greater
Rumania. on its front page in the November 1988 issue based on the 1938 boundaries of Rumania.
The title of the...