Arató Béla As a Yank I have no idea why someone would want to leave the EU, the answer to everything is nationalism yeah but wouldn’t the immediate and long term losses far outweigh any potential benefits?
@@benwilson6145 Under Ottoman, and then under Austro-Hungarian rule The Serbians, Croats, Bosnians did not killed each others. After 1990 these nations, who in 1920 were united, based on the claim, that they are brothers, started to kill each others in the most barbarical way possible.
Austria-Hungary was a multiethnic powder keg, that was fundamentally flawed in the age of nationalism. Allies, 1920: OK, let's create Yugoslavia, a multiethnic powder keg, that will also be fundamentally flawed in the age of nationalism.... 1989:
1. In A-H the were finno-ugrics,germans,latins,south slavs,west slavs and east slavs, While in Yugo only south slavs. 2. Pretty sure in was in the 90' if memory serves me well 3. Maybe it would still be around without US intervention.
@Alpha the Infinite The Balkans turned into a hellhole of violence in 1914 for the same reason it turned into a hellhole of violence in the 1990s. It was a contested sphere of influence. The locals were never really asked or consulted about what they wanted for themselves. Plebiscites were few and far between. Unfortunately, it took almost a hundred years for leaders (both foreign and local) to realise that *the simple principle of nation states, based on individual freedom, liberty and self-determination, and free from outside meddling,* was the solution to the problem all along. Today, we have nation states in the Balkans, so let's hope it stays that way.
@@ralphbernhard1757 The Yugoslav wars weren't a great heroic struggle against the oppressive regime of Yugoslavia but a war fueled by Western resources to tear that regime down.
You are implying that the peace treaties after WWI were motivated by anti-imperialist ideology. That's false. They were only inspired by a punitive attitude towards the losers. Anti-imperialism only took hold in politics after the Second World War.
I am a space man The South Slavs are the Yugoslavs, AKA Croatians, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Bosnians, and Slovenians. The Bulgarians are also Southern Slavs, but they weren’t a part of the state of Yugoslavia, which has a very controversial history.
@@thrall5612 I can not believe that you did not mentioned Serbs, the most numerous south Slavs ethnic group, and the most numerous ethnic group in old Hungarian kingdom after Hungarians... incredible
there was a man in Karpatalja, now Zakarpatska, who bornt in Astria-Hungary, lived in, CZSK, in Ukraine and then Hungary, and then Sovietunion. He never left the town lol
@@agostonpalatinus1513 Los Angeles also was Mexico some time . However .... In 21 century it is much wiser not reconsidering the borders. And it should be the corner stone of US politics. However look at russia and its claims of 5 Ukrainian regions. And .. what the world/USA is going to do ? Nothing , right ? And what's next? My prediction - Moldova , one of the Baltic countries or maybe all of them.
He was not born in Austro-Hungary. He was born in Romania, more precisely in Transylvania, a land stolen by the Austro-Hungary from Romania. It was obvious that a stolen land would eventually be gave back to the Romanian state, the true owner of Transylvania. I this equations, all of you were born in the same Romanian town.
Both of them oppress mostly outside their borders than inside of. Being a minority living inside Metropolitan France back then was a bless. Sometimes even better then living among your peers. Many well off folk left their kind to live large there.
Slovenians actually didn't wanted to break away from Austria, they wanted their own kingdom/province IN Austria-Hungary so they'd be equal to Austrians and Hungarians
The same was true with the Slovaks. They did not want to get under a Czech regime. Nobody asked the people of the Monarchy where they wanted to live, despite the harsh populist slogans the Entente countries were operating with.
@Josip That's what you think now, but back then there was a powerful "Yugoslav" sentiment. I fail to see what was different from the Italians, Romanians and Yugoslavs. Italians and Romanians were split into multiple kingdoms but united in the 19th and 20th centuries, just like Yugoslavia. But they lasted while Yugoslavia didn't. Even in 1940, some Croatians had their own "All-Croatian" fascist movement were as an "All-Sicilian" or "All-Transylvanian" movement in Italy or Romania would have been absurd. Joseph Tito calmed things down, until he died in 1980. @TheRandomGuy I give you: Austro-Hungarian-Czech-Slovak-Sebro-Croatian-Polish-Ruthenian-Romanian-Slovene-Italian Empire!
The Great War channel inspired not only the creation of our channel, but provided the inspiration behind our Collapse of Austria Hungary and the Almost Anschuß series looking at the collapse day-by-day. Keep up the great work, and thanks for providing us with the spark!
Did you mean "Anschluss" (Annexation of Austria)? "Anschuß" sounds like it would derive from Schießen (shooting) and suggests like someone or something was hit by a bullet.
In Serbia politicians celebrate this day and call it a liberation, they liberated my city which is 90% Hungarian even today from Hungary, well thanks i guess...
@Ron Lewenberg I would say it was Germany and Russia’s fault Germany shouldn’t have given the blank cheque because that was basically getting Germany involved which would make it different to the Balkan wars since they were localised and Germany never did the blank cheque during those wars so yea but it’s also Russia’s fault as well for protecting Serbia just because it was a Slavic nation that’s like if Pakistan and India became friends because both have Punjab ethnicity in them Russia also broke the rules of European warfare like mobilising under a different name which meant Germany couldn’t mobilise cuz technically they would seem the aggressor which Austria-Hungary didn’t want and for some reason Wilhelm was like pls Austria-Hungary no abandon but definitely Britain and Italy made it worse Britain was relying on an ancient treaty to declare war on Germany although Germany shouldn’t have just gotten Belgium involved Italy on the other hand was just entering the war cuz Britain promised them land the arabs shouldn’t have revolted either cuz well Britain’s not trustworthy I mean SYKES picot agreement it’s said Sykes but seriously they weren’t trustworthy plus the ottomans were trying to give self autonomy and when the ottomans did do something the arabs were like GIVE US SELF AUTONOMY America also made things worse look I understand them going to war Germany was asking Mexico to attack them but it’s war America of course Germany’s gonna sink some ships they even told u probably they sent the telegram cuz they thought u might go to war with them since they started unrestricted submarine warfare again another player would be the ottomans the ottomans shouldn’t have gotten involved in the war Germany would be fighting Russia and France and the brits in France also Belgium Austria-Hungary would be fighting Italy and Serbia and Romania Belarus would be fighting Serbia and Romania so what would the ottomans do they could try and take Egypt but they had bigger problems at home and really any war the ottomans fought from now on was going to have to be a defensive one they could win big battles even if they were offensive but never an offensive war and really if they went for Egypt they would surely have a revolt in Arabia and it’s very likely colonial powers like Russia Britain’s and France would also scramble to build up claims to the Middle East by attacking it so really there was no reason for getting involved their ally Germany could barley support them and really Germany was the only powerful player in the central powers where as Britain and France and defined more were powerful and more powerful so yea China why did you get involved all that came was you signing a humiliating treaty with Japan even Italy the loser winer of the war got land little but they didn’t lose anything the colonial powers were all pressuring China to join but really the best option was to stay out since Germany wanted China on their side too both sides were colonial powers so yea I understand the Allied forces were more powerful but really all the colonial powers could do is pressure beyond that and China would join the other side so neither side wanted that so yea if China stayed neutral then nothing would have happened to them
Not exactly. Spain and Portugal have been sharing the same border in the iberia penisula with few minor adjustments for centuries and there's very little controversy. Especially if you look at post-napoleonic europe
@@alejandroojeda1572 Spain and Portugal also have the benefit of once being the same... not country, nor Kingdom, but... Unified, and then they were unified against the Muslim Taifas as well.
@@cezarcaruntu I might remind you that part of that 70 years was completely and artificially held together by force through the USSR. If they weren't around, it would've likely collapsed a lot quicker.
An excellent video presentation that gives a clear outline of the treaty and the machinations that led to its ratification. The post war politics of central and Eastern Europe are generally ignored by UK based historians in favour of Versailles. This is one of the first documentaries that takes time to explain the negotiations and terms in any great detail. It certainly helps foster a greater understanding of the politics that churned constantly in the aftermath of the Great War and in the countdown to The Second World War.
Moutton N • What's there more to explain when you talk about what the Empires have stollen throughout the human history? The territories occupied and stollen by Empires illegally must be given back to the proper owner of the territory.
The austrian emperor brings Hungary to a war, where it can't win anything, and at the end Austria gets Burgenland from Hungary. That's what the Entente called justice ...
Sorry, but the vast majority of Hungarian statesmen supported the war too. The idea that Austria forced Hungary into this war is a modern day myth. The only personality who INITIALLY opposed going to war was Istvan Tisza. But he changed his mind when he realized that refusing to go to war meant losing German territorial guarantee and possible German support for national minorities to secede. Lets not forget that the broker of the dual monarchy was Germany.
In major parts of Transylvania, Upper Hungary and Transcarpathia the hungarian population was much above 50%. So we know, that the population was not an issue.
@@gaborrab4785 If you want to blame those 3.3 million ethnic Hungarians on someone blame it on Hungary. Population exchange was proposed but Hungary refused in hopes of taking that land back.
10:18 This must be a joke. What about the Basque, Breton, Dutch, German and other minorities in France which have been suppressed only since the "glorious" revolution of the "grande" nation? I didn't until now realize how dire the mental state of military high command must have been at that time. Would explain the collateral damage.
Yes, we Hungarians have a proverb: The owl sais to the sparrow: You have a big head... "He sees the mote in his brothers eye but not the beam in his own." This is how the French and English behaved too.
It comes down to the details on the ground. As you mentioned, local languages in France have been targeted by the French state - the revolutions of the 1780s and 90s were centralist and supremacist, let's not kid ourselves. One notable difference with A-H and Translithania particularly is that while that was happening, France extended the vote to all it's linguistic minorities too !! Some of the most radical voting rights in Europe at that. The Hungarian Diet's franchise has been labelled "the most unrepresentantive in history" due to how medievally it favoured the disproportionately ethnic Hungarian landed nobility. So the difference is that, every few years, Bretons or Alsacians could elect someone else and could organise to obtain the recall of a particularly harsh official or primary school headmaster, to give one example. Much like in A-H, up until the early to mid-20th century, rural regions spoke local languages or dialects, with the language of the metropolis holding sway in the cities. The rural exodus has been killing minority languages in France since then, with the central state glad to help the movement along. I see it as tragic, yes but the conditions on the ground in Hungary were vastly worse and run directly by the landlords and their emissaries. The cooption described above was not offered to most Slovaks, Romanians, South Slavs etc (to say nothing of those unfortunate enough to live under martial law on the eastern Transylvanian border) in the same way as with the linguistic minorities in say France or Germany or even Cislithenia, because Magyarisation was the brainchild of a political class who benefited from the neo-feudal rural status quo, not from excessive modernisation, social wellfare and civil liberties needed.
Yeah, biggest joke, and clearly shows the unjust nature of the treaty. Austria and Hungary had equal responsibility for the war, yet Austria received territories from Hungary for what reason exactly? Also, must be noted that Austria is the only country that received Hungarian territories that totally respected the Hungarian past of the received area.
@@justmenell3380 The numerous rebellions and wars for independence against Austria say otherwise. Little Entente propaganda is all you know, because it's all they hammered into your head in school.
@@gaborrab4785 Have you ever considered the majority of the population? It's mentioned a few times in the video that population was the biggest concern of the Treaty of Trianon. Sopron was mostly Hungarian but the whole rural region around Sopron was mostly German, this is why it went to Austria. And yes you ended up with 3.3 million Hungarians outside Hungary but would you rather have that or 11.2 million non-Hungarians inside Hungary? it's difficult to make perfect borders when so many regions have mixed ethnicites and the majority of the population was not Hungarian. Don't talk about respecting the past as there are still some ultranationalist hungarians today who claim that the Hungarians were the first in the lost regions despite conquering them in the 10th century, the world didn't begin with Hungary. If you want others to respect your past, you must respect their past first, if we cannot agree on the past, what chance do we have to agree on the present?
@@randomboi-ce2ro That's not really true, though. For example the Bretons in mainland France were forbidden to speak their language and children caught speaking it in schools were punished. This ban was in effect until the mid 20th century and today very few people speak Breton as their first language as a result.
@ww ww No it wasn't romanian land, the hungarian aristocrats invited romanian workers to Transylvania, because they were cheaper than the hungarians. That's why there were more and more romanians. But that time nationality wasn't so important.
@ww ww what is the connection that you heard about a crazy guy who thought Jesus was hungarian? I'm sure every country have crazy people. And I have never said or thought that there were no romanians in Transylvania, I said it was not romanian. It was mixed, but most of the romanians were invited in larger numbers later from over the Carpathians. Supports my agenda haha, from Louis L. Lote (editor), ONE LAND - TWO NATIONS TRANSYLVANIA AND THE THEORY OF DACO-ROMAN-RUMANIAN CONTINUITY: "According to an investigation based on place-names, 511 villages of Transylvania and Banat appear in documents at the end of the 13th century, however only 3 of them bore Romanian names.[57] Around 1400 AD, Transylvania and Banat consisted of 1757 villages, though only 76 (4.3%) of them had names of Romanian origin."
It's almost like France and Britain wrote the Treaty of Versailles, Trianon, et al., with the express purpose of making the losing side so destitute that it guaranteed resentment and a second world war.
@@militaryorchid7937 Well, a peace punitive enough to sow resentment, but not punitive enough to ultimately weaken the Germans. It could have been helped either way, by either making it more gentlemanly, or more brutal.
As a romanian i have to say that hungary is just jealous that we won they didn't. I m looking at you viktor . Do not that think i forgot your facebooks post
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth So the Treaty of Bucharest was just about a battle...entering a war twice is something which only you imbeciles could do, twice.
In many ways, Central Europe and particularly the story of the frontiers between Hungary and her neighboring States reminds me of my own Middle-East ! Thank you again Jesse, Flo and crew for this historical episode about the Treaty of Trianon full of exciting information and introducing eminent historical Hungarian figures too
I think absolute the same. Our borders were drawn in a map just like the Sykes-Picot line. They had the power to do it so they did it. It's the same 'colonial' mentality regardless the name of the continent. Greetings from Hungary.
@@Bandokker The treaty of Trianon was the opposite of the Sykes-Picot line. Were the Sykes-Picot line didn't care about ethnicity, the treaty of Trianon was made specifically because of ethnicity. With Romanains, Slovaks and South Slavs bring separated into their own countries.
@@catalinmarius3985 If the treaty of Trianon was made caring about ethnicity than it would have left the ethnically Hungarian territories to Hungary. Even if Székelyföld would not have been made as an enclave, there were still other border territories with Hungarian ethnic majority with about 2 million Hungarian talking people, and these territories were split from Hungary just due to spite and to appease the neighboring allied countries, ethnicity wasn't considered at all.
@@fenrirr22 Would you rather have 3.3 million Hungarians outside Hungary or 11.2 million non-Hungarians inside Hungary? it's difficult to make perfect borders when many regions have mixed ethnicites, a minority in another country was inevitable. You care about Hungary but don't care about the people who had to live under Hungarian oppression for hundreds of years. It's also worth pointing out that you weren't only the minority in those regions, but the conquerors who treated the natives as 2nd class citizens.
This is very well constructed, objective video. As you have mentioned the white terror 2 or 3 times, it would have been correct to mention, at least on a side note, that the 1919 white terror in Hungary was actually triggered by the preceeding red terror, a wave of most brutal terror and mass killings of innocent people by the communist regime, especially by its terror squads Lenin Boys and Cserny Squad.
In Romaneste se zice: are turcul o vorba " Hai sictir"! The document that was approved at the assembly does not mention a specific border though. It mentions the unification of Transylvania, Banat, Crisana and Maramures. You are probably confusing the resolution at Alba Iulia with the Bucharest pact signed by Romania in 1916, which indeed stipulated a border claim all the way to the Tisza river. But the electors that voted the union of Transylvania with Romania were unaware of this pact and its provisions, since it was kept secret. Transylvanian leaders such as Vaida-Voievod did not consider a border of a unified Romanian kingdom all the way to the Tisza river. Only Bratianu lobbied for one, since he was one of the people involved in the negotiations with the Entente prior to Romania's entry in the war. So he was aware of the secret treaty. "A few, carefully selected exclusively Romanian people have very wobbly legitimacy to declare union or whatever on behalf of the entire population." Those 1225 delegates were elected by their communities though. They were not wobbly, nor illegitimate, as they received the authority of their people to vote in the assembly. Over 100.000 Romanians were present at the assembly as well to assist in the ceremony. So the resolution was both supported by the people and legitimate. "Imagine now a Big Russian National Assembly in Luhansk, declaring the Great Union of All Russians with Russia till the Dniepr River without having a single Ukrainian or any other ethnicity present…." The main difference between the two situations is that in 1918, there was no Romanian military presence in Alba Iulia so one could claim that the resolution was adopted under duress. The Romanian army was invited and crossed the Carpathians only 1 week later, entering Brasov on the 7th of December. The fact that the union has resisted until now shows that there was widespread support among Romanians for the union. It was not an artificial project planned in a conference room as was the case with Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, but an organic process that was prepared for decades before the actual union. For example, the Romanian leaders in both the Old Kingdom and in Transylvania took care in training an administrative bureaucracy that would be ready to supplant the Hungarian administration when the context is favorable. That is why the transition from a Hungarian-lead bureaucracy to a Romanian one was so smooth. Anyway, it is a little bit hypocritical to accuse Romanians of not inviting other nationalities to vote when Romanians were excluded from all major political decisions concerning Transylvania since it was annexed by Hungary in 1867. We have tried for decades this approach, which failed. If Hungarians were not willing to listen and cooperate with us, why should we listen and cooperate with them? It was pointless to negotiate with Hungary as this ship sailed long ago, ever since they jailed or exiled the Romanian Memorandum movement, which truly shifted the political stance of the Romanian people. Until 1892, Romanians were willing to not secede from Hungary if they received equal rights and a form of self-government. After 1892, union with the Old Kingdom of Romania became the most popular option. So it was not Romanians who put the final nail in the coffin of the Hungarian Kingdom, but the Hungarian political elite itself dug the grave and prepared the coffin.
Prietene nu mai aberați, Transilvania nu a aparținut niciodată Ungariei ci a fost anexata de imperiu austro-ungar, iar România nu a existat fiindca exista Dacia, iar Transilvania era teritoriul de sine stătător al Daciei, acolo s-a format Neamul Minunat Românesc, acolo este leagănul civilizațiilor europene, noi suntem Geți, iar toată zona aceea a Europei centrale și de est a aparținut Traco-Geto-Dacilor, Geției, Daciei ..România de astăzi! Asta e istoria adevărată a Atlantidei!
It is said that in his youth Clemenceau wrote a play, and wanted to be put on scene in Hungary, but the Hungarian theatre director considered it to be a bad play, and because of this he refused. And other thing is that his son was married with a Hungarian woman who said something ugly about Clemenceau, and these made him to hate the Hungarians, and punish them so much in Trianon. I do not know if this is only a legend, or its true.
"Nations other than the Austrians and Hungarians regarded the Ausgleich of 1867 as a cynical deal struck between the two state-nations of the ‘Dual Monarchy’ (together comprising some 43 per cent of the total state population) for the joint suppression of the remainder of the multi-national populace. Within Hungary, early promises to respect the rights of the non-Magyar 58.8 per cent of the population (in 1880), notably by a Nationalities Law in 1868, were soon abandoned in favor of a sustained programme of magyarisation. In a spirit of ‘we have re-made Hungary, now we must re-make Hungarians’, the Hungarian language was foisted on the nonMagyar majority through advancing state control of the school and university systems. Non-Magyar representation in the Hungarian Diet at Budapest was filtered at parliamentary elections to derisory and tokenistic levels. Demographically a mini-empire in which the Magyars could never even (quite) muster a majority, Hungary claimed the Magyarsag or ‘Magyar-land’ as a Hungarian nation-state. It is important to consider why the Hungarians should adopt magyarisation with such relish. Neither the spirit nor the policy of magyarisation was born in the 1880s: Hungarian contempt for the smaller nationalities unfortunate enough to find themselves within Hungarian jurisdiction had been legendary for centuries and had contributed to the isolation and subsequent defeat of the Hungarian national cause in 1849. Fundamentally, the historical career of the Hungarian people predisposed them psychologically towards what might be tritely called ‘insecurity-based aggression’. A pervasive sense of racial and linguistic isolation combined with a conviction that their resentful Germanic, Slavonic and even Latin neighbors were waiting for an opportunity to turn back the clock of history and expel the Magyars from their unlawfully seized real-estate back to the Asia from which they had swept in the ninth century. Indeed, the whole history of the Hungarians could be seen as a sequence of traumatic oscillation between possession, dispossession and repossession, most recently over the 1848-1867 period. A collective, almost genetically imprinted sense of insecurity pre-determined a pathological siege mentality which supported the magyarisation to which the supremacist establishment of Hungary committed itself from the 1880s." Source: Raymond Pearson, "Hungary. A state truncated, a nation dismembered", in _Europe and Ethnicity. The First World War and contemporary ethnic conflict_ , by Seamus Dunn and T.G.Fraser (editors), Routledge, London&New York, 1996, pages 88-89.
Jesus Christ, how did this ever make it into print? This was written in 1996? I'd be forgiven for thinking it was written a hundred years earlier. And I'm not even Hungarian!
@@miro.georgiev97 Well, it took almost 100 years for many people in Western countries to understand what happened in Austria-Hungary Empire... There were Westerners who realized even back then, at the the beginning of XXth century, that the Empire is doomed if Magyars are allowed to continue with Magyarization, but nobody paid attention, or just a few did, in Budapest and Vienna. Today, in retrospect, thinks get more clear, and the researchers and historians in West are free of any bias, meaning they can study and assess objectively how the things evolved in A-H, and under what conditions, in order to reach the well-known results - the WW1, the collapse of A-H, and the Paris Treaties.
> Source: Raymond Pearson, "Hungary. A state truncated, a nation dismembered", in Europe and Ethnicity. The First World War and contemporary ethnic conflict , by Seamus Dunn and T.G.Fraser (editors), Routledge, London&New York, 1996, pages 89-93.
It was a world where everybody oppressed everyone else and accused everybody else of oppression, a world where a few people in high places played stupid, racist, self-serving political games.
@Fabian yes the famous Dracula the almighty Vlad, the Roumanian Impaler, who eventually got jailed by his Hungarian overlord. What about the Greatest English titled Ceausescu?
Croatia was different, it wasn't conquered like the rest of the regions the Kingdom of Hungary got, but willingly united after King Coloman became king of both Hungary and Croatia in 1102. Which is why you don't see Hungarian ultranationalists complaining about Croatia, but Austria, Slovakia, Romania and Serbia. I don't know the history of Croatia well, but given the nature of the union, the Croatians may have enjoyed at least the same rights as the Hungarians, this wasn't the case for other nations under Hungary.
Trying to understand quantum mechanics vs trying to understand 1919 era geographic and ethnic complexities, um I think I might go with the quantum mechanics on this one 🤯🤔
It's not that complicated. Hungarians only made up 47% of the population of the Kingdom of Hungary. The rest were mostly: Germans, Slavs and Romanians. This is why Hungary lost so much land, because it wasn't inhabited by Hungarians to begin with.
Do you understand that the quantum mechanical probability density of a particle is proportional to the square of the wave function of the matter wave at that location?
The reason 'magyarization' was considered oppression is not that it promoted the speaking of Hungarian, but that it prohibited the use of the native languages of other ethnicities such as Slovak and Ruthenian in official business that had to be carried out only in Hungarian, even if it wasn't the commonly used language in an area. This unfairly favored the public service careers of the small Hungarian ethnic minority in those areas. The forced closing of schools teaching in other languages is another indication that it was oppression and not 'promotion'. This is very similar to the cause of the ethnic strife we were seeing in the Donbas region of Ukraine. When Ukraine was a Soviet Republic, ethnic Russians were imported and given preferential treatment in hiring for higher status positions in areas like management, police, government functionaries, teachers, law etc. When Ukraine became independent, many of those people lost their positions. When Ukraine tried to impose the use of Ukrainian in schools and all official business it caused resentment among the Russian speakers who had formerly been favored by the Soviets.
The ethnic groups in Hungary such as Germans, Ruthenians, Cumans, Vlachs (Romanians), etc. came to the Hungarian kingdom through settlement and migration, many of them fleeing from other forces. Most of them had cultural and religious autonomy and they prospered. The ethnic structure of the Carpathian basin was completely changed by the Turkish wars and Habsburg rule, replacing the depleted Hungarians, more Germans, Romanians, Serbs, etc. were settled, and with the emergence of nations, these ethnicities became increasingly powerful and hostile. Magyarization was a compulsion to save the nation-state after the 1867 agreement with the Habsburgs. Western countries and the new states after Trianon oppressed minorities much more
So, why do the Slovaks do the same with their current minorities in the 21st century even as a member state of EU? Is it okay now? Why do you always forget to mention it?
@@zsuzso7 Seems like you're missing the point. Magyarization, like Russification, was a policy imposed by an outside polity on a majority indigenous population of another country with the intent to suppress their economic competitiveness and to erase their separate ethnic identity. The intent was to give functional primacy to the ethnic group of the conquering nation by setting in place structural disadvantages of preferential hiring enhanced by language replacement in all official functions (government, courts, schools). Any nation has the inherent right to establish these standards for themselves, not to have them imposed from without.
My Grandfather explained all this to me as a boy. Of course i did not understand it being an American boy. The lecture really prefectly corrisponded to the events my grandfather related to me being there with boots on the ground through the whole thing. This helps me to understand and "connect the dots". Thanks so much for this detailed and informative piece.
At the beginning of the video, it should have been noted that Hungary is among the three oldest European countries created in Europe. Preceding, for example, the creation of England, France and Germany. As well as being over 1000 years old. Also, as far as I know, there is no other European language other than Hungarian that can understand its own language 1000 years in the past.
my mom wat told by her hungarian grand mothers and great grandmothers that some people over in germany were sent to populate the swamps (hungary) so it could be a germany territory...
@@EllaNonimato Swamp ? I think you've got something wrong. The origin of the Slavic word means swamp people.I think you put something in the wrong context.
@@Harckocsi1988newchannel i didn't. i already said it was told by my hungarian great grandmothers to my mom. unwanted people from germany were sent to those lands to expand germany's territtory, a somewhat pretext to get the unwanted away from germany.
@@EllaNonimato Then you are Hungarian. So I shouldn't even write to you in English.... Ezzel is kezdhetted volna. Itt meg írogatunk egymásnak angolul...
I feel like it was really hypocritical for the British and the French to call Hungary opressive towards minorities, when those 2 countries had the largest colonial empires in human history, and based on what we know today, their treatment of the locals was not really pleasant.
Two wrongs doesn't make one right though. The French and British treated some of the colonies badly. Not all of them. And even those they treated badly was not permanent. There were periods of discrimination and periods of mostly peaceful coexistence. Same with Hungary. There were periods when with less ethnic strife and periods with more ethnic strife. The best periods, with less ethnic strife were the periods when Hungary was under foreign dominance, ironically. Up until 1867, Austria saw to implement a more tolerant attitude towards ethnic minorities, starting with the Enlightened policies of Joseph II. After 1867 when the Hungarian nationalists gained local control, things spiraled downhill. Gradually, the rights the minorities were promised 1 years after the dual monarchy was established were either chipped or fell into ignorance. It would be great if you Hungarians, at least for once, stop pointing fingers to others to justify your bad behavior. Yes, others may have done worse. That doesn't excuse your faults. Learn to take responsibility and accept historical reality. One of the reasons why there are still tensions in this regions is that you refuse to accept that the anti-minority policies of your politicians prior to the beginning of the war was the main catalyst for the dismemberment of your kingdom. I don't ask you guys to be accountable, but at least accept historical reality and come to terms with it. In this regard, you are no different from Serbs, who still denying their obvious atrocities and wrongdoing in Bosnia and Kosovo.
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth I'll admit our alleged opressive system, when Romanians and Slovaks admit that they got unnecessarily much territory. Trianon didn't bring justice, it just turned the tables and the alleged opressors became the opressed, and the alleged opressed became the opressors.
@@liltinglullaby3282 We got what was ours by right. You don't need to admit what is already internationally recognized. Your admittance is pretty much not required. Trianon brought justice. It brought justice upon an oppressive state, that persecuted other people because they were not part of the dominant ethnic group (and did not want to be part of). The former oppressors were treated with respect, even though they did not deserve this respect as they did not earn it. Nor paid compensation for the many centuries of injustice they inflicted upon us, Romanians, Slovaks, Serbs, Germans, etc.
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth "We got what was ours by right." So 95% Hungarian cities right on the border like Satu Mare and Oradea were rightfully Romanian? It's funny how most of you people always say how Trianon brought justice, which is clearly not the case, since look at us. Hungarians and Romanians are still fighting. If it had brought justice, no one would have a problem with the treaty. Look at Serbia's example. They are the only country who respects minority rights and gives them autonomy. Also, how but just for once you guys stop with the "iT wAs OuRs By RiGhT😭😭😭" BS? That is not an arguement. If you believe that it was yours by right just because there were Romanians living there, than about half of Transylvania is still ours by right.
@@liltinglullaby3282 We both know that these cities maintained a Hungarian majority through apartheid like means, by denying Romanians the right to reside in them or to buy property. That is one of the reason why these cities maintained a non-Romanian population while being surrounded by Romanians towns and villages. Apartheid is a crime against humanity. Trianon brought justice to a nation that has persecuted religious and ethnic minorities for centuries and that conducted an illegal war of aggression against neighboring nations. Of course we see Trianon as a justice act since this treaty brought freedom and justice to the oppressed nations of the Hungarian Kingdom. Hungarians and Romanians are not really fighting. On social level we get along well. Intermarriage is pretty common. Hungarians have one of the most comprehensive system of minority rights in Europe, even without autonomy. No one has a problem with the treaty, except some nationalists in Hungary that love kicking a dead horse for political gains. Aside from the events of world war 2, there has been only 1 instance of ethnic tensions, in March 1990. You want to see ethnic groups fighting? Go to Bosnia. Serbia is no the only country who respects minority rights. Romania does it too, according to UNO, the Council of Europe and the European Commission. Not only Romania, but also Slovakia respects them. Minority rights are upheld by pretty much all EU members. Some maybe better than others, but all of them respect minorities. I won't stop with that 'BS', because it is true. It was our right to govern and control the land that rightfully belongs to us, both historically and ethnically. It is a very valid argument. What half of Transylvania lol? Hungarians have rarely been more than 30% of the population of Transylvania. Now they are like 17%, or maybe even lower (that percentage is almost 10 years old). So yeah, you kinda need to come to terms with Trianon. It was an act of justice and freedom. For everyone, even for Hungarians. You got yourself an independent country out of it, rather than being a semi-dependent Austrian partner.
There was the Austro-Hungarian empire, which was composed of various more or less conquered territories. When the empire broke up Hungary thought they had the right to still keep some of those territories, which they actually didn't have.
@@gerszki Képzeld el, milyen lenne ha nem használhatnád nyilvánosan a nyelved, származásod miatt üldözének és mindenhol megvetnének! Lehet már békésebb idők járnak, de Hunyadban elvétve sem hallasz magyar hangot. Annyira félnek használni a magyart, hogy nagyon nehezen tudtak nem angolul beszélni hozzánk! Még most is! Bár apám szerencsés volt, határ mellett született, de ha kicsit arrébb húzzák meg a határt ő is Magyarországi lett volna. Ezzel a kommentel nem szidlak, nem vitatkozni akarok veled de kérlek legyen annyi nemzeti öntudatod, hogy nem csak egy dátum legyen neked a Trianon!
@@Ягер-д5й kinek mi, rajtatok csattant az ostor a drága grófurak elbaszták anno a románok voltak a csikak mikor meg osztrák magyar monarhia volt. Valszeg mikor fordult a kocka nem hiszem, hogy nem kaptak az alkamon, hogy odabasszanak. Mikor csalad kint volt szlovakiában az ottani szlovákok meg arról meséltek hogy az ő felmenőit mwg elverték az iskolában anno mert ő azt mondta szlovák nem pesig magyar anno osztrak mag-ar monarchia. Szóval lehet reklamálni de akinek megtehetned mar rég halottak. Szar dolog ha az emberen csattan az ostor evvan. Es nem haragszom senkire.
You cannot include Croatia in Hungarian borders - as Croatia maintained its government and went into a union with Hungary voluntarily. If the Austro-Hungarian empire stayed - it would have had one of the best economies in Europe
Croatia was under personal union of the Hungarian crown, not the king, but the crown itself. And the crown's owner was a Habsburg. Croatia was a largely autonomous state with its own leader (Bán) who was appointed by the crown. If the empire hadnt collapsed it most certainly wouldve been elevated to be an equal part of the empire.
At first it was voluntary (debatable since the Hungarian king had legal ruling right anyways by that era's standards), but later kings formerly annexed Croatia and no it didn't have it's own government for the most part of the union up until the 1800s as it was always ruled by a Hungarian and later Austrian prince or person of same stature as a prince like a duke.
My father was Hungarian and this was a very touchy subject for him and like most Hungarians blamed the French for this and had a bit of hatred towards the French.
The one big blunder that is shown each video these treaties are discussed, is the exclusion of the losing side. Just handing down their exhaustively debated terms, without even listening to what their former enemies had to say, is what really torpedoed this whole situation. Even if they where going to reject the entreaties of Germany, Bulgaria, Austria, Hungary and The Ottomans, they should still have been part of the process.
the winners of a war normally don't care what their enemies think about the peace terms. you don't need the losing side's consultation because, after all, they just lost. the winner(s) want what they want. the allies wanted to be compensated for the most costly war in the world at that point, and they did not want a repeat. they were very harsh terms, yes. but the situation would have been torpedoed no matter what because the allies would have done what they wanted whether or not the central powers were involved in the peace process. nationalism also played a role here too, as everyone wanted their own state and to cut down the big guys. perhaps some things would have been different if the central powers were involved; it's interesting to think about though
@@DistantFungus20 That is correct. But punishment after a war only sows the seeds for the next. The Allies supposedly drafted such a peace that wouldn't allow another conflict. Instead, in their arrogance, hypocrisy and ignorace, they just paved the way for an even worse war.
I agree, the lost lands of Germany and Hungary are fair. Obviously someone is going to be upset, but if we are to be fair, most of the ethnic population in those regions didn't want to be under Germany, Austria or Hungary. But apart from that, the treaties were an overkill. It made the losing nations feel humiliated, which led to resentment. Their systems of government already changed and there should have been steps towards the normalisation of the situation as well as allowing them a peace with honor. But to be fair, the treaties that Germany and Austria-Hungary made with Russia and Romania after they lost the war are just as bad if not worse than the treaties of Versailles and Trianon. Maybe those treaties influenced the Entente's attitude towards them, and I can't help but see it as karma "what goes around, comes around".
South Slaves that is mentioned in 3:05 are actually Croats who lived from 7th century on their land and fought politicaly against Ungar agressor who wanted to occupy croatian Adriatic coast like all other neighbours inclusive Italians.
I've looked up a few different TH-cam videos on the subject and this one is by far the best researched one and doing best at staying objective. A proper documentary. Thank you! I'm looking forward to watching more historical material from the channel. :-)
@@DacianRider The millions of székelys would also tend to disagree with you. Also the at that time hungarian majority in "Satu Mare, Oradea, Cluj" would most likely also tend to disagree with you.
What was unfair is that the civilized western allies countries refused to take into account even the best Hungarian proposal: to organize referendum for disputed territories.
Most of the regions held plebiscites of their own. We Romanians in Transylvania held our own in Alba Iulia on 1st of December where 1230 delegates, elected by their own communities, voted the unification. The voting style mirrors the electoral voting style of the US.
@@Etelezoli It was done though. Romanians + Saxons, who made up 70% of the population voted for union with Romania. Thus, the self-determination principle was enforced.
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth I repeat: I was talking about real referendum as it was proposed that time. Secondly: my question was why the western allied countries refused the idea. What you're explaining above it's not covering my topics, and I don't want to comment too much, but what you're explaining it's nice "on the paper" only that it was just a coverage for a democratic background of the annexation. You're are well-prepared, no need to prove me anything.
@@Etelezoli Real referendums were impossible in that context of war and fall of administrative powers. As such, the approach was one of representative plebiscites. Each community elected their own representatives and entrusted them with a resolution/vote on their behalf. What I am explaining above does cover your topic. You are basically complaining that a referendum was not done in the manner it was done in Sopron for example. But Sopron was a small city, not even 1/50 of Transylvania. The scale was simply too big. There is a reason why referendums were allowed only in very small regions, while bigger regions organized their own plebiscites or assemblies. I don't think it was a coverage for annexation. It was a will expressed verbally or written for freedom and justice. There ins't just one way to make a referendum.
I would be surprised if this video will not make it to your top 5 most watched. True sign of how controversial it was...Stirs people up till this very day...
Wrong! It stirs up only some „hot brains” in Budapest. Any smart person would think about the treaty as an act of justice for the majority peoples in the so-called „areas under dispute”. Otherwise, Hungarians should only claim territories from Asia, where they came from (see the Huns history before the year 1000, which the present Hungarians avoid to talk about). Putin would give them exactly what they actually deserve...
@@gheorghemoraru634 Nothing lasts forever. Even not the territorial stealings by the romanians. Once everybody must pay the price for the shameless stealings.
Interesting fact in todays Transilvania. Romanian business owners hire people becouse of their skills and knowlege. Hungarian business owners hire people only if they know hungarian language as a first condition,the other specific skills comes seccond.
There are indications that several Hungarian local leaders were rejecting investment in the counties of Harghita and Covasna, as it could boost immigration to the region and affect its ethnic composition.
I looked up the census data for the largest city in Transylvania, Cluj. Pretty interesting how the populations change with the borders, each decade shifting at about 10% for either Hungarians or Romanians.
Depends who makes the Census really. Ceausescu loved to boost statistics in Romanian favor just like how the Hungarians did before WWI. PS Hungary was not really 54% Hungarian before WWI.
Very large populations of Hungary were bi- if not multilingual by proximity and necessity. But the census back then usually asked for what language was mainly spoken at home. And in a bilingual family that can totally differ depending on what language your kids learn at school and in whose country you live. Especially if the person asking has a specific interest in the result of your answer... and if you are already in-between because of your mixed family...
@Fabian No, Transylvania did not speak Romanian, but you did what the Albanians did to Kosovo and moved to Transylvania and your ancestors started breeding and you outbred the ethnic Hungarian population.
@@Nitram_xyz you are too stupid. Your argument is that the population that lived in the region for thousands of years before the Hungarians came from the Asian lands, somehow moved in after them. You are delusional.
They did the same to Ottoman Empire by Sevres treatity but Kemal Atatürk could destroy this. I hope in the future the hungarians will destroy trianon treatity.
With that sort of attitude, you will always be living in the jackbooted militarist past and never be willing to look towards the future. You will also be unable to fairly assess the older history of your country and its neighbouring countries (including a very rich and very important shared history we should be appreciating together, rather than focusing on nationalism and supremacism). Hungary had a choice in the early 1900s: It could have federalized, and it would have been part of a large federal monarchy along with the other countries, likely even to this day. Hungarian politicians kept rejecting such ideas, because they were intoxicated with the idea of being "the master nation". Tough luck. All such false dreams have fallen apart in the last 100 years alone, and looked currently towards the east, there's another wannabe-empire there who's days of conquest and nationalism are soon to be over forever.
@@fenris1168 what you mean? The part of Hungary that became Slovakia had/has a slovak majority, equivalent is true for the parts that became parts of Romania etc
@@amina-pr8xt The border parts of the territories given to the Slovaks or Serbs were 90+% Hungarian. Same as the ones in Romania, not to count the Sekler populated regions... so yes, they got more than they should have... Also why were all so affraid of a plebiscite if the majority supported the move? What was done remains done... but it doesn't make it fair.
Oh, Albert Apponyi, guy that brought upon minorities of Hungary Lex Apponyi (1907), on which 60% of mixed slovak-hungarian (in language) schools were replaced with purely hungarian ones and rest got slovak language restricted to 1-2 hours per week, (eg massive hungarization and general suppresion of slovak language and culture), appealing to idea of national self-determination, that's rich.
Yeah, Appony was quite a character... And he was the one appointed to speak in front of the Peace Conference at Trianon - the big promoter of magyarization!
@@janosvass5628 I am Romanian, and I am proud that the political party of Magyars living in Romania (UDMR) is part of the current Government in Bucharest. :)
Great video. Never cared much about the region but this treaty grabbed my attention quite well. Some modern situations make much more sense now. Thanks again
Hungarians even now try to dominate the whole of Romania. With 6% of the population, they have 18% of the ministers in the Romanian Government and now want to force a change in Constitution to stop Romanian citizens from electing the president. Russian money works wonders.
An amazing multi cultural, multi lingual state, if it were not for authoritarian monarchy and German/Hungarian chauvinism it may have started together as a powerful wealthy state. People were stuck in the 19th century way of thinking. Austria and Hungary ended up as middle class but vulnerable in the former and politically unstable leaning to the far left and right the former. For an Anglo history nerd a fascinating could of been in middle Europe.
@@collie8 Rome, Macedonian Empire, Bronze age Mesopotamian and Persian empires, the many Islamic Caliphates, just to name a few. I wouldn't think of Austria-Hungary as anywhere near the first succesful multinational empire.
The title is wrong and offensive, if you knew the basic history. The peace treaty was an end of occupation of Slovakia and parts of Serbia, Romania and Croatia.
Croatia was occupied indeed, yet had almost complete autonomy. Hungary didn't occupied Serbia, Romania or Slovakia either. Serbia was much further south, the Serbs came north during mostly the Turkish wars. The vlachs (Romanians) began to settle in the Hungarian kingdom from the 13th century, then they arrived in several large waves, mainly during the Turkish wars and Habsburg rule. Romania exists since only 1859, and Transsylvania or the Partium, etc. were never ever Romanian lands. Slovakia exists since 1993... Have you ever seen a medieval map of Europe?
By the way...in his speech at the Paris coference Aponyi talked about racial inferiority of romanians from Transilvania(compared with magyars and germans). Very interesting wont you say?
@@gigikontra7023 This is what we have always fought for We are not a mixed race and we do not want to become people of mixed race We do not want to mix with other races We want to be like we became 1100 years ago here in the Carpathian Basin We will be able to maintain Hungary's biological future without migrants -fürer Orban, PM of the Hungarians
Well, in 1920, Hungary was for the first time since 1526, after the defeat of Mohacs, independent. Moreover, they had an national state, since the teritories they had "lost", were populated mainly with serbs, czech, slovaks, ucrainieans and romanians, therefore belonging to other states.. So, being independent, without any minority issue, I think we can call it a big advantage and opportunity.
...only about 3 million ethnic hungarians woke up a day (4th June, 1920) that they live in a foreign country, hostile to them, however they live in the same city, the same house...Bravo Trianon, bravo France and England!... :((
@@attilahalmai4590 "Hostile to them" because for centuries hungarians treated them far worse. Even so, hungarians in the new states were treated like the majority.
It was the biggest fear of Britain and France that sometime Austria-Hungary would unite with Germany. Therefore it needed to go asap. The split up of the country along its ethnic borders came in handy. France and Britain could portrait themselves as liberators of the oppressed ethnicities rather than just egoistic geostrategicists, as they always have been.
Nekem is pont az szúrta a szememet, hogy a Muravidékről teljesen megfeledkezett. Ráadásul Lengyelországnak nem csak Szepes, de Árva vármegye északi csúcsa is odakerült.
@@georgehanciuc8124 Elod says Burgenland and Prekmurje, Archer Dark says Prekmurje and part of Árva and Szepes Counties WERE part of Hungary, but were missed by the video. They didn't say it SHOULD be.
@@andreiradu7708 No he's not, his name is Jesse Alexander and he's American, if anything by looking at his face i'd say he has Romanian ancestry instead of Hungarian one, specifically Moldavians have that kind of face.
@@Vengeance22 Ever heard of pseudonyms? As for his aspect I would not venture to speculate on that basis .Besides pronouncing Hungarian names are very difficult to pronounce for most people who are not accustomed with or actually speak the language .Not to mention that for some strange reason Hungary always had a strong lobby in America and seem to always get their sympathy regardless of the biased lies they where dissipating
A history channel should be acceptable on youtube, if it deals with how things actually were- which's the topic of history: studying what really happened.
This guy Jessie Alexander and the team create wonderful historical presentations of relevant history on You Tube. Thank you for bringing history alive.
He clearly had no idea about the history of Hungary. Our relationship is probably the worst with Romania and as the joke goes: In Trianon, the delegations are negotiating the future of the area, when the head of the Hungarian envoy ask so speak: - I just want to say, when we arrived to the Carpathian basin, the Romanians stole our horse. Rest of the people were unsure what to make of it and asked if he wants it to be added to the records but he declined. The negotiation continues and after some time, the Hungarians ask to speak again. - I just want to say, when we arrived to the Carpathian basin, the Romanians stole our horse. Again, they ask if they want it to be on record, but the Hungarians decline, so the negotiation continues. After some time, the Hungarians ask to speak again: - I just want to say, when we arrived to the Carpathian basin, the Romanians stole our horse. The speaker of the Romanian delegation with boiling anger screams - We weren't even there. When the Hungarian quickly says - Now this I want to be on record (the idea behind this that Romanians arrived to Hungary in 14th century fleeing from the Tatars)
@@Vikkin1218 We have a different version in Romania of this joke: The head of the Hungarian envoy says: - When we arrived to the Carpathian basin, our horses were stolen, so we remained there. To which the head of the Romanain envoy replies: - See, I told you we were there first.
@@Vikkin1218 it may be just me but how would the tatars, a population of Crimea, the steppe and the Danubian plain towards the Black Sea chase the Vlachs/Romanians - who were mostly living in the interior of the Balkan peninsula. Those two people really don't compete over same things, at most they coexisted.
Not exactly. For example, present day Slovakia was never a(n independent) country in History. The example was more correct if we would say that England would be split among its neighbours leaving just London and some territories arround it.
prolarka 😳 Indeed so. There was no such state as Great Britain (and Ireland) until 1800. Before then it was Roman Britannia, followed by a conglomeration of Scandinavian and Germanic kingdoms with Celtic Wales, Ireland and Scottish Alba as separate political entities. King Henry VIII decided to grab Wales as an adjunct territory of England because he could, thus creating the nonsense referred to as ‘England and Wales’. The Scots maintained their full independence until the two crowns, English and Scottish, were unified by King James VI Stuart of Scotland thus becoming King James I of Britain in 1603. They lost their government in Edinburgh following the collapse of their economy in the 1680s, leaving Westminster in full charge of the state. With the arrival of the Hanoverian monarchy in Britain the final change came about in 1800 with the incorporation of Ireland within the governance of Britain, thus creating Great Britain and Ireland. Only in 1949 was a fully independent Republic of Ireland established, albeit without two thirds of the Province of Ulster in the north. For such a small island, that is some going indeed 🥴.
@@sirmeowthelibrarycat It was KIng Edward who first waged war on the Welsh and subjugated them if my memory serves, dunno now if it was the first or the third, but I know for sure it was an Edward who did it.
Have you spoken yet on the Wire of Death? It was a lethal electric fence that stretched the border between Belgium and Holland that killed between 2,000 to 3,000 people. I read that "Only thirteen percent of the Dutch have 'a glowing pear' at home, while this percentage is even lower among Belgians," and that they didn't know about the insulating effect of rubber until the end of the war.
Lloyd George, Prime Minister of the U.K., in his speech on the 7th of October, 1929: “The whole documentation that we received from our allies at the peace talk, was deceitful and untrue. We came to a decision on false principles”
@@chriswanger284 Explained what information provided was deceitful and untrue? You do realize each side was presenting evidence that would support their position, regardless of the reality on the ground? And you do realize that the one thing which was true was the fact that Romanians, according to Hungarian census, were the majority, and based on this the decision to make Transylvania part of Romania was possible?
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth "Transylvania" is rather vague. With or without Partium or the Banat? Including or not a certain county, town, or village? Romanians were the majority population in the region, but not by a great margin - not an overwhelming majority by any means. But the democratic, the majority argument is moot anyway, since except for Sopron, the people didn't get to vote on the matter. Had it been put to the vote at the time, even on a county basis, the maps would have looked very different.
@Főfasírozó I must wrong you, as a history student, i study this problem, lets say for example Pozsony(bratislava) would vote as a city that it want remain to Hungary, but other areas near bratislava would vote for czechoslovakia. In first election when bratislava would vote alone, hungary wins. In 2nd case when Bratislava would vote with its all district, czechoslovakia won. Thats the problem with this plebiscite. Hungarians did want to expand or attacht minorities district to their own national vote districts, this would couse ilusion in winner, cuz when you add more hungarian to your teritory you just win. Peace my friend.
@@timotejrybarik1482 There could have been a better solution anyway. If a city votes for that country and the neighbouring for othersm there could have been a way to negotiate further. In this special case, there would not have been great problems, since Slovakian and Hungarian ethnical border was very clear in 1918, see the Bartha-Hodza demarcation line. Anyway, I think the two nations should live together again in a common country with both languages as official languages. We'll be much succesful together.
@@timotejrybarik1482 To be fair at least 3 villages around Bratislava on the Hungarian side are de facto suburbs of Bratislava, until the covid border restrictions it was a microregion of people speaking both languages but earning Slovakian wages in euros without a need to convert currency.
"Limited knowledge about the region especially in Britain." Well that's valid until this day.
Dudes have zero knowledge even about their own country and the effects of hard brexit :)
Arató Béla
As a Yank I have no idea why someone would want to leave the EU, the answer to everything is nationalism yeah but wouldn’t the immediate and long term losses far outweigh any potential benefits?
This describes most countries and regions in the world. The lack of understanding is compounded when you have a language barrier.
*lathes in romanian*
@Silvana Barilla I live in the EU too and I absolutely do not want to leave it. As said before, there is no tangible benefit to leave it, only losses.
The treaty was signed and the Balkans lived happily every after- oh wait...
when was the Balkans happy and peaceful?
@@benwilson6145 Under Ottoman, and then under Austro-Hungarian rule The Serbians, Croats, Bosnians did not killed each others. After 1990 these nations, who in 1920 were united, based on the claim, that they are brothers, started to kill each others in the most barbarical way possible.
Fast-forward to Slobadon Milosevic
@@benwilson6145 like millions of years ago
Hungary isn't even in the Balkans, and neither are Slovakia, 90% of Romania and Transcarpathia.
Austria-Hungary was a multiethnic powder keg, that was fundamentally flawed in the age of nationalism.
Allies, 1920: OK, let's create Yugoslavia, a multiethnic powder keg, that will also be fundamentally flawed in the age of nationalism....
1989:
1. In A-H the were finno-ugrics,germans,latins,south slavs,west slavs and east slavs, While in Yugo only south slavs.
2. Pretty sure in was in the 90' if memory serves me well
3. Maybe it would still be around without US intervention.
Britain had plans in 1915 in treaty of london to create greater serbia, also to expand montenegro and italy
They did produce the Yugo car, the cutting edge of Serb-Croatian technology!
@Alpha the Infinite The Balkans turned into a hellhole of violence in 1914 for the same reason it turned into a hellhole of violence in the 1990s.
It was a contested sphere of influence.
The locals were never really asked or consulted about what they wanted for themselves.
Plebiscites were few and far between.
Unfortunately, it took almost a hundred years for leaders (both foreign and local) to realise that *the simple principle of nation states, based on individual freedom, liberty and self-determination, and free from outside meddling,* was the solution to the problem all along.
Today, we have nation states in the Balkans, so let's hope it stays that way.
@@ralphbernhard1757 The Yugoslav wars weren't a great heroic struggle against the oppressive regime of Yugoslavia but a war fueled by Western resources to tear that regime down.
Entente: you can't dominate people
also britain and france: dominates half of the world
@@serious_facetiousness wait what
@@arthurlofrano7021 They did not value people in their colonies the same as they did Europeans
@@serious_facetiousness ik, i thought you have said other thing
The Entente Cordiale
You are implying that the peace treaties after WWI were motivated by anti-imperialist ideology. That's false. They were only inspired by a punitive attitude towards the losers. Anti-imperialism only took hold in politics after the Second World War.
I am constantly impressed with Mr. Alexander's precise and exact pronunciation of all the various names. I could listen to him talk for hours.
Thanks!
I thought this was Jake Gyllenhaal..
Horthy wants his navy.
Stil! :))))))))))
How stole the ships?
@@CENTURION.CARPATIC Come and take it, we would love to gain the rest of Baranja once the war is over :D
Horthy was based just cause he was an admiral of a landlocked country that's a flex right there
Ez igy volt és így lesz
"South Slavs" - nice bullet dodge there...
?
Ferrusian Gambit ?
I am a space man The South Slavs are the Yugoslavs, AKA Croatians, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Bosnians, and Slovenians. The Bulgarians are also Southern Slavs, but they weren’t a part of the state of Yugoslavia, which has a very controversial history.
A.B.D yeah I have a maceidoan friend and a Greek friend and there always making jokes about this
@@thrall5612 I can not believe that you did not mentioned Serbs, the most numerous south Slavs ethnic group, and the most numerous ethnic group in old Hungarian kingdom after Hungarians... incredible
My grandfhather was born in Austro-Hungary my father was born in Hungary and I was born Romania all in same Town !
there was a man in Karpatalja, now Zakarpatska, who bornt in Astria-Hungary, lived in, CZSK, in Ukraine and then Hungary, and then Sovietunion. He never left the town lol
@@agostonpalatinus1513 Los Angeles also was Mexico some time . However .... In 21 century it is much wiser not reconsidering the borders. And it should be the corner stone of US politics. However look at russia and its claims of 5 Ukrainian regions. And .. what the world/USA is going to do ? Nothing , right ? And what's next? My prediction - Moldova , one of the Baltic countries or maybe all of them.
He was not born in Austro-Hungary. He was born in Romania, more precisely in Transylvania, a land stolen by the Austro-Hungary from Romania. It was obvious that a stolen land would eventually be gave back to the Romanian state, the true owner of Transylvania. I this equations, all of you were born in the same Romanian town.
@@brmelectronics1320when was it stolen?
😂😂😂😂😂😂@@brmelectronics1320
i love how the world power like british and france was talking about opression of other nations meanwhile they were the world largest oppressors
Both of them oppress mostly outside their borders than inside of. Being a minority living inside Metropolitan France back then was a bless. Sometimes even better then living among your peers. Many well off folk left their kind to live large there.
@@Neomalthusiano same could be said to hungary.
History is written by the victors.
Half of the world was British or French colony. Yeah, that is hypocrisy for you!
I feel you bro.. The UK and France did not lose any war alongside Germany.
This is the Polish comment you've been looking for, my Hungarian friends!
Congratulation on your small piece of land you took during the Treaty of Trianon! I'm just joking of course, glad to see people got over disputes.
I knew something was missing, brother!
they didnt take it from the hungarians, but from czechoslovaks
🇵🇱🤝🇭🇺 Thank You Brother!!!
Thanks brother!
My blood has boiled just listening to this video, so thank you for at least calming me down :)
Slovenians actually didn't wanted to break away from Austria, they wanted their own kingdom/province IN Austria-Hungary so they'd be equal to Austrians and Hungarians
Thats not quite true most of slovenian people were for joining Croatia
@Josip I agree
The Austro-Hungaro-Slovenian Empire
The same was true with the Slovaks. They did not want to get under a Czech regime. Nobody asked the people of the Monarchy where they wanted to live, despite the harsh populist slogans the Entente countries were operating with.
@Josip That's what you think now, but back then there was a powerful "Yugoslav" sentiment. I fail to see what was different from the Italians, Romanians and Yugoslavs. Italians and Romanians were split into multiple kingdoms but united in the 19th and 20th centuries, just like Yugoslavia. But they lasted while Yugoslavia didn't. Even in 1940, some Croatians had their own "All-Croatian" fascist movement were as an "All-Sicilian" or "All-Transylvanian" movement in Italy or Romania would have been absurd. Joseph Tito calmed things down, until he died in 1980.
@TheRandomGuy I give you: Austro-Hungarian-Czech-Slovak-Sebro-Croatian-Polish-Ruthenian-Romanian-Slovene-Italian Empire!
Forcing someone to learn a language like Hungarian is a death sentence.
Well im still alive
The Great War channel inspired not only the creation of our channel, but provided the inspiration behind our Collapse of Austria Hungary and the Almost Anschuß series looking at the collapse day-by-day. Keep up the great work, and thanks for providing us with the spark!
Did you mean "Anschluss" (Annexation of Austria)?
"Anschuß" sounds like it would derive from Schießen (shooting) and suggests like someone or something was hit by a bullet.
In Serbia politicians celebrate this day and call it a liberation, they liberated my city which is 90% Hungarian even today from Hungary, well thanks i guess...
My mothers village is still 87% Hungarian aswell and many of us have moved out because of wars in Serbia
@@Tomtomtomtomtomtomtom75kg It is a happy situation, in Hungary asimilation of the rest of nonhungarians is almost complete after 100 years
That is how things work.
@@raulepure9840 lol
@sshauser1 zemun je hrvatski grad
The fact that even Austria, beginner of WW1, got Burgenland (except Sopron) from Hungary.
Edit: I don't hate Hungary, but it really happened.
Thanks man, I appreciate this. Respect
Those damn Austrians...
Austria actually bought the Burgenland.
Every losing state of WW1 faced dumb, too harsh, controversial treaties.
@@auoeni9321 how? they didn't payed for it and even if they would've it wasn't up for sale
@Ron Lewenberg I would say it was Germany and Russia’s fault Germany shouldn’t have given the blank cheque because that was basically getting Germany involved which would make it different to the Balkan wars since they were localised and Germany never did the blank cheque during those wars so yea but it’s also Russia’s fault as well for protecting Serbia just because it was a Slavic nation that’s like if Pakistan and India became friends because both have Punjab ethnicity in them Russia also broke the rules of European warfare like mobilising under a different name which meant Germany couldn’t mobilise cuz technically they would seem the aggressor which Austria-Hungary didn’t want and for some reason Wilhelm was like pls Austria-Hungary no abandon but definitely Britain and Italy made it worse Britain was relying on an ancient treaty to declare war on Germany although Germany shouldn’t have just gotten Belgium involved Italy on the other hand was just entering the war cuz Britain promised them land the arabs shouldn’t have revolted either cuz well Britain’s not trustworthy I mean SYKES picot agreement it’s said Sykes but seriously they weren’t trustworthy plus the ottomans were trying to give self autonomy and when the ottomans did do something the arabs were like GIVE US SELF AUTONOMY America also made things worse look I understand them going to war Germany was asking Mexico to attack them but it’s war America of course Germany’s gonna sink some ships they even told u probably they sent the telegram cuz they thought u might go to war with them since they started unrestricted submarine warfare again another player would be the ottomans the ottomans shouldn’t have gotten involved in the war Germany would be fighting Russia and France and the brits in France also Belgium Austria-Hungary would be fighting Italy and Serbia and Romania Belarus would be fighting Serbia and Romania so what would
the ottomans do they could try and take Egypt but they had bigger problems at home and really any war the ottomans fought from now on was going to have to be a defensive one they could win big battles even if they were offensive but never an offensive war and really if they went for Egypt they would surely have a revolt in Arabia and it’s very likely colonial powers like Russia Britain’s and France would also scramble to build up claims to the Middle East by attacking it so really there was no reason for getting involved their ally Germany could barley support them and really Germany was the only powerful player in the central powers where as Britain and France and defined more were powerful and more powerful so yea China why did you get involved all that came was you signing a humiliating treaty with Japan even Italy the loser winer of the war got land little but they didn’t lose anything the colonial powers were all pressuring China to join but really the best option was to stay out since Germany wanted China on their side too both sides were colonial powers so yea I understand the Allied forces were more powerful but really all the colonial powers could do is pressure beyond that and China would join the other side so neither side wanted that so yea if China stayed neutral then nothing would have happened to them
Terrific presentation involving a great deal of time and effort. Excellent review of that history. Thank you. RS. Canada
The vibe check of central Europe.
You can never get the borders right unless you are an island or have a huge mountain range on your border.
Well Hungary had huge mountains around the country. Still didn’t matter 🤷🏻♂️
Anything you can use to keep "those people...." away.
Not exactly. Spain and Portugal have been sharing the same border in the iberia penisula with few minor adjustments for centuries and there's very little controversy. Especially if you look at post-napoleonic europe
Borders divide people. Whether a border is "right", depends on the will of the people, not some geographic feature.
@@alejandroojeda1572 Spain and Portugal also have the benefit of once being the same... not country, nor Kingdom, but... Unified, and then they were unified against the Muslim Taifas as well.
"What could go wrong?"
And nothing did for 70 years. Which is 50 more than the consequences of the Versailles treaty.
"Long Peace"
@@cezarcaruntu I might remind you that part of that 70 years was completely and artificially held together by force through the USSR. If they weren't around, it would've likely collapsed a lot quicker.
@@holofernesz couldn't have..The armies of all the concerned nations are symbolic forces so we would have a war with rocks and sticks
@@cezarcaruntu Erm... No chat ( Laughs in Soap and Northern Transylvania )
An excellent video presentation that gives a clear outline of the treaty and the machinations that led to its ratification. The post war politics of central and Eastern Europe are generally ignored by UK based historians in favour of Versailles. This is one of the first documentaries that takes time to explain the negotiations and terms in any great detail. It certainly helps foster a greater understanding of the politics that churned constantly in the aftermath of the Great War and in the countdown to The Second World War.
Moutton N • What's there more to explain when you talk about what the Empires have stollen throughout the human history?
The territories occupied and stollen by Empires illegally must be given back to the proper owner of the territory.
The austrian emperor brings Hungary to a war, where it can't win anything, and at the end Austria gets Burgenland from Hungary. That's what the Entente called justice ...
Sorry, but the vast majority of Hungarian statesmen supported the war too. The idea that Austria forced Hungary into this war is a modern day myth. The only personality who INITIALLY opposed going to war was Istvan Tisza. But he changed his mind when he realized that refusing to go to war meant losing German territorial guarantee and possible German support for national minorities to secede. Lets not forget that the broker of the dual monarchy was Germany.
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth I still don't understand why Austria got territory from Hungary.
@@Dengezik100 Burgenland was 80% German in 1918. Only 8.4% of the population was Hungarian. That is why.
In major parts of Transylvania, Upper Hungary and Transcarpathia the hungarian population was much above 50%. So we know, that the population was not an issue.
@@Dengezik100 In Transylvania, only Szekelyfold had a Hungarian majority. The rest had a nominal Romanian majority.
I had no idea about any of this. It's been very interesting. Thanks for your hard work guys!
The treaty of trianon is a reminder that one nation's triumph is often another nation's catastrophe.
Although in Trianon's case, it was the triumph of roughly 5 nations (Romanians, Croats, Slovens, Slovaks and Serbs) against one.
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth I could be wrong, but I highly doubt that Croats consider themselves Yugoslavia, they already had autonomy inside Hungary.
One nation´s liberation can be a big loss to his occupant, indeed.
Yag Shemash and also free of 3,3 million ethnic Hungarians :D
@@gaborrab4785 If you want to blame those 3.3 million ethnic Hungarians on someone blame it on Hungary. Population exchange was proposed but Hungary refused in hopes of taking that land back.
Thanks!
10:18 This must be a joke. What about the Basque, Breton, Dutch, German and other minorities in France which have been suppressed only since the "glorious" revolution of the "grande" nation? I didn't until now realize how dire the mental state of military high command must have been at that time. Would explain the collateral damage.
Yes, we Hungarians have a proverb: The owl sais to the sparrow: You have a big head...
"He sees the mote in his brothers eye but not the beam in his own."
This is how the French and English behaved too.
It comes down to the details on the ground.
As you mentioned, local languages in France have been targeted by the French state - the revolutions of the 1780s and 90s were centralist and supremacist, let's not kid ourselves.
One notable difference with A-H and Translithania particularly is that while that was happening, France extended the vote to all it's linguistic minorities too !! Some of the most radical voting rights in Europe at that.
The Hungarian Diet's franchise has been labelled "the most unrepresentantive in history" due to how medievally it favoured the disproportionately ethnic Hungarian landed nobility.
So the difference is that, every few years, Bretons or Alsacians could elect someone else and could organise to obtain the recall of a particularly harsh official or primary school headmaster, to give one example.
Much like in A-H, up until the early to mid-20th century, rural regions spoke local languages or dialects, with the language of the metropolis holding sway in the cities. The rural exodus has been killing minority languages in France since then, with the central state glad to help the movement along.
I see it as tragic, yes but the conditions on the ground in Hungary were vastly worse and run directly by the landlords and their emissaries. The cooption described above was not offered to most Slovaks, Romanians, South Slavs etc (to say nothing of those unfortunate enough to live under martial law on the eastern Transylvanian border) in the same way as with the linguistic minorities in say France or Germany or even Cislithenia, because Magyarisation was the brainchild of a political class who benefited from the neo-feudal rural status quo, not from excessive modernisation, social wellfare and civil liberties needed.
@Wisty Boy I was talking about Mainland Europe, but I agree.
Eating french fries make all that pain go away.
@Mr. Duck I agree!
EVEN AUSTRIA TOOK A PIECE LMFAO
Yeah, biggest joke, and clearly shows the unjust nature of the treaty. Austria and Hungary had equal responsibility for the war, yet Austria received territories from Hungary for what reason exactly? Also, must be noted that Austria is the only country that received Hungarian territories that totally respected the Hungarian past of the received area.
@@gaborrab4785 because...hungary was always a puppy...doing what Austria says...:)))
@@justmenell3380 If it's true, then the country name is not "Austro-Hungary". (And Huitzilopochtli, I like your Fate/Go picture xd)
@@justmenell3380 The numerous rebellions and wars for independence against Austria say otherwise. Little Entente propaganda is all you know, because it's all they hammered into your head in school.
@@gaborrab4785 Have you ever considered the majority of the population? It's mentioned a few times in the video that population was the biggest concern of the Treaty of Trianon. Sopron was mostly Hungarian but the whole rural region around Sopron was mostly German, this is why it went to Austria. And yes you ended up with 3.3 million Hungarians outside Hungary but would you rather have that or 11.2 million non-Hungarians inside Hungary? it's difficult to make perfect borders when so many regions have mixed ethnicites and the majority of the population was not Hungarian. Don't talk about respecting the past as there are still some ultranationalist hungarians today who claim that the Hungarians were the first in the lost regions despite conquering them in the 10th century, the world didn't begin with Hungary. If you want others to respect your past, you must respect their past first, if we cannot agree on the past, what chance do we have to agree on the present?
Ironic that a Frenchy talked about oppressing ethnic minorities, lol
Yes. France denies having minorities to this day. The big democrats...
which minorities did France oppress?
@@randomboi-ce2ro That's not really true, though. For example the Bretons in mainland France were forbidden to speak their language and children caught speaking it in schools were punished. This ban was in effect until the mid 20th century and today very few people speak Breton as their first language as a result.
@ww ww No it wasn't romanian land, the hungarian aristocrats invited romanian workers to Transylvania, because they were cheaper than the hungarians. That's why there were more and more romanians. But that time nationality wasn't so important.
@ww ww what is the connection that you heard about a crazy guy who thought Jesus was hungarian? I'm sure every country have crazy people. And I have never said or thought that there were no romanians in Transylvania, I said it was not romanian. It was mixed, but most of the romanians were invited in larger numbers later from over the Carpathians.
Supports my agenda haha, from Louis L. Lote (editor), ONE LAND - TWO NATIONS TRANSYLVANIA AND THE THEORY OF DACO-ROMAN-RUMANIAN CONTINUITY:
"According to an investigation based on place-names, 511 villages of Transylvania and Banat appear in documents at the end of the 13th century, however only 3 of them bore Romanian names.[57] Around 1400 AD, Transylvania and Banat consisted of 1757 villages, though only 76 (4.3%) of them had names of Romanian origin."
This man is serious about explaining history.
That is correct.
It's almost like France and Britain wrote the Treaty of Versailles, Trianon, et al., with the express purpose of making the losing side so destitute that it guaranteed resentment and a second world war.
It was more like gross incompetence and a lack of understanding of how modern treaties work
"Tis not a peace treaty, it's an armistice for 20 years" - marchall Foch
Exactly.
@@szarvaskoppany He meant the opposite. He found it too much what was left for the loosers...
@@militaryorchid7937 Well, a peace punitive enough to sow resentment, but not punitive enough to ultimately weaken the Germans. It could have been helped either way, by either making it more gentlemanly, or more brutal.
"The only youtube channel that oppresses its uncivilized neighbors" Fell out of my chair laughing !
As a romanian i have to say that hungary is just jealous that we won they didn't. I m looking at you viktor . Do not that think i forgot your facebooks post
@@cgt3704 You literally did lose the war tho?
@@respublica4373 Lost a battle. Not the war.
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth So the Treaty of Bucharest was just about a battle...entering a war twice is something which only you imbeciles could do, twice.
@@feha6580 Do not cry please
One of the best description of the treaty, it's background and consequences.
Excellent! Our education system never really gets into how the empire that started the war, ends up. Thanks to your team!
It started the war against Serbia but was not solely responsible for it to become a world war.
Apponiy's suits and coat are just amazing. It's so sad to see how European tailoring has declined since the Great War.
"European" tailoring currently? Or are you talking about Pakistani, Indian and Chinese tailoring in Europe currently?
@@kobusg7460 What?
Amazingly racially superior, much wow
If u were that rich today as he was back then u could wear those kinds of suits believe me
while the majority of the population wore poverty ridden rags
In many ways, Central Europe and particularly the story of the frontiers between Hungary and her neighboring States reminds me of my own Middle-East ! Thank you again Jesse, Flo and crew for this historical episode about the Treaty of Trianon full of exciting information and introducing eminent historical Hungarian figures too
I think absolute the same. Our borders were drawn in a map just like the Sykes-Picot line. They had the power to do it so they did it. It's the same 'colonial' mentality regardless the name of the continent. Greetings from Hungary.
@@Bandokker Colonialists redrawing the borders of a colonial empire. Fitting. :)))
@@Bandokker The treaty of Trianon was the opposite of the Sykes-Picot line. Were the Sykes-Picot line didn't care about ethnicity, the treaty of Trianon was made specifically because of ethnicity. With Romanains, Slovaks and South Slavs bring separated into their own countries.
@@catalinmarius3985 If the treaty of Trianon was made caring about ethnicity than it would have left the ethnically Hungarian territories to Hungary. Even if Székelyföld would not have been made as an enclave, there were still other border territories with Hungarian ethnic majority with about 2 million Hungarian talking people, and these territories were split from Hungary just due to spite and to appease the neighboring allied countries, ethnicity wasn't considered at all.
@@fenrirr22 Would you rather have 3.3 million Hungarians outside Hungary or 11.2 million non-Hungarians inside Hungary? it's difficult to make perfect borders when many regions have mixed ethnicites, a minority in another country was inevitable. You care about Hungary but don't care about the people who had to live under Hungarian oppression for hundreds of years. It's also worth pointing out that you weren't only the minority in those regions, but the conquerors who treated the natives as 2nd class citizens.
This is very well constructed, objective video. As you have mentioned the white terror 2 or 3 times, it would have been correct to mention, at least on a side note, that the 1919 white terror in Hungary was actually triggered by the preceeding red terror, a wave of most brutal terror and mass killings of innocent people by the communist regime, especially by its terror squads Lenin Boys and Cserny Squad.
@Josip I'm fairly certain that it was part of Hungary proper during Austria-Hungary.
It is not politically correct to talk about the geenocides done by commmunists.
@@meleardil It's quite sad that the commies could get away with these.
they did a whole episode about those
@@herrsturmmann8333 Technically, they didn't, hence the white terror.
In Romaneste se zice: are turcul o vorba " Hai sictir"!
The document that was approved at the assembly does not mention a specific border though. It mentions the unification of Transylvania, Banat, Crisana and Maramures. You are probably confusing the resolution at Alba Iulia with the Bucharest pact signed by Romania in 1916, which indeed stipulated a border claim all the way to the Tisza river. But the electors that voted the union of Transylvania with Romania were unaware of this pact and its provisions, since it was kept secret.
Transylvanian leaders such as Vaida-Voievod did not consider a border of a unified Romanian kingdom all the way to the Tisza river. Only Bratianu lobbied for one, since he was one of the people involved in the negotiations with the Entente prior to Romania's entry in the war. So he was aware of the secret treaty.
"A few, carefully selected exclusively Romanian people have very wobbly legitimacy to declare union or whatever on behalf of the entire population."
Those 1225 delegates were elected by their communities though. They were not wobbly, nor illegitimate, as they received the authority of their people to vote in the assembly. Over 100.000 Romanians were present at the assembly as well to assist in the ceremony. So the resolution was both supported by the people and legitimate.
"Imagine now a Big Russian National Assembly in Luhansk, declaring the Great Union of All Russians with Russia till the Dniepr River without having a single Ukrainian or any other ethnicity present…."
The main difference between the two situations is that in 1918, there was no Romanian military presence in Alba Iulia so one could claim that the resolution was adopted under duress. The Romanian army was invited and crossed the Carpathians only 1 week later, entering Brasov on the 7th of December.
The fact that the union has resisted until now shows that there was widespread support among Romanians for the union. It was not an artificial project planned in a conference room as was the case with Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, but an organic process that was prepared for decades before the actual union. For example, the Romanian leaders in both the Old Kingdom and in Transylvania took care in training an administrative bureaucracy that would be ready to supplant the Hungarian administration when the context is favorable. That is why the transition from a Hungarian-lead bureaucracy to a Romanian one was so smooth.
Anyway, it is a little bit hypocritical to accuse Romanians of not inviting other nationalities to vote when Romanians were excluded from all major political decisions concerning Transylvania since it was annexed by Hungary in 1867. We have tried for decades this approach, which failed. If Hungarians were not willing to listen and cooperate with us, why should we listen and cooperate with them? It was pointless to negotiate with Hungary as this ship sailed long ago, ever since they jailed or exiled the Romanian Memorandum movement, which truly shifted the political stance of the Romanian people. Until 1892, Romanians were willing to not secede from Hungary if they received equal rights and a form of self-government. After 1892, union with the Old Kingdom of Romania became the most popular option. So it was not Romanians who put the final nail in the coffin of the Hungarian Kingdom, but the Hungarian political elite itself dug the grave and prepared the coffin.
Transylvania was politically part of Hungary since the 9th century. Why did they invite Romania in 1867?
Transylvania was never annexed by Hungary in 1867, it was always part of Hungary from the beginning. Transylvania only joined Romania in 1920
Prietene nu mai aberați, Transilvania nu a aparținut niciodată Ungariei ci a fost anexata de imperiu austro-ungar, iar România nu a existat fiindca exista Dacia, iar Transilvania era teritoriul de sine stătător al Daciei, acolo s-a format Neamul Minunat Românesc, acolo este leagănul civilizațiilor europene, noi suntem Geți, iar toată zona aceea a Europei centrale și de est a aparținut Traco-Geto-Dacilor, Geției, Daciei ..România de astăzi! Asta e istoria adevărată a Atlantidei!
@@rezaardiansyah434what beginning
@@rezaardiansyah434 What are you smoking ?
achievement unlocked:"Clemenceau was polite"
as a french I say I am le very impressed
devanis shut ul
It is said that in his youth Clemenceau wrote a play, and wanted to be put on scene in Hungary, but the Hungarian theatre director considered it to be a bad play, and because of this he refused. And other thing is that his son was married with a Hungarian woman who said something ugly about Clemenceau, and these made him to hate the Hungarians, and punish them so much in Trianon.
I do not know if this is only a legend, or its true.
@@szalard really unlikelly he was journalist and did medical studies. and he only go to britain and usa.
For Clemenceau, that's basically a miracle.
You mean ”El Tigre” !
Thanks for helping me study for my history GCSE guys!
Hungary at 4th of June in 1920: So how many land gonna i lose?
France and the UK: *yes*
You wanted to be BOSSES,you end by being little....little...
@@cristiandorumedelean6934 triggered by a meme fren?
@@zoltanperei4789 Just a ordinary romanian.
It wasn't Hungarian in the first place..
Fabian you are nit transylvanian
"Nations other than the Austrians and Hungarians regarded the Ausgleich of 1867 as a cynical deal struck between the two state-nations of the ‘Dual Monarchy’ (together comprising some 43 per cent of the total state population) for the joint suppression of the remainder of the multi-national populace. Within Hungary, early promises to respect the rights of the non-Magyar 58.8 per cent of the population (in 1880), notably by a Nationalities Law in 1868, were soon abandoned in favor of a sustained programme of magyarisation. In a spirit of ‘we have re-made Hungary, now we must re-make Hungarians’, the Hungarian language was foisted on the nonMagyar majority through advancing state control of the school and university systems. Non-Magyar representation in the Hungarian Diet at Budapest was filtered at parliamentary elections to derisory and tokenistic levels. Demographically a mini-empire in which the Magyars could never even (quite) muster a majority, Hungary claimed the Magyarsag or ‘Magyar-land’ as a Hungarian nation-state.
It is important to consider why the Hungarians should adopt magyarisation with such relish. Neither the spirit nor the policy of magyarisation was born in the 1880s: Hungarian contempt for the smaller nationalities unfortunate enough to find themselves within Hungarian jurisdiction had been legendary for centuries and had contributed to the isolation and subsequent defeat of the Hungarian national cause in 1849. Fundamentally, the historical career of the Hungarian people predisposed them psychologically towards what might be tritely called ‘insecurity-based aggression’. A pervasive sense of racial and linguistic isolation combined with a conviction that their resentful Germanic, Slavonic and even Latin neighbors were waiting for an opportunity to turn back the clock of history and expel the Magyars from their unlawfully seized real-estate back to the Asia from which they had swept in the ninth century. Indeed, the whole history of the Hungarians could be seen as a sequence of traumatic oscillation between possession, dispossession and repossession, most recently over the 1848-1867 period. A collective, almost genetically imprinted sense of insecurity pre-determined a pathological siege mentality which supported the magyarisation to which the supremacist establishment of Hungary committed itself from the 1880s."
Source: Raymond Pearson, "Hungary. A state truncated, a nation dismembered", in _Europe and Ethnicity. The First World War and contemporary ethnic conflict_ , by Seamus Dunn and T.G.Fraser (editors), Routledge, London&New York, 1996, pages 88-89.
Jesus Christ, how did this ever make it into print? This was written in 1996? I'd be forgiven for thinking it was written a hundred years earlier. And I'm not even Hungarian!
@@miro.georgiev97 Well, it took almost 100 years for many people in Western countries to understand what happened in Austria-Hungary Empire... There were Westerners who realized even back then, at the the beginning of XXth century, that the Empire is doomed if Magyars are allowed to continue with Magyarization, but nobody paid attention, or just a few did, in Budapest and Vienna. Today, in retrospect, thinks get more clear, and the researchers and historians in West are free of any bias, meaning they can study and assess objectively how the things evolved in A-H, and under what conditions, in order to reach the well-known results - the WW1, the collapse of A-H, and the Paris Treaties.
>
Source: Raymond Pearson, "Hungary. A state truncated, a nation dismembered", in Europe and Ethnicity. The First World War and contemporary ethnic conflict , by Seamus Dunn and T.G.Fraser (editors), Routledge, London&New York, 1996, pages 89-93.
Well researched and well put . This really sums things up,THANK YOU
@@andreiradu7708 Mulțumesc! :)
It was a world where everybody oppressed everyone else and accused everybody else of oppression, a world where a few people in high places played stupid, racist, self-serving political games.
So just like today. Nothing have changed.
This is "the planet of the retarded apes".
Precisely.
And it continues to these days
Welp, get ready for a war in the comments
Edit: And in my bloody reply section
Well, last time hungary did that, they became communist for 3 months and lost another war
@Fabian yes the famous Dracula the almighty Vlad, the Roumanian Impaler, who eventually got jailed by his Hungarian overlord. What about the Greatest English titled Ceausescu?
Loades pușcă
@Fabian and you never been part of any history education lol
@Fabian Obviously you are proud of the above mentioned heroes, I leave it at that.
Somebody get that man a lavalier mic.
Thanks for another informative video! You have a very engaging style of presentation.
Croatia was in personal union with Hungary. Always had autonomy in Habsurg empire and Austrian Hungary Empire.
You should stay in Hungary then. What is your point? Better shut up if you have nothing to say. You are consuming oxigen...
Croatia was different, it wasn't conquered like the rest of the regions the Kingdom of Hungary got, but willingly united after King Coloman became king of both Hungary and Croatia in 1102. Which is why you don't see Hungarian ultranationalists complaining about Croatia, but Austria, Slovakia, Romania and Serbia. I don't know the history of Croatia well, but given the nature of the union, the Croatians may have enjoyed at least the same rights as the Hungarians, this wasn't the case for other nations under Hungary.
and all were happily milked by hungary ! sometimes dogs cannot pass more than the lengths of their chain...
@@catalinmarius3985
It wasnt happy mariage.
Allways 2nd rank citizen, but alternative was " be fuc*ed by Otomans" 😖
Croatia hvala for everything from Hungary!!
Trying to understand quantum mechanics vs trying to understand 1919 era geographic and ethnic complexities, um I think I might go with the quantum mechanics on this one 🤯🤔
It's not that complicated. Hungarians only made up 47% of the population of the Kingdom of Hungary. The rest were mostly: Germans, Slavs and Romanians. This is why Hungary lost so much land, because it wasn't inhabited by Hungarians to begin with.
@@catalinmarius3985 Both Austrians and Hungary were minority but they demanded to rule the country, both were delusional after they lost the war.
Do you understand that the quantum mechanical probability density of a particle is proportional to the square of the wave function of the matter wave at that location?
I do indeed, Grampa Max thought me @@eljanrimsa5843
Great analysis and information. Straight to the point.
Littered with missing or wrong information. Very deceitful.
The reason 'magyarization' was considered oppression is not that it promoted the speaking of Hungarian, but that it prohibited the use of the native languages of other ethnicities such as Slovak and Ruthenian in official business that had to be carried out only in Hungarian, even if it wasn't the commonly used language in an area. This unfairly favored the public service careers of the small Hungarian ethnic minority in those areas. The forced closing of schools teaching in other languages is another indication that it was oppression and not 'promotion'.
This is very similar to the cause of the ethnic strife we were seeing in the Donbas region of Ukraine. When Ukraine was a Soviet Republic, ethnic Russians were imported and given preferential treatment in hiring for higher status positions in areas like management, police, government functionaries, teachers, law etc. When Ukraine became independent, many of those people lost their positions. When Ukraine tried to impose the use of Ukrainian in schools and all official business it caused resentment among the Russian speakers who had formerly been favored by the Soviets.
If you're used to preferential treatment then just being treated like everybody else is oppression.
@@rdrrr Exactly.
The ethnic groups in Hungary such as Germans, Ruthenians, Cumans, Vlachs (Romanians), etc. came to the Hungarian kingdom through settlement and migration, many of them fleeing from other forces. Most of them had cultural and religious autonomy and they prospered. The ethnic structure of the Carpathian basin was completely changed by the Turkish wars and Habsburg rule, replacing the depleted Hungarians, more Germans, Romanians, Serbs, etc. were settled, and with the emergence of nations, these ethnicities became increasingly powerful and hostile. Magyarization was a compulsion to save the nation-state after the 1867 agreement with the Habsburgs. Western countries and the new states after Trianon oppressed minorities much more
So, why do the Slovaks do the same with their current minorities in the 21st century even as a member state of EU? Is it okay now? Why do you always forget to mention it?
@@zsuzso7 Seems like you're missing the point. Magyarization, like Russification, was a policy imposed by an outside polity on a majority indigenous population of another country with the intent to suppress their economic competitiveness and to erase their separate ethnic identity. The intent was to give functional primacy to the ethnic group of the conquering nation by setting in place structural disadvantages of preferential hiring enhanced by language replacement in all official functions (government, courts, schools). Any nation has the inherent right to establish these standards for themselves, not to have them imposed from without.
My Grandfather explained all this to me as a boy. Of course i did not understand it being an American boy. The lecture really prefectly corrisponded to the events my grandfather related to me being there with boots on the ground through the whole thing. This helps me to understand and "connect the dots". Thanks so much for this detailed and informative piece.
Did he tell you about the 4 million Transylvanian Romanian slaves that had no political representation in the Austro-Hungarian empire?
@@gigikontra7023 Did he tell you about the little Entente oppressing Hungary multiple times by military force, even after a signed armistice?
@@patbeni2590 maybe don't start wars next time??? Hahaha, losing a war is totally different from being oppressed.
@@gigikontra7023 Transylvania had only about 3 million romanians . They weren't slaves. And they had political representation in parliament
@@sandormarton9723 this is FALSE!
At the beginning of the video, it should have been noted that Hungary is among the three oldest European countries created in Europe. Preceding, for example, the creation of England, France and Germany. As well as being over 1000 years old. Also, as far as I know, there is no other European language other than Hungarian that can understand its own language 1000 years in the past.
my mom wat told by her hungarian grand mothers and great grandmothers that some people over in germany were sent to populate the swamps (hungary) so it could be a germany territory...
@@EllaNonimato Swamp ? I think you've got something wrong. The origin of the Slavic word means swamp people.I think you put something in the wrong context.
@@Harckocsi1988newchannel i didn't. i already said it was told by my hungarian great grandmothers to my mom. unwanted people from germany were sent to those lands to expand germany's territtory, a somewhat pretext to get the unwanted away from germany.
@@EllaNonimato Then you are Hungarian. So I shouldn't even write to you in English.... Ezzel is kezdhetted volna. Itt meg írogatunk egymásnak angolul...
I feel like it was really hypocritical for the British and the French to call Hungary opressive towards minorities, when those 2 countries had the largest colonial empires in human history, and based on what we know today, their treatment of the locals was not really pleasant.
Two wrongs doesn't make one right though. The French and British treated some of the colonies badly. Not all of them. And even those they treated badly was not permanent. There were periods of discrimination and periods of mostly peaceful coexistence.
Same with Hungary. There were periods when with less ethnic strife and periods with more ethnic strife. The best periods, with less ethnic strife were the periods when Hungary was under foreign dominance, ironically. Up until 1867, Austria saw to implement a more tolerant attitude towards ethnic minorities, starting with the Enlightened policies of Joseph II. After 1867 when the Hungarian nationalists gained local control, things spiraled downhill. Gradually, the rights the minorities were promised 1 years after the dual monarchy was established were either chipped or fell into ignorance.
It would be great if you Hungarians, at least for once, stop pointing fingers to others to justify your bad behavior. Yes, others may have done worse. That doesn't excuse your faults. Learn to take responsibility and accept historical reality. One of the reasons why there are still tensions in this regions is that you refuse to accept that the anti-minority policies of your politicians prior to the beginning of the war was the main catalyst for the dismemberment of your kingdom. I don't ask you guys to be accountable, but at least accept historical reality and come to terms with it. In this regard, you are no different from Serbs, who still denying their obvious atrocities and wrongdoing in Bosnia and Kosovo.
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth I'll admit our alleged opressive system, when Romanians and Slovaks admit that they got unnecessarily much territory.
Trianon didn't bring justice, it just turned the tables and the alleged opressors became the opressed, and the alleged opressed became the opressors.
@@liltinglullaby3282 We got what was ours by right. You don't need to admit what is already internationally recognized. Your admittance is pretty much not required.
Trianon brought justice. It brought justice upon an oppressive state, that persecuted other people because they were not part of the dominant ethnic group (and did not want to be part of). The former oppressors were treated with respect, even though they did not deserve this respect as they did not earn it. Nor paid compensation for the many centuries of injustice they inflicted upon us, Romanians, Slovaks, Serbs, Germans, etc.
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth "We got what was ours by right." So 95% Hungarian cities right on the border like Satu Mare and Oradea were rightfully Romanian? It's funny how most of you people always say how Trianon brought justice, which is clearly not the case, since look at us. Hungarians and Romanians are still fighting. If it had brought justice, no one would have a problem with the treaty.
Look at Serbia's example. They are the only country who respects minority rights and gives them autonomy.
Also, how but just for once you guys stop with the "iT wAs OuRs By RiGhT😭😭😭" BS?
That is not an arguement. If you believe that it was yours by right just because there were Romanians living there, than about half of Transylvania is still ours by right.
@@liltinglullaby3282 We both know that these cities maintained a Hungarian majority through apartheid like means, by denying Romanians the right to reside in them or to buy property. That is one of the reason why these cities maintained a non-Romanian population while being surrounded by Romanians towns and villages. Apartheid is a crime against humanity.
Trianon brought justice to a nation that has persecuted religious and ethnic minorities for centuries and that conducted an illegal war of aggression against neighboring nations. Of course we see Trianon as a justice act since this treaty brought freedom and justice to the oppressed nations of the Hungarian Kingdom.
Hungarians and Romanians are not really fighting. On social level we get along well. Intermarriage is pretty common. Hungarians have one of the most comprehensive system of minority rights in Europe, even without autonomy. No one has a problem with the treaty, except some nationalists in Hungary that love kicking a dead horse for political gains. Aside from the events of world war 2, there has been only 1 instance of ethnic tensions, in March 1990. You want to see ethnic groups fighting? Go to Bosnia.
Serbia is no the only country who respects minority rights. Romania does it too, according to UNO, the Council of Europe and the European Commission. Not only Romania, but also Slovakia respects them. Minority rights are upheld by pretty much all EU members. Some maybe better than others, but all of them respect minorities.
I won't stop with that 'BS', because it is true. It was our right to govern and control the land that rightfully belongs to us, both historically and ethnically. It is a very valid argument. What half of Transylvania lol? Hungarians have rarely been more than 30% of the population of Transylvania. Now they are like 17%, or maybe even lower (that percentage is almost 10 years old). So yeah, you kinda need to come to terms with Trianon. It was an act of justice and freedom. For everyone, even for Hungarians. You got yourself an independent country out of it, rather than being a semi-dependent Austrian partner.
I just love your channel. Thank you for all the great work.
There was the Austro-Hungarian empire, which was composed of various more or less conquered territories. When the empire broke up Hungary thought they had the right to still keep some of those territories, which they actually didn't have.
Tf are you talking about Austria still had most of the power since Franz Joseph was the Hungarian king so it was a valid assumption of them
If the trianon hurts, you are Hungarian
Ha nem akkor is........ deal with it.
@@gerszki Máshogy álnál hozzá ha határokon kívül születtél volna
@@Ягер-д5й kurvára nem
@@gerszki Képzeld el, milyen lenne ha nem használhatnád nyilvánosan a nyelved, származásod miatt üldözének és mindenhol megvetnének!
Lehet már békésebb idők járnak, de Hunyadban elvétve sem hallasz magyar hangot. Annyira félnek használni a magyart, hogy nagyon nehezen tudtak nem angolul beszélni hozzánk! Még most is!
Bár apám szerencsés volt, határ mellett született, de ha kicsit arrébb húzzák meg a határt ő is Magyarországi lett volna.
Ezzel a kommentel nem szidlak, nem vitatkozni akarok veled de kérlek legyen annyi nemzeti öntudatod, hogy nem csak egy dátum legyen neked a Trianon!
@@Ягер-д5й kinek mi, rajtatok csattant az ostor a drága grófurak elbaszták anno a románok voltak a csikak mikor meg osztrák magyar monarhia volt. Valszeg mikor fordult a kocka nem hiszem, hogy nem kaptak az alkamon, hogy odabasszanak.
Mikor csalad kint volt szlovakiában az ottani szlovákok meg arról meséltek hogy az ő felmenőit mwg elverték az iskolában anno mert ő azt mondta szlovák nem pesig magyar anno osztrak mag-ar monarchia.
Szóval lehet reklamálni de akinek megtehetned mar rég halottak. Szar dolog ha az emberen csattan az ostor evvan.
Es nem haragszom senkire.
You cannot include Croatia in Hungarian borders - as Croatia maintained its government and went into a union with Hungary voluntarily. If the Austro-Hungarian empire stayed - it would have had one of the best economies in Europe
Croatia was under personal union of the Hungarian crown, not the king, but the crown itself. And the crown's owner was a Habsburg. Croatia was a largely autonomous state with its own leader (Bán) who was appointed by the crown. If the empire hadnt collapsed it most certainly wouldve been elevated to be an equal part of the empire.
At first it was voluntary (debatable since the Hungarian king had legal ruling right anyways by that era's standards), but later kings formerly annexed Croatia and no it didn't have it's own government for the most part of the union up until the 1800s as it was always ruled by a Hungarian and later Austrian prince or person of same stature as a prince like a duke.
@@Vengeance22 there always was a ban of croatia
My father was Hungarian and this was a very touchy subject for him and like most Hungarians blamed the French for this and had a bit of hatred towards the French.
The one big blunder that is shown each video these treaties are discussed, is the exclusion of the losing side. Just handing down their exhaustively debated terms, without even listening to what their former enemies had to say, is what really torpedoed this whole situation. Even if they where going to reject the entreaties of Germany, Bulgaria, Austria, Hungary and The Ottomans, they should still have been part of the process.
the winners of a war normally don't care what their enemies think about the peace terms. you don't need the losing side's consultation because, after all, they just lost. the winner(s) want what they want. the allies wanted to be compensated for the most costly war in the world at that point, and they did not want a repeat. they were very harsh terms, yes. but the situation would have been torpedoed no matter what because the allies would have done what they wanted whether or not the central powers were involved in the peace process. nationalism also played a role here too, as everyone wanted their own state and to cut down the big guys. perhaps some things would have been different if the central powers were involved; it's interesting to think about though
@@DistantFungus20 That is correct. But punishment after a war only sows the seeds for the next. The Allies supposedly drafted such a peace that wouldn't allow another conflict. Instead, in their arrogance, hypocrisy and ignorace, they just paved the way for an even worse war.
@@davidabonyi4556 yup. but it's not like this was the first time that happened
It didn't help that only Bulgaria really existed as coherent entity following the end of the war.
I agree, the lost lands of Germany and Hungary are fair. Obviously someone is going to be upset, but if we are to be fair, most of the ethnic population in those regions didn't want to be under Germany, Austria or Hungary. But apart from that, the treaties were an overkill. It made the losing nations feel humiliated, which led to resentment. Their systems of government already changed and there should have been steps towards the normalisation of the situation as well as allowing them a peace with honor.
But to be fair, the treaties that Germany and Austria-Hungary made with Russia and Romania after they lost the war are just as bad if not worse than the treaties of Versailles and Trianon. Maybe those treaties influenced the Entente's attitude towards them, and I can't help but see it as karma "what goes around, comes around".
Great episode! Thank you very much. You educated me today! 😄
Actually The final border between România and Hungary îs not set by Trianon but by The treaties of Paris în 1947
That is true but the 1947 border was the exact same as the 1920 border. Thats probably what he meant.
It's the same borders and the same injustice because this borders must be on Tissa river. It is our duty to make Transylvania great again.
@@predacorneliu you want more hungarians in romania?
@@predacorneliu
da pana la tisa
@@benjaminmoloy7163
more with 1 million that there are also Romanians about 500,600 thousand who have a Hungarian bulletin because they are forced
South Slaves that is mentioned in 3:05 are actually Croats who lived from 7th century on their land and fought politicaly against Ungar agressor who wanted to occupy croatian Adriatic coast like all other neighbours inclusive Italians.
Nothing Serbs neh? Only Croats and their imaginary kingdom and imaginary kings.....oborknezovi....
From 7 century? Was not Dalmatia owned by Italians/Venice since the Roman Empire? Until ottoman conquest.
@@alexzero3736 Taken by Croatian tribes arriving to the region, later became Croatian Kindom
I've looked up a few different TH-cam videos on the subject and this one is by far the best researched one and doing best at staying objective. A proper documentary. Thank you!
I'm looking forward to watching more historical material from the channel. :-)
Thanks!
A fake documentary, based on hortyst propaganda. Only Huns liked it.
The amount of treaties which consequences still feels to this day is ridiculous
The problem is that those treaties was sign to keep Britain or France interest. People was never most important.
@@user-hb9mz2hp2g bs. Romanian people who lived in Transilvania would tend to disagree 😉
@@DacianRider The millions of székelys would also tend to disagree with you. Also the at that time hungarian majority in "Satu Mare, Oradea, Cluj" would most likely also tend to disagree with you.
@@sorcy5467 magayar fake news.
@@DacianRider It's only fake news to those who decide to be blind and deaf.
What was unfair is that the civilized western allies countries refused to take into account even the best Hungarian proposal: to organize referendum for disputed territories.
Most of the regions held plebiscites of their own. We Romanians in Transylvania held our own in Alba Iulia on 1st of December where 1230 delegates, elected by their own communities, voted the unification. The voting style mirrors the electoral voting style of the US.
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth I was talking about real referendum as it was proposed that time.
@@Etelezoli It was done though. Romanians + Saxons, who made up 70% of the population voted for union with Romania. Thus, the self-determination principle was enforced.
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth I repeat: I was talking about real referendum as it was proposed that time. Secondly: my question was why the western allied countries refused the idea.
What you're explaining above it's not covering my topics, and I don't want to comment too much, but what you're explaining it's nice "on the paper" only that it was just a coverage for a democratic background of the annexation.
You're are well-prepared, no need to prove me anything.
@@Etelezoli Real referendums were impossible in that context of war and fall of administrative powers. As such, the approach was one of representative plebiscites. Each community elected their own representatives and entrusted them with a resolution/vote on their behalf.
What I am explaining above does cover your topic. You are basically complaining that a referendum was not done in the manner it was done in Sopron for example. But Sopron was a small city, not even 1/50 of Transylvania. The scale was simply too big. There is a reason why referendums were allowed only in very small regions, while bigger regions organized their own plebiscites or assemblies.
I don't think it was a coverage for annexation. It was a will expressed verbally or written for freedom and justice. There ins't just one way to make a referendum.
Nice to see Splintered Empires on the shelf, I love that series
I would be surprised if this video will not make it to your top 5 most watched. True sign of how controversial it was...Stirs people up till this very day...
Wrong! It stirs up only some „hot brains” in Budapest. Any smart person would think about the treaty as an act of justice for the majority peoples in the so-called „areas under dispute”. Otherwise, Hungarians should only claim territories from Asia, where they came from (see the Huns history before the year 1000, which the present Hungarians avoid to talk about). Putin would give them exactly what they actually deserve...
@@gheorghemoraru634 Nothing lasts forever. Even not the territorial stealings by the romanians. Once everybody must pay the price for the shameless stealings.
@@gheorghemoraru634 I dont avoid talking about it but no one really asked me to talk about it either...
Interesting fact in todays Transilvania. Romanian business owners hire people becouse of their skills and knowlege. Hungarian business owners hire people only if they know hungarian language as a first condition,the other specific skills comes seccond.
There are indications that several Hungarian local leaders were rejecting investment in the counties of Harghita and Covasna, as it could boost immigration to the region and affect its ethnic composition.
So you know all romanian business owners?
Thank you for this impartial account of this piece of history that determined so uch for the people's of Hungary.
Fascinating. The various post WW1 treaties were indeed tragic, probably inevitably.
Personally I can't think of a war that ended with a peace that made the most trouble that was caused by the victors.
"South Slavs" have their names, I often see that is a big problem for this production. Yesterday Duško Popov was "Balkanic" spy, today this.
I looked up the census data for the largest city in Transylvania, Cluj. Pretty interesting how the populations change with the borders, each decade shifting at about 10% for either Hungarians or Romanians.
Depends who makes the Census really. Ceausescu loved to boost statistics in Romanian favor just like how the Hungarians did before WWI. PS Hungary was not really 54% Hungarian before WWI.
Very large populations of Hungary were bi- if not multilingual by proximity and necessity. But the census back then usually asked for what language was mainly spoken at home. And in a bilingual family that can totally differ depending on what language your kids learn at school and in whose country you live. Especially if the person asking has a specific interest in the result of your answer... and if you are already in-between because of your mixed family...
@Fabian No, Transylvania did not speak Romanian, but you did what the Albanians did to Kosovo and moved to Transylvania and your ancestors started breeding and you outbred the ethnic Hungarian population.
@@Nitram_xyz you are too stupid. Your argument is that the population that lived in the region for thousands of years before the Hungarians came from the Asian lands, somehow moved in after them. You are delusional.
@Fabian We aren't mongols and at least we don't have to fake history like you.
Versailles was way more controversial but point taken.
"Átkozott legyen a kéz, mely ezt a békét aláírja!"
(english transalation): "Curse the hand, that signes this peace!"
And except cursing.. What you do.. You.. Personaly.. About that..??
@@surducalexandru9553 I felt there will be a nationalist for no reason.
They did the same to Ottoman Empire by Sevres treatity but Kemal Atatürk could destroy this. I hope in the future the hungarians will destroy trianon treatity.
@@ilkercan8554 turk brother🤝
With that sort of attitude, you will always be living in the jackbooted militarist past and never be willing to look towards the future. You will also be unable to fairly assess the older history of your country and its neighbouring countries (including a very rich and very important shared history we should be appreciating together, rather than focusing on nationalism and supremacism).
Hungary had a choice in the early 1900s: It could have federalized, and it would have been part of a large federal monarchy along with the other countries, likely even to this day. Hungarian politicians kept rejecting such ideas, because they were intoxicated with the idea of being "the master nation". Tough luck. All such false dreams have fallen apart in the last 100 years alone, and looked currently towards the east, there's another wannabe-empire there who's days of conquest and nationalism are soon to be over forever.
Actually in all territories that Hungary lost via Trianon, hungarians were and are a minority
Actually no... there are still areas of Transylvania for example that are majority Hungarians 100 years later...
@@fenris1168 but not in none of that areas as a hole
@@amina-pr8xt The same goes for the countries that got those territories... doesn't it? :)
@@fenris1168 what you mean? The part of Hungary that became Slovakia had/has a slovak majority, equivalent is true for the parts that became parts of Romania etc
@@amina-pr8xt The border parts of the territories given to the Slovaks or Serbs were 90+% Hungarian. Same as the ones in Romania, not to count the Sekler populated regions... so yes, they got more than they should have... Also why were all so affraid of a plebiscite if the majority supported the move? What was done remains done... but it doesn't make it fair.
Oh, Albert Apponyi, guy that brought upon minorities of Hungary Lex Apponyi (1907), on which 60% of mixed slovak-hungarian (in language) schools were replaced with purely hungarian ones and rest got slovak language restricted to 1-2 hours per week, (eg massive hungarization and general suppresion of slovak language and culture), appealing to idea of national self-determination, that's rich.
Yeah, Appony was quite a character... And he was the one appointed to speak in front of the Peace Conference at Trianon - the big promoter of magyarization!
@@petrisorpetre6117 What is a shame is that the Benes decrees are still in effect in Slovakia, I guess you are proud of that.
@@janosvass5628 I am Romanian, and I am proud that the political party of Magyars living in Romania (UDMR) is part of the current Government in Bucharest. :)
There is a reason Hungary was called "A jail of nations"
Actually, it was Austrias name, given by France, lol, its just after ww1 became the propagandaname of Hungary by the newly fromed monster states.
Great video. Never cared much about the region but this treaty grabbed my attention quite well. Some modern situations make much more sense now. Thanks again
Hungarians even now try to dominate the whole of Romania. With 6% of the population, they have 18% of the ministers in the Romanian Government and now want to force a change in Constitution to stop Romanian citizens from electing the president. Russian money works wonders.
The Danube is Central Europe, from the Black Forest to the Black Sea 🌊 this includes Bosnia 🇧🇦
@@christopherellis2663 Bosnia is Serbia and Bosniaks need to return to the Serbian Nation.
An amazing multi cultural, multi lingual state, if it were not for authoritarian monarchy and German/Hungarian chauvinism it may have started together as a powerful wealthy state. People were stuck in the 19th century way of thinking. Austria and Hungary ended up as middle class but vulnerable in the former and politically unstable leaning to the far left and right the former. For an Anglo history nerd a fascinating could of been in middle Europe.
I concur.
Habsburg monarchy was the first successful multinational state in the world. The USA was the second one.
I apologise for my errors and typo’s. Australia is multicultural and many South American countries are too.
@@collie8 Rome, Macedonian Empire, Bronze age Mesopotamian and Persian empires, the many Islamic Caliphates, just to name a few. I wouldn't think of Austria-Hungary as anywhere near the first succesful multinational empire.
@@dunebuggyslsk6085 well I was in 15-17 century and generally Europe
The title is wrong and offensive, if you knew the basic history. The peace treaty was an end of occupation of Slovakia and parts of Serbia, Romania and Croatia.
I concur
Well, guess who is paying the author to make these videos?
Croatia was occupied indeed, yet had almost complete autonomy. Hungary didn't occupied Serbia, Romania or Slovakia either. Serbia was much further south, the Serbs came north during mostly the Turkish wars. The vlachs (Romanians) began to settle in the Hungarian kingdom from the 13th century, then they arrived in several large waves, mainly during the Turkish wars and Habsburg rule. Romania exists since only 1859, and Transsylvania or the Partium, etc. were never ever Romanian lands. Slovakia exists since 1993... Have you ever seen a medieval map of Europe?
outstanding production in every aspect
By the way...in his speech at the Paris coference Aponyi talked about racial inferiority of romanians from Transilvania(compared with magyars and germans). Very interesting wont you say?
He even approved laws for cultural genocide.
Now the Hungarian party in Romania (UDMR) also speaks about not mixing with the races outside the "Carpathian basin". Hahahaha
@@gigikontra7023 This is what we have always fought for
We are not a mixed race and we do not want to become people of mixed race
We do not want to mix with other races
We want to be like we became 1100 years ago here in the Carpathian Basin
We will be able to maintain Hungary's biological future without migrants
-fürer Orban, PM of the Hungarians
Wow I could've really done with this coming out 2 weeks ago when I was writing an essay on interwar Hungary 😅
This video has some weird audio cuts but still thank you so much for this great content!
Excellent reporting. Thank you very much
Well, in 1920, Hungary was for the first time since 1526, after the defeat of Mohacs, independent.
Moreover, they had an national state, since the teritories they had "lost", were populated mainly with serbs, czech, slovaks, ucrainieans and romanians, therefore belonging to other states..
So, being independent, without any minority issue, I think we can call it a big advantage and opportunity.
...only about 3 million ethnic hungarians woke up a day (4th June, 1920) that they live in a foreign country, hostile to them, however they live in the same city, the same house...Bravo Trianon, bravo France and England!... :((
@@attilahalmai4590 but they all live now happily in the European Union with no borders. So what exactly is your problem?
@@gigikontra7023 It is a problem when Hungarians live in another country. Not when others were living in their own. XD
@@attilahalmai4590 "Hostile to them" because for centuries hungarians treated them far worse. Even so, hungarians in the new states were treated like the majority.
@@RustKnight Tale-tale-fairy tale...
controversial for hungarians maybe, but for the people who suffered from austro-hungary was a release
Indeed!
@user-ck9ul4ic4k Because it was populated by Germans.
It was the biggest fear of Britain and France that sometime Austria-Hungary would unite with Germany. Therefore it needed to go asap. The split up of the country along its ethnic borders came in handy. France and Britain could portrait themselves as liberators of the oppressed ethnicities rather than just egoistic geostrategicists, as they always have been.
The split up of Hungary was NOT along its ethnic borders. Far from it. I thought the video was pretty clear on that.
My family was among refugees who fled their home town of Arad (now in Romania) to Budapest in the 20s
No one kicked them out, they opted to leave
The map you used at 2:44 has incorrect borders. The Kingdom of Hungary's borders should extend into present day Austria and Slovenia.
Nekem is pont az szúrta a szememet, hogy a Muravidékről teljesen megfeledkezett. Ráadásul Lengyelországnak nem csak Szepes, de Árva vármegye északi csúcsa is odakerült.
Keep dreaming!!!!
@@georgehanciuc8124 Elod says Burgenland and Prekmurje, Archer Dark says Prekmurje and part of Árva and Szepes Counties WERE part of Hungary, but were missed by the video. They didn't say it SHOULD be.
@@marcellkiss-redey8451 Mit vársz el egy romántól, még angolul sem tud olvasni...
Very informative video, thank you. A big plus: Hungarian names are also pronounced perfectly.
He looks like any Hungarian guy I met in Hungary, a country in which I have spent many holidays in recent years.
That's because he is Hungarian.That is also why he is biased toward the hungarians
@@andreiradu7708 No he's not, his name is Jesse Alexander and he's American, if anything by looking at his face i'd say he has Romanian ancestry instead of Hungarian one, specifically Moldavians have that kind of face.
@@Vengeance22
Ever heard of pseudonyms?
As for his aspect I would not venture to speculate on that basis .Besides pronouncing Hungarian names are very difficult to pronounce for most people who are not accustomed with or actually speak the language .Not to mention that for some strange reason Hungary always had a strong lobby in America and seem to always get their sympathy regardless of the biased lies they where dissipating
@@andreiradu7708 I noticed..the bias is quite visible for connaisseurs...Probably he is Austro-Hungarian descent
A history channel should be acceptable on youtube, if it deals with how things actually were- which's the topic of history: studying what really happened.
This guy Jessie Alexander and the team create wonderful historical presentations of relevant history on You Tube. Thank you for bringing history alive.
Yeah, they brought back the Hungarian imperialism and genocidal tendencies.
Wow, how (not) to welcome a foreign delegation at the peace talks 10:18
It's what happens when you bring a military brasshead to a diplomatic delegation
He clearly had no idea about the history of Hungary. Our relationship is probably the worst with Romania and as the joke goes:
In Trianon, the delegations are negotiating the future of the area, when the head of the Hungarian envoy ask so speak:
- I just want to say, when we arrived to the Carpathian basin, the Romanians stole our horse.
Rest of the people were unsure what to make of it and asked if he wants it to be added to the records but he declined.
The negotiation continues and after some time, the Hungarians ask to speak again.
- I just want to say, when we arrived to the Carpathian basin, the Romanians stole our horse.
Again, they ask if they want it to be on record, but the Hungarians decline, so the negotiation continues.
After some time, the Hungarians ask to speak again:
- I just want to say, when we arrived to the Carpathian basin, the Romanians stole our horse.
The speaker of the Romanian delegation with boiling anger screams
- We weren't even there.
When the Hungarian quickly says
- Now this I want to be on record
(the idea behind this that Romanians arrived to Hungary in 14th century fleeing from the Tatars)
He was honest.
@@Vikkin1218 We have a different version in Romania of this joke:
The head of the Hungarian envoy says:
- When we arrived to the Carpathian basin, our horses were stolen, so we remained there.
To which the head of the Romanain envoy replies:
- See, I told you we were there first.
@@Vikkin1218 it may be just me but how would the tatars, a population of Crimea, the steppe and the Danubian plain towards the Black Sea chase the Vlachs/Romanians - who were mostly living in the interior of the Balkan peninsula. Those two people really don't compete over same things, at most they coexisted.
With the same reasoning they could have just cut off Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland from Great Britain. But the winner takes it all.
well and as you can see with Scotland, there are tendencies towards independence
Not exactly. For example, present day Slovakia was never a(n independent) country in History. The example was more correct if we would say that England would be split among its neighbours leaving just London and some territories arround it.
prolarka 😳 Indeed so. There was no such state as Great Britain (and Ireland) until 1800. Before then it was Roman Britannia, followed by a conglomeration of Scandinavian and Germanic kingdoms with Celtic Wales, Ireland and Scottish Alba as separate political entities. King Henry VIII decided to grab Wales as an adjunct territory of England because he could, thus creating the nonsense referred to as ‘England and Wales’. The Scots maintained their full independence until the two crowns, English and Scottish, were unified by King James VI Stuart of Scotland thus becoming King James I of Britain in 1603. They lost their government in Edinburgh following the collapse of their economy in the 1680s, leaving Westminster in full charge of the state. With the arrival of the Hanoverian monarchy in Britain the final change came about in 1800 with the incorporation of Ireland within the governance of Britain, thus creating Great Britain and Ireland. Only in 1949 was a fully independent Republic of Ireland established, albeit without two thirds of the Province of Ulster in the north. For such a small island, that is some going indeed 🥴.
@@TheGreatWar 🇬🇧🇬🇧👎👎👎
@@sirmeowthelibrarycat It was KIng Edward who first waged war on the Welsh and subjugated them if my memory serves, dunno now if it was the first or the third, but I know for sure it was an Edward who did it.
Have you spoken yet on the Wire of Death? It was a lethal electric fence that stretched the border between Belgium and Holland that killed between 2,000 to 3,000 people. I read that "Only thirteen percent of the Dutch have 'a glowing pear' at home, while this percentage is even lower among Belgians," and that they didn't know about the insulating effect of rubber until the end of the war.
I love your channel keep up the great stuff
Lloyd George, Prime Minister of the U.K., in his speech on the 7th of October, 1929: “The whole documentation that we received from our allies at the peace talk, was deceitful and untrue. We came to a decision on false principles”
Another nice joke. Now I'm laughing.
ha ha ha, you are nuts or fanatic hungarist
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth BEcause Loyd George relaized that you lied at the conference?
@@chriswanger284 Explained what information provided was deceitful and untrue? You do realize each side was presenting evidence that would support their position, regardless of the reality on the ground? And you do realize that the one thing which was true was the fact that Romanians, according to Hungarian census, were the majority, and based on this the decision to make Transylvania part of Romania was possible?
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth "Transylvania" is rather vague. With or without Partium or the Banat? Including or not a certain county, town, or village? Romanians were the majority population in the region, but not by a great margin - not an overwhelming majority by any means. But the democratic, the majority argument is moot anyway, since except for Sopron, the people didn't get to vote on the matter. Had it been put to the vote at the time, even on a county basis, the maps would have looked very different.
The only correct decision would have been to hold plebiscite in mixed ethnic regions.
@Főfasírozó I must wrong you, as a history student, i study this problem, lets say for example Pozsony(bratislava) would vote as a city that it want remain to Hungary, but other areas near bratislava would vote for czechoslovakia. In first election when bratislava would vote alone, hungary wins. In 2nd case when Bratislava would vote with its all district, czechoslovakia won. Thats the problem with this plebiscite. Hungarians did want to expand or attacht minorities district to their own national vote districts, this would couse ilusion in winner, cuz when you add more hungarian to your teritory you just win.
Peace my friend.
@@timotejrybarik1482 There could have been a better solution anyway. If a city votes for that country and the neighbouring for othersm there could have been a way to negotiate further. In this special case, there would not have been great problems, since Slovakian and Hungarian ethnical border was very clear in 1918, see the Bartha-Hodza demarcation line. Anyway, I think the two nations should live together again in a common country with both languages as official languages. We'll be much succesful together.
@@militaryorchid7937 This is what Tiso want, till 1948.
That would have left Hungary stronger than it's neighbors, defeating the entire purpose of the careful balancing game the Entente was playing.
@@timotejrybarik1482 To be fair at least 3 villages around Bratislava on the Hungarian side are de facto suburbs of Bratislava, until the covid border restrictions it was a microregion of people speaking both languages but earning Slovakian wages in euros without a need to convert currency.
An excellent coverage. Liked and shared. And-hi Flo!
Great topic, great coverage!