Romania is not a country...
France - Romania would be great, at least one of them fall. ;D
(http://www.progenealogists.com/hungary/images/oldhung.jpg)
you got your justice already...
It's not the same... :D
Zak is right, let's stop thinking of the past when we weren't even born and let's focus on European future. ;)
In black: Greater Denmark
When Denmark possessed so "many" colonies ? XIXth century ?
I want Hungary as a part of Greater Denmark! And a stable and effective seafood distribution system!
Quote from: zaqrack on December 11, 2007, 05:00:23 PM
I want Hungary as a part of Greater Denmark! And a stable and effective seafood distribution system!
Traitor...
Germany turned to lazy to get Angola in quarter-finals. Shame on them, dirty tactical B I T C H E S !!!
France vs Romania = France vs East-France/gipsy-France.
(because of their language and their love to France)
Quote from: Krys TOFF on December 11, 2007, 04:11:27 PM
When Denmark possessed so "many" colonies ? XIXth century ?
We never had it all at the same time, but who care about that? It was still stolen from us!
By the way I forgot to paint about one third of England black, and Newfoundland, which was discovered by the danish explorer Leif Eriksson.
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on December 11, 2007, 09:57:59 PM
Quote from: Krys TOFF on December 11, 2007, 04:11:27 PM
When Denmark possessed so "many" colonies ? XIXth century ?
We never had it all at the same time, but who care about that? It was still stolen from us!
By the way I forgot to paint about one third of England black, and Newfoundland, which was discovered by the danish explorer Leif Eriksson.
OK, then here is an animated map showing the evolutions of French colonial empire and a full map considereing these "possessions" alltogether (light blue = "old colonies", dark blue = "new colonies").
More details :
http://www.peti.pl/wiki/Evolution_of_the_French_Empire
http://www.peti.pl/wiki/French_colonial_empires
Quote from: Krys TOFF on December 12, 2007, 08:42:16 AM
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on December 11, 2007, 09:57:59 PM
Quote from: Krys TOFF on December 11, 2007, 04:11:27 PM
When Denmark possessed so "many" colonies ? XIXth century ?
We never had it all at the same time, but who care about that? It was still stolen from us!
By the way I forgot to paint about one third of England black, and Newfoundland, which was discovered by the danish explorer Leif Eriksson.
OK, then here is an animated map showing the evolutions of French colonial empire and a full map considereing these "possessions" alltogether (light blue = "old colonies", dark blue = "new colonies").
More details :
http://www.peti.pl/wiki/Evolution_of_the_French_Empire
http://www.peti.pl/wiki/French_colonial_empires
Nice map :) You definitely own all those places.
Difference: the parts shown in Great Hungary map weren't provinces/colonies but organic parts of Hungary. Like Normandie in France.
These messages should be moved to another topic...
why??? Slovakia extra why??? You may also state Austria is an organic part of Germany :-S
Slovakia extra? Check the map, it was the border. Not the whole country of Slovakia, but almost.
Krys and BJ, you are very stupid. Does those French colonial realms were ever inhabited by native French people? The opposite is true, the niggers and arabians and all kind of people came to France to live there (the French football team shows the true - they even don't sing the anthem). On the other hand, in Transylvania, we can find large areas inhabited by true native Hungarians, living there since long long centuries, but the French took it away from us, because in their opinion, we were sinners in the World War (like them, but they won the War, unlike us). Slovakia never existed, only the modern history created it in 1993. Romania - this name was only referred to as the areas east from the Carpathian mountains during the history. What would you think if somebody said the whole French Alps would belong to Italy from tomorrow? I don't think you'd agree, although in 1920, Hungary had to accept a way bigger percentage loss of our area. I'm finishing now, because I'm getting more and more angry when I'm thinking about the injustice of history.
OI!
You talk about all those collonized lands that were taken away from you. (Btw, I thik USSR lost many more lands that anyone else, but who cares, no Russians here). Has it ever crossed your minds that those 'lands' belonged to someone else before you coollonized them and take them away from Sioux, Iroquois, Aztecs, Mayas, Comanches, Caribs, Onas, Tehuelches, Amazons and so many tribes? I don't think so, because you are the 'inocent colloners' who discover new lands that later were 'unfairly' taken away from you! That's a stupid thinking. How did Europeans feel when they where invaded by Nazi-Fascist forces in WWII? Probably the same those tribes felt when they were collonized...
Quote from: Akoss PooKrys and BJ, you are very stupid.
Hey, that was a joke by BJ and I. Don't get nervous buddy.
Quote from: Akoss PooDoes those French colonial realms were ever inhabited by native French people?
Not everywhere, but in some areas there was French people. Lots of.
Examples :
- all "cajuns" in the USA are grand-grand-...-grand-children of French people.
- half of the people coming in the 60's from Algeria had metropolitan-French ancestors.
- lots of French people lived in Djibouti, Lebanon and Ivory Coast.
- Quebec (now part of Canada) still speaks French due to the former presence of a lot of French people there.
But I agree that some other countries never were full of French people : only a few French (compared to the local population) lived in most of African colonies or in "Indochine" (now divided into Tha?land, Vietnam, ...).
Anyway, colonies were made only to make original European country richer. Local natives were treated as slaves more than once, and it's a good thing they all got their freedom. Sadly, some of them were (and some still are like Syria for example) unable to manage it and became slaves of dictators once liberated from French domination.
Quote from: Chulk on December 12, 2007, 07:16:21 PM
Probably the same those tribes felt when they were collonized...
Exactly! You can never draw a line. It's like the egg and the chicken. half Europe, including half Hungary can be claimed back anytime by the Italians (Romans), and half the World by the Vikings on the same basis as some people these days long for the lost territories.
The only real basis for such demands could be the language spoken (which I also disagree with), as in Hungary's case:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Dist_of_hu_lang_europe.png)
Quote from: zaqrack on December 12, 2007, 08:36:06 PM
The only real basis for such demands could be the language spoken (which I also disagree with)
Thanks God you disagree! Otherwise, manslaughting and entire native population, settling there and then have your language spoken would be a real basis to claim for a territory!
Zak: this is the CURRENT situation on your map. There was almost everywhere a Hungarian majority in 1920 when we lost them. (maybe you had an ultra-liberal history teacher or you just don't understand history) After that most of these countries tried to "clean" the population with deportation, forced mixed-marriages and decreased law for Hungarians. That's why the ratio went down in a dramatic way.
Chulk: we did not collonize anything. THESE AREA WAS ORGANIC PART OF THE COUNTRY. Like the district of Cordoba in Argentina.
I know, I was talking about Hungary (corrected) France or Denmark. Also Poland, Ukraine, Belarus and many others were an organic part of USSR. BTW, Cordoba is a province, not a district.
Quote from: Chulk on December 12, 2007, 09:23:37 PM
I know, I was talking about Hungay
I hope you meant France, for your safety... :D
Quote from: Duplode on December 12, 2007, 09:38:24 PM
Quote from: Chulk on December 12, 2007, 09:23:37 PM
I know, I was talking about Hungay
I hope you meant France, for your safety... :D
Yes, I meant France (before CTG gets mad at me) I'll correct it now.
Quote from: CTG on December 12, 2007, 09:19:13 PM
(maybe you had an ultra-liberal history teacher or you just don't understand history)
I had a history teacher who was hitting on my girlfriend. So basically I don't care about history, except XXth century, which interests me. I just hate all the nationalist crap. It's dangerous, it's useless and its outdated.
Argh, I wrote a big post and it didn't get posted. Anyway: Chulk: don't be angry I wasn't serious, I know the colonies don't "belong" to us. But would you suggest to rid South America of spanish and introduce mayan/tupi/inca?
Akoss: if there are areas outside Hungary with a mainly Hungarian population, that actually want to be Hungarian, they should be allowed to decide so by vote. Just like in Denmark/Germany in 1920.
(btw about Denmark: southern (present day) Sweden and Northern (present day) Germany were originally Danish. When the Swedish areas were taken away, they did have a mainly danish population. The Germany issue was solved democratically, as I said)
Quote from: zaqrack on December 12, 2007, 10:25:56 PM
Quote from: CTG on December 12, 2007, 09:19:13 PM
(maybe you had an ultra-liberal history teacher or you just don't understand history)
I had a history teacher who was hitting on my girlfriend. So basically I don't care about history, except XXth century, which interests me. I just hate all the nationalist crap. It's dangerous, it's useless and its outdated.
I don't think it would be useless if everyone recognized the other's right to be in that place. Imagine if governments helped native tribes of Africa instead of just taking their diamonds away...
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on December 12, 2007, 10:39:18 PM
Argh, I wrote a big post and it didn't get posted. Anyway: Chulk: don't be angry I wasn't serious, I know the colonies don't "belong" to us. But would you suggest to rid South America of spanish and introduce mayan/tupi/inca?
Akoss: if there are areas outside Hungary with a mainly Hungarian population, that actually want to be Hungarian, they should be allowed to decide so by vote. Just like in Denmark/Germany in 1920.
(btw about Denmark: southern (present day) Sweden and Northern (present day) Germany were originally Danish. When the Swedish areas were taken away, they did have a mainly danish population. The Germany issue was solved democratically, as I said)
LOL! You posted the same time as I did! I know you weren't serious and I wasn't angry. I just wanted to give a serious point of view to the topic. And about your question about Tupi/Mayan/Inca thing, I don't think I can answer that. If Colombus (or Colon as he's called in here) and Spanish hadn't have come, I wouldn't be here today, on this forum. Of course I'm used to live like I do now, but I also would be used to leave in a tribe if South America hadn't been colonized...
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on December 12, 2007, 10:39:18 PM
Akoss: if there are areas outside Hungary with a mainly Hungarian population, that actually want to be Hungarian, they should be allowed to decide so by vote. Just like in Denmark/Germany in 1920.
But they had no law to vote. Just to move or to get mixed with Serbians, Slovaks, Romanians...
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on December 12, 2007, 10:39:18 PM
(btw about Denmark: southern (present day) Sweden and Northern (present day) Germany were originally Danish. When the Swedish areas were taken away, they did have a mainly danish population. The Germany issue was solved democratically, as I said)
Yep. And if the voting had been different I would be living at the German-Danish border right now. Formerly Kiel was also called the "gate to Denmark).
There was another decision like that in 1935, the people living in a small area in Germany's south-west called "Saarland" voted to belong to Germany, not to France. After WWII the area briefly was administrated by France but "returned" to Germany in 1949.
This is the 1920 situation, red shows the Hungarian people. Clearly much more than in Zak's picture, which showed the current situation (after violent Romanianization, Slovakianization etc. in the neighbouring "countries". If we had deserved to lose the areas where the Hungarians had been in minority, we only should have lost a certain part of today's Slovakia and Romania, but the Trianon decision took away much more. In a war, winners and losers are also sinners. During history, changes on territory dominion happened when a land was conquered. The French never conquered Hungary, they were just angry at us helping Germany in the War. It's interesting, Germany, the main sinner in the eyes of the West haven't lost the 2/3 of its area.
http://www.mult-kor.hu/attachmets/9982/trianon_6.jpg
Btw my father was in Zakopane, Poland in 1975, and he experienced that people still speak Hungarian there... you can imagine what the situation was in Slovakia, which was inhabited by Hungarians, unlike Poland. When I was a skiing trip in Slovakia some years ago, our teacher said "do not say swear words in Hungarian... here everyone understands it"...
So let's hope once I'll cross the Hungarian-Italian border!!! (And the Italian-Dutch, too ;D ;D ;D )
Zak: trying to understand a process with only taking the very end of it into account would never make you seeing clear. There are reasons of the 20th century history, which roots are deeply beyond the tides of time. If you don't want to know them, you will only have a false illusion-like opinion.
According to Wikipedia:
The number of Hungarians in the different areas based on census data of 1910.
* In Slovakia: 885,000 - 30%
* In Transylvania (Romania): 1,662,000 - 32%
* In Vojvodina (Serbia): 420,000 - 28%
* In Transcarpathia (Ukraine): 183,000 - 30%
* In Croatia: 121,000 - 3.5%
* In Slovenia: 20,800 - 1.6%
* In Burgenland (Austria): 26,200 - 9%
It seems that the Kingdom of Hungary would have deserved large parts of the areas given to Slovakia, Romania, Serbia and Ukraine in 1920.
Just found an article on the Net: http://www.webenetics.com/hungary/trianon.htm
Quote from: Akoss Poo on December 13, 2007, 10:21:56 AM
Zak: trying to understand a process with only taking the very end of it into account would never make you seeing clear. There are reasons of the 20th century history, which roots are deeply beyond the tides of time. If you don't want to know them, you will only have a false illusion-like opinion.
I didn't say I do not know anything from history before the XXth century. I learned all I had to learn. I just dont find it interesting. Anyway you're right with this statement.
Quote from: Akoss PooDuring history, changes on territory dominion happened when a land was conquered. The French never conquered Hungary, they were just angry at us helping Germany in the War. It's interesting, Germany, the main sinner in the eyes of the West haven't lost the 2/3 of its area.
Well, it's not because the Trianon treaty was signed in France that France is responsible of the dismantle of former Hungary.
Let's start some history remembrance...
The Trianon treaty was written by 1st WW winners and affiliates : UK and its colonial empire, USA, France and its colonial empire, Italy, former Yougoslavia (named "Kingdom of Serbians, Croatians and Slovenians" until 1949), Romania, CzechoSlovakia (freshly created 1 year ago by the treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye) and, of course, by Hungary which was the "guilty" part (considering that losers of the 1st WW were considered as guilty, which was common usage at this period).
It was signed in the Versailles castle, in a part of the castle that gave its name to this treaty.
This treaty followed the treaty of Versailles (which concerned Germany) and the one of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (a city near Versailles) that focused on Austrian situation.
Versailles treaty :
- gave a big part of Germany to Poland,
- gave back Alsace and Lorraine to France (Germany won them after the war of 1870), it's just a come-back of former French 2 regions in north-east of France,
- gave a small part to Belgium (Euden, Malmedy and Vennbahn)
- gave also a part of northern Germany to Denmark (Schleswig-Holstein)
- German colonial empire is dismantled too, Belgium, UK, France and Japan all earn a part of it.
Saint-Germain-en-Laye treaty dismanteld Austian part of what was called Hungarian-Austrian Empire :
- it created the Czech part of future CzechoSlovakia (now re-divided into Czech part, formerly Austrian, and Slovakia, formerly Hungarian)
- eastern part is given to Poland
- western small part is given to Italy
- southern parts and Boznia-Herzegovina (occupied and managed commonly by Austria and Hungary) join the Yougoslavia
Austria lost a lot of its territories then. New Austria after this treaty is only the "mainly German" part of its former territory.
Trianon treaty and dismantlement of former Hungay was shown in previous posts. Let me just explain that Burgenland part was given to the "new shortened" Austria because it was mainly Germanly-spoken zone.
We could also talk about Bulgaria lost territories (to Romania and Greece), Russian lost territories (creation of Poland, Finland, Estonia, Lettonia and Lithuania), Ottoman empire dismantelement and shortened to what is now Turkey, ...
All modifications in this period were due to the fact that the "Nations Society" (replaced by UN after WW2) wanted to give a land to each "spoken" or "ethnical" zone. The creation of Yougoslavia (by additions to former Serbia), of CzechoSlovakia, of Poland, and so on... was due to that. Unlike Austrian and Hungarian zones, most part of Germany was with German population, so Germany lost less than others regarding the "land" point of view.
But Germany lost much more than Austria and Hungary regarding money : Germany was considered responsible of 1st WW and had to pay a lot (mainly to to France and Belgium) because of destructions made during the war (mainly in north of France and in Belgium). This situation made the German economy unstable and critical, and it helped the creation of nazi and "revenge" opinions in the German population that lead finally to 2nd WW.
As you all see, Hungary is not the only country that lost a lot after 1st WW. Austrian and German people could be as angry versus USA, UK, France, Belgium and Italy than Hungarian people. They are not. Why ? Because they look forward, not backward. I let you think about that.
Attached :
- 1st image is before/after 1st WW picture
- 2nd image shows the details of Hungarian-Austrian commen empire before 1st WW : in brown the former Austria, in pink the former Hungary and in blue the Bosnia-Herzegovina that was managed commonly by Austria and Hungary.
This topic is the most interesting of this year I think. Don't you?
I think those treaties where quite fair according to what Krys said. There are much more lands taken away violently and nobody's talking about them.
Quote from: ChulkThere are much more lands taken away violently and nobody's talking about them.
Darfour zone for example... :-X No oil like in Irak, so nobody cares ! >:(
Quote from: CTGTHESE AREA WAS ORGANIC PART OF THE COUNTRY.
Historical origin of Magyar people is not these frontiers of hungary.
Magyars came first from eastern part of geographical Europe, in whant is now part of Russia, close to Oural montains.
At the end of IXth century, they were put away by other tribes and entered into central Europe.
Magyars' progression to the western Europe was stopped by Otton the Great (future empire of Germany) in 955. Then Magyars stayed at the east of German empire, founding the Kingdom of Hungary. This kingdom was "officialised" the day of christmas in year 1000 when the Hungarian king Istv?n choosed to convert to catholic religion.
Then Hungarian country extended a few and its limits remained around the same (except the Bosnia-Herzegovina conquered with the Austrians) from XIIth century to 1920 and the Treaty of Trianon.
I think we can say that Hungary was a multi-ethnic country until 1920, it became mono-ethnic country after 1920. Which was the goal of Nations Society as explained before : 1 ethnic people = 1 country.
This goal was more or less achieved in 1920 : Czech ans Slovaks were put together in 1 country while Serbs, Slovenes and Croatians were put together too in Yugoslavia. But the end of XXth century made this situation become "really real" (if I can say it so) with Czech R?public and Slovakia separation while Yugoslavia was dismanteld into Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia and Serbia-Montenegro.
Talking about Macedonia : Alexander the Great was Macedonian. See attached the geatest extend of his empire. Should Macedonia claim that Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Irak and Iran are their possessions ? :D
1. The current situation is the relevant one, because any action that might be taken will take place at the current time, and not in the past. Subsequently, discussions about the wrongness of historical events becomes purely theoretical. Not thereby useless to study for learning which course to take in future events, but useless as grounds for present territorial disputes.
2. I don't know enough about the Trianon treaty to say whether it was fair or not. But at least it seems to be debatable. I do believe it would have been more fair, though, with regional votings like in Denmark/Germany.
3. Even if the Trianon treaty was wrong, it is one of the smallest atrocities of history. There have been thousands of wars, crimes, deceptions, suppressions and famines much worse. In Hungary too. I fail to see the big importance of this particular injustice, even if it is one. All it means is that some people live in a country which is not ethnically their home. We need a perspective of scope here.
Should Genghis Khan's heir claim the Mongol Empire back? ;D ;D
if that'll be the case, I'll still commute by bike, not with horse :)
Imagine Zak's long hair flying with the wind while he throws arrows from a horseback and using make-up. :D
my long hair has gone with the time more than a year ago ;)
and probably with my new job the lazy days of shaving weekly is also over :(
my decent look lately (pic taken in the Castle of N?gr?d after a well-deserved relaxing wellness-weekend :D):
I realized I haven't complaint of something that was taken from us and the UN didn't care. Islas Malvinas (And NOT Faulkland Islands, as those dick-sucker Brittish named them). How about a treaty now, ah? I forgot England is always right over Argentina, even if they took it by force. It's been 25 years in 2007 and we are still waiting for diplomatic solution to come from UN (though we know for sure it will never happen >:()
BJ: Trianon was the worst thing in Hungarian history. We lost millions of Hungarian people in 1920.
Trianon was absolutely unfair, I have no doubt about it. BUT! Don't think I want those parts back from Romania or Slovakia. I'm just pissed off on France for declaring this shitty loss (England stayed neutral in this question, but many of their politicans were against this decision), especially for Vix who wanted to give even more area to Romania. The other thing: in 1919 Romanian army tried to conquer Hungary, they reached Budapest too.
Romania was always the dirtiest in World Wars. They started twice as alliance for Germany and Hungary - and when stangings of the war changed, they went to the other side, just to be winner. We were always faithful to our alliance (Germany).
I don't know about WWI, then maybe you can score points on being faithful to your allies, although in my opinion that means hardly anything. Killing is killing, it doesn't matter much who you are killing in an equal. But in WWII, it is unmistakeably a bad thing that Hungary remained faithful to Germany, and I respect Romania more now because they did not.
I also don't understand how you can consider "losing people" a bad thing. Is there a competition about being the most populous country in the world? China and India are doing really well. You are not affected by some other areas having been given to other countries. I understand if you feel sorry for those hungarians who have had to live in another country because of the treaty, but exactly how bad is that? Compare it to other atrocities.
I feel sorry about them because most of the 'little antant' countries decreased their law and made their life miserable just because they were Hungarians. There are still numerous attrocities (hurting people physically...) in Serbia, Slovakia and Romania against Hungarians.
Quote from: ChulkI realized I haven't complaint of something that was taken from us and the UN didn't care. Islas Malvinas (And NOT Faulkland Islands, as those dick-sucker Brittish named them).
In French we call them Iles Malouines. Quite close to Argentinian name. ;)
Quote from: CTGRomania was always the dirtiest in World Wars. They started twice as alliance for Germany and Hungary - and when stangings of the war changed, they went to the other side, just to be winner.
It seems to me that Italy did the same during WWII, isn't it ? But you don't seem to have any hate of Italians, while you always call Romanians "gypsies", considering this word as an insult...
Quote from: Chulk on December 13, 2007, 11:03:08 PM
I realized I haven't complaint of something that was taken from us and the UN didn't care. Islas Malvinas (And NOT Faulkland Islands, as those dick-sucker Brittish named them). How about a treaty now, ah? I forgot England is always right over Argentina, even if they took it by force. It's been 25 years in 2007 and we are still waiting for diplomatic solution to come from UN (though we know for sure it will never happen >:()
Again I will have to say: who cares?
On a worldwide basis, it's funny how people always seem to think their own country is right in international conflicts, isn't it?
They can't all be right...
And they can't just all say "but it's the others that are wrong..."
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on December 15, 2007, 05:02:27 PM
On a worldwide basis, it's funny how people always seem to think their own country is right in international conflicts, isn't it?
They can't all be right...
And they can't just all say "but it's the others that are wrong..."
I know exactly what you mean, but when a territory has been taken away in a military way (Like with Islas Malvinas) it's quite easy to see who has the right over those lands and who doesn't.
We have no problem with Italy, they never attacked us.
Dear Mr. Töff! I don't think it's fair to combine the conception of ancient people with
twentieth century history. I can't accept your reasoning because of this. We can say that
the ancient and pre-medieval ages were the times of settlement of nations, when they
occupied their land. The times of conquering and settling finished in the medieval age,
which (also including the early decades, centuries of modern history - 17th-18th century)
was rather the times of positioning: the realms fought some battles with the neighbouring
countries, but there were no real nation movements anymore. When these tensions calmed down,
a real map of Europe was formed. New countries appeared, like Belgium (1830). Btw yes, the
pre-medieval Hungarian people lived around the Ural mountains, between the rivers Volga and
Kama, but during the times of conquering (and later), we met a lot of nations, our genes
were mixed with theirs, today's Hungarian people has almost nothing to do with the
pre-medieval people. And it's the same for all of the nations: international marriages,
international f*ckings mixed all the genes across Europe, so we shouldn't rely on Krys'
theory which says that our home is around the Ural mountains, because we are originating
from there. I think even the Russians would ignore the idea to settle us back there. :) We
found home here, in and around the Carpathian basin, during the pre-medieval ages, when
concept of people was fighting and conquering. When things calmed down, and an
quasi-equilibrum was formed across Europe, the genetic drift also passed off, Hungarian
people was living there (in Great Hungary, with the rivers of Duna, Tisza, Dráva and Száva,
with the major part of the Carpathian mountains - with its ski resorts, mineral deposits
including gold, wood etc., with our seas and docks). So that's why I feel that it was our
real and true country, and not the current one. The old wars were more or less about
conquering (even the medieval wars), the new ones are pure politics. That's why your
reasoning is unacceptable.
Yes, we was a multi-national country, around half of the population was Hungarian, around
half of the population were very different nations, that means Hungarian was far the biggest
ethnic in our old country (the other (lot of) ethnics added together is just as big number
as the Hungarian population). There are countries like this even in the present: just look
at Estonia, where around the 30-35% of the population are Estonians, there are many many
Russians. If it's acceptable, then our territory needs are acceptable, too. Or just look at
your football team. None of the starting eleven are real French. But still, you consider
this officially as a French football team. But your reason with the thing that we shouldn't
want our territories back, because only half of the population was Hungarian there. That's
hilarious. You praised Jo-Wilfriend Tsonga some weeks ago. So even in France, not everybody
is French, I see it's a very "colourful" country. But in Slovakia, Romania, Austria etc.,
there are many sportsman (sports is just an example) with a true Hungarian name and origin.
But they live outside our current borders now. You praise even "non-French French"
sportsmen, so you consider them as yours, but we can't consider the lands ours where
Hungarian-named people live. You have coloines where there are no French people on the ocean
(New Caledony). You want to keep them, you feel that's yours. But if we feel that the
territores we owned in real earlier, we are nationalists. I can't understand that.
Okay, the distribution of the Hungarians were not even, but all of the Slovakian cities,
towns and villages have a Hungarian name. The Slovakian names were just created, centuries
after they had Hungarian names. What is Slovakia? Ridiculous, a country which were formed in
1993, never existed before. Should we accept that? On our old territories, they created that
land, which never existed. Many Hungarians lived in South Slovakia, North Croatia, North
Serbia, Southeast Romania (Transylvania - Székelyföld), in these places, Slovakian,
Croatian, Serbian and Romanian were in minority. But the French didn't care about this in
1920, they took it away from us. With the help of Germany, we got back some of our regions, where much Hungarians lived (more or less the mentioned regions, but still some worthy territories which much Hungarians missed) between the two World Wars, it was called the Vienna Awards (award is a very hard word I think, Hungarians say "decision" only). At least this decision should have left, many Hungarians were living in Hungary agains with this decision. But after another loss of World War, these areas were given back to Romania, Slovakia etc. Moreover, by tactical reasons, three more villages were given to Slovakia in 1945. It's interesting... Germany and Hitler killed millions of people, but they
could keep almost all of its territories. Okay, it became halved for 45 years, but they
reunited then (by the way then why Hungary can't regain its territories in 1990, if Germany
could unite?). The main sinner got the punishment 45 years of halving its country plus some
small regions to given to France, Hungary, only a small country which wasn't a real force
during WW, got the punishment more than 2 third of its territories are taken away. Nine
countries got parts of Historic Hungary: the seven bordering countries (Austria, Slovenia,
Croatia, Serbia, Romania, Ukraine, Slovakia), plus Italy and Poland. Additional information:
Hungarian is the largest minority in Europe. There's no bigger ethnic group in Europe who
lives outside its homeland. Lot of Hungarians are living under the strong Romanian,
Slovakian oppress, they suffer, Romanians, Slovakians wants to decrease their number, even
with putting them into the melting pot. I was in Tornalja (Tornal'a) in Southeast Slovakia,
everything is written in Hungarian on the streets. Romanian ice hockey teams play in the
Hungarian league, and there are no Romanian words among the supportest, the match starts
with the Hungarian and the Székely anthem. What's more, my father was in Poland in 1975, in
Zakopane, and the Polish people still understood Hungarian (55 years after the
Hungarian-Polish border ceased). These are very strange fact, and shows that something is not in order here. It is easier to say for the Western Europe that we are nationalists, but wouldn't it be more fair to say that we were unfair in 1920, and we (WE people) are who caused the debates in the Carpatian basin by making a biased, unfair, strict decision against Hungarians? It would be very hard to revise that decision after 88 years, but it would be very much Western Europe's task. You can't make decisions about borders of countries where you are unaware of the exact situation! And you made that error in 1920.
To summarize it: nukes on the antant, Bucarest and Belgrad. ;D
Quote from: Akoss Poo on February 14, 2008, 08:08:05 PM
Okay, it became halved for 45 years, but they
reunited then (by the way then why Hungary can't regain its territories in 1990, if Germany
could unite?).
This point is not good at all. Germany united because both sides decided to do it. If Romania, Slovakia, Serbia, Croatia, Austria... decided they wanted to re-unite and form the old Hungary again, they would do it.
Not exactly. We can express the two German states as X1 and X2 countries, with a good base to get united. Both countries remained German. In our case the organic parts of Hungary were stolen (X ---> x + a + b + c + ...) and were given to totally different countries. So it's not the same...
Quote from: Akoss PooNew countries appeared, like Belgium (1830).
But current political events in Belgium since 1 year makes me feel Belgium won't last long now... ::) It will end in 2 countries like Czech Rep. and Slovakia in the 90's. Stupid idea from Northern Belgians to divide while beeing a member of UE since the beginning, and always motivated for European construction. It's not logical.
Quote from: Akoss PooThe old wars were more or less about conquering (even the medieval wars), the new ones are pure politics.
Sure, but politic is a kind of war you know. ;)
Anyway, not so old wars were also about conquering territories : what did Hitler wanted to do, if not create a bigger Germany with addition of Austria, part of Czech Republic, part of France and part of Poland ?
Wars are more political now, but goal remains the same : conquer, if not by addition of war winner's country, but at least as an influenced territory. Like Americans in Iraq, like Soudan and Tchad issue at the Darfour region, ...
Quote from: Akoss PooYes, we was a multi-national country, around half of the population was Hungarian, around half of the population were very different nations, that means Hungarian was far the biggest ethnic in our old country (the other (lot of) ethnics added together is just as big number as the Hungarian population). There are countries like this even in the present: just look at Estonia, where around the 30-35% of the population are Estonians, there are many many Russians. If it's acceptable, then our territory needs are acceptable, too.
Or we can say that Estonia shoud be reduced by 2/3rds, and the rest of the country added to Russia. :D This was the spirit in western Europe at the end of World War II, that's what I wanted to explain. I understand better now what you meant, but IMO both your current opinion and the French/UK/... one at the end of WWII are wrong. Future is just behind us : United Europe. I don't care so much about frontiers, they are more language frontiers now than anything else, as in all European countries members of UE there is now more laws edicted by European council than by local governements. I deal with it every day at my job regarding food safety. Europe is not a dream, Europe is just in front of us, right here, right now (no, I won't quote Fat Boy slim's song ;D).
So for me those territories issues like in Belgium or as end of WWI still seems to remain an issue for most Hungarians (I don't talk about you Zak), it's pointless.
Quote from: Akoss PooOr just look at your football team. None of the starting eleven are real French. But still, you consider this officially as a French football team. But your reason with the thing that we shouldn't want our territories back, because only half of the population was Hungarian there. That's hilarious. You praised Jo-Wilfriend Tsonga some weeks ago. So even in France, not everybody is French, I see it's a very "colourful" country.
The most colourfull, the most interesting the country is.
We all have to learn from each others.
Anyway, I'm like Tsonga : I'm not "pure" French. There's not so much "pure" somthing in any country to be honest. I have origins from Belgian and Nederlands from my father, and from Normandy part of France (so partially English or even maybe Scandinavian origin) and from Spain too from my mother. I'm French because I was born in France, but my blood is European.
I'm also French because I like cheeses, especially those from non-pasteurized milk. And also because of my "cultural environnement". We're all conditionned by what we learnt and saw when we were children. So, as a good French, I'm a f*cking asshole patriot when talking about sport. That's a big part of French spirit, and I like this part.
Just one last thing about our football team. Let's study the "typical" team :
- goalkeepers : Barthez, Coupet, Landreau, ... All white, French origin (damn, you're wrong, there's at least 1 "almost pure French" in our team :D :D :D)
- defenders : only Sagnol is white, and with German origins, others are black with African origin (all black people in Guadeloupe, Guyana and MArtinique are grand-grand-...-children of African slaves)
- midfield : the most colourfull part of the team, with always players from Europe (Ribery), black Africa (Viera, ...) and with Arabic origins (Zidane before, Nasri now for example)
- forward : mainly black (Henry, Cissé, Anelka, ...), not so much white since a few years (last time in 1998 with Dugarry for example), and some new powerfull Arabic origin players (Benzema, ...). Sometimes we even have an Argentinian player (Trezeguet, but it seems he is not the main choice now) !
So yes, French team is quite colourfull, like French population is. During Platini's era it was the same : some black people (Tresor, Janvion, ...), some from other European countries origins like Platini himself (he has Italian origins) or Fernandez (Spanish origin). OK, there was no Arabs in the team, but most of them were not playing football at this period. Remember that until the 60's they were still living in North Africa. Most of them came after the war in Algeria, and now it's their children (or grand-children for some) that play in French team.
Quote from: Akoss PooYou have coloines where there are no French people on the ocean (New Caledony). You want to keep them, you feel that's yours. But if we feel that the territores we owned in real earlier, we are nationalists. I can't understand that.
I didn't called you nationalist. And I don't care about New Caledony. New Caledony is not really France, it's a kind of "French protected country". It's almost an independant country : they can create their laws, they don't care about European legislation, they are not forced to apply all French new laws, ...
Only a few outside-Europe territories are considered as France : Guyana, Martinique, Guadeloue and the Reunion (near Madagascar). All others are "territorial partners" like St Pierre-et-Miquelon, New Caledony, ... One special case remains : Terre Adelie, the small part of Antartic that France claims to possess. I don't like the idea of any Antartic possession. Antartic belongs to pingus. ;D
Quote from: Akoss PooOkay, the distribution of the Hungarians were not even, but all of the Slovakian cities, towns and villages have a Hungarian name. The Slovakian names were just created, centuries after they had Hungarian names. What is Slovakia? Ridiculous, a country which were formed in 1993, never existed before. Should we accept that? On our old territories, they created that land, which never existed. Many Hungarians lived in South Slovakia, North Croatia, North Serbia, Southeast Romania (Transylvania - Székelyföld), in these places, Slovakian, Croatian, Serbian and Romanian were in minority. But the French didn't care about this in 1920, they took it away from us.
How many times will I have to say that ? It was NOT only a French decision, it was a common decision of all WWI winners : France, UK, Belgium, USA, Italy, ... The 3 treaties (Versailles, St-Germain-en-Laye and Trianon) were all managed by all these countries. OK, they were signed in France, but they were not French decision only.
Quote from: Akoss PooGermany and Hitler killed millions of people, but they could keep almost all of its territories. Okay, it became halved for 45 years, but they reunited then (by the way then why Hungary can't regain its territories in 1990, if Germany could unite?). The main sinner got the punishment 45 years of halving its country plus some small regions to given to France, Hungary, only a small country which wasn't a real force during WW, got the punishment more than 2 third of its territories are taken away. Nine countries got parts of Historic Hungary: the seven bordering countries (Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Romania, Ukraine, Slovakia), plus Italy and Poland. Additional information: Hungarian is the largest minority in Europe. There's no bigger ethnic group in Europe who lives outside its homeland. Lot of Hungarians are living under the strong Romanian, Slovakian oppress, they suffer, Romanians, Slovakians wants to decrease their number, even with putting them into the melting pot. I was in Tornalja (Tornal'a) in Southeast Slovakia, everything is written in Hungarian on the streets. Romanian ice hockey teams play in the Hungarian league, and there are no Romanian words among the supportest, the match starts with the Hungarian and the Székely anthem. What's more, my father was in Poland in 1975, in Zakopane, and the Polish people still understood Hungarian (55 years after the Hungarian-Polish border ceased). These are very strange fact, and shows that something is not in order here. It is easier to say for the Western Europe that we are nationalists, but wouldn't it be more fair to say that we were unfair in 1920, and we (WE people) are who caused the debates in the Carpatian basin by making a biased, unfair, strict decision against Hungarians? It would be very hard to revise that decision after 88 years, but it would be very much Western Europe's task. You can't make decisions about borders of countries where you are unaware of the exact situation! And you made that error in 1920.
I talked about the German case before : Germany remained almost "whole" because the population was 99% German in all its territory.
Regarding Hungary, sure, the decision of Trianon treaty was hard, and probably too hard regarding what you explain. I can understand your feeling. Anyway, the choice was to create a land for all ethnies that had none before (Czechs, ...). But why Hungary and its neighbours don't try to make a deal and re-arrange this ? Czechs and Slovaks separated without war, and maybe Slovakia would accept to join back Hungary, who knows ?
Don't expect UK, France, and other countries that signed the Trianon treaty to want to change it back : it's far too late now and noone cares about this treaty (or the 2 others) in Western Europe anymore...
Drifting to a related topic, the current state of affairs at Kosovo, there's a very relevant observation. Take a look at this:
Map of Kosovo's current diplomatic status (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kosovo_relations.svg)
Notice how Hungary intends to recognise Kosovo, in opposition to Slovakia and Romania. That's quite interesting in the context of the "Greater Hungary" debates around here.
Russia said they would use military force if they recognized Kosovo as independent, though they're probably just bluffing...
Kosovo would be just another country beating us in football... ;D (as Montenegro did)
There are different kind of countries against Kosovo's independance :
- pro-serbia countries like Russia who were also against Macedonia, Slovenia, Croatia, ... independance some years ago
- ex-USSR countries due to Russia's influence still present (Kazakhstan, Belarus, ...).
- countries that fear that their independentists factions would like to do the same. Examples : Spain, South Africa, Mexico, Ukraine, Bolivia, India, ...
- pure communist countries, always against any kind of freedom (China, Vietnam, ...)
- countries that fear Serbia's anger due to their proximity (Bosnia-Herzegovina mainly, maybe that's the same for Romania)
- others, which are un-explainable to me, like Argentina, Brazil or New-Zealand, ...
I don't really know about Argentina's position either. Didn't hear anything on the news regarding that topic so I can't really bring any light on that matter...
Quote from: Duplode on February 26, 2008, 12:52:24 AM
Drifting to a related topic, the current state of affairs at Kosovo, there's a very relevant observation. Take a look at this:
Map of Kosovo's current diplomatic status (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kosovo_relations.svg)
Notice how Hungary intends to recognise Kosovo, in opposition to Slovakia and Romania. That's quite interesting in the context of the "Greater Hungary" debates around here.
It's because Hungary would probably be very happy to see the Hungarian speaking regions located in Romania, Slovakia and Serbia reaching a status similar to Kosovo, and the neighboring countries dont really want this to happen
Quote from: Krys TOFF on February 26, 2008, 03:45:13 PM
There are different kind of countries against Kosovo's independance :
- pro-serbia countries like Russia who were also against Macedonia, Slovenia, Croatia, ... independance some years ago
- ex-USSR countries due to Russia's influence still present (Kazakhstan, Belarus, ...).
- countries that fear that their independentists factions would like to do the same. Examples : Spain, South Africa, Mexico, Ukraine, Bolivia, India, ...
- pure communist countries, always against any kind of freedom (China, Vietnam, ...)
- countries that fear Serbia's anger due to their proximity (Bosnia-Herzegovina mainly, maybe that's the same for Romania)
- others, which are un-explainable to me, like Argentina, Brazil or New-Zealand, ...
It just depends on your ethical viewpoint...
Generally, there are two conflicting moral points:
1. Kosovo deserves independence and a vast majority of Kosovars want it
2. Kosovo independence is a really bad idea for the region and for the world in general
Quote from: zaqrack on February 26, 2008, 08:38:17 PM
It's because Hungary would probably be very happy to see the Hungarian speaking regions located in Romania, Slovakia and Serbia reaching a status similar to Kosovo, and the neighboring countries dont really want this to happen
Well, so my supposition was right. Though a rather obvious point, it's really stupefying how many, at times very-very distant, countries are led to polarized view about Kosovo due to delicate "internal" issues causing fear of, or desire for, a precedent.
Quote from: BonzaiJoe on February 27, 2008, 01:16:13 AM
Quote from: Krys TOFF on February 26, 2008, 03:45:13 PM
There are different kind of countries against Kosovo's independance :
- pro-serbia countries like Russia who were also against Macedonia, Slovenia, Croatia, ... independance some years ago
- ex-USSR countries due to Russia's influence still present (Kazakhstan, Belarus, ...).
- countries that fear that their independentists factions would like to do the same. Examples : Spain, South Africa, Mexico, Ukraine, Bolivia, India, ...
- pure communist countries, always against any kind of freedom (China, Vietnam, ...)
- countries that fear Serbia's anger due to their proximity (Bosnia-Herzegovina mainly, maybe that's the same for Romania)
- others, which are un-explainable to me, like Argentina, Brazil or New-Zealand, ...
It just depends on your ethical viewpoint...
Generally, there are two conflicting moral points:
1. Kosovo deserves independence and a vast majority of Kosovars want it
2. Kosovo independence is a really bad idea for the region and for the world in general
Spot on... despite all reasons we can surely argue for Kosovo's case, a sudden unilateral declaration right in this geopolitical context (Mr. Putin on his neo-soviet fumes, Montenegro having just split from Serbia, etc.) is quite risky business. Krys commented on Brazil's position; it is not one of straightforward opposition aimed at Kosovo's plans, but rather one of diaspproval of unilateral moves from either part - a position shared by a number of countries.
Quote from: Duplode on February 27, 2008, 03:18:39 AM
Krys commented on Brazil's position; it is not one of straightforward opposition aimed at Kosovo's plans, but rather one of diaspproval of unilateral moves from either part - a position shared by a number of countries.
Yes, Argentina as well. I read a few about this on the net and that is why Argentina is against. It's not againts independence declaration, it's more about the way it is obtained.
Sure, the way Macedonia got separated from Serbia was peacefull and without any problem. Unlike Kosovo. But problem with Kosovo is that for most Serbian a big part of Kosovo is considered by them as the craddle of Serbian civilization, so that's why they are all the more furious about this independance.