Happy Trianon Treaty Day!

[Alexandru H.]

Tamas, the problem in Transylvania was that the Magyar majority was deep inside the region. Please tell me how would the arrangement work? You'd take an enclave, far way from your borders, that would have been isolated from all sides, with no usable means of transportation outside of it (since Romania would have made sure that it would be unreachable)? While I agree that the Trianon Treaty was pretty bad for Hungary, your strategy of dealing with minorities after 1867 was shockingly idiotic. Your politicians made sure that everyone hated your guts by 1918.

Romania's mistake (and one that is not recognized even today) was not accepting the conditions placed forth by the Transylvanian politicians (most of them Romanians) in 1918: they desired unity but not without accepting diversity, decentralization and protecting minority rights. I'd say they would have been a proper first step in healing historical enmities between the two nations.

[Tamas]

Tamas, the problem in Transylvania was that the Magyar majority was deep inside the region. Please tell me how would the arrangement work? You'd take an enclave, far way from your borders, that would have been isolated from all sides, with no usable means of transportation outside of it (since Romania would have made sure that it would be unreachable)? While I agree that the Trianon Treaty was pretty bad for Hungary, your strategy of dealing with minorities after 1867 was shockingly idiotic. Your politicians made sure that everyone hated your guts by 1918.

Romania's mistake (and one that is not recognized even today) was not accepting the conditions placed forth by the Transylvanian politicians (most of them Romanians) in 1918: they desired unity but not without accepting diversity, decentralization and protecting minority rights. I'd say they would have been a proper first step in healing historical enmities between the two nations.

Well yeah, an autonomous (even independent?) Transylvania would have been better.

There was no ideal solution. But the new borders were NOT drawn on ethnic boundaries. If they were, there wouldn't had been 3 million Hungarians left on the other side of it. If you study the ethnic map of the 1910 census, you can draw two conclusions:
-the borders of post-trianon hungary are clearly well within the borders of the single mass of hungarian ethnicity middle
-the borders made by the nazis by 1941 were probably the closest you could get to fair, funnily enough. Sure, Transylvania was an exception, like you said, they needed a solution to reach the Hungarian mass deep in the country, but still, it was an effort for an ethnic border.

[alfred russel]

So what was the answer then - keep the Habsburgs in power over a multi-national empire?  Considering the fact that the Russian and Ottoman empires collapsed at the same time you could hardly tell the national minorities in Austria-Hungary that "no, you alone will have to stay under foreign rule".

The Soviets found a stable solution a bit further North. "Ukranians go here, Polish go here, Germans go away." Not the most ethical though.

[Barrister]

So what was the answer then - keep the Habsburgs in power over a multi-national empire?  Considering the fact that the Russian and Ottoman empires collapsed at the same time you could hardly tell the national minorities in Austria-Hungary that "no, you alone will have to stay under foreign rule".

The Soviets found a stable solution a bit further North. "Ukranians go here, Polish go here, Germans go away." Not the most ethical though.

Sadly, "population exchange" has proven to be a great way to ensure stable borders.  The Greek-Turkish population exhange from around the same time is another example.

[Barrister]

Well yeah, an autonomous (even independent?) Transylvania would have been better.

There was no ideal solution. But the new borders were NOT drawn on ethnic boundaries. If they were, there wouldn't had been 3 million Hungarians left on the other side of it. If you study the ethnic map of the 1910 census, you can draw two conclusions:
-the borders of post-trianon hungary are clearly well within the borders of the single mass of hungarian ethnicity middle
-the borders made by the nazis by 1941 were probably the closest you could get to fair, funnily enough. Sure, Transylvania was an exception, like you said, they needed a solution to reach the Hungarian mass deep in the country, but still, it was an effort for an ethnic border.

I appreciate you're not a HUngarian far-rightist Tamas.

But even if you re-did the borders of Hungary in 1919 to be closer to ethnic boundaries, a huge number of Hungarians would still be outside Hungary.  Maybe it's only 2 mil instead of 3.

[alfred russel]

Sadly, "population exchange" has proven to be a great way to ensure stable borders.  The Greek-Turkish population exhange from around the same time is another example.

If that ist he cure though, it is hard to imagine that the disease is worse than the cure. Hopefully the western democracy mindset of multiculturalism will wash over Eastern Europe and in 30-40 years and this will all seem silly.

[Tamas]

Well yeah, an autonomous (even independent?) Transylvania would have been better.

There was no ideal solution. But the new borders were NOT drawn on ethnic boundaries. If they were, there wouldn't had been 3 million Hungarians left on the other side of it. If you study the ethnic map of the 1910 census, you can draw two conclusions:
-the borders of post-trianon hungary are clearly well within the borders of the single mass of hungarian ethnicity middle
-the borders made by the nazis by 1941 were probably the closest you could get to fair, funnily enough. Sure, Transylvania was an exception, like you said, they needed a solution to reach the Hungarian mass deep in the country, but still, it was an effort for an ethnic border.

I appreciate you're not a HUngarian far-rightist Tamas.

But even if you re-did the borders of Hungary in 1919 to be closer to ethnic boundaries, a huge number of Hungarians would still be outside Hungary.  Maybe it's only 2 mil instead of 3.

Even if that is true, what does that mean? That the will of one million Hungarians, who could have stayed with their home country with no loss to other ethnicites. is meaningless and they were right to be punished for a war the empire which contained them happened to lose?

[Tamas]

Most of the collapse is on us to blame, our leadership at least. Arrogance is bad karma I guess. (even though I question the extent of the minorities angst for a bit. Not all. The Serbs and Romanians were pretty uppity by the time the war started. But AFAIK the Slovaks didn't even have autonomy plans or demands before Masaryk and co. started to campaign for real estate there).

Meh, listen, I don't seek to redo these borders or anything.

But regardless of wether you think they were fair or not, I don't think anybody has the right to question our right to feel some grief over the whole matter. Again, we did not lose colonies, or remote fringes of an empire. We lost integral parts of our nation. Sure, a lot of it was inhabited by other ethnicities for centuries.
But should that deny us the feel of loss?

[garbon]

But should that deny us the feel of loss?

Nearly a century later?

[Neil]

But even if you re-did the borders of Hungary in 1919 to be closer to ethnic boundaries, a huge number of Hungarians would still be outside Hungary.  Maybe it's only 2 mil instead of 3.

Even if that is true, what does that mean? That the will of one million Hungarians, who could have stayed with their home country with no loss to other ethnicites. is meaningless and they were right to be punished for a war the empire which contained them happened to lose?

They can move.  And given how horribly the Hungarians treated anyone who wasn't a Magyar, it would probably have been the safer alternative.

[Neil]

But should that deny us the feel of loss?

Nearly a century later?

Well, they occupied parts of their old lands under the Nazis, and that was on the fringes of living memory.  Not only that, but they're Balkan types.  They have long memories.

Besides, it's not all that different from the way you people get all worked up about the Confederates.

[Cecil]

You fucked over Austria and in so doing fucked over yourselves. I find it hard to scrounge up any sympathy.

[Tamas]

But even if you re-did the borders of Hungary in 1919 to be closer to ethnic boundaries, a huge number of Hungarians would still be outside Hungary.  Maybe it's only 2 mil instead of 3.

Even if that is true, what does that mean? That the will of one million Hungarians, who could have stayed with their home country with no loss to other ethnicites. is meaningless and they were right to be punished for a war the empire which contained them happened to lose?

They can move.  And given how horribly the Hungarians treated anyone who wasn't a Magyar, it would probably have been the safer alternative.

Oh come on. Pretending that you are serious, I'll say that we treated them with contempt, and while we had quite liberal education laws, the local governments didn't really let them excercise them.
That's about it.
So yeah, something they deserve to get rid of, but it wasn't exactly an apartheid regime.

[Tamas]

You fucked over Austria and in so doing fucked over yourselves. I find it hard to scrounge up any sympathy.

While I do agree to a degree, a degree that the Hungarian aristocracy has a lot to answer for in the imbecile ways they were leading the country, I would caution you from painting poor Austria as a victim.

I mean, we are talking about OMG NATIONAL SELF-DETERMINATION FTW!!!!
Well we wanted that. We fought for that. We won it. In 1849. Then the Russians came, steamrolled us, and gave us back to the Austrians, who massacred our elite who led the revolution (a LOT of them were not ethnic Magyars, but fought and died for the country, mind you), imposed a harsh rule which they maintained for many years.

After which, we couldnt really fight again. We had about a decade of passive resistance, which weakened our opressors, but also prevented us from progressing as a nation. So when the opportunity arose, we made a deal with the devil.
A deal which could have worked, but the Habsburg family, and the Hungarian aristocracy was in the interest of the status quo, which destroyed them both.

And on the topic of Austria. For centuries, every time the Hungarian nobility steered up the Hungarian population for their selfish needs, the Habsburgs responded by fueling unrest among the slavs of the country.
They planted the seeds which destroyed their empire. They sought to divide and rule within their own borders, rather than trying to build a state that would stand the test of time. It was their family, who couldn't see longer than seeing the dynasty live to see an other day.

[Valmy]

But AFAIK the Slovaks didn't even have autonomy plans or demands before Masaryk and co. started to campaign for real estate there).

Yeah this is a good example how American immigrants were a driving force.  I mean in what other context would Czechs and Slovaks get together and decide to form a state together?  Certainly not back in old country.

Meh, listen, I don't seek to redo these borders or anything.

But regardless of wether you think they were fair or not, I don't think anybody has the right to question our right to feel some grief over the whole matter. Again, we did not lose colonies, or remote fringes of an empire. We lost integral parts of our nation. Sure, a lot of it was inhabited by other ethnicities for centuries.
But should that deny us the feel of loss?

The whole situation sucked ass for all involved.  Especially as time went on.  I can understand a feeling of loss, what jerks my chain is the anger about it and blaming dirty foreigners for some sort of anti-Hungarian conspiracy or something.