Why Was Hungary Partitioned After WWI? | The Treaty of Trianon
Why was the ancient Kingdom of Hungary partitioned after World War One? In theory, it was to set free the many different nationalities (be they Romanians, Serbians, Slovaks, or a number of others) living under Hungarian rule, and in practice that was certainly achieved. But the Treaty of Trianon, in which the borders for Hungary and its new neighbours were demarcated, also left millions of Hungarians outside of the new Hungary.
Subscribe for more history:
kzhead.info...
Instagram (behind the scenes!):
/ james_king3125
More Videos:
Why Aren't Finland and Sweden in NATO?: • Why Aren't Finland and...
How Did the Allies Divide Germany?: • How Was Germany Divide...
What Caused the Iranian Revolution?: • What Caused the Irania...
What Ended the Ottomans?: • What Ended the Ottoman...
Sources Consulted:
Feischmidt, Margit. "Memory-Politics and Neonationalism: Trianon as Mythomoteur." Nationalities Papers 48, no. 1 (01, 2020): 130-143.
www.proquest.com/scholarly-jo....
Győri, Róbert, and Charles W. J. Withers. 2019. “Trianon and Its Aftermath: British Geography and the ‘Dismemberment’ of Hungary, c.1915-c.1922.” Scottish Geographical Journal 135 (1/2): 68-97. doi.org/10.1080/14702541.2019...
Ludányi, András. “Trianon: 101 Years Later.” Hungarian Cultural Studies. e-Journal of the American Hungarian Educators Association, Volume 15 (2022): www.proquest.com/docview/2449...
Miller, Stuart T. Mastering Modern European History. London: Macmillan Education LTD, 1990.
Shepherd, William R. Historical Atlas. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1911.
Music:
Danse Macabre - Busy Strings by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (creativecommons.org/licenses/...)
Source: incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Artist: incompetech.com/
Very fair video about the Treaty of Trianon. One of the most impartial. But I have to point out something. You said that the pre-WW1 Hungarian prime minister, István Tisza was a staunch supporter of the war against Serbia. Quite the contrary! He was the last one who agreed to it. He did not want to sign for the war against Serbia, saying his most famous words: "We cannot win anything in this war, but if we loose, we will loose everything". So he was against the war, but because Hungary was part of the Monarchy of which war and foreign ministry was in Vienna, the Austrians decided against whom they wanted to open a war. Hungary had no influence in this. It is like before the WW1, Scotland's prime minister would had say: I am against the war. England would had reply: So what? Because in Vienna the Austrian government decided to start a war against Serbia, Tisza had no other option that to resign, if he did not agree. Then is his place another, pro-war prime minister would had been assigned. Tisza decided to remain, but did not agreed with the war. And the irony of this, was that after the Dictate (because if a country, about which other countries decide, is not invited to the discussions, only after they ended to hand over to it the decision, is not a treaty but a peace dictate), the winning powers decided that also Austria, which dragged Hungary in the war, and caused to it the territorial losses in Trianon, will get Hungarian territories from Western Hungary. So this added even more to the unfairness of the Trianon dictate.
Yes, Tisza was absolutely against WW1. That's why he was shot down.
He was shot down, by communist.
Yes, but he also had another motive, his bigger priority was that Austria-Hungary should not annex any of Serbia since that would bring more Slavs into the Empire and weaken the Hungarian’s privileged position in the dual monarchy.
@@generaltom6850 Yes, against this, the Hungarians even expressed their fears.
Most Allied victors after World War 2-: "Let's not make the same mistakes we made after World War 1, so as to avoid future conflict". Stalin: "I have other ideas...."
it's nice to finally see this briefly but thoroughly explained
Thanks! I do my best. Check out the description if you want to dive into more info.
@@LookBackHistory ok
Not bad and I appreciate the attempt. But for a foreigner it's almost impossible to understand the truth. Like in the case of Germany which have to be the devil in WWI. The partition was not bc of the minorities. The minorities lived there for 1000 years. Yes, ca. 50% of the population was not Hungarian. But it's very misleading bc together with the loyal Germans the number was much higher, and there were even more loyal people. Probably the majority of the Slovakians for instance didn't want the partition. They protested against it. The didnt even know what was the Czechs plan. By the way all of these minorities would have been happy with some autonomy before the war... And by the way nobody of them were asked what they wanted. The foreigners didnt even know anything about the country. The goal of the conference was not self-determination. Nobody got self determination. The winner states were also multiethnic. The goal was giving territories, strethening the winner states so they would help France in the following war against Germany's possible allies. And such things. They didn't ask the random Slovene and Bosnian what they wanted.
Cool video! Very informative and with a good narration. Thanks!
Im Slovakian and this video is very well made and accurate. For us Slovaks, Trianon was a liberation from Hungarian opression and magyarization that started in the second half of 19th century and ended in 1918. Although the borders between Slovakia and Hungary could've been drawn better. But the borders were drawn the way they were because of Danube and railways that Czechoslovakia wanted to have access to. Self-determination goes out of the window when economics comes in.
In fact not, for you Slovaks it was not liberation from "Hungary". It was a propaganda later, when the Slovakians also falsified their history. In fact Slovakians didn't have plans to be liberated. 99% of them fought together with Hungary in 1914, 1849 or earlier, in the years of Rákóczy etc. Slovakians protested against Trianon in many, many towns and villages. They had nothing to do with the Czechs. Slovakians were also oppressed in Czechoslovakia (against it they also protested, and for their real autonomy), althought less than Hungarians nad Germans of course. But it is no surprise that Slovakians believe their own propaganda. These are random Slovakians who are brainwashed. And now their interest is to agree with Trianon. They have insane theories that Hungary didn't exist before 1920, or the Slovakians were oppressed for 1000 years (I'm not sure Slovakians even existed 1000 years before).
@@timeanagy8495 they falsified their history like ,romanians,serbians,ukrainians... did,the only and real history is yours,hungarian 😂😂
@@timeanagy8495 source?
@@joelthorstensson2772 google, history
@@georgehosu8067 Yes, they had to falsify their history in their logic. Romanians and the other have no real history, but they have to explain why they steal lands and persecuted minorities from it. The explanation is that they have history, they were always majority there, just the evil Hungarians occupied it, oppressed them etc. The Slovakian nation always existed, they lived here, they are descendents of the Great Moravian Empire (which btw existed maybe for 50 years and wasn't even independent). And the Romanians were also always here, during the Avar and other times, ridicuolus prrofs like Anonymous who wrote some things 2-300 years later (he wrote other things too but it doesn't count), Transylvania was a Romanian area. I don't know Serbian history, I don't think they could falsify it so much because even in 1920 only a small minority of the population was Serbian, so they can not found out they were majority. I don't know Ukraine but they have probably falsified history too according to the circumstances (half of their lands was taken 30 years ago). In Hungary history is a science, not a tool of nationalist propaganda. We never falsified any facts, just the opposite. For example even Hungarians think we oppressed minorities or Hungary was a very pro-Nazi state while it is not true.
Nice content bro! Keep it up!
Well done, very well done! Even tho I knew about the subject, I learned a few stuff in didn't know about!
Very cool to hear.
Meh, i would feel sorry for Hungary, but then when i think about that clown Orban that feeling disappears...
@@flipflop4396 mate frankly i dont care about what you think regarding Hungary and Orban
@@outerspace7391 neither do i about your knowledge about this subject
@@flipflop4396 if you didn't, you wouldn't respond. What's actually the case is that you thought we'd care about what you think of Hungary and Orban. Tragic mistake.
There is a Hungarian saying. Hungary is the only country that borders itself.
funny thing about the triganon map for other countries, if you removed wales from the yellow and replaced it with only red regions within england, you would actually have some yellow left to give lol
“I know your history. In your country you have oppressed those who are not Magyar. Now you have the Czechs, Slovaks, Rumanians, Yugoslavs as enemies; I hold these people in the hollow of my hand; I have only to make a sign and you will be destroyed.” French general Louis Franchet d’Esperey, upon meeting the Hungarian delegation at the Paris Peace Conference, in 1920 (quoted in *Margaret Macmillan, Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World, London, Macmillan, 2019, p.260* )
Lol, the great French Moralists!! I might pop a French champagne on his death anniversary….for Clemenceau too… 😸🥂🍾just so we don’t forget or forgive…🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺
@@zsolttalloczy5222 Good idea, remembering what happened 100 years ago. Only be careful not to be too selective with the memories :)))
PESTBUDIN IS RIFHTFUL SLOVAK LAND
@@CborgMega Romani-an, You lost the WW1 within 3months a record speed and suffered the highest ratio of KIa in history of WW1, due to the incompetence of Romanian army LEARN: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian%E2%80%93Romanian_War
"When france opresses all of their colonies and sucks half of africa dry thats cool and democratic. when hungary wants to control its surroundings thats inhuman and fascistic" Some random french cuck, 1920 Paris
In WW1 Ausztrian House of Habsburg, Emperor Franz Joseph held all authority over the military structure, was the commander-in-chief of the Hungarian army. The full responsibility for the WW1 rests with the emperor. The most shameful thing is that Austria received territory from Hungary based on the Trianon peace decree. Ridicoulus!!!
It would have been correct if Austria lost 60 percent of its territory! After all, the two were one empire, weren't they?
@@messor01 Nop. 28. Julius 1867. Austro-Hungary Monarchy was born. 2 states with own borders and 2 goverments, with 1 king. (1867 Compromise)
Where would people rather live, rich and stable Austria or poor borderline dictatorship Hungary?
An injustice was certainly done to Hungary. As a Serb, I understand why needed land compensation and Vojvodina had a large Serbian minority (now a majority). To us, it didn't matter if it was Hungary or Austria across the Danube border, all that mattered were the spoils of war and expansion northwards. As Vojvodina became more Serbian, Hungarians became a minority and today most of them live far north near the border with Hungary. I have absolutely nothing against Hungarians or Hungary, in fact I like them. All Hungarians I've met here and in Budapest were very polite and good people. I certainly understand how it feels having part of your country unfairly taken from you. I acknowledge we also did you an injustice, but we cannot reverse time. Today we live in peace and our relations have never been better historically, thanks to Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his government. I wish we will continue these relations in the future and never fight another war against each other again, but stand together as allies when the time comes.
Thanks
In the annexed areas there is a 1,000-year-old Hungarian culture and memorial, some of which have already been destroyed because they were not allowed to protect them. This is a great loss for the Hungarians.
0:53 On the contrary: He was the only one of the Monarchy's leaders to oppose military action against Serbia. His opinion was that the Monarchy cannot pursue an expansionist policy, its goal can only be to preserve its independence: "We all agree that the Monarchy that we also control, of which we are one of the decisive factors, - that this Monarchy in foreign policy is peace and it must serve the basic principles of the status quo: that the monarchy has no conquering goals and ambitious goals and that it must seek its historical vocation, its legitimate ambition, the moral source of its right to exist in the fact that in this exposed part of Europe, as soon as it defends its independence, at the same time, it should be a bulwark, a sure support and an ally for the free further development of the small peoples living around it." On the day of the assassination of Ferenc Ferdinand, as soon as István Tisza Hungarian PM. heard the news, he traveled to Budapest and then to Vienna. Here, Count Berchtold also met with the joint foreign minister and Chief of Staff Conrad von Hötzendorf, who saw that the time had come to settle Serbia's affairs, even by armed means. István Tisza, on the other hand, wanted to give the Serbian government time to distance itself from the assassination and favored a peaceful settlement.
i wonder how many Hungarians still live in Slovakia Vojvodina and Transylvania
Slovakia: 422,000 - 7.7% Vojvodina: 243,000 - 3.4% Transylvania: 1,228,000 - 6.5% (2011)
Transylvania has 600'000 Hungarians and 600'000 Szekelys that speak a dialect of Hungarian but are in fact a Turkic people. This is out of a population of 6.8 MILLION people in Transylvania. Romania has s population of 22 million. So they are a MINORITY. They always were.
@@gabor6259 but before the genocide there were like one trillion Hungarians, yeah? Like not anyone ever heard of the genocide, but anyway...
@@gigikontra7023 hungarians themselves are a turkic people
@@Lilscattz1 no, they are actually Ugric people by language and Slavic by genetics.
As a person, who was born in today's Hungary, I just want peace if it's possible! I had enough of other nations pointing at me in either online gaming saying, that I suck!
who?
@@chris1806 Romanians
@@Zolega89 Yeah they can be annoying.. sometimes you must hit back, sometimes walk away..
@@Zolega89 sorry some people from my country did that.Most of us respect you guys🇷🇴♥️🇭🇺
*Alfred D. Low, "Soviet Hungary and the Paris Peace Conference", in Ivan Volgyes (editor), Hungary in Revolution, 1918-19. Nine Essays, Univ. oof Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1971:*
I don't know how the specific land borders were finally decided for Hungary but I do know that for Austria, there was a commission composed of officers from non-European states who physically visited the border regions and drew the borders. There's a story from Steiermark (Styria) on the border with Slovenia, where the border has a tiny little bump to the south, where there is a church. The story is that a Japanese and American officer were there and were about to include the church in Slovenia, but an Austrian woman ran up to them and begged them to leave the church in Austria, as that was where the people of her village went to worship, so they changed the border at that part. A bit like the probably apocryphal of ''Stalin's thumb'' on the Russo-Finnish border in Karelia. But if the story of the church is true, it demonstrates that in many cases the final borders were decided on a fairly arbitrary basis, by people who didn't really know much about the regions they were dividing. Another weird one in the same region is a village straddling the river Mur which is now 2 villages, Bad Radkersburg in Austria, and Gorna Radkorna in Slovenia. The border is in the middle of the bridge over the Mur which used to connect both sides of the village. To this day there are villages of Slovenian speakers in Kaernten (Carinthia) and Steiermark (Styria), as well as Croat villages in Burgenland. I'm not Austrian btw but I lived in upper Styria in the 90s. It was only a 45 minute drive down to the Slovenian border and some evenings after work I used to drive down to just on the other side of the border where there was a petrol station, filling up my car was much cheaper and not only paid for the trip but I could also buy duty free cigarettes and whisky there, all for less than it would have cost me to fill up in Austria. Also once I stayed with friends at their family's holiday cabin on a campsite in south Styria, near the border. For lunch we parked up on one side of a bridge, and walked across to an inn in Slovenia where we had a delicious meal - think I had cevapcici, fries and salad - for a fraction of the price we'd have paid in Austria.
*Hugh Seton-Watson, Nations and States, An Enquiry into the Origins of Nations and the Politics of Nationalism, Methuen-London, 1977:* (page 183)
Before the World War I, only three European countries declared ethnic minority rights, and enacted minority-protecting laws: the first was Hungary (1849 and 1868), the second was Austria (1867), and the third was Belgium (1898). In contrast, the legal systems of other pre-WW1 era European countries did not allow the use of European minority languages in primary schools, in cultural institutions, in offices of public administration and at the legal courts.[2] A comparative book about the development of ethnic minority rights in European countries between 1800 to the 1990s : hungarianhistory.com/lib/hevizi/hevizi.pdf In July 1849, the Hungarian Revolutionary Parliament proclaimed and enacted the WORLD's FIRST laws on ethnic and minority rights. It gave minorities the freedom to use their mothertongue at local administration, at tribunals, in schools, in community life and even within the national guard of non-Magyar councils. However these laws were overturned after the united Russian and Austrian armies crushed the Hungarian Revolution of 1848. After the Kingdom of Hungary reached the Compromise with the Habsburg Dynasty in 1867 (Ausgleich), one of the first acts of the restored Hungarian Parliament was to pass a Law on Nationalities (Minority rights law: the act number XLIV of 1868). The situation of minorities in Hungary was not even comparable to the contemporary pre WW1 Europe. Other highly multiethnic /multinational countries were: France Russia and UK. See the multi-national UK: The situation of Scottish Irish and Welsh people in "Britain" during the English hegemony is well known. They utmost forgot their original language,only English language cultural educational institutions existed. The only language was English in judiciary procedures and in offices and public administrations. In Wales Welsh children were beaten by their teachers if they spoke Welsh among each others. This was the infamous “Welsh Not” policy... See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_Not The contemporary Irish question and tensions are well documented. The situation of Ireland was even a more brutal and bloody story. It was not a real "United" Kingdom, it was rather a greater England. Let's don't forget: The English legal system did not know even basic the minority rights (neither linguistic rights) for aboriginal minorities (Scots, Welsh) until the post ww2 period. See the multiethnic France: In the era of the Great French revolution, only 25% of the population of Kingdom of France could speak the French language as mothertongue. But even in 1870, France was still similar-degree multi-ethnic state as Hungary, only 50% of the population of France spoke the French language as mothertongue. The other half of the population spoke Occitan, Breton, Provençal, Catalan, Corsican, Alsatian, West Flemish, Lorraine Franconian, Gallo, Picard or Ch’timi and Arpitan etc... Many minority languages were closer to Spanish languages or Italian language than French) French governments banned minority language schools, minority language newspapers minority theaters. They banned the usage of minority languages in offices , public administration, and judiciary procedures. The ratio of french mothertongue increased from 50% to 91% during the 1870-1910 period!!! The situation in German Empire was well known (Polish territories and Sorbs) Just look some Eastern countries in the oreintal so-called Eurasian (aka. Orthodox) civilization : The legal system of pre-WW1 Kingom of Serbia did not know minority rights. Also, the legal system of pre-WW1 Kingdom of Romania did not know minority rights. Pre WW1 Kingdom of Romania was the only country in pre WW1 era Europe which did not grant citizenship and suffrage for ethnic minorities, despite they represented rougly 20% of the population. Morover, Kingdom of Romania applied strong anti-Semitic disciminative laws against Jewish people, which was similar to Tzarist Russia. Read about it here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Romania#Treaty_of_Berlin_and_aftermath Slavery disappeared during the high medieval period on Western Christian European soil, however it existed in Romanian territories until the mid 19th century! The Gypsy slavery and slave markets were abolished only in 1852!!! (Gypsies of Romania had similar status like blacks in USA before the civil war) See: books.google.com/books?id=df2mIOnbrDoC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=gypsy+%22slave+markets%22+romania&source=bl&ots=5MY5_TxutD&sig=ACfU3U1E8Dvv2rkKhRSfOrnAbfwQgnlv3g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwith4_qqbntAhWSuIsKHZ37CpwQ6AEwAXoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=gypsy%20%22slave%20markets%22%20romania&f=false and see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Romania Just examine the high contrast between Kingdom of Hungary and contemporary pre WW1-era Europe: The so-called "Magyarization" fantasy was not so harsh as the contemporary western European situation, because the minorities were defended by minority rights and laws. Contemporary Western European legal systems did not know the minority rights, therefore their political leaders loudly and proudly covered up their minorities by the force of law. 1.Were there minority primary schools in Western European countries? NO. 2. How many official languages existed in Western-European states? Only 1 official language! 3. Could minorities use their languages in the offices of public administration in self-governments , in tribunals in Western Europe? No, they couldn't. 4. What about newspapers of ethnic minorities in Western Europe? They did not exist in the West.... We can continue these things to the infinity. 5. Were minority languages allowed in ny cultural institutions in Western European countries? No, they were not. The Austro-Hungarian compromise and its supporting liberal party remained bitterly unpopular among the ethnic Hungarian voters, and the continuous successes of these pro-compromise liberal parties in the Hungarian parliamentary elections caused long lasting frustration for Hungarians. The ethnic minorities had the key role in the political maintenance of the compromise in Hungary, because they were able to vote the pro-compromise liberal parties into the position of the majority/ruling parties of the Hungarian parliament. The pro-compromise liberal parties were the most popular among ethnic minority voters, however i.e. the Slovak, Serb and Romanian minority parties remained unpopular among their own ethnic minority voters. The coalitions of Hungarian nationalist parties - which were supported by the overwhelming majority of ethnic Hungarian voters - always remained in the opposition, with the exception of the 1906-1910 period, where the Hungarian-supported nationalist parties were able to form a government.[48] web.archive.org/web/20200514134044/www.geroandras.hu/2014_Nationalities_and_the_Hungarian_Parliament.pdf
Yeah someone finially mentioned what I think was the real issue for hungary, its not the specific precentage of Land they lost since most wasn't hungarian anyway, but the fact that they lost so much land AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT lost signifigant hungarian majority land much of which was right on the border of hungarys modern border that always bothered me. They did a similar but not as extreme thing in Austria with south tirol while claiming to be pushing self Detirmination
They did not lose Hungarian majority land. They lost Romanian majority land, where many cities were >90% Hungarian because of apartheid (Romanians were not allowed to live in cities, only in villages and work on Hungarian plantations).
@@gigikontra7023 what the fuck do you mean by romanians not being allowed to live in cities 💀
@@gigikontra7023 Lmao where did you get that Information from? Romanians werent forced on plantations, it wasnt 18th century america, secondly Hungary lost MAYOR ethnic hungarian land, if you like it or not, the Vojvodina still consists of mayority hungarians, southern slovakia too
@@lordmilchreis1885 well, Hungary lost the war. What is "MAYOR land"?
@@lordmilchreis1885I know that we both hate serbs but Vojvodina has serbian majority.
Video: *about the "treaty" of trianon* Me while reading the comments of übernationalist hungarians and romanians arguing about Transylvania: aw sh*t, here we go again Edit: the replies turned into one of those arguments I mentioned above. Read them at your own risk
Man, Transylvania VOTED to join Romania. Even the Romanian president, who is of Transylvanian German descent says so.
@@gigikontra7023 suuuuureee
@@gigikontra7023 You tricked the germans pal! The same romanian politician send them to the USSR 25 years later...
@@riveraharper8166 man, read my comment, Romania's president is Transylvanian German. He said it himself: Transylvanian Germans voted to join Romania! Stop spreading your lies!
@@gigikontra7023 You stop spreading your lies! You sent 80 thousand saxxons to their death in Gulag!
As I read another reason for the harsh partitioning was France worrying about another large opposing country remaining in Europe. Their allies was far away (USA on the opposite side of the Atlantic, and Britain being an on a remote island too), non reliable, or even possibly turning hostile (russia to soviet union). Hungary remaining whole was a big problem, so partitioning it to the surrounding other nations, and even giving them more so they'd be grateful and possibly help in the future in return seems reasonable from their perspective. Hungary lost, so who cares what's fair for them right? Another thing is that there might have been a more fair resolution but that short lived communist government of Béla Kun did not help at all, and the Entente powers were even less lenient after.
Plebiscites should've been held in those contested lands, these demands were rejected, with the notable exception of the city of Sopron.
They were held. Check the plebiscite in Alba Iulia on 1st of December 1918.
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth That was an assembly, not a plebiscite.
@@bbenjoe An assembly of elected representatives from all Romanian communities in Transylvania, Banat, Crisana and Maramures. The communities elected 1226 delegates and handed them over their decisions to unite with Romania. So it was a plebiscite.
*Arthur J. May, The Habsburg Monarchy 1867-1918, Norton Library / Harvard University Press, 1968:*
You mentioned many historical book all the authors condemned the hungarian policy between 1867-1914. The political discrimination of non hungarian minorities was fact. It is no use denying The minorities in hungarian Kingdom had no many secondary school by state and they had no universities. It is also true but they had own elementary scholl what were financed by own churches and hungarian government also aided for above-mentioned churches. The situation of slovakians were getting really bad by 1910. So the situation was much complicated than the authors wrote. My objections apply for the very unbalanced point of view giving a totally one-side view of history Hungarian Kingdom before 1914. I ask you what happened in United Kingdom or in France or even in Romania before 1914? Did hungarian minority had any hungarian school in Moldva (the part of Romania)? Where there holy mass for hungarian minorities in hungarian? No there any. More hungarians spoke romanian than romanian spoke hungarian in Hungarian Kingdom.That is not an excuse for hungarian policy but it is a point The illiteracy rate was higher Regat than among the transylvanian romanians where the hungarians allegedly brutally opressed romanians. From our modern perspective of course hungarian policy was not fair against minorities but this were valid every europian state. The authors did not speak hungarian they don"t know the opinion of hungarian authors but they accepted the romanian cechoslovakian point of view without controlling. One authors said the romanians was the descendant of roman legionnaires. The historography know this theory as daco-roman continuity. Most scholars has accepted but if we study the contemporary sources and other sources (toponimy, archeological or genetic) it woukd turn out, every important statement of this theory was rather weak and it can be refutable although the historians in western countries generally support. The situation is the same in this case too. The hungarians were not the saint they often were unfair against minorities but the hungarian policy was not special repressive compared to policy of contemporary countries
@@andrasbalint7938 Thanks for taking the time to read the quotes I posted, and for replying. There are several contentious issues in your arguments. I understand the motivation behind your words, but the arguments are misplaced and wrongly constructed. Practically you are proposing a view on the history of non-Magyars (especially Slavs and Romanians) in pre-1918 Hungary that underplays the importance of the oppression enacted by Magyarization policies in various domains of life. You suggest reducing the discussion to the political discrimination (and ignoring the cultural, social, educational, economical dimensions of the discrimination) and you are using sanitizing euphemisms like "the situation was much complicated" that is a way to indirectly deny the validity of the Magyarization as historical fact, implying that it was a marginal and unimportant phenomenon. Not in the least, I reject your use of trivialization by comparison (as if the wrongdoings of other nations could be used as excuse for Hungarian policies...) and the strange argument that the authors quoted by me (around 20 people, among them Magyars!) _'did not speak hungarian they don't know the opinion of hungarian authors but they accepted the romanian cechoslovakian point of view without controlling."_ I beg your pardon??? And how do you know this?! Have you checked the bibliographies of the works that I quoted? Or the Western authors are guilty from the start for entertaining a view about the history of the pre-1918 Hungary that is similar with what Romanians, Slovaks and Serbs are claiming? In other words, their arguments would be valid only if they agree with Hungarian historians?! By the way, have you noticed that I have quoted no Slovak, Romanian or Serb author? Why do you think I did it? Because I knew that Hungarians would reject their conclusions. But somehow you find the nerve to suggest that so many Western researchers and scholars, some of them famous for their work on the history of Europe, are either stupid or unprofessional, or anti-Hungarian! Wow! Another issue: the theories about who was first in Transylvania have no importance for the discussion about Magyarization and oppressive policies of Hungarian society towards Romanians. By the way, more than 100 years ago, the debate was different: the Magyar elite was arguing for the so-called "right of conquest" of Transylvania (and the other territories inhabited in majority by Slavs), while Romanians and Slovaks were countering with the argument of being the autochthonous inhabitants of the respective lands (as proof, you can check the quotes that I have already offered, from two Magyar historians: Oszkar Jaszi and Pal Lendvai). Last but not least, you are saying that _"hungarian policy was not special repressive compared to policy of contemporary countries."_ Wow! Seriously? You compare the policies of Hungary towards non-Magyars before 1918 with the policies of EU countries like Slovakia, Czech Republic, Romania, Croatia towards their Hungarian minorities? Are you aware about the composition of the current Romanian government? Please, search on the internet the names of Magyar ministers in Romanian government (hint: one of them is deputy of the Prime-minister!), post them in your answer to my comment and then clarify your previous statement, explaining what "other countries" you are referring to. Otherwise I shall conclude that you are just a standard ultra-nationalist Hungarian that flatly denies reality and uses disinformation and lies in order to advance a revisionist agenda.
@@CborgMega I have read your reply and I think you misunderstood my writing. I did not deny the unfair policies of hungarian government before WWI, but I put emphasized on the nuances of this question. The hungarian elite secured the individual rights of minorities in 1868 but they firmly refused to give more rights. So the slovakians romanians and serbs had own school, newspaper. Later the situation was really getting bad approaching to WWI especially for slovakians. I referred to it . But the hungarian policy had liberal charachter too not only repressive especially in economic field. The question have a many shades not only one interpretation. I tried to support my statement with some datas and arguments which made the situation more nuanced. The croatians got a restricted self governance within Hungarian Kingdom. This is the rejections what they argued. The hungarian policy before WWI can not be interpreted as a homogeneous policy. There are many shades in aspect of different minorities or . Yes you are right there were unfair and restrictive elements but it was not only such. István Tisza the prime minister of Hungary insisted on the hungarian supremacy in poitical field but he were asked by hungarian parliament to prevent the land-purchasing of romanian banks in Transylvania he firmly refused the proposal. Tisza allowed the using of romanian flag in Transylvania. The part of western authors has been inclined to accept polarized point of view and I put forward a very concrete example. I think the we can only understand the nature of hungarian policy before 1914 if we study in the context of the given era. The romanian state also oppressed his minorities before WWI, or Consiliul Dirigent issued the order the end of 1918 that the hungarian law from 1868(nationality law) were into effect in area of Transylvania and the member of Consiliul Dirigent changed only one world hungarian was replaced by romanian. I don"t want to exonerate hungarian poticans of his policies discriminative against hungarian minorities The hungarian nationalistics argued the hungarian policy was very liberal based on 1868 nationality law but they neglect the hungarian governnment did not take into respect in the later periods. In addition there was no chance that situation would change dramatically. That was the real problem. Hungarian Kingdom after WWI became more repressive than it was before WWI My comparison were not concerned for the current romanian policy but for that of pre WWI version. I compare apple with apple not with a pear. The history is not black and white but generally the winners write
@@andrasbalint7938 Thanks for clarification, indeed, I misunderstood you regarding the comparison, you intend to draw a parallel between Hungarian and Romanian policies of the 1900s, not something like yesterday vs. today. However, this comparison is rather forced, because the cases are very different - and, as you say, the nuances are important - which I agree (and I shall get back to this issue later). Before 1914, in Romania there was no minority of the comparable size of the Romanian population living (as a majority of inhabitants) in Transylvania/Kingdom of Hungary. Romanians were the absolute majority all over the country, unlike Magyars in their Kingdom, and the political elites felt no need to promote a Romanization campaign (at least, not at the levels Hungarian elites felt the need for, being aware that the Magyar domination of non-Magyars was rather fragile, with less than 50% of the population - or barely 50%, if the Magyarized Jews are added, as in the 1910 census, and Croatia is not taken into account). Anyway, even if the Romanian Kingdom policies at the beginning of XXth century would have been comparable with the Magyarization (something which Budapest politicians would have loved to point out, for sure!), this will not reduce or nullify the responsibility of Magyar government for their own policies. As I said, the wrongdoings of others are not a justification for one's own wrongdoings. As for the policies of the Romanian Kingdom after the WW1 and Trianon, those policies should be seen in the context of the continuation of the conflict between Bucharest and Budapest, at diplomatic level and also by propaganda means, especially from the part of Hungary, who decided to made the revision of Trianon Treaty the national objective and to keep the loyalty of Magyars living in the neighboring countries (preventing them to integrate in the respective societies). One of the most concise explanations (that I know of) about this belongs to American historian, Myra A. Waterbury, author of the book _Between State and Nation Diaspora Politics and Kin-state Nationalism in Hungary,_ (Palgrave Macmillan New York, 2010). I will give you the quote as a separate reply, not to consume the writing space here. Indeed, a society is not a monolith, there are always shades and nuances in the people's behavior, and this applies also to Magyar politicians before 1918 - in terms of Magyarization, some were going with the trend, some others were more lenient or more tough... However, this attitudes changed things only at the level of individual cases, while the dominant idea of Magyarization remains. And even for those situations when Magyars in power were using a soft touch, there were other Magyars who were going the extra mile to promote oppressive policies on non-Magyars. But, because I recognize the importance of balancing the historical discourse, I shall update the already posted quote from the famous American historian C. A. Macartney with a paragraph - I paste it also here, for your benefit: Now, some words about Count Istvan Tisza. Indeed he was a very smart and shrewd politician, but nonetheless a passionate nationalist. Before WW1, when he was discussing with Iuliu Maniu, the head of the Romanian National Party in Transylvania (who was arguing for equal rights for Romanians in the Hungarian Kingdom, especially in terms of voting in elections), Tisza final argument was "A Magyar stomach can’t digest that’. Here are some quotes about him and his approaches on the issue of nationalities in the Kingdom of Hungary, at different moments: (Pieter M. Judson, The Habsburg Empire: A New History, Belknap Press, 2016, p. 494)
@@andrasbalint7938 Myra A. Waterbury, _Between State and Nation Diaspora Politics and Kin-state Nationalism in Hungary,_ (Palgrave Macmillan New York, 2010), pp. 30-37:
Megbasz means "he/she is f***ing me"
Better - nicer say = scruing
What about Natural Albania
*Edward Crankshaw, The Fall of the House of Habsburg, Viking Press, New York, 1963:* > (pag. 203)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon Trianon was against Wilson's self-determination theory, because it was NOT based on democratic plebiscite (general equal&secret ballots). Let's don't forget: Without democratic plebiscites about the borders, there was no demonstrable popular legitimacy/acceptance behind any territorial changes, so it could lead only to arbitrary political decisions (aka. dictate). The decision was made about the people, but without the people in a room behind closed doors. Interestingly, when the Hungarian politicians offered democratic plebiscites about the disputed territories under the control of Western ENTENTE officers in the polling stations, but the Czech, Romanian and Serbian politicians vehemently PROTESTED against the very idea of democratic referendums at the Paris Peace Conference. And why? The Czech politicians didn't trust in Slovaks, because only very few Slovaks joined to the so-called "Czechoslovak"army against the Hungarians in 1919 (and Slovaks represented only 53% ratio in Northern parts of Hungary). Romanian politicians didn't trust in Transylvanian Romanians, perhaps they didn't want to join to the traditionally seriously backward & poor Romania (the ratio of Romanians were only 53% in Transylvania). Serbs were small minority (22% !!!) in Voivodine. Similar to Romania, Serbia was also a very backward Orthodox country without serious urbanization or industrialization. Just imagine how "civilized" were these countries: overwhelming majority of the population of the Kingdom of Romania and Kingdom of Serbia could not read and write in the era of the first WW1. It was not wonder that the US Congress did not sign this anti-democratic dictate. Despite of the much-touted "people's self-determination" idea of the Allied Powers, after World War I only one plebiscite (later known as the Sopron plebiscite in 1921) was allowed concerning disputed borders on the former territory of the Kingdom of Hungary. It settled a small territorial dispute between the First Austrian Republic and the Kingdom of Hungary. During the Sopron-area plebiscite in 1921, the polling stations were supervised by British, French, and Italian army officers of the Allied powers. Please read the article and watch its video en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopron_plebiscite
This Krankshaw was an idiot. Self-Determination of small nations? Wtf. A country should respect self-determination, and give its land to the minorities? Did or does Romania, Serbia and others respect self-determination of the "small nations"? The answer is no. Small nations there had absolutely no rights.
As a Hungarian, I think this is a great video
As the son of a Hungarian, I don't.
Your ancestors were not Christians.
@@jozsefsandor671 so were yours
@@gazibizi9504 What about your middle-eastern ancestral country?
*Bryan Cartledge, The Will to Survive. A History of Hungary , Hurst &Company, London, 2011:*
Winston Churcill, Prime Minister of the U.K., in the House of Commons: “Those who are not to reconsider the prejudice of Trianon are preparing a new European war.” Lloyd George, Prime Minister of the U.K., in his speech on the 7th of October, 1929: “The whole documentation that we received from our allies at the peace talk, was deceitful and untrue. We came to a decision on false principles” Arthur Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of the U.K.: “The result of the Treaty of Trianon in Europe is not peace, but the fear of another war.” André Tardieu, Prime Minister of France for three cycles, in his book titled La paix: “The reason why there couldn’t be a plebiscite held in Upper Hungary torn from the motherland is that in this case Czechoslovakia wouldn’t have been formed due to the non-content of the population” Lord Viscount Rothermere, the publisher and editor in chief of Daily Mail, in his article ‘Hungary’s Place in the Sun’ on the 21st of June, 1927: “I lost two sons in the war. They sacrificed their lives for noble ideas but not so that people would do so unjustly with a glorious nation. There won’t be peace in Europe until the cunning and insensible Treaty of Trianon is revised.” Stanley Baldwin, Prime Minister of the U.K.: “Europe stopped existing on the day of the Treaty of Trianon.” Lord Newton, member of the House of Lords, U.K.: “Except for Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, whole Europe starts to realize the injustices of the Treaty of Trianon. It’s high time to put Hungary’s fate to rights wisely and peacefully.” Lord Sydeman, member of the House of Lords, U.K.: “I was shocked by the fact that the only party, who wasn’t responsible for the World War, could have been treated so cruelly as the consequence of some kind of influence. Maybe the truth will once be revealed.” Herbert Henry Asquith, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for 8 years, 1925: “This treaty is no work of statesmen, but the result of severe and fatal deceptions.”
@@chriswanger284 Lord Viscount Rothermere?! Seriously?! That big fan of Mussolini and Hitler? Before meeting his mistress, Princess Stephanie von Hohenlohe, the man had no idea (as he openly admitted!) that "Budapest and Bucharest are two different cities"... Hohenhole, a beautiful woman known for her charm and greed, had been hired by Hungarian intelligence to win over influential British public figures, and she targeted Rothermere because he was the owner of Daily Mail and Daily Mirror. By the way, you forgot to quote Lenin, he also disliked Trianon Treaty - probably because Bolsheviks had no say in it, and also he was still bitter after Romania's destruction of his brain-child, the Hungarian Republic of Councils....
@@CborgMega YEs, Churchill and the other British politicians were all nazis. Hahaha
@@chriswanger284 Nice try to deflect the criticism, but Cborg Mega is right, Rothermere was pro-Hitler and Mussolini, it was an embarrassment for all his family and close collaborators. And indeed, he took up the cause of Hungarian revisionism just to please his mistress. All the info is public, on internet.
3:17 Both Czechia and Poland wherent "totally new" at all? Both nations had have existed for nearly 1 thousand years?
As independent nations neither had existed as independent for a while at that point
Great Video! Just a small mistake that area at 2:42 is actually Szekely Land. Northen Transylvania is reffered to the part of Transylvania which included Szekely Land 6:08.
That's not an established name. And also there are still 20% Romanians there that have not (yet) been kicked out.
@@gigikontra7023 szőröstalpú ne ugass mindenbe bele , nem vagy istenűnk !!!
@@attilatasciko4817 not yet! But I can become.
I'm looking at Wikipedia and it seems your "Szekely land" includes 40% Romanians... Now they also want a chunk of Bacău and Neamț. So I hope you understand what the problem with them is... When they expel those 40% things will look very differently and very bad...
@@attilatasciko4817 mongol clown take it easy:)
*Edward Crankshaw, The Fall of the House of Habsburg, Viking Press, New York, 1963, pp. 298-299:*
Couldve just made a vote for each city to join/remain in each country and then not consider exclaves and add minority rights laws for all the countries and autonomy to the biggest exclaves
There are minority laws. For example in Romania 20% of the ministers in the government are Hungarians. But only 6% of the population in Hungarian. Thus has been going on for some time. So Romanians are badly discriminated.
@@gigikontra7023 wdym romanians are badly discriminated? I never said that there arent any laws concerning to minorities nowadays, dont know about at the time doe and i was just pointing it out
@@SmashingCapital example: Tanczos Barna, the Romanian minister for environment, who is actually Hungarian, wants to remove burning toxic substances from the environment law (I.e. polluting by burning trash won't be a criminal offense anymore). That would cause extreme pollution in Bucharest due to burning of trash in the suburbs by private companies. Bucharest inhabitants (who faced the problem in the past), oppose this measure. They are 12% of the country's population. He represents only 6% of the population (sparsely inhabited Hungarian region, which would not be affected). He ignores the inhabitants of Bucharest. He does only what he wants. Nobody in Bucharest voted for him! Would you care if a Romanian minister for environment would do the same in Budapest?
@@gigikontra7023 that doesnt mean romanians are oppressed it just means that hes a dumb right wing politician
@@SmashingCapital He is actually left wing over here. Romanian left wing is different than the general Western left wing.
Everything is about population in long term. Folks who can multiplied faster can get a country at least. We can see it in Europe soon again.
*Myra A. Waterbury, "Between State and Nation. Diaspora Politics and Kin-state Nationalism in Hungary", Palgrave Macmillan New York, 2010, page 29:*
*Norman Stone, Hungary: A Short History, Profile Books, London, 2019, p. 94:*
Trianon was against Wilson's self-determination theory, because it was NOT based on democratic plebiscite (general equal&secret ballots). Let's don't forget: Without democratic plebiscites about the borders, there was no demonstrable popular legitimacy/acceptance behind any territorial changes, so it could lead only to arbitrary political decisions (aka. dictate). The decision was made about the people, but without the people in a room behind closed doors. Interestingly, when the Hungarian politicians offered democratic plebiscites about the disputed territories under the control of Western ENTENTE officers in the polling stations, but the Czech, Romanian and Serbian politicians vehemently PROTESTED against the very idea of democratic referendums at the Paris Peace Conference. And why? The Czech politicians didn't trust in Slovaks, because only very few Slovaks joined to the so-called "Czechoslovak"army against the Hungarians in 1919 (and Slovaks represented only 53% ratio in Northern parts of Hungary). Romanian politicians didn't trust in Transylvanian Romanians, perhaps they didn't want to join to the traditionally seriously backward & poor Romania (the ratio of Romanians were only 53% in Transylvania). Serbs were small minority (22% !!!) in Voivodine. Similar to Romania, Serbia was also a very backward Orthodox country without serious urbanization or industrialization. Just imagine how "civilized" were these countries: overwhelming majority of the population of the Kingdom of Romania and Kingdom of Serbia could not read and write in the era of the first WW1. It was not wonder that the US Congress did not sign this anti-democratic dictate. Despite of the much-touted "people's self-determination" idea of the Allied Powers, after World War I only one plebiscite (later known as the Sopron plebiscite in 1921) was allowed concerning disputed borders on the former territory of the Kingdom of Hungary. It settled a small territorial dispute between the First Austrian Republic and the Kingdom of Hungary. During the Sopron-area plebiscite in 1921, the polling stations were supervised by British, French, and Italian army officers of the Allied powers. Please read the article and watch its video en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopron_plebiscite
The maps aren't totally accurate. Austria-Hungary didn't have that much land north of Krakow. And Poland's borders weren't that messy. Meant to be constructive criticism
And the area that's shown with a lighter shade of red as to imply territories with Hungarian majority that was no longer under hungarian rule is just false. It shows all the area inhabited by Hungarians, not those that have a Hungarian Majority. Refering to 5:57 Also seconds after he's talking about that area being more urbanised, developed, etc. when in reality those parts were mostly rural. North Vojvodina and Podravina which got annexed by Kingdom of SHS were almost exclusively rural. And he can't possibly claim that Slovakia was more developed then Czechia at that time.
Justice for Hungary
Been done with Trianon.
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth😂
Rekt
Stop ignoring facts lil bro @@Kalimdor199Menegroth
@@albapatriotproductions1198 Well, transilvania never been romanian before 1920
*A. J. P. Taylor, The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809-1918 : A History of the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary, Hamish Hamilton, London, 1948:* (p.66) (pp. 83-84) (p. 187) (pp. 136-137) (p. 186)
Self determination is interesting until France messes everything up.
Romanians of Transylvania should not have been allowed right of self-determination? Why not?
Why should Slavs and Romanians live under mongol rule?
@Kiss Zoltán 🤓
@Kiss Zoltán mongol is intended to be an insult, also look up Ural-Altaic
@Kiss Zoltán Finns, Estonians, Hungarians and Bulgarians have undeniable oriental roots
*Gyula Andrássy, Diplomacy and the War, J. Bale, London, 1921 (HathiTrust Digital Library, 2010):* (p. 314)
The Turk would have met the same fate if they didn't succeed at their war of independence
I'm hungarian. Thank you for making this video❤
⚖️🧮3 million ethnic Hungarians became citizens of the in Trianon established neighbouring countries. 3million people were one third of the 1920 Hungarian population. Please take the PROPORTION into consideration! 🎲 ⚰️
Aha, so it was better when 4 million Transylvanian Romanians lived in Austro-Hungarian empire?
@@gigikontra7023 You send hungarians into Bukarest to replace it with romanians under Ceaușescu and you know it!
@@gigikontra7023 And that wasn't 4 million in 1920.
@@riveraharper8166 it is false: no Hungarian was "sent" to Bucharest. The standard of living was higher there and some decided to move. That's called freedom of movement, something unheard of un Hungary. In fact Hungary still doesn't understand what freedom of movement is in the European Union. They still don't understand they can move to Transylvania/Romania if they like it so much... 😃
@@gigikontra7023 Lies! Your Ceaușescu was a killer!
*Raymond Pearson, "Hungary. A state truncated, a nation dismembered", in Europe and Ethnicity. The First World War and contemporary ethnic conflict , by Seamus Dunn and T.G.Fraser (editors), Routledge, London&New York, 1996, pp. 89-93:* >
Viva Trianon!
*Oszkar Jászi (1875-1957), The Dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy (The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1929 [1964]):* (pp. 168-169) (page 216) (pp. 334-335) (page 305) (page 320) (pp. 321 - 322)
Hungarian continuing chase of empire and history (something they deny to any other nationalities) was largely the reason. This was pushed by mostly the same ppl who didn't understand that to hold together the so called "greater Hungary" they actually needed the Austrian empire. In other words deluded leadership was the cause for much of the loss.
Their enemies winned the war, this was the only reason, and nothing else.
@@xerxen100 read 1996 treaty between Romania and Hungary
@@gigikontra7023 No need, Romania always broke all traty.
@@xerxen100 Which ones? Examples?
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth All of them.
5:55 wrong orientation of flags
1:20= wrong teaching ! Above our száva [ "sava" ] river , hungarians living there , even today . So called in foreign language : slavonia ! Slovenia and slavonia two different territory ! That spesific inside parts of historical hungary, the numbers should use ! Croatia was more than 800 yrs in personal fusion [ like in swiss kanton ] - self addmitted union to the hungarian kigdom ! So , this , what you see and learn = is fake news ! Etc...
South Slovakia like in the first wienna award. was 88% Hungarians. so now we can speak why Scottish and Irish don't speak their own language!!
Irish here, I'm not too sure why we don't speak Irish, we learn it at school and I and basically everybody else I know mostly see it as a waste of time
@@ryanfarrelly4647 it comes down to prestige. If the upper classes of a country don't originally speak the native language of that country, that language is doomed. English language came with law and administration. Despite legal recognition Irish didn't enjoy social and economic value among Irish elites themselves long before Irish independence.
@@ryanfarrelly4647 Irish and Scottish (and Welsh?) people can't even spean in their own language, but just in English? I didn't know that. I thought they can speak both, and use their own one in their land. Horrible. But it is good bc English is very important and England is very close to them.
Those happened far earlier in Britain("Englishisation") (1300-1700's)than another countries in Europe. French started under Louis XIV (against Languedoc , Breton etc.). In 18th century Joseph II tried to do Germanisation in Habsburg Empire(change Latin to German) but he was unsuccessful in Hungary. Hungarians started "Magyarisation" only from the middle in 19th century when was loo late and minorities were against this.
@@laistvan2 and noone asked during Trianon how come minorities spoke their own language. And what percentage spoke Hungariand etc. Strange..! Isn't it!?
Biggest tragedy in Hungarian history and biggest crime in European history. (Dont forget Hungarian economy was great before that so this is one of the reason they destroyed the country totally)
The economy benefited only a small proportion of the population anyway. Most of the national minorities were economically marginalized. Our situation only improved economically speaking after Trianon, when for example we Romanians, were granted land after 1923, after confiscating from the Hungarian nobility.
Justice for Hungary !
Simple answer: the rest of the country were "hungary" for land
Referendum should have held back in time - for example - Nagyvárad - Oradea - next to the current border was 90% Hungarian. I always Say - not Hitler started the II WW but the Winners of the I WW.
Right, but all the villages surrounding Oradea were Romanians because "inferior race Romanians" were not allowed to live in the city during Hungarian administration.
Ever heard of the Great Assembly in Alba Iulia that voted the secession from Austro-Hungarian empire and the Union with Romania?
@@gigikontra7023 it was not the people. got it? it was just a few politician who decided this. a huge referendum should have been held - and each and every citizen of Transylvania should have been asked whether he wants to live in Hungary or in Romania. this kind of referendum was not held, dont lie man. There were a referendum in Sopron. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopron_plebiscite the same should have been held in Cluj - Brasov - Oradea - Arad - Timisoara.
@@wickedream8989 aha, so those 1200 delegates from each Romanian village and town were "nobody". I understand. Hungarian democracy. Let's organise a referendum în Szeged People's Republic to see if they want to join Romania!
@@gigikontra7023 1200? :D germans were there? Hungarians were there? You think it’s fair? There were 2 million german and Hungarian and 3 million romanians. Go check the borders from 1940 - you think its not fair? And you are right as a lot of romanians were under Hungarian Control. That’s Why a referendum Could have been the Best solution. For example - If moldova would like to join to Romania. I think its not a problem at all. Each and every nation should decide Their future. How they want to live.
*Gabor Vermes, "The October Revolution in Hungary: from Karolyi to Kun", in Ivan Volgyes (editor), HUNGARY IN REVOLUTION. 1918-19. Nine Essays, Univ. of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1971, p. 47:*
The fact that they gave more land for 3 milliob Romanians than 10 million Hungarians is outrageous. Also the cities had most likely Hungarian population (pr German in Transylvanka and Slovakia), not Slovak, Romanian, Serbian or Croatian. They lived in countryside, usually in poor areas. So what's matter? The well educated population, or the farmers who are in majority, but actually don't even care about which country do they live in too much.
COOL video as a Slovakian I like it 👍👌👌👍 :!
Trianon wasn't the harshest peace treaty. It was quite average for the time. Hungary was a fully-involved participant in the war whose national legislature didn't do anything to oppose the war entry, not dragged into by their Austrian overlords at gunpoint. The pace of the peace treaty was set accordingly to many precedents, either the 1814 & 1815 coalition peace against Napoleon, the 1871 Prussia's treaty of Versailles or the 1917 Austro-German treaty of Brest.
Thanks for the vid. It's understandable that a non-Hungarian believe in any Romanian or other propaganda he read, but when somebody says empire-building and other things, a Hungarian would not even understand what he is talking about. These are just usual Romanian ideas about "history". Hungary was never an empire... And Hungary was not an "apartheid" state where Hungarians liked to oppress minorities (only in Hungary had minorities rights in Europe, half of the country didn't even speak Hungarian). For example Slovakians have such strange official "history" that they think Hungary was a totally different state before 1920 and after it, they use different names for them (while they think Hungarians oppressed them before 1920 when Hungary didn't exist).
The French thought of Algeria as an extension of their state. Not a colony too. But that is not how the natives perceived it. Spain thought of their colonies in America as an extension of their state. That turned out to be not true for the people there who developed a local identity over time. Romanians viewed the Hungarian administration as a colonial empire, which it really was. It treated Transylvania just like a colony. Minimal investment, but took all the juice from its natural resources, with which it enriched the Hungarian majority territory. Hungary was an Empire. There is no doubt about that. It is like saying France never had colonies or England never had colonies. It was an Empire, as it conquered territories from other people and those people continued to live in those territories. Hungary was also an apartheid state, as it enshrined legal discrimination between Hungarians and non-Hungarians. Non-Hungarians were discriminated and persecuted in all domains of life, whether politics, the economy, private sector, you name it. As Romanians, we are glad that we got freed from the Hungarian yoke and managed to obtain freedom.
With you, strong is denial, Miss Nagy. To educate yourself, more learning from the wise ones is required, and also less talking. The burden of ignorance, only in this way you will remove - together with the peril of hubris. Yes, hrrrm. :)))) Arthur J. May, _The Habsburg Monarchy 1867-1918,_ Norton Library / Harvard University Press, 1968: > (p. 10) > (Prime-minister Istvan Tisza, in his address to the Budapest parliament, after the victory in the 1910 elections, quoted at p. 440). [p. 449] > (page 484) Geoffrey Wawro, _A Mad Catastrophe. The Outbreak of World War I And The Collapse of the Habsburg Empire,_ Basic Books, New York, 2014: (p. 27) (p. 49) Paul (Pál) Lendvai, _The Hungarians. A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat,_ Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 2003 (p. 383) (p. 387) John Lukacs, _Budapest 1900. A Historical Portrait or a City and Its Culture,_ Grove Press, New York, 1988: (p. 136)
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth But this is just Romanian propaganda. Hungary was for example not an empire, and didn't want to be a great power and such bullshts. Hungary had the similar borders as 1000 years before. Except for the Ottoman and Austrian rule, they changed things. Transylvania, other two parts, than only another part were divided since 1526, and the administration re-united in 1867 after the Compromise. But it was always a Hungarian state as all the other parts (with of course some minorities). So it has no sense that Hungary was an empire or Hungary wanted to be greater etc. Romanians don't care if they say the truth or a lie. Nothing in their "history" is true. Hungarian want to know the truth, not the lie, they don't even need to lie, they were here 1000 years before too, one of the strongest state in the first 5-600 years. Everybody could collect stupid quotes about Romanians, Germans, French, Italiens, etc. Opinions are not facts.
@@timeanagy8495 Nope, it is the truth. Despite not calling itself an empire, it behaved like an empire, since it dominated and oppressed other people which they conquered. It used to be a great power in the past, it all went down centuries ago, and Hungarians thought they could return to the days of old in the 19th and 20th century, only to realize that their time has passed. As long as Hungary came to be due to conquest and it owned territory that belonged to others, it was an empire. This is our view, nothing will change it. Romanians were not treated better than French treating Algerians. There was no difference between how Hungarians treated its minorities, and how the colonial empires treated their colonies. Romanian history is based on reality. Not on some fantasy. It was based on real experience, confirmed by foreign historians. Hungarians know the truth, but because of people like you, blinded by the lies said by your political elite and gentry, you are afraid to embrace it. Because that could lead to a new trauma. Having to come to terms with the fact that you were oppressors and no better than the imperial colonial powers is a hard thing to do. But if you want to move towards a brighter future, you have to come to terms with your past. Of course, for you Hungarians, it doesn't matter when everyone tells you are wrong. You persist in your boneheaded narrow views and then you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth Hungary didn't conquer and oppress people. Avars, Slavs and other people lived here who soon assimilated into the Hungarians. Then we invited the Kumans and other people, many Slavs, Germans, jews and Romanians migrated here later. Only in Romanian "histrory" Hungary was not a great power and didn't even exist before WWI. Hungary was still a state but occupied by the even more powerful Ottoman and Habsburg Empire. But during WWI Hungary was maybe more powerful than Austria. Romanians had a better life in Hungary then in Romania, theere were even more Romanian schools. Only in Hungary existed some minority rights. Romania was much more an oppressor of minorities before and after WWI. So it has of course no sense that Hungary oppressed minorities, and Romania was better. As I know even today Romania oppress Transylvania althought it is 70-80% Romanian and of course especially Szeklerland because it is Magyar. If we were oppressors (100 years ago....), you were Dacians, we were Mongols, it wouldn't cause a trauma for us... But it has no sense and for sure it is not true, Romanian history is surely a big lie. We oppressed Croatia for 800 years and it is not a trauma for us.
For hungarians peace is the most important thing! Thats why they akcepted Trianon and thankful for it . Not war, peace!
I think they tired war and we know how it ended up
@@gigikontra7023 yes, WWI was a very hard war
@@endlessnameless1943 Hungary can try again. See what happens!
@@gigikontra7023 try again? What try again?
@@endlessnameless1943 try again to enslave Romanians. See how that goes
What was infamous about the Austro-Hungarian declaration of war against Serbia. How as Hungary dragged into the war against its wishes, when foreign policy was in the hands of the Emperor of Austria and the King of Hungary? More facts needed and not just speculation.
In WW1 Ausztrian House of Habsburg, Emperor Franz Joseph held all authority over the military structure, was the commander-in-chief of the Hungarian army. The full responsibility for the WW1 rests with the emperor. The most shameful thing is that Austria received territory from Hungary based on the Trianon peace decree. Ridicoulus!!!
Franz Joseph was the Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, hence the KüK title. You complain that a small parts of Hungary was lost to Austria but you seem very happy about the larger portions of land lost to Romania and Ukraine. Also Karl was crowned in Budapest as King of Hungary in 1919, although he never ruled directly. Hungary remained a Monarchy until 1945 when the Regent Horthy was deposed.@@attilasipos2968
*Paul (Pál) Lendvai, The Hungarians. A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 2003:* (page 454-455)
Romania lost the WW1 with record speed, within 3 onths Bucharest was captured. Due to the incompetence of Romanian army, it suffered the highest ratio (33%) of KIA in WW1. After the Hungarian unilaterial self-disarmament of 1.4 Million Honvéd soldiers under liberal PM Count Mihály Károlyi, the timid laughable small armies of Romania Serbia and Czechs attacked Hungary. Learn about it here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian%E2%80%93Romanian_War
Trianon will not be forgotten or forgiven!! 🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺💪💪💪
You are right. Lets celebrite it. Glory to Trianon
@@ejo5336 lol, yep, we’ll celebrate indeed once undone! 😻🥂🍾 Heute oder Morgen, my friend
@@zsolttalloczy5222 Good luck with that.
Hear hear! Cheers for Trianon!
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth yes, lol, luck is needed too…😸
hungarians kept trying to break away from austria and thats fine. but when the minority groups break away from hungary thats bad
There's certainly an element of hypocrisy to it, but Hungarians were hardly unique in that regard.
they didnt break away, they were annexed by their neighbours, thats a difference, or else these breakaway parts from hungary would be independent, no?
@@lordmilchreis1885 yes you are right, they were absorbed into the states ethnically crafted for them
To remedy injustice by injustice is a very poor approach… the statements of the French politicians made it clear that it was even in their minds intended as a punishment…not a constructive solution
Also you omitted to say that Romanian and German communities of Transylvania (>70% of population)voted to join Romania democratically. The Hungarians voted against. So what could be done?
Easy. Split the land by what inhabitants really wanted to.
@@user-gr9fq9gt9w have you had a look at THE MAP !?
You know in the USA politicians change voting district borders to make the results more favorable to them? The 70% vs 30% is a result of a similar cherry-picking of regions. Divide a unified region and add it to other districts to get the majority in every district. So what could be done? Make a reasonable compromise, make logical and ethnic-economic unified regions so most of the population could accept the result.
@@tamaskovacsics2376 I don't think you read my other comment. There were 90% Hungarian cities in Transylvania surrounded by 90% Romanian villages, all because of the apartheid. How do you proceed? Do you let the "city" be part of Hungary and the region around it in Romania?? Stop pretending you don't know what the situation was. This video explains clearly.
@@gigikontra7023 Yes, I know the map by rote, and if the country which I live in right now can sort much much much much more complex borders, so does Hungary and Romania. Not to mention that they are literally both in the EU, and when Romania will join Schengen zone - there would be literally zero complications with that.
03:42 - these nationalities, like Romanians and Serbians were let to settle in Hungary as they were fleeing from the Ottoman rule. Later as the Hungarian population decreased thanks to the Ottoman wars a bigger wave of Romanian and Serbian settlers were settled down. The country itself as it borders were thousand years olds at the time of Trianon. These lost territories still have the Hungarian history in it's castles, churches, graves etc. No man can ever take the 1000 year old Hungarian history from these lands, so it's always be Hungarian land.
Are there any PROOFS of this so called "settlement of Romanians"!? Which year did this occur!?
@@gigikontra7023 If you don't believe in the map, believe in the etymology! Around 75-85% of the settlement's names in Transylvania, Maramaros, Partium and Banat from Hungarian origin. The other 10-15% from German origin. And only 5-10% of Romanian origin, and Slavic. For example. The name of Oradea doesn't mean anything in Romanian. However, the original name (Nagy)Várad means 'little castle' in Hungarian. The Hungarian V-Á sound, which is sounds like WAAH, in Romanian simply just an O or OA like WOAH, but without the W See --> TemesVÁr (Temes + vár - castle at the river of Temes) TimisOAra, Segesvár (Seges + vár - castle at the river of Seges) SigisOAra - Marosvásárhely - originally (Székely)VÁsárhely - it was Osorhei in Romanian for centuries. The city name of Gyulafehérvár which was a Roman settlement of Apulum, was called Balgrad in romanian, which was derived from the slavic settlers of Transylvania who called the city Be(l)(o)grad, (see the capital name of Belgrad) which means white castle in slavic languages. If the Romanians were always there, how come that the ancient Roman cities' names were not preserved in the Romanian language? As the French, Italian, Spanish, Portugese, Catalonian, Occitan city names were preserved? Even the German settlement names were preserved from the Roman time - Colonia Agrippina--> Köln, Vindobona ---> Wien Gyulafehérvár translated from Balgrad into Alba Iulia, when the Hungarian authors thought that the Hungarian Gyula given name's (from turkic origin) latin version is Julius/Iulius or the female version Julia/Iulia. But they were wrong, Gyula/Gyalu/Gelu, Galeou, Gelou has no latin version, its a Turkic given name. Also, how do explain that Romanian language has not too many Turkic or Germanic loanwords, as Transylvania was ruled by the Germanic tribes so by Turkic tribes for centuries? But Romanian has many Slavic loanwords - from southern-slavs, and Albanian loanwords. Romanians migrated from the south side of the Danube to Wallachia, then to Transylvania and Moldavia. The first stone built churches in Transylvania are ROMAN CATHOLIC, not ORTHODOX, as the Christianization was led by the Hungarians, even the first ORTHODOX CHURCH in Gyulafehérvár from 953 during the reign of Géza the chief of Principality of Hungary. It was used by Hierotheos the bishop of Tourkia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitanate_of_Tourkia The oldest orthodox romanian churches are from the 13th century, like the church of Demsus. Hunyad is the first region which was affected by the Romanian immigration, later the Mócföld - Țara Moților, where you can find the most settlement names of Romanian origin, which clearly suggest that these settlements in fact were founded by Romanian settlers, but these settlements only occurs in 13th century sources. So it's pretty doubtful that these settlements did exist beforehand, as the "Erdélyi-középhegység" - Munții Apuseni was uninhabited for decades. Pink colored areas settlements of Hungarian name origin, purple is the Romanian origin one. mek.oszk.hu/04700/04729/html/img/big/01-049.jpg miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*qvpSM0DYE_Ycry1fTvps4A.jpeg Gela
@@matepapp4271 would you care to answer my question or just go ahead and blah blah blah? WHAT YEAR DID THIS SO-CALLED SETTLEMENT OCCUR???
@@matepapp4271 aha so that's why you guys insist on naming foreign places with Hungarian names: in the vain hope of claiming those territories later? 😀😂😂🤣
@@gigikontra7023 Transylvanian settlements are not named by Hungarians after they were founded from a nonhungarian name, but they were founded by Hungarians, with Hungarian names. The majority of Slovakian cities' names are truly of slavic origin, there are few exceptions - Nitra/Nyitra - which is germanic origin - Nitr ahwa - but Trencsén - Trencin - "Besztercebánya - Banska Bystrica" is of slavic origin, as the Transylvanian "Beszterce" Bistrița, and the settlement names in Slovakia are 70% of slavic origin, which truly indicates, that a big slavic population indeed lived there before the Hungarian arrival. Same thing with "Vojvodina", the majority of the names are of Hungarian origin, not Serbian. Oldest churches are ROMAN CATHOLIC, not Orthodox. etc. But cities like Giurgiu - "Gyurgyevó", Târgoviște - Tergovistye, Tirgovics - has nothing to do with Hungarian language, these are of Romanian origin. Except like Chișinău (city of Moldova) which "Kisjenő" as it comes from the name of the Hungarian tribe of "Jenő". But please tell me what "Satu Mare" means. It means great village in romanian. Szatmárnémeti (where német(i) represent the german population), its from a turkic given name Zothmár/Szatmár. The romanian name was Sătmar for centuries. Clearly from the Hungarian form of "Szatmár" And what settlement are you talking about?
Because Hungarians were a minority in their own country and then they lost a war.
It is not true, because according to the 1910 census, the Hungarians were the majority in the old territory of the Hungarian kingdom at 54.5%, and the second largest people were the Romanians, only 16%, and the Slovaks only 10.7%! However, these anti-Hungarian people falsified the data even before Trianon, but then after 1920 they worked with all their might to exterminate and drive away the Hungarians, so they falsified the original archival data en masse and especially the maps that are shown to us today! One of the best examples of these, made public based on serious research by historians and archival data, is that the Romanian propagandists developed maps for the Trianon negotiations, where the huge uninhabited areas in the mountains of Transylvania were written or painted as Romanian, as if hundreds of thousands of Romanians lived there. where, in fact, there have always been only uninhabited areas! But all this was not enough for them, because those areas where 20-30% Hungarians still lived were also registered as 100% Romanian, and from the data it can be seen that at the beginning of the 19th century even 50-60% of this territories were Hungarian, and thus entire Transylvanian counties were put on the map as if only Romanians had always lived there! Well, this is the original quality of the Romanian people, they are the most professional people in the world in plagiarism and all kinds of forgeries, because even today Romania is famous all over the world for its numerous plagiarism scandals!
@@Arpoxais1Ateas2lol, lies🤣
You can see in the comments how insane Hungary's neighbours are. This treaty was the best thing... The Mongol Hungarians oppressed others for 1000 years... These lands were just occupied by Hungary... Hungarians were minority everywhere... These lands were liberated from Hungary... In fact all Hungary should be Slovakia, Romania or Serbia... They don't care that Serbians were a little minority in the southern part and it was never part of Serbia before, or Slovakians didnt even exist in the 10th century, and Dacians died out 1000 years before the first Romanians/Vlachs (just the Gepids and the Avars lived 300-300 years in Transylvania).
The most beautiful treaty or all time
im a romanian hungarian aswell this is the biggest natinal tragedy for us
on the other hand it is celebrated in surrounding countries, trianon is a national holiday there
National tragedy: losing access to 5 million Transylvanian Romanian workers with no voting rights. Ok... I can relate
@@gigikontra7023 fcktard racist
@@1dani491 He is not racist, he just hate the hungarians from the bottom of his heart.
@@xerxen100 well then he is a f tard
For Romanians in Transylvania was a liberation from Austro Hungarian empire! There is a majority of Romanians in Transylvania and it was voted by a huge majority, back then, to unite with Romania! So please, do not say that Transylvania ever belonged to Hungary! It was a province ran by Hungarian using Romanian as laboroers! Again, for majority Romanians was a good thing!
I am quoting from the data published for about two years abroad, translated from the archaeogenetic results and population genetics of researchers from the Research Institute of Hungary: "The ancestors of the Hungarians living today have been continuously present in the Carpathian Basin for thousands of years - this has was highlighted by recently published research that used a new method to examine the genetics of the peoples who lived in the region today and in the past. During the research work, a new database was created, which contains the data of 16,000 mitochondrial genomes of 172 ancient and living populations. Their login system was mapped using artificial intelligence. The method was used to examine past and present Hungarian populations in the Carpathian Basin and found that the majority of Hungarians today are descended from a Copper Age (4500 BC - 2800 BC) and Bronze Age (2800 BC - 700 BC)." The results of the archaeogeneticists clearly showed that today's Hungarians mostly come from the population of the large cemeteries of the Szeklers and Ungars, who were wrongly called "Avars" and "Onogurs", for that it has been proven with clear data that they spoke an archaic Hungarian language, called by the Lindvists Old-Hungarian! But the Romanians, on the other hand, who were everywhere called Vlachs until the 18th century, are the late migrants, almost at the same time as the Roma - gypsies in Transylvania and the Kingdom of Hungary! There are data from the real archives in Vienna and Hungary, where it is clearly shown that the Vlachs were from the 13th century always in the minority until the second half of the 18th century! The Romanians became the majority only between the years 1740 and 1780, the period in which hundreds of thousands of Wallachians migrated from the Wallachian voivodeships, mainly because of poverty and the oppression of the Phanariot rulers! There are clear records of the first Wallachian Cneazi settled in Transylvania starting from 1210 when the king of Hungary gave a decree that they should be settled on the royal lands of Hungary! Pope Gregory IX. sent a letter to Prince Béla IV. of Hungary, asking him "in the name of God" to grant asylum to "those poor Wallachian refugees" who wanted to escape the harsh rule of the Cumans! The Hungarians listened and granted asylum to the Vlachs, and the first three groups of Vlach immigrants entered Transylvania from the south and were settled, under their own leaders, in the districts of Fogaras - Făgăraș, Hunyad- Huniad and Bánság - Banat, on mountain pastures specially designated, named in royal documents as "Silva Vlachorum", Vlach Forest. These Vlach immigrants, who received asylum in the Kingdom of Hungary, and others who followed later, became the ancestors of the Transylvanian Romanians. They were officially called Vlachs, from which the Hungarian name Olah and the German name Valah derived, unlike Rumelians and later Romanians who did not enter the Western cultural circle but remained east and south of the Carpathians under Byzantine and later Slavic influence" finally evolving in the late 19th century in Romania. In the dates of 1247, the new Vlach refugees obtained permission to enter the districts of Hátszeg - Haţeg and Máramaros - Maramureş in Transylvania. The majority of Romanians are so brainwashed with the anti-Hungarian propaganda history, not even 10% of which is true, that since they don't know Hungarian, they don't even know that these names are all ancient Hungarian names that can only be interpreted in Hungarian, such as Fogaras, which is from the Hungarian words fog - tooth, which are thousands of years old, or Hátszeg, which again consists of the ancient Hungarian words hát - back and szeg - nail, and Transylvania is full of such ancient Hungarian names that mean nothing in Romanian! In 1253 Guillaume Rubruquis" the French envoy to Bulgaria described Aszen's empire as "from the Danube to Constantinople, including Wallachia in the Lower Balkan Mountains." Therefore, Wallachia still existed in the Balkans at that time, but under Bulgarian rule , while those Vlachs who tried to move north crossing the Danube fell under the control of the Cumans. In 1290 three Hungarian landowners from the Transylvanian districts of Hunyad and Fehér received permission from King Andras III to bring some workers. Vlachs "from the south of the mountains". In 1291 the assembly of Gyulafehervár - Alba Iulia recognized the Transylvanian Vlachs as a "nation" with equal rights to the other member nations under the Holy Hungarian Crown! In 1358 Mark, a Hungarian royal archivist wrote in his chronicles about Transylvania: "it is the richest part of the Kingdom of Hungary" where "Hungarian and Saxon (German) cities flourish with industry and trade, while the fertile lands of Hungarian farmers produce wines very good, fat cattle, and plenty of grain for bread. High in the mountains, where Vlach shepherds tend their sheep and take tasty cheeses to the markets." Therefore, according to all the real data, linguists specializing in toponyms agree that there are no names of settlements or geographical names of Wallachian - Romanian origin before the 13th century in the Kingdom of Hungary, which included the entire Carpathian Basin! The conclusion of established historians and linguists is that a larger population that settled somewhere for at least a century, had to leave traces of the names of settlements, rivers - streams - mountains and valleys somewhere! Very few peoples have given names of localities and geographical names as logical, with meaning, as the Szeklers and Hungarians did. The Regestrum Varadense of the Hungarian Kingdom contains about 711 names of localities and about 2500 names of people, registered between the years 1205 and 1238. No names or names of localities have Romanian origin in this register! This is the only way to explain the fact that the Romanians, who were lied to that they had Dacian and Roman ancestors, did not build any cities or castles in Transylvania, nor in Banat or Crişana! What's more, the Romanian word city comes from the ancient Hungarian word város, which has been used by Hungarians for over 2000 years! Likewise, in the history of Transylvania, from all the medieval archives at the end of the 13th century, we find only 3 names of localities out of 511 that had Romanian origins! Is it still not quite clear to you that Romanians began to settle in Transylvania only in the 13th century?! But the cemeteries of the Vlachs or Daco-Romans were not found anywhere in archeology, such as, for example, the famous cemeteries of the Hungarians, which are full of the Carpathian basin and Transylvania as well! This is the only logical and infallible explanation for it why no river or stream in Erdőelve - Transylvania, Bánság - Banat, Körösvidék - Crisana and Máramaros - Maramureş has names with Romanian origins, but most of them are clearly from the Hungarian or proto-Hungarian language!
The fact that Hungary is smaller than it should be based on ethnical composition of the population has nothing to do with anything said in this video. All you need to do is taking a look at some of the major railways, which were pretty close to the post-Trianon borders but ended up on the side of Czechoslovakia, Romania and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. This is very much connected to the last few seconds of this video (shame that you did not explain it to a similar extent than the ethnic and political problems in the rest of the video). Wilson's ideas were taken into account only as a general principle but in the end economic principles decided where the borders were drawn.
Yes, it's a shame Hungary didn't pay war reparations for its invasion.
@@gigikontra7023 because you guys stole everything on the way and at Budapest? you didn't really thinked that trough did you?
@@cpt.brexit6392 You guys also stole everything during the 2-year occupation of Romania.
hungary, the only country surrounded by itself
What about Mongolia?
That's not north Transylvania no matter how you look at that map, idk why you kept repeating it xd.
That's the name of the region, I didn't choose it, and I'm afraid you have to deal with it.
@@LookBackHistory It's literally not tho, where did you read that? That's called Szeklerland and it's clearly not in the north of Transylvania.
@@OldLemne i think it's just called Romania, because Romanians also live there. Specifically Harghita and Covasna. They are indeed not northern Transylvania, but if Hungarians want to call it this way fine. They used to call the entire Romania, Eastern Hungary, so nothing surprises me anymore
@@OldLemne Eastern Hungary is correct, learn history, not just vlach humbugs. The land of the Holy crown of Hungary
@@GM-os6fowe can also phrase it this way: Pannonia belonged to the Roman empire, Romanians are the heirs of the Roman empire, so Hungary belongs to Romania. Don't forget: Romania was Christian 800 years before Hungary, so had more rights (according to your narrative).
nitpick, "communist government" is an oxymoron
In theory, certainly. But not in practice.
@@LookBackHistory If it has a government then communism isnt in practice
@@ash3972 Communism has never been tried because it failed. Giving the government power over the economy will always fail.
3:38 don't show this to hungarian nationalists
treaty of trianon was a great masterpiece
Shut up nobody cares about your opinion
A real art🎨
agreed >3
Ur mom
@@BalazshorvathYT lol triggered
So France is to blame for WW2.
France invaded Yugoslavia ??
@@gigikontra7023 No. France wrote a peace treaty that did not reflect the balance of power so it had to be overturned by war.
@@gunarsmiezis9321 well, if the treaty had been in line with the balance of power, that would mean half of Hungary would have been part of Romania... And Budapest would be a Romanian city called Budăpești.
@@gigikontra7023 The balance of power between The Antante/The Allies and The Central Powers/The Axis Powers.
@@gunarsmiezis9321 axis powers in WW1? What are you talking about? You're clueless!
When you say "no country was punished more harshly than Hungary"...I would think Germany was punished even more (thus ironically being the cause of World War 2), but maybe you mean Hungary wasn't deserving the punishment they got in proportion to their sins during the war.
What are you smoking? Heroine or Coco? Germany lost only 13% of its territory, Hungary lost 71%. Hude difference.
@@chriswanger284 Oh you mean the AustroHungarian empire, sure.
@@chriswanger284 If you count the Germany colonies Germany lost much more than 13%. Also Hungary needs to get over it as it’s been a good 100 years.
@@MichaelSidneyTimpson No? The hungarian kingdom was big and the trianon took away 71 % of the the kingdom,it wasnt including the astro hungarian monarchy
@@graceneilitz7661 Thoose are colonies,that was never german or anything else,and thoose lands were hungarians for 1000 years,its a big diffrence
Generally fair video. But imagine if the Allied powers had done what the Hungarians asked, namely asked what the people wanted? You know, plebiscites, referenda. Now there's a radical idea!!
GREAT MAGYAR REVERSE THIS UNFAIR TREATY JUSTICE FOR HUNGARY 🇭🇺
Justice has been done with Trianon.
im now a triggered hungarian
Lesz még Erdély Magyarországé!
Transylvania is Romanian
@@hriscubogdan2292 erdély soha nem volt román, nem is lesz az, hiába szálljátok meg
@@kristofurbancsok255 Too bad you will never get it back 🙂
@@kristofurbancsok255 Pestbudin is Slovak
freemaison
Justice for Hungary! ❤
lol
@@cypher221 Don't forget the revizion or cauescu ;)
@@cypher221when you realise, it was against the socialists, not hungary
Justice has been done with Trianon! ❤
3rd like 1st Comment
It was fair
Shush, dear Ethiopian. The Hungarians and Romanians are fighting again.
@@khronostheavenger8923 finally some chaos
Not to fuel any further pissing contest here, just wish to clarify that I will never believe that Trianon was any acceptable or just peace treaty in order to stabilize the region. It was a collection of dictated terms intended to punish severely the losers. Hence, planted the seeds of WW2, Yugoslavia war, fall of Czechoslovakia etc.. and what goes around, comes around. I respect different opinions and patriotism of others…everyone for his own as long as we can
Hi! Romanian here. And these are just some thoughts from the other side of the barricade :)))) Starting a war, or participating in one, always comes with a risk. This happened to many countries and empires, along history. Nothing new happened at Trianon. Second, Trianon was not the historical pivot that some people think, as it was the German revisionism, not the Hungarian one, that started the WW2. As for the Yugoslavian war, or the Czechoslovakia collapse, those events have an even more remote connection (if any!) with the Trianon Treaty. But in 1914, the Kingdom of Hungary was already on the way to lose another war, inside its borders: the one between Magyars and the other citizens of the country - Romanians, Slovaks, Serbs, Croats, etc.. This conflict was started by Magyars in 1948, when Kossuth's generation said to the Serbs "the sword shall decide between us" , described Croatia as "not enough for a single meal" and called the Romanians "the soul of the conspiracy against Hungary." The reason for these harsh words was simple: freedom was seen as good for Magyars, but not for others. After the collapse of the 1848 Magyar Revolution, the Magyars choose to go on the path of Magyarization, lead by a long list of Budapest politicians, up to Tisza and Apponyi. These politicians enjoyed the support of the Magyar gentry and commoners, because this is the way nationalism works. Also, nationalism is always encouraged by defeat, much more than by victory. That's why I am never surprised that many Magyars do not accept, even today, the decision taken at Trianon. The only thing they need to keep in mind is that we, Romanians, will never accept anything less, as we never accepted Magyarization. Indeed, what goes around, comes around - and Magyars, unfortunately for them, had almost a century at their disposition to reach a compromise with the other half of the population in the Kingdom. But they didn't. And when the war started, the future of the A-H Empire, and with it, the one of the Hungarian Kingdom, was sealed. When decent guys like Mihaly Karolyi and Oszkar Jaszi tried to mend the relations with the other peoples of the Kingdom, the answer they've got was „Teljes szakítás”. "A complete separation". The rest is history. [edited for typos 😄]
Hungary was not an empire!
Although the video makes some good points, there are also quite some inaccuracies or mindless take-over of propaganda in it. I believe that these overall paint a completely inaccurate narrative. For example, a key factor was not mentioned: the allied powers made big promises to a variety of countries to convince them to join the war. Some of these promises related to integral parts of the Kingdom of Hungary. The narrator makes the statement that more than half of the population did not want to be Hungarian (citizens). This seems to be a bit of a jump because there is no direct evidence for it. This also leads to the problem that the notion of self-government seemed to have been a pretense for creating new borders and not an actual motivation. This is evidenced, for example, by creating new multi-ethnic empires despite clear discontent from large groups of its citizens. For example, most Hungarians, Rusins and some Slovakians were upset with the new state of Czechoslovakia. The narrator also claims that the treaty did its job well. I don't see much evidence to substantiate this; however, I see plenty to the contrary. See for example the bloody disintegration of Yugoslavia in the '90s. Some elements of propaganda also appear here; the narrator speaks of centuries of subjugation, but it is not clear what subjugation and liberation it refers to? Both ethnic and religious minorities could have their own institutions and most of the ancestors of the nationalities immigrated to the Kingdom of Hungary (see Mongol and Turkish invasions, religious persecution, etc.). The arguments for "liberation" could stand for the Croatian and the Slovak minorities; however, they seemed to have ended up in a similar or even more subjugated situation. Another perspective on the effect of the treaty would be economic or social outcomes. The treaty resulted in a huge migration and a big step back in the economic situation of the region. Furthermore, the new situation also limited future economic growth of the region. Finally, the ethnic cleansing taking place in this region are also potential indirect consequences of this treaty. The narrator also states that the argument "that Trianon was a fundamentally flawed or unjust exercise is only really true if you believe in the righteousness of Hungarian empire-building." This also seems to be highly problematic. It refers to empire building, though the narrator does not note that actually multiple new mini-empires were created primarily by two huge colonizing empires (France and the United Kingdom) at the treaty of Trianon. So, you could say that the Trianon-treaty was justified primarily from the perspective of imperialism from the side of the French, Yugoslavian Kingdom, etc. The potential main motive was to honor the promises made during WWI and to build-up a loyal coalition (to France) in the region. Evidence suggests that this treaty led to a large degree of suffering and misery in the region not just for Hungarians but also for people belonging to other nationalities. The EU could serve as an institution to correct for some of these issues that still pertain; however, the first step would be admitting that something went horribly wrong.
Good points
@@PufikaHUN bs! A lot of talk for nothing. In Transylvania, Romanian and Germans of Transylvania voted to secede and unite with Romania. The vote took place in Alba Iulia în 1918. These represented over 70% of the population of Transylvania.
@@gigikontra7023 Jesus you are literally under every comment like a leech. Noone cares about your propaganda. And you could be happy because my last comment for you was deleted. But basically I was talking about your lack of intellectual capabilities.
@@1dani491 so if the vote in Alba Iulia was not supported by the population, why were there no huge protests against the reunification with Romania 😃?? Let's hear!
@@gigikontra7023 First of all: No protest=/= something is supported. Especially under communism. Second of all: I was talking about you and your "comment to everywhere even though I have nothing to say" style and not about history, sorry if I wasn't clear enough.
Given that Hungarians didn't want to give non Hungarians more autonomy one could argue they're contributed to the start of WWI
Totally true! This was business left unfinished after 1848 revolution. Edit: 1848 not 1858
Autonomy, but why? 100 years ago both Romania and Serbia had huge hungarian minority, and they just forcibly assimilate them, nowadays nobody no speak hungarian in Moldova region, or Macva region.
@@xerxen100 Hungarians in Moldova were refugees from Szekelyland. They emigrated there starting from the 18th century during the Habsburg persecutions. These are well documented facts. Naturally, these people assimilated into the Romanian population over time.
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth Those Habsburg deportations mainly settle the Seklers to Bucovina, but Kishinev and some other regions was old Hungarian villages, and the some remainer peoples who still speak hungarian, speak a 1000 years old Hungarian, not what the Seklers, or the others speak.
@@xerxen100 I am not talking about deportation, but the migration of Szekely during the 18th century as refugees to Moldova during the Habsburg persecution. Most of the so-called Csango community is made up of people who sought refuge in Moldova back then. I am not talking about the deportations to Bukovina, which happened later on. Chisnau is not an old Hungarian village. It was founded in 1436, long before any Hungarian remained there as a monastery village. Its name comes from the archaic Romanian word chișla, meaning spring, and noua, meaning new (new spring).
Masaryk and Beneš were much better with propaganda then the Hungarians, so Britain and France let them redraw the map . lol
Yes, they sease the opportunity, and they have luck on their side. But I would care less. I'm reading the comments here, and it's always the same. Kindergarten of the Eastern Europeans at its best 😂. I'm Hungarian we have been here first! No, we Slovaks, we have been here first! No, we Romanians, we have been here first 😂.
Transilvania is hungary 🇷🇺🤝🇭🇺
just an obsession of yours...nobody in the world accepts that stolen goods be kept by the thief
@@user-xd1yq4bq9q true, thats why Romania should give back transilvania to hungary
@@hookplay7229 Hungary was the thief
Hey guys I know this video is not only about Transylvania, but it would have been such a fun thing, if Transylvania became it's own country. I mean, it's territory would be a lot less controversial, hopefully it would have become a nation with 3 main language (romanian, hungarian and german). I really believe that hungarians, romanian, swabians, székelys could have lived together in peace in such a country. And it's really not about where belonged this land first.
Why is it controversial that Transylvania is part of Romania? It has 80% Romanian population after all! Where is this controversial? How about "Republic of Moldova" with same flag, language, currency, laws and institutions as Romania? Is that not controversial? If Romania renamed itself "Republic of Hungary" and tried to access real Hungarian land, would that not be controversial?
Actually, we can make HUNGARY a multinational country. We would all like to live there. But not sure Orban accepts "rece mixing" 🤣😂🤣
@@gigikontra7023 Yes, you filthy vlachs always wanted to live in Hungary, as shitty Wallachia and Moldavia was not really your cup of tea. That's how Transylvania was overrun by the Romanians since the 12th century
@@matepapp4271 "filthy Vlachs" !? That's how you call your allies, the Romanians?
Yes, no rights for the Gypsies! Glory to Transylvania free of Gypsies!
Again about this Turks magyars tribes!
We magyars , we are not türkik race in anyway ! Just like egyptians are not arabs .
@@attilatasciko4817 If you are not Turkish, it means you are not magyars. Magyars are a Turkic nation.Magyars have always been called Turks, even on the crown of Hungary it says: Geza I, king of the Turks. Now, what we call Magyars are Magyarized Romanians, Germans and Slavs, naturally there is no longer, after 1000 years, any connection with the Turkish Magyar tribes. So you are Romanian, German or Slav, or you are Turk.
@@philodacus5077 The Magyars originate from the Uralic mountains, after fleeing from the Pechenegs which hunted them they went west, to the carpathian basin. the Hungarians are more related to the Finnish and Estonian people than to any Turkic tribes, nowadays the Turkish have influenced Hungary, yes, but only after 200 years of Turkish rule
@@lordmilchreis1885 No one ever mentioned any kinship or similarity with the Finns, only that the Magyar language and Finnish would be part of the Finno-Ugric language group, but throughout history Hungary was called Turkey in old maps, Magyars were called Turks in chronicles, on the crown of Hungary it says: Geza I, king of the Turks, and Hungary is part of the Turkish alliance of Turkish countries. Then the connection with the Finns is in contradiction with the connection with the Huns, so it is only a matter of language, although a Finn does not understand anything that a Magyar says and vice versa. Yes, the Magyars began their migration to Europe from the Ural Mountains, but the primary starting point was Mongolia, right now Mongolian and Hungarian archaeologists are doing archaeological excavations in Mongolia to identify the exact place of departure of this Turkic tribe. In the future, when you write something, study and read some history books and stop looking into the mouth full of idiotic propaganda.
@@philodacus5077 How about you say stuff that actually makes sense, because most of what you said does not. If Hungarians originate in Mongolia, then how are they Turkish? If our language is most similar to Finnish and Estonian, shouldn't it imply that the language, and thus the people who used that language also started out together: That being in or around the Ural mountains? The only connection Hungarians have with the Turkish is 1: when they were migrating from the Urals, they came across distant Turkish relatives around the Caucasus and 2: when most of Hungary was occupied by the Turkish starting in 1526 and lasting about 200 years, being influenced by their language. The language's history is the history of the people that use it
Furt sa jebú v histórii, kokoti 🤣🤣🤣
"Misinformation will be removed" What's that and who qualifies it? A youtuber?
My channel, my rules.
@@LookBackHistory now you're talking.
@@Pltlght2571 first, the Hungarian misinformation about Romanians coming from India or Albania should be removed!
@@Pltlght2571 do you have PROOF that Romanians come from Albania or India?
@@Pltlght2571 my usual question: if Hungarians are so desperately trying to annex Transylvania, why don't they just move there individually? As EU citizens, nobody could stop them. In reality, Hungarians don't want to live there. They only need the gas, coal and wood from Transylvania... That's all! Colonial exploitation!
1:19 min...Rutherians are actually Romanians...The name come from river Prut that its in Moldova. So Prutens became Rutens . Actually you can find many Romanians that lost their ties with Romania. Aromanians , MegloRomanians , IstroRomanians , morlaci etc. We have a Romanian group that named themselves Radio Bucharest. They live in Eastern Ukraine and someone brought a radio. Between different channels they found one in their language. From time to time it said "Here its Radio Bucharest" . Oh, they said...that must be the country from where we came .
Fortunatelly, historians don't share your childish nationlist fantasy. Learn: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusyns
Ruthenians is an archaic name for all Ukrainians since the times of Rus' (Ruthenia). Since the 17th century the name Ukrainian started to gradually replace Ruthenian, peaking in the end of 19th and beginning of 20th century when Ukrainian People's Republic and Western UPR were created on the ashes of Russian and AH empires. Since some Ruthenians were left outside the borders of the newly formed Ukrainian People's Republic, there wasn't a political debate in neighbouring countries (Slovakia, Hungary, Romania) to adhere to the new naming consensus among Ruthenians/Ukrainians. So there are still Ruthenians in these countries, that have the same ethnic origin as all Ukrainians, speak almost the same language but who politically do not associate themselves with Ukraine because they were born abroad and have no connections inside Ukraine due to the extreme isolation of Ukraine under the communist rule in 20th century.
@@large_hadron_collider Actually , Ukraine name comes from slavic na krayu (на краю) and Ukraine its not country or not even an ethnic group. Its an artificial construction of Lenin as a buffer between west and east. To what name its more close name Ruthenia? To Prutean (river Prut) or Ukrainian? Its in the name. But mystification and bias of history its hard to deconstruct. And by the way...Rus comes from Viking word for blonde
@@jozsefsandor671 If you quote from wikipedia u are dismiss . Wikipedia write about Alexander the Great (Alexander III of Macedon) as been Greek. Get it? A Macedonian its Greek. And Queen Tomyris as been Persian . This Wiki its totally BS. Its based on early German historians who got almost everything wrong and they were bias AF. But , like a sheep that you are , take everything as truth...no matter how big its the lie. What you gonna say next? That Hungarians lived in Europe 3000 yrs? Right?
@@gabyradu8266 "Країна" means "country" in Ukrainian. "Україна" means literally "in country" or inner country, homeland. You just retranslated a very primitive moscowian propaganda. Although, I must admit, the fairy tale about the Prut river is definitely a novelty in the sphere of alternative history. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenia Quote: "Ruthenia is an exonym, originally used in Medieval Latin, as one of several terms for Kyivan Rus'. It is also used to refer to the East Slavic and Eastern Orthodox regions of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland, and later the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, corresponding to what is now Belarus and Ukraine."