The Most Controversial Peace Treaty after WW1 - Treaty of Trianon 1920 (Documentary)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 มิ.ย. 2020
- Watch The Great War on Nebula: go.nebula.tv/the-great-war
The last of the big peace treaties signed in Paris that finalized the borders in Europe was the Treaty of Trianon. Even at the time, Hungarians considered it a historic injustice while nations such as Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia were quite happy with the result. We examine how the treaty was signed and negotiated.
» SUPPORT THE CHANNEL
Patreon: / thegreatwar
Become a member: / @thegreatwar
» OUR PODCAST
realtimehistory.net/podcast - interviews with World War 1 historians and background info for the show.
» BUY OUR SOURCES IN OUR AMAZON STORES
realtimehistory.net/amazon *
*Buying via this link supports The Great War (Affiliate-Link)
» SOURCES
saiah Bowman, The New World-Problems in Political Geography, (Yonkers-on-Hudson : World Book Company, 1921)
Francis Deák & Dezsó Ujváry, Paper and Documents Relating to the Foreign Relations of Hungary, Volume 1; 1919-1920, (Budapest : Royal Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 1939)
Conan Fischer, Europe between democracy and dictatorship, 1900-1945, (Chichester ; Malden, MA : Wiley-Blackwell, 2011)
Mike Gyula, (ed.): Magyar Statisztikai Zsebkönyv, 1940 [Hungarian Statistical Pocket Book 1940], (Központi Statisztikai Hivatal : Budapest, 1940)
Róbert Győri & Charles W. J. Withers, Trianon and its aftermath: British geography and
the ‘dismemberment’ of Hungary, c.1915-c.1922, Scottish Geographical Journal, 135:1-2 (2019)
Michael Károlyi, Memoirs of Michael Károlyi: Faith Without Illusion (London : Jonathan Cape, 1956)
Jörn Leonhard, Der überforderte Frieden: Versailles und die Welt 1918-1923, (Bonn : bpp, Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung, 2019)
C A Macartney, Hungary and her successors : the treaty of Trianon and its consequences 1919-1937, (London : Oxford University Press, 1937)
Margaret Macmillan, Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World, (London : Macmillan, 2019)
Arnold Suppan, The Imperialist Peace Order in Central Europe: Saint-Germain and Trianon, 1919-1920, (Vienna : Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, 2019)
Miklós Zeidler; Thomas J. DeKornfeld; Helen DeKornfeld, Ideas on Territorial Revision in Hungary, 1920-1945, East European Monographs, 717, (2010)
Miklós Zeidler, Trianon, (Budapest, Osiris, 2003.)
» MORE THE GREAT WAR
Website: realtimehistory.net
Facebook: / thegreatwaryt
Instagram: / the_great_war
Twitter: / ww1_series
Reddit: htpps://reddit.com/r/TheGreatWarChannel
» OTHER PROJECTS
16 DAYS IN BERLIN: realtimehistory.net/pages/16-...
»CREDITS
Presented by: Jesse Alexander
Written by: Jesse Alexander
Director: Toni Steller & Florian Wittig
Director of Photography: Toni Steller
Sound: Toni Steller
Editing: Toni Steller
Motion Design: Philipp Appelt
Mixing, Mastering & Sound Design: above-zero.com
Maps: Daniel Kogosov ( / zalezsky )
Research by: Jesse Alexander
Fact checking: Florian Wittig
Channel Design: Alexander Clark
Original Logo: David van Stephold
Contains licensed material by getty images
All rights reserved - Real Time History GmbH 2020
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.
"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.
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.
My grandfhather was born in Austro-Hungary my father was born in Hungary and I was born Romania all in same Town !
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.
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
@@ThePasteansChannel 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
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..
Terrific presentation involving a great deal of time and effort. Excellent review of that history. Thank you. RS. Canada
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!
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.
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 ?
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.
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 :)
"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
Great episode! Thank you very much. You educated me today! 😄
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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! :)
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
"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
I love your channel keep up the great stuff
outstanding production in every aspect
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
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.
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.
Great topic, great coverage!
The vibe check of central Europe.
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!
Excellent reporting. Thank you very much
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.
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."
So Hungary wanted to be independent country(not part of Austria) but when Slovakia, Croatia, Transilvania wanted the same thing, they opposed at any price. Twisted logic.
Hungary never wanted to grab a big part of Austria with a big pure austrian population. And hungary as a country existed far before the austrian-hungarian monarchy unlike those new creatures.
Look through the maps of Hungary throughout the decades. pre-Trianon Hungary was standing like that for literally a 1000 years. Also it only wanted to be independent when they took Hungarys land with force and with intent of opression. Like when the Ottomans demolished it into 3 parts, or when the Austrians literally ate it up. I know youre argument would be that Hungary also opressed nonhungarians, which might be true but we cant know the severity of it and how much it stood out compared to other nations opression, because around that time it was pretty a common thing. The last thing I want to add to the opression part is that winners write history. As the video said, there was such chaos you would have been mad not to claim as much land as possible. It is entirely possible most of those claims of oppression were made up or exagurated to get the allies on their side.
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
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.
I had no idea about any of this. It's been very interesting. Thanks for your hard work guys!
As a hungarian i do think, that Trianon either way would have happened. If 50% of your country belongs to ethnic minorities, is simply unsustainable. Can you point out any country, where it did work? I think we had very bad politicians at that time, which caused trouble for everyone, even in the neighbouring countries. Everybody could have seen it causes massive migration back to the home country. Nobody predicted at that time, that fertility rate will drop that drastically. The neighbouring countries got the hungarian pensioners now. Ethnic minority is the first one, who leaves a country. The inward migration to Hungary caused friction on the labour market for quite a long time, and manipulated statistics, but now Goverment can't make statistics nicer anymore. I think only Slovakia has problems decades to come. Erdely is too far away from the border, any other country hungarians will be reduced to non-existence within 2-3 decades. Austria is a different story, as in the last 10 years more hungarians are working/living there, than any time in history. Same situation in Serbia now. (Bosnia and Montenegro) -> Bosnia's economy will be crushed, if that high frequency of migration continues. Naturally, if we were to look closer, look back to 1867, which is 50 years before the war only, Hungary was on forced route for quite a long time, which hasn't been emphasized that much, Abonyi looking at his speech, he was not that straight to make even negotiable terms. I think he should have been more pragmatic, and should have shown a map, which could have reduced significally hungarians out of the border. I don't think that anyone learns from history. In 2030, if each hungarians were to move to Hungary from neighbouring countries, we wouldn't reach the peak of our population.
Fascinating. The various post WW1 treaties were indeed tragic, probably inevitably.
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
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?
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...
Well presented! Cheers
One of the best description of the treaty, it's background and consequences.
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!!
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.
Nice to see Splintered Empires on the shelf, I love that series
As a Slovak i must say, it´s bad that hungarians lost so many teritories, but lets remind that opression from hungarian to minorities were heavy. Forbiden slovak schools and culture buildings changes slovak point of view of Kingdom of Hugary (Uhorsko, in slovak we have different name for before-1920 Hungary and today´s Hungary), Hungarians minorities in Slovakia are mostly happy, they have their hungarians schools when they can develop their mother l. And if you asked today hungarian in Slovakia, if he want to join to hungary, he would say no, for many reasons. Selfdetermination of our nation was very important, and we are still developing a better Slovak-Hungarian rel. Both nations prospers from each others.
Peace to my Hungarian Friends from Slovakia. In cooperation in V4 we can archieve great things.
Well, I agree that we should put aside those old bad feelings, look ahead, not back, and cooperate for a better future, but if minorities would have been so heavily oppressed in Hungary, they would have been assimilated and disappeared over the centuries instead of having become a majority... Of course you cannot haul up today's standards on yesterday's people, but taking into account the era's standards, ethnic and religous minorities were treated in a very conceding and liberal way in Hungary all the way from the middle ages to the end of the 19th century.
Actually, the tragedy of Hungary is that it was this liberal treatment and lack of forced assimilation itself (besides many othe factors) that led to the situation in which the ethnic minorities became the majority in Hungary, that in turn led to the loss of the 2/3rds of the country.
I can agree with you that we have to move jointly and even a common country would be desirable again and more efficient. The first part is utterly no. This is simply because it fits your best interests what you are taught. The number of Slovakians grew very rapidly in that "ugly" Monarchy, from the time when the flatland was always exploited to violence in the Ottoman wars up until the "harsh oppression" of the dualist state. It was one of the acts of the Entente war machine to spread rumours and propaganda all over Europe staining the fame of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. When it came to the end of the war, no one among the Entente wanted to held a public vote, even French outer affair politicians remarked that they could count on very little support among the native Slovaks not to speak about the Hungarians and Germans. A Slovak in the turn of the XX century could live without problem wothout knowing the Hungarian language. That's not true today. As I remember from readings the people of Trnava even wrote a note to the ministry to ask for Hungarian teachers and courses to learn the language better. Believe me there is much illmannered propaganda about what you are taught today. It serves your interest. About the Hungarians: in 1920 there were more than 1 milliion of Hungarians in Czechoslovakia. There are only some few hundreds now at best. (Do you know that the number of Slovaks in Czechoslovakia in 1920 was around 1.5 millions while it is more than 4.5 millions today. This would mean that there should bemore than 3 millions of Hungarians living today in Slovakia if the terms would have been equal for them.) In between, they were deprived of their properties (the Benes decretum of 1946 is still valid in Slovakia !!!) , some ugly atrocites also took place that are known (some hundred of returning 15-16 year old Hungarian youngers who were drafted in the army by pressure in 1945 were mass murder in Petrzalka- this is one of the ugliest, I think). Do you happed to know why the language border was never validated, which was clear and apparent even in 1918 and was the Bartha-Hodza contract setting a demarkation line in 1918 leaned on it? Do you happen to know why the Czechs wanted more and more from the territory of a country that they even had had nothing to do in the past? It was a foreign country for them! (If it had been for the Slovaks they would have been asked. But they were never asked, and you know why: because everybody knew that the majority of the Slovaks did not want the new Czech country at that time. However incredible it sounds today.) Do you happen to know why the cities like Bratislava which had 5% of Slovaks in 1918, and Kosice, which had even fewer percent of SLovaks were so much desired by Czechoslovakia? They wanted a port on the Danube the one side and they did not want to bother with building railways on the other side, Thats enough said on the fair terms of the "peace treaty" i think. In spite of all those, I think there are not many controversies between Hungarian and Slovaks. One of the greatest obstacles are the aggressive, chauvinist, totally false historical bullshit you are taught in the countries which were the benefitting parties of the first world war. This can be understood but would serve better for todays needs to pour clear water in those jugs. I think the best solution would be a common state again with both languages as official languages and putting aside all this mitological nonsense in the future and let the past be as it was.
As a hungarian, i admit that there were a a bit opression after Apponyi law, but we should not see this by XXI. century standards, when it happened in XIX century. I think the borders after first Vienna awards were fair. But for now, it s history, and i hope we wil learn to live with each other friendly ,normally and peacefully.
Trianon was not the result of a single lost war. It’s the result of almost two centuries of devastation at the hands of the Ottomans, and the exploitative, oppressive and devisive politics of the nobility. The Western allies that brought Czechoslovakia into being did so out of cold economic and political calculation as they did out of pure sympathy. The only possibility for us to thrive is to join together in mutual friendship, respect and cooperation.
@@barkasz6066 Time to for the Carpathian Republic/Confederacy/Union.
We'll se which. Am Hungarian.
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.
The irony in all this is that I am a Hungarian born citizen in Romania...and Romanians are telling me that I am not home, I should move to Hungary. A 1000 year old nation that defended Christianity in Europe for centuries was rewarded by being sliced like a birthday cake. Even so, we, Hungarians after 100 years of this treaty, are the largest ethnic group in the Carpathian Basin and as Gróf Apponyi Albert said in front of the gravediggers of Hungary in Versailles, quote: "Önök most megásták Magyarország sírját, de Magyarország ott lesz a temetésén mindazon országoknak, amelyek most itt megásták Magyarország sírját" - Meaning : " you have just dug the grave of Hungary but we promise you that Hungary will be present at the funeral of all the nations that dug the grave of Hungary! "
not really, for centuries the biggest demographic in Transylvania were actually Romanians, and it was a historically Romanian land even more than 1500 years ago, just like the biggest demographic in other parts of Austria-Hungary were not actually Hungarians.
We're fed up with the "1000 years, Hungarians discriminated, Hungary wants more territory, Christianity defenders" and all that trope. Leave us alone! We Romanians are the MAJORITY POPULATION OF TRANSYLVANIA. We don't want to live anymore under de-facto apartheid regime under Hungarian imperial rule. Hungary, stop trying to annex territoires from neighbouring countries.
@@gigikontra7023we survived the Mongol invasion, the Ottomans, the Habsburgs, the Communists. We will outlive the Daco-Romano-Gypsies, too. There is no last chapter to history. :)
@@gigikontra7023 you romangutans migrated there after the ottomans broke up hungary, look up hungary's demographic before 1526. Maybe than you will understand why hungary thinks this as injustice
too nice historical video from excellent specific channel
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.
Hungary: We demand our rights and freedom from Austrian Empire!
Also Hungary: Croats, Serbs, Czech, Slovak, Romanians - be our slaves!
Thank you very much for this documentary I enjoyed it a lot
"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
Great analysis and information. Straight to the point.
Littered with missing or wrong information. Very deceitful.
Very informative- thank you
This man is serious about explaining history.
That is correct.
If the trianon hurts, you are Hungarian
Ha nem akkor is........ deal with it.
@@gerszki Máshogy álnál hozzá ha határokon kívül születtél volna
@@user-ve2iy4gb1x 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!
@@user-ve2iy4gb1x 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.
Thanks for helping me study for my history GCSE guys!
I just love your channel. Thank you for all the great work.
As an outsider I can be amused by the Trianon participants' accusations that the 'others' are uncivilised. I read a book by a Romanian scholar who, throughout the book, never failed to refer to Hungarians as the 'Asiatic Hungarians".
Each antagonist nation back then described their foes with slurs. Hungarians referred to Romanians as inferior people, incapable of governing themselves. Romanians considered Hungarians as cruel barbarian nomads who oppressed us. Both of these positions are clearly extremist in nature, but you have to take into account the huge emotional baggage that these events provoked. Hungary saw the demise of their kingdom. Romania managed uniting the majority Romanian lands.
Well, hungarians came from Asia.
@@adrianzamfir2663 It was meant as a derogatory term implying 'uncivilised'
Well to be honest Romanians have a reputation in Hungary and while I'm biest towards my own country , Romania is oppressing the hungarian ppl called székelys who are the ppl living at the territory what romain got from the treaty they also falsified their history and claim one of our kings as their own both countries resent eachother and unlike the homophobic and racist generation of Hungary ( mostly from 50-70 or above ) I don't think this conflict will be resolved with the newer generations
@@sommano9206 They are not appressed, they have rights equal to Romanians, they can even speak their own language and learn in their language.
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” !
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".
Apponyi closed down 1,000 Slovak-language schools in the 1890s and 600 Rumanian-language schools around 1910. Who was he to talk about culture?
And after the 600 closed rumanian schools, still remained more rumanian school in hungary, than in their home state, rumania...
@@xerxen100 Hungary is a small country. Not an empire. Not noble. Not aristocratic. Romania is superior because it is descended from THE MIGHTY ANCIENT ROMAN GLORIOUS EMPIRE! (Using your stupid way of writing). Romanian is a LATIN LANGUAGE. Latin is prestigious. Transylvania is Romania Forever.
@@busterbiloxi3833 Etruscean was glorius...
@@xerxen100 There are absolutely NO documented relations or links between Hungarians or Etruscans. We know very little about the Etruscans. Are you going to tell me that the Etruscans were GREAT, NOBLE cousins of the GREAT, NOBLE Hungarian Heroes of Yesteryear? THE SEVEN TRIBES! WOW! You are a fringe moronic Magyar. VIVA TRIANON!
@@busterbiloxi3833 The Etrusceans was the founders of the so called Roma city, and all the technology and culture comes from them. There was 2 theory about the Etruscean origin. 1, they came from Lydia, from the remnants of the Trojans, 2 they came from the Pannonian basin. But, the Trojans originally moved to Anatolia from the Carpathian basin.... Yep, they always live here, and remained here.
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
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.
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
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.
Nicely balanced video on a very sensitive topic
So, let me see if I understand corectly: before the treaty, Hungary had a population of 20 mil, and after the treaty, their population was only 7mil + another 3 mil living in other countries.... so that means that before the treaty, the population of Hungary was 50% non hungarians??? Woow..... Shocker!!! 🙄
Hungarians were the majority in 1914 with 52% of the population the second biggest were the romanians at 26% so it's more complicated than that.
Basically take Transylvania, there were 1 Milion hungarians and 5 milion Romanians, but the province was part of Hungary. After Trianon it was given to Romania..
I guess it was a justified move. And claiming Trianon is a national tragedy, means Hungary forgot that it occupied territories with non-hungarian majorities…
@@healththenopulence5106 3.2 mil.roumanian (valah),1,6mil hungarian (Hungarian, szekler,and Hungarian jude),0.6 mil-germans live in Transilvania în 1910.
@@thedgzgames427 the 52% statistic 24% romanians applied to the WHOLE Hungary… that means Hungarians made up just half of Hungary… that means it was an oppresive conquest empire and had to go…
@@healththenopulence5106 loooool :D that was Hungarys land. but romanians moved to live there
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
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
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!
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 don't know much about other countries/lands that gained their independence from Hungary in 1920, but as I slovak, I can speak about Slovakia's case. So, allies said they would redraw the borders of central europe acording to ethnicity of people living in the place. This however, did not come to place. Czechs got Suddetenland, which was very much German, we, Slovaks, got (by today's language) southern Slovakia, which to this day, is majority hungarian. Case of Sudetenland going to Czechs was backed by the fact, that they owned it in medival times. Southern Slovakia was different. We did not have any historical claim on any land, since we never existed as a state up to that point. So they decided to give it to us because of economical influence and infrastructure, that the region had.
Now, you can say, that the treary was unfair. It was harsh to say at least. However, you know what is harsher? To be opresed by nation that basically denies your official existence as a nation for centuries and tries to integrate you by force to their nation.
So in conclusion, Slovaks deserved the northern part of the land. If the right thing was done in southern part, remains in question.
for the southern part, no it wasn't.
@ShamesMaldune this is true, but look for example the case of Transilvania, the majority of the Hungarian ethnics is in some counties that are not at the border (Harghita, Covasna). How can you drow a border that does not connect to the mainland?
Sudetenland didnt exist in first place, its borders were first drawn in 1938..
is there even a slovak language ? no youare just Hungarians in denial you dont have a national anthem coat of arms flag culůture either there is nothing what is completely slovak nothing that is unique to slovak mish-mash of czech polish ukrainian and hungarian but mostly hungarian also if hungarians would opress a nation the has 4-5 times smaller for 1000 YEARS they would not even exist today so thats bs right there
@@DanailaAndrei thats because Hungarians were forced out from there and replace with romanians from other parts of romania
The problem with the Trianon treaty is, that it wasnt a treaty, it was a dictatum. If the minorities of the Austro-Hungarian empire wanted to get separate, its oke, go be separate, but the problem is until up today, that they got regions of Hungary which are still having majority hungarian populations. This was, and it is the problem until today. This is why tensions will never cease, until this is fixed.
It could have been fixed back then had Hungarians accepted population exchanges. That would have solved the problem. But they refused, thinking that they would recover these lands in the future. But they did not, and they are left with the situation at hand. Things should have been done like it was done with Poland after World War 2. The Poles in the Eastern parts were allowed to go to the Western part and the Germans were deported. Czech Republic too, they deported all Germans from the Sudetenland and this solved the ethnic problems.
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth I don't think they were give an option to do so. No referendums, no population counts, no population exchange option neighter. The winner side was greedy, and all wanted a big part from the cake. Whatever was done back then, we can't do anything. But to fix the ongoing problem with this ( becaouse there is) , all sides have to sit down at the table and discuss about it. Becaouse sooner or later this will escalate in my opinion. Secondly, the big western powers wanted to create a lot of small weaker nations in east europe, rather than one big strong and rich state as the Monarchy was. 100 years passed, and see where is east europe now? All small countries, all weak and poor. The west thought about this carefully.
@@loecorristo555 They were. The Romanian government in particular made a population exchange proposition during and after Trianon was signed. I doubt this will escalate anymore, as there is just no way Hungarians in neighboring states can become part, territorial speaking, of Hungary. Last chance was in 1940. That chance was lost. The monarchy was neither rich, nor strong. It was beset from within, and the way the 2 dominant nations treated their national minorities was not a recipe for a long-lasting state. Proof of the matter is that, as soon as the Austria-Hungary army was no more, state authority collapsed in non-Hungarian, non-Austrian territories even without foreign intervention. Even if AH survived, sooner or later it would have still collapsed. The borders would have looked different maybe, but its collapse was inevitable. All Empires have an inception, a peak, a decline and a fall.
@@loecorristo555 All 3 things you mentioned were. The referendums showed that the people want out of Hungary, the population counts showed that Hungarians were a minority in every lost region save for Szekelyland and a few villages on the border, and the population exchange was refused by Hungary who hoped to take the lands back. The western powers wanted to create large states to defend against the communists in the east. Minor border adjustments could have been made, but let's be honest, the Hungarians don't complain about those minor border adjusments, they hate Trianon as a whole.
The Treaty of Trianon is really not that complicated, it's mostly propaganda of Hungarian politicians that makes it complicated.
- Hungarians built things on occupied of other people, that doesn't matter, the natives who were oppressed and marginalized have all the moral and legal right to claim back their land.
- In Transylvania 57% of the population were legally second class citizens. Can you guess who those 57% were? The Romanians. That doesn't mean 43% were Hungarians, the Hungarians were only 25%.
- Why did Hungary lose so much land? Self-determination, ethnic criteria and historical right.
- It doesn't matter that you owned it for 100 years and built things there, if a conqueror builds something on conquered land, the conquered have no right to claim their land back? If I steal your house and live in it for 2 years, then you have no right to claim your house back because I purchased a new parquet and new windows? it's absurd.
- Many Hungarians here in the comment section talk about taking back the territories, taking back territories based on what claims? You have neither historical nor ethnic right to claim anything back.
@@catalinmarius3985 The ethnic numbers changed over 1000 years in Transilvania. Romanians were never a majority until the 1850+ years, after countless wars fought against the turks, while the romanians were brought into Transilvania by hungarian nobles.They didnt have to fight wars, so they could multiply, while the hungarians were conscripted. Obviously I'm not blaming romanians for this, but claiming 'lands'' on the right being ''natives'' is absolutely wrong here. Romanians became majority over time, and seized control of those lands they were brought in as workforce. I never heard of any referendums held for voting. Can you link me some source please? Moreover, transilvania was part of Hungary not for a 100 years as you say, but 1000+. It was integrated part of Hungary even when Romania wasn't even on the map. For a 1000 years. Yet you you are talking like it was :). Don't be ridicolous.
Great and interesting content! Thanks.
Regarding Transylvania, if the Hungarians were to have organized a plebiscite at that time, they would have still lost. Even according to the Hungarian stats, Romanians represented about 52% of the population of Transylvania. Additionally, the ethnic Germans of Transylvania, the second largest minority, also expressed their desire to be part of Romania and not Hungary as Romania was ruled by a German Royal House. Any referendum at that time would have only even further legitimized the unification of Transylvania with Romania.
Yep, but many Romanians didnt want to became a part of Romania.... Its like nowadays Texas vote for a unification with mexico... Do you think that any Mexican want to be again in Mexico?
@@xerxen100 abd you know this because you asked them personally 100 years ago each and every one of them, yeah, Muppet?
@@xerxen100 All of them wanted to be part of Romania.
"Its like nowadays Texas vote for a unification with mexico"
They have the right to do so. Texas, within the US Constitution, has the right to secede.
Romanians in Transylvania did not seek to unite with Romania for economic purposes, but for the purpose of national survival. After all, our economic stance in the Empire was not much different from that of Romania. Decades of economic marginalization forced many Romanians from Transylvania to migrate to the Old Kingdom. For example, between 1880 and 1910, over 500.000 Romanians from Transylvania were residents in the Old Kingdom. Many famous Romanian writers, inventors, intellectuals, scientists from Transylvania migrated to the Old Kingdom, such as Traian Vuia, Liviu Rebreanu, George Cosbuc, Aurel Vlaicu, Ioan Slavici, etc.
Romanians, through the plebiscite in 1st of December 1918 expressed their national choice. That of uniting with Romania.
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth Romanians grown like rabbits in Transylvania... Naturally some of them went their old home to help their relatives, since they even no can write...
@@xerxen100 Transylvania is the cradle of our civilization though. It is in the Orastie Mountains where our people formed, which can be seen in the ruins of our ancient Dacian fortifications. Also, we have always been the majority of the population since 2000 years ago. Naturally, we multiplied faster because of bigger population and because that is typical of agrarian societies. Most of the Romanians from Transylvania that went to the Old Kingdom had no relatives there. They lived for generations in Transylvania.
I thought the Treaty of Lausanne was unfair on Greeks. This treaty must be heartbreaking for all a Hungarians.
Yes,it is
The time of revenge is here my friend.
People were literally crying on the streets even years after because of it. Today, a whole century after, merchandise showing Greater Hungary sells like candy, millions of Hungarians got stuck in foreign countries getting oppressed brutally (beatings, not being allowed in shops even, not being allowed to use their own language etc.) even in the 21st century and worst of all the sins of this treaty is it dismantled the entirety of Central Europe against any outside threats for probably centuries. Hungary has always been (in amazing cooperation with the Poles) the power that kept the peace in Middle and Eastern Europe. Since that role isn't fulfilled by anyone there is turmoil there without hope of it ever ending. Even today if you look at Kosovo or Montenegro, the tension there is something that would've never happened if there was a great power watching over and keeping law and order intact.
@ww ww No, they aren't
@ww ww I can't really figure out, what your point is, the only thing I see is pure ignorance. In Romania the governing party is PNL, RMDSZ has seats in the senate and the chamber of deputies, (not in the government) because there is still more than 1.2 million Hungarians living in Transylvania. In Hungary, minorities don't need political parties, simply because they are not oppressed, but if they feel so they can create their own anytime.
"The most controversial" so a normal WW1 peace treaty then.
Why was it controversial? It gave the occupied lands back to their nations.
@@catalinmarius3985 I think you misunderstood, those lands were not occupied by hungarians, they were the part of Hungary for a 1000 years, most of the ethnicities migrated into Hungary in the 18th century, and only the germans were invited, the others(serbs, romanians, rusins) came in without invitation. And most minorities didnt have a country before(slovaks never had a county before and there was never a nation called yugoslavia), so it was not given back to anyone, it was taken.
@@sandorreisz2059 The lands weren't originally Hungarian, the Romanians and the Slavs were first and the Hungarians conquered them. And the lands at the moment, as well as before that, were mostly ethnically Slavic and Romanian. Why would that be an injustice? Because Romania, Yugoslavia and Cezchoslovakia conquered Hungary? Just like the Romanians and Slavs were conquered by Hungarians 1000 years ago? They simply retook it back.
Catalin Marius you need learn history!!! The "romanian" vlach migration from Balkan to Cumania (Oltenia , Muntenia , Moldova) started in XIII. and XIV. century. The majority of the "romanian" vlach migration in Transylvania , Hungary was under Habsburg ocupation in XVIII. , XIX. century and 2000000 from Oltenia , Moldova after romanian ocupation in 1918.
@@catalinmarius3985 Let's accept you are right. "Just like the Romanians and Slavs were conquered by Hungarians 1000 years ago? " So we are talking about taking back a territory that was conquered 1000 years ago, civilized, urbanized, populated etc. Then 1000 years have passed and you "take it back". Just ignoring the question on what grounds you base your claim: are you f.cking serious? This is exactly what nationalist bullshits do with people's mind. Then, since only 100 years have passed, you would not protest too harshly, when Hungary took back its former territories in the future. Am I correct?
"Diversity is our strength." Think on that for a moment and ponder the wisdom of contemporary population shifts.
It never was. Sectarian violence and ethnic discrimination prevails in every case.
@@jacklaurentius6130 Says someone with anti lgbt flag...
Division caused this in first place btw
@@jakubzov go invite Africans to marry your mother and sister and leave us Europeans alone 🐔hold
@@jakubzov So what if he has an anti LGBT flag? What is your point?
You are in favor of militant sexual degenerates pushing their ideology, he is not, you going to cry?
Personally I can't think of a war that ended with a peace that made the most trouble that was caused by the victors.
This video has some weird audio cuts but still thank you so much for this great content!
Wow I could've really done with this coming out 2 weeks ago when I was writing an essay on interwar Hungary 😅
Not really about this topic, but the division of the middle east after WW1 has resulted forever ongoing conflict involving most of the modern-day powers. Just found your channel about the Great War, so know you must have covered this in a prior video. Looking forward to viewing yours.
I don't think this situation is similar to what is in the middle east. How did you draw this conclusion? Romanians have inhabited Transylvania for 2000 years, they didn't leave anywhere and they were by far the majority population of Transylvania. The fact that Transylvania became part of Austro-Hungarian empire, which later broke up does not seem to be similar to the situation in the middle east
@@gigikontra7023 I agree, Hungarians would have been luckier with Slovakia, if it wasn't Czechslovakia at that time. Yugoslavia also. Romania, max. some border cities, but Erdely was too far away to make it fair. Today i think Hungarians only will have border issues with Slovakia for some time, but with any other country it would be a joke. I think Romania has bigger issues with Moldova than with Hungary today.
I am from north part of Croatia near Slovenia border. This was occupied by Hungary in 20th century for about some 10 years and tried to impose their culture on us and forced children to learn Hungarian. I would never be able to live normally under Hungarian government. Differences in our culture is so big and I can see it as soon as I cross the border which is about 10km away.
same in Slovakian or romanian regions, also with the german minority from Banat, who voted with Bucharest government. They try to impose theit culture and they succeeded with some asian tribes wich noe they =demand as they are Hungarian region. In short every neighbor oh this hungarians have troubles with them... evan the serbs or austrians, they pretend Zagreb to be hungarian to...
@@mugurstefan68 it's terrible!
@@gigikontra7023 it is.
@@mugurstefan68 ok, so my comment dissapeared. Thanks for being civilized (or not, like we got used to with attitudes from Hungary!)
@@mugurstefan68 I mean, the whole european continent has issues with romanians. Its not like you guys are well liked.
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
"Önök most megásták Magyarország sírját, de Magyarország ott lesz mindazon országok temetésén, amelyek most itt magyar hazám sírját megásták!" (gróf Apponyi Albert)
Bla-bla-bla.
Akár hiszed akár nem, a nyugat temetése megkezdődött.
@@kommisaryeltsin2781 Akkor miért nem húzol Oroszországba?
@@halljamenjeninnen1310 nem igazán értem mi a bajod 😀
@@kommisaryeltsin2781 Hogy is értenéd 12 évesen?
"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.
Who can tell why a lost empire or another should be re-constructed? And who can tell when is the line in time, where the process is starting? Why should be the Austria-Hungarian borders and not the Roman Empire? Or maybe the Mongolian one? ...or maybe the Persian?
Spot on!
Well, reconstruction of Roman Empire makes no sense...but i can tell you why it would be better for many people back than to reconstruct Austria-Hungary.
1. Economy and infrastructure. Regions in the empire were stratificated, as Austria proper was a resource base for industry located in Bohemia, while Hungary was an agrarian part that feed the empire, Slovenia was its trading route...And all important cities were connected with railroads that were connecting resources and industry, industry and trading ports.
2. Culture. Different peoples living in Austria-Hungary shared it culture despite of ethnicity. Slovaks understood Austrian language, while Croats admired Austrian music and architecture. Culture is more diverse thing than ethnicity. Romanians living in Austria-Hungary were different from Romanians in Wallachia...1000 years is not a joke.
@@alexzero3736 It's a very superficial point of view. For much many reasons, makes more sense to rebuild Roman empire and you decided that is a non sense. Even so, going in your arguments; isn't better that the Hungaria to be part of the "European Empire"? Why not? I see only pro arguments. And you didn't reply to the main question. What is the time line when it should be restarted?
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.
Somebody get that man a lavalier mic.
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?
I love how arrogant France acts all the way through every video they are a part of
Maybe because in population terms they had lost the greatest % population on the Allied side. Ref Wiki "World War I casualties". High losses makes you less forgiving. I speculate.
Hahaha, angloïd, always to bash France.
“Önök most megásták Magyarország sírját, de Magyarország ott lesz a temetésén mindazon országoknak, amelyek most itt megásták Magyarország sírját.”
"You have just dug Hungary's grave, but Hungary will be there for the funeral of all the countries that have now dug Hungary's grave here."
Gróf Apponyi Albert.
meh.
Even after 100 years afterTrianon, you havent learnt a thing about decency, multi culturalism and integration. You morons want back the Great Hungary ? With what discourse ? "Will be there for the funeral of all the countries that have dug Hungary's grave"
One can think that 1000+ years in the middle of a civilized continent can civilize and educate some barbaric tribes.
You and your discourse shows clearly from what you're made of, and what are your true colors. I almost feel sorry for you
@@AndyLisac what are you talking about ? What your problem whit Hungary ?
@@AndyLisac 100 years ago, 80-90% of the Austrian standard of living was in the peoples of historical Hungary ... and now ??? fools ....
@@kommisaryeltsin2781 100 years ago, 80-90% of the Austrian standard of living was in the peoples of historical Hungary ... and now ??? fools ....
In Quora you'll see a great wave of Hungarians asking about scenarios in which they can get Hungarian-populated territories back. It's quite interesting this topic is in 2020 still an open wound.
Frankly, I think this is because of hungarian propagnada, if we can't agree on the past it's hard to agree on the present. I don't understand why Hungarians view this as an injustice. Imagine losing a war and feeling entitled to actually keep territory, let alone land inhabited overwhelmingly by other nations. It was a lot of land, yes, but that 72% loss was absolutely justified since it was inhabited by oppressed nations. Trianon gave the occupied lands back to their nations. Imagine Britain calling decolonization a big injustice. There could have been made some minor adjustments on the border, but I don't think all this overreaction is about minor adjustments on the border.
@@catalinmarius3985 It has nothing to do with propaganda. The reason why it is still an open wound is the mistreatment of Hungarians in those countries that are forcefully trying to convert them to their culture and language treating them as second class citizens. (see the recent Ukranian education laws, not to mention Romania) It's not about the land it's about the people.
@@gergely219 do u mean those countries r doing exactly same thing what Hungarians had been doing?
@@LRuzarovsky Hungarians did no such thing. The Habsburg dynasty did as part of the centralization of the empire in the 1800s, but it failed. (Declaring the empire's official language german and latin). The average people never cared about what his neighbour spoke as long as they can get along, and they did. Buisnisses and trade were run using multiple languages same with money printing and so on. This A-H Empire opressing the minorities was a straight lie made up by the Antante and hard line nacionalist for obvious political reasons. The only opression was during the time of the war, commited by savage officers of the imperial army.
@@gergely219: Forced magyarization and oppression of local populations was Hungary's state policy, that"s simply the reality. The average people usually cohabited well
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.
Imagine Orban's Hungary with Fidesz supermajority being three times its modern size. What a wonderful opportunity was missed! This treaty was maybe the best thing that ever happened to Europe.
I am honestly ashamed of my country for choosing someone like him as president.
The same for the cessation of Crimea and Donbadd from Ukraine.
@@szabolcscsicsely2048 :) first of all it is called "annexation" and "occupation". There were no Treaty, there were no nation states created. I would completely agree that creation of Crimean Tatar state would be a right thing to do. Though you see that didn't happen. Secondly it is spelled Donbass. It is a region where i'm from and something you simply have absolutely no idea about. And last but not least, you just proved that vast majority of your nation is still poisoned with imperialism. Hope you get well soon.
@@zoli604 I'd like to make it absolutely clear that i'm not trying to paint everyone black or white. I'm just trying to say that imperialism is a thing that affects nations long after the empire itself is gone. Hungary is not the only one. It also applies to Russia, Serbia, France, UK and others. It is just a variable we need to take into equation when we discuss this particular treaty and how it is seen by Hungarians.
You have no idea what you're talking about, historical resentment always feeds nationalist demagogues. Trianon is one of Orbán's main ammunition and one of the big reasons he is still in power. Correct borders=less Orbán propably
How interesting it is that comment fights are mostly about Transylvania. Maybe this is the thing which hurts the most for Hungarians, on the other hand makes Romanians proud.
In my opinion, the goal of the Entente was to make up many smaller countries (geographically), so they would not have any economical counterpole on the middle and eastern part of Europe. Look at Us now, dear easterns... Lil' countries, not really having any word against France or GerMoney (:) ). At least we are still real Europeans... Shall we look forward to the common future, as allies, or else we are going to be done one day...
That is kinda bullshit, as the economic disparities of today between the West and East Europe were not that prominent 80-100 years ago. The reason why Eastern Europe is significantly poorer today is not because the West carved up Austria-Hungary (which, lets face it, was far from being economically uniform), which in itself is a modern day myth as the people of the empire wanted separation, but communism is the real reason. Communism made Eastern Europe poorer on the long run, while the capitalist West became richer.
Also, historically speaking, smaller, less ethnically diverse states have been far more successful in developing their economy compared to multinational states. Want an example? Slovakia. Slovakia was a fringe province of Hungary before 1918, a rather agrarian, backwards, sparsely developed and industrialized province that is now wealthier than Hungary by quite a margin.
So, you are Hungarian (by name) and i'm Romanian and i gave you a like for this, you are very right. Intermario initiative must gain more momentum
The only people that are proud/sad are 12 year old hungarians/romanians or virgin hungarian/romanian teenagers. We really should unite against the oligarchs taking over our countries, really..
@@ice_sea5527 You are very wrong in this. I saw a poll somewhere about how many people think the treaty of trianon was too harsh, and about 80-90% of Hungarians think that it was too harsh.
@@lucianignuta3286 Absolutely agree. About 80-90% of Hungarians think that Trianon was too harsh.