I'm surprised nobody had posted anything yet.
No special declaration by Orban today, Tamas?
They have made it the National Unity Day, but that's all.
I'm sure there will be much slaughter of oxen and chicken for the festivities.
The 'Damn Maybe Becoming Communists Right When the Capitalist West Was Deciding On Our Borders Was Fucking Stupid' Day.
I never understood the Hungarian POV when it came to Triannon.
Sure, you can criticize exactly where the borders were drawn in 1919. But most of the criticism seems to resolve around "ZOMG HUNGARY wuz robbed of 72% of our territory!!!111". And when you consider that HUngarians were not in the majority of most of the areas assigned to new states the result doesn't seem all that unfair to anyone else...
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 09:04:28 AM
I never understood the Hungarian POV when it came to Triannon.
Sure, you can criticize exactly where the borders were drawn in 1919. But most of the criticism seems to resolve around "ZOMG HUNGARY wuz robbed of 72% of our territory!!!111". And when you consider that HUngarians were not in the majority of most of the areas assigned to new states the result doesn't seem all that unfair to anyone else...
And the whole point of the exercise was to get states for the nationalities of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. I mean, granted Hungary seems to have worked really hard to make sure they would get the worst deal possible, but it was certainly not some attempt to jack Hungary around. It was an attempt to carry out this policy.
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2012, 06:22:56 AM
They have made it the National Unity Day, but that's all.
Who says Magyars don't have a sense of humor.
:mad:
It's complicated.
First of all, nobody really bothers with crying loud about it anymore except for the right-wing, and you cant really expect logic from them.
BUT:
We were fucked over big time. A LOT of clearly Hungarian territories were given as spoils to the victors. Which nullified any positive aspect this peace treaty migh have had to the region, mind you.
Plus, regarding the initial uproar and how that carried over to the following decades:
it's like Kosovo for the Serbs. Except for Croatia, these territories have been integral parts of the historical Hungary for almost 1100 years prior to Trianon. Transylvania gave birth to most of our artists. What you now call Bratislava was the political capital of Hungary for centuries. Within it, the székelys remain to this day a close Hungarian community in the mountains. Lots of extended families found themselves separated by borders.
Needless to say, the country's economy was destroyed by the switch. Neither the infrastructure, nor the economical players were prepared for 2/3rd of the country being taken away, divided up by hostile states.
It was a disgrace and probably the worst grand peace treaty of history.
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2012, 09:16:40 AM
We were fucked over big time. A LOT of clearly Hungarian territories were given as spoils to the victors. Which nullified any positive aspect this peace treaty migh have had to the region, mind you.
Well alot of it was based on boots on the ground right? I mean it was not like there were American, French, and British armies in the area around to divide everything up. It was more like the Serbs saying 'this is what is ours...and in fact we are already there.'.
QuoteIt was a disgrace and probably the worst grand peace treaty of history.
Well it was based on a disgraceful and horrible doctrine: national self-determination. You should have genocided or ethnically cleansed everybody when you had the chance. That is, after all, the logical conclusion of that doctrine.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2012, 09:14:05 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 09:04:28 AM
I never understood the Hungarian POV when it came to Triannon.
Sure, you can criticize exactly where the borders were drawn in 1919. But most of the criticism seems to resolve around "ZOMG HUNGARY wuz robbed of 72% of our territory!!!111". And when you consider that HUngarians were not in the majority of most of the areas assigned to new states the result doesn't seem all that unfair to anyone else...
And the whole point of the exercise was to get states for the nationalities of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. I mean, granted Hungary seems to have worked really hard to make sure they would get the worst deal possible, but it was certainly not some attempt to jack Hungary around. It was an attempt to carry out this policy.
Heh.
I am not saying that Hungary got a 100% unfair treatment, the Romanians for example wanted the eastern third of CURRENT Hungary, above all they got, and they weren't given that. The Serbs wanted the south-western quarter of the current country, and didn't get it.
But after the peace, and to a degree even today, there are considerable 100% Hungarian-inhabitated lands on the outside of Hungary's borders, not just the inside.
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2012, 09:16:40 AM
:mad:
It's complicated.
First of all, nobody really bothers with crying loud about it anymore except for the right-wing, and you cant really expect logic from them.
BUT:
We were fucked over big time. A LOT of clearly Hungarian territories were given as spoils to the victors. Which nullified any positive aspect this peace treaty migh have had to the region, mind you.
Plus, regarding the initial uproar and how that carried over to the following decades:
it's like Kosovo for the Serbs. Except for Croatia, these territories have been integral parts of the historical Hungary for almost 1100 years prior to Trianon. Transylvania gave birth to most of our artists. What you now call Bratislava was the political capital of Hungary for centuries. Within it, the székelys remain to this day a close Hungarian community in the mountains. Lots of extended families found themselves separated by borders.
Needless to say, the country's economy was destroyed by the switch. Neither the infrastructure, nor the economical players were prepared for 2/3rd of the country being taken away, divided up by hostile states.
It was a disgrace and probably the worst grand peace treaty of history.
But Hungary didn't exist for much of the last 1100 years, so calling it "itegral parts" is a little much.
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2012, 09:21:02 AM
But after the peace, and to a degree even today, there are considerable 100% Hungarian-inhabitated lands on the outside of Hungary's borders, not just the inside.
I am aware of that. The attempts to divide Austria-Hungary were pretty disastrous. Even the easy stuff like the borders of the Czech lands, well established since the darkest dark ages, turned out to be full of political landmines.
but do tell me, did many magyars live in croatia, vojvodina, dalmatia, transylvania, ruthenia or slovakia?
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 09:22:20 AM
But Hungary didn't exist for much of the last 1100 years, so calling it "itegral parts" is a little much.
These are Europeans we're talking about, BB. Us
Norte Americanos have no real frame of reference when it comes to their "ethnic" hangups.*
*And no, Quebec shit doesn't really count. That's one step barely above our New Orleans thing.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2012, 09:18:31 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2012, 09:16:40 AM
We were fucked over big time. A LOT of clearly Hungarian territories were given as spoils to the victors. Which nullified any positive aspect this peace treaty migh have had to the region, mind you.
Well alot of it was based on boots on the ground right? I mean it was not like there were American, French, and British armies in the area around to divide everything up. It was more like the Serbs saying 'this is what is ours...and in fact we are already there.'.
QuoteIt was a disgrace and probably the worst grand peace treaty of history.
Well it was based on a disgraceful and horrible doctrine: national self-determination. You should have genocided or ethnically cleansed everybody when you had the chance. That is, after all, the logical conclusion of that doctrine.
your first point: no, the south was occupied by brits and french.
We defeated the Czech troops and sent them outside of the historical borders (accomplished by the commie regime) and was prepared to turn against the Romanians, when the Entente threatened to have us stop, and retreat from the liberated territory in exchange of the Romanians emptying what is now Eastern Hungary. The communists obeyed, the Romanians did not, army moral collapsed and the Romanians marched through an army-less country to capture Budapest.
We lost to Entente power, and the borders were drawn by the Entente powers. This wasn't an entirely bad thing as I mentioned, but overall the peace was a prime example of french idiocy.
your second point: please. AFAIK, Wilson himself got disillusioned by the versailles treaties. They were based on a fucked up French notion on how they can keep Germany at bay. Trianon, the countries made there, was a part of that. It failed miserably and fucked up the region for a century and counting.
Quote from: Viking on June 04, 2012, 09:24:05 AM
but do tell me, did many magyars live in croatia, vojvodina, dalmatia, transylvania, ruthenia or slovakia?
QuoteNon-Hungarian population in the Kingdom of Hungary, based on 1910 census dataSlovaks, Romanians, Ruthenians, Serbs, Croats and Germans, who represented the majority of the populations of the above-mentioned territories:
In Upper Hungary (Slovakia, Czechoslovakia): 1,687,977 Slovaks and 1,233,454 others (mostly Hungarians - 886,044, Germans, Ruthenians and Roma). However, according to the Czechoslovak census in 1921, there were 2,025,003 (67,5%) Slovaks, 650,597 (21,7%) Hungarians, 145,844 (4,9%) Germans, 88,970 (3,0%) Ruthenians and 90,456 (3,0%) others including Jews.[66]
In Carpathian Ruthenia (Czechoslovakia): 330,010 Ruthenians and 275,932 others (mostly Hungarians, Germans, Romanians, and Slovaks)
In Transylvania (Romania): 2,831,222 Romanians (53.8%) and 2,431,273 others (mostly Hungarians - 1,662,948 (31.6%) and Germans - 563,087 (10.7%). The 1919 and 1920 Transylvanian censuses indicate a greater percentage of Romanians (57.1%/57.3%) and a smaller Hungarian minority (26.5%/25.5%)[67]
In Vojvodina and Croatia-Slavonia (Yugoslavia): 2,756,000 Croats and Serbs and 1,366,000 others (mostly Hungarians and Germans)
In Prekmurje (Slovenia): 74,199 Slovenes (80%), 14,065 Hungarians (15,2%), 2,540 Germans (2,7%)
In Burgenland (Austria): 217,072 Germans and 69,858 others (mainly Croatian and Hungarian)
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2012, 09:25:41 AM
your second point: please. AFAIK, Wilson himself got disillusioned by the versailles treaties. They were based on a fucked up French notion on how they can keep Germany at bay. Trianon, the countries made there, was a part of that. It failed miserably and fucked up the region for a century and counting.
Oh yeah...THAT was what fucked up the Balkans. And everybody, especially the French, were pretty disillusioned by the treaty.
Also it is pretty rich to see the creaming over Wilson in this deal. He was the primary dude who favored breaking up Austria-Hungary and he was the guy who unpopped the genie bottle by coming up publicly for it in the first place. Once that stampede was out of the barn sure the French tried to get the best deal for themselves but it iis laughable that Wilson should not be enemy #1 here. You think the French wanted to redraw Eastern Europe based on national self-determination or that they really gave two shits?
Any treaty drawn up using Wilson's points was going to be a disaster for Eastern Europe.
The primary French idiocy was that Clemenceau felt some sort of duty to negotiate the best deal for France as he could, as if he was leading some minor nation trying to get scraps from the table, instead of as a super power trying to define a new international order. He even did stuff against his own judgement because he felt like it was his job as representative of France.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2012, 09:31:48 AM
Oh yeah...THAT was what fucked up the Balkans.
:)
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2012, 09:31:48 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2012, 09:25:41 AM
your second point: please. AFAIK, Wilson himself got disillusioned by the versailles treaties. They were based on a fucked up French notion on how they can keep Germany at bay. Trianon, the countries made there, was a part of that. It failed miserably and fucked up the region for a century and counting.
Oh yeah...THAT was what fucked up the Balkans. And everybody, especially the French, were pretty disillusioned by the treaty.
Also it is pretty rich to see the creaming over Wilson in this deal. He was the primary dude who favored breaking up Austria-Hungary and he was the guy who unpopped the genie bottle by coming up publicly for it in the first place. Once that stampede was out of the barn sure the French tried to get the best deal for themselves but it iis laughable that Wilson should not be enemy #1 here. You think the French wanted to redraw Eastern Europe based on national self-determination or that they really gave two shits?
Any treaty drawn up using Wilson's points was going to be a disaster for Eastern Europe.
You had it right at first. The Balkans were and are fucked long before 1919, so Wilson's 19 points didn't cause nothing,.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2012, 09:31:48 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2012, 09:25:41 AM
your second point: please. AFAIK, Wilson himself got disillusioned by the versailles treaties. They were based on a fucked up French notion on how they can keep Germany at bay. Trianon, the countries made there, was a part of that. It failed miserably and fucked up the region for a century and counting.
Oh yeah...THAT was what fucked up the Balkans. And everybody, especially the French, were pretty disillusioned by the treaty.
Well, because they were left pretty much left alone to enforce it.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2012, 09:31:48 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2012, 09:25:41 AM
your second point: please. AFAIK, Wilson himself got disillusioned by the versailles treaties. They were based on a fucked up French notion on how they can keep Germany at bay. Trianon, the countries made there, was a part of that. It failed miserably and fucked up the region for a century and counting.
Oh yeah...THAT was what fucked up the Balkans. And everybody, especially the French, were pretty disillusioned by the treaty.
Also it is pretty rich to see the creaming over Wilson in this deal. He was the primary dude who favored breaking up Austria-Hungary and he was the guy who unpopped the genie bottle by coming up publicly for it in the first place. Once that stampede was out of the barn sure the French tried to get the best deal for themselves but it iis laughable that Wilson should not be enemy #1 here. You think the French wanted to redraw Eastern Europe based on national self-determination or that they really gave two shits?
Any treaty drawn up using Wilson's points was going to be a disaster for Eastern Europe.
The primary French idiocy was that Clemenceau felt some sort of duty to negotiate the best deal for France as he could, as if he was leading some minor nation trying to get scraps from the table, instead of as a super power trying to define a new international order. He even did stuff against his own judgement because he felt like it was his job as representative of France.
Wilson's points were an excuse for the French plans. Look at the statistics I posted.Is that just? About 3 million hungarians, a third of the entire nation finding itself in other countries? Is that national self-determination to you?
Even Austria got slices. Check that funny tiny salient into Austria on our current borders. It's a city they handed to Austria as well, but after an escalating uprising in the neighborhood, they decided to hold a referendum and the city decided to stay with Hungary instead.
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 09:37:36 AM
You had it right at first. The Balkans were and are fucked long before 1919, so Wilson's 19 points didn't cause nothing,.
Well I disagree. Most of those nations had huge support from their ethnic enclaves in the US. They were whispering in Wilson's, and other American politician's, ear about how their cause was full of justice and light. And actually I think some of those nationalists over here in the US did think their cause was in fact full of justice and light. But the forces they unleashed in Eastern Europe towards the end of the war were primarily their doing.
But granted the situation was probably going to be massively fucked up anyway.
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2012, 09:40:31 AM
Wilson's points were an excuse for the French plans. Look at the statistics I posted.Is that just? About 3 million hungarians, a third of the entire nation finding itself in other countries? Is that national self-determination to you?
But they were a minority in most of the areas they lived in. :mellow:
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 09:37:36 AM
You had it right at first. The Balkans were and are fucked long before 1919, so Wilson's 19 points didn't cause nothing,.
I don't blame Wilson, I blame the european powers.
And just because the situation you managed to complicate even more was complicated to begin with, doesn't save you from the fact that you screwed it up.
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 09:42:08 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2012, 09:40:31 AM
Wilson's points were an excuse for the French plans. Look at the statistics I posted.Is that just? About 3 million hungarians, a third of the entire nation finding itself in other countries? Is that national self-determination to you?
But they were a minority in most of the areas they lived in. :mellow:
But a lot of them lived without other ethnicites among them. There was no reason except land-grabbing greed and strategical borders to take them away.
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2012, 09:40:31 AM
Wilson's points were an excuse for the French plans. Look at the statistics I posted.Is that just? About 3 million hungarians, a third of the entire nation finding itself in other countries? Is that national self-determination to you?
Um they were Serb, Romanian, Slovak and so forth plans and they were there lobbying away. And those Hungarians were minorities in those regions so...yeah that is exactly what national self determination is all about. 51% get to decide what nation is in control.
QuoteEven Austria got slices. Check that funny tiny salient into Austria on our current borders. It's a city they handed to Austria as well, but after an escalating uprising in the neighborhood, they decided to hold a referendum and the city decided to stay with Hungary instead.
Yes I am aware of that. It was like an attempt to give Austria the tiny strip of Hungary the Habsburg Hungarian King ruled after Mohacs. So the French tried to weaken Germans by handing territory over to German speakers eh? Interesting and sneaky plot.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2012, 09:41:23 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 09:37:36 AM
You had it right at first. The Balkans were and are fucked long before 1919, so Wilson's 19 points didn't cause nothing,.
Well I disagree. Most of those nations had huge support from their ethnic enclaves in the US. They were whispering in Wilson's, and other American politician's, ear about how their cause was full of justice and light. And actually I think some of those nationalists over here in the US did think their cause was in fact full of justice and light. But the forces they unleashed in Eastern Europe towards the end of the war were primarily their doing.
But granted the situation was probably going to be massively fucked up anyway.
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".
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 09:45:37 AM
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".
Something like that probably would have been the preference. And millions were going to be ruled, and were ruled, by foreigners anyway so they did in fact tell national minorities exactly that.
But of course that was pure fantasy by the time the war ended since by then the nationalist groups in question had already been mobilized, many of them with significant American backing. There may not have been a good settlement of any sort by the time the treaties were being drawn up. Letting Hungary keep parts of Transylvania would have enraged both Romania and Hungary. At least in the arrangement somebody was happy.
The destruction and relegation of Hungary was justified by the Hungarian treason against Austria. It was they who forced the creation of the unwieldy Dual Monarchy, and then stymied every attempt at reform. Just as Austria was reduced, so should Hungary be punished with reduction.
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2012, 09:42:20 AM
I don't blame Wilson, I blame the european powers.
And just because the situation you managed to complicate even more was complicated to begin with, doesn't save you from the fact that you screwed it up.
Ultimately this is a good point I guess. The Great Powers were the bosses and they screwed up the peace.
I am just not sure how it could have gone much better. I also sometimes do not get the fury over the treaty versus the 14 points by the Germans. The Fourteen points is really clear that Germany is going to lose territory to Poland and France. The only surprise in that sense was the territory that went to Denmark, which you have to admit is pretty unprecedented. Yet the loss of territory seems to be what enrages them the most.
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.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on June 04, 2012, 10:32:19 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 09:45:37 AM
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.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 04, 2012, 11:21:03 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 09:45:37 AM
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.
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2012, 11:18:37 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 11:25:26 AM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 11:26:54 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2012, 11:18:37 AM
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?
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?
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2012, 11:42:21 AM
But should that deny us the feel of loss?
Nearly a century later?
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2012, 11:33:09 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 11:26:54 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2012, 11:47:45 AM
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2012, 11:42:21 AM
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.
You fucked over Austria and in so doing fucked over yourselves. I find it hard to scrounge up any sympathy.
Quote from: Neil on June 04, 2012, 12:38:51 PM
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2012, 11:33:09 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 11:26:54 AM
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.
Quote from: Cecil on June 04, 2012, 12:52:10 PM
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.
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2012, 11:42:21 AM
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.
QuoteMeh, 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.
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2012, 01:01:37 PM
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.
For centuries?! The Habsburgs got to where they got by being boring and being lucky not by rabble rousing. They only resorted to that in the post-French Revolutionary days...at least IIRC.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2012, 01:09:39 PM
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.
Fair enough, but then handle that in it's place. The people doing that are our version of the Tea Party. So do not judge Hungarians by those people more than I should judge you and the rest of the Americans by Sarah Palin and her fans.
I don't accept your premise that national self-determination is a good thing. I prefer large, multiethnic empires where the more advanced shepherd and assimilate the lesser peoples. The only problem with Austria was that the empire was destroyed before it's work was done.
I think the only people that still whine here about territorial losses do so because they hope that the government will eventually give them money as compensation for their losses. Of course the government just has to wait another decade or so and they'll all be dead.
Quote from: Neil on June 04, 2012, 01:13:55 PM
I don't accept your premise that national self-determination is a good thing. I prefer large, multiethnic empires where the more advanced shepherd and assimilate the lesser peoples. The only problem with Austria was that the empire was destroyed before it's work was done.
Austria was hijacked by the Germans and Hungarians who, the Hungarians more than the Germans granted, tried to form big nation states out of the thing.
Quote from: Neil on June 04, 2012, 12:41:30 PM
Besides, it's not all that different from the way you people get all worked up about the Confederates.
Care to elaborate?
Quote from: alfred russel on June 04, 2012, 11:32:52 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 11:25:26 AM
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.
Yes and why Nation States are ultimately not a good idea. I like my states based on shared political principals and not nationality or ethnicity. Because you are never going to have a pure state without some pretty horrible shenanigans. Also times change and populations shift. A more flexible basis for the country can guide it peacefully through those sorts of tansitions.
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2012, 01:01:37 PM
Quote from: Cecil on June 04, 2012, 12:52:10 PM
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.
Mhm. You know switch out some of the words and you get one of those old swedish history books describing our HEROIC fight against the danes.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2012, 01:39:07 PM
Yes and why Nation States are ultimately not a good idea. I like my states based on shared political principals and not nationality or ethnicity. Because you are never going to have a pure state without some pretty horrible shenanigans. Also times change and populations shift. A more flexible basis for the country can guide it peacefully through those sorts of tansitions.
You do realize that the only reason the US was able to establish itself as a nation based on "shared political principals(sic)" is because you expelled all those who didn't believe in those same political principles? :contract:
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 02:17:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2012, 01:39:07 PM
Yes and why Nation States are ultimately not a good idea. I like my states based on shared political principals and not nationality or ethnicity. Because you are never going to have a pure state without some pretty horrible shenanigans. Also times change and populations shift. A more flexible basis for the country can guide it peacefully through those sorts of tansitions.
You do realize that the only reason the US was able to establish itself as a nation based on "shared political principals(sic)" is because you expelled all those who didn't believe in those same political principles? :contract:
Where did they go?
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 02:17:39 PM
You do realize that the only reason the US was able to establish itself as a nation based on "shared political principals(sic)" is because you expelled all those who didn't believe in those same political principles? :contract:
But would you really consider people who don't share the principles that we are created equal with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and have a right to self determination when confronted with tyranny, to be men?
Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2012, 01:28:32 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 04, 2012, 12:41:30 PM
Besides, it's not all that different from the way you people get all worked up about the Confederates.
Care to elaborate?
Some people still get pretty pissy about the Confederates taking half your country (even Berkut or CdM on this board, for example). Mind you, I guess the fact that the Union won the war makes it less of a sore subject than it would be for the ever-defeated Hungarians.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2012, 01:39:07 PM
Yes and why Nation States are ultimately not a good idea. I like my states based on shared political principals and not nationality or ethnicity. Because you are never going to have a pure state without some pretty horrible shenanigans. Also times change and populations shift. A more flexible basis for the country can guide it peacefully through those sorts of tansitions.
But sometimes it doesn't. After all, the US was at war for a lot of it's first 150 years.
Quote from: Neil on June 04, 2012, 02:54:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2012, 01:28:32 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 04, 2012, 12:41:30 PM
Besides, it's not all that different from the way you people get all worked up about the Confederates.
Care to elaborate?
Some people still get pretty pissy about the Confederates taking half your country (even Berkut or CdM on this board, for example). Mind you, I guess the fact that the Union won the war makes it less of a sore subject than it would be for the ever-defeated Hungarians.
Are they really that pissy? The Confederates only held parts of our country for essentially mere moments. If Berk and Seedy are pissy about such, then I'd call them out quick as I am to call out Tamas and his "Hungarians."
Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2012, 02:28:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 02:17:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2012, 01:39:07 PM
Yes and why Nation States are ultimately not a good idea. I like my states based on shared political principals and not nationality or ethnicity. Because you are never going to have a pure state without some pretty horrible shenanigans. Also times change and populations shift. A more flexible basis for the country can guide it peacefully through those sorts of tansitions.
You do realize that the only reason the US was able to establish itself as a nation based on "shared political principals(sic)" is because you expelled all those who didn't believe in those same political principles? :contract:
Where did they go?
Principly Canada, but to varous parts of the Empire.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 04, 2012, 02:51:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 02:17:39 PM
You do realize that the only reason the US was able to establish itself as a nation based on "shared political principals(sic)" is because you expelled all those who didn't believe in those same political principles? :contract:
But would you really consider people who don't share the principles that we are created equal with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and have a right to self determination when confronted with tyranny, to be men?
I don't see any of that which is in conflict with the Loyalists position (well no more so than the US was in conflict with it given slavery and all that). :contract:
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 02:17:39 PM
You do realize that the only reason the US was able to establish itself as a nation based on "shared political principals(sic)" is because you expelled all those who didn't believe in those same political principles? :contract:
I said it was better not perfect :P
And expelled is a bit...strong.
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 03:16:21 PM
I don't see any of that which is in conflict with the Loyalists position (well no more so than the US was in conflict with it given slavery and all that). :contract:
Propoganda can be effective it seems, and I fear generations of subjugation to a foreign crown has left you brainwashed. :(
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2012, 03:16:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 02:17:39 PM
You do realize that the only reason the US was able to establish itself as a nation based on "shared political principals(sic)" is because you expelled all those who didn't believe in those same political principles? :contract:
I said it was better not perfect :P
And expelled is a bit...strong.
But it's really, really hard to build a nation around a "shared political belief". The US did it by urging those who opposed to emigrate. It took the French what - until at least 1870, or even arguably 1945, to come to a true concensus about their republican political ideology. The USSR tried for 70 years and couldn't do it.
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 03:15:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2012, 02:28:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 02:17:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2012, 01:39:07 PM
Yes and why Nation States are ultimately not a good idea. I like my states based on shared political principals and not nationality or ethnicity. Because you are never going to have a pure state without some pretty horrible shenanigans. Also times change and populations shift. A more flexible basis for the country can guide it peacefully through those sorts of tansitions.
You do realize that the only reason the US was able to establish itself as a nation based on "shared political principals(sic)" is because you expelled all those who didn't believe in those same political principles? :contract:
Where did they go?
Principly Canada, but to varous parts of the Empire.
Well I guess there is always something difficulty when founding a nation to incorporate those who don't want to a new nation formed.
Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2012, 03:28:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 03:15:09 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2012, 02:28:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 02:17:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2012, 01:39:07 PM
Yes and why Nation States are ultimately not a good idea. I like my states based on shared political principals and not nationality or ethnicity. Because you are never going to have a pure state without some pretty horrible shenanigans. Also times change and populations shift. A more flexible basis for the country can guide it peacefully through those sorts of tansitions.
You do realize that the only reason the US was able to establish itself as a nation based on "shared political principals(sic)" is because you expelled all those who didn't believe in those same political principles? :contract:
Where did they go?
Principly Canada, but to varous parts of the Empire.
Well I guess there is always something difficulty when founding a nation to incorporate those who don't want to a new nation formed.
But when discussing expulsions to form a unified country, how is it any different when you are expelling people based on political beliefs, or ethnic heritage?
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 03:30:17 PM
But when discussing expulsions to form a unified country, how is it any different when you are expelling people based on political beliefs, or ethnic heritage?
Well the later is rather nebulous plus individuals have no real choice in the matter (besides trying to manipulate the general consensus on what constitutes a given ethnicity).
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 03:26:03 PM
But it's really, really hard to build a nation around a "shared political belief". The US did it by urging those who opposed to emigrate. It took the French what - until at least 1870, or even arguably 1945, to come to a true concensus about their republican political ideology. The USSR tried for 70 years and couldn't do it.
In seriousness, I don't disagree that those opposed were encouraged/forced to emigrate by various means, but I don't think that is how the US built the nation. In 1776 there were 2 million or so people in the 13 colonies. I don't know the numbers that left, but whatever it was ended up being swamped by new immigration in a relatively short time.
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 03:26:03 PM
But it's really, really hard to build a nation around a "shared political belief". The US did it by urging those who opposed to emigrate.
Pretty sure that was not instrumental to forming the country at all. That was emotional and based on the violence of the war, not because we had to expel them because they were lighting themselves on fire to protest the Articles of Confederation. Further, I do not see anything in the Constitution most Loyalists couldn't live with.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 04, 2012, 03:36:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 03:26:03 PM
But it's really, really hard to build a nation around a "shared political belief". The US did it by urging those who opposed to emigrate. It took the French what - until at least 1870, or even arguably 1945, to come to a true concensus about their republican political ideology. The USSR tried for 70 years and couldn't do it.
In seriousness, I don't disagree that those opposed were encouraged/forced to emigrate by various means, but I don't think that is how the US built the nation. In 1776 there were 2 million or so people in the 13 colonies. I don't know the numbers that left, but whatever it was ended up being swamped by new immigration in a relatively short time.
According to wiki estimates are 20% of the popuation were loyalists, saying 500,000 of 2.5 mil (well - white population at least).
As we in Canada can tell you it's a bit of a problem if 20% of your population fundamentally doesn't "buy in" to your national ideal.
I read a book on the history of Latin America recently. One of it's main thesis points were that Latin American countries fundamentally had to "national ideal" like the US did - it's revolutions were promoted by the local elites with the primary purpose to continue the status quo.
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 03:55:55 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 04, 2012, 03:36:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 03:26:03 PM
But it's really, really hard to build a nation around a "shared political belief". The US did it by urging those who opposed to emigrate. It took the French what - until at least 1870, or even arguably 1945, to come to a true concensus about their republican political ideology. The USSR tried for 70 years and couldn't do it.
In seriousness, I don't disagree that those opposed were encouraged/forced to emigrate by various means, but I don't think that is how the US built the nation. In 1776 there were 2 million or so people in the 13 colonies. I don't know the numbers that left, but whatever it was ended up being swamped by new immigration in a relatively short time.
According to wiki estimates are 20% of the popuation were loyalists, saying 500,000 of 2.5 mil (well - white population at least).
As we in Canada can tell you it's a bit of a problem if 20% of your population fundamentally doesn't "buy in" to your national ideal.
I read a book on the history of Latin America recently. One of it's main thesis points were that Latin American countries fundamentally had to "national ideal" like the US did - it's revolutions were promoted by the local elites with the primary purpose to continue the status quo.
How "fundamentally" opposed did one have to be a loyalist? Didn't the latter term just mean you were in favor of sticking with Britain without really saying how committed you were to that idea? One might just have been a loyalist because they feared disruption to trade/what would happen if their small population was unable to defeat Great Britain.
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 03:55:55 PM
According to wiki estimates are 20% of the popuation were loyalists, saying 500,000 of 2.5 mil (well - white population at least).
As we in Canada can tell you it's a bit of a problem if 20% of your population fundamentally doesn't "buy in" to your national ideal.
Well I would just like to note that Canada has had far greater success dealing with Quebecois than most old world nations have had with national and ethnic minorities.
And I have heard estimates as high as 50% were Loyalists or at least not Patriots. Since neither 20% nor 50% of the population was expelled I have to question your belief that we drove them all out.
QuoteI read a book on the history of Latin America recently. One of it's main thesis points were that Latin American countries fundamentally had to "national ideal" like the US did - it's revolutions were promoted by the local elites with the primary purpose to continue the status quo.
I completely miss your point here.
I am also not claiming that not building states around ethnicity or nationality is the way to utopia and eternal goodness and light. Just that it is better.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2012, 03:42:02 PM
Further, I do not see anything in the Constitution most Loyalists couldn't live with.
The lack of subordination to the King?
Quote from: Neil on June 04, 2012, 04:10:57 PM
The lack of subordination to the King?
Well besides that!
Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2012, 04:00:40 PM
How "fundamentally" opposed did one have to be a loyalist? Didn't the latter term just mean you were in favor of sticking with Britain without really saying how committed you were to that idea? One might just have been a loyalist because they feared disruption to trade/what would happen if their small population was unable to defeat Great Britain.
I gather it had little to do with one's beliefs, but ones actions. If you supported the Loyalist cause - either out of patriotism, loyalty, or just to preserve one's business - you were ostracized in post-revolutionary America and many felt they had no choice but to leave.
Quote from: Tamas on June 04, 2012, 01:01:37 PM
Well we wanted that. We fought for that. We won it. In 1849.
You're older that I thought.
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 03:55:55 PM
According to wiki estimates are 20% of the popuation were loyalists, saying 500,000 of 2.5 mil (well - white population at least).
As we in Canada can tell you it's a bit of a problem if 20% of your population fundamentally doesn't "buy in" to your national ideal.
Assuming that most of those people left (I don't think they did), I don't see the same problem for the US. For starters, the loyalists had the same culture--the difference was just that they wanted to stay as a part of the UK. New immigrants, which swarmed the country, were unlikely to want reunion with the British, and as importantly it is unlikely loyalists would have kept such a mindset for long after independence. Loyalists were ultimately motivated by conservatism in government, but once a legitimate US government was created the same sentiments would prompt them to support the US. There are Americans today that are descendants of the loyalists, but I don't know of any that want to subject ourselves to QEII.
Even in Latin America, where things often did not work out well, there were not serious indigenous movements to reunite with Spain.
If you don't want to lose stuff in the peace treaty then don't lose major wars.
Swedes today may mourn or celebrate the loss of great power status in 1721 but no one would call the peace unfair.
Quote from: The Brain on June 05, 2012, 12:26:19 PM
If you don't want to lose stuff in the peace treaty then don't lose major wars.
Swedes today may mourn or celebrate the loss of great power status in 1721 but no one would call the peace unfair.
Or, like the arabs, if you lose a major war don't show up for the peace conferance.
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2012, 03:55:55 PM
I read a book on the history of Latin America recently. One of it's main thesis points were that Latin American countries fundamentally had to "national ideal" like the US did - it's revolutions were promoted by the local elites with the primary purpose to continue the status quo.
So, to a large extent, was the American revolution. America's was a conservative revolution and I think elite-led too. But the context in which it took place was pre-French Revolution and pre-Napoleon. That's a hugely significant difference.
Edit: Also, crucially, pre-Haiti.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2012, 08:28:26 PM
America's was a conservative revolution and I think elite-led too.
Um Thomas Payne?
American society was pretty dramatically changed by the revolution so if they intended something conservative they had to be pretty disappointed.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2012, 08:30:27 PMUm Thomas Payne?
American society was pretty dramatically changed by the revolution so if they intended something conservative they had to be pretty disappointed.
There's those two meanings of revolution though - which I think's appropriate for the American revolution (and, incidentally Cromwell's). There's the modern, political sense that it's a great upheaval that changes the world and there's the older sense of a revolution, a full turn that ends with society in a very similar place.
It seems to me that the American revolution is one of the only examples of a conservative revolution. They managed to change political and civil society while stopping short of a radical revolutionary phase that tends to be more economically focused. The American revolution simultaneously ends monarchy and aristocracy while maintaining the established wealth and power of men like Jefferson or Washington.
(Edit: I think the more radical phase happens when the masses get involved. Elites are interested in power and politics. They want to change institutions and governing structures while they've got their revolution. Once that expands, for whatever reason, to the mass population they very often want to change the economic structure and to challenge the governing structures entirely. This happened in France and Haiti, was hinted at in England by the Levellers, but avoided there and in America.)
By contrast the French and Haitian revolutions consume that too. Their example, I think, leads to another approach by men of position in Latin America because while stirring up the masses and trying to utterly change society can lead to the US, it can also lead to the Terror and I think it's rather difficult to stop - in my view the Americans managed it in part because of the genius of that generation of leaders.
But to use your example of Tom Paine I think there's a difference between the Tom Paine of 'Common Sense' and the man who later writes 'Rights of Man', that letter to President Washington and in 'Agrarian Justice' proposes a fully funded land-tax based welfare state. I think the success of the conservatism of America's revolution is reflected in the fact that I believe only a half dozen people turn up for Paine's funeral and by that point he's more or less universally derided in America. Including by some associates of Jefferson who was his old friend, and the reason he was welcomed back from France.
Well virtually every white man in the US at the time owned some land and if you didn't have some you just had to move 20 miles to the west and get some. It is hard to raise the Prols to get what's theres when they can just...you know...get what's theres. If a similar situation had existed in France or England their revolutions would have also looked alot different but that does not mean it was somehow elite driven, just the interests of the common white man were different.
And there were lots of crazy populist things going on even in our case. Like the states just cancelling debts at one point. It was not until the Whisky Rebellion that the forces of order and conservatism really took control again.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2012, 08:46:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2012, 08:30:27 PMUm Thomas Payne?
American society was pretty dramatically changed by the revolution so if they intended something conservative they had to be pretty disappointed.
There's those two meanings of revolution though - which I think's appropriate for the American revolution (and, incidentally Cromwell's). There's the modern, political sense that it's a great upheaval that changes the world and there's the older sense of a revolution, a full turn that ends with society in a very similar place.
It seems to me that the American revolution is one of the only examples of a conservative revolution. They managed to change political and civil society while stopping short of a radical revolutionary phase that tends to be more economically focused. The American revolution simultaneously ends monarchy and aristocracy while maintaining the established wealth and power of men like Jefferson or Washington.
(Edit: I think the more radical phase happens when the masses get involved. Elites are interested in power and politics. They want to change institutions and governing structures while they've got their revolution. Once that expands, for whatever reason, to the mass population they very often want to change the economic structure and to challenge the governing structures entirely. This happened in France and Haiti, was hinted at in England by the Levellers, but avoided there and in America.)
By contrast the French and Haitian revolutions consume that too. Their example, I think, leads to another approach by men of position in Latin America because while stirring up the masses and trying to utterly change society can lead to the US, it can also lead to the Terror and I think it's rather difficult to stop - in my view the Americans managed it in part because of the genius of that generation of leaders.
But to use your example of Tom Paine I think there's a difference between the Tom Paine of 'Common Sense' and the man who later writes 'Rights of Man', that letter to President Washington and in 'Agrarian Justice' proposes a fully funded land-tax based welfare state. I think the success of the conservatism of America's revolution is reflected in the fact that I believe only a half dozen people turn up for Paine's funeral and by that point he's more or less universally derided in America. Including by some associates of Jefferson who was his old friend, and the reason he was welcomed back from France.
Sheilbh, would you compare the Glorious Revolution to the American Revolution?
I think there were perhaps ideological links, but I don't think they're massively similar. A better comparison is perhaps the English Civil War. In both cases there was immediate conflict which required the funding, maintaining and leading of armies - which is what the elites did at that period. So they retain control of the revolutionary process to a far greater degree than in other revolutionary situations.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 07, 2012, 02:49:35 PM
I think there were perhaps ideological links, but I don't think they're massively similar. A better comparison is perhaps the English Civil War. In both cases there was immediate conflict which required the funding, maintaining and leading of armies - which is what the elites did at that period. So they retain control of the revolutionary process to a far greater degree than in other revolutionary situations.
I was thinking along the lines that in both cases the theoretically ultimate font of government power: the monarchy/the UK, began to assert power that threatened the interests of the upper and middle classes. In neither case was there a radical departure in the way the government worked (at least until things began to break down in the US and the constitutional convention needed to be called).
The Glorious Revolution just substituted one king for another more in line with the prevailing views of the country. The American Revolution left power with the colonies which had been nearly de facto independent for a number of years.
The reason one had a major war and one didn't is that James II had no real power base outside of the UK. Had the UK let the colonies decide their course for themselves, I doubt there would have been much fighting either. On the other hand, the English Civil War was a civil war between different parts of society that challenged the basic form through which government would be delivered.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 07, 2012, 02:49:35 PM
I think there were perhaps ideological links, but I don't think they're massively similar. A better comparison is perhaps the English Civil War. In both cases there was immediate conflict which required the funding, maintaining and leading of armies - which is what the elites did at that period. So they retain control of the revolutionary process to a far greater degree than in other revolutionary situations.
In that respect I'd say George Washington was a far greater political leader from a military background than Oliver Cromwell was.