Territory dispute from Sports topic

[CTG]

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...

[JTK]

(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.

[Akoss Poo a.k.a. Zorromeister]

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  )

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.

[Akoss Poo a.k.a. Zorromeister]

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.

[Akoss Poo a.k.a. Zorromeister]

Just found an article on the Net: http://www.webenetics.com/hungary/trianon.htm

[zaqrack]

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.

[Krys TOFF]

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.

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.

[Chulk]

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.

[Krys TOFF]

There are much more lands taken away violently and nobody's talking about them.

Darfour zone for example...  No oil like in Irak, so nobody cares !

[Krys TOFF]

THESE 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 ?

[BonzaiJoe]

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.

[Chulk]

Should Genghis Khan's heir claim the Mongol Empire back? 

[zaqrack]

if that'll be the case, I'll still commute by bike, not with horse

[Chulk]

Imagine Zak's long hair flying with the wind while he throws arrows from a horseback and using make-up. 

[zaqrack]

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  ):