Did Austria, Croatia, Ukraine, Slovakia, Serbia, and Romania Steal Lands from Hungary?

[Romano-Dacis]

Since we have a thread very similar to this about Germany I think it is only fair to write one up about Hungary. I will even use the OP's post in that thread, changing a few key words:

There are a few people on this forum (and a lot more nationalists in real-life Hungary) who claim that Austria, Croatia, Ukraine, Slovakia, Serbia, and Romania all "stole lands" from the Hungarian Kingdom at then end of World War 1. This happened after the Treaty of Trianon in 1920, the peace conference where Hungary was forced to cede all of its territory populated by majority non-Hungarians to neighbor states (Romania, Austria) or new states formed in the treaty (Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia). The Hungarians today believe the land was "stolen", that Hungarians should retake their lands, by force if necessary, and that the Treaty of Trianon is a synonym for the "failure of justice." The disputed lands are as follows:
In Slovakia:
-All of Slovakia, and some territories of the Czech Republic.

In Croatia:
-All of Croatia

In Romania:
-All of Transylvania
-Romanian Banat

In Serbia:
-Vojvodina
-Serbian Banat

In Austria:
-Burgenland


In Ukraine:
-Transcarpathian Ukraine.

The Modern European borders are shown below:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Hungarians basically wish to see the restoration of this situation.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The territorial divisions of the empire after WW1 and the states that emerged:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The Ethnic map of the Austro-Hungarian Empire is shown below.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A second source for ethnic maps, this one German:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Ethnic map according to Hungarians:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Hungarians believe that the break-up of their kingdom at the end of WW1 went against Wilson's principles of national self-determination, that the Slovaks and Romanians and Serbs and Ukranians, if given the chance, would gladly have voted to remain a part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire rather than joining their respective motherlands. Furthermore, Hungarians believe that there was some demographic conspiracy by Austrians to weaken Hungarian national. These are their tennets:
a) The Austrians Denied [sic] that Hungarians are descended from Scythians, Huns, Etruscans, and Sumerians. (Hungarian sources claiming this 1, 2, 3)
b) The Austrians moved all sorts of other ethnicities, including Serbo-Croatians, Bulgarians, Russians, Romanians, Jews, Gypsies, and Germans into the territories of the Hungarian Kingdom, setting it up for ethnic collapse. This was even stated by prominent Hungarian statements immediately after the collapse of their state in 1921. In general it is viewed that foreigners had great, nearly inhuman virility and contributed nothing to the armed defense of the kingdom, while Hungarians were solely responsible for fighting the Tatars, Turks, and also usually themselves. This position is clearly stated at this Hungarian source.
c) Hungary was a paradise for everyone who lived there. This is in spite of a quote by Pal Hunfalvy who stated, in 1868, "Don't provoke us to emplov towards the other nations the methods of total extermination employed by the Anglo-Saxons towards the Red Indians of North America." (source)
d)Now Eastern Europe is poor because Austro-Hungary no longer exists. (source)
e) The only way to restore the rule-of-law in the world and to live up the lofty ideals humanity has set for itself is to give justice for Hungary (other, consistent interpretations of justice).

WE MUST DEAL WITH THIS ONCE AND FOR ALL! Were those states "stealing land" from Hungary? Should Hungary retake those lands by force or at least bring it up at every single UN meeting and keep sending letters to the US Congress asking for "their lands" back? Will Hungarian bumper-sticker sales go down as a result and thus destroy the Hungarian economy?

In short: were those ethnic groups wrong to exercise their rights to self-determination and join their ethnic motherlands and does that mean that they stole lands from Hungary? What should be done about the current situation in Central Europe?

[dogukan]

borders are already "made-up" by humans...no country owns lands in reality. All the land on earth belongs to humans before everything.
Just my two cents.....more like, a differnt perspective. Anarchist perspective to be precise.

[Salem1]

If Hungary wants those lands back, fine. If the lands don't want Hungary back, too bad. If Hungary still wants those lands back, they will then have to take them. If the lands want Hungary back, give it some time for the process to melt together and maybe then they can have them.

[Ishoss]

WWI is over, let's just leave the puck at that. Discussing this issue will just turn into a heated, stupid debate where a token Hungarian calls for the ressurection of Greater Hungary even though currently people in the former Greater Hungary aren't Hungarian. It's gonna be awesome.

Oh, if they were wrong to do so in 1918? Yeah, sure they were wrong to give new countries areas with a majority of Hungarians, just as it was wrong to give Russia (really, Russia...) Königsberg after WWII, and it was wrong to give Danzig in WWI. Borders should only change AFTER the demographic change has happened, if not we should aim to keep them as stable as possible. (Not advocating homogenous societies, by the way...)

[CiviC]

Only countries like Iceland have perfect borders. Their border is the sea. But when two countries have a shared land border, there will be always reciprocal claims to the lands of the neighbour. There is no perfect land border, the line of borders are the result of history and of conflicts : of course the borders will often be traced in favour of the winners.

There are two kinds of Hungarian claims : the radical ones that say all Greater Hungary should have remained Hungarian - this theory denies the right of self determination of other peoples. A second theory is that the borders were traced unfairily as many lands where Hungarians were majoritary were given to neighbours. It is true that borders didn't followed exactly the ethnic map but there were many reasons for that :

1. In Transylvania the Szekely enclave was very distant from Hungary proper (it is as close with the Romanian-Bulgarian border then it is with the Romanian-Hungarian border), such an enclave wasn't viable and possible, because it had no conection with Hungary being in the heart of Romanian national territory. Also Szekely Land is a mountainous territory with sparse population and cannot be separated economically from the adjacent territories without being transformed into a bantoustan. The right of self determination should be seen at a large scale like regions, not a micro scale like every village and town, because if you trace the border so every Hungarian village to be in Hungary and every Romanian village in Romania, and every Slovak village in Slovakia (by the way there are Slovakian villages in in Romania too) the borders would be a mess of little enclaves and little corridors and fringed borders, like the internal borders of Holy Roman Empire

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

2. In Slovakia the Southern Slovak border lands were given because the necessity for the new state/part of Czechoslovakia to became viable, something that was not possible without access to Danube. Again the borders cannot be perfect and usualy the winners will always take a little more then they are entitled, especialy where the two neighbours have equal claims, the dispute will be resolved in the favour of the winner. It's nothing special with Hungary, even the border between Scotland and England has its trace in favour of England, England being the more powerfull neighbour - so the English have an old Scottish town, Berwick-upon-Tweed. As I said the trace of a border is the result of historic conflicts - look at the border between France and Belgium, the result of the wars of Louis XIV and practically unchanged since. Nobody questions today if Lille should be in Belgium/Flanders or in France.

[Frederich Barbarossa]

I think yes though austria hungary should reunite!

[Armenum]

It's really insensitive in these maps to be calling Austrians Germans. They are similar to Germans, but NOT Germans.

[Romano-Dacis]

It's really insensitive in these maps to be calling Austrians Germans. They are similar to Germans, but NOT Germans.

Well if we can call Bavarians Germans then we can call Austrians Germans as well. Otherwise, it would actually be more logical to refer to Bavarians and Swabians as "Austrians."

[CtrlAltDe1337]

It's really insensitive in these maps to be calling Austrians Germans. They are similar to Germans, but NOT Germans.

I guess Bavarians and Swabians and Prussians and Saxons aren't Germans either then? Austrians aren't part of "Germany" politically, but ethnically they are.

[CiviC]

I guess Bavarians and Swabians and Prussians and Saxons aren't Germans either then? Austrians aren't part of "Germany" politically, but ethnically they are.

Austrians have common roots with Germans and indeed they are ethnically German, but they are a different nation with a different identity then Germany, based on a very well defined own history and a different national culture. Anyway it's wrong today to call Austrians Germans : it's like calling Brazilians Portuguese, Australians English or Argentinians Spanish.

[Heavy Weapons Guy]

It's really insensitive in these maps to be calling Austrians Germans. They are similar to Germans, but NOT Germans.

Germans=Austrians, I'll never recognize Austrian as nationality only as nation, they are Germans.

[CiviC]

Germans=Austrians, I'll never recognize Austrian as nationality only as nation, they are Germans.

And nation is what counts today. I wonder what are the differences between Lybians and Tunisians : still they are two different nations and there is no question to made them into a single nation.

[Romano-Dacis]

And nation is what counts today. I wonder what are the differences between Lybians and Tunisians : still they are two different nations and there is no question to made them into a single nation.

I don't see the relevance this who tangential discussion has to the topic at hand. The maps were clearly ETHNIC MAPS, not maps of nationalities. The Austrians are clearly ethnic Germans.

[Braindead Colonel]

I can play the map game too.


The Hungarian Point of View:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Hm, I just realized it could be taken as offensive by pretty much everyone.
Edit n2: Heh, it's also out of date too...

[Armenum]

Germans=Austrians, I'll never recognize Austrian as nationality only as nation, they are Germans.

Ok so then that means you agree with:

Flemish = Dutch
Swiss (German) = German
Belarussian = Russian
Azeri = Turk
Croatian = Serb
Macedonian = Bulgarian
Irish = British

And the list goes on.

Here is the definition of an ethnic group: "An ethnic group is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed.[1][2] This shared heritage may be based upon putative common ancestry, history, kinship, religion, language, shared territory, nationality or physical appearance. Members of an ethnic group are conscious of belonging to an ethnic group; moreover ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness."

1) Identity: Austrians identify themselves as Austrians, not Germans (in fact calling an Austrian German, they will take great offense)
2) Common history: don't need to explain this
3) Common religion: Most are Roman Catholic, Germans are are mostly Lutheran
4) Common language: Austrians speak German however Austrian German is a dialect understood by many Austrians. Germans have hard time understanding this dialect which I've personally seen with my own eyes
5) Shared territory: self-explantory
6) Genetics: Austrians are close to South Germans, yes, but are not the exactly the same. Austrians are a Germanic ethnic group just like the Swiss, Dutch, English, etc.

Check this out:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/europe...logroups.shtml

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25106

Bottom line is, Austrians are a Germanic ethnic group, but it is wrong to just say Austrian = German

[Lonck]

this is why nationalism is bad. They fight for land rights instead of working together to rid themselves of poverty.

[TRSjarmen]

At this point its almost 100 years since the breakup of greater Hungary so I doubt anyone would want to return to a 100 year old status quo. However, I do feel Hungary did get screwed post-WWI. If they were truly going off of were different ethinicities lived to draw the borders then parts of Romania would of likely been part of Hungary. But, like I said at this point its too old to dig up and I don't want to start another Romania-Hungary fight.

On a side note I lived in Hungary for a while and traveled to the bordering countries and the only one I found reasonably similiar was part of Romania where I could speak Hungarian and be understood.

[Romano-Dacis]

At this point its almost 100 years since the breakup of greater Hungary so I doubt anyone would want to return to a 100 year old status quo. However, I do feel Hungary did get screwed post-WWI. If they were truly going off of were different ethinicities lived to draw the borders then parts of Romania would of likely been part of Hungary. But, like I said at this point its too old to dig up and I don't want to start another Romania-Hungary fight.

Not at all my friend; if you look at the map you will actually see that the Romanian ethnic and national borders line up pretty well. One place where the Hungarians did get screwed is on the Slovak border, but that again was just a matter of making Czechoslovakia a viable state. It needed access to the Danube and Slovakia needed a big city; Bratislava had to be included in the state. In the case of Romania, the Romanians actually lost at Trianon what the Entente had promised them in 1916.

[ELITEOFKINGWARMAN8]

this is why nationalism is bad. They fight for land rights instead of working together to rid themselves of poverty.

And why do Hungarians care? They just as bad as the dang Serbians are about Kosovo .


If want want Croatia back, I hope Croatia blast their military away like they did to the Serbs .

[Sunbird Alkibijad]

And why do Hungarians care? They just as bad as the dang Serbians are about Kosovo .

If want want Croatia back, I hope Croatia blast their military away like they did to the Serbs .

Shows how much you know about what's being discussed in the thread...
Your English level, however, tells me what sort of answer is to be expected...

And if you mean half million civilians being ethnically purged from the area they inhabited and defended for over seven centuries, then I guess that in your own little shed, awaiting for your turn, you might consider that an epic military success.