Territory dispute from Sports topic

[Chulk]

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  )

[CTG]

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).

[BonzaiJoe]

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.

[CTG]

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.

[Krys TOFF]

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).

In French we call them Iles Malouines. Quite close to Argentinian name.

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.

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...

[BonzaiJoe]

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..."

[Chulk]

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.

[CTG]

We have no problem with Italy, they never attacked us.

[Akoss Poo a.k.a. Zorromeister]

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.

[CTG]

To summarize it: nukes on the antant, Bucarest and Belgrad.

[Chulk]

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.

[CTG]

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...

[Krys TOFF]

New 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.

The 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, ...

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 we can say that Estonia shoud be reduced by 2/3rds, and the rest of the country added to Russia. 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 ).
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.

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.

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 )
- 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

[Duplode]

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

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.

[Chulk]

Russia said they would use military force if they recognized Kosovo as independent, though they're probably just bluffing...