I've had conversations with 2 Hungarian individuals decades apart and they both used the phrase 'My little country' as in 'I'm impressed that you know so much about my little country.' I don't think they meant that it was like Luxenberg. They meant it was smaller than it should be. This feeling has been passed down through the generations.
Bosniak and Bosnian are not the same. It`s not only Bosniak diaspora when you talk about Bosnia at 0:59 , but also Serbian and Croatian. About 50% of Bosnian population is comprised of Serbs and Croats, and 50% of Bosniaks.
I second this. Bosnians are just Muslim Serbs. The identity didn’t exist during the Slavic invasions but came about after ottoman occupation and the forced conversions of Catholic Serbs and Croats
@@fortyan roughly 30-35% Serbs, 15-20% Croats, 50-55% Bosniaks, depending on sources. Because of huge diaspora (every second native Bosnian is not living in Bosnia), and because Bosnian Serbs in diaspora count themselves as Serbian diaspora (same for Croats-Croatian), it is realy hard to give precise numbers.
@@Da__goat Nope. Bosniaks are separate and distinctive ethnic group, based on their religion (Islam). Although they are very similar to Serbs and Croats, and that the national idea of Bosniaks is quiet young compared to Serbian and Croatian one, they have their own distinction, and most important, over 2mil. people identify themselves as Bosniaks. Yet, it is hard to deny that Bosniaks are descendants of medieval Christian inhabitants of Bosnia (and other Balkan regions, many of them migrated from modern day Croatia in 17th and modern day Serbia in 19th century), both Roman Catholic and Orthodox ones who converted to Islam (mostly opportunistic as Christians has to pay aditional taxes in Ottoman Empire, but also because of ideological and religious reasons, and because of forced islamisation). And you won`t be wrong if that medieval Bosnians call Serbs or Croats, but be aware that it`s way before the birth of national ideas in 19th century. Also, modern day Bosnia and Herzegovina is product of Tito`s Yugoslavia, and historical and ethnic borders are way different.
Hungarian-Brazilian here. (Part of) My family left Hungary because of Trianon, as they were living in Trieste at the time and the end of the war got them kicked not to Hungary but to Yugoslavia (???). In 1926, they arrived to Brazil and started out fresh, but the trauma of war and post-war persecution made them completely hide their identities (and language) as Hungarians. I claimed Hungarian citizenship based on descent and now strive to rebuild what we have lost: our language and customs, but never our country.
@@fumo7467 that explains a lot. They went to Brazil with Yugoslavian passports, not Italian ones, as one would expect. Trianon dictated that those who remained outside of Hungary’s borders would receive the citizenship of the country they were in
@@koverlaszlotitkosugynok8971 - your avatar pic is awesome Life is easier over here as long as you have money. Brazil is perverse with its lower income population. If you're at least upper middle class you'll be fine. I've been to Budapest once and it's one of my favorite places in the world. I quite like the sound of the language as well, even though it's impossible to learn
@@flazzorbexcept there were no negotiations. In fact the Communists were the first government that the Entente negotiated with, as they actually took up arms instead of accepting every demand imposed on them
@@flazzorbNot reaally. At the end of the war, Mihály Károlyi, a democratic Prime Minister, reduced the millitary in order to negotiate with the Entente. This led to the conquering of Budapest by Romanians. Nobody negotiated with them.
Everybody expects Romanians and Hungarians to have terrible relations, meanwhile me, a Romanian, is out drinking every weekend with my Hungarian best friend from Romania
Fun fact... as a reaction to Woodrow Wilson's 14 points program, there was a proposal in Czechoslovakia to rename Prešporok (historical name of Bratislava, which is a Slovak capital) to Wilson City... but it was decided to pick Bratislava instead
i just have to say i'm actually pleasantly surprised that so far there were very few and not very severe fights in the comments between romanians and hungarians, keep it up guys!!!
Romanians are tired of arguing about this issue. Trianon was inevitable and the people decided. The rest is history. Romania also has a lot of its people in the surrounding countries.
If you think clearly is better that people dont know that bec is history, and it was always and it will be always incorrect for everyone. If they did they would to start to war again
@@kmichal9648 We lived together. No one was occupied. Many Slovaks say they lived under oppression for 1000 years. If Slovaks had really lived under oppression for 1000 years, there would be no Slovak language and nation today. The tension between Hungarians and Slovaks was created by the Czechs. I hear from many Slovaks that the Czechs are their brothers. But they did a lot of harm to the Slovak nation. Even today in 2024 there are still hundreds of thousands of Hungarians living in Slovakia. If even the Mátra region would be part of Slovakia then even
Most of it is correct. A comment on the end: the Hungarian-Romanian relationship is (apart from provocative web comments) relatively friendly. On the other hand, the Hungarian-Ukrainian relationship soured a lot after Ukraine introduced a language law in 2017 that would have prohibited ethnic Hungarian children from learning in their native language in schools. (The law was mainly aimed at ethnic Russians, the impact on Hungarians was a byproduct.) The law was abolished in 2023, but things are not yet back to normal. "What do you think? Should Hungary have kept some of this territory?" It's not like we didn't try to...
The Romanian-Hungarian relationship being bad is usually said/joked about when "the other side isn't there" in my experience. Of course a random civilian from the neighboring country won't have anything to do with what happened 100s of years prior (and after), but most people feel relatively fine with jokingly insult the other side within their national language. Like a group of white people saying "nigga" or black saying "white people shit" within themselves, but not around eachother
Whilst growing up one of our cats was named Miklós after him 👊 my old man was an ethnic Hungarian from Kolozsvár. Alhough I consider my nationality to be British I am immensely proud to be half Hungarian.
Guys, with respect, the problem with Trianon is not that Hungary loosed a X amount of land and population, it was nearly inevitable in the age of nationalism in a multiethical state. The problem started with the borders. Huge part of the remaining 3.3 million hungarians live in homogeneous ethnically separate part of South-Slovakia (for hungarian fanboys on the south part of Felvidék), in Partium (FFB: Párcium) and in Vojvodina (Vajdasàg). These borders was draw by strategic interest, like in the Middle East. Rivers, railway lines, etc... and i didn't mention the situation with the Székelys (FFB:Székelyek)
British politics after WW1 was similar as Soviet - "divine and conquer" they drew lines in Europe, Middle East, Africa that were vital for their interests but are reasons of many conflicts to this day - creation of Israel, straight line borders in ethnicity diverse African continent treaty of Trianon.
@@arekzawistowski2609 My guess (but just guess, I am not historian) is that it was mainly France which wanted to weaken Germany and its allies (and for good reasons). It was a self-defence which British politics in Middle East wasn't.
@@miroslavdusin4325 IMO as a French military historian you are right: after the defeat in the war of 1870-71 France knew it was impossible to resist Germany alone, so in 1918, the aim was to create alliances of middle sized countries (Poland, Czecoslovakia, Romania, Yugoslavia) to contain a future Germany and Austria. Hungary lost land and population to make the new countries strong enough and cement the new alliance with France, punishment was not an objective, but a collateral damage.
Can't wait for Hungarian Nationalist to comment "Slovakia, Translvania, Vojvodina is Hungary!" As a Slovak, i understand Southern Slovakia, but if you want the rest of Slovakia, well that might be too far.
Hey what is the general opinion on such a thing there? I have been to Hungarians in Slovakia a lot of times and they said that in the villages with a majority Hungarian population I can speak Hungarian (to my friends) but I should avoid it in Kosiće / Kassa because they would look mad at me. Is this true or just some racist biases? (I don't know which part are you from but just how do Slovaks view Hungarians?)
@@matyasfukk3270 I think we view them sorta neutrally, never really though about asking that to any other Slovak. Tho there might be some Nationalist Slovaks.
Hungarian speaking here. I honestly don't understand why so many of us are still obsessed with returning to the old kingdom specifically. The old austrian empire was already too dysfunctional with it's multitude of ethnicities as it was. That would not change today. If we Really wanted to bring back the old borders, that state should not be called Hungary. It should be something like the "carpathian federation" or something similar, with all the different language areas given statehood and full representation. Otherwise, everything will descend back into chaos and rebellion. But then again, looking at Yugoslavia's case, i'm not too positive on such a state doing it's job properly. Maybe some peoples here just need to realise that we can't win the past back anymore. This is no longer the middle ages where which king or lord you serve determines which country you belong to.
It is a big topic with long history. I want to add 3 important points: 1. The Mongol invasion killed 1/3 of Hungary's population. 2. The 150+ years of fights with the Ottomans depopulated most of the Hungarian Kingdom leading to more diverse nationalities settling in. 3. There were also multiple failed revolutions against Austrian rule and for the re-establishment of independent Hungary. Think of the results of failed revolutions and the increased oppression, atrocities afterwards... Diversity without any mainstream uniting principles didnt prove to be the strength of the kingdom in the end.
Why the heck does Hungary want to align with the Turkic nations if the Ottomans conquered their nation after Mohacs and subjugating them for a long time? 🤔
@@barni.815 No, they were only protecting their own fortune. From Europe they tried to grab as much plunder as they could. Search "Hungarian invasions of Europe" (in Hungarian: kalandozások).
As a History enthusiastic Romanian studying Politics and International Relations in the UK, I have dedicated many years of my life better understanding this dispute concerning our two countries. I was born and lived all my life almost in the city of Arad, very close to the Hungarian border, a city shrouded in deep multicultural history, a reference point for both the Hungarian and the Romanian nations in the making of their recent histories. Living in a multicultural environment and having many friends of Hungarian descent, but also having travelled to Hungary at some point for 2-3 years almost weekly, helped me gather the similarities between our two peoples. I personally find Hungarians extremely kind and friendly, with a very rich culture, beautiful language (that I am myself trying to learn out of respect for my region’s unique multiculturalism - Transylvania and Banat), with some of the tastiest food on the continent, and their country having an absolutely gorgeous architecture overall. Being in close contact with Hungarians in Romania and with Hungarians from Hungary made me better understand what 1920 meant to them, and I am very glad I got the chance to view the other side of the same story as well! What I can say is that yes, the empire could not further survive in the form it used to be at that time, given the constant push from all sides to form or reunite their nations in the age of solidifying one entity’s cultural and linguistic identities. I personally think that Romanians did deserve taking a big chunk of Transylvania, given the demographic figures at that time supporting a Romanian majority living on that territory, but the way this took place should have been different. I completely acknowledge that Northern Transylvania was, and still is to some extent, more Hungarian, while the southern bit of the territory more Romanian. Therefore, cities on the border such as Oradea (Nagyvárad), Satu Mare (Szatmárnémeti), Salonta (Nagyszalonta), even my city Arad perhaps, should have stayed within Hungary, given the immediate proximity to the border and the overall Hungarian ethnic and linguistic majority there. On top of that, I assume few people in Hungary today may be aware that when the Romanian elite and people in Transylvania gathered in Alba Iulia (Gyulafehérvár) to proclaim the unity of the territory with the Kingdom of Romania in 1918, that proclamation of unification addressed to Bucharest also entailed equal linguistic and religious rights for all nations comprising the territory, not just for the majority, demanding even their autonomy, a fact that only goes to show how visionary the Transylvanian Romanian elite at the time was, mainly thanks to living in such a diverse empire beforehand. Sadly, Bucharest took too little notice of our endeavours, and pursued a policy centred solely around the further consolidation of the most numerous ethnicity. It is hard and almost impossible to redraw borders today, given that demographics changed for the most part, but what the Romanian state could do would be to grant more rights to the ethnic Szeklers. My personal idea is that granting them autonomy in Transylvania could be a bit risky in light of Victor Orbán’s constant revisionism today, but my solution would the decentralisation in administration and the creation of 9 historic and autonomous regions (based on the Spanish model), where each region minds its own internal affairs without too much intervention from Bucharest. Therefore, Hungarian could become co-official in Banat (Bánság), Transylvania (Erdély), Crișana (Körösvidék), and Maramureș (Máramaros), leading to a long-term peace prospect. And this could happen, as it is already a reality in the Serbian autonomous province of Vojvodina (Vajdaság), where 6 languages are official, this example also being an important reference point to the topic discussed. I am as well asking the Hungarian part to also acknowledge the struggles of the Romanian people under the Kingdom of Hungary and their neglect from education and political and administrative lives. The policy of magyarisation for example was one of the worst to all ethnic groups living withing Greater Hungary, and I wish more Hungarians shed light on the importance of this to us, and what led to the ultimate breakaway of the empire as well. I mean this in the least nationalistic manner, but it is paramount for both sides to acknoweldge their wrongdoings in building a better future. All in all, I will personally do everything in my power and ability as an aspiring politician home to ensure that the rights of all ethnic groups in Romania are fully respected, and I truly and wholeheartedly hope that one day our two countries will learn the art of compromise and reconciliation, based on the post-World War 2 Franco-German model of deep cooperation and brotherly relations in a broader European Union. Nagyon szeretek a magyarokat, a magyar kultúrátokat és a magyar nyelveteket, és remélem a jövőben minden jobb, békés és barátságos két országunk között az EU-ban lesz! Éljen a román-magyar egység! 🇭🇺❤️🇷🇴
But it was a bad solution. In one case Hungary is whole, minorities have no problem at all. Maybe 54% of the population had a little bit more rights in romania, the other solution. But think of the fact that romanians migrated to hungary for a better life from romania and they found it. The other solution was realized. 46% of the population was brutally oppressed for 100 years but at least 70 years. Maybe 10 million people since then. Their schools were closed, their lands, properties, money, industries, banks were stolen, their religion and language was persecuted. They were fired from their workplace. Just in the first year 150k hungarians fled to hungary. Years later, a decade later many hungarians still didnt have any citizenship. 10 000s lived in hungarian railway stations later. Many of them were killed. There were death camps until the 60s like the valley of death. Hungarians were imprisoned, relocated to old romania, hungarian language was banned everywhere. Hungarian villages were destroyed even in the 80s. Etc. In their own 1000 years old land by the immigrants. Germans were killed and almost all of them were sent or sold to Germany. The economy of the area was partitioned. The railway, the roads, everything was partitioned. People became very poor while hungary improved before 1918. Imagine this case in the US. Mexican immigrants became majority in some states, Mexico annexes them and this happens with the americans... who thinks its good is not normal.
Citeste ce a scris nagy asta. Cum gandesti tu si cum gandesc ei! Frate, esti naiv. Cu astia care cred ca sunt o rasa superioara nu ai cum sa faci reconciliere pe model franco-german. Dar probabil asta e doar un extremist si gresesc eu.
@@timeanagy8495 Wich immigrants? Romanian population in Transylvania is undoubtedly present since the 13th century. That's more almost one millenium of documented (!) Romanian presence there.10 million people? Which 54%, where, who? There were never 10 million Hungarians in Romania, not even if we calucalate all people that lived there and already died since 1919. Banat didn't have a Hungarian majority ever in its long history, Syrmia, Croatia and Slavonia either. Death camps? Please, provide some information about your sources. There were death camps in communist Romania, but there were also Romanians, Serbs, Germans and all the other ethnicities there. Comparison with US and Mexico is silly and offensive. Germans had actually the very best treatment in the Romanian state in comparison to Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia or even socialist Hungary. There were no camps for Germans after WW II, but Romanians couldn't have stoped the SOVIET deportations in Gulags. Economy... Well, I invite you to visit Romania and compare Nyíregyháza to Oradea (Nagyvárad) or Timișoara (Temesvár) to Szeged. I'm sure, that you wouldn't be able to see so many differences... Kudos to Hungary for the maintenance of its railway network, that is correct. Minority rights... Well, in Romania, I agree, it should and could be better, but for exaple in Serbia or Croatia, you can even get your national ID, driver's licence and other documents bilingual - in their respective national and in Hungarian language. Romania offers free state academic education in Hungarian! The Hungarian state, more than 100 years after Tianon, doesn't provide such rights. No, unfortunately (and I say this as a person, who is nostalgic about the Austro-Hungarian Empire), Trianon was the best solution possible at that very moment.
@@necanecameca I am just answering you the immigrant question before reading the rest of your comment. I think he meant that those people who are Romanians, but not native on the lands with diverse population. The same happened in Vojvodina. The native Serbs-Hungarians lived "happily" together just like the native Romanians-Hungarians. After their equivalent of "Magyarization" happened, many people from outside these regions were arriving, making the percentage of Hungarian population less dense. Those might be the "immigrants" who he mentioned. People who were not aware of the local customs, and were even mad that there are other nationalities living there. This mentality is still observable in current Serbia, but the situation has improved a lot in the past decades.
@@necanecameca romanians are an immigrant minority for the hungarians. Most of them migrated after 16-1700 but hungary is much older. Btw its not equal when immigrants have to speak the language, and when immigrants or others steal a land and native people have to speak their language. Many people dont understand why many hungarians cant speak the language in romania or ukraine... because they always lived there in hungary, the occupation is not their fault, they didnt move to another country like the romanians. Trianon as the best solution? In hungary nobody was killed, robbed, discriminated, expelled, etc. Minorities had no problem. Romania is not better for romanians then hungary. In the other case almost 50% of the people were oppressed, persecuted, expelled, robbed, relocated, sold, killed, etc. People lost their work, their land, money, house, etc. 10 000s of people lived in railway stations in wagons in hungary. 150k people fled in the first year. Schools were closed. Romanians killed ca. 5k people in the war in 1919 and looted everything from hungary throughout a year. People suffered. They killed people in every town. 10 000s of people were killed after it. Villages, houses, towns, the economy , railway lines, families were cut in half by the border. Yes, there were many villages cut in half. People couldnt travel to hungary and vice versa. Nowadays ca. 5 million germans and hungarians should live in Transylvania, the germans totally disappeared. It was just Transylvania. 1 million people wete killed just in Yugoslavia. The whole wwii originates from these treaties. They couldnt create worse treaties. Not often loses a country 2/3 part of itself.
Video is spot on. I saw the video though some mainstream media and I thought that Trianon would be completely left out of the picture. You said very good that France had huge impact of the partition of Hungary. France is the main player, which wanted this kind of scenario. Another one, which wanted this was Czechia. First it was Tomas Masaryk who was in close ties with the french about the czech-hungarian question. Then, in the 30s, before WW2 Edvard Benes was the one who was greatly critisizing Hungary in favor of Czechia, knowing that France would welcome that with open arms.
The Treaties that ended WW I was collectively known as The Paris Peace Conference 18th January 1919 to the 21st January 1920. The five Central Powers signed their separate treaties with the Allies at various locations in and around Paris. 1) Germany signed at Versailles on 28th June 1919. 2) Austria signed at Saint-Germain-en-Laye on 10th September 1919. 3) Bulgaria signed at Nueilly-sur-Seine on 27th November 1919. 4) Hungary signed at Trianon on 4th June 1920. 5) Turkey signed at Sevres on 10th August 1920. However there was so much resistance to the Treaty of Sevres in Turkey itself. Which was coupled with the fact that the Allies were unable/unwilling to impose the Treaty by military intervention meant that a second revised Treaty between the Allies and Turkey was required. This revised Treaty being signed at Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24th July 1924. The Treaty of Trianon was in many ways the harshest of the Treaties. Hungary lost over 70% of it's pre war territory (down from 325,408 Square Km to 92,962 Square Km) Hungary was also the only former Central Power signatory at the Paris Peace Conference to lose territory to another former Central Power signatory. As most of the Burgenland (with only Sopron remaining in Hungary following a plebiscite) was ceded to Austria. This was due to the area being largely German speaking.
A few details not mentioned: - Apparently the Hungarian delegation was arrested when they arrived, and were only allowed to make their case as a formality, after the treaty was finalized, but before it was signed. The documents the Hungarian delegation presented were acknowledged, but ignored. - The Hungarian army completely disbanded after WW1, the leadership hoped that this will give the peace negotiations more favorable terms. With no army to defend the country, the Romanians and Serbs started pushing and looting during the time of the negotiations, and no one cared to stop them. I think it would be really funny if an expert of international law would look at the circumstances of how this treaty was created.
Present day European politicians would have called it an invasion (just look at their opinions on Russian actions today) If it had not been about Hungary.
Uiti un lucru, in martie Bela Kun a atacat Romania obligand trupele romane sa reintre in razboi. Daca romanii au ajuns la Budapesta este din vina celor ce nu doreau vreo negociere si au pus mana pe arme. Acestia erau maghiarii condusi de guvern socialist.
You are completely right. A remark only: no one cares and cared about international law. Behind the scenes the decisions go by military and diplomatic strength and influence. Hungarians pay too much attention to various rights and agreements, unfortunately, all in vain.
Romania de la inceput a intrat in razboi pentru oamenii pamantul stravechi ocupat de maghiari. In Transilvania chiar si ocupata romanii erau majoritari.
It's also not really enforced, so most Hungarians and even a lot of Carpathian Ukrainians (Rusyns) applied for Hungarian citizenship, as it grants them free movement and the right to work anywhere within the EU.
7 หลายเดือนก่อน
sfaxx how many of zelensky ministers got dual citizenship you full of it dude
Vatican City is, depending on definitions. Armenia and Mongolia would probably also count. Several others would also get there but for the existence of a coastline in their modern borders.
A little addition: The decrease of the population was also caused by the Ottomans and later the revolution of 1848-49 as the country was attacked by 6 nations at the same time, 7 if we include Russia that joined the Habsurg's side later
Quem também tinha uma população amplamente dispersa eram os alemães! Alem da Alemanha, Austria e Suiça, haviam alemães na França, Romenia, Polonia, Ucrania e até na região russa do Volga e possuiam uma república soviética autônoma! A situação mudou após a segunda guerra mundial!
A Europa mudou muito no século XX. A Europa de hoje, então, seria irreconhecível para um europeu que estivesse vivo 100 anos atrás. É, e sempre foi, um continente muito dinâmico, em constante mudança.
A true success story, eh? 😆 Anyway, good video. To my ear it's always strange to hear 'Magyar' as opposed to 'Hungarian', since they literally mean the exact same thing ('magyar' means 'Hungarian' in Hungarian). But I understand the distinction in the historic context. About Trianon, let me start by saying I hate the revisionism that's being supported by some elements in the country, and I think it's about time people moved on and make the best of what we've got (oh they're gonna love this). Some of this 'trauma' stays because it wasn't properly analysed and honest truths were never really spoken (kinda like Japan in WWII). Our involvement is undeniable in this. However, I will say that objectively, Trianon was in fact harsh and it could've been more 'fair', if you want to use that word for a losing country. But then again, our leaders at the time weren't exactly on top of their lobbying efforts either. Oh well. I maintain my belief that the vast majority of my countrymen don't want anything to do with restoration of any kind and instead want a lasting good relation with our neighbors - which, despite everything, we largely still have right now. And with that, let the abuse begin. 😂
Every Hungarian from Hungary I've met has revisionist beliefs. And they don't even hide it. The szekelies I live with are chill tho. I don't get how the "mainland" Hungarians can be openly extremist and the ones out of the border can be so humane and reasonable.
@@horiabalaban7968 you're probably in wrong company then. Feeling a 'nostalgia', while I agree it doesn't help anybody today, isn't the same as 'let's go get Transylvania back'. Talk about barking dogs. In your next paragraph you call them extremists (rightly so), so by definiton they aren't the majority. They szekelys are anything but chill, no offense. 99.9 percent of them are staunch supporters of the current government, who uses them to their political ends. What does that tell you?
@@dddaddy it tells me that you don't live in Transylvania. I grew up w szekelies and still have Szekely friends. I doubt that that 99.9 percent of them support the Hungarian government when I've met no one that does it. With openly extremists I meant those who make "let's go get Transylvania back" their personality when they find out I'm Romanian. I would label anybody who votes for Orban an extremist. Hungarian majority keeps voting him. They don't hate him that much to get rid of him.
@@horiabalaban7968 you can doubt all day long, it's an unfortunate fact. I don't need to live there to know, we can see that election after election, especially since they got voting rights, which I vehemently oppose. Maybe the '99.9' is over the top, but you get the point. It is whatever it is, but let's not be hypocritical about it. I feel bad about your experiences, and that has to be open provocation, but really, the silent majority wouldn't even think of doing that.
If all Hungarians thought like you, Hungarians would be seen by the neighboring peoples, not as braggarts who cannot be satisfied. Even if he had an even bigger territory, he would have done the same.
When the Turks left the Habsburg used the political and power vacum and took over Hungary. It was the Habsburgs who really ruled. Also wasnt fair how the ww1 ended for us Hungarians. Means deciding the borders without actually knowing the different populations there. On the other side, yes, those territories where not Hungarians lived, was a valid decision to get them. And please dont forget that we share this planet, its not ours, so lets stay good neighbours and be happy for the fact that Europe is so colorful.
I feel your pain, but please note the order of magnitude difference between territories lost (in terms of ethnic population) by Austria compared to Hungary. Not to mention that Austria got compensated (for S-Tirol) with an entire new Bundesland taken FROM HUNGARY. Go figure.
Many wouldn't know, but we know. As a Romanian, the Treaty of Trianon was fair. Not because of the land we've got, but for the safety and sovereignty of Romanians from Transylvania. We've finally reunited with our brothers from the South and East. And even if we united as a whole country, we didn't treated Hungarians from Transylvania the same how the Russians treated Romanians from Bassarabia between 1941-1951. We always wanted back what belongs to us, and then after, we lived peacefully with anyone. We regained, we didn't conquered.
@@qdxsebixbp6387 My opinion, which is not a common opinion to have in Hungary, is that Transylvania should have become an independent nation as it was for 350 years after 1526. Besides its Romanian majority, it had a significant Hungarian and German minority and wide range of religions. This was actually screwed up by us Hungarians as in 1848 and 1867 as Hungarians forced the unification of Hungary with Transylvania.
@@qdxsebixbp6387Reunited? Fair? The situation is that if the population of the Kingdom of Hungary had not been murdered again and again due to the various wars, there would have been no need to resettle a population of other nationalities. You talk about reunification, but the reality is that the Kingdom of Hungary provided protection to the Romanians when they fled from the Bulgarians or the Turks in the 16th century. The proportion of the population in Transylvania was therefore equal in terms of Hungarian and Romanian nationality. Anyway, Transylvania was Hungarian territory for a thousand years and no Romanians lived there before that. So it was a simple lobby for the Romanians to steal Transylvania, and since then only falsification of history has been taking place in Romania. Which is beyond disgusting.
As a Hungarian I think, that the Treaty of Trianon should've been more fair, mainly because this whole thing brought a lot of suffering for both sides. However I also think, that changing it back today would create just as many problems. Treating each other fairly, respecting each other's culture and language and try to find a way to live peacefully together - I think, that's the way forward.
Ok, ok. I'm aware that this video is about Hungarian ethnicity in neighbouring countries but I just want to clarify that Albanian percentage living outside of Albania is way higher then shown in the map. I can easily say that Albanians living in neighbouring countries is close to 100%.
You didn't get it, it's not the percentage in the area shown, it's the percentage of the country. Like, the 6% in romania isn't for the border and szekely, it's for the entire country
@@igorlopes7589 I'm aware of that, it's the percentage of the entire ethnic number of people living in neighbouring countries. So the number of Albanians in Albania is 2,312,356 and then if we take only the number of Kosovar Albanians 1.632.080 (92% of inhabitants in Kosovo), which already here you can see that threshold of 38% is breached with a way higher percentage of Albanians living outside Albania. From here you can add Albanians living in N. Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia. Mind I remind you that all of these people are natives in the countries where they live.
Well, when you look at the ethnicity and nationality map of XIX and early XX century you could see that dividing this land into national states was simply impossible. Germans, Hungarians, Poles, Ukrainians, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians and dozens of other nations lived quite well mixed with regions of majorities, but still many enclaves and exclaves. The issue was mainly ended after WW2, when communist deported most of the minorities. However even they did not solve the problem to the end since playing on national divisions was one of the main Stalin's ways to control and subdue local communist authorities. This led to many conflicts in the whole postsoviet region, e.g. in Georgia, Karabach or to very weird and impractical borders (look at the Fergana region in Central Asia).
There were some minimal deportations to my knowledge. From Bratislava, but that was more against the German majority living there and a minor one after WW2. It was a "population-swap" officially but seeing how long the Benes dictat was part of the Czechoslovakian and later Slovakian constitution I don't think there was much of a choice for the Hungarians.
From Orava, the Poles received land in exchange for Tešín (this was inhabited by Poles), but in the county of Szepes there were lands that had been under Polish rule in the past.
Yeah it was unfair, sure, but it doesn't really matter now. I once crossed the hungarian-slovakian border without even noticing and I'm palanning on going to a hungarian speaking university in Romania. We're learning to live alongide eachother in peace. It's a process for sure, but we're getting there.🙂
It may not matter that much anymore with the blurring of national borders thanks to the EU, but deep down it is still a problem. These were Hungarian lands, and after Trianon the little entente got more than they deserved out of Hungary. Many of us were separated from the country because of it and it wasn’t until 80 years later that they even got the right to cross the border freely. Trianon needs to be revised.
@@Lucas_FiczSo you would rather choose violance, the spilling of the blood of you're beloved brothers and sisters in a war to gain back lands and redraw borders when you could work with you're neighbours to make thoes borders meaningless in the first place? If you want hungarians over the border to live better, to be able to live as hungarians, for their kids to grow up in peace without a drunk romanian calling them dirty bozgors and beating them up, you should advocate for unity and peace. Violance and hate goes both ways. We have to let go so that they can too.
I think that Hungarians themselves understand, that in Trianon the main objektive was to establish the new borders as defendable and therefore stable in most cases ( along rivers, mountains etc.). It was logical after the WWI. But if we look at the problem just from the angle of population topography, yes, there is nothing to disagree with.
Whose borders? Have you seen the Hungarian borders? They are definitely not set up along rivers and mountains lol. For the most part they cut through farmland.
Very interesting topic. Especially after WW1. As I know WW2 treaties solved many of those problems by moving ethnicities across borders. (I am a Pole so the Polish - German ethnic border is best known to me)
@@generalfeldmarschall3781 if your pc would be on fire and you would put it underwater you would solve fire problem. YES IT IS SOLVING PORBLEMS Edit: you don't need to solve all problems to solve problems
Keep in mind: Hungary didn't really have a chance to "chose" their allies. In the second world war Hungary was forced to help Germany (among many other nations), although wanted to stay neutral. The leader of Hungary at the time was even threatened that germany would kill his kidnapped son if they chose otherwise.
It's even more complicated than that. If Hungary stayed alone in WW2, there would be no more Hungary. So Hungary had to ally with Germany again, as the allied powers, mainly France caused the massacre of Hungary in Trianon, and all our neighbors were allied with them.
@@bjardin France needed to protect themselves from Germany after the huge massacres in WW1. So the natural reaction was to split Central Europe. Besides Hungarians were absolutely ok with ruling other nations but if some Hungarians are ruled by someone else then they call it the biggest disaster ever. Isn't that a hypocrisy?
@@miroslavdusin4325 Stop looking at history from 21st century approach. Hungary always have been a multicultural state, so us ruling other nations makes no sense, we did not rule other nations, those territories and cultures were integrated parts of the Historical Hungarian Kingdom.
@@miroslavdusin4325 Though making a Peace Treaty signed by 48 states on the winner side and only 1 on the looser one, and forcing a country to give away 1000 years old borders, its a political and historical massacre and a rape, one of the biggest injustice in history ever. Forcing millions of Hungarians to the surrounding countries without rights, under oppression, after being there for more then 1000 years ... That is not comparable with anything you said previously.
Hungarian here. 90% of Hungarians think that taking away so much territory was very unfair and exaggerated (-67%), but 90% of Hungarians also think that it should be left as it is for the sake of peace. Of course, there are extremists in every country who can be presented in the media in neighbouring countries, making it seem as if the majority of Hungarians are like them. But the vast majority think that, although this was unfair, if the Hungarians are treated well by the surrounding countries, then in the end this is not such a serious issue within the European Union. There is good relations between ordinary people in these regions. The conflicts are rare. Perhaps only in Transylvania would an autonomous Hungarian territory be justified, because there are a large number (1 million) of Hungarians living in a block. But autonomy is all nothing more is necessary. Unfortunately, the current Hungarian mafia government is trying to get extremist votes and incite people against each other, but most Hungarians don't like this troublemaking.
@@paltomori4625 Are you some Russian propagandist troublemaker who is trying to make tense in Europe? Germany is not a great power at all :) China would change borders in Europe? LOL :)) But in the EU, the non of the country wants to change borders any more. The EU countries suffered a lot in the two world wars and everyone realised (even the Germans and the Frech) anything is beter than war. In the EU anyone can travel freely, anyone work anywhere, can buy a house in any other EU country. Political borders don't have much significance in the EU so there wouldn't be sense to change them.
@@Gil-games Then you are in the 10%. Why shouldn't be left as it is? Isn't it the same in the 21th century in the EU? Europe is going to a confederation because separated EU countries are very weak alone besides USA and China. Even the weight of Germany and France is a joke compared to the USA and China. But a confeederatve EU with a common foreign policy, common, powerful army, common tax and social policy that is something on the world map. A third superpower in the world that can have a voice at the big table. Moreover since Russia attacked Ukraine it turned out Europe lived in an illusion. Russia is a military threat and it can make irrational steps. A powerful common army has become vital.
@@paltomori4625 Germany is not a great power. :)) Would China change borders in Eurpe? LOL :))) The USA doesn't want trouble in Europe as well. And non of the EU coutries wants to change borders. Since you are a Hungarian let me recommend to you an excellent old Hungarian drama film set during the Second World War, "Az ötödik pecsét" , in which the wise innkeeper says: "No interest is worth fighting a war, no matter as what that interest may be presented." Russian hasn't learned it yet.
Slovakia and Hungary have an okay relation, however the people dont that much. Slovaks still view Hungarians as "the ones that still want our territory" orban recently wore a scarf with the old Hungarian borders where Slovakia was non existent, proving that they still havent quite moved one from the loss
Ah yes, the scarf... it's quite common to see them in Hungary, especially at football events where he wore it. I agree it is very disrespectful if a politician, or especially him wears it but I think there are very few people who actually mean it that way or want back any territory. For me it seems like rather a historical memory, something like romanticizing the Roman empire elsewhere while nobody thinks it should be restored, especially after the previous attempts... Rome was still cool though.
1. I think the majority of people don't have a problem with each other, but sure, there are nationalists in every nation. 2. Orbán only wears that scarf to gain popularity among nationalists and to divert the attention from the real problems.
@@timeanagy8495the problem is that you are not a victim. Example- If your mother in law do you something very cruel, will you defend yourself? Yes you will. And is she a victim, if you wounded her by defending yourself? No, you tried defend yourself. Hungarian national politic after 1867 was too bad. You have to understand that. And we didn't steal it- we lived there, we only separated us from you because your politics. Only south region of Slovakia had extremly high hungarian population.
The thory is that abaut 2000 years ago it was a single language spoken in siberia, but since then they deverged so much there is little to no relation left today. Hungarians and their relatives (many of whome still live in siberia) went south and were influanced by turkick, iranian and later slavick and germanic languages and the finns and their relatives (including estonians) went north and were influanced by skandanavian languages.
@@swabianbug2000 years ago is too late. The latest date for when Proto-Finno-Ugric existed, from which Finnish and Hungarian eventually evolved from, is 4000 years ago. In fact, 2000 years ago the ancestors of Finns were already in northeastern Baltic region and had not been in the Ural region for a long, long time. 2000 years ago is closer to when Hungarians branched off from their closest linguistic relatives, the Ob-Ugrian Khanty and Mansi.
Hungarians have a special way of thinking about foreign policy...in the first world war they believed that communism would restore their empire...in ww2 they believed that Nazi Germany would and they felt compelled by them to fight until total destruction ...now Orban is playing his card with Russia against NATO and the EU ....each time they were humiliated and destroyed ...so intelligent people never invent even though the results of the equation are the same ...but they should understand something .... if you buy weapons from those who challenge them to fight, you have already lost... with Swedish planes and German weaponry to overthrow NATO and the EU... it is the death of reason..
Great overview! However I noticed one error. I think that you said at one point that Galicia was a Hungarian province. Possibly it was in the past, but on the eve of WW 1, it was an Austrian province with a large Polish majority in urban areas and a Ruthenian majority in rural areas. There were also many Jews and some ethnic Germans.
This is the biggest lie that your ancestors invented in order to justify the ancient Hungarian land grab to posterity! I quote from scientific publications of recent years, from the website of the Hungarian Research Institute: "The presence of the ancestors of today's Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin has been continuous for thousands of years" "A new database of 16,000 mitogenomes of 172 ancient and living populations has been created and investigated their connection system based on artificial intelligence method. The new algorithm recognizes all haplogroup correlations, regardless of the time of the process behind the correlation. A new methodological article (1) has been published in the journal Molecular Genetics and Genomics by the researchers of the Archaeogenetic Research Center of the Hungarian Research Institute, the Department of Genetics of the University of Szeged, the Institute of Technical Physics and Materials Science." "The Carpathian Basin is an unbreakable unit / Applying the method to the investigation of the former and present-day populations of the Carpathian Basin, the authors found that the vast majority of the present-day population is from a Copper Age (4500 BC-2800 BC) - Bronze Age (2800 BC-700 BC) can be traced back to a basic population, while immigration from the eastern steppe region seems to have had a smaller genetic impact on the population in the tenth-eleventh centuries." By analyzing the contemporary data and comparing it with the latest archaeological and archaeogenetic data, it is increasingly clear that the Magyars were the military tribes that came with Árpád, who, according to the chronicles, returned to their Scythian-Hun heritage in the Carpathian basin, where the "Hungarians" and "Szeklers" awaited them! Historians ignore the fact that the names Ungarus and Hungarorum appear as early as the 8th century sources, which are all about the Hungarians or Ungarians of the Carpathian Basin, such as in 760: Via Ungarorum, or in the 790s Paulus For Diaconus: the name form Ungarus. Or Liutprand in the epitaph of a Lombard king, in the Annales Rotomagenses; In Annales Gemmeticenses and Annales Uticenses in 793: regnum Hungarorum/Karolus rex vastat. Or what Jordanes wrote in his book "Getica" in the 6th century, that "the Hunugors, who are also called Sabers, lived in Scythia and Dacia as well." It logically follows from this that even under the Huns and Avars there were people who called themselves Hungarians or Ungarians, but the European peoples often wrote their names in a distorted form, such as: Ungros - Ungarer - Ungrare - Uher - Unkăr - Venger - Hoongar - Hongrois and so on. Only the eastern peoples and two or three neighboring peoples called us Magyars later, such as the Arabs: Madjar, the Turkmen: Mazsar, the Tatars: Madjar, the Uzbeks: Mojar, the Tajiks: Maçor, the Russians : Madьár - Magyar, and they are more Slavic neighbors than Serbs: Мађар, Slovaks: Maďar and Slovenes: Madžar. So the Hungarians were the original people here in the Carpathian Basin and it was the militarily strong Magyars who organized the Hungarian statehood! Dr. Fehér Bence, historian and classical philologist at the Institute of Hungarian Studies, came to the conclusion that the Hungarian language was spoken in the Carpathian Basin at the latest in the so-called "Avar"age, and since the specific runic writing on these relics were written in Old Hungarian, and these are perfectly similar to the Szekler - Hungarian runic writing, which is why these writings were named Carpathian basin runic writing. But such finds with similar runic texts have not been found anywhere to the east, neither among the finds of the Magyars who came with Árpád, nor among the Huns, nor even among the runic inscriptions of the Far East! On the contrary, they were found in the Carpathian basin from the Cimmerian and Scythian eras, or in the Maros valley, ancient clay tablets and discs with the signs of the Szekler-Hungarian runic script were found in several places! But elsewhere in the Carpathian basin, such short writings engraved in stone thousands of years old have been found, as well as many ancient motifs that are still used in Hungarian folk art today! So when the geneticists say that all archegenetic and population genetics research proves that the majority of Hungarians are of Carpathian basin origin, then these results that I wrote about all prove that the basic Hungarian population and the Hungarian language were formed here in the middle of Europe! And if that's not enough, there are the river names mentioned since ancient times, which can only be interpreted in Hungarian, especially in the eastern half of the Carpathian Basin. Because it cannot be a coincidence that only here in the Carpathian basin have the most ancient river names survived to this day, most of which can only be interpreted in Hungarian, such as Tisia - Tisza, Maris - Maros, Samum - Szamos, Crisos - Körös, Alutus - Alot - Olt, Tamis - Temes rivers name! But these river names have been written down and that is why we have known them since ancient times, except that it seems more and more that the other geographical names of Hungarian origin are also much older from the Carpathian basin than what the toponym researchers thought. Because even in the first documents written in Latin, place names and geographical names of Hungarian origin appear in more than 80 percent, but these are probably names from much earlier than researchers thought for a long time! An example from the 8th century, where it is written about Charlemagne for a new settlement between Sarwar and Heimburg". But in order to understand this, you must first know Hungarian, and if you already know the language well, then maybe look for these data, which the anti-Hungarian historians hide even from the Hungarians! If you look at the wiki dictionary, the word Sár - mud, is an ancient Hungarian word. The WikiDictionary says: Origin: sár < Old Hungarian: sár < Proto-Hungarian: savár, csér (mud) < Dravidian: seru, siru (mud, swamp). And then for: Vár - castle, if you type the origin of the word vár into Google, the WikiDictionary says:Origin [vár < Old Hungarian: vár < Proto-Hungarian: vár, várta (castle, guard place) < urr, ur (city) < Dravidian: ur (castle, city, estate) < Sanskrit: oru (place). If one understands these data, she can see that if Hungarian speakers had not been the majority in the Carpathian basin for thousands of years until the 19th century, then by now the majority of the population would have already been Germanized or Slavicized, and they might have remained Turkic speaking groups too! This is why the American anthropologist and cryptologist Grover Sanders Krantz was right, who came to the following conclusion in her book named "Geographical Development of European Languages" (New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, 1988. ISBN 978-0-8204-0800-2): "...so the Greek language was formed in its current location in 6500 BC, and the Celtic language in Ireland in 3500 BC. The antiquity of the Hungarian language in the Carpathian basin is similarly surprising, I find that its origins go back to the Mesolithic, preceding the Stone Age."
Were the people living inside what is now Hungary, in 1910, 100.00% ethnic Hungarian or were there, also, incidentally, some ethnic Romanians, Slovaks, Austrians and so on?
Yes absolutley there were.There was a lot of what were called "population exchanges" that basically meant deportion of not hungarians on one and deportion of hungarians on the other side. Most were actually german, but most of them were deported after wwII.
There was no border for centuries, so there were naturally many ethnic Slovaks living south of the current border, just as there were many ethnic Magyars living north of the current border. The placement of that border was largely based on trying to minimize both "lost" groups. Also, not the city itself but the countryside around Budapešť had tens of thousands of ethnic Slovak residents. Finally, there were areas in the south where substantial numbers of ethnic Slovaks and Rusyns had migrated in the 1700s in organized groups to repopulate the territory left empty once the Ottoman Turks were driven out by the Austrians. Some of the descendants of these Slavic people still retain their language and ethnic traditions and identity. But most have been assimilated over the years.
Great Video 😃👍 I've been on a Holiday in the South of Slovakia and we treat our Hungarian Minority really good Funfact it's weird to speak Slovak in the South of Slovakia CUZ most of the citizens are Hungarian LOL 8:37 We were not Slovaks in that time we were united in one Czechoslovakian nationality and we wanted union so that's why + they didn't want to make a weak states
@@GM-os6fo Each country should be satisfied with what it has now, otherwise we will enter Budapest like in 1919. You don't have Transylvania and we don't have Northern Bucovina and Bessarabia.If you want Transylvania, you also want 6 million Romanians?Or do you only want the territory and kick out the Romanians?
As whole regions, yes. But many parts of these regions were ethnically pure hungarian and only given to the neighbouring countries for geopolitical reasons: railways, mines, more farmland for Slovakia ect.
@@lharsaythere was not possibke to split regions into little enclaves and viliges and towns whwre the hungarians were the majority.most of them were not near the border. This is what happened to the germans in Hungary. Lots of then lived inside Hungary and those viliges and little regions could not be given to Austria because they were inside Hungary.
LOOKING FORWARD TO WATCH YOUR VIDEO ABOUT MAGYARIZATION. Magyarization was perceived by other ethnic groups, such as the Romanians, Slovaks, Ruthenians (Rusyns), Croats, Serbs, and others, as aggression or active discrimination, especially in areas where they formed the majority of the population. The radical liberal revolutionary Lajos Kossuth advocated for rapid Magyarization, pleading in the early 1840s in the newspaper Pesti Hírlap, "Let us hurry, let us hurry to Magyarize the Croats, the Romanians, and the Saxons, for otherwise we shall perish." Kossuth stressed that Hungarian had to be the exclusive language in public life, writing in 1842 that "in one country it is impossible to speak in a hundred different languages. There must be one language, and in Hungary, this must be Hungarian. The Hungarian national awakening had the lasting effect of triggering similar national revivals among the Slovak, Romanian, Serbian, and Croatian minorities in Hungary and Transylvania, who felt threatened by both German and Hungarian cultural hegemony. These revivals would blossom into nationalist movements in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and contribute to Austria-Hungary's collapse in 1918... For a long time, the number of non-Hungarians that lived in the Kingdom of Hungary was much larger than the number of ethnic Hungarians. According to the 1787 data, the population of the Kingdom of Hungary numbered 2,322,000 Hungarians (29%) and 5,681,000 non-Hungarians (71%). In 1809, the population numbered 3,000,000 Hungarians (30%) and 7,000,000 non-Hungarians (70%). An increasingly intense Magyarization policy was implemented after 1867... "The Hungarian secondary school is like a huge machine, at one end of which the Slovak youths are thrown in by the hundreds, and at the other end of which they come out as Magyars." - Béla Grünwald, adviser to Count Kálmán Tisza, Hungarian prime minister from 1875 to 1890 (Source: Wikipedia)
Fake history. Its incredible that magyarization is in Wikipédia. Kossuth was a liberal politician... it says a lot what things the neighbours lie about hungary. They say its a sin when a state has one official language... while this is totally normál. It hurts them that hungarians number kept growing after the turkish rule ended and immigrants started to assimilate.
@@timeanagy8495 In the Wikiedia, there are also the sources of the historical facts unlike such YT videos like this one. I don´t see any source of information below this video.
@@katarinakatarinova1306 yeah but these quotes are stupid. Maybe somebody said that but its misunderstood or was just a statement, not an act. For instance hunfarians fought actually for their language against german, the official language was latin in 1842. To present it like it was about magyarization is a lie.
I'm a little confused by the Portugal reference in the beginning. If referencing a countries population it should be by citizens right? Not just heritage? So I assume you're saying that the Portuguese people in France Luxembourg and Switzerland your referencing still hold Portuguese citizenship. This Hungarians in Romania and Slovakia, do they hold Hungarian citizenship? Also back to the Portugal reference I think it should be taken into account if they have plans to go back to Portugal, like if it's temporary? Because if they're moving to France to live and work and intend to stay there then they no longer contribute to Portuguese population whereas if they have like a 5 or 10 year plan to work there then return to Portugal then yes they are still a part of the population
Some context kind of missing from this video on entente thinking on Hungary: 1. Hungary had a reputation, and not a good one. Hungary was notorious as one of the last places in Europe to abolish feudal land ownership, only completing the process around 1850, with the largely Hungarian land owners maintaining effective control of most of the land even outside of ethnically Hungarian land. This combined extremely poorly with both widely circulated and respected protests against Magyarization policies by minority leaders in Hungary as well as the reputation of the kingdom of Hungary as torpedoing proposals to ease ethnic tensions by granting greater autonomy or rights to other minorities. This meant Hungary was generally perceived by most of Europe as oppressive towards minorities and as impoverishing it's peoples, this sometimes took on explicitly racist tones casting the Hungarians as the oriental barbarian horde incapable of true civilization, sometimes it remained pointed at the land owning class who genuinely did not get along well with peasants, even ethnic Hungarian ones, and did often resist aspects of industrial development. 2. The maps of the area where actually kind of a problem (I think it was a french? delegate that even has a little rant about them recorded). Every country and people that had an interest in the region had extensive maps, all of which both would give them the most land, people, etc. and of course contradicted everyone else's maps. This made it very difficult to reasonable determine where lines should be drawn. Especially since running new surveys and holding plebiscites was impractical as... 3. The actual region was in chaos, violent chaos. The Hapsburg empire was not dissolved by the entente, it disintegrated under internal uprisings. The Hungarian military had started to break away from the Imperial military to focus on Hungarian interests, and it was fighting the Romanian, Czechoslovakian and Yugoslav forces. This fighting is what would ultimately be pivotal in setting the actual lines so unfavorably against Hungary. Not only where all the forces partitioning Hungary members of the entente (the Czechoslovak's had even had there legion), it was unclear if they would actually listen if the big powers told them withdraw without using military force, force that only France, who was in favor of a weak Hungary, had any willingness to provide in the region. This was capped of by a communist revolution promising to destroy the landholders, stop the territorial dissolution, and link up with the Russian bolsheviks. Given that this was not a position that featured a willingness to give up anything, the entente hated communism, and the entente had sent forces to actively fight the bolsheviks in Russia, it should not be surprising that any claim someone could take with force of arms was ultimately legitimized by Trianon. As a side note the Slovaks generally supported a Czechoslovakia. This was also generally true of the Slavic areas that joined Yugoslavia. Both where in fact generally under control of the local uprising in favor of the concepts, trying to carve back up would probably have been a bigger violation of self determination, especially given how famously well that has gone in former Yugoslavia.
@@georgesmith4768 Yes, it is the propaganda of the successor states, you may not be aware of it . Look for example at Romania where serfdom was abolished in 1907, even slavery existed--the slaves were Gypsies, mainly, then look at the whole ottoman Europe, Russia etc. Well if it was a Hungarian state for that long is normal to have the majority of its landlords Hungarian, no? Minorities were NOT suppressed---again, the Romanians had their national party in the parliament in Budapest, their churches , bishops had huge feudal estates, had nearly 3000 schools, they could use their language on every level, even in the army, so it s a very long story... 2, running plebiscites was very easy, one was held in 1921 in Sopron/Ödenburg, but none before....if it would have been held and the Hungarian delegates always asked for it---then this monstruous act wouldn't have happened or not to such a criminal extent...3, yes, it was chaos, instigated by the entente to weaken the enemy...In Russia it proved to be successful, so they tried to do the same in A-H and they succeeded with agents and so called peace propaganda !! war and peace propaganda are alternated to force regime change. Chaos for regime change and political gains is a well known recipe or scenario even nowadays, so nothing has really changed...why they didn't allow the separation of Kosovska Mitrovica? or of Catalonia, Basque country, or of Transnistria, Artsak--everyone kept quiet about the total ethnic cleansing..., Gagauzia, Palestine, Kurdistan---is a very long list ...
@@wanderlewis8552 I did try to word what I said carefully. It simply true that there where ethnic tensions in Hungary that spiraled out of control. It is also true that many of the delegates at Versailles had very poor opinions of Hungary and that many luminaries of the minority groups in Hungary where well known and regarded by much of western europe and the US. I explicitly never said that Hungary was actually actively terrible on the issues of ethnic minorities nor that any of there neighbors where exceptionally better than them (it is definitely true that Romania was impressively terrible). I was mostly pointing out that what the delegates at Versailles believed and the other extenuating circumstances, as in the video there is not any of this context and it is easy to think that the major entente powers where drawing completely arbitrary lines across and land they had only just learned anything about, which did happen to an extent in the middle east. I’ve not really looked into Magarization or the like enough to realy be confident in personally rendering judgement on such a complex issue in such unique and complex country
@@wanderlewis8552 As for the difficulty of referendums and the such, yes the entente could have run them. If they where being fair to the hungarians they probably would have, but while the borders where being drafted it would have required the major powers to militarily intervene to create enough security to credibly run them. Given that they where exaugsted from the war, didn’t like hungary, would be angering friendly states to bowster hungary and could not even rely on Hungary being more friendly in turn given the extremism, instability , and irredentism that characterized Hungarian politics at the time, it become extremely obvious why they didn’t bother. My goal was to help understanding of why the major entente powers did what they did, not say it was fair.
It’s interesting as a Hungarian that you chose the Felvidék (Lower Slovakia) flag right at the end when you mentioned Hungarian diasporic communities making flags. The first one that comes to mind are the Székelys who are a very big group within the Transylvanian diaspora itself.
When Wilson was in Paris for the Peace treaty, Ho Chi Minh was was working as a cook at a Chinese restaurant, sent a letter to the American president asking that the US acknowledged Vietnam’s independence. He was ignored and then turned into Communism after realising the West’s hypocrisy. Such a hilarious episode and such a lost opportunity
In order to understand who the real Hungarians were, it is important to know the real data about the population of the Carpathian Basin and the military people of Árpád! I quote from scientific publications of recent years, from the website of the Hungarian Research Institute: "The presence of the ancestors of today's Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin has been continuous for thousands of years" "A new database of 16,000 mitogenomes of 172 ancient and living populations has been created and investigated their connection system based on artificial intelligence method. The new algorithm recognizes all haplogroup correlations, regardless of the time of the process behind the correlation. A new methodological article (1) has been published in the journal Molecular Genetics and Genomics by the researchers of the Archaeogenetic Research Center of the Hungarian Research Institute, the Department of Genetics of the University of Szeged, the Institute of Technical Physics and Materials Science." "The Carpathian Basin is an unbreakable unit / Applying the method to the investigation of the former and present-day populations of the Carpathian Basin, the authors found that the vast majority of the present-day population is from a Copper Age (4500 BC-2800 BC) - Bronze Age (2800 BC-700 BC) can be traced back to a basic population, while immigration from the eastern steppe region seems to have had a smaller genetic impact on the population in the tenth-eleventh centuries." By analyzing the contemporary data and comparing it with the latest archaeological and archaeogenetic data, it is increasingly clear that the Magyars were the military tribes that came with Árpád, who, according to the chronicles, returned to their Scythian-Hun heritage in the Carpathian basin, where the "Hungarians" and "Szeklers" awaited them! Historians ignore the fact that the names Ungarus and Hungarorum appear as early as the 8th century sources, which are all about the Hungarians or Ungarians of the Carpathian Basin, such as in 760: Via Ungarorum, or in the 790s Paulus For Diaconus: the name form Ungarus. Or Liutprand in the epitaph of a Lombard king, in the Annales Rotomagenses; In Annales Gemmeticenses and Annales Uticenses in 793: regnum Hungarorum/Karolus rex vastat. Or what Jordanes wrote in his book "Getica" in the 6th century, that "the Hunugors, who are also called Sabers, lived in Scythia and Dacia as well." It logically follows from this that even under the Huns and Avars there were people who called themselves Hungarians or Ungarians, but the European peoples often wrote their names in a distorted form, such as: Ungros - Ungarer - Ungrare - Uher - Unkăr - Venger - Hoongar - Hongrois and so on. Only the eastern peoples and two or three neighboring peoples called us Magyars later, such as the Arabs: Madjar, the Turkmen: Mazsar, the Tatars: Madjar, the Uzbeks: Mojar, the Tajiks: Maçor, the Russians : Madьár - Magyar, and they are more Slavic neighbors than Serbs: Мађар, Slovaks: Maďar and Slovenes: Madžar. So the Hungarians were the original people here in the Carpathian Basin and it was the militarily strong Magyars who organized the Hungarian statehood! Dr. Fehér Bence, historian and classical philologist at the Institute of Hungarian Studies, came to the conclusion that the Hungarian language was spoken in the Carpathian Basin at the latest in the so-called "Avar"age, and since the specific runic writing on these relics were written in Old Hungarian, and these are perfectly similar to the Szekler - Hungarian runic writing, which is why these writings were named Carpathian basin runic writing. But such finds with similar runic texts have not been found anywhere to the east, neither among the finds of the Magyars who came with Árpád, nor among the Huns, nor even among the runic inscriptions of the Far East! On the contrary, they were found in the Carpathian basin from the Cimmerian and Scythian eras, or in the Maros valley, ancient clay tablets and discs with the signs of the Szekler-Hungarian runic script were found in several places! But elsewhere in the Carpathian basin, such short writings engraved in stone thousands of years old have been found, as well as many ancient motifs that are still used in Hungarian folk art today! So when the geneticists say that all archegenetic and population genetics research proves that the majority of Hungarians are of Carpathian origin, then these results that I wrote about all prove that the basic Hungarian population and the Hungarian language were formed here in the middle of Europe! And if that's not enough, there are the river names mentioned since ancient times, which can only be interpreted in Hungarian, especially in the eastern half of the Carpathian Basin. Because it cannot be a coincidence that only here in the Carpathian basin have the most ancient river names survived to this day, most of which can only be interpreted in Hungarian, such as Tisia - Tisza, Maris - Maros, Samum - Szamos, Crisos - Körös, Alutus - Alot - Olt, Tamis - Temes rivers name! But these river names have been written down and that is why we have known them since ancient times, except that it seems more and more that the other geographical names of Hungarian origin are also much older from the Carpathian basin than what the toponym researchers thought. Because even in the first documents written in Latin, place names and geographical names of Hungarian origin appear in more than 80 percent, but these are probably names from much earlier than researchers thought for a long time! An example from the 8th century, where it is written about Charlemagne for a new settlement between Sarwar and Heimburg". But in order to understand this, you must first know Hungarian, and if you already know the language well, then maybe look for these data, which the anti-Hungarian historians hide even from the Hungarians! If you look at the wiki dictionary, the word Sár - mud, is an ancient Hungarian word. The WikiDictionary says: Origin: sár < Old Hungarian: sár < Proto-Hungarian: savár, csér (mud) < Dravidian: seru, siru (mud, swamp). And then for: Vár - castle, if you type the origin of the word vár into Google, the WikiDictionary says:Origin [vár < Old Hungarian: vár < Proto-Hungarian: vár, várta (castle, guard place) < urr, ur (city) < Dravidian: ur (castle, city, estate) < Sanskrit: oru (place). If one understands these data, she can see that if Hungarian speakers had not been the majority in the Carpathian basin for thousands of years until the 19th century, then by now the majority of the population would have already been Germanized or Slavicized, and they might have remained Turkic speaking groups too! This is why the American anthropologist and cryptologist Grover Sanders Krantz was right, who came to the following conclusion in her book named "Geographical Development of European Languages" (New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, 1988. ISBN 978-0-8204-0800-2): "...so the Greek language was formed in its current location in 6500 BC, and the Celtic language in Ireland in 3500 BC. The antiquity of the Hungarian language in the Carpathian basin is similarly surprising, I find that its origins go back to the Mesolithic, preceding the Stone Age." So the ancestors of the Hungarians have lived here for thousands of years, where the Danube and the Tisa flow, and the lying historians and politicians try to hide this from the Romanians, because then the big lie about Daco-Romanian continuity will be revealed!
3:20 "now we can understand why there were and are so many Hungarian people there, it was territory for a pretty long time" This is very poorly worded and doesn't reflect reality. It wasn't territory of Hungarian people but territory belonging to Hungarian Kingdom (Hungarian Kings weren't for very long time even ethnic Hungarians btw) and lands itself was divided between the crown (land belonging directly to the king), the nobility (which was mostly Hungarian but also locals) and the church. Land itself was however settled by non-Hungarians (in Slovakia Slovaks and Germans) except for parts where population was mixed which are and always were only regions directly bordering the core of the Hungarian Kingdom. Your wording suggest that ethnic Hungarians used to live all over the place until they were displaced by present day people.
No, hungarians lived everywhere, but later migrations happend. And many ppl didnt assimilated until 1918. (Many did) the map and this whole conception that there were not a lot of hungarians, they just controlled the lands etc. is ridiculous. Many coutries have minorities, so what? When yugoslavia was created, just in croatia 40% of the ppl were not croatian... we think of a more homogenous croatia but its wrong. You wrote about germans. They were good hungarians. They loved hungary. They had own schools universities. They were expeled deported, oppressed in slovakia, the, disappeared completely. The slovak capital was german in 1918. Germans were very sad after 1918. It was a tragedy for them. All germans disappeared from all new states. So the conception that all minorities wanted to live in another state is wrong.
@@lamebubblesflysohighhungarians are not wrong in history. We do not falsify history, we learn facts whether these are good or bad. Unlike our neighbours. By the way we even belittle our history, hungarians like to insult themselves, they are very much anti nationalsts. Thats why hungary could be robbed so easily. If anybody attacked hungary now, not á lot people would defend it. And thats why our neighbours lies are so dominant. We dont even defend ourselves against their insane lies.
@@timeanagy8495 ”So the conception that all minorities wanted to live in another state is wrong” - good to know. That applies now to the Hungarian minorities in other states. Cheers!
@@ionbrad6753 no, because they are oppressed while hungarys minorities settled down in the country and were not oppressed at all. We know that all hungarians hate their oppressors.
Hungary not just lost their people and territories but rich mines, skiable mountains and contact to the Mediterrian sea (tourist and transport places), road network, etc. That was a cruel decision back in time while Hungary wanted to separate from Austria in 1848-49 who was one of the real actor in the first ww.
They couldn’t lose countries that were never Hungary! Czechoslovakia, Serbia, Romania, Slovenia, and others were its own countries and were taken over by Hungary. Let people be happy that they are finally free.
I feel like they should have at the very least been allowed to keep the border areas that had a large Hungarian majority. Maybe not go so far as to include Transylvania (looking at you Mr moustache) but the border areas with a majority Hungarian population for sure. May have even been enough to keep them out of WW2.
Its not about the hungarians. You would let romanians and others oppress the germans or the ruthenians? Maybe 100k germans were killed just in Vojvodina. The ruthenians were ukrainianized. Germans were expelled from all new countries (except for hungary) Its not just a crime against the hungarians but against humanity
@@timeanagy8495 no, I believe the same applies for almost all border adjustments made by the allies and entente, this video was specifically about the Hungarian population though so that’s the only one I brought up.
@@timeanagy8495 Most of my German family was magyarized, yet here you go again acting like you are the saviors of minorities 🙄 Don't act like your country didn't tried to magyarize Rusyns as well.
@@karinqa777Germans were not magyarized in hungary, they assimilated naturally. Maybe the state supported assimilation as any country in the world still does... especially immigrants. If you settle down in the US you will he assimilated soon. Hungary is full of minorities, everybody is a minority, many people settled down here (bc hungary was a heaven for different ppl), the ancient hungarian dna hardly exists now. The only sin against minorities was the deportation of many germans after wwii to germany but it was a complicated era, communist occupation, and the slovaks deported ca. 200k hungarians to hungary, and they needed houses... but many germans returned later from germany.
@@karinqa777 : Many do not know, but in the Kingdom of Hungary , between 1001 and 1842 the official language was Latin. Then I'm curious to find out how someone can be "magyarized" by force, when at home the children can learn the language wh. they parents want's?
There are like 10 million Hungarians with a language that sounds like nothing between it's neighbors and most likely will slowly disappear. The future of Hungary does not look great.
I dont like how everytime there is topic about Uhorsko, people start from 896. It gives feeling there really wasnt anything before. When Magyars came, there already was Principality of Nitra, Blatnohrad (Balaton) under Koceľ possesion. Yes they conquered and assimilated the areas. Principality of Nitra was still autonomous for a bit but then was also part of Uhorsko. No I dont wanna start wars, but we were living together for so long in one Empire and from 19th century all hell broke loose. I have also one more question, is it possible that presence of Magyars in southern parts of Slovakia in 1850 could be result of Ottoman expansions? Because Hungary was really devastated in the wars and even had to swap center of power.
@@Un_pelican_pe_varf_de_munte Wait, is this true? Some official statistics saying that? If so then it is a good argument for giving szekely back to hungary, otherwise they will be destroyed as a people there. Basically an ethnic replacement
11:00 The issue with those map is that there is a big difference between the ethnic map of England and the ethic map of Hungary. And of Austria for that matter. If Wales and Scotland would want to be independent, much like the minorities of Hungary, would it be an injustice because England loses a lot of territory in the process? Would somehow England's loss of land be a bigger tragedy than Wales & Scotland's lack of independence therefore an injustice? I find the situation of the Austrian part & Hungarian part similar in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but I do not see Austrians saying that the Treaty of Saint Germain was a great injustice. So the argument that suggest that Trianon was a fundamentally flawed or unjust exercise is only really true if you believe in the righteousness of Hungarian empire-building.
But it WOULD be unfair if Scotland also took extra lands with 90+% English population up to and including Newcastle, or Wales taking Liverpool and Manchester.
@@19Szabolcs91 It's a grey area. The Scots and Wales used to live there before the Anglo-Saxons came and drove them back, so you could make the case that they are taking back their original land. That being said, the reasons Hungary also lost the border areas were there was a Hungarian majority are simple: 1. Those land also included Slovak/Romanian minorities, and Hungary lost the war, so to the victors goes the spoil. 2. Economic reasons such as railway connections which at that time were very very important for a country's economy. 3. Hungary didn't accept the original offer, turned communist, actually attacked Czechoslovakia and Romania, then lost. At that point the Entente was pretty sick with Hungary.
@@catalinmarius3985 All these are true, it was a regular medieval style war of conquest. Just let’s not pretend it was about minorities’ self determination. In fact Yugoslavia itself was no different a multi-ethnic empire than Austria-Hungary.
@@19Szabolcs91 Minorities’ self determination was part of the cause but not the whole thing. The ethnicities of Yugoslavia were much more closer than the ethnicities of Austria-Hungary. In a parallel world, Yugoslavia could have survived and even become a single Yugoslav ethnicity. This wouldn't have happened in 1.000.000 years for either Austria or Hungary.
I think that 6% in the beginning supposed to be 60%... Just that 1 million Hungarian in Romania are already 10% of Hungarys population. Also maybe I'm wrong, but last time I read about it, it was around 16 million Hungarian around the world, almost 10 million living in Hungary.
One thing you probably missed (I don't blame you it is pretty obscure) is the Rákóczi Szövetség (Rákóczi Alliance). It's an organisation that helps Hungarians living in neighboring countries. They help Hungarians in Kárpátalja (Zakarpattia, AKA:Carpathian Ruthenia, AKA:Transcarpathia) flee from getting drafted into the Ukranian army. But they also support them in Erdély (AKA:Transylvania), Felvidék (AKA:Slovakia) and in Délvidék (AKA:Vojvodina).
The treaty was harsh, because France used it as a personal vendetta against Hungary. They didn't care about the ethnic groups' self-determination, they wanted strong allies. That's why cities like Szatmárnémeti, Nagyvárad and Arad (all 90%+ Hungarian at the time) were given to Romania, because France felt like it would strengthen Romania's defences against Hungarian grudges.
As a Hungarian living in Transylvania, I would consider it best if Transylvania were a separate country, like Switzerland. In the course of history, a similar state structure already existed, for several centuries under the name Transylvanian Principality. Its capital could be Cluj-Napoca and its official languages Romanian and Hungarian. A much more liberal and democratic country could be created than what exists in Hungary today, and the two nations could live together in much greater harmony than they do now in Romania. Bucharest exploits Transylvania's natural resources and sells them all to foreign companies. Both Hungarian and Romanian culture could flourish and mix in this country if people would forget the past grievances and finally look to the present.
In the 1920's a treaty could have been signed to exchange people. Over a 2-3 yr period the Rumanian families living on their northern border would exchange houses, farmlands, stores, etc with the Hungarians living in central Transylvania. Then the border would be adjusted. Adjusting the borders with Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia would have been very simple to do.
The majority population in Transylvania (Romanians) already decided on this topic in Alba Iulia, 1st of December 1918. Then the 3rd large population (Germans in Transylvania) aligned their position to that of Romanians and supported unification with Romania. Stop the bullsh.. pseodo-arguments. Cluj-Napoca does not have natural resources. So - under your logic, the people in Mediaș should split from Cluj and burn that gas only for themselves.
1. The Wilsonian principles provided for autonomy based on national criteria in a certain legally recognized territory, not in every town or village. Americans did not like anarchy and did not want such a thing. The Hungarians were a minority in Transylvania and in the territories belonging to it. This explains the fact that some areas where they were the majority remained in Romania. 2. Shortly after the conquest of Transylvania, the Hungarians forbade the majority of Romanians to live in cities. They tried to invoke at Trianon the fact that in 1918 the cities were Hungarian majorities in Transylvania, but their own reports showed that never in Transylvania's history were Hungarians the majority in Transylvania. 3. The Hungarians are great specialists in using false maps in their revisionist propaganda. 4. The Hungarians claim to be victims of the Treaty of Trianon, but they never say how much injustice and crimes they committed against the majority ethnic groups in the territories they lost.
@@thepinkpanther249 no, he is right. Forced magyarization and treating romanians as second class citizens in their own lands is very well documented for example. There are well documented cases of romanians forced to change their name and to hungarian and religion to Catholicism. Romanians and their ancestors had been living there for thousands of years, of course the magyars had to convert them since they were small population of immigrants.
In Slovakia the numbers are more like 4 to 6% and that is due that a large group of roma (gypsy) people living in these regions identifying themselves as Hungarians rather then Roma.
The New Universal Etymological English Dictionary states all cities in Kingdom of Hungary have 2 names - one German and one Hungarian and that most people speak a Sclavonian dialect. So where did this notion of everyone speaking the same steppe language come from? They can cope all they want with Slovakian being a fake language (when it's most likely a dialect of Sclavonian) when their own is probably a result of Ottoman occupation.
Hungary goverment still trying to influence these people living there, by investing in people with Hungary ancestors, they support theyr bussiness outside of Hungary, as of now there are atleast one football first league club, each of these football clubs in Romania, Serbia and Slovakia (all, exept Austria), which is being owned by Hungarians or they related.
Well, Croatia was under Hungarian rule for many many centuries, but Croatia was not populated by Hungarians and did have some self-rule as a separate land under the same Crown.
And that's why Hungary borders itself. And we so called "külhoni magyarok" (those who live in the Carpathian basin outside of Hungary) always say that we didn't cross any border. The border crossed us.
Lately i spent a lot of time in southern Slovakia and I can tell that there are only few Hungarians who still speak Hungarian. Most of them switch back to their origins which are slavic and speak only Slovak language. They never really were Hungarians, you can tell by their name. Their names mostly end with -sky, -ski etc. which are Slavic names. They had to declare they are Hungarians in times of Hungarian oppression of minorities in Austria-Hungary, mainly in years 1848 to 1910. After Austria-Hungary dissolved in 1918, most of these people switched back to Slovak nationality.
if you have been to Dunaszerdahely or Komárno recently, you will see that almost no one speaks Slovak, everyone is Hungarian, the signs are only written in Slovak because of your stupid laws. The names end in "ova" and "ski" because in 100 years you tried to make it Slovak, which cannot be...
@@doktorkotasz6488 And what you say about signs is also not true. All signs even in smallest villages are bilingual. A lot of cities and villages didn't get money that they desperately needed for all kinds of needs because bilingual villages got their new signs. Just to satisfy few Hungarians that live there, or chauvinistic Orbán in Hungary and European union. The bridges are old and collapsing but we gave the money for billingual signs. That just shows how generous Slovaks are.
@@HenryTomasino1911 Slovaks are so European and "generous" that they do not allow their citizens to have dual citizenship... Anyone with more brains than the turbo-slovaks knows very well that Orbán only has a big mouth, he behaved like Trump before Trump himself, he was never a chauvinist...
@@doktorkotasz6488Yes, that's the only area, which is mostly Hungarian. In other areas, only older people can speak Hungarian and the younger ones came back to their roots. I'm from Galanta, I can confirm.
![[Live สด] การออกรางวัลสลากกินแบ่งรัฐบาล งวดวันที่ 16 ธันวาคม 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dNTiBBthKgQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I can already tell that the comments will be very civilized and polite.
Until Hungarian nationalits visits.
@@Amanbiswas_2003. Wait for the Romanians 😂😂
Elég érzékeny a téma sokaknak.
@@mrbubbles293 what?
It's hungarian culture bro don't judge them
I've had conversations with 2 Hungarian individuals decades apart and they both used the phrase 'My little country' as in 'I'm impressed that you know so much about my little country.' I don't think they meant that it was like Luxenberg. They meant it was smaller than it should be. This feeling has been passed down through the generations.
No, it has nothing to do with it.
@ClifffSVK how can you talk for people you don't know
"smaller than it should be" No. Southern Southern Slovakia is way too large.
@@Tommuli_Haudankaivajao my god just shut up,your countries history couldnt full up an A4 paper
@@Tommuli_Haudankaivaja2:38 where is slovakia?
Bosniak and Bosnian are not the same. It`s not only Bosniak diaspora when you talk about Bosnia at 0:59 , but also Serbian and Croatian. About 50% of Bosnian population is comprised of Serbs and Croats, and 50% of Bosniaks.
I second this. Bosnians are just Muslim Serbs. The identity didn’t exist during the Slavic invasions but came about after ottoman occupation and the forced conversions of Catholic Serbs and Croats
Thank you for clarifying this.
I thought there were 50% serbs and 50% bosniaks & croats
@@fortyan roughly 30-35% Serbs, 15-20% Croats, 50-55% Bosniaks, depending on sources. Because of huge diaspora (every second native Bosnian is not living in Bosnia), and because Bosnian Serbs in diaspora count themselves as Serbian diaspora (same for Croats-Croatian), it is realy hard to give precise numbers.
@@Da__goat Nope. Bosniaks are separate and distinctive ethnic group, based on their religion (Islam). Although they are very similar to Serbs and Croats, and that the national idea of Bosniaks is quiet young compared to Serbian and Croatian one, they have their own distinction, and most important, over 2mil. people identify themselves as Bosniaks.
Yet, it is hard to deny that Bosniaks are descendants of medieval Christian inhabitants of Bosnia (and other Balkan regions, many of them migrated from modern day Croatia in 17th and modern day Serbia in 19th century), both Roman Catholic and Orthodox ones who converted to Islam (mostly opportunistic as Christians has to pay aditional taxes in Ottoman Empire, but also because of ideological and religious reasons, and because of forced islamisation). And you won`t be wrong if that medieval Bosnians call Serbs or Croats, but be aware that it`s way before the birth of national ideas in 19th century. Also, modern day Bosnia and Herzegovina is product of Tito`s Yugoslavia, and historical and ethnic borders are way different.
Hungarian-Brazilian here. (Part of) My family left Hungary because of Trianon, as they were living in Trieste at the time and the end of the war got them kicked not to Hungary but to Yugoslavia (???). In 1926, they arrived to Brazil and started out fresh, but the trauma of war and post-war persecution made them completely hide their identities (and language) as Hungarians. I claimed Hungarian citizenship based on descent and now strive to rebuild what we have lost: our language and customs, but never our country.
Trieste was awarded to Yugoslavia initially before being ceded to Italy.
@@fumo7467 that explains a lot. They went to Brazil with Yugoslavian passports, not Italian ones, as one would expect. Trianon dictated that those who remained outside of Hungary’s borders would receive the citizenship of the country they were in
Hope u make it from a Turk from Turkey to brother
Interesting. I'm hungarian with brazilian partner. We will move to Brazil in the next few years. Life is much easier over there...
@@koverlaszlotitkosugynok8971 - your avatar pic is awesome
Life is easier over here as long as you have money. Brazil is perverse with its lower income population. If you're at least upper middle class you'll be fine.
I've been to Budapest once and it's one of my favorite places in the world. I quite like the sound of the language as well, even though it's impossible to learn
We going back to the 9th century with this one
Never ima send the Magyars back to asia
to 1771 AD. All this ego duck shoving, because 3 German families decided to
Partition the Lithuanian - Polish Commonwealth.
@Booz2020😁😋😆👎
@Booz2020 😆😋👍👎🇭🇺
@Booz2020 😆😁😋
🇭🇺👎
🇹🇷👍
Forgot to mention the Communist Revolution that occurred in Hungary, this massively impacted the treaty of Trianon
Yeah, invading your neighbors mid-negotiation doesn't make you any friends.
@@flazzorbexcept there were no negotiations. In fact the Communists were the first government that the Entente negotiated with, as they actually took up arms instead of accepting every demand imposed on them
@@lvvgyk Except there were no negotiations because the Hungarians refused to negotiate, and the HSR only came to the table as it was collapsing.
No, actually not really. The terms of the treaty was decided between the Entente powers before Hungary became Soviet.
@@flazzorbNot reaally. At the end of the war, Mihály Károlyi, a democratic Prime Minister, reduced the millitary in order to negotiate with the Entente. This led to the conquering of Budapest by Romanians. Nobody negotiated with them.
Everybody expects Romanians and Hungarians to have terrible relations, meanwhile me, a Romanian, is out drinking every weekend with my Hungarian best friend from Romania
Fun fact... as a reaction to Woodrow Wilson's 14 points program, there was a proposal in Czechoslovakia to rename Prešporok (historical name of Bratislava, which is a Slovak capital) to Wilson City... but it was decided to pick Bratislava instead
Thank heavens, that man does not deserve any praise. He ruined America and Europe.
Fun fact, it was called Pozsony....
@@Gil-games That's just a magyarized version of Pressburg. The city was 65% Austrian and German.
@@elichris6348 many many nations contributed to this city. But we did it first.
@@Gil-games Nope. Austrians and Carpathian Germans did it first.
i just have to say i'm actually pleasantly surprised that so far there were very few and not very severe fights in the comments between romanians and hungarians, keep it up guys!!!
Fuck disney land to be clear
Romanians are tired of arguing about this issue. Trianon was inevitable and the people decided. The rest is history. Romania also has a lot of its people in the surrounding countries.
@@sierraleonediamondexplorat2080 The land was ours for 1000 years, so yes, it is rightfully ours
@@blueninja3630 LOL...
As a Hungarian, living in Slovakia, thank you for this video! Not many people know about this sadly
If you think clearly is better that people dont know that bec is history, and it was always and it will be always incorrect for everyone.
If they did they would to start to war again
Slovenskoooooo ❤️🇸🇰
@shadownigga Maďarský komentár 🤢
@@hevy_metal slovensky kokot
@@kmichal9648 We lived together. No one was occupied. Many Slovaks say they lived under oppression for 1000 years. If Slovaks had really lived under oppression for 1000 years, there would be no Slovak language and nation today.
The tension between Hungarians and Slovaks was created by the Czechs. I hear from many Slovaks that the Czechs are their brothers. But they did a lot of harm to the Slovak nation.
Even today in 2024 there are still hundreds of thousands of Hungarians living in Slovakia. If even the Mátra region would be part of Slovakia then even
Most of it is correct.
A comment on the end: the Hungarian-Romanian relationship is (apart from provocative web comments) relatively friendly. On the other hand, the Hungarian-Ukrainian relationship soured a lot after Ukraine introduced a language law in 2017 that would have prohibited ethnic Hungarian children from learning in their native language in schools. (The law was mainly aimed at ethnic Russians, the impact on Hungarians was a byproduct.) The law was abolished in 2023, but things are not yet back to normal.
"What do you think? Should Hungary have kept some of this territory?" It's not like we didn't try to...
The Romanian-Hungarian relationship being bad is usually said/joked about when "the other side isn't there" in my experience. Of course a random civilian from the neighboring country won't have anything to do with what happened 100s of years prior (and after), but most people feel relatively fine with jokingly insult the other side within their national language. Like a group of white people saying "nigga" or black saying "white people shit" within themselves, but not around eachother
Im pretty sure it's not Nicholas Horthy but Miklos Horthy.
Yeah, that was weird to see as a Hungarian. Lots of maps with Hungarian text and suddenly "translated" name.
seeing it translated is weird, but Nicholas is the direct translation of Miklós
Miklós is the Hungarian version of Nicholas. We Hungarians also use translated names for example we call the Russian Tsar II. Miklós
@@LadrixiaThorne We translate the names of historical figures too though. Ferenc József, Joszif Sztálin, I Erzsébet, Marx Károly...
Whilst growing up one of our cats was named Miklós after him 👊 my old man was an ethnic Hungarian from Kolozsvár.
Alhough I consider my nationality to be British I am immensely proud to be half Hungarian.
“It is a bad plan that cannot be altered.”
- Publilius Syrus
I raise my glass for my Hungarian friends love from Finland.
Perkele!
@@gabor6259 indeed
🍻
Kippis!
Hungarians friend of Putin. Would you like to be again Russian land ?
Thank you for the great video! It's great this subject gets more attention.
Guys, with respect, the problem with Trianon is not that Hungary loosed a X amount of land and population, it was nearly inevitable in the age of nationalism in a multiethical state. The problem started with the borders. Huge part of the remaining 3.3 million hungarians live in homogeneous ethnically separate part of South-Slovakia (for hungarian fanboys on the south part of Felvidék), in Partium (FFB: Párcium) and in Vojvodina (Vajdasàg). These borders was draw by strategic interest, like in the Middle East. Rivers, railway lines, etc... and i didn't mention the situation with the Székelys (FFB:Székelyek)
British politics after WW1 was similar as Soviet - "divine and conquer" they drew lines in Europe, Middle East, Africa that were vital for their interests but are reasons of many conflicts to this day - creation of Israel, straight line borders in ethnicity diverse African continent treaty of Trianon.
@@arekzawistowski2609 My guess (but just guess, I am not historian) is that it was mainly France which wanted to weaken Germany and its allies (and for good reasons). It was a self-defence which British politics in Middle East wasn't.
Putin's fan are here 😂
@@miroslavdusin4325 IMO as a French military historian you are right: after the defeat in the war of 1870-71 France knew it was impossible to resist Germany alone, so in 1918, the aim was to create alliances of middle sized countries (Poland, Czecoslovakia, Romania, Yugoslavia) to contain a future Germany and Austria. Hungary lost land and population to make the new countries strong enough and cement the new alliance with France, punishment was not an objective, but a collateral damage.
@@jean-pascalesparceil9008shame on you France. It didnt even work. You killed millions of ppl for nothing. Disgusting ppl.
Can't wait for Hungarian Nationalist to comment "Slovakia, Translvania, Vojvodina is Hungary!" As a Slovak, i understand Southern Slovakia, but if you want the rest of Slovakia, well that might be too far.
Judging by results of recent elections, significant portion of your countrymen wants Slovakia to be Hungary...
@@martinsriber7760 Yeah...
Hey what is the general opinion on such a thing there? I have been to Hungarians in Slovakia a lot of times and they said that in the villages with a majority Hungarian population I can speak Hungarian (to my friends) but I should avoid it in Kosiće / Kassa because they would look mad at me. Is this true or just some racist biases? (I don't know which part are you from but just how do Slovaks view Hungarians?)
@@matyasfukk3270 I think we view them sorta neutrally, never really though about asking that to any other Slovak. Tho there might be some Nationalist Slovaks.
Hungarian speaking here.
I honestly don't understand why so many of us are still obsessed with returning to the old kingdom specifically.
The old austrian empire was already too dysfunctional with it's multitude of ethnicities as it was. That would not change today.
If we Really wanted to bring back the old borders, that state should not be called Hungary. It should be something like the "carpathian federation" or something similar, with all the different language areas given statehood and full representation.
Otherwise, everything will descend back into chaos and rebellion.
But then again, looking at Yugoslavia's case, i'm not too positive on such a state doing it's job properly.
Maybe some peoples here just need to realise that we can't win the past back anymore. This is no longer the middle ages where which king or lord you serve determines which country you belong to.
Romanians and Hungarians shall prosper together in the future as partners and leave behind our struggles and problems. 🇷🇴🤝🇭🇺
Northern Transylvania is Hungarian and Moldova is Romanian
@@Shtposting101it's not anymore. We are in 2024, revisionist stuff is outdated. Walk around northern transylvania and you'll see 70% Romanians.
@@horiabalaban7968Horia 😂 dar nu o fost niciodată
@@Un_pelican_pe_varf_de_munte Bucovina de nord și jumate din Moldova(partea ce e acum republica moldova) au fost ambele Romania.
@@Shtposting101 Transilvania is Romanian! Moldova... it is also...obvious Romanian!
It is a big topic with long history.
I want to add 3 important points:
1. The Mongol invasion killed 1/3 of Hungary's population.
2. The 150+ years of fights with the Ottomans depopulated most of the Hungarian Kingdom leading to more diverse nationalities settling in.
3. There were also multiple failed revolutions against Austrian rule and for the re-establishment of independent Hungary. Think of the results of failed revolutions and the increased oppression, atrocities afterwards...
Diversity without any mainstream uniting principles didnt prove to be the strength of the kingdom in the end.
Why the heck does Hungary want to align with the Turkic nations if the Ottomans conquered their nation after Mohacs and subjugating them for a long time? 🤔
I have to mention that in those 150 years of fighting, Hungary in fact protected Europe against the Turks. As we see, they were tankful...
@@barni.815 Every country who fought the Ottomans and the Russians thinks they protected Europe.
@@barni.815 No, they were only protecting their own fortune. From Europe they tried to grab as much plunder as they could. Search "Hungarian invasions of Europe" (in Hungarian: kalandozások).
Slovakia, Transylvania and Croatia only had 0-30% hungarians, never more than that.
As a History enthusiastic Romanian studying Politics and International Relations in the UK, I have dedicated many years of my life better understanding this dispute concerning our two countries.
I was born and lived all my life almost in the city of Arad, very close to the Hungarian border, a city shrouded in deep multicultural history, a reference point for both the Hungarian and the Romanian nations in the making of their recent histories. Living in a multicultural environment and having many friends of Hungarian descent, but also having travelled to Hungary at some point for 2-3 years almost weekly, helped me gather the similarities between our two peoples. I personally find Hungarians extremely kind and friendly, with a very rich culture, beautiful language (that I am myself trying to learn out of respect for my region’s unique multiculturalism - Transylvania and Banat), with some of the tastiest food on the continent, and their country having an absolutely gorgeous architecture overall.
Being in close contact with Hungarians in Romania and with Hungarians from Hungary made me better understand what 1920 meant to them, and I am very glad I got the chance to view the other side of the same story as well! What I can say is that yes, the empire could not further survive in the form it used to be at that time, given the constant push from all sides to form or reunite their nations in the age of solidifying one entity’s cultural and linguistic identities.
I personally think that Romanians did deserve taking a big chunk of Transylvania, given the demographic figures at that time supporting a Romanian majority living on that territory, but the way this took place should have been different. I completely acknowledge that Northern Transylvania was, and still is to some extent, more Hungarian, while the southern bit of the territory more Romanian. Therefore, cities on the border such as Oradea (Nagyvárad), Satu Mare (Szatmárnémeti), Salonta (Nagyszalonta), even my city Arad perhaps, should have stayed within Hungary, given the immediate proximity to the border and the overall Hungarian ethnic and linguistic majority there. On top of that, I assume few people in Hungary today may be aware that when the Romanian elite and people in Transylvania gathered in Alba Iulia (Gyulafehérvár) to proclaim the unity of the territory with the Kingdom of Romania in 1918, that proclamation of unification addressed to Bucharest also entailed equal linguistic and religious rights for all nations comprising the territory, not just for the majority, demanding even their autonomy, a fact that only goes to show how visionary the Transylvanian Romanian elite at the time was, mainly thanks to living in such a diverse empire beforehand. Sadly, Bucharest took too little notice of our endeavours, and pursued a policy centred solely around the further consolidation of the most numerous ethnicity.
It is hard and almost impossible to redraw borders today, given that demographics changed for the most part, but what the Romanian state could do would be to grant more rights to the ethnic Szeklers. My personal idea is that granting them autonomy in Transylvania could be a bit risky in light of Victor Orbán’s constant revisionism today, but my solution would the decentralisation in administration and the creation of 9 historic and autonomous regions (based on the Spanish model), where each region minds its own internal affairs without too much intervention from Bucharest. Therefore, Hungarian could become co-official in Banat (Bánság), Transylvania (Erdély), Crișana (Körösvidék), and Maramureș (Máramaros), leading to a long-term peace prospect. And this could happen, as it is already a reality in the Serbian autonomous province of Vojvodina (Vajdaság), where 6 languages are official, this example also being an important reference point to the topic discussed.
I am as well asking the Hungarian part to also acknowledge the struggles of the Romanian people under the Kingdom of Hungary and their neglect from education and political and administrative lives. The policy of magyarisation for example was one of the worst to all ethnic groups living withing Greater Hungary, and I wish more Hungarians shed light on the importance of this to us, and what led to the ultimate breakaway of the empire as well. I mean this in the least nationalistic manner, but it is paramount for both sides to acknoweldge their wrongdoings in building a better future.
All in all, I will personally do everything in my power and ability as an aspiring politician home to ensure that the rights of all ethnic groups in Romania are fully respected, and I truly and wholeheartedly hope that one day our two countries will learn the art of compromise and reconciliation, based on the post-World War 2 Franco-German model of deep cooperation and brotherly relations in a broader European Union.
Nagyon szeretek a magyarokat, a magyar kultúrátokat és a magyar nyelveteket, és remélem a jövőben minden jobb, békés és barátságos két országunk között az EU-ban lesz! Éljen a román-magyar egység!
🇭🇺❤️🇷🇴
But it was a bad solution.
In one case Hungary is whole, minorities have no problem at all. Maybe 54% of the population had a little bit more rights in romania, the other solution. But think of the fact that romanians migrated to hungary for a better life from romania and they found it.
The other solution was realized. 46% of the population was brutally oppressed for 100 years but at least 70 years. Maybe 10 million people since then. Their schools were closed, their lands, properties, money, industries, banks were stolen, their religion and language was persecuted. They were fired from their workplace. Just in the first year 150k hungarians fled to hungary. Years later, a decade later many hungarians still didnt have any citizenship. 10 000s lived in hungarian railway stations later. Many of them were killed. There were death camps until the 60s like the valley of death. Hungarians were imprisoned, relocated to old romania, hungarian language was banned everywhere. Hungarian villages were destroyed even in the 80s. Etc. In their own 1000 years old land by the immigrants. Germans were killed and almost all of them were sent or sold to Germany. The economy of the area was partitioned. The railway, the roads, everything was partitioned. People became very poor while hungary improved before 1918.
Imagine this case in the US. Mexican immigrants became majority in some states, Mexico annexes them and this happens with the americans... who thinks its good is not normal.
Citeste ce a scris nagy asta. Cum gandesti tu si cum gandesc ei! Frate, esti naiv. Cu astia care cred ca sunt o rasa superioara nu ai cum sa faci reconciliere pe model franco-german. Dar probabil asta e doar un extremist si gresesc eu.
@@timeanagy8495 Wich immigrants? Romanian population in Transylvania is undoubtedly present since the 13th century. That's more almost one millenium of documented (!) Romanian presence there.10 million people? Which 54%, where, who? There were never 10 million Hungarians in Romania, not even if we calucalate all people that lived there and already died since 1919. Banat didn't have a Hungarian majority ever in its long history, Syrmia, Croatia and Slavonia either. Death camps? Please, provide some information about your sources. There were death camps in communist Romania, but there were also Romanians, Serbs, Germans and all the other ethnicities there. Comparison with US and Mexico is silly and offensive. Germans had actually the very best treatment in the Romanian state in comparison to Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia or even socialist Hungary. There were no camps for Germans after WW II, but Romanians couldn't have stoped the SOVIET deportations in Gulags. Economy... Well, I invite you to visit Romania and compare Nyíregyháza to Oradea (Nagyvárad) or Timișoara (Temesvár) to Szeged. I'm sure, that you wouldn't be able to see so many differences... Kudos to Hungary for the maintenance of its railway network, that is correct. Minority rights... Well, in Romania, I agree, it should and could be better, but for exaple in Serbia or Croatia, you can even get your national ID, driver's licence and other documents bilingual - in their respective national and in Hungarian language. Romania offers free state academic education in Hungarian! The Hungarian state, more than 100 years after Tianon, doesn't provide such rights. No, unfortunately (and I say this as a person, who is nostalgic about the Austro-Hungarian Empire), Trianon was the best solution possible at that very moment.
@@necanecameca I am just answering you the immigrant question before reading the rest of your comment. I think he meant that those people who are Romanians, but not native on the lands with diverse population. The same happened in Vojvodina. The native Serbs-Hungarians lived "happily" together just like the native Romanians-Hungarians. After their equivalent of "Magyarization" happened, many people from outside these regions were arriving, making the percentage of Hungarian population less dense. Those might be the "immigrants" who he mentioned. People who were not aware of the local customs, and were even mad that there are other nationalities living there. This mentality is still observable in current Serbia, but the situation has improved a lot in the past decades.
@@necanecameca romanians are an immigrant minority for the hungarians. Most of them migrated after 16-1700 but hungary is much older.
Btw its not equal when immigrants have to speak the language, and when immigrants or others steal a land and native people have to speak their language. Many people dont understand why many hungarians cant speak the language in romania or ukraine... because they always lived there in hungary, the occupation is not their fault, they didnt move to another country like the romanians.
Trianon as the best solution? In hungary nobody was killed, robbed, discriminated, expelled, etc. Minorities had no problem. Romania is not better for romanians then hungary. In the other case almost 50% of the people were oppressed, persecuted, expelled, robbed, relocated, sold, killed, etc. People lost their work, their land, money, house, etc. 10 000s of people lived in railway stations in wagons in hungary. 150k people fled in the first year. Schools were closed. Romanians killed ca. 5k people in the war in 1919 and looted everything from hungary throughout a year. People suffered. They killed people in every town. 10 000s of people were killed after it. Villages, houses, towns, the economy , railway lines, families were cut in half by the border. Yes, there were many villages cut in half. People couldnt travel to hungary and vice versa. Nowadays ca. 5 million germans and hungarians should live in Transylvania, the germans totally disappeared. It was just Transylvania. 1 million people wete killed just in Yugoslavia. The whole wwii originates from these treaties. They couldnt create worse treaties. Not often loses a country 2/3 part of itself.
Video is spot on. I saw the video though some mainstream media and I thought that Trianon would be completely left out of the picture. You said very good that France had huge impact of the partition of Hungary. France is the main player, which wanted this kind of scenario. Another one, which wanted this was Czechia. First it was Tomas Masaryk who was in close ties with the french about the czech-hungarian question. Then, in the 30s, before WW2 Edvard Benes was the one who was greatly critisizing Hungary in favor of Czechia, knowing that France would welcome that with open arms.
The Treaties that ended WW I was collectively known as The Paris Peace Conference 18th January 1919 to the 21st January 1920.
The five Central Powers signed their separate treaties with the Allies at various locations in and around Paris.
1) Germany signed at Versailles on 28th June 1919.
2) Austria signed at Saint-Germain-en-Laye on 10th September 1919.
3) Bulgaria signed at Nueilly-sur-Seine on 27th November 1919.
4) Hungary signed at Trianon on 4th June 1920.
5) Turkey signed at Sevres on 10th August 1920.
However there was so much resistance to the Treaty of Sevres in Turkey itself. Which was coupled with the fact that the Allies were unable/unwilling to impose the Treaty by military intervention meant that a second revised Treaty between the Allies and Turkey was required. This revised Treaty being signed at Lausanne, Switzerland, on 24th July 1924.
The Treaty of Trianon was in many ways the harshest of the Treaties.
Hungary lost over 70% of it's pre war territory (down from 325,408 Square Km to 92,962 Square Km)
Hungary was also the only former Central Power signatory at the Paris Peace Conference to lose territory to another former Central Power signatory. As most of the Burgenland (with only Sopron remaining in Hungary following a plebiscite) was ceded to Austria.
This was due to the area being largely German speaking.
A few details not mentioned:
- Apparently the Hungarian delegation was arrested when they arrived, and were only allowed to make their case as a formality, after the treaty was finalized, but before it was signed. The documents the Hungarian delegation presented were acknowledged, but ignored.
- The Hungarian army completely disbanded after WW1, the leadership hoped that this will give the peace negotiations more favorable terms. With no army to defend the country, the Romanians and Serbs started pushing and looting during the time of the negotiations, and no one cared to stop them.
I think it would be really funny if an expert of international law would look at the circumstances of how this treaty was created.
Present day European politicians would have called it an invasion (just look at their opinions on Russian actions today) If it had not been about Hungary.
Uiti un lucru, in martie Bela Kun a atacat Romania obligand trupele romane sa reintre in razboi. Daca romanii au ajuns la Budapesta este din vina celor ce nu doreau vreo negociere si au pus mana pe arme. Acestia erau maghiarii condusi de guvern socialist.
You are completely right. A remark only: no one cares and cared about international law. Behind the scenes the decisions go by military and diplomatic strength and influence. Hungarians pay too much attention to various rights and agreements, unfortunately, all in vain.
ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tratatul_de_alian%C8%9B%C4%83_dintre_Rom%C3%A2nia_%C8%99i_Antanta
Romania de la inceput a intrat in razboi pentru oamenii pamantul stravechi ocupat de maghiari. In Transilvania chiar si ocupata romanii erau majoritari.
Clarification: dual citizenship is not allowed in Ukraine for a long while, not just since recently
It's also not really enforced, so most Hungarians and even a lot of Carpathian Ukrainians (Rusyns) applied for Hungarian citizenship, as it grants them free movement and the right to work anywhere within the EU.
sfaxx how many of zelensky ministers got dual citizenship you full of it dude
Thank you for covering this topic!
So is Romania.
Hungary is the only country in the world that is surrounded by itself.
Bulgaria too
It's not tho. At least not anymore. 100 years changed demographics.
Literally that is a saying of every nationalistic movement of any eastern european country lol
Vatican City is, depending on definitions. Armenia and Mongolia would probably also count. Several others would also get there but for the existence of a coastline in their modern borders.
Hungary is the only country that was surrounded entirely by hostile socialist states.
A little addition:
The decrease of the population was also caused by the Ottomans and later the revolution of 1848-49 as the country was attacked by 6 nations at the same time, 7 if we include Russia that joined the Habsurg's side later
Quem também tinha uma população amplamente dispersa eram os alemães!
Alem da Alemanha, Austria e Suiça, haviam alemães na França, Romenia, Polonia, Ucrania e até na região russa do Volga e possuiam uma república soviética autônoma! A situação mudou após a segunda guerra mundial!
I have german ancestry from Strasbourg
A Europa mudou muito no século XX. A Europa de hoje, então, seria irreconhecível para um europeu que estivesse vivo 100 anos atrás. É, e sempre foi, um continente muito dinâmico, em constante mudança.
Narkomani Germany. Slovakia Germany city Levoča, Bratislava, Poprad, Kosice
OMG someone with more than 50k subscribers is talking about my country
Love from hungary
Salut from török guy
Yeeh , they got mistakes , a lot , but estimesének : ok . 😏
Everyone knows about Hungary. It's what happens when we want to eat food.
@@attilatasciko4817 remelem a romanok nem fognak itt pofazni
Sok magyarnak is van több
My aunt ran away from hungry in 1956 and she's very rich and happy in San Diego😊
Because of the comunist
@@SomeFactsYouMightNotKnow Because of Russians.
@@ionbrad6753 same shit 🤣😂
@@SomeFactsYouMightNotKnow True.
@@SomeFactsYouMightNotKnow nah. Not only russian communists are bad.
A true success story, eh? 😆
Anyway, good video. To my ear it's always strange to hear 'Magyar' as opposed to 'Hungarian', since they literally mean the exact same thing ('magyar' means 'Hungarian' in Hungarian). But I understand the distinction in the historic context.
About Trianon, let me start by saying I hate the revisionism that's being supported by some elements in the country, and I think it's about time people moved on and make the best of what we've got (oh they're gonna love this). Some of this 'trauma' stays because it wasn't properly analysed and honest truths were never really spoken (kinda like Japan in WWII). Our involvement is undeniable in this.
However, I will say that objectively, Trianon was in fact harsh and it could've been more 'fair', if you want to use that word for a losing country. But then again, our leaders at the time weren't exactly on top of their lobbying efforts either. Oh well.
I maintain my belief that the vast majority of my countrymen don't want anything to do with restoration of any kind and instead want a lasting good relation with our neighbors - which, despite everything, we largely still have right now.
And with that, let the abuse begin. 😂
Every Hungarian from Hungary I've met has revisionist beliefs. And they don't even hide it.
The szekelies I live with are chill tho. I don't get how the "mainland" Hungarians can be openly extremist and the ones out of the border can be so humane and reasonable.
@@horiabalaban7968 you're probably in wrong company then. Feeling a 'nostalgia', while I agree it doesn't help anybody today, isn't the same as 'let's go get Transylvania back'. Talk about barking dogs. In your next paragraph you call them extremists (rightly so), so by definiton they aren't the majority.
They szekelys are anything but chill, no offense. 99.9 percent of them are staunch supporters of the current government, who uses them to their political ends. What does that tell you?
@@dddaddy it tells me that you don't live in Transylvania. I grew up w szekelies and still have Szekely friends. I doubt that that 99.9 percent of them support the Hungarian government when I've met no one that does it.
With openly extremists I meant those who make "let's go get Transylvania back" their personality when they find out I'm Romanian.
I would label anybody who votes for Orban an extremist. Hungarian majority keeps voting him. They don't hate him that much to get rid of him.
@@horiabalaban7968 you can doubt all day long, it's an unfortunate fact. I don't need to live there to know, we can see that election after election, especially since they got voting rights, which I vehemently oppose. Maybe the '99.9' is over the top, but you get the point. It is whatever it is, but let's not be hypocritical about it.
I feel bad about your experiences, and that has to be open provocation, but really, the silent majority wouldn't even think of doing that.
If all Hungarians thought like you, Hungarians would be seen by the neighboring peoples, not as braggarts who cannot be satisfied. Even if he had an even bigger territory, he would have done the same.
When the Turks left the Habsburg used the political and power vacum and took over Hungary. It was the Habsburgs who really ruled. Also wasnt fair how the ww1 ended for us Hungarians. Means deciding the borders without actually knowing the different populations there. On the other side, yes, those territories where not Hungarians lived, was a valid decision to get them. And please dont forget that we share this planet, its not ours, so lets stay good neighbours and be happy for the fact that Europe is so colorful.
I also never understood why Italy got whole South Tyrol and not just the southern part where the majority were Italians
I feel your pain, but please note the order of magnitude difference between territories lost (in terms of ethnic population) by Austria compared to Hungary. Not to mention that Austria got compensated (for S-Tirol) with an entire new Bundesland taken FROM HUNGARY. Go figure.
Thank you for this video, it means a lot to us Hungarians! Many people did not even know these facts.
Many wouldn't know, but we know. As a Romanian, the Treaty of Trianon was fair. Not because of the land we've got, but for the safety and sovereignty of Romanians from Transylvania. We've finally reunited with our brothers from the South and East. And even if we united as a whole country, we didn't treated Hungarians from Transylvania the same how the Russians treated Romanians from Bassarabia between 1941-1951. We always wanted back what belongs to us, and then after, we lived peacefully with anyone. We regained, we didn't conquered.
@@qdxsebixbp6387 My opinion, which is not a common opinion to have in Hungary, is that Transylvania should have become an independent nation as it was for 350 years after 1526. Besides its Romanian majority, it had a significant Hungarian and German minority and wide range of religions. This was actually screwed up by us Hungarians as in 1848 and 1867 as Hungarians forced the unification of Hungary with Transylvania.
@@agostonberger2502 , Destroy everything - Elpusztitani mindent (documentary) Transylvania / Erdely 1848 - 1849 th-cam.com/video/7qXmve7pp7w/w-d-xo.html
@@agostonberger2502why ? Hungarians were always a minority in Transilvania,Romanians were always a majority under occupation
@@qdxsebixbp6387Reunited? Fair? The situation is that if the population of the Kingdom of Hungary had not been murdered again and again due to the various wars, there would have been no need to resettle a population of other nationalities. You talk about reunification, but the reality is that the Kingdom of Hungary provided protection to the Romanians when they fled from the Bulgarians or the Turks in the 16th century. The proportion of the population in Transylvania was therefore equal in terms of Hungarian and Romanian nationality. Anyway, Transylvania was Hungarian territory for a thousand years and no Romanians lived there before that. So it was a simple lobby for the Romanians to steal Transylvania, and since then only falsification of history has been taking place in Romania. Which is beyond disgusting.
As a Hungarian I think, that the Treaty of Trianon should've been more fair, mainly because this whole thing brought a lot of suffering for both sides. However I also think, that changing it back today would create just as many problems. Treating each other fairly, respecting each other's culture and language and try to find a way to live peacefully together - I think, that's the way forward.
Respect to you! The correct answer! We should respect eachother!
Ok, ok. I'm aware that this video is about Hungarian ethnicity in neighbouring countries but I just want to clarify that Albanian percentage living outside of Albania is way higher then shown in the map. I can easily say that Albanians living in neighbouring countries is close to 100%.
You didn't get it, it's not the percentage in the area shown, it's the percentage of the country. Like, the 6% in romania isn't for the border and szekely, it's for the entire country
@@igorlopes7589 I'm aware of that, it's the percentage of the entire ethnic number of people living in neighbouring countries. So the number of Albanians in Albania is 2,312,356 and then if we take only the number of Kosovar Albanians 1.632.080 (92% of inhabitants in Kosovo), which already here you can see that threshold of 38% is breached with a way higher percentage of Albanians living outside Albania. From here you can add Albanians living in N. Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia. Mind I remind you that all of these people are natives in the countries where they live.
And they’re not economical emigrants.They live in their ancestral lands that were given to other countries by the London treaty of 1913.
Do why there are so many Chinese in Singapore despite it being so far away from mainland China
Well, when you look at the ethnicity and nationality map of XIX and early XX century you could see that dividing this land into national states was simply impossible. Germans, Hungarians, Poles, Ukrainians, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians and dozens of other nations lived quite well mixed with regions of majorities, but still many enclaves and exclaves. The issue was mainly ended after WW2, when communist deported most of the minorities. However even they did not solve the problem to the end since playing on national divisions was one of the main Stalin's ways to control and subdue local communist authorities. This led to many conflicts in the whole postsoviet region, e.g. in Georgia, Karabach or to very weird and impractical borders (look at the Fergana region in Central Asia).
The people voted to separate from Hungary because they were treated as second-class citizens if they did not want to be forced to assimilate.
The people didn't move, Hungary did.
The border
As a Polish i never understood why Hungarians werent deported like we were after ww2
and germans in poland too
@@fortyan 90% of germans were deported or ran away from the terror of the red army. Only small German minority was left on upper silesia
Because they refused to swap population, in Hungary there was and still is a romanian minority.
@@bogdandavid2644 Refusal was not possible when Stalin so wished.
There were some minimal deportations to my knowledge. From Bratislava, but that was more against the German majority living there and a minor one after WW2. It was a "population-swap" officially but seeing how long the Benes dictat was part of the Czechoslovakian and later Slovakian constitution I don't think there was much of a choice for the Hungarians.
Great video
10:40 poland got some minor territories near slovakia
Polsko obsadilo severní části Oravy a Spiše.
From Orava, the Poles received land in exchange for Tešín (this was inhabited by Poles), but in the county of Szepes there were lands that had been under Polish rule in the past.
Hungary was divided completely unfairly after the First World War.
Yes, Hungary belongs to Austria like it did for hundreds of years. So unfair to separate it from Austria.
@@3dfxvoodoocards6 You mean just like Ukraine belongs to Russia?
Ah yes, "unfairly" say that to those you massacred in Černová
@@crimsonghost9136 like hungary belongs to russia
Yeah very unfair because the entirity of hungarybis actually slovaks who mistook duck qacks for a language.
Yeah it was unfair, sure, but it doesn't really matter now. I once crossed the hungarian-slovakian border without even noticing and I'm palanning on going to a hungarian speaking university in Romania. We're learning to live alongide eachother in peace. It's a process for sure, but we're getting there.🙂
It may not matter that much anymore with the blurring of national borders thanks to the EU, but deep down it is still a problem. These were Hungarian lands, and after Trianon the little entente got more than they deserved out of Hungary. Many of us were separated from the country because of it and it wasn’t until 80 years later that they even got the right to cross the border freely.
Trianon needs to be revised.
@@Lucas_Ficz No, the conquest of European lands by some Uralic tribes needs to be revised.
@@ionbrad6753why don’t we revise the entirety of history then? Why can’t we all live in peace on this damn spherical rock
@@shurikengaming4850 I agree with you. But you should ask the other ”respondent” this question. I was only pointing something to him.
@@Lucas_FiczSo you would rather choose violance, the spilling of the blood of you're beloved brothers and sisters in a war to gain back lands and redraw borders when you could work with you're neighbours to make thoes borders meaningless in the first place? If you want hungarians over the border to live better, to be able to live as hungarians, for their kids to grow up in peace without a drunk romanian calling them dirty bozgors and beating them up, you should advocate for unity and peace. Violance and hate goes both ways. We have to let go so that they can too.
I think that Hungarians themselves understand, that in Trianon the main objektive was to establish the new borders as defendable and therefore stable in most cases ( along rivers, mountains etc.). It was logical after the WWI. But if we look at the problem just from the angle of population topography, yes, there is nothing to disagree with.
Whose borders? Have you seen the Hungarian borders? They are definitely not set up along rivers and mountains lol. For the most part they cut through farmland.
@@barkasz6066 The border was created not on ethnic lines but to make the Hungarian land defenseless and easy to invade but hard for them to expand'
11:18 The way you self-censored this is hilarious lol
You should talk about all the Germans outside of Germany next
Very interesting topic. Especially after WW1. As I know WW2 treaties solved many of those problems by moving ethnicities across borders. (I am a Pole so the Polish - German ethnic border is best known to me)
Czechoslovakia was created only because the number of Germans in Czechia was too high.
@@gabor6259 there was a lot more reasons than that
@@arekzawistowski2609expelling people from thier native home is solving problems???
Why is Poland so ungrateful?
@@generalfeldmarschall3781 if your pc would be on fire and you would put it underwater you would solve fire problem. YES IT IS SOLVING PORBLEMS
Edit: you don't need to solve all problems to solve problems
Good video.
Keep in mind: Hungary didn't really have a chance to "chose" their allies. In the second world war Hungary was forced to help Germany (among many other nations), although wanted to stay neutral. The leader of Hungary at the time was even threatened that germany would kill his kidnapped son if they chose otherwise.
It's even more complicated than that. If Hungary stayed alone in WW2, there would be no more Hungary. So Hungary had to ally with Germany again, as the allied powers, mainly France caused the massacre of Hungary in Trianon, and all our neighbors were allied with them.
@@bjardin France needed to protect themselves from Germany after the huge massacres in WW1. So the natural reaction was to split Central Europe. Besides Hungarians were absolutely ok with ruling other nations but if some Hungarians are ruled by someone else then they call it the biggest disaster ever. Isn't that a hypocrisy?
@@miroslavdusin4325 Usual anti Hungarian speech.
@@miroslavdusin4325 Stop looking at history from 21st century approach. Hungary always have been a multicultural state, so us ruling other nations makes no sense, we did not rule other nations, those territories and cultures were integrated parts of the Historical Hungarian Kingdom.
@@miroslavdusin4325 Though making a Peace Treaty signed by 48 states on the winner side and only 1 on the looser one, and forcing a country to give away 1000 years old borders, its a political and historical massacre and a rape, one of the biggest injustice in history ever. Forcing millions of Hungarians to the surrounding countries without rights, under oppression, after being there for more then 1000 years ... That is not comparable with anything you said previously.
Love these videos
Hungarian here. 90% of Hungarians think that taking away so much territory was very unfair and exaggerated (-67%), but 90% of Hungarians also think that it should be left as it is for the sake of peace.
Of course, there are extremists in every country who can be presented in the media in neighbouring countries, making it seem as if the majority of Hungarians are like them. But the vast majority think that, although this was unfair, if the Hungarians are treated well by the surrounding countries, then in the end this is not such a serious issue within the European Union. There is good relations between ordinary people in these regions. The conflicts are rare.
Perhaps only in Transylvania would an autonomous Hungarian territory be justified, because there are a large number (1 million) of Hungarians living in a block. But autonomy is all nothing more is necessary.
Unfortunately, the current Hungarian mafia government is trying to get extremist votes and incite people against each other, but most Hungarians don't like this troublemaking.
The borders can be changed however, if some great powers like USA/China/Germany etc. would like to change it.
@@paltomori4625 Are you some Russian propagandist troublemaker who is trying to make tense in Europe?
Germany is not a great power at all :) China would change borders in Europe? LOL :))
But in the EU, the non of the country wants to change borders any more. The EU countries suffered a lot in the two world wars and everyone realised (even the Germans and the Frech) anything is beter than war. In the EU anyone can travel freely, anyone work anywhere, can buy a house in any other EU country.
Political borders don't have much significance in the EU so there wouldn't be sense to change them.
Other hun here, I think it should be not left as it is, but I can't think of any acceptable solution.
@@Gil-games Then you are in the 10%. Why shouldn't be left as it is? Isn't it the same in the 21th century in the EU? Europe is going to a confederation because separated EU countries are very weak alone besides USA and China. Even the weight of Germany and France is a joke compared to the USA and China. But a confeederatve EU with a common foreign policy, common, powerful army, common tax and social policy that is something on the world map. A third superpower in the world that can have a voice at the big table.
Moreover since Russia attacked Ukraine it turned out Europe lived in an illusion. Russia is a military threat and it can make irrational steps. A powerful common army has become vital.
@@paltomori4625 Germany is not a great power. :)) Would China change borders in Eurpe? LOL :))) The USA doesn't want trouble in Europe as well.
And non of the EU coutries wants to change borders. Since you are a Hungarian let me recommend to you an excellent old Hungarian drama film set during the Second World War, "Az ötödik pecsét" , in which the wise innkeeper says: "No interest is worth fighting a war, no matter as what that interest may be presented."
Russian hasn't learned it yet.
0:45 How do you mean the 6%? What does the x mean?
Even less than 6% today.
Slovakia and Hungary have an okay relation, however the people dont that much. Slovaks still view Hungarians as "the ones that still want our territory" orban recently wore a scarf with the old Hungarian borders where Slovakia was non existent, proving that they still havent quite moved one from the loss
Ah yes, the scarf... it's quite common to see them in Hungary, especially at football events where he wore it. I agree it is very disrespectful if a politician, or especially him wears it but I think there are very few people who actually mean it that way or want back any territory.
For me it seems like rather a historical memory, something like romanticizing the Roman empire elsewhere while nobody thinks it should be restored, especially after the previous attempts... Rome was still cool though.
1. I think the majority of people don't have a problem with each other, but sure, there are nationalists in every nation.
2. Orbán only wears that scarf to gain popularity among nationalists and to divert the attention from the real problems.
What the Hell if you steal something its not yours. The problem is not that the victim wants it back. Its just not yours.
@@timeanagy8495the problem is that you are not a victim. Example- If your mother in law do you something very cruel, will you defend yourself? Yes you will. And is she a victim, if you wounded her by defending yourself? No, you tried defend yourself.
Hungarian national politic after 1867 was too bad. You have to understand that. And we didn't steal it- we lived there, we only separated us from you because your politics. Only south region of Slovakia had extremly high hungarian population.
Orbán is a clown, don't listen to what he has to say.
So what is the link with the Finnish & Hungarian language? Not alike but linked. Why?
The thory is that abaut 2000 years ago it was a single language spoken in siberia, but since then they deverged so much there is little to no relation left today. Hungarians and their relatives (many of whome still live in siberia) went south and were influanced by turkick, iranian and later slavick and germanic languages and the finns and their relatives (including estonians) went north and were influanced by skandanavian languages.
@@swabianbug Thank you, Kiitos. This has always baffled me.
@@swabianbug2000 years ago is too late. The latest date for when Proto-Finno-Ugric existed, from which Finnish and Hungarian eventually evolved from, is 4000 years ago. In fact, 2000 years ago the ancestors of Finns were already in northeastern Baltic region and had not been in the Ural region for a long, long time. 2000 years ago is closer to when Hungarians branched off from their closest linguistic relatives, the Ob-Ugrian Khanty and Mansi.
@@jokemon9547 Oh yeah you're right. I was guessing the number to be honest.😅
Hungarians have a special way of thinking about foreign policy...in the first world war they believed that communism would restore their empire...in ww2 they believed that Nazi Germany would and they felt compelled by them to fight until total destruction ...now Orban is playing his card with Russia against NATO and the EU ....each time they were humiliated and destroyed ...so intelligent people never invent even though the results of the equation are the same ...but they should understand something .... if you buy weapons from those who challenge them to fight, you have already lost... with Swedish planes and German weaponry to overthrow NATO and the EU... it is the death of reason..
Great overview! However I noticed one error. I think that you said at one point that Galicia was a Hungarian province. Possibly it was in the past, but on the eve of WW 1, it was an Austrian province with a large Polish majority in urban areas and a Ruthenian majority in rural areas. There were also many Jews and some ethnic Germans.
13:00 Dual citizenship has never been recognized in Ukraine. If anything, there are talks about implementing it.
These are not Hungarians, but Slovaks, Romanians, and Serbs who were forcibly Hungarianized
This is the biggest lie that your ancestors invented in order to justify the ancient Hungarian land grab to posterity!
I quote from scientific publications of recent years, from the website of the Hungarian Research Institute:
"The presence of the ancestors of today's Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin has been continuous for thousands of years"
"A new database of 16,000 mitogenomes of 172 ancient and living populations has been created and investigated their connection system based on artificial intelligence method. The new algorithm recognizes all haplogroup correlations, regardless of the time of the process behind the correlation. A new methodological article (1) has been published in the journal Molecular Genetics and Genomics by the researchers of the Archaeogenetic Research Center of the Hungarian Research Institute, the Department of Genetics of the University of Szeged, the Institute of Technical Physics and Materials Science." "The Carpathian Basin is an unbreakable unit / Applying the method to the investigation of the former and present-day populations of the Carpathian Basin, the authors found that the vast majority of the present-day population is from a Copper Age (4500 BC-2800 BC) - Bronze Age (2800 BC-700 BC) can be traced back to a basic population, while immigration from the eastern steppe region seems to have had a smaller genetic impact on the population in the tenth-eleventh centuries."
By analyzing the contemporary data and comparing it with the latest archaeological and archaeogenetic data, it is increasingly clear that the Magyars were the military tribes that came with Árpád, who, according to the chronicles, returned to their Scythian-Hun heritage in the Carpathian basin, where the "Hungarians" and "Szeklers" awaited them! Historians ignore the fact that the names Ungarus and Hungarorum appear as early as the 8th century sources, which are all about the Hungarians or Ungarians of the Carpathian Basin, such as in 760: Via Ungarorum, or in the 790s Paulus For Diaconus: the name form Ungarus. Or Liutprand in the epitaph of a Lombard king, in the Annales Rotomagenses; In Annales Gemmeticenses and Annales Uticenses in 793: regnum Hungarorum/Karolus rex vastat. Or what Jordanes wrote in his book "Getica" in the 6th century, that "the Hunugors, who are also called Sabers, lived in Scythia and Dacia as well." It logically follows from this that even under the Huns and Avars there were people who called themselves Hungarians or Ungarians, but the European peoples often wrote their names in a distorted form, such as: Ungros - Ungarer - Ungrare - Uher - Unkăr - Venger - Hoongar - Hongrois and so on. Only the eastern peoples and two or three neighboring peoples called us Magyars later, such as the Arabs: Madjar, the Turkmen: Mazsar, the Tatars: Madjar, the Uzbeks: Mojar, the Tajiks: Maçor, the Russians : Madьár - Magyar, and they are more Slavic neighbors than Serbs: Мађар, Slovaks: Maďar and Slovenes: Madžar. So the Hungarians were the original people here in the Carpathian Basin and it was the militarily strong Magyars who organized the Hungarian statehood!
Dr. Fehér Bence, historian and classical philologist at the Institute of Hungarian Studies, came to the conclusion that the Hungarian language was spoken in the Carpathian Basin at the latest in the so-called "Avar"age, and since the specific runic writing on these relics were written in Old Hungarian, and these are perfectly similar to the Szekler - Hungarian runic writing, which is why these writings were named Carpathian basin runic writing. But such finds with similar runic texts have not been found anywhere to the east, neither among the finds of the Magyars who came with Árpád, nor among the Huns, nor even among the runic inscriptions of the Far East! On the contrary, they were found in the Carpathian basin from the Cimmerian and Scythian eras, or in the Maros valley, ancient clay tablets and discs with the signs of the Szekler-Hungarian runic script were found in several places! But elsewhere in the Carpathian basin, such short writings engraved in stone thousands of years old have been found, as well as many ancient motifs that are still used in Hungarian folk art today! So when the geneticists say that all archegenetic and population genetics research proves that the majority of Hungarians are of Carpathian basin origin, then these results that I wrote about all prove that the basic Hungarian population and the Hungarian language were formed here in the middle of Europe! And if that's not enough, there are the river names mentioned since ancient times, which can only be interpreted in Hungarian, especially in the eastern half of the Carpathian Basin. Because it cannot be a coincidence that only here in the Carpathian basin have the most ancient river names survived to this day, most of which can only be interpreted in Hungarian, such as Tisia - Tisza, Maris - Maros, Samum - Szamos, Crisos - Körös, Alutus - Alot - Olt, Tamis - Temes rivers name! But these river names have been written down and that is why we have known them since ancient times, except that it seems more and more that the other geographical names of Hungarian origin are also much older from the Carpathian basin than what the toponym researchers thought. Because even in the first documents written in Latin, place names and geographical names of Hungarian origin appear in more than 80 percent, but these are probably names from much earlier than researchers thought for a long time! An example from the 8th century, where it is written about Charlemagne for a new settlement between Sarwar and Heimburg". But in order to understand this, you must first know Hungarian, and if you already know the language well, then maybe look for these data, which the anti-Hungarian historians hide even from the Hungarians! If you look at the wiki dictionary, the word Sár - mud, is an ancient Hungarian word. The WikiDictionary says: Origin: sár < Old Hungarian: sár < Proto-Hungarian: savár, csér (mud) < Dravidian: seru, siru (mud, swamp). And then for: Vár - castle, if you type the origin of the word vár into Google, the WikiDictionary says:Origin [vár < Old Hungarian: vár < Proto-Hungarian: vár, várta (castle, guard place) < urr, ur (city) < Dravidian: ur (castle, city, estate) < Sanskrit: oru (place).
If one understands these data, she can see that if Hungarian speakers had not been the majority in the Carpathian basin for thousands of years until the 19th century, then by now the majority of the population would have already been Germanized or Slavicized, and they might have remained Turkic speaking groups too!
This is why the American anthropologist and cryptologist Grover Sanders Krantz was right, who came to the following conclusion in her book named "Geographical Development of European Languages" (New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, 1988. ISBN 978-0-8204-0800-2):
"...so the Greek language was formed in its current location in 6500 BC, and the Celtic language in Ireland in 3500 BC. The antiquity of the Hungarian language in the Carpathian basin is similarly surprising, I find that its origins go back to the Mesolithic, preceding the Stone Age."
Explain that to American…. Some don’t even know their country
Were the people living inside what is now Hungary, in 1910, 100.00% ethnic Hungarian or were there, also, incidentally, some ethnic Romanians, Slovaks, Austrians and so on?
Yes absolutley there were.There was a lot of what were called "population exchanges" that basically meant deportion of not hungarians on one and deportion of hungarians on the other side. Most were actually german, but most of them were deported after wwII.
Hungarians were a minority in 1910's "Hungary". They were less then 50%.
Nowadays there are 13 officially recognized minorities in Hungary: Gipsy/Romani, German, Slovak, Romanian, Serb, Croat, Slovene, Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Polish, Bulgarian, Greek, Armenian.
There was no border for centuries, so there were naturally many ethnic Slovaks living south of the current border, just as there were many ethnic Magyars living north of the current border. The placement of that border was largely based on trying to minimize both "lost" groups. Also, not the city itself but the countryside around Budapešť had tens of thousands of ethnic Slovak residents. Finally, there were areas in the south where substantial numbers of ethnic Slovaks and Rusyns had migrated in the 1700s in organized groups to repopulate the territory left empty once the Ottoman Turks were driven out by the Austrians.
Some of the descendants of these Slavic people still retain their language and ethnic traditions and identity. But most have been assimilated over the years.
Great Video 😃👍
I've been on a Holiday in the South of Slovakia and we treat our Hungarian Minority really good Funfact it's weird to speak Slovak in the South of Slovakia CUZ most of the citizens are Hungarian LOL
8:37 We were not Slovaks in that time we were united in one Czechoslovakian nationality and we wanted union so that's why + they didn't want to make a weak states
Hungarians, you have to get over it. Romania lost Northern Bucovina and Bessarabia, but we don't complain as much as the Hungarians do
It wasn't part of your country for 1000 year for sure
@@GM-os6fo Part of Dacia that had over 2000 yers.
@@dmax4838 you have nothing tondo with dacia
Only that u built a propaganda on it
@@GM-os6fo Each country should be satisfied with what it has now, otherwise we will enter Budapest like in 1919. You don't have Transylvania and we don't have Northern Bucovina and Bessarabia.If you want Transylvania, you also want 6 million Romanians?Or do you only want the territory and kick out the Romanians?
Very good documentation.
And you pointed very good that the split out regions were and are inhabited in majority NOT by hungarians.
As whole regions, yes. But many parts of these regions were ethnically pure hungarian and only given to the neighbouring countries for geopolitical reasons: railways, mines, more farmland for Slovakia ect.
@@lharsaythere was not possibke to split regions into little enclaves and viliges and towns whwre the hungarians were the majority.most of them were not near the border. This is what happened to the germans in Hungary. Lots of then lived inside Hungary and those viliges and little regions could not be given to Austria because they were inside Hungary.
LOOKING FORWARD TO WATCH YOUR VIDEO ABOUT MAGYARIZATION. Magyarization was perceived by other ethnic groups, such as the Romanians, Slovaks, Ruthenians (Rusyns), Croats, Serbs, and others, as aggression or active discrimination, especially in areas where they formed the majority of the population. The radical liberal revolutionary Lajos Kossuth advocated for rapid Magyarization, pleading in the early 1840s in the newspaper Pesti Hírlap, "Let us hurry, let us hurry to Magyarize the Croats, the Romanians, and the Saxons, for otherwise we shall perish." Kossuth stressed that Hungarian had to be the exclusive language in public life, writing in 1842 that "in one country it is impossible to speak in a hundred different languages. There must be one language, and in Hungary, this must be Hungarian. The Hungarian national awakening had the lasting effect of triggering similar national revivals among the Slovak, Romanian, Serbian, and Croatian minorities in Hungary and Transylvania, who felt threatened by both German and Hungarian cultural hegemony. These revivals would blossom into nationalist movements in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and contribute to Austria-Hungary's collapse in 1918... For a long time, the number of non-Hungarians that lived in the Kingdom of Hungary was much larger than the number of ethnic Hungarians. According to the 1787 data, the population of the Kingdom of Hungary numbered 2,322,000 Hungarians (29%) and 5,681,000 non-Hungarians (71%). In 1809, the population numbered 3,000,000 Hungarians (30%) and 7,000,000 non-Hungarians (70%). An increasingly intense Magyarization policy was implemented after 1867... "The Hungarian secondary school is like a huge machine, at one end of which the Slovak youths are thrown in by the hundreds, and at the other end of which they come out as Magyars." - Béla Grünwald, adviser to Count Kálmán Tisza, Hungarian prime minister from 1875 to 1890 (Source: Wikipedia)
Fake history. Its incredible that magyarization is in Wikipédia. Kossuth was a liberal politician... it says a lot what things the neighbours lie about hungary. They say its a sin when a state has one official language... while this is totally normál. It hurts them that hungarians number kept growing after the turkish rule ended and immigrants started to assimilate.
@@timeanagy8495 In the Wikiedia, there are also the sources of the historical facts unlike such YT videos like this one. I don´t see any source of information below this video.
@@katarinakatarinova1306 yeah but these quotes are stupid. Maybe somebody said that but its misunderstood or was just a statement, not an act. For instance hunfarians fought actually for their language against german, the official language was latin in 1842. To present it like it was about magyarization is a lie.
@@timeanagy8495 you can contact Wikipedia.
I'm a little confused by the Portugal reference in the beginning. If referencing a countries population it should be by citizens right? Not just heritage? So I assume you're saying that the Portuguese people in France Luxembourg and Switzerland your referencing still hold Portuguese citizenship. This Hungarians in Romania and Slovakia, do they hold Hungarian citizenship? Also back to the Portugal reference I think it should be taken into account if they have plans to go back to Portugal, like if it's temporary? Because if they're moving to France to live and work and intend to stay there then they no longer contribute to Portuguese population whereas if they have like a 5 or 10 year plan to work there then return to Portugal then yes they are still a part of the population
Some context kind of missing from this video on entente thinking on Hungary:
1. Hungary had a reputation, and not a good one. Hungary was notorious as one of the last places in Europe to abolish feudal land ownership, only completing the process around 1850, with the largely Hungarian land owners maintaining effective control of most of the land even outside of ethnically Hungarian land. This combined extremely poorly with both widely circulated and respected protests against Magyarization policies by minority leaders in Hungary as well as the reputation of the kingdom of Hungary as torpedoing proposals to ease ethnic tensions by granting greater autonomy or rights to other minorities. This meant Hungary was generally perceived by most of Europe as oppressive towards minorities and as impoverishing it's peoples, this sometimes took on explicitly racist tones casting the Hungarians as the oriental barbarian horde incapable of true civilization, sometimes it remained pointed at the land owning class who genuinely did not get along well with peasants, even ethnic Hungarian ones, and did often resist aspects of industrial development.
2. The maps of the area where actually kind of a problem (I think it was a french? delegate that even has a little rant about them recorded). Every country and people that had an interest in the region had extensive maps, all of which both would give them the most land, people, etc. and of course contradicted everyone else's maps. This made it very difficult to reasonable determine where lines should be drawn. Especially since running new surveys and holding plebiscites was impractical as...
3. The actual region was in chaos, violent chaos. The Hapsburg empire was not dissolved by the entente, it disintegrated under internal uprisings. The Hungarian military had started to break away from the Imperial military to focus on Hungarian interests, and it was fighting the Romanian, Czechoslovakian and Yugoslav forces. This fighting is what would ultimately be pivotal in setting the actual lines so unfavorably against Hungary. Not only where all the forces partitioning Hungary members of the entente (the Czechoslovak's had even had there legion), it was unclear if they would actually listen if the big powers told them withdraw without using military force, force that only France, who was in favor of a weak Hungary, had any willingness to provide in the region. This was capped of by a communist revolution promising to destroy the landholders, stop the territorial dissolution, and link up with the Russian bolsheviks. Given that this was not a position that featured a willingness to give up anything, the entente hated communism, and the entente had sent forces to actively fight the bolsheviks in Russia, it should not be surprising that any claim someone could take with force of arms was ultimately legitimized by Trianon.
As a side note the Slovaks generally supported a Czechoslovakia. This was also generally true of the Slavic areas that joined Yugoslavia. Both where in fact generally under control of the local uprising in favor of the concepts, trying to carve back up would probably have been a bigger violation of self determination, especially given how famously well that has gone in former Yugoslavia.
propaganda
@@wanderlewis8552 ?
@@georgesmith4768 Yes, it is the propaganda of the successor states, you may not be aware of it . Look for example at Romania where serfdom was abolished in 1907, even slavery existed--the slaves were Gypsies, mainly, then look at the whole ottoman Europe, Russia etc. Well if it was a Hungarian state for that long is normal to have the majority of its landlords Hungarian, no? Minorities were NOT suppressed---again, the Romanians had their national party in the parliament in Budapest, their churches , bishops had huge feudal estates, had nearly 3000 schools, they could use their language on every level, even in the army, so it s a very long story... 2, running plebiscites was very easy, one was held in 1921 in Sopron/Ödenburg, but none before....if it would have been held and the Hungarian delegates always asked for it---then this monstruous act wouldn't have happened or not to such a criminal extent...3, yes, it was chaos, instigated by the entente to weaken the enemy...In Russia it proved to be successful, so they tried to do the same in A-H and they succeeded with agents and so called peace propaganda !! war and peace propaganda are alternated to force regime change. Chaos for regime change and political gains is a well known recipe or scenario even nowadays, so nothing has really changed...why they didn't allow the separation of Kosovska Mitrovica? or of Catalonia, Basque country, or of Transnistria, Artsak--everyone kept quiet about the total ethnic cleansing..., Gagauzia, Palestine, Kurdistan---is a very long list ...
@@wanderlewis8552 I did try to word what I said carefully. It simply true that there where ethnic tensions in Hungary that spiraled out of control. It is also true that many of the delegates at Versailles had very poor opinions of Hungary and that many luminaries of the minority groups in Hungary where well known and regarded by much of western europe and the US. I explicitly never said that Hungary was actually actively terrible on the issues of ethnic minorities nor that any of there neighbors where exceptionally better than them (it is definitely true that Romania was impressively terrible). I was mostly pointing out that what the delegates at Versailles believed and the other extenuating circumstances, as in the video there is not any of this context and it is easy to think that the major entente powers where drawing completely arbitrary lines across and land they had only just learned anything about, which did happen to an extent in the middle east.
I’ve not really looked into Magarization or the like enough to realy be confident in personally rendering judgement on such a complex issue in such unique and complex country
@@wanderlewis8552 As for the difficulty of referendums and the such, yes the entente could have run them. If they where being fair to the hungarians they probably would have, but while the borders where being drafted it would have required the major powers to militarily intervene to create enough security to credibly run them. Given that they where exaugsted from the war, didn’t like hungary, would be angering friendly states to bowster hungary and could not even rely on Hungary being more friendly in turn given the extremism, instability , and irredentism that characterized Hungarian politics at the time, it become extremely obvious why they didn’t bother. My goal was to help understanding of why the major entente powers did what they did, not say it was fair.
3:46 that map is wrong. Because uninhabitat places also shows/count as the romanians or slovakians.
It’s interesting as a Hungarian that you chose the Felvidék (Lower Slovakia) flag right at the end when you mentioned Hungarian diasporic communities making flags. The first one that comes to mind are the Székelys who are a very big group within the Transylvanian diaspora itself.
Idiot😋
When Wilson was in Paris for the Peace treaty, Ho Chi Minh was was working as a cook at a Chinese restaurant, sent a letter to the American president asking that the US acknowledged Vietnam’s independence. He was ignored and then turned into Communism after realising the West’s hypocrisy. Such a hilarious episode and such a lost opportunity
why are so many hungarians in europe? - they emigrated from asia 1000 years ago
In order to understand who the real Hungarians were, it is important to know the real data about the population of the Carpathian Basin and the military people of Árpád! I quote from scientific publications of recent years, from the website of the Hungarian Research Institute:
"The presence of the ancestors of today's Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin has been continuous for thousands of years"
"A new database of 16,000 mitogenomes of 172 ancient and living populations has been created and investigated their connection system based on artificial intelligence method. The new algorithm recognizes all haplogroup correlations, regardless of the time of the process behind the correlation. A new methodological article (1) has been published in the journal Molecular Genetics and Genomics by the researchers of the Archaeogenetic Research Center of the Hungarian Research Institute, the Department of Genetics of the University of Szeged, the Institute of Technical Physics and Materials Science." "The Carpathian Basin is an unbreakable unit / Applying the method to the investigation of the former and present-day populations of the Carpathian Basin, the authors found that the vast majority of the present-day population is from a Copper Age (4500 BC-2800 BC) - Bronze Age (2800 BC-700 BC) can be traced back to a basic population, while immigration from the eastern steppe region seems to have had a smaller genetic impact on the population in the tenth-eleventh centuries."
By analyzing the contemporary data and comparing it with the latest archaeological and archaeogenetic data, it is increasingly clear that the Magyars were the military tribes that came with Árpád, who, according to the chronicles, returned to their Scythian-Hun heritage in the Carpathian basin, where the "Hungarians" and "Szeklers" awaited them! Historians ignore the fact that the names Ungarus and Hungarorum appear as early as the 8th century sources, which are all about the Hungarians or Ungarians of the Carpathian Basin, such as in 760: Via Ungarorum, or in the 790s Paulus For Diaconus: the name form Ungarus. Or Liutprand in the epitaph of a Lombard king, in the Annales Rotomagenses; In Annales Gemmeticenses and Annales Uticenses in 793: regnum Hungarorum/Karolus rex vastat. Or what Jordanes wrote in his book "Getica" in the 6th century, that "the Hunugors, who are also called Sabers, lived in Scythia and Dacia as well." It logically follows from this that even under the Huns and Avars there were people who called themselves Hungarians or Ungarians, but the European peoples often wrote their names in a distorted form, such as: Ungros - Ungarer - Ungrare - Uher - Unkăr - Venger - Hoongar - Hongrois and so on. Only the eastern peoples and two or three neighboring peoples called us Magyars later, such as the Arabs: Madjar, the Turkmen: Mazsar, the Tatars: Madjar, the Uzbeks: Mojar, the Tajiks: Maçor, the Russians : Madьár - Magyar, and they are more Slavic neighbors than Serbs: Мађар, Slovaks: Maďar and Slovenes: Madžar. So the Hungarians were the original people here in the Carpathian Basin and it was the militarily strong Magyars who organized the Hungarian statehood!
Dr. Fehér Bence, historian and classical philologist at the Institute of Hungarian Studies, came to the conclusion that the Hungarian language was spoken in the Carpathian Basin at the latest in the so-called "Avar"age, and since the specific runic writing on these relics were written in Old Hungarian, and these are perfectly similar to the Szekler - Hungarian runic writing, which is why these writings were named Carpathian basin runic writing. But such finds with similar runic texts have not been found anywhere to the east, neither among the finds of the Magyars who came with Árpád, nor among the Huns, nor even among the runic inscriptions of the Far East! On the contrary, they were found in the Carpathian basin from the Cimmerian and Scythian eras, or in the Maros valley, ancient clay tablets and discs with the signs of the Szekler-Hungarian runic script were found in several places! But elsewhere in the Carpathian basin, such short writings engraved in stone thousands of years old have been found, as well as many ancient motifs that are still used in Hungarian folk art today! So when the geneticists say that all archegenetic and population genetics research proves that the majority of Hungarians are of Carpathian origin, then these results that I wrote about all prove that the basic Hungarian population and the Hungarian language were formed here in the middle of Europe! And if that's not enough, there are the river names mentioned since ancient times, which can only be interpreted in Hungarian, especially in the eastern half of the Carpathian Basin. Because it cannot be a coincidence that only here in the Carpathian basin have the most ancient river names survived to this day, most of which can only be interpreted in Hungarian, such as Tisia - Tisza, Maris - Maros, Samum - Szamos, Crisos - Körös, Alutus - Alot - Olt, Tamis - Temes rivers name! But these river names have been written down and that is why we have known them since ancient times, except that it seems more and more that the other geographical names of Hungarian origin are also much older from the Carpathian basin than what the toponym researchers thought. Because even in the first documents written in Latin, place names and geographical names of Hungarian origin appear in more than 80 percent, but these are probably names from much earlier than researchers thought for a long time! An example from the 8th century, where it is written about Charlemagne for a new settlement between Sarwar and Heimburg". But in order to understand this, you must first know Hungarian, and if you already know the language well, then maybe look for these data, which the anti-Hungarian historians hide even from the Hungarians! If you look at the wiki dictionary, the word Sár - mud, is an ancient Hungarian word. The WikiDictionary says: Origin: sár < Old Hungarian: sár < Proto-Hungarian: savár, csér (mud) < Dravidian: seru, siru (mud, swamp). And then for: Vár - castle, if you type the origin of the word vár into Google, the WikiDictionary says:Origin [vár < Old Hungarian: vár < Proto-Hungarian: vár, várta (castle, guard place) < urr, ur (city) < Dravidian: ur (castle, city, estate) < Sanskrit: oru (place).
If one understands these data, she can see that if Hungarian speakers had not been the majority in the Carpathian basin for thousands of years until the 19th century, then by now the majority of the population would have already been Germanized or Slavicized, and they might have remained Turkic speaking groups too!
This is why the American anthropologist and cryptologist Grover Sanders Krantz was right, who came to the following conclusion in her book named "Geographical Development of European Languages" (New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, 1988. ISBN 978-0-8204-0800-2):
"...so the Greek language was formed in its current location in 6500 BC, and the Celtic language in Ireland in 3500 BC. The antiquity of the Hungarian language in the Carpathian basin is similarly surprising, I find that its origins go back to the Mesolithic, preceding the Stone Age."
So the ancestors of the Hungarians have lived here for thousands of years, where the Danube and the Tisa flow, and the lying historians and politicians try to hide this from the Romanians, because then the big lie about Daco-Romanian continuity will be revealed!
I saw the title and immediately went "Oh no what have you done?"
Because Slovakia and Romania are hungry for some Hungarians.
yeah, ...you had conquered and kills everyone which not speak your garbage language ...and now proclaim ''justice'' hah !
There are quite a few Portuguese people in South Africa. My cousin is half Portuguese.
3:20 "now we can understand why there were and are so many Hungarian people there, it was territory for a pretty long time" This is very poorly worded and doesn't reflect reality. It wasn't territory of Hungarian people but territory belonging to Hungarian Kingdom (Hungarian Kings weren't for very long time even ethnic Hungarians btw) and lands itself was divided between the crown (land belonging directly to the king), the nobility (which was mostly Hungarian but also locals) and the church. Land itself was however settled by non-Hungarians (in Slovakia Slovaks and Germans) except for parts where population was mixed which are and always were only regions directly bordering the core of the Hungarian Kingdom. Your wording suggest that ethnic Hungarians used to live all over the place until they were displaced by present day people.
No, hungarians lived everywhere, but later migrations happend. And many ppl didnt assimilated until 1918. (Many did) the map and this whole conception that there were not a lot of hungarians, they just controlled the lands etc. is ridiculous. Many coutries have minorities, so what? When yugoslavia was created, just in croatia 40% of the ppl were not croatian... we think of a more homogenous croatia but its wrong. You wrote about germans. They were good hungarians. They loved hungary. They had own schools universities. They were expeled deported, oppressed in slovakia, the, disappeared completely. The slovak capital was german in 1918. Germans were very sad after 1918. It was a tragedy for them. All germans disappeared from all new states. So the conception that all minorities wanted to live in another state is wrong.
@@timeanagy8495 You are wrong
@@lamebubblesflysohighhungarians are not wrong in history. We do not falsify history, we learn facts whether these are good or bad. Unlike our neighbours. By the way we even belittle our history, hungarians like to insult themselves, they are very much anti nationalsts. Thats why hungary could be robbed so easily. If anybody attacked hungary now, not á lot people would defend it. And thats why our neighbours lies are so dominant. We dont even defend ourselves against their insane lies.
@@timeanagy8495 ”So the conception that all minorities wanted to live in another state is wrong” - good to know. That applies now to the Hungarian minorities in other states. Cheers!
@@ionbrad6753 no, because they are oppressed while hungarys minorities settled down in the country and were not oppressed at all. We know that all hungarians hate their oppressors.
Hungary not just lost their people and territories but rich mines, skiable mountains and contact to the Mediterrian sea (tourist and transport places), road network, etc. That was a cruel decision back in time while Hungary wanted to separate from Austria in 1848-49 who was one of the real actor in the first ww.
i think you don't really understand the meaning of the word "cruel", especially in the context when someone has just lost a war.
They couldn’t lose countries that were never Hungary! Czechoslovakia, Serbia, Romania, Slovenia, and others were its own countries and were taken over by Hungary.
Let people be happy that they are finally free.
I feel like they should have at the very least been allowed to keep the border areas that had a large Hungarian majority. Maybe not go so far as to include Transylvania (looking at you Mr moustache) but the border areas with a majority Hungarian population for sure. May have even been enough to keep them out of WW2.
Its not about the hungarians. You would let romanians and others oppress the germans or the ruthenians? Maybe 100k germans were killed just in Vojvodina. The ruthenians were ukrainianized. Germans were expelled from all new countries (except for hungary) Its not just a crime against the hungarians but against humanity
@@timeanagy8495 no, I believe the same applies for almost all border adjustments made by the allies and entente, this video was specifically about the Hungarian population though so that’s the only one I brought up.
@@timeanagy8495 Most of my German family was magyarized, yet here you go again acting like you are the saviors of minorities 🙄 Don't act like your country didn't tried to magyarize Rusyns as well.
@@karinqa777Germans were not magyarized in hungary, they assimilated naturally. Maybe the state supported assimilation as any country in the world still does... especially immigrants. If you settle down in the US you will he assimilated soon. Hungary is full of minorities, everybody is a minority, many people settled down here (bc hungary was a heaven for different ppl), the ancient hungarian dna hardly exists now.
The only sin against minorities was the deportation of many germans after wwii to germany but it was a complicated era, communist occupation, and the slovaks deported ca. 200k hungarians to hungary, and they needed houses... but many germans returned later from germany.
@@karinqa777 : Many do not know, but in the Kingdom of Hungary , between 1001 and 1842 the official language was Latin. Then I'm curious to find out how someone can be "magyarized" by force, when at home the children can learn the language wh. they parents want's?
There are like 10 million Hungarians with a language that sounds like nothing between it's neighbors and most likely will slowly disappear. The future of Hungary does not look great.
Here a real smart questions.Do you know from where hungarians have come to europe? And do you know who has lived in hungary before hungarians?
celts, yazigs, daco-romans, gots, all kinds of actual europeans
I dont like how everytime there is topic about Uhorsko, people start from 896. It gives feeling there really wasnt anything before. When Magyars came, there already was Principality of Nitra, Blatnohrad (Balaton) under Koceľ possesion. Yes they conquered and assimilated the areas. Principality of Nitra was still autonomous for a bit but then was also part of Uhorsko. No I dont wanna start wars, but we were living together for so long in one Empire and from 19th century all hell broke loose.
I have also one more question, is it possible that presence of Magyars in southern parts of Slovakia in 1850 could be result of Ottoman expansions? Because Hungary was really devastated in the wars and even had to swap center of power.
From what i know, Slovakia has lifted the dual citizenship restrictions in 2023
Under the condition you live in a foreign country for more than 5 years or you married foreign citizen
? How did you arrive at the 6% figure if Hungary itself only numbers 9 1/2 million people? What am I missing?
6% in romania, not in the area shown
@@igorlopes7589 oh I see, thank you.
@@igorlopes75894% in 2024.
@@Un_pelican_pe_varf_de_munte Wait, is this true? Some official statistics saying that? If so then it is a good argument for giving szekely back to hungary, otherwise they will be destroyed as a people there. Basically an ethnic replacement
11:00 The issue with those map is that there is a big difference between the ethnic map of England and the ethic map of Hungary. And of Austria for that matter. If Wales and Scotland would want to be independent, much like the minorities of Hungary, would it be an injustice because England loses a lot of territory in the process? Would somehow England's loss of land be a bigger tragedy than Wales & Scotland's lack of independence therefore an injustice? I find the situation of the Austrian part & Hungarian part similar in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but I do not see Austrians saying that the Treaty of Saint Germain was a great injustice. So the argument that suggest that Trianon was a fundamentally flawed or unjust exercise is only really true if you believe in the righteousness of Hungarian empire-building.
Hungary never did any empire building. After WWI they just carved up our country with plundering in mind.
But it WOULD be unfair if Scotland also took extra lands with 90+% English population up to and including Newcastle, or Wales taking Liverpool and Manchester.
@@19Szabolcs91 It's a grey area. The Scots and Wales used to live there before the Anglo-Saxons came and drove them back, so you could make the case that they are taking back their original land. That being said, the reasons Hungary also lost the border areas were there was a Hungarian majority are simple:
1. Those land also included Slovak/Romanian minorities, and Hungary lost the war, so to the victors goes the spoil.
2. Economic reasons such as railway connections which at that time were very very important for a country's economy.
3. Hungary didn't accept the original offer, turned communist, actually attacked Czechoslovakia and Romania, then lost. At that point the Entente was pretty sick with Hungary.
@@catalinmarius3985 All these are true, it was a regular medieval style war of conquest. Just let’s not pretend it was about minorities’ self determination. In fact Yugoslavia itself was no different a multi-ethnic empire than Austria-Hungary.
@@19Szabolcs91 Minorities’ self determination was part of the cause but not the whole thing. The ethnicities of Yugoslavia were much more closer than the ethnicities of Austria-Hungary. In a parallel world, Yugoslavia could have survived and even become a single Yugoslav ethnicity. This wouldn't have happened in 1.000.000 years for either Austria or Hungary.
11:25...ahhhh below Florida a certain word is blurred next to 'indeoendent'
I think that 6% in the beginning supposed to be 60%... Just that 1 million Hungarian in Romania are already 10% of Hungarys population. Also maybe I'm wrong, but last time I read about it, it was around 16 million Hungarian around the world, almost 10 million living in Hungary.
If you include the Hungarian diaspora, the number is about that much.
Yeah, I was looking for this comment. Should be higher.
It is 6% as in 6% of all romania, same for the other countries
We are talking about the part between 0:45 and 0:55.
Thank you for talking about my country! Love from a British Hungarian! 🇬🇧🇭🇺
Hungary hate uk🇭🇺🤜🏻🇬🇧
One thing you probably missed (I don't blame you it is pretty obscure) is the Rákóczi Szövetség (Rákóczi Alliance). It's an organisation that helps Hungarians living in neighboring countries. They help Hungarians in Kárpátalja (Zakarpattia, AKA:Carpathian Ruthenia, AKA:Transcarpathia) flee from getting drafted into the Ukranian army. But they also support them in Erdély (AKA:Transylvania), Felvidék (AKA:Slovakia) and in Délvidék (AKA:Vojvodina).
At about 3:15: The painting of the Battle of Lechfeld is cool because the Magyars lost to the Germans.
Why Spanish is Miami's main language?
English is miamis main language
@@bruhz_089 Then why do so many Hispanics/Latinos speak Spanish there?
@@josueveguilla9069immigration
@@josueveguilla9069Cuba
@@josueveguilla9069 because spain colonized Florida first
The treaty was harsh, because France used it as a personal vendetta against Hungary. They didn't care about the ethnic groups' self-determination, they wanted strong allies. That's why cities like Szatmárnémeti, Nagyvárad and Arad (all 90%+ Hungarian at the time) were given to Romania, because France felt like it would strengthen Romania's defences against Hungarian grudges.
As a Hungarian living in Transylvania, I would consider it best if Transylvania were a separate country, like Switzerland. In the course of history, a similar state structure already existed, for several centuries under the name Transylvanian Principality. Its capital could be Cluj-Napoca and its official languages Romanian and Hungarian. A much more liberal and democratic country could be created than what exists in Hungary today, and the two nations could live together in much greater harmony than they do now in Romania. Bucharest exploits Transylvania's natural resources and sells them all to foreign companies. Both Hungarian and Romanian culture could flourish and mix in this country if people would forget the past grievances and finally look to the present.
When have Romania szekely president? I guess never :D why?
If the majority wills it so be it. But I doubt the majority of this region would be interested in such an idea that does not benefit them.
In the 1920's a treaty could have been signed to exchange people. Over a 2-3 yr period the Rumanian families living on their northern border would exchange houses, farmlands, stores, etc with the Hungarians living in central Transylvania. Then the border would be adjusted. Adjusting the borders with Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia would have been very simple to do.
The majority population in Transylvania (Romanians) already decided on this topic in Alba Iulia, 1st of December 1918. Then the 3rd large population (Germans in Transylvania) aligned their position to that of Romanians and supported unification with Romania.
Stop the bullsh.. pseodo-arguments.
Cluj-Napoca does not have natural resources. So - under your logic, the people in Mediaș should split from Cluj and burn that gas only for themselves.
Thx for making videos about Hungary, finally some representation!
1. The Wilsonian principles provided for autonomy based on national criteria in a certain legally recognized territory, not in every town or village. Americans did not like anarchy and did not want such a thing. The Hungarians were a minority in Transylvania and in the territories belonging to it. This explains the fact that some areas where they were the majority remained in Romania.
2. Shortly after the conquest of Transylvania, the Hungarians forbade the majority of Romanians to live in cities. They tried to invoke at Trianon the fact that in 1918 the cities were Hungarian majorities in Transylvania, but their own reports showed that never in Transylvania's history were Hungarians the majority in Transylvania.
3. The Hungarians are great specialists in using false maps in their revisionist propaganda.
4. The Hungarians claim to be victims of the Treaty of Trianon, but they never say how much injustice and crimes they committed against the majority ethnic groups in the territories they lost.
“Amazing, every word of what you just said... was wrong.”
@@thepinkpanther249 no, he is right. Forced magyarization and treating romanians as second class citizens in their own lands is very well documented for example. There are well documented cases of romanians forced to change their name and to hungarian and religion to Catholicism. Romanians and their ancestors had been living there for thousands of years, of course the magyars had to convert them since they were small population of immigrants.
@@thepinkpanther249 Well prove him wrong???
In Slovakia the numbers are more like 4 to 6% and that is due that a large group of roma (gypsy) people living in these regions identifying themselves as Hungarians rather then Roma.
I'm Roma and I can confirm. Not to mention Hungarian politicians were bribing people to rewrite their nationality.
My parents are Hungarian and moved to the US
How about you do a video on romanians in hungary serbia and ukraine next?
Romanian (Roma) migrants in Hungary ?
@@bujdososzekely Don't be upset! This great love of the Roma for you starts with G. Bethlen.
@@bujdososzekely they arent romanians
The New Universal Etymological English Dictionary states all cities in Kingdom of Hungary have 2 names - one German and one Hungarian and that most people speak a Sclavonian dialect. So where did this notion of everyone speaking the same steppe language come from? They can cope all they want with Slovakian being a fake language (when it's most likely a dialect of Sclavonian) when their own is probably a result of Ottoman occupation.
Hungary goverment still trying to influence these people living there, by investing in people with Hungary ancestors, they support theyr bussiness outside of Hungary, as of now there are atleast one football first league club, each of these football clubs in Romania, Serbia and Slovakia (all, exept Austria), which is being owned by Hungarians or they related.
Well, Croatia was under Hungarian rule for many many centuries, but Croatia was not populated by Hungarians and did have some self-rule as a separate land under the same Crown.
And that's why Hungary borders itself. And we so called "külhoni magyarok" (those who live in the Carpathian basin outside of Hungary) always say that we didn't cross any border. The border crossed us.
I can feel, broder crossed us too.
All Balkan nations can say the same. All are surrounded by their co-nationals (nation in ethnic sense here).
That is an excellent question. And the answer is: Only one way to find out.
Lately i spent a lot of time in southern Slovakia and I can tell that there are only few Hungarians who still speak Hungarian. Most of them switch back to their origins which are slavic and speak only Slovak language. They never really were Hungarians, you can tell by their name. Their names mostly end with -sky, -ski etc. which are Slavic names. They had to declare they are Hungarians in times of Hungarian oppression of minorities in Austria-Hungary, mainly in years 1848 to 1910. After Austria-Hungary dissolved in 1918, most of these people switched back to Slovak nationality.
if you have been to Dunaszerdahely or Komárno recently, you will see that almost no one speaks Slovak, everyone is Hungarian, the signs are only written in Slovak because of your stupid laws. The names end in "ova" and "ski" because in 100 years you tried to make it Slovak, which cannot be...
@@doktorkotasz6488 I was in Nové Zámky, Komárno and it is what i said.
@@doktorkotasz6488 And what you say about signs is also not true. All signs even in smallest villages are bilingual. A lot of cities and villages didn't get money that they desperately needed for all kinds of needs because bilingual villages got their new signs. Just to satisfy few Hungarians that live there, or chauvinistic Orbán in Hungary and European union. The bridges are old and collapsing but we gave the money for billingual signs. That just shows how generous Slovaks are.
@@HenryTomasino1911 Slovaks are so European and "generous" that they do not allow their citizens to have dual citizenship...
Anyone with more brains than the turbo-slovaks knows very well that Orbán only has a big mouth, he behaved like Trump before Trump himself, he was never a chauvinist...
@@doktorkotasz6488Yes, that's the only area, which is mostly Hungarian. In other areas, only older people can speak Hungarian and the younger ones came back to their roots. I'm from Galanta, I can confirm.
That was the magyar empire managing several ethnic groups