Do you believe the Treaty of Trianon is legal or void?

[Milan Rastislav Štefánik]

As title says. Mivel a cím is mondja.


From Wikipedia, in English

The Treaty of Trianon was the peace treaty concluded in 1920 at the end of World War I by the Allies of World War I, on one side, and Hungary, seen as a successor of Austria-Hungary, on the other. The treaty established the borders of Hungary and regulated its international situation. Hungary was shorn of over 72% of the territory it had previously controlled, which left 64% of the inhabitants, including 3.3 out of 10.7 million (31%) ethnic Hungarians, living outside Hungary. The territory of Hungary was reduced from 325,111 km2 to 93,073 km2 and its population from 20.9 million to 7.6 million. Hungary lost five of its ten most populous cities and was deprived of access to the sea and of some of its most valuable natural resources. The military establishment of the country was reduced to an army of 35,000.

The principal beneficiaries of territorial adjustment were Romania, Czechoslovakia, and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. In addition, the newly established state of Hungary had to pay war reparations to its neighbours. The Hungarian delegation signed the treaty under protest on 4 June 1920 at the Grand Trianon Palace in Versailles, France. Hungary recovered part of lost territories in 1938 - 1940 under Third Reich auspices. It was later reduced to boundaries approximating those of 1920 by the peace treaties signed after World War II at Paris, in 1947.

[conon394]

Legal sure - join the losing side of not one but 2 World Wars and you can hardly expect a pat on the back.

Honestly though this kind of line drawling is always going to piss someone off. It Hungary was left larger than large minorities of non Hungarians abutting new ethnic nation states would have had fits ... Unless you want to go the stalin route and move people after you make the new boarder to insure the lines conform exactly to reality this is always a problem. In this case thought Hungray was a losser and others like Romain and Serbia had the claim of siding with the winners (WW1) - Hungary than went and sided forcefuly with the Nazis so take your lumps.

Prediction this thread gets closes as fast as the one a couple days ago...

[hellheaven1987]

Legal - loser should keep their mouth shut.

[Milan Rastislav Štefánik]

I agreed with the legal side - The loser must shut up!

[piroska]

I agreed with the legal side - The loser must shut up!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Bucharest_(1918)
The peace treaty of bucharest was legal?
1. if you say yes, we have a problem. the romanian betrayed, and nullified the treaty. so, if they could do something like that - a miserable treacherous behavior - and the european powers like it ...in the same way the hungarians can anytime throw up the treaty of trianon ( and any peace treaty) because europe love the treacherous behavior.
it was fun, we made a treaty but it was just a joke. because we like to betray. and europe will love it.
2. if you say no, it was illegal, unjust
In the same way I say: the treaty of trianon was illegal, unjust.
...and remember the loser must shut up

[Pious Agnost]

Better separated by outside forces, than from within. That would have left Hungary much weaker.

What chance was there that they could keep the other nationalities in tow, if the Austro-Hungarians could not?

[hellheaven1987]

What chance was there that they could keep the other nationalities in tow, if the Austro-Hungarians could not?

Probably none, especially Hungarians were not completely innocent of opporessing other minors during Austria-Hungary Empire period.

[Odovacar]

Unjust but legal in the form of Paris treaty. The original Trianon is not legal anymore, but it's borders are.

"The losers must shut up"-what a fine nazi saying, fits well to here....


So, are you a fan of Mr. Slota, Slava?
BTW, my family is from Slovakia too...

[Romano-Dacis]

Perfectly justified, especially when we relate it to its sister treaties of Versailles, St. Germain, and Sevres. You can't brutally oppress national minorities, lose a world war, and expect to keep your empire. I really have no idea how such a ridiculous irredenta is kept alive in the 21st century. Perhaps the Austrians start demanding the "return" of the Czech Republic and Southern Poland? SILESIA IST OSTERREICH!

"The losers must shut up"-what a fine nazi saying, fits well to here....

A rather ironic comment for two reasons:
1)The sentiments Hungarians have towards their neighbors, considering the Slavs and Romanians to be "untermensch" to be "civilized" by the Hungarians, is very similar to Nazi German ideology.
2) The Nazis were all about trying to revert the Versailles Treaty by any means possible, similar to Hungarian sentiments towards Trianon.

The Hungarians should be thankful the treaty of Trianon happened at all, and the Entente didn't treat their vanquished in the same way the Central Allies treated theirs (see Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Treaty of Bucharest etc.).

[Milan Rastislav Štefánik]

Unjust but legal in the form of Paris treaty. The original Trianon is not legal anymore, but it's borders are.

"The losers must shut up"-what a fine nazi saying, fits well to here....


So, are you a fan of Mr. Slota, Slava?
BTW, my family is from Slovakia too...

Jan Slota, the leader of the SNS?

[CiviC]

Unjust but legal in the form of Paris treaty.

"Unjust" for Hungarians, just for Romanians, Slovaks, Serbs, etc.
Considering it admited the principle of self-determination, the treaty was a great progress from the previous treaties that had the principle "the winner takes all". Also Hungarians seem to not understand they didn't lost Transylvania in 1920 at Trianon, but on 1st December 1918 when the great majority of Transylvanians expressed their will to separate from Hungary and join Romania. Trianon only recognised this act of will for self-determination and delimited the exact borders.

[piroska]

"Unjust" for Hungarians, just for Romanians, Slovaks, Serbs, etc.
Considering it admited the principle of self-determination, the treaty was a great progress from the previous treaties that had the principle "the winner takes all". Also Hungarians seem to not understand they didn't lost Transylvania in 1920 at Trianon, but on 1st December 1918 when the great majority of Transylvanians expressed their will to separate from Hungary and join Romania. Trianon only recognised this act of will for self-determination and delimited the exact borders.

dreaming, dreaming, dreaming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Bucharest_(1916)

[diegis]

It was legal, as it was the treaties at the end of WW II signed by Hungary. Hungary sign another treaty in 90's who recognize again the previous treaties from the end of WW I and WW II. Those teritories are inhabited by a majority of autochtonous non-hungarian population so i dont see any problem in how the things are.

In fact Hungary comes out pretty well after Trianon, the real border with Romania should be on river Tisa. And i dont want to go even further back in history, and say that in fact almost all Panonia should be part of Romania. The most wise thing to do for hungarians is the shut up, yes

[SorelusImperion]

Entente didn't treat their vanquished in the same way the Central Allies treated theirs

see Treaty of Brest-Litovsk,

So you think that Poland, Ucraine, Belorussia, Finland, the Baltic States and the Caucasus should have remained Russian territory ?

Interesting...

[Romano-Dacis]

So you think that Poland, Ucraine, Belorussia, Finland, the Baltic States and the Caucasus should have remained Russian territory ?

Interesting...

Except all of those regions were effectively made German and Austro-Hungarian territory. Germany and Austro-Hungary were still under the impression that Europe could be carved up by a handful of big empires; the Entente had another opinion.

P.S. Treaty of Bucharest was never ratified since it was never signed by the Romanian King. Therefore yes, the treaty was null and void since it was never legally in effect. Sorry that you guys can't read the fine print (err, cursive). Meanwhile, Hungary was a signatory of the Treaty of Trianon, so "the loser must shut up", especially if the loser agreed to the terms of the peace. Nobody forced the Hungarian government to sign the treaty.

P.P.S. DALMATIA IST OSTERREICH!

[piroska]

Except all of those regions were effectively made German and Austro-Hungarian territory. Germany and Austro-Hungary were still under the impression that Europe could be carved up by a handful of big empires; the Entente had another opinion.

P.S. Treaty of Bucharest was never ratified since it was never signed by the Romanian King. Therefore yes, the treaty was null and void since it was never legally in effect. Sorry that you guys can't read the fine print (err, cursive). Meanwhile, Hungary was a signatory of the Treaty of Trianon, so "the loser must shut up", especially if the loser agreed to the terms of the peace. Nobody forced the Hungarian government to sign the treaty.

P.P.S. DALMATIA IST OSTERREICH!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom...%E2%80%931946))
On March 1, 1920, a coalition of right-wing political forces united and returned Hungary to being a Constitutional Monarchy. Selection of the new King of Hungary was delayed due to civil infighting. It was decided to select a Regent to represent the monarchy and former Austro-Hungarian Navy Admiral Miklós Horthy was chosen for this position. Sándor Simonyi-Semadam was the first Prime Minister of the Horthy's Regency.

you just demonstrated that the treaty of trianon was/is/will be illegal
compare this
Treaty of Bucharest was never ratified since it was never signed by the Romanian King-you say it
but was signed by the prime minister Marghiloman
with this
Treaty of Trianon was never ratified since it was never signed by the Regent of Hungary
the hungarian prime minister doesn't signed the treaty

[Romano-Dacis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hungary_(1920%E2%80%931946)
On March 1, 1920, a coalition of right-wing political forces united and returned Hungary to being a Constitutional Monarchy. Selection of the new King of Hungary was delayed due to civil infighting. It was decided to select a Regent to represent the monarchy and former Austro-Hungarian Navy Admiral Miklós Horthy was chosen for this position. Sándor Simonyi-Semadam was the first Prime Minister of the Horthy's Regency.

Hungary had empowered its delegation to the Versailles peace conference while nobody in the Romanian parliament was empowered with the king's signature. That's the difference.

History you didn't learn Piroska:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungari...an_War_of_1919

[SorelusImperion]

Except all of those regions were effectively made German and Austro-Hungarian territory.

The establishment of independent states from the Baltic to the Black Sea is hardly an annexiation. Without doubt the plan was to integrate these states into a hegemonial system dominated by Germany but that is not so different from the intentions and plans of the French government.

the Entente had another opinion

With the carving up of the Ottoman Empire in classic Imperial fashion being a prime example of the Entente's supposedly different opinion. Don't fool yourself into believing that the Entente was anything but a collection of Imperial powers the only difference between the Central Powers and the Entente beeing the focus of their ambitions.

[Darth Red]

Okay, I am reluctant to leave this line of quoting a Nazi saying "the loser must shut up".


I will let it go for now but anyone directing the order any other members of this board outright or implyed will be infracted. Consider this a warning to tread lightly when quoting that.


Please remain civil--Red

[HunGeneral]

Legal - loser should keep their mouth shut.

Well not the brightest answer recently: can I say the same to you if your country is beaten and then cut to pieces?

"Unjust" for Hungarians, just for Romanians, Slovaks, Serbs, etc.

Yes it also depends on point of view.

Considering it admited the principle of self-determination,

I'm not sure it did - the orignal plan was to hold elections in areas where no nationality had a majority (this was meant for areas around the new borders). However the only area were something that was given this choice was Sopron and the sourruonding villages and only because they fought an armed reblelion against the occupying Austrians to have their voice heard.

the treaty was a great progress from the previous treaties that had the principle "the winner takes all".

I believe this treaty fits into the line of "Vea victis" - all the peace dictates of 1920 served primearly the interrests of the entente powers: weakend Germany and its former allies, strong allied nations in East Europe to keep the central powers in check and to keep communism out of Europe. Therefore they supported the territorial demands of there allies no matter what.

Also Hungarians seem to not understand they didn't lost Transylvania in 1920 at Trianon, but on 1st December 1918 when the great majority of Transylvanians expressed their will to separate from Hungary and join Romania. Trianon only recognised this act of will for self-determination and delimited the exact borders.

So if some of the Southern areas of Slovakia or the Szekler inhabited areas of Romania would express there will to become authonomus then that would be an act of will for self-determination? (I quess the two mentioned countries wouldn't see it that way).

The whole idea you have abut this treaty depends on your piont of view: Slovaks, Austrians, Romanians Sebs etc. will see it as just while we Hungarians won't. (and not just because we lost lots of land, but because we weren't even given the chance to have our voice heard and were given a full and finished treaty and told to sign immediatly + the new borders didn't follow the line of nationalities and large areas populated primarly by Hungarians ended up in the new countries right on the other side if the border).