Talk:Treaty of Trianon/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

An event mentioned in this article is a June 4 selected anniversary

Opinion

I think hungarians' feelings after Trianon is naturally revisionist and irredent. It would be strange for me, if this pneomenon had not appear. Kornél

Regarding the border between Romania and Hungary

Hi guys, I modfied the frontiers article yesterday, because it contained things that doesn't belong to the topic. e.g. "Hungary proclaimed it's independence" since 1867 Hungary hasn't been in occupied status. Have you ever read about the dualism? Hungary and the Austrian provinces had the same king and common foreign, finance, defence ministry; in all other questions Hungary and Austria decided seperately. And it's really nothing to do with Trianon.

The other thing I don't understand why it is important that German was Nazi? Do you think everyone was Nazi who didn't fight on the side of the comunist Soviets? Or couldn't hold the neutral status?

Hungary (in a wider sense the countries of the Holy Crown; this includes Croatia as well) had never been a nation-state. The former of the Hungarian state Stephen_I_of_Hungary said that we should accept strangers who come to this land to live here. That's what a single Hungarian chauvinist will never understand! Who does have the right to dismember the ancient land... If you don't like the country which adopted you you are free to go...

I don't want an article which prefers either the Hungarian or the other side. I want an article which contains facts. Not lies, not distortions and no opinions. User:deep0 15 Jan 2006 10:08 (CET)

I think that border between Romania and Hungary was more trying to follow the ethnic map and less to hurt Hungary economy. Since near the border, on the romanian side were 4 big cities (Timisoara, Arad, Oradea and Satu Mare), it was logic that road and railroad that connected them to be also on the romanian side. I saw a map with what Antanta promised to Romania to enter the war : whole Banat and the border with Hungary more to the west. Well, promises... MihaiC 14 Jan 2004

Don't think. User:stefan 17:23, 13 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I removed this:

The treaty was also meant to paralyse Hungarian economy and infrastructure (borders, especially towards Romania, were drawn so, that important railway lines and main roads were just out of Hungary's territory), considering Hungary an agressor in World War I.

as it's only a Magyarian POV. Bogdan | Talk 20:13, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's bullshit! The border between ro and hu did not follow ethnic borders. Have a look at the city of Oradea#Ethnicity and the population figure. Ethnic borders? Are you studpid or do you just not know what you're talking about? I mean, this is quite an obvious one. It is a big and remarkable city, not a town or something small. Yes, there were romanian villages (and in those days, the poeple were greek-catholic not orthodox) around, but rumanians did not build more than fifty percent of the population. The city itself is directly near the border, so there is no town/village/whatever between it and hungary. The city itself and the villages arround that were inhabeted but hungarians could easily remain part of hungary. Why did it came to rumania???

Uh yeah, and the borders DO NOT follow historical ones either! The historical western border of Transilvania, is "a little bit" more eastern. So the border was chosen due to infrastructural and industrial matters. The borders declared at trinanon, represent nothing but inconsiderateness. Of course it was a kind of pay-back, and perhaps the hungarian nationalism (the attitude, not the people) deserved a little attenuation, BUT don't the fuck come here and declare, that the borders have any righteousness but that given by the nationalists and chauvinists of the other sides.

In fact, the borders between ro and hu, which were declared in 1940 at the Second Arbitration of Vienna do follow ethnic borders much more acurate. Both countrys were allied with germany, and both accepted these borders. (of course the hungarian nationalist would not accept anything else, then the 1000-years old borders, but that ist not important, because we are talking about ethnic borders and not about attitudes or desires.) User:stefan 17:23, 13 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the original writing wasn't exactly encyclopedic in nature, but the post-war treaties did tend to do non-amicable stuff to the losing countries. Placing borders so that certain previous order is disrupted and that new transportation means have to be created is certainly not unheard of. If the original poster can provide concrete examples, they should be included in the article and be stated that one might establish a pattern of punishment from it. --Shallot 20:43, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It would be instructive to have included estimations about those "large populations" of Romanians, Slovaks, Croats ans Serbs (as it was made in article for Hungarian minorities), an information that is missing and Hungarian statistics is not completed. I doubt that this represent a 1920 estimation, it looks more like a 1920 desire. In fact, for the year 1920 an estimation of 1,300,000 Hungarians in Romania, is more accurate. --Vasile 16:18, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Shallot, I agree with you. It is just that the hungarian-romanian border established in 1920 followed pretty much the ethnic border. Most of the hungarian that end up in Romania were living in the east of Transylvania - that means in the middle of post-1920 Romania. I think that in Slovakia there were teritories near borders with hungarian majority. It would be great if someone would find an ethnic map of 1920 that can be put on Wikipedia. MihaiC 11:58, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

0.7 million of these 1.7 million Hungarians were living right along the new border. (Arad, Salonta, the region between Oradea and Satu Mare). In 1920 almost 250000 ethnic hungarians were forced to leave Transilvania.--fz22 06:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great ethnic map. It shows exactly what I was saying. What upset me about hungarinas irredentist is that they don't concentrate on the border itself, which it could be more correct if it would have been a same km away here and there, but on the brake up of the whole country. They mostly lost what wasn't theirs. MihaiC 10:11, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In the actual form of the article, the 1920's evaluations are wrong. I think we can't find a valuable ethnic map of 1920 but you can find and read Hungarian census information before the WWI. I suppose that if we don't have the image, we have to read those 1000 words. --Vasile 16:18, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Vasile, I think you should post population numbers/percentages not for 2002 but for e.g. 1931. Not all this population change since then happened directly due to this treaty, there was also World War II and several other events that had some influence. --Shallot 14:04, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Never mind, I used the new external link and extracted those numbers from their images myself. --Shallot 14:53, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Look at this paragraph: "The provinces Hungary lost in the treaty had majority population of non-Magyars, but also a significant Magyar minority, which can still be found in these countries". That was the reason that I use that 2002 data. I consider the 1930 don't tell us too much about 1920. --Vasile 16:22, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's mostly a leftover from an old revision (that was very irredentist in tone, I should add). If we're talking about what some events that ended with a treaty in 1920 caused, then it's logical to assume that the next census would be an indicator. In the later years, the numbers only kept decreasing further, and other things could have (and did) affect them so they're not pertinent any more to this page. --Shallot 16:31, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The numbers showed (census 1910 and 1930) don't give us any corellation between Trianon and decrease of the Hungarians in the provinces after the treaty. There is no statistical base for the sentence: "The number of Hungarians in the provinces started decreasing after the treaty." I think the number of Hungarians in the provinces started decreasing after August 1914.--Vasile 15:56, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh, yes, we're mainly just lumping the whole issue of WWI resolution under this title. I'll rephrase the paragraph. --Shallot 16:16, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Treaty, like every treaty, was between more than one part. There was consequences not just for the king of Hungary, who lost his Kingdom and feuds, there were consequences for Romanians too. So please let's detail the consequences for every nation that was part of this Treaty, not just for Otto von Habsburg. --Vasile 16:06, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, do that then? I merely removed an empty heading there. --Shallot

I think that we still have some unclear things. Maybe we should include the entire statistical evolution 1910-2002. This would reflect the demographic evolution for all nations. --Vasile 16:56, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You better restrict it to what's relevant, otherwise it sounds like it would overcrowd the page... --Shallot

Do you think the reader will be bored by so many details? I think that the demographic situation (for every ethnic group) is relevant and essential in this article. Those graphics will show clearly the situation for every province. --Vasile 23:54, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"They mostly lost what wasn't theirs." Your statement is simply illogical and contradictory. How can you lose something what is not yours? The province of Transylvania belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary until the treaty of Trianon in 1920. This is a historical fact. --User:Zmiklos

Furthermore, the statement that it "wasn't theirs" is completely incorrect. The borders of Hungary stayed in the relatively same form (aside from the Turkish invasion) since the 900-1000s. The people in many of these regions were Hungarian ethnically and they still are today. Many towns and cities in central Romania (hundreds of miles from the Hungarian border) are still above 70% Hungarian. In fact, Csíkszerda (Romanian: Miercurea Ciuc) is 90% Hungarian, Székelyudvarhely (Romanian Odorheiu Secuiesc) is still 97% Hungarian!

The Hungarian people are a very proud people, but they do not go around mourning over things that weren't theirs...originally. Yes, the Hungarian border did extend over into what is now Slovenia, and even though the Hungarian language is the official language STILL TODAY in three districts in eastern Slovenia, they don't consider most of the land to be "ethnically" Hungarian. However, in many parts of Romania, the everyday language of culture, economy, education, etc. is still Hungarian. In fact, in the two cities I listed above (Csíkszerda and Székelyudvarhely), the Romanian language is treated as a foreign tongue. Hungarians in Romania represent one of the largest, if not the largest minority in Europe.

Actually, the largest minorities of Europe are the Tatars of Russia (~6 million) and the Basque people of Spain (~3 million). bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 17:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wrong! The largest minority are the russions (over 20 million) --fz22 05:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Although Ceaceauscu attempted to repress the Hungarian culture and language and assimilate the Hungarians into the Romanian culture, it didn't work. He closed down Hungarian schools, newspapers, etc., but ever since communism, all of these have reopened, and Hungarian has been flourishing in those areas, and indeed has been undergoing a renaissance.

I am not going to contribute to this article, since no matter what I write would be POV. The purpose of Wikipedia is for an unbiased article, but PLEASE do not make completely untrue comments, like "it wasn't theirs". --Hungarian83 17:04, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

I apologize if I offended anyone - it wasn't my intention. When I said that Hungarians lost what it wasn't theirs I thought at territories that weren't populated with Hungarians, even if they ruled them for centuries. Maybe the expersion wasn't the happiest. The main problem in Transylvania, the way I see it, is that the Hungarian minority lives in a compact group izolated by the main part of Hungarian population. Any attempt to draw a border that would let a minimum number of people on the "wrong" side of the border, would had looked the same as first attempts to divide Palestina in 1948. Hungarian83 - nobodies is 100% unbiased. If you have doubts about some information that you think it would deserve to be mentioned, write them first in the talk page. You will debate with other people untill the info get a neutral form.MihaiC 10:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are such things as exclaves (like Kaliningrad Oblast) and microstates (like San Marino, Monaco, and Vatican City). If the moral and political will had been there for those on the winning side of the war, Hungary could have been left with a number of small, isolated, extranational territories.

It would of course have been a pain to deal with. But it would have been preferrable to many Hungarians, given the choice. And it would have better enabled Magyar minorities to be protected from oppression in some countries.

In theory there was indeed the option of a Hungarian enclave in the east of Transylvania. From the ethnic point of view it might have been better. I am curious if there were any Hungarian propositions for that before/at Trianon.MihaiC 07:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Such as religious oppression: http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc01/edoc9078.htm

"Today the Csangos seek the possibility to sing their ancient religious hymns (in their Hungarian dialect) in the church, as they used to until the 1950s, as well as for mass in Hungarian, which they have never enjoyed. The representatives of the Catholic Church, both in Iasi and in Bucharest, while agreeing on the need to preserve the Csango language, dismiss these requests as having been “invented” by “non religious people” under the influence of Hungarian nationalistic propaganda. We are told by the Bishop of Iasi that those who so wish have the possibility of saying confession in their mother tongue."

The preceding paragraph probably has objective relevance to the "Moral Consequences" heading too. Danuvius --69.158.24.243 15:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Referring to the comment "it wasn't theirs" - it is quite a strange thing to say since the Hungarian state had existed since the year 1000. In fact, many of the peoples that later siezed Hungarian lands (in 1920) had come as immigrants, from for example the Romanian principalities.

I made a distinction between controlling a territory and the population that lived on that territory. In Transylvania there were more Romanians than Hungarians before Trianon. Germans were mostly concentrated in towns and Hungarians mostly in towns and in the east of Transylvania. But in total there were more Romanians.MihaiC 07:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

For those being misinformed:
Fact #1: There was never a country called Romania in the history before.

Before Trianon? Yes, it was, after the union of Wallachia and Moldavia in 1859. And even before that, the official name of Wallachia in Romanian was "Ţara Românească" (Romanian Country). bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 12:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fact #2: Erdély was always an independent area OF Hungary.

False. During the dual monarchy of Austria and Hungary, in the 19th century, Transylvania was included in Hungary. See this map: Image:Austria-hungary.jpg

Fact #3: There were more than 1.6 Hungarians forced into minority by Trianon.
Fact #4: There are still entire villages in Erdély having 99-100% of their population Hungarians.

Vienna Arbitrations

I'm not very knowledgeable on this subject, but it seems that there were two Vienna Arbitrations, one in 1938 and one in 1940. See [1]. I've changed the dates in the article accordingly. I've left the references (here and elsewhere) to the Vienna Arbitrations as wikilinks, because the subject seems deserving of its own article. JamesMLane 14:35, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Railroad system

A map of Hungary's railroad having star topology, as it was in 1920, would be very precious. --Vasile 21:31, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Indeed I tried to find a map yesterday but failed, mostly due time constraints. (I try to find one, but none of them seem to have digitalised, and I don't have my old school and history books handy.) I try to clarify though because my wording might not have been clear.

The system before the treaty was dual: star with Buda-Pest in the middle and circular with 2 rings (if my memory serves me well). This system made it possible to reach any destination on an almost optimal path. After the treaty the complete outer ring and most of the inner ring was taken away, and the remains of the ring were not really useful (not having connected to the star) and the star remained.

The system is still star-like: if you want to go from Szekszárd (south-west) to Debrecen (south-east) either you go through Budapest (approximately twice the distance) or change lines many times to reach from one ray of the star to the other. I have no information on why this have not been fixed in the last more than 40 years, though. --grin ✎ 15:45, 2004 Jun 22 (UTC)

Links may be useful:

Middle-Europe's main railroad connections, 1850-1914

Interesting information. Maybe you will include these details in order to clarify that paragraph. --Vasile 18:53, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Other nationalities in Hungary

After the reference to current populations of other nationalities in Hungary, I removed this comment: "despite the fact that Hungary was explicitely obliged by the Treaty of Trianon to promote other nationalities." The idea of "promoting" other nationalities isn't clear to me. Were they to be given special government aid? or merely protected from ethnic violence? Furthermore, the placement of the comment and the use of "despite" seem intended to imply that Hungary didn't honor those provisions of the Treaty, and that its failure to do so caused the populations of other ethnic groups to be lower than they otherwise would have been. If that's what's intended, then that charge against Hungary should be spelled out and attributed to a politician, historian, or other notable proponent. JamesMLane 01:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, what the sentence was trying to say is what it actually was saying, that is: despite the fact that the treaty stipulated XY Hungary did not do XY (you may classify it as a violation or not, I do classify that as a violation). Note that in general Hungary did violate the Treaty of Trianon in a way an international treaty can hardly be violated more: both by occupaying the territory of countries resulting from the Treaty - at the outset of WWII (as you can see in this article), and by shutting down schools for nationalities, by not publishing any text books for the nationalities, by systematic open persecution etc. - this is no "secret", even the official Hungarian numbers speak for themselves...I will try to provide a more precise version of the sentence...Juro 19:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the statement so that the section on "Demographic consequences" is just about demographic consequences. Based on what you said, I added a general reference to the claim that Hungary violated these provisions of the treaty, but that charge really needs to be cited to some source. Furthermore, if there's to be any claim that Hungary's post-1920 conduct was a major cause of the reduction in non-Hungarian population, that also needs to be spelled out and given proper reference. JamesMLane 18:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is nice that you try to be neutral and I have nothing against your last edits, but the reality is even worse than the previous text was saying. The percentage of Magyars did not decrease by far at the same rate in Hungary's neigbouring countries and Hungary just shut down schools for nationalities in the pre-war period, re-opened them after WWII and then again shut them down in the 1960s (while all the neighbouring countries did the opposite) - that's no secret. I think no other "proofs" are necessary, the nationalities could not have "evaporated". I will not change the text, because someone would change it back anyway one day and edit wars would start (as I know the wikipedia). Juro 23:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The best way for us to be neutral about a controversial subject is to report different opinions without endorsing them. Is there some notable historian or demographer or political leader who has said that the numbers of minorities declined and that the decline was caused by Hungary's violation of the Treaty of Trianon? If someone has said that, we can present the opinion and attribute it to that person. If the point is disputed, we should also present and attribute the opposing opinion. JamesMLane 05:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The numbers have declined according to Hungarian official censuses and sections of the treaty cited in the article required Hungary to prevent such a development ... but we have discussed this already. One can argue that shutting down schools for nationalities is not a violation of a provision requiring the observation of minority rights - however, I for my part cannot imagine a bigger violation of such a provision...but, I really do not care...Juro 02:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's a difference between a requirement that minority rights be protected and a requirement that the percentage of minorities be maintained. The government couldn't necessarily prevent such a decline even if it were trying to adhere to the treaty. People might leave Hungary because they felt more comfortable where they were part of the majority. Of course, you're right that closing schools in minority languages would be very likely to prompt some people to move out of the country. Because there are different factors, some within the government's control and some not, I don't think we can simply assert that the former predominated, but we could quote someone else who asserts it. JamesMLane 03:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just for your personal information (I am not going to change the article): (1) They did not leave the country, they just became (statistically) Magyars, I am talking about relative numbers, of course (otherwise the total number of the population would have to decrease visibly). (2) I cannot imagine, how else the rights protection can be measured, given that (almost) nobody has left the country. (3) One can assert that because a) the development in the neighbouring countries was different, b) schools were shut down, books in other languages were not printed etc., c) the nationalities were openly (indirectly) persecuted, which again is no secret, the Magyars did not even try to hide it (statements like: "We must imediately magyarize the surroundings of Budapest, otherwise - what could foreigners think about us?" - just to mention a polite example). Juro 04:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like good information to me. If you have time to find a print or online reference, establishing that some notable spokesperson said something along the lines of the "magyarize" quotation, I think it would be a valuable addition to the article. (Just to clarify, I'm not trying to say that these allegations against Hungary are false. I know nothing about the subject. I'm just saying that we should cite sources for controversial statements.) JamesMLane 04:29, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not really think that just one statement would be a valuable statement (and that it could "survive" in the article), but here are some statements - that I was able to find quickly - of A. Pechány, head of the Slovak department of the "nationalities division" of the then Hungarian government(i.e. directly responsible for the issues here in question): "There is no place for movements of nationalities in Hungary...the only alternative for minorities in Hungary is to magyarize [themselves]. Only those can be good patriots, who promote such a process....Those who oppose such tendencies, play into the hands of the enemies of Hungary, if they are not even supporting them..." and "It is in the interest of the nation that the surroundings of Budapest do not be foreign as territories of national minorities, so that our foreign guests do not happen to get wrong ideas about the national unity of the Hungarian state, which would be grist to the mill of our malicious neighbours [i.e. Czechoslovakia, Romania, Yugoslavia]." Juro 02:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After Trianon, Hungary was not longer a multi-cultural state. True, small pockets of minorities remained, but Hungary's treatment of minorities cannot even begin to compare with the new multi-naitonal successor states' (Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia) treatment of the five million Hungarians that suddenly found themselves outside the country's borders, which violated the Treaty of Trianon in every possibe way.

Juro: If you look at the statistics Hungary almost doesn't have minorities. If they have they have all the rights. On the national television there is a program for even the smallest one. If you know sg about opressing minorities in Hungary and you can prove it with some internationmal accounts on the matter I will happily read it and please share it with me. If you don't than stop spreading your rubbish on the wikipedia. To tell the trouth assimilation is more frequent in Slovakia and Romania, just read the statistics about the decreasing of the number of Hungarians in Romania nad Slovakia. In Hungary there is no need to assimilate them becouse of the low number of them.

1910 census

According to 1910 census, Hungarian population of the Kingdom of Hungary was exactly 48%. Now, from where these 54% come? After the Treaty of Trianon, Hungarian Count Betlen has developed revisionist propaganda in attempt to justify territorial claim towards Hungarian neighbours. So, in the historical works of some Hungarian historians (supporters of revisionism), this number of 54% Hungarians appeared. They simply excluded Croatia-Slavonia from the population count, and counted population of so called "proper Hungary". They wanted to show that Hungarians were majority in the Kingdom of Hungary, so they presented population of "proper Hungary" as population of the Kingdom of Hungary. Since so called "proper Hungary" didn’t existed as administrative unit, this counting is fictional. Croatia-Slavonia was part of the Kingdom of Hungary, and the whole Kingdom of Hungary had a population of 48% Hungarians. User:PANONIAN

This isn't true! Croatia and Hungary were two different country of the Hungarian Holly Crown! Just see the agreement between the Parliament(!) of Hungary and the Parliament(!) of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia (The Hungaro-Croatian Compromise of 1868 (The Nagodba)) and their revision in 1873. Of course it wasn't a fully independence, but a Croatian autonomy under the Austrian-Hungary Empire. --fz22 05:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

- Well, you can compare Croatia-Slavonia from 1910 with present day Vojvodina, and you can compare proper Hungary from 1910 with present day Central Serbia. Central Serbia is part of Serbia, which is not autonomous, while Vojvodina is an autonomous province. In 1910 proper Hungary was part of Hungary, which was not autonomous, while Croatia-Slavonia was autonomous part of Hungary. The population of entire Hungary was 48% Hungarian, while population of proper Hungary was 54% Hungarian. However, the 1910 census did not recorded the nationality, but language, so, if you exclude Hungarian-speaking Jews (5%) from the count, the ethnic Hungarian population in proper Hungary was 49%. These are correct numbers from the census, and I only wanted to note that these numbers are sometimes the subjects for manipulations. User:PANONIAN

Now, let's try not to exaggerate. The practise of looking at numbers of "Hungary proper" only (from all the censuses) is very frequent even today, and is a frequent sources of misunderstandings (including for me - as you can see in this case... :) )Juro 19:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not saying that you purposely wrote this wrong. I believe that it was only misunderstanding, but I simply explained from where this misunderstanding has come (I read about this recently, and didn’t mean anything bad). Best regards. User:PANONIAN

Moral consequences

A crippled Hungary lost nearly two-thirds of its country, a disablement that has forever altered the lives of many. (Ives De Daruvar: “The Tragic Fate of Hungary: A Country Carved Up Alive at Trianon” ISBN: 0912404035) Families, mothers and children, grandsons and grandparents, often found themselves cut apart and segregated from their loved ones with no chance (at least for those living in Rumania) to visit their relatives in Hungary or to even speak their native language between one another. For decades, Hungarians living in Rumania and Slovakia were treated like second-class citizens and denied every basic right that in the Western world is recognized to minorities. (Laszlo Kurti: “The Remote Borderland: Transylvania in the Hungarian Imagination” ISBN: 0791450244) Only after the fall of the Ceauscescu regime were Transylvanian Hungarian or people of Erdély, allowed to rejoin their families, even for a brief vacation, without having to flee their native lands and become dissidents.

This part needs more precision and it is too subjective for an history article. The first phrase re-re the fact that Hungary lost two-thirds of "its country". Not to mention the expression "crippled Hungary". In the central of the second phrase is placed the word "segregated" that makes the entire sentence senseless. --Vasile 17:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE, for Gods sake, DO NOT mix up he "Kingdom of Hungary" and the (ethnic) Hungarian State. The Kingdom existed for over 1000 years, and the head of the state above all the subjects (regardless of their ethnic affiliation) living on his land, had been the King. (The King of Hungary was not allways an magyar, and the magyars did not allways (or perhaps never) form 50 percent of the overall population.) Though (the offspring of) the ethnics magyars feel related to the Kingdom, the offspring of the other ethnics do not (perhaps because now they (finaly) have they cute own little national states).

I'm not sure if the ethnic state of hungary is the successor of the Kingdom of Hungary, but I do not think so! Much more land and people formed that kingdom. Keep in mind, that BEVOR this great idea of nationalism was born, multi ethnic states were absolutly common, and nobody had a problem with that. No one was being supressed because of his belongig to a certain ehnic group, but more because he was not a aristocrat. ;-)

Well, but then the nationalism arose and the ethnic non-magyars tried to get rights as ethnics, or even independece and the ethnic magyars (at that time the kingdom had a parliament) suppressed this kind of desires. This was not nice, and definitively did not represented the spirit of the multi ethnic kingdom but more the will to keep the empire together through strengthening the position of the central (but not the only) ethnic group).

Just don't mix up this two worlds. Because there had been an empire with NO ethnic problems for a very long time. And after the natinalism arose, this was over. What a pitty. Who started it, or who did what first to the other is quit anoying to discuss, because you can not discuss such things! You can proof. And then? Well, at least you know "the truth". Hahaha, well, in theory there ist such thing like "truth".

Except for the fact that families were separated, which however holds in both directions, the rest was placed here with a clear aim. In addition, the part about missing rights in Czechoslovakia is an outright 100% lie, especially given the fact that this applies to Hungary (and one can be very concrete in this case: schools for minorieties cancelled, minorities basically exterminated (according to their own Hungarian numbers)), while there were some 900 schools for Hungarians opened in CS, deputies were speaking Hungarian in the parliament, amounts of money from the state budget were invested specifically for the purpose of promotion of the Hungarians as a minority, ministers in the government were Hungarians, they had political parties, their number increased more after WWII then in Hungary itself, there was no single right different from that of other citizens, etc. etc. . And as far I know, the situation was very similar in Romania and Yugoslavia - after all, that's why there are still Hungarians in those countries as opposed to minorities in Hungary. Juro 21:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Juro, my grandma lived in Nové Zámky together with her family at the end of WWII (she had moved there as a teacher of geography and the Italian language, following the first Vienna arbitration; at that time, there was a large influx of Hungarian-speaking teachers because there were less of them in the area than needed – you may wonder why, if the rights of the minorities were being observed so strictly). One day she saw posters on the street, written exclusively in Slovak, which she translated with the help of a Slovak friend (yes, normal everyday people were friends regardless of ethnicity, even at that time). The poster, without a single Hungarian word on it, was a notice for the Magyars informing them that they had one week to leave the country, and that a means of transport was provided to this effect, which would carry thirty kilograms of luggage for each family. With the help of an officer of the Soviet Red Army (of a Turkish origin), they managed to pack up their belongings and "export" them to Esztergom (the help was not quite humanitarian, rather a private business of that officer which he conducted in return for all the gold items the families he "helped" would have; the family of my grandma had had a few). If you have access to the archives in Nové Zámky, and those posters aren't "lost" somehow, you can check this story out for yourself.

The only reason why I haven't added the story of Hungarians expelled from Slovakia to the article on the Beneš decrees – the legal basis for said expulsions – is that, although I have heard this story told and retold at least twenty times without the slightest change, and I'll continue to believe it if you bring ten thousand sources claiming the opposite, it has never appeared anywhere, and of course I have no information on the number of expellees, or a possibly different course of events in other cities. But for goodness' sake, stop claiming that "there was no single right different from that of other citizens", because that is not true even legally, at least not for the period where the part of the Beneš decrees mentioning ethnic Hungarians was in effect, and certainly not in a broader sense, if you take into account that a law is one thing, and authorities observing the law are another (what could you do in Slovakia 1970, if you were a Hungarian, and your local police didn't give a damn about your problem until you spoke in Slovak, or possibly even when you did? Go to ~~Strasbourg~~ Moscow and complain?) I'm not mentioning that the fair use of the Hungarian language would in my humble view mean that the Hungarian names of Hungarian women aren't forced to end in the Slovak "-ová", which is current practice – and I know Hungarians living in Slovakia who only receive their letters from Hungary if they are properly addressed, ie., with "-ová" at the end (like as if it were ambiguous without it). This is just a list of what comes first to my mind.

Of course, this is not really relevant to the Treaty of Trianon discussion, because it is about a later period, but it is relevant to your views expressed above, which I consider, to say the least, one-sided.

Meanwhile, I'm genuinely interested in what sources you have about Hungary's violations of the minority provisions – you can expect that it is not easy to find sources about this in Hungary, even if they did clearly take place, which I don't know, and I don't speak any Slovak (nor Romanian nor Serbian etc., for that matter). However, I feel inclined to point out that the reason for the disappearance of minorities from interwar Hungary may just as well be forged statistics (or a number of other possibilities) as forced assimilation – unless of course you have sources proving that such assimilation took place.

Kiss L 16:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Ouff, you must have a lot of time today (unlike me, I hope I will not leave out something important from your very long above text). The answer is very very simple: What you are describing was a short period of time 1945 - 1948 during which the Hungarians were deprived of their rights, but note that this officially ended in 1948. Also, this had its reasons - namely the occupation of Czechoslovak territory during WWII and the persecution and forced expulsion of 10 000's of Czechs and Slovaks from that territory (so actually, to put it very impolitely but correcly, the Hungarians can be even happy that they did not have the same fate like the Germans in Czechia after WWII). But this has absolutely nothing to do with the Treaty of Trianon. Secondly, any minority in the world (maybe except in states like Canada) is - unfortunately - treated as a second-class citizen by most people of the majority population (and I know what I am talking abou because it concerns me personally, too) - but that's another question, what we are interested in are the officially created conditions. Thirdly, I do not have any books her now, but if you understand German you can read the talk page of the Kosice article in the German article where I have mentioned some of the points in discussion with Adam78 long time ago. Basically, the difference between the treatment of minorities (all which by the way had also a neighbouring "mother country") in Czechoslovakia and Hungary was so flagrant , that I cannot understand how anyone can express one single doubt about it - not to mention the treatement of minorities (without mother lands!) in the Kingdom of Hungary before 1918 (number of Slovak schools 0 etc., use of the Slovak language - prohibited, persecuted etc., an important Hungarian noble said: "We will not rest until we exterminate them" (the Slovaka) etc. ). If you insist I can add exact fact later, when I am at the sources - but basically I try to have holidays the recent several days :)...And finally, look at the numbers: 400 000 Slovaks in 1919, 850 000 Germans in 1919 in Hungary- 17 000 Slovaks, a negligible number of Germans (even excluding the postwas developments) today: don't you see a problem expecially as compared to the number of Hungarian in Slovakia, Romania etc.?? And note that the number of people claiming to be Hungarians increased between 1961 and 1991 considerably in Czechoslovakia (while the number of Hungarians in Hungary decreased...). Or, take the fact that all minority schools were shut down in Hungary in the 1960s (what remained are school where Slovak is thought as a foreign language) - how can a minority survive under such circumstances. In Slovakia, on the other hand, there are some 900 purely Hungarian schools from the lowest to the highest level. And, even if the numbers in Hungary were statistical (which they are not, unfortunately), don't you see a problem in the fact that people feared to declare themselves to be Slovak (which Slovaks in Hungary have repeatedly confirmed)?(By the way we have similar family predecessors from the same Slovak town...) Juro 16:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC) 16:57, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Removed "moral consequences"

I removed the following section:

Moral consequences

The moral consequences are those that after centuries of slavery, the nations of former Austria-Hungary (often called a 'dungeon of nations') finally realised their right for self-determination, thought they achieved their independence or united with the other members of their nation. Among others, Hungarians also achieved their independence, for which they fought since 1526, when Ottomans conquered the Kingdom of Hungary.

I think "slavery" and "dungeon of nations" is totally improper here, not to mention the fact that the Ottomans had only conquered part of the Kingdom. What remains is redundant with respect to other parts of the article.

If we really need a "moral consequences" section, I think it should contain a strictly NPOV description of the general feelings of the different peoples in the former Kingdom about the Treaty.

Kiss L 15:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the best thing is to leave out the section altogether, otherwise we will face permanent edit wars...Juro 17:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it better now? I do not agree that entire section should be deleted. I changed its title into Political consequences, and I think that the section now cover both views. Any comments? User:PANONIAN

Much better IMO. I edited it to be more concise. About the independence of Hungarians, it is out of place here; the Austro-Hungarian Empire had dissolved and Hungary was proclaimed an independent republic in fall 1918. Kiss L 17:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Why the removal?

Panonian, why did you remove that external link? I think that while it certainly is biased (it mentions somewhat larger numbers of Hungarians abroad than there really are & marks somewhat larger areas as inhabited predominantly by Magyars than they really were), it is just as certainly not extreme: it is not denying the rights of other nationalities, it is not claiming that all of the previous KoH should belong to Hungary, and whenever it speaks about something in an emotive way, it also argues facts, sometimes with links. This, together with a clear indication of a Hungarian POV (Hungary's national colours around the article; the Hungarian Coat of Arms at the top; a @hungary.org contact email) makes it perfectly acceptable for an external link, in my opinion (while of course I wouldn't copy any of the contents into the article, but that's another matter). Kiss L 09:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that Wikipedia is a place to promote certain political ides (especially nationalistic ones). This Wikipedia article is a historical one, while the web site is mainly political, and it also twist historical facts. Even its title is biased: 'the Dismemberment of Hungary'. Here are some other quotes from it, which can show its biased nature:

in the aftermath of WWI, was extremely harsh on Hungary and unjustifiably one-sided
This was done to a nation whose borders were established over a thousand years earlier
It is important to note that for over a thousand years, Hungary never experienced ethnic civil war

I can post much more similar quotes, but I think these 3 are quite enough to illustrate the nature of the web site. It is political propaganda with purposelly twisted historical facts. Wikipedia is not place for such links. User:PANONIAN

O yes, I forgot to quote this one:

Hungary was a peaceful multi-ethnic state for those 1000 years and her borders were unchanged.

Please... User:PANONIAN

Well... read back, I started with "it certainly is biased", so don't try to convince me about the same because, as we say in Hungary, "you're banging on gates wide open" :)

What I said was essentially that its bias is still at a level acceptable for an external link. Let's evaluate the examples you have taken:

"in the aftermath of WWI, was extremely harsh on Hungary and unjustifiably one-sided" – this is an emotive expression, but if you take the raw fact "one-sided", it is somewhat arguable: there were a lot more Hungarians outside post-Trianon Hungary than non-Hungarians inside Hungary (both in terms of absolute numbers and in percentages), which shows that the declared goal of creating ethnically homogeneous states (to the extent possible) had not been equally reached.
"This was done to a nation whose borders were established over a thousand years earlier" – this is overlooking the fact that those borders were not established at the time of the Magyar conquest, but rather only some 150 years later; however the picture you get is much the same as with "almost a thousand years earlier", which is correct. Also, this is using "nation" in an ambiguous way, but the rest of the text makes it perfectly clear that Hungary had been a multi-ethnic kingdom, so this is not talking about Magyars but all the inhabitants of the Kingdom.
"It is important to note that for over a thousand years, Hungary never experienced ethnic civil war" – this is overlooking the fact that in 1848-49, the Romanians and the Croats joined the Habsburg cause on ethnic grounds, though the war did not break out due to an ethnic (but rather a political) tension. Again, you could correct this to "ethnic tensions had never ignited a civil war in Hungary for those almost one thousand years", and the picture would still be much the same.
"Hungary was a peaceful multi-ethnic state for those 1000 years and her borders were unchanged" – well, "her borders were unchanged" is plainly factually wrong (though the Hungarians always regarded the split in three parts as a temporary political and military situation), but again, if you add "almost 1000" and append "except for 150 years of Ottoman occupation in part of the country", is the picture so much different?

All in all, I'll emphasise again, it is biased, it is too emotive, and it is sometimes wrong, but its bias is (1) clearly indicated and (2) in good faith, certainly not "twisting" things. And, if we have such an external link, that's not promoting anything anyway. It is an external link showing a clearly identified Hungarian POV, and in my opinion, not an extreme or manipulative one.

Has anyone else an opinion on this?

Kiss L 09:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let analyse this step-by-step. First of all, this is historical article about one specific historical event. Why we anyway should to include here the external link, which speak about this event in the biased way? It is better to find some other external link, which speaks about this in neutral way. I do not think that this specific link is acceptable for Wikipedia. It is clearly a nationalistic web site, with many purposely-twisted historical facts. We should not to promote this kind of external links on Wikipedia. Now, since I know something about history of Hungary, let analyse these quotes above:

"in the aftermath of WWI, was extremely harsh on Hungary and unjustifiably one-sided"

Sorry, but if you compare demographic data, you can see that Hungarians were a minority in all territories which were not included into Hungary after the Treaty of Trianon. I do not see what would be injustice here.

"here were a lot more Hungarians outside post-Trianon Hungary than non-Hungarians inside Hungary (both in terms of absolute numbers and in percentages), which shows that the declared goal of creating ethnically homogeneous states (to the extent possible) had not been equally reached"

Well, as I said, these Hungarians outside of Hungary were a minority. Of course, the border of Hungary in that time could be drawn few kilometres in another direction to include some ethnic Hungarian areas, but the problem with this external link is that it speak about entire Kingdom of Hungary, not only about ethnic Hungarian areas. If you talk about entire Transilvania, entire Slovakia or entire Vojvodina then it was rightful thing to do to separate this areas from Hungary, but if you talk only about northern Vojvodina, southern Slovakia or eastern Transylvania, then the story could be different, I agree. However, this web site does not make this distinction when it speaks about this subject.

"This was done to a nation whose borders were established over a thousand years earlier"

Well, the borders of Hungary established in that time were different than those established in 1868. So, this claim that borders of pre-Trianon Hungary were established 1000 years ago is false (They were established in 1868).

"Also, this is using "nation" in an ambiguous way, but the rest of the text makes it perfectly clear that Hungary had been a multi-ethnic kingdom, so this is not talking about Magyars but all the inhabitants of the Kingdom"

Well, if all inhabitants of the Kingdom were part of one "nation", than what is injustice if parts of that nation do not want to live anymore together with other parts of the "nation"?

"Hungary was a peaceful multi-ethnic state for those 1000 years and her borders were unchanged" – well, "her borders were unchanged" is plainly factually wrong (though the Hungarians always regarded the split in three parts as a temporary political and military situation), but again, if you add "almost 1000" and append "except for 150 years of Ottoman occupation in part of the country", is the picture so much different?"

The historical facts are little different than you presented here. I know that nationalistic Hungarian historiography want to present that Hungary had continuity with the same borders for a 1000 years, but this is completely false. Ottomans in the Battle of Mohac destroyed Hungary in 1526, so its former territory was divided into 3 parts. Only one of these parts, so called Royal Hungary, could be called with the name of Hungary after this. Transylvania was not Hungary but semi-independent country under Ottoman sovereignty, while south-central parts of former Hungary were not "parts of Hungary occupied by Ottomans", but the legal parts of Ottoman Empire. When Austrians captured these lands from the Ottomans, they also did not treat these lands as Hungary, but they treated them as new-conquered lands. The theory about territorial continuity of Hungary in all these lands is false.

"All in all, I'll emphasise again, it is biased, it is too emotive, and it is sometimes wrong, but its bias is (1) clearly indicated and (2) in good faith"

Good faith? It is full of a speech of hate.

"It is an external link showing a clearly identified Hungarian POV, and in my opinion, not an extreme or manipulative one"

There was not a note that this link is a POV, and again, why would we need a POV link anyway? User:PANONIAN

I was going to answer all that, but as already stated, I'm not happy with the emotive sentences on this page, so I started looking for a better one, and found it here. So, never mind the one you removed; have you got anything against this one? I'd put it into the article like this:

A Case Study on Trianon – Essays on the Treaty of Trianon by Hungarian scholars

As to why we need POV links: I think that while the article should only contain accurate and NPOV information, the reader might be interested in the different available POVs in detail, so external links describing each POV are definitely useful. (Hate speech is, of course, not, though I didn't find the previous article "full of it".) Which also means that in my opinion, non-extreme Slovak, Romanian, Serbian, Croatian etc. external links are also welcome, and if you can find some, propose them.

Kiss L 15:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The fact is that in Serbian, Romanian, Slovak or Croatian historiography the Treaty of Trianon means nothing. I do not think that we will manage to find Serbian or Romanian or other web sites, which are dedicated to this subject. Only Hungarian historiography dedicates so much attention to Trianon. In Hungary, Trianon is a nationalistic myth (similar to Kosovo myth in Serbia). Like the Serbian historians who write about Kosovo, it is not easy to find objective Hungarian historians who write about Trianon. Most of the writings of the Hungarian historians about Trianon are as you said emotive, or as I would say nationalistic. Almost all Hungarian historians who write about the Trianon are to some extent biased and they have intention to prove that Treaty of Trianon was some kind of injustice. However, they do not always agree what exactly was this injustice of the Trianon. Some of them claim that injustice was the large number of Hungarians, which become minority in the neighbouring countries, while others claim that injustice was the dissolution of the country itself. As I already said, we can discuss about the first claim, based on the ethnic Hungarian areas, which are located in the neighbouring countries after the Trianon, but the second claim is one typical nationalistic POV. In fact, I listen that POV every day on TV in Serbia, though it is not about Trianon but about Kosovo. However, the principle is the same. Both myths, Kosovo and Trianon are nothing but a false imperialist propaganda. Kosovo is mainly inhabited by Albanians, Transylvania is mainly inhabited by Romanians, Vojvodina is mainly inhabited by Serbs, etc, etc. It is not quite democratic if somebody claims that land do not belong to people who are ethnic majority in it, but to people who are minority there, or even worse, if somebody claim that land is a historic property of some old dead empire. I do not think that history should be twisted to satisfy the nationalistic myths. User:PANONIAN

A 100% YES to the first part of your contribution. Most people in Slovakia have never heard of the treaty, and there is nothing about it on the internet. Since, as you confirm, this holds for all the other neighbouring countries, I really suggest we remove the link (if it is really POV- I have no time to check it)Juro 00:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with presenting information about notable opinions. My understanding is that, during the Cold War, Soviet control enforced a "solidarity" on the East bloc countries, so that divisive topics like the Treaty of Trianon were off limits; but that now, Hungarians are free to criticize the treaty and even call for the boundary lines to be redrawn, and some Hungarians are doing so. We can tell our readers that such things are being said about the treaty without implying that the critics are correct. The Wikipedia policy on neutrality states: "Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate." (from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#The basic concept of neutrality) In particular, to provide a full explanation of a particular POV, one might include a summary in the article, with a link to a site that presses that POV more fully. See Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked to: "On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link." Under this principle, even a link to an article filled with hate speech would be useful to the reader. Some readers would want to see more detailed examples of any "hate speech" that was only mentioned in passing in the Wikipedia article.

In the present article, it may be that there are no useful sites presenting the other POV. In that case, perhaps it would be accurate for the article to say something like this:

Some Hungarians have criticized the Treaty of Trianon as being "extremely harsh on Hungary", either because it removed from Hungary territories that they say were historically part of it, or because it shifted many ethnic Hungarians to countries in which they were the minority. [insert link to a website that is a good example of this school of thought] By contrast, in the neighboring countries to which territory was transferred under the treaty, it is regarded as a settled issue, so that there is little public discussion in defense of the treaty.

That would explain why the article has a link to only one side of the debate. That would be more informative to the reader than to pretend that the whole subject just doesn't exist.

I don't know much about the contemporary views of the treaty, though. The paragraph I've suggested above might not be accurate, but I hope it can serve as a basis for editing for those of you who are more knowledgeable. JamesMLane 12:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Your statement is incorrect. Just because the Hungarian "school" put its work on the net, that doesn't mean the issue is actually settled in Romania. There is still a Romanian minority in Hungary. The article talk a lot about "territories". --Vasile 18:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, James, that's what I was trying to explain. Panonian, Juro, what do you think? I'd like to have your feedback about this one before I put anything in the article. Kiss L 14:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It can't be related with the proposed statement. Anyway, what's your point? I don't understand what do you want to prove or assert with that study case. --Vasile 18:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Summary

Vasile, as shown by the discussion above, I'm not trying to prove or assert anything. The situation is just this: there once was a link to a biased (my POV) / extreme nationalist (Panonian's POV) site at the bottom of the article, which Panonian removed. I think that adding an external link to a site which contains information on how the Treaty is generally viewed in Hungary makes the article better, but I wasn't satisfied with that specific link either, so I came up with this one.

JamesMLane joined the discussion with a suggestion on how to keep the article NPOV even if there is essentially only one side that argues anything – previously, Juro (Slovakia) and Panonian (Serbia) had agreed in this. If you mean that there is significant debate going on in Romania about this Treaty, we can of course rephrase James's suggestion accordingly.

I'm still waiting for feedback about the above link.

Kiss L 15:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Could you extract any ideas from those study cases to be included in the present article?

The treaty refered in very generally manner to the minorities and human rights. The treaty left a Romanian minority in Hungary. This comunity was "discovered" by Romanian government only after 1989. The imperfections of the treaty affected in larger measure the Romanian minority in Hungary than it has done to the Hungarian minority in Romania. The restrictions appeared in 1980s in Romania was not due to the treaty. --Vasile 01:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

"This link" is OK with me, as far as the chapters are concerned I have looked at. I have checked only the articles on CS, had to laugh several times (partly, because the authors obviously did not have enough correct sources - no wonder in 1982 in the USA, and partly because the style is somewhat superficial), but they at least try to be NOP, so no objections on my part.Juro 23:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Trianon Building

If the treaty was not signed at the Grand Trianon building (as the article now states) shouldn't we remove/replace the picture of it? Is there one of the smaller building? Nicholas 19:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

It is hard to tell whether it was signed in the Grand or the Petit Trianon – there are multiple sources claiming both. However, in Versailles, they consistently say that the precise location of the signing is in the Grand Trianon, hall 16. I'll dig up the memoirs of one of the Hungarian delegates who was actually there, and try to figure out whether this can be considered correct. (I personally think that the Petit Trianon version is just a myth, which was unfortunately reinforced by a recent Hungarian film about the Treaty). So, let's leave the image alone for now. Kiss L 09:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Independence of Hungary

Not quite Nov 1: that is the time of the Alba Iulia proclamation, which had no impact on Hungary's independence

Actually, Alba Iulia was on December 1 (not November). Also, according to information I have, the government of Mihalj Karolji in Hungary was formed on October 31, while independence of Hungary was proclaimed on November 1. Is this correct or not? User:PANONIAN

I must have been very tired yesterday to write such a stupid thing. Alba Iulia was Dec 1 of course, you're right. The Károlyi government was formed on 31 October, that's right too. However, Hungary's independence was not proclaimed until 16 November (all my sources say that), when it became clear for Károlyi that it carried no risk from the Habsburg side. In the meantime, the government was "just there", acting without even a self-proclaimed mandate. This is not the only extraordinarily strange thing to have passed in Budapest in those times, though. Kiss L 11:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, then Hungary became at least de facto independent on November 1 (if not de jure), right? Of course, it is better to write the date of official independence proclamation (November 16) in the article, I agree. User:PANONIAN

Absolutely. This is why I tried to avoid talking about when "Hungary became independent" and said "Hungary proclaimed its independence" instead. Kiss L 14:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Partition of Hungary

The file Trianonhungary.png was edited with the name "Partition of Hungary 1919". There was no partition of Hungary and the map is not accurate. The map should be removed. --Vasile 18:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Petit not Grand Trianon?

Why, if as the article states, the treaty was not signed in the Grand Trianon is the picture still part of the article. It's not directly relevant and it results in increased traffic for no good reason? Gabe 20:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Doh! I missed the discussion above. I'll see if I can find more info. Gabe

Even though it's a slight technicality to the substance of this otherwise fantastic article, it looks very bad to have the article say one thing, and the picture's caption say a completely different thing. Where was the Treaty actually signed? Do we know for sure? Otherwise we should leave the whole thing out. If somebody does know, can they make the photo caption match the content of the article? Billy P 14:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Still no clues on the ACTUAL place of signing? Seems nobody has proved this. But it's very important we make it clear. Many English sites are citing information from English Wikipedia. --Gary Tse 05:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Separate article

Periodically, this article tends to be transformed in a propaganda article. The Magyar claims, if any, should have a separate article. --Vasile 01:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Magyar claims

Good idea, Vasile! Magyar claims have been posted! I will place a link to Trianons treaty so you may be happy about it...

By the way i recommend somebody to make romanian lies too.

Ginjeet

The result is very disappointing. --Vasile 23:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, no, I think neither of the two should exist... Ginjeet, I posted you a message on your Talk. I strongly advise you to read the following two pages: WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Copyrights, and be familiar with both of them before you do any substantial editing, especially on topics as "hot" as this one. Kiss L 08:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Could someone correct the last edits?? - i.e. intellectual "pearls" like "the main consequence of the treaty was the dissolution of Austria-Hungary" (??!) etc. Juro 20:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Anon trolling

I removed a paragraph from the top of this talkpage, which was added by an anon and (IMO) amounts to trolling, but anyway doesn't contribute to the discussion about the article. Anyone interested can click here. Kiss L 08:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Other consequences

Some questions about this section: it is stated that Hungary is to observe ethnic minority rights, what about the other nations are they required to observe the rights of Hungarians? Also, regarding the accusations made at Hungary. Are there any sources? Do all the other nations have impeccable records regarding the rights of Hungarians, or have they perhaps been accused as well of not observing the rights of Hungarians? Balazs 15:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Mr Juro again

"I repeat, your changes are wrong, the picture has been removed already, CS and YUG included large parts of Austria, HU was part of A.-H., ruled by Austr. emperor, elementary history course needed?)" Have you heard about the Dual Monarchy? K.u.K - kaiserlich und königlich. The emperor was a Hungarian king as well. This is the elementary history lesson for you today, kid.

The Emperor was king of many lands. See his full title: "Franz Joseph I, By the Grace of God, Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary and Bohemia, King [of Lombardy and Venice]1, of Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Lodomeria and Illyria; King of Jerusalem etc., Archduke of Austria; Grand Duke of Tuscany and Kraków, Duke of Lorraine, of Salzburg, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola and of the Bukovina; Grand Prince of Transylvania; Margrave of Moravia; Duke of Upper and Lower Silesia, of Modena, Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla, of Auschwitz (Oświęcim) and Zator, of Teschen (Cieszyn/Český Těšín), Friuli, Ragusa (Dubrovnik) and Zara (Zadar); Princely Count of Habsburg and Tyrol, of Kyburg, Gorizia and Gradisca; Prince of Trent (Trento) and Brixen (Bressanone); Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and in Istria; Count of Hohenems, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Sonnenberg, etc.; Lord of Trieste, of Cattaro (Kotor), and in the Wendish Mark; Grand Voivode of the Voivodina of Serbia etc. etc."

The title of the emperor have nothing to do with the political statuses of mentioned lands. PANONIAN (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The Emperor of Austria ruled Hungary as the King of Hungary. Of course he had other titles: he was a King of Bohemia because Bohemia was a part of Austria then, etc. But he ruled Hungary (Croatia, Trieste, etc) not as the emperor of Austria, but as the King of Hungary. Btw your citation is anacronistic (no Vojvodina in A-H) - most likely it is the title used in the 1849-1867 period). 195.56.7.205 16:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I was wrong, HunTomy does not need an elementary history course, he needs an elementary brain and language course: The sentence was, "the Kingdom of Hungary was part of Austria-Hungary", you deleted the second part, which - as any idiot from the jungle can see - is just correct and there is no way how one could argue against this. What does that imply? You are a primitive fascist who is not even able to accept the simple fact that Hungary could have been part of something. What follows above is an attempt to make the impression that you are arguing, while in fact you are mentioning thing completely out of place and do not even realise that, "primitive kid". 04:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

1. I am not HunTomy. 2. How dare you call anyone a "fascist" and "primitive"? Where were you brought up, even primitive shepherds have better manner than this. 3. Even rootless people with massive inferiority complexes and poor English can see, that you prefer agression to creative contribution to the discussion. 4. Conduct yourself, or I will take the necessary steps that are needed enforce rules set out by Wikipedia community. 195.56.93.165 11:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The text was adressed to HunTomy and his text ending with "kid". You really should talk to him, if you want to prevent such misunderstandings. But, as a secondary "product", you just have revealed another very primitive characteristics of Hungarian fasists: the "shepherds" (i.e. the non-Hungarian users here) "robbed" you "your" country, but they should fear the Hungarian companies that will now "conquer" them. If this was not was so endlessly primitive and ridiculous, I would be angry, but I am laughing. Who do you think you are? Many people from Britain to Russia consider Hungarians nomadic tribes from behind the Ural (yes, they do, that is the equivalent of your "shepherds" who by the way had civilized states Hundreds of years before the Hungarians even arrived in Europe), do you think I will descend to your level and use this to refer to you? I will not do you the favor and will not do that. And it is interesting that you consider me a Slovak...Juro 03:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The emperor took the title "great duke of Vojvodina of Serbia" in 1849. Vojvodina was abolished in 1860, but the emperor kept this title until the end of the empire in 1918. That also can show that his titles did not have political meaning. He was a king of Jerusalem, but Jerusalem was not part of empire. How can you explain this? PANONIAN (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

That's an interesting piece of info, thanx. 195.56.93.165 23:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

My point is: his titles were a "dead letter on the paper", a words with no meaning in the real life. He ruled Hungary because he had strong army to conquer it from the Ottomans, not because of one of his titles. PANONIAN (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you know what I'm talking about - in this case the title had consitutional relevance as well. Otherwise you are right. (BTW thank you for presenting your points in a good manner, and not talking about fascism like others here do.) 195.56.93.165 23:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course, the title (king of Hungary) had constitutional relevance after 1867, but not before this year. PANONIAN (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. NB - the remark of Mr Juro above referred to the post-1876 period. 195.56.93.165 11:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

User HunTomy

Since this user is persistent with vandalizing this page, I will elaborate here why his edits are vandalism:

1. He deleting the sentence that the Kingdom of Hungary was part of Austria-Hungary. This is clear nationalistic POV, and the intention is to create a false impresion that Kingdom of Hungary was independent state before 1918 (which anybody with basic historical knowledge will deny).

2. He changing the name of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes into Yugoslavia (This kingdom was renamed into Yugoslavia only in 1929, not in 1920).

3. He changing the map of Austria-Hungary with the map of Hungary. What is wrong here? Bosnia and Herzegovina was also part of Hungary (and part of Austria in the same time), so, the map of Austria-Hungary show entire territory of the Kingdom of Hungary (including Bosnia and Herzegovina), while the map of Hungary do not show this.

4. He changing local names like Timisoara and Vojvodina into Hungarian. This is not Hungarian, but English Wikipedia, thus these names should be written in the variety which is most usually used in the English language.

5. He changing the year in which the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary was reduced from 1918 to 1920. It is clear that this territory was reduced in 1918.

6. He deleting the statement that WW2 Germany was a Nazi Germany, which is a historical fact. He also deleting the sentence about German aggression against Yugoslavia, which is also a historical fact.

7. He changing ethnic map of Austria-Hungary with the ethnic map of "proper Hungary", which do not show the ethnic composition of Croatia-Slavonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, which also were part of the Kingdom of Hungary.

8. He changing the statement that Hungarians were 48% of the Kingdom of Hungary into the statement that they were 54%, which is a population figure for "proper Hungary", not for the Kingdom of Hungary.

9. He deleting the sentence that there were differemnt census results in 1910 census and in previous censuses of the Kingdom and subsequent censuses in the new states, which is a historical fact. He also deleting the statement that 1910 census did not recoreded the ethnicity, but language, which is also a historical fact.

10. He changing the population number and percent of ethnic Hungarians in the neighbouring countries (He basically deleting this, and replacing it with some strange population numbers, which do not show the percent or number of ethnic Hungarians at all).

PANONIAN (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I fully subscribe with this. He is a vandal for the above reasons.-- Bonaparte talk 13:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer to PANONIAN "User HunTomy"

1. "He deleting the sentence that the Kingdom of Hungary was part of Austria-Hungary. This is clear nationalistic POV, and the intention is to create a false impresion that Kingdom of Hungary was independent state before 1918 (which anybody with basic historical knowledge will deny)."

Yes Hungary was member of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but it was semi-independent with it. Austria and Hungary have common chief of state, ministry of war, foreign ministry and finance ministry. But it was independent in internal affairs.

It was not semi-independent (you shoul learn what this word means first). Self rule in internal affairs is "autonomy" not "independence". The word independence cannot be here, find another word if you do not like "autonomy". PANONIAN (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

2. "He changing the name of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes into Yugoslavia (This kingdom was renamed into Yugoslavia only in 1929, not in 1920)." I agree but it shows issue, and the name Yugoslavia is commonly used, and known.

If you agree, dont change the name. PANONIAN (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

3. "He changing the map of Austria-Hungary with the map of Hungary. What is wrong here? Bosnia and Herzegovina was also part of Hungary (and part of Austria in the same time), so, the map of Austria-Hungary show entire territory of the Kingdom of Hungary (including Bosnia and Herzegovina), while the map of Hungary do not show this."

Well in the original version it says "Division of Austria-Hungary due to the Treaty of Trianon". The Treaty of Trianon was signed on the (already totally) indepent Hungary, and the treaty partitied it, not the whole Empire. The Austrian half was partitied due the Treaty of Saint-Germain. And well, Bosnia-Herzegovina was not part of the Hungarian administration.

Your map of division of Hungary by the Treaty is historically wrong. Hungary did not lost these lands by the Treaty but in 1918. Trety only defined borders of Hungary, it not divided it. I will draw a new map of this, historically more correct. By the way, both maps should be included here: map of Austria-Hungary and map which I will draw. PANONIAN (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

4. "He changing local names like Timisoara and Vojvodina into Hungarian. This is not Hungarian, but English Wikipedia, thus these names should be written in the variety which is most usually used in the English language."

At the time of the Treaty the official names of these placename was Hungarian. The map also shows Hungarian names.

This is wrong. In the time of the treaty the official language in most of these areas was not Hungarian (these areas were not under Hungarian administration after 1918). PANONIAN (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

5. "He changing the year in which the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary was reduced from 1918 to 1920. It is clear that this territory was reduced in 1918."

In 1918 there was only occupation what is not official. And yes there were proclamations, but they aren't official too. Official border changing was only in 1920

Wrong. The Antanta forces had official statuses of occupying forces only until the mentioned areas united with the neighbouring countries. For example, Serbian troops had status of occupying force in Vojvodina only until November 25, 1918. After this date, that status officially was no longer in use. In 1920 there was no any border changes, but borders were only defined, NOT changed, since Hungary before 1920 was not recognized state. Thus these areas were not officialy or legally part of Hungary after 1918. PANONIAN (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed. In your view, Pécs was a Serbian city in 1918-1920? 195.56.93.165 23:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not "my logic", but historical fact. It was Yugoslav (not Serbian) city 1918-1921, then it became a capital of Baranya-Baja Republic and only then became part of Hungary. PANONIAN (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

6. "He deleting the statement that WW2 Germany was a Nazi Germany, which is a historical fact. He also deleting the sentence about German aggression against Yugoslavia, which is also a historical fact." Yes it's true, but must we always mention the current governance of the country? And well i don't want to generate sentiments which are bantering to nazism. And well this is the history of the Treaty of Trianon, we don't have to write everything about the World War II. Hungary conquered Bácska alone.

You can use word Germany instead of Nazi Germany, but the word conquest cannot be used instead of aggresion (We do not speak about Middle Ages here, in which one country conquered another). It was German aggresion against Yugoslavia, and it should be written. PANONIAN (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

7. "He changing ethnic map of Austria-Hungary with the ethnic map of "proper Hungary", which do not show the ethnic composition of Croatia-Slavonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, which also were part of the Kingdom of Hungary."

I write again, Bosnia-Herzegovina was not part of the Kingdom of Hungary, that was an imperial so common administration territory. Until the Treaty of Trianon was signed Hungary acknowledged the secession of Croatia-Slavonia. And this map was the official map of the Hungarian Delegation on the Versailles Peace Conference in 1919-1920, so i think a contemporary map is useful.

This map is puposelly drawn in the manner to show that area inhabited by non-Hungarian peoples was smaller, but in the case of Hungarians, this empty space between the inhabited areas was not drawn. Map is simply incorrect. Find another one, not drawn for the propaganda purposes. PANONIAN (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure? Hungarians used to live (and still live) mostly on plains (no uninhabited territories, even on the puszta). In Transylvania and presentday Slovakia, mountains are uninhabited. If you take a NPOV, you have to admit, that Teleki's map reflects the reality. 195.56.93.165 23:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

That is, of course, again wrong and absolutely ridiculous. Not only is the map drawn puprosely in a biased way (after all it was drawn for the Trianon negotiations) and Mr. Teleki (send to the conference) a completely biased person in this context, but the whole data that the map is based on are wrong, because the methodology and circumstances of the 1910 census were "wrong". And, of course, it is not true that the mountains (except for the highest peaks) were or are "uninhabited", that's a typical "medieval" argument. I only wait when the argument comes that this was a completely depopulated area specially selected by God for the Hungarians to settle in it, LOL... Juro 04:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, you do not have to wait, that argument was presented in the 19th century. Some Austro-Hungarian historians from this century claimed that Vojvodina was depopulated when Austrian forces conquered it. However, it was not depopulated, but only sparsely populated, and Ottoman sources show that it was mainly populated with Serbs, which is the fact that these Austro-Hungarian historians just did not want to mention. PANONIAN (talk) 13:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

8. "He changing the statement that Hungarians were 48% of the Kingdom of Hungary into the statement that they were 54%, which is a population figure for "proper Hungary", not for the Kingdom of Hungary."

Yes because proper Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia had own government, and there were separated census.

But then you should write that it is a population of "proper Hungary", not the population of the Kingdom of Hungary. And you are wrong about government. Croatia-Slavonia did not had separate, but autonomous government (The representatives of the Croatia-Slavonia were also in the Hungarian parliament). Kingdom of Hungary included Croatia-Slavonia and population of that Hungary was 48% Hungarian. If you want to use nimber of 54% t5hen you should write that it is a population figure for "proper Hungary" excluding Croatia-Slavonia, but I see no reason why both population figures cannnot stand here. PANONIAN (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

9. He deleting the sentence that there were differemnt census results in 1910 census and in previous censuses of the Kingdom and subsequent censuses in the new states, which is a historical fact. He also deleting the statement that 1910 census did not recoreded the ethnicity, but language, which is also a historical fact.

You are right. But if you want to mention the census datas of the eighteenth century, you should do it with a fithteenth census datas (it showed that the ethnic Hungarians was 80% of the Kingdom [which was slightly bigger than it was in 1914])

In the fithteenth century the definion of one "Hungarian" was quite different. Many of those Hungarians in the fithteenth century were actually Slavs and Vlachs who considered themselves Hungarians because it was the name of the country where they lived. The modern national consciousness in the Central Europe can be traced back to the 18th century. And I do not see why we should go back to the 15th century to explain the census numbers in 1910. Mention of other censuses was with the purpose to show that 1910 census data is partially disputed (I do not see what the 15th century event have to do with this). PANONIAN (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

10. "He changing the population number and percent of ethnic Hungarians in the neighbouring countries (He basically deleting this, and replacing it with some strange population numbers, which do not show the percent or number of ethnic Hungarians at all)."

I use another approach. You mention that who were not Hungarin, I mention who were not Slovakian, Serbo-Croatian etc. For example for the German-Saxons in Transylvania Romania is not a home not nation. And that's fact the population of the territory which was annexed by Czeczoslovakia was not Slovakian majority. These numbers are all baes on the census data of 1910.

I do not see problem to include these numbers, but I see problem with deleting other numbers. PANONIAN (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

POV template

Neither party seems to do anything to NPOV the article, they just repeat themselves. A POV template at least indicate this to the neutral reader. 195.56.93.165 11:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong, there is no single sentence that could be considered POV in this version of the article. The fact that you personally have problems with simple facts or would like to add more irrendestist pictures is irrelevant. The article is s a result of many edits of both Hungarian and non-Hungarian editors and nobody has had problems with it. Juro 15:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The POV tag was used for an other version, with Hungarian POV (!) - you rvd it to a version amended by me, and removed the tag. So what's your problem? I - as someone called "fascist" by you - would be very happy to see your tagging articles with a Slovak POV. 195.56.93.165 16:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I was talking to HunTomy. I cannot check the origin of all the edits that happened here during one day. Juro 16:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Copy from Talk:

I am adding a copy from the talk page of User:HunTomy alias IP: 81...., so that anybody can see with what kind of persons we are dealing here with. I have emphasized one sentence:

Tarts ki. Kisebbségben vagyunk itt a wikipédián, műxik nagyban a kisantant - nekik fontosabb, hogy az ostobaságaikat írkálják, mert nem biztosak magukban, talán ezért vagyunk hátrányban. 195.56.93.165 00:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Very "inconspicous". Do you really think that nobody understands Hungarian here?? Next time when you discuss how to destroy and vandlize the "Little Entente", be so polite, and do it in English! There are spaces called "outside Hungary" on the planet Earth, you know. You still fail to realise that the problem with the edits in question are factual errors and leaving out other POV and not the "Little Entente". Juro 04:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem with those articles is that they are written by POV-pusher nerds like you lacking elementary history knowledge and willingness for creating a NPOV article. It's quite amusing though: after 85 years after robbing those territories you are still into these debates. I would rather keep an eye on OTP or MOL instead :PP

"Robbed" and "we"??? Now, what you have written now shows that you are are a clear revisionist chauvinist fascist. I have known this for weeks now, the above text only confirms it to the others. Juro 15:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Please present arguments for calling an other editor "clear revisionist chauvinist fascist", and the explanation how can it comply with Wikipedia rules. Which of the above sentences imply revisionism? And if one implied (which is not the case), how dare you to qualify all the other users "fascists" who does not share your POV? If you cannot present arguments, drop a mea culpa. 195.56.93.165 16:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

If you do not see a problem with the Hungarian text above and the bolded sentence and consider them "normal", then I really do not know what to say anymore. I know this way of thinking is considered normal in Hungary in some other eastern countries, but in other countries, like UK, Germany or Austria, you would have big problems. And this is the international wikipedia. Juro 16:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you understand second time: please present arguments for calling an other editor "clear revisionist chauvinist fascist", and the explanation how can it comply with Wikipedia rules. Which of the above sentences imply revisionism? And if one implied (which is not the case), how dare you to qualify all the other users "fascists" who does not share your POV? I want an answer to these two questions, not blah-blah. 195.56.93.165 23:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you do not understand for a 100th time. Sentences like above like chauvinist revisionist fascist statements. For other reasons, see your edits during the last weeks. The fact that you do not understand this connection even after several users have tried to explain this to you, is another proof that this is a very serious case. You can be happy that this wikipedia does not work properly. In other wikipedias you would have banned 100 times. Juro 23:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Juro at work: 1. frequent use of the word "fascist"; 2. pure aggression instead of reasoning; 3. referring to a hypothetical mainstream view (his own) ("several users", "we three agains one fascist"). I will not ask the same question the third time, but indeed, this wiki doesn't work properly: if it did, you would not be in a position to illustrate most chapters of a Psychiatry Handbook so elaborately and for such a long time. 195.56.93.165 00:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I am waiting for an exuse for your above chauvinst fascist statements. Such opinions are unacceptable. I see you have to be treated like a 3-years old child, that is: primitive insulting sentences, otherwise you do not understand. Nobody here has "robbed" you anything, Hungarian companies abroad will not create a new Great Hungary for you and no mentally normal person thinks this way. You are not even able to log in, so what decency are you talking about? And can you explain to me how I am supposed to distinguish you from the other Hungarian vandals here, if nobody of you is able to log in. Juro 03:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"It's quite amusing though: after 85 years after robbing those territories you are still into these debates."

Yes, this is clear revisionist point of view. It is based on a false theory that "neighbouring countries robbed a land from Hungary", despite the fact that Hungary was not sovereign or recognized independent state before the Trianon borders of Hungary were defined, and despite the fact that these lands were mainly inhabited by non-Hungarian population, who did not want to live within Hungary. The reason why "we" are still into these debates is because these debates still exist after 85 years. The people who starting these debates are Greater Hungarian revisionists who still dream to create Greater Hungary. Starting of these debates pretty much concern the people in countries such are Romania, Slovakia, Serbia, etc. Those Hungarian irredentists who still dream Greater Hungary twisting historical facts with the political purpose. This cause a great damage not only to good relations between Hungarians and neighbouring peoples, but also a damage to an valuable and objective presentation of the Hungarian history. PANONIAN (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Trianon was unjust, Trianon was a robbery - everybody knows this, even Lenin called the treaty "imperialist". It ruined local communities, created tiny states, that could not resist to Nazi takeover. (And don't come with "Nazi" Horthy, let's have a look at Hlinka or Tiso or Antonescu first.) Telling you that you robbed these territories is telling the truth. Furthermore, it does not imply revisionism, since no one in Hungary want these territories to be a part of Hungary again: this is about history, about the past. No one is dreaming about "Greater Hungary". (Well, if you think that anyone is still dreaming about so called "Greater" Hungary, maybe it's only your bad conscience - even you know this treaty was absurd.) We are just fed up with the lies circulating here. 195.56.93.165 22:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Now you have "explained" this to us, "we see now", really?... This is how world wars started, by the way. Juro 23:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"Telling you that you robbed these territories is telling the truth."

Telling me this is a big lie and big insult for me and my ancestors. My ancestors live here for centuries. They lived under Ottoman rule, under Austrian rule, and under Austro-Hungarian rule. After WW1 they finally lived in their own state. Treaty of Trianon gave them liberty and recognized their right to live as a free people. They were ethnic majority in the land where they lived, so the only rightful thing was to let them live free on their land. Is somebody who live in his land for centuries a thief? I do not think so... PANONIAN (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Which land are you referring to? Which city? Subotica? Oradea? Kosice? Bratislava? Cluj? Satu Mare? Targu Mures? Please, stop it. 195.56.93.165 01:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop it? Stop what? The question is which land are YOU referring to? Since you said that I robbed something, I can only assume that you talk about city where I live (and Serbs are ethnic majority in that city from its foundation). So, you specify first about what land and what city you talk, and then we can argue was that city or land robbed or not. PANONIAN (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a copy from HunTomy's talk page: Na Juro, fiam ha úgyis érted amit írok akkor mondom. Nem tartom magam sem irredentának sem fasisztának sem semmiféle politikai párt aktivistájának attól függetlenól amit gondolsz. Szarok a politikára, úgyis csak egyes balfasz körök játékszere az egész. Amit leírtam minden szó igaz, legfeljebb annyi bajotok lehetek vele hogy nem a számotokra előnyös nézőpontot alkalmazom... A térképek amiket használtok szarok, mit kell belekeverni az Osztrák-Magyar monarchiát Trianonba, szarkeverés melynek célja a közvélemény számunkra hátrányos befolyásolása. Nem szeretem a szarkeverést, eléggé egyenes módon igyekszem bemutatni a valóságot. Teljes mértékben, tiszta érzelmi befolyásoltságtól mentesen ki merem jelenteni, hogy egy hazugságot se írtam le itt a Wikin. Ha akarsz vitatkozz velem mint történész a történésszel, ne mint győztés a vesztessel. Tudod talán a Pax Hungarica eszme és a Szent-Korona tan anakronisztikusnak érzed ebben a liberális agymosottságtól terhelt világban. De nem látom értelmét, hogy egymás torkának essünk, főleg nem tudom megérteni, hogy te miért élteted azt, hogy minket szétszakítottak, külön országba raktak. Az írásaid alapján úgy nézem szlovák (tót) vagy, azaz hungarus vagy. Ne feless őseink együtt harcoltak tatárok, törökök vagy éppen a Habsburgok ellen, hej ha ősapáid látnák mit művelsz. Történelmünk, kultúránk és nem utolsó sorban sorsunk összeköt, ha nyelvünk származásunk nem is, attól függetlenül mit tanítottak neked az iskolában. (addition by Juro: HunTomy (?))

Answer: I have hoped these long discussions could be avoided, but I see that it is not the case. I am sure I will forget to mention many points, but let me start with general personal criticism: 1. I really do not understand how, in the 21st century, a person can argue in such a "medieval" way like you above (preserving the heritage of the "ancestors", "brain washed liberalism" in the world, "shit"map, "shit"mixing etc.). I will do you a favor and will not translate the text into English. 2. You really try everything: being "bad", being "good" etc. just to get "your version", don't you? 3. Emotions, creation of hidden alliances, attempts to make numbers "look" in a certain way for what reason ever etc. just do not work with me, and although you are seemingly claiming something else, you are constantly trying to apply this approach. Do not take it personally, but I consider any such attempts a kind of personal insult. I am interested in history because of the facts and not because I want to create/separate etc. "links" to anybody neither in the present/nor in the futur/ neither in Hungary, nor in Slovakia, nor anywhere else. This is the usual approach in western Europe and with many well known historians, I know this is hard to understand for many Hungarian historians, but try at least. 4. Why don't you write in English ??? Is this supposed to be an attempt to offend the other users or what? 5. Why do not you log in. I do not even know whether I am communicating with one person, two persons, three persons etc. Logging in is a matter of basic decency in the wikipedia. 6. Your personal problem is – based on what you have editted in this wikipedia -that you are absolutely unable to accept that there could be other opinions then yours, which is a frequent human characteristics, but the problem is that you just cannot use this "either my text- or nothing" approach in THIS ENCYCLOPEDIA and especially not with such controversial texts. You also exhibit a serious lack of knowledge of the historiography of other countries, especially of the countries of the neigbouring countries, but I am not surprised after what you have written above about the "forefathers" etc. 7. Above all: Do you realize that your edit wars have costed all of us hours of waste of time only to end in a discussion (which Pannonian had attempted to start as well), anyway. Is it really so difficult to discuss first? 5. Constantly repeating and declaring that you are posting here the "truth" just does not change the fact that your edits are wrong and that you are deleting other opinions. If you try to write the "truth", but do not realize that you do not do that, then it's all the more bad for you. In addition, have you ever heard of the "concept" that there are several truths ( a concept that very well applies to this case) ?? Are you able to understand this ??

Now, the issue at hand: Im sorry that I have to say that but I disagree virtually with every single sentence you write above, because you are obviously unable to think rationally. So please try to CONCENTRATE, because the following will not have much to do with history, but with rational thinking:

ad fascism: The term is not exclusively linked to political parties, therefore what you say above is interesting, but out of place. But we can ignore this point, because it will not bring us further. To a cetain it is a question of definition, anyway. I repeat in this context: leaving out the correct words "Nazi" and "Fascist" before Germany and adding the picture you were trying to add is fascism and the former is , in addition, deliberate omission of facts.
ad numbers: As I already mentioned to you in the summary, by your stupid other edits, you force other users to remove the numbers as well, although I am sure all the numbes could be placed in the article with the corresponding commentaries, if you START TO DISCUSS ON THEM and do not use your "my text or nothing approach". That does not mean however that the numbers of the other side will be removed at the same time !
ad Austria-Hungary: First, maybe this is a new concept for you, but the fact that you personally do not "like" something, is irrelevant for this and any other encyclopedia. So much for your above "argument". Now the proper issue: Level 1: The text says Kingdom of Hungary (before 1918) "was part of" Austria-Hungary. This is (1) a correct sentence (it does not say was "very" part, it does not say was "not very much" part, it just says "was part of"), (2) a useful information for readers not knowing the historical circumstances, (3) is necessary to mention because large parts of the states Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were in Greater Austria before 1918, so this map shows where those northern and southern parts and Burgeland etc. ended and what they were parts of prior to 1918/1920. Nothing more. I do not understand what "public opinion about the numbers" you are talking about above: Neither the text nor the Map shows numbers and what has the map to do with public opinion??. In sum, there is absolutely no reason to remove this statement. Level 2: We now have 3 (in words: three) maps, two of which show only Hungary with a the results of a manipulated census, so what the hell are complaining about???
ad "lie": Well, leaving out "Nazi" and "part of Austria-Hungary" are deliberate lies. Also, the word "Highland" just does not exist, that's a mistranslation from Hungarian, the correct name is "Upper Hungary" (literally Upper Land, but that term does not exist in English). The word was used INOFFICIALLY in this sense only from the 19th century (it had another meaning before that time) and referred INOFFICIALLY to the territory to the north of the Tisza and Danube including Ruthenia – another lie /wrong information. The term Slovakia, for example, was the official term in 1938, used by everybody outside Hungary, and refers to (at that time) a well-defined territory and was used historically all over Europe since the 15th century. Analogously for the other territories. Moreover, as you have been informed already, we have naming rules here, so you cannot replace Timisoara with the Hungarian name without at least mentioning the Romanian name etc. But as above, these things require that you leave Hungary both physically and mentally.
ad "liberális agymosottságtól terhelt világban" (world burdened by liberal brain washing): I disagree, this world has exactly and increasingly the opposite problem, especially in countries like Hungary
ad " élteted azt, hogy minket szétszakítottak...": I repeat, this way of thinking has a value of 0 for me and for many other people. The terms "nation", "put together/separate" have no meaning for me in this context and I have done and am doing nothing in this context. What you are saying would be nice for a heroic epic, but not as an argument for the 21th century. I really do not know how to put this more clearly.
ad Saying "Slovak that is also "Hungarus" in the 21st century is just wrong both for Slovaks and for other nations in this area and actually, this is an offence, and I think you know that.
ad "what the forefathers would think about you (i.e. Juro)": Again, this is an absolute ridiculous way of argumentation, my edits here and elsewhere are not motivated by what my "forefather" would think. Also, who (e.g. ethnically) your forefather is depends on how much you go back in time. Again, don't you see a problem with this way of argumentation??
ad last sentence: The fact that the history of Slovaks and Magyars is connected over a certain period of time does not authorize me or anybode else to accept wrong and deliberately biased contributions. Also, the problem is not with their schools, but with the schools of Hungary. You also seem to have problems with the definition of chauvinism. And do not want me to explain to other users what kind of programs are broadcasted on Hungarian TV in this context. They would not believe me Juro 03:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected

The article is now protected. Please engage in a constructive dialog to describe the controversy around this subject in a manner that is consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. When you have arrived to consensus on how to proceed, make a request to unprotect at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I already tried to start a constructive dialogue, but it does not work, as you can see here:

Instead to continue the discussion with me, this user just stopped to discuss and started to revert page with no discussion or explanation for his changes, despite the fact that I proved that his edits are wrong. Protecting the page with his version will only encourage him to continue with this behaviour. PANONIAN (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, this is not a good version! this must be reverted back since it was made by the anon vandal. -- Bonaparte talk 19:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Solution?

Let try this: we will discuss this issue step by step. If other side refuse to discuss this here, it is clear that the page should be protected with other version (which was agreed among several users), until the respective person change its behaviour. PANONIAN (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I support your suggestion. Let's do it! -- Bonaparte talk 19:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Problem 1: Austria-Hungary

The other side deleted the sentence that the Kingdom of Hungary was part of Austria-Hungary. This sentence is important to describe the political status of the Kingdom of Hungary, and it is 100% correct. I like that other side here explain his reasons for deleting this sentence. When we solve this, we will move to problem 2. PANONIAN (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this version is that you want to imply that Hungary was an integral part of the Austrian empire before Trianon - in reality, it had a special consitutional relationship to Austria, hence Austria-Hungary was a "dualist" state. You can easily find sources even on the internet, that describes this system: see eg. this, where you'll read: "The Compromise Ausgleich of 1867 divided the Habsburg Empire into two separate states with equal rights under a common ruler, hence the term "Dual Monarchy." Your text aims at emhasizing that Hungary was a "successor state", as well as Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, etc. It is a Slovak, Serbian, etc POV - Hungarians regard Trianon as a partition of the Hungarian state (so it is a POV as well). Both POV should be described in the article. Vay 19:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC) (not HunTomy, but I'd like to see a NPOV article here)

Austrian Empire was transformed into Austria-Hungary in 1867. The sentence do not say that the Kingdom of Hungary was part of the Austrian Empire but part of Austria-Hungary. Hungary was a state, but not independent or sovereing one. Austria-Hungary was a sovereign state, and the Kingdom of Hungary was part of it. Even you said above that "Austria-Hungary was a "dualist" state". So, I will ask you again: why you deleted statement that the Kingdom of Hungary was part of Austria-Hungary, since you just confirmed that this is correct? PANONIAN (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Second: would you agree with the sentence that "the Kingdom of Hungary was part of DUALIST Austria-Hungary"? PANONIAN (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I have not deleted anything (BTW the version accepted by your side with Teleki's map is mine). If you are for a consensus, then you have to admit that this sentence - without mentioning the special relationship - involves a certain POV. I, for myself would accept your proposed text (with a link to a description of dualism.) Vay 20:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Just answer these simple questions: 1. Was Hungary "part of" Austria-Hungary or not? (and please concentrate on the wording of the sentence) 2. Which exact part of the article or sentence says that this statement ("being part of Hungary") or the internal relations within Austria-Hungary have something to do directly with the treaty or that the treaty was signed by Austria-Hungary or similar things? 3. Since when it is prohibited to inform the reader that one state is part of another state? 4. Do you really think that it is necessary to repeat the whole Austria-Hungary article (note that we have linked it in the article) in any other article mentioning it just because someone has a complex concerning the history of his own country even in such indeed ridiculous contexts? 5. Are you proposing a complete rewording of the Austria-Hungary article, so that it says that Austria-Hungary did not exist or that it existed, but Hungary was not part of it?Juro 20:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

First please drop me a mea culpa for calling me "fascist" above, then I'll discuss with you. Vay 20:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I really think you are just kidding us (trolling). Each time you see some arguments you come with a irrational reaction and revert (which now is not possible anymore). I can drop you a "mea culpa", but I still consider you a fascist, so I do not know whether you accept inhonest "mea culpas".Juro 23:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think no comment is necessary. If you would really be interested in a NPOV article, you wpuld avoid ad hominem attacks - I think you know as much as I that 1. I am not HunTomy 2. I haven't reverted 3. I have tried to NPOVize the article (see comments to Teleki's map.) Below I try to set out briefly, what's the problem with this article, and then I'll leave - I have neither the time nor the interest to discuss with kids. Vay 00:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, we do not know, who you are, because as a typical vandal you have not logged in until recently (an explanation: you have not clicked on "log in", written a name and did not stick to that name, so that we could identify you repeatedly) and if you are not HunTomy, you have reverted your own edits (unless HunTomy has also a 195... IP). And you did not attempt to talk to HunTomy to prompt him to stop his edits (so do not play the "good" one), instead, you actually thanked him for his edits on his talk page (unless you are some third Hungarian vandal). And of course, it is you who is the "kid" here, if not, all the more bad for you considering your statements. ...And I am afraid that if HunTomy does not participate in this discussion, all changes will be reverted anyway. Juro 03:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The proper place for external links is a separate "external links" section on the end of the article. What is wrong with link to the article about Austria-Hungary? PANONIAN (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me ask you: why is it relevant to state that Hungary was part of Austria-Hungary? According to Hungarian POV, Hungary was a sovereign (!) state even within the Monarchy: just two links: 1, 2.

Hungary was not a sovereign state: it had no own army, no own foreign policy, no own king, no own finance policy, no own currency and further common authorities with Austria. These are exactly the attributes characterizing a non-sovereign "state". This is as evident as the fact that 1+1=2. But these are really elementary school facts, I could imagine having to explain this to someone in a pub, but not here. Austria-Hungary was a normal federation or confederation, if you want. But above all, as I have mentioned several times, that's not the point here, the point here is only whether you are able to realise that the statement Hungary "was part of" Austria-Hungary is correct, that's all.Juro 03:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hungary was a sovereign state: see eg an article in the prestigious monthly História about the coat of arms of the Monarchy: "Az Osztrák-Magyar Monarchia közös címerének megalkotása körüli viták csaknem ötven évig tartottak, melynek hátterében az a dilemma állt, hogy a birodalom két fő országa jogilag szuverén állam volt, így nem lehetett egységes címerük."

("The discussions around creating a common coat of arms for the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy had lasted for almost 50 years - the problem was that the two main countries of the Imperium were de jure sovereign states, so they couldn't have a common coat of arms." 1. And it is the point, because you want to push your POV here, that Hungary was a nonexistent country before, and the map published by HunTomy is incorrect (and "revisionist", wow). Try to cite sources instead of quoting such complex axiomes as 1+1=2. Vay 18:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Then the author of the article has a very weird understanding of the word "sovereign state" and what you cite is a declaration, not an argument per se. Maybe we can conclude that there is a difference between what Hungarians consider "sovereign" and what others consider sovereign and maybe also between sovereign de-facto and de-iure. Austria-Hungary is treated as a federation (state) consisting of two states, at least in Slovak and (at least) some German history and politology books, unless it is characterized more precisely by a list of characteristics without labeling. But, can you deny that the characteristics I have mentioned above are right, and can you cite a country that is a sovereign state, but fulfills the above characteristics (especially not having an own army)? And do not forget that it was Austria-Hungary that declared war in WWI, not Hungary and not Austria and that's quite important for this particular topic. Finally, you are looking for emotions nad POV where they are none. It is not us who added the Austria-Hungary comments in the article and it was again me who restricted them some weeks ago. Nevertheless, the point here is, that if Austria-Hungary existed (which you cannot deny) then Hungary was part of it, how ever you label/characterize Austria-Hungary (and the characteristics of Austria-Hungary is in the respective article, so let others assess what the state was).Juro 18:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, see the example of Serbia: the constitution of Serbia claim that Serbia is sovereign state, but everybody know that only Serbia-Montenegro is a sovereign state, not Serbia. Officially, this is called "a false sovereignty" (claimed, but not recognized). Same apply to the Kingdom of Hungary within Austria-Hungary. PANONIAN (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"Let me ask you: why is it relevant to state that Hungary was part of Austria-Hungary? According to Hungarian POV, Hungary was a sovereign (!) state even within the Monarchy"

Exactly because of this. We should to writte CORRECT article, not POV one. And here is why it is relevant to state that Hungary was part of Austria-Hungary: The Hungary, which signed a Trianon Treaty was in the Peace conference treated as a representative of former Austria-Hungary. Just say do you agree with my proposed sentence or not to move to another question? PANONIAN (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"Kingdom of Hungary (part of the dualist Austria-Hungary)" is OK for me. Now it's time to work, good night gentlemen. Vay 21:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

But I have an even better version. May I propose this: "The Treaty of Trianon was an agreement that defined the borders of [Hungary] after World War I." Bye for now 195.56.21.218 21:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That was me Vay 21:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you realise that it took you 2 weeks to stop vandalising, "stealing" our time, and to discuss one simple fact that actually has nothing to do with "pro-" or "anti-"Hungarian ?? Do you realise that? Juro 23:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear PANONIAN! Thank you for your sincere attempts to make this article NPOV - I hope you will succeed someday. There's a core problem though: the POV of Serbs, Slovaks and Romanians is fundamentally different from Hungarians when talking about Trianon, or about the continuity of the Hungarian state. I remember, I was shocked when I got to know that in Slovak there are two words for Uhorsko and Madarsko (sorry if I misspell), and I guess, you have different words for these in Serb as well, etc. Now according to Hungarian POV - and BTW, according to constitutional law - the "Kingdom of Hungary" before WWI is the same state as the "Kingdom of Hungary" afterwards, under Horthy. So even the existence of the separate article "KOH" implies your POV. Trianon was a partition of Hungary - which, as I showed (with citations) was a sovereign state before the war, with borders. No other borders were determined before Trianon: demarcation lines, promises - these are legally not relevant: borders were defined by the treaty (+ an other treaty afterwards concerning Sopron.) That's why HunTomy's map reflects the Hungarian POV. And if you have a look at the definiton of NPOV, you'll read:

"We can, therefore, adopt the looser sense of "human knowledge" according to which a wide variety of conflicting theories constitute what we call "knowledge." We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them, with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all"

It is a question we shall never view form the same POV. According to you, Madarsko is a successor state of the former Uhorsko (thus there are two articles about Hungary and the Kingdom of Hungary). According to national consensus in Hungary ("tiny minority view"??), there's a continuity. Since you are from 3 states, and since the low number of Hungarian participants (and since pushing this Trianon-issue aggressively is a feature of far right, and believe me, I'm not one of them), you can draft, write and rewrite this article as you want, according to your POV. Just do not think, that it is NPOV. Peace, farewell. Vay 00:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you please (1) concentrate, if at all, on the matter at hand, namely the Austria-Hungary question [what you are discussing above is a completely different topic], and (2) stop playing a philosopher in things you have absolutely no idea of. Like always, you just do not knoe basic facts and consequently even if you write 1000000 words, you write non-sense because your "inputs" (basic assumptions) are wrong: The fact that the smaller country is called Maďarsko (literally Magyarország, i.e. the name actually desired by Hungary) is a purely linguistic question and has absolutely nothing to do with continuity or anything else. Of course, Maďarsko is considered to be the "rest" and the continuation of "Hungaria" (because that's the correct translation for Uhorsko; they have no corresponding word in English therefore it is usually translated as "Kingdom of Hungary" which however is "Uhorské kráľovstvo" in Slovak) there is absolutely no dispute about this. The point is, however, that countries of the world consider(ed) Czechoslovakia, Romania, Yugoslovia etc. ALSO successors of the Kingdom of Hungary and of Austria-Hungary (because it was the "non-existing" Austria-Hungary who was a war party, not the Kingdom of Hungary), and as a consequence they all had to pay the war costs etc. Finally, you are wrong again: We do not treat the Kingdom of Hungary and Hungary separately, because the history of the Kingdom of Hungary is under Hungary and it is me who is constantly insisting that this remained so. The text Kingdom of Hungary is restricted to the legal and territorial description of the "kingdom" part of the name. So, although the territory, the ethnic composition, political structure, level of independence of the Kingdom was completely different from that of modern Hungary, although the kingdom ceased to exist in 1918 (followed by a Hugarian republic and later by the "Hungarian kingdom", which, in fact, had no king and was no kingdom and was not referred to as such abroad), and consequently it can be perfectly considered a historic entity deserving a separate article just like any other article on historical states, we do not treat its history under its own title and treat it under Hungary. So what the hell are you talking about again ??? Juro 03:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not see problem to include both sentences. Now I will open topics about other problems, if other users also agree with this. PANONIAN (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried to discuss this step by step, but I see that fundamental understanding of some historical events is also issue here. The fact that I live in Serbia and that I can to compare Serbian with Hungarian history is something which can give me a better oportunity to undrrstand some historical events. If I compare Hungary with Serbia, I see many similarities. For example, would you say that Serbia today is an independent or sovereign state? No, it is not. It is part of Serbia and Montenegro, pretty much same as the Kingdom of Hungary was part of Austria-Hungary. The continuity of the Hungarian state is not same as the continuity of the sovereignty. Hungary lost its sovereignty in 1526, and after that year, it formally remained a kingdom within Habsburg Monarchy, but it did not remained a sovereign country. This is not Serb, Slovak or Romanian POV, but simple historical fact. If you compare this with the history of Serbia, you can see that Serbia was a sovereign state before 1918, but when it became part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, it lost this sovereignty. It is very clear what is and what is not an sovereign state. It is not a question of POV, but a question of correct facts. The fact that "separate" article about the Kingdom of Hungary exist is not a POV, but a try to have article about one country. For example, there is also separate article about Principality of Serbia, which existed in the 19th century. Where you suggest that we "include" these articles? Now, I do agree that the term Kingdom of Hungary could also imply to the Hungary under Horthy (because this was official name of the country in that time), but it is a question for the Kingdom of Hungary article, not for this one. I only talk about the sovereignty of the state, not about the name, and Hungary simply was not sovereign state before the treaty of trianon. So, the independent sovereign Hungary was a something new on the map of Europe, and the purpose of the Trianon treaty was to define borders of that independent Hungary. You are right that borders were not defined before the teaty, but the question is to whom then legally these lands belonged. It is not a question of POV, but of the historical facts. What are these facts? In 1918, the sovereign state of Austria-Hungary was dissolved and borders of new sovereign states (including Hungary) were not defined before 1920. So, to whom these lands legally belonged? The simple answer is: to nobody. The claim that these lands legally belonged to Hungary is not correct because Hungary was not sovereign state in that time. Between 1918 and 1920 Hungary was unrecognised state (Some countries even did not want to recognize Hungary a long after Trianon). So, if the one state was not even legally recognized as a state, then the one cannot say that something legally belonged to this state (You should learn something about international relations). PANONIAN (talk)<;/font> 01:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Is User:Vay that anon?

If it is I'll start an RfC! -- Bonaparte talk 20:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It wouldn't take a Sherlock Holmes to tell it, but feel free to alarm the techies to find it out :))) Vay 20:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

He means HunTomy. So, ARE YOU HUNTOMY OR ARE YOU NOT (DESPITE WHAT YOU ARE CLAIMING ABOVE) ? Juro 04:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

He is HunTomy. This is another suckppopet of HunTomy. -- Bonaparte talk 08:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Problem 2:Kingdom SCS/Yugoslavia

Why you constantly changing the sentence that it was Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes among the winning powers, not Yugoslavia? Name Yugoslavia is in use from 1929, and we speak here about 1920. I hope that this is not disputed. PANONIAN (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That was non-officially called Yugoslavia or "South Slavian State", and I think name Yugoslavia commonly known but i agree if you write this: Yugoslavia (which originally called Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes until 1929)

Listen: There was no Yugoslavia before 1929, we should write official name of the country as it was in 1920, with the note that the name was changed into Yugoslavia in 1929. PANONIAN (talk) 13:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If we should write the official names of countries we must not write Soviet Union but Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or the name of Austria-Hungary was not offical too, the offical name was "A birodalmi tanácsban képviselt királyságok és országok és a magyar Szent Korona országai" or "Die im Reichsrat vertretenen Königreiche und Länder und die Länder der heiligen ungarischen Stephanskrone". We should write the name is commonly known.

Problem 3:maps

Map of Austria-Hungary

Why you deleting map of Austria-Hungary? What is wrong with this map?

Because this article is about partition of Hungary. Your map is useful, but for the article of Austria-Hungary.

First, there was no "partition of Hungary", so this article IS NOT about "partition" of Hungary, but about Treaty of Trianon. The map of AH show borders of the former Kingdom of Hungary, as well as the borders of Trianon Hungary. So, I will ask another question: is the map of A-H historicaly wrong or not? PANONIAN (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

According to your POV, there was no, according to any Hungarian there was. It's frightening that after contributing so much articles here, you still do not know what is the principle of NPOW. You MUST include the Hungarian POV to this article. Vay 14:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you know the term de jure and de facto? Hungary de jure was only PARTITIED in 1920. How can you define a border what is never existed? Map of A-H is not historically wrong, but it's unnecessary to show the Austrian half, it's abundantly enough.

It is a pity that we are discussing this when I have no time to do some research on this, but here comes the solution from what I remember: From the point of view the then Hungary (I assume!), its borders have not changed in 1918, but from the point of view of all other states (CS, RO etc. + the winners of WWI + consequently all other relevant states), (1) the new countries and governments of CS, RO, YUG were recognized (some of them even as early as in the summer of 1918), (2) their temporary borders were set at variou times during 1919 (not later then with the treaty of St. Germain). In addition, the new states were de-facto under the control of the new governments (for Slovakia this happened by early 1919 with a subsequent interruption however). In sum, Hungary's borders changed in late 1918/early 1919 de-facto and de-iure from the point of view of all countries except de-iure from the point of Hungary. In addition, I consider probable that Hungary was forced by a part of the Treaty of Trianon to accept the changes in retrospect, but that would require some research. Conclusion: It is certainly "more" correct to treat the borders as changed as from 1918 with the corresponding comments of course. Juro 18:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Juro is right. -- Bonaparte talk 18:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I done some research too. So, here are the facts: Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was officially created on December 1, 1918 (This state included former Kingdoms of Serbia and Montenegro as well as former territories of Austria-Hungary: Slovenia, Croatia-Slavonia, Vojvodina, Dalmatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina). This state was officially recognized by the international community in June 1919. Since this state was recognized, all these provinces were also recognized as a part of this state (After the Treaty of Trianon, all these provinces remained within the Kingdom of SCS, with just slight modifications of the borders). Thus, sovereignty over these lands after June 1919 belonged to the Kingdom of SCS. To whom belonged before June 1919, I cannot say (Austria-Hungary already did not existed, while Hungary was not sovereign state, thus it did not belonged to any of these two). Somebody with better knowledge about this should say to whom belonged sovereignty over these lands until June 1919. PANONIAN (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, this text is very interesting:

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/versa/tri1.htm

According to the text of the Treaty, Romania, Czechoslovakia, and the Serb-Croat-Slovene State were already recognized states in the time of the treaty. Since they were recognized, that mean that Slovakia was already recognized as a part of Czechoslovakia, as well as Croatia-Slavonia and Vojvodina were recognized as a part of the SCS State. The text of the treaty say that "Hungary recognized independence of these states and renounces all rights and title over the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy situated outside the frontiers of Hungary". So, these states were already recognized, and here Hungary recognized them too, and Hungary here only signed that it "renounces all rights and title over the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy". PANONIAN (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The most important thing is that Hungary did not signed that it renounces "all rights and title over the territories of Hungary", but "all rights and title over the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy". PANONIAN (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Map of Hungary

I will elaborate here what is wrong with "your" map of Hungary: the map is simply historically incorrect. It creates a impression that all these territories were part of Hungary before the Treaty of Trianon, but it is not the case. See the map with the bordres of Hungary between 1918 and 1920:

http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/167.gif

This popular revisionist presentation from your map is simply historically incorrect. On the contrary, the map of Austria-Hungary just show the borders as they were durung the existance of A-H, and borders of the new independent states. It simply do not intent to show borders between 1918 and 1920. If we want to show what were borders of Hungary directly before the Treaty, then we have to draw a map in which is, for example, Hungarian city of Pacs located in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, not in Hungary. PANONIAN (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That was not borders, but demarcation lines, the front line of the troops. So that is temporary. Borders can only oficially changed by peace treaties. If you accept front lines as borders, then a large part of Serbia was part of A-H under the WW1

Do I have to repeat for 100 times that borders WERE NOT changed, but DEFINED here. ALL new states were a successors of former Austria-Hungary. Since Austria-Hungary collapsed, the peace treaties ONLY DEFINED borders between the successor states, not changed them. Hungary was completely new state. Here is the quotation from the book named "History of Hungarians" written by FOUR HUNGARIAN HISTORIANS (Published in Belgrade, 2002): "By the Trianon peace treaty, the borders of the NEW state were DEFINED". PANONIAN (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, did you ever heard for the Hungarian Soviet Republic. This republic is clear discontinuation of the Hungarian Kingdom. So, the state of Hungary in 1918 did not have not only sovereignty, but also a continuation with the former kingdom. PANONIAN (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Try to coordinate with Mr Juro, who stated above, that there is a continuity. Also please have a look at www.1000ev.hu (ohh, what a revisionist domain name, but it's maintained by a branch of Walters Kluwer, sure they are Hungarian fascist as well), and read Act I of 1920:

http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=2&k=5&f=7416&param=7416#tv7416. Of course there was continuity. Vay 14:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote at all? I did not wrote that there was no continuity of Hungary, but that it was not continuity of the SOVEREIGNTY and continuity of the KINGDOM. PANONIAN (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes defined and changed. Because we must write the word change, because the offical borders was not them until the peace treaty. Hungary was not a new state, but gained some new rights. Hungary's history started in 1000 AD.

The four Hungarian historians who wrote "the History of Hungarians" claim that Hungary was a new state. Here is obviously not the conflict between Hungarian and non-Hungarian POV, but between Hungarian POV and objective Hungarian historians. If borders were changed by the treaty, then those are the borders defined by the armistice line in November 1918. By the way, I think that Hungarian history started in 2000 BC, when Hungarians lived on Urals, just to note. PANONIAN (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, you have here the text of the treaty. Read it, and please tell me where in this text is stated that borders are changed? I do not see that word there:

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/versa/tri1.htm

PANONIAN (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I mean history of the Hungarian state started in 1000 AD. The little Hungary after the WW1 not a new a state, but the hereditary of the former Kingdom of Hungary (the former either bearer of Austria-Hungary). We have to compare the little Hungary with the former Kingdom.

The borders and political status of Hungarian state changed many times in its history. I do not see connection between the Hungarian state in 1000 AD and the Treaty of Trianon. We talk here about two completelly different things. Hungary was not recognized independent country before the trety. End of story. PANONIAN (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Problem 4: changing the names

Changing the names such are Timisoara, Vojvodina or Slovakia into Hungarian variants is not a proper thing to do on English Wikipedia. The names should be written in the names in which they are best known in English language (I do not think that many people know that Vajdasag is a Hungarian name for Vojvodina, for example. It just creates a puzzlement). Second thing, why you changed only the names of Vojvodina and Timisoara, and not the names of other regions? Why you did not changed Transylvania into Erdely or Burgenland into Orvidek? I do not understand your logic here. Second, you must understand that this article is not ONLY about history of the Hungarians, but also about history of Slovaks, Serbs, Croats, Romanians and others. Writting these names only in Hungarian is not NPOV. Maybe we can use Serbian names here as well: Budapest should be written as Budimpešta, Pecs as Pečuj, etc. What you think about this proposal? PANONIAN (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

That names (the non-hungarians) was devised after the WW1. And i think a foreigner foes not know the name Vojvodina too. That's why the link is there. And another reason: this article is the viewpoint of Hungary, so the Hungarian names must be mentioned.

What names were devised after WW1? The name of Vojvodina dating from 1848. And, it was not only named Vojvodina, but Serbian Vojvodina in that time. So, please educate yourself. Hungarian name Vajdasag is simply a translation of the Serbian name Vojvodina. Even the Hungarian word "vajda" come from Serbian (or Slavic) "vojvoda". Second thing: in 1920 Vojvodina simply did not existed as a province with this name. The point of this section is to show what was number and percent of ethnic Hungarians in 1920 on the territory of PRESENT DAY regions. Also this article IS NOT and SHOULD NOT TO BE "the viewpoint of Hungary", but NEUTRAL AND NPOV article about one historical event. PANONIAN (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Then write Bácska and western Banat. And another point: the peace treaty mention the hungarian names.

Can you at least try to understand about what these numbers are? These numbers show how many ethnic Hungarians lived in the territiry of PRESENT DAY Vojvodina in the time of the treaty. The population figure of Hungarians is calculated for the territory what is now Vojvodina (including parts of Bačka, Banat and Srem regions). If we change the names of the mentioned regions, then we also have to change the numbers, and it is not possible. Besides this, what would be name for Burgenland in the time of the treaty? I do not think that such province existed in that time. PANONIAN (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Problem 5: Deleting Bosnia

Why you deleting that Bosnia was also part of the Kingdom of Hungary. It was part of both, Austrian and Hungarian part of the Monarchy. PANONIAN (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Bosnia was not part of the Kingdom of Hungary, it is possible that was hungarian politics in the imperial council of Bosnia. Bosnia had own administration in the Empire.

Listen: Bosnia WAS part of both: Austria and Hungary. The governor of Bosnia was Benjamim Kalay, a ethnic Hungarian. Would you please read some historical books about this. PANONIAN (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

To explain this: Austria-Hungary was a dualist, not trialist state, thus Bosnia was not a third subject of A-H, but it was a condominium that belonged to both: Austria and Hungary. PANONIAN (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

A region can only belong to one country. And if Bosnia governed together (A. and H.) it is part of Austria-Hungary not Hungary. There is no map where you see Bosnia as part of Kingdom of Hungary in 1908-1918.

"A region can only belong to one country"

According to whom? You? A sovereignty or administration over certain regions and territories could be shared by two states or countries. Good example is Brčko District, which belong to both: Republika Srpska and BIH Federation. Similarly, the Bosnia and Herzegovina belonged to both: Austrian and Hungarian part of the Monarchy. Or you would say that AH was a trialist state? And yes, there is map which show this, but problem is that you do not understand that map. I cannot help you with that. PANONIAN (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Problem 6: Population and area

I do not know what of these versions is correct, but somebody with more knowledge about this should say that:

"Compared with the former Kingdom of Hungary, the population of post- Trianon Hungary was reduced from 19 million to 7 million and its land area reduced by two-thirds."
"Compared with the former Kingdom of Hungary, the population of post-Trianon Hungary was reduced from near 21 million to 7 million and its land area reduced by 72%."

PANONIAN (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hungary had exactly 20,886,487 inhabitants in 1910 (http://mek.oszk.hu/01900/01905/html/cd8/kepek/taj_es_nep/tf152abra8.jpg), that's near 21 million. Hungary lost 72% of its former territory, it is a fact.

Problem 7: the year

Changing the sentence that "Hungary did not have access to the sea after 1918" into the sentence that "Hungary did not have access to the sea after 1920" is wrong. If you see map of the Hungarian borders after November 1918, you will see that it did not have access to the sea after 1918:

http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/167.gif

PANONIAN (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I write again, that is not borders. But i accept if you meet with troops you cannot go to sea:)

Demarcation lines were not borders, but if we accept the fact that Austria-Hungary was dissolved in 1918, and that successor states were formed in the same year, we may say that the sovereignty of the lands temporarily belonged to that country which controled the selected area, until the final borders were defined by the peace treaty. The successor state of Hungary was no different than successor states of Czechoslovakia, Kingdom of SCS, etc... PANONIAN (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC) ---

We "may" say that :)))) Muhahahaha :)))) OK, we let's say that, it's easy to drop words after each other. Is it a theory you can cite sources for? And it is, isn't it a Serbian POV? If it is, should it be in the article? If it should, why shouldn't the Hungarian POV be there as well?? Vay 14:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

See my above comment under "Map of Austria-Hungary".Juro 19:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

See my comment there too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Treaty_of_Trianon#Map_of_Austria-Hungary

PANONIAN (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Problem 8: Nazi Germany and Munich Agreement

I do not know what is the importance of Munich Agreement here: somebody else should to say this. However, I do not see why you deleting sentence that WW2 Germany was a Nazi Germany? PANONIAN (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Munich agreement did not change the borders of Hungary. The name of the country was not "Nazi Germany", if you write German Empire, of Third Reich I accept. Nazi is an attribute

(At least) the first Vienna Award was actually a part of the Munich Agreement, because the Munich explicitely ordered it. Both the Munich Agreement and the Awards were agreements ordered by fascist states (they would have never arisen otherwise) integral parts of the processes (leading to or of) WW2 and declaring them void is a basic principle of the post-war Europe and of fight against fascism and National Socialism. The awards were not just some "border disputes", they were dictates by fascist states to smaller states (the alternative for the states was occupation/dissolution etc.) and have to clearly marked as such. Only some border details of the agreements can be considered as "agreed", nothing more. Also, writing e.g. "Germany" without adding that it was under Hilter at that time is an offence for modern Germany and I consider such edits fascism. And yes, Nazi is an attribute, and a correct and very important attribute and I will not allow that this encyclopaedia reaches a point where fascist edits are considered OK. Everything has its limits. Juro 19:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The first vienna award is not part of the much agreement. The munich agreement assessed direct negonations to revise the borders with Hungary and Poland. So the much agreement did not change the borders of hungary, so it's nonsense to mention it here, but in the article "First Vienna Award". I cannot accept giving sobriquets and attributes to countires, use the real names of it. So for example: German Third Reich, i think people will understand what is it about...

Pardon?? You "cannot accept" adding CORRECT ATTRIBUTES to things? Or should I formulate that more precisely: You cannot accept adding the particular words Nazi and Fascist to things that are Nazi and Fascist? You don't even hide that? Do you consider to be a "POV" that Germany was National Socialist state and Italy a fascist state at that time?? Which part of the "Nazi Germany" says "and this the official name of that state at that time"?? And if it can be in the First Vienna Article, why should it not be in the Vienna Awards article?? Dou you hope that readers will not "notice" it in the main article? And as for the relation to the Munich Agreement: It was not "part" of it in the sence that it took part in Munich in another room, but it was part in the sense that if CS had not been forced to accept the Munich Agreement, which explicitely ordered to conclude analogous agreements with Poland and Hungary, not only there would not have been any Vienna Award, but the negotiations leading to it, backed by the Munich Agreement, would have never started in the first place. In other words, Hungary started the negotiations leading to the award based on the Munich Agreement. Juro 02:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Problem 9: occupation - recapture, aggression - conquest

This sentence: "occupation of northern Carpathian Ruthenia and eastern Slovakia) and following German aggression against Yugoslavia"

was changed into: "recapture of northern Subcarpathia and eastern Highland) and following conquest at Yugoslavia"

I will let Juro to talk about the first part of the sentence, but the word "conquest" is an Middle Ages term, not suitable for WW2 events. What is wrong with the sentence that Germany commited aggression against Yugoslavia? It is simple historical fact. PANONIAN (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

counquest is not a middle ages term, but if you mention it with the GERMAN agression i will accept

It was mentioned with th word "German". PANONIAN (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This problem has two levels. Level one: To my knowledge "occupation" is a neutral word in English (someone should correct me, if I am wrong), unlike in many other European languages. Level two: Capture/recapture. In these cases it is obvious that it is "capture" from the point of view of the other states and, by the way, also from the point of view of the Treaty of Trianon, by which Hungary recognized those territories as not belonging to her; while "recapture" is the POV of Hungary, but neither a POV describing the de-iure situation, nor a POV decribing the de-facto sitution, but simply a POV referring to the Hungarian view of history. So, actually, it is never REcapture etc., but I have nevertheless tried (in the Vienna Awards article) to write both terms connected by a backslah, which however HunTomy reverted. Writing capture/recapture is the minimum I can accept. Occupation is always suitable, because it implies nothing.Juro 02:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Problem 10: Ethnic map of Austria-Hungary

What is wrong with this map? Why you deleting it? PANONIAN (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Because the ethnic position of the Austrian side did not affect the drawing of the borders of Hungary, so it's not important just compounding.

So what? The map also show the Hungarian part of the Monarchy, which is important for the subject. PANONIAN (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The same situtation. It's unnecessary to show the Austrian half, and to exhibit the ethnic position of Hungary my map is correct.

But it is necessary to show a HUNGARIAN part, and this map of Austeia-Hungary show exactly that. Problem is that another map is not correct, so this one, more correct should be in the article. PANONIAN (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Problem 11: 1910 census

this sentence: "the largest ethnic group in the Kingdom of Hungary were the [Magyars (usually called "Hungarians" in English), who were approximately 48% of the entire population (and 54% of the population of the so called "proper Hungary" excluding Croatia- Slavonia"

was changed into: "the largest ethnic group in the Kingdom of Hungary were the Magyars (usually called "Hungarians" in English), who were approximately 54% of the entire population."

The second sentence is simply not correct. 54% of Hungarians is a population figure for "proper Hungary", not for the Kingdom of Hungary. Why you changing this? PANONIAN (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Then write the both data.

Problem 12: more about 1910 census

Why you deleting this: "Some demographers, however, believe that the 1910 census overstated the percentage of the Magyar population, arguing that there were different results in previous censuses of the Kingdom and subsequent censuses in the new states. Another problem with interpreting the census results is that 1910 census did not recorded the ethnicity, but only the language and religion, thus the numbers of ethnic groups in the Kingdom of Hungary are actually the numbers of speakers of various languages, which may not correspond fully with the ethnic composition."? What is wrong with that part? PANONIAN (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

With the second part i have no problem that is a fact. But with the first? So subjective, and you did not mention the source (find a creditable source).

Well, I did not write this first part, but it is correct. It is very well explained in this book: A. J. P. Taylor, The Habsburg Monarchy 1809-1918, published in 1948. Problem is that the question in 1910 census about language was not "what is your mother tongue?", but "what language you usually use", so if the mother tongue of one person was Slovak or Romanian, and if that person lived in the city with large number of Hungarian speakers, then that person declared that he or she usually use Hungarian language, no matter if it is a mother tongue of that person or not. Thus, the real number of native Hungarian speakers was smaller than census results can show. PANONIAN (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

And, of course, in addition there is the Jewish problem (registered as Hungarians)...Juro 02:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Problem 13: one more thing about 1910 census

"Another problem with interpreting the censuses is that many of the new national identities were more or less in the making at the time."

I deleted this because 1910 census did not recorded national identities, but only language and religion. Why you returning this? PANONIAN (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I saved my version to a file....

Problem 14: Ethnic groups

Why you deleting the sentence that "provinces Hungary lost in the treaty had a majority population of non-Magyars, but also a significant Magyar minority."?

Why you deleting the number and percent of ethnic Hungarians in neighbouring countries? PANONIAN (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Mention my datas and yours too... But you are deleting mines...

You do not have the use the Hungarian census to see that the Trianon borders (except for Austria and Croatia) are far from being ethnic borders. Even today, after 80 years political pressure, "reslovakization", Mr. Ceaucescu's and Mr. Milosevic's soft and hard ethnic cleansing, etc., there are still about 1.5 million Hungarians in Transylvania, 290 000 in Délvidék (Vojvodina), 520 000 in Felvidék (Slovakia), 160 000 in Kárpátalja (Subcarpathia)- and these are the official numbers provided by Romania, Slovakia, Serbia and Ukraine.(2000/2001/2002)

At the same time on the Hungarian side you will find 8000 Romanians, 10000 Slovaks, 4000 Serbs, and less then 1000 Ukrainians. If you add together all the successor states' minorities in Small Hungary, you will have a number of about 1.5% of the Hungarian community just in Transylvania.

As for this problem: "look at the numbers: 400 000 Slovaks in 1919, 850 000 Germans in 1919 in Hungary- 17 000 Slovaks, a negligible number of Germans (even excluding the postwas developments) today: don't you see a problem expecially as compared to the number of Hungarian in Slovakia, Romania etc.??"

The initial number of 400 000 thousand is wrong, the number was about 200 000 in 1920. Many of the emigrated in the first few years to the Czech state, then about 80 000 were "exchanged" in the forced population exchange after the II World War for 120 000 Hungarians from the Highland (Slovakia). While it is true, that the Slovak school system was not very developed, the main force of the almost complete assimilation of the remaining 100 000 Slovaks was not that. The Slovaks were/are dispersed in Small Hungary in isolated settlements, they did not live in one big block like the Felvidék Hungarians. Also their ethnic identity was (is) not very strong. The Hungarians in the neighbouring countries fought hard for their scools, the Slovaks did nothing. In fact, once positive discrimination (including extra money for minority language teaching) were introduced in 1993, one entire Slovak village decided to study Polish, an other German instead of Slovak.

The number of Germans is again inflated, most of them were deported in 1945-1947, like from Poland and the Sudetenland. This was not a Hungarian decision, Budapest was following the orders of the Allies. And, unlike Poland, Russia or Slovakia, Hungary officially apologized for this sad episode.

Well, this is, of course, a collection of typical misinformations. As far as Czechoslovakia is concerned, except for the Rye Island area (where the aim was the Danube) the border was created in such a way that the number of Slovaks and Hungarians on the two sides stayed approximately the same (Czechoslovakia originally required a border much more in the south). Secondly, the value of the 1910 census is 0. Not only it was manipulated like all censuses in the Kingdom, but it also asked the wrong question and had other distortions. Thirdly, the number of Slovaks counted before the population exchange (which by the way concerned not even 70 000 people, not 80 000) was around 450 000 (I do not remember the exact number) AFTER WWII !!. And the number was between 450 000 - 550 000 after WWI according to Czechoslovak sources, which - looking at the WWII number - is a quite probable number. And I have seen even much higher estimates. According to Hungarian numbers it was 399 000 after WWI (probably by native language). Even if the number was say 200000, the decrease to 10000 is still actually ethnic cleanising (even after subtracting the 70 000 from the population exchange). Fourthly, the reason why there are no Slovaks etc. anymore in Hungary, is that there have never been true minority schools in Hungary, in which the language of entire education is the minority language - as opposed to the neighbouring countries (which Hungary, paradoxically, tries to critize so much). The representative of the German minority has pointed out this explicitely in 1990s. To be put it more precisely, there have been such schools at two points in the 20th century, but they have always been cancelled (e.g. in the 1960s). The second reason why there are no minorities is/was Hungarian blind hatred against all neigbouring countries (thefts, primite shepherds, primitive Vlachs etc.), so that people prefer to register as Hungarians (some 60 000 person say they speak Slovak, but only some 10 000 register themselves as Slovaks). Next, Slovaks live in the same way (small or big islands) in Romania and in Serbia (countries much more distant from Slovakia than Hungary), and no such drastic decrease in their number occurred - don't you find that very surprising?? Next, there has never been a "reslovakisation" in the actual sense of the word; reslovakization was the official name given to the "possibility" given to Magyars after WWII to reregister themselves as Slovaks, if they had Slovak predecessors, a process which however was reversed 2-3 years later. (By the way, the number of those who fulfilled the conditions for the reregistration was surprisingly high). In other words, you can forget that as an argument. Finally, saying that it was possible to "fight" for schools during Communism is ridiculous. Obviously, you have no idea how communist countries worked. In fact, the official decision (there were no discussions) in Hungary was to cancel true minority schools in Hungary in the 1960s, while the official decision in Czechoslovakia was to promote them (some 800 purely Hungarian schools, kindergardens etc. in Slovakia). And finally, what was done in 1990s in Hungary is completely irrelevant, because Slovak and any other minority in Hungary was so decimated at that time, that nothing would save it anymore. In other words, any extra money is actually useless, because it is too late now. And as for Germans, many of them deported, yes, but many of them remained in Hungary after WWII and had the "opportunity" to "enjoy" Hungary's treatment of nationalities. Another error on your side: Slovakia apologized both to Germans and to Magyars (for the After WII period although the problem lasted only 3 years and was caused by Hungary's occupation of southern Slovakia). Hungary refuses to apologize for anything (Magyarisation, expulsion of 100 000 Slovaks from southern Slovakia during WWII etc.), and the reason given by Hungary's president several days ago is that he cannot apologize, because the persons concerned are not alive anymore. Well, a very "interesting" reason...Juro 18:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Very correct, accurate and strong arguments of Juro. Actually in Hungary after 1918 there were 250.000 romanians. Where are they now? They were by the magyarisation process very much diminished. They are now around 25.000. That means 10 times smaller in 80 years!-- Bonaparte talk 18:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

As to numbers: according to Révai Nagy Lexikona (Volume XX, 1927), the breakdown of the population by native tongue of "mangled" ("small") Hungary in 1920: Hungarian 89.6%, German 6.9%, Slovak 1.8% (or 141,882), Romanian 0.3% (or 4742), Croatian 0.5%, Serbian 0.2%. It would be useful if each discussing party would rely on citated sources. Vay 22:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

More data about Romanians in Hungary: http://www.romanul.hu. According to them, the number of Romanians (by native tongue) in 1920 was 23695. Vay 22:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I could cite a lot of sources, you will cite other sources, but actually I do not see the point in continuing this, because this was just a rather personal reaction to a contribution that has nothing to do with this article. But if you want a readily available source, even according to the official Hungarian 1910 census there were 128107 Slovaks + 158747 "Slovak-speaking Magyars" in present-day Hungary, so the 141882 are obviously wrong (although I believe you that you have found that number and I am not surprised; maybe you should add the "Slovak speaking Hungarians" to that number if the procedure was the same as in 1910). Secondly: the commission responsible for the population exchange after WWII counted exactly 473 552 Slovaks in (only) 416 communities of the then Hungary in their search for Slovaks to be resettled.(source: Štatistický prehľad by Československý presídľovací úrad). Another interesting number I have found no by coincidence: 1930: 811 770 German-speaking persons, 1945: 170 000 Germans deported, 1990: 30 824 German-speaking persons, that's even worse than with Slovaks... Juro 01:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

As to "In other words, any extra money is actually useless, because it is too late now.", and "enjoyment" of Hungary's treatment of nationalities: these small (compared to the Hungarian communities in neighboring states) communities contribute to Hungarian culture (see the roman Jadviga párnája by Pál Závada, which was a bestseller) and economy (see the winemakers of Villány, Sopron, etc) even now - neither the Hungarian state, nor the society has anything against their success - they are fully integrated in the Hungarian society. (No "national alliances" against them, like in Nitra, etc, etc.) Vay 22:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they are very well "integrated", I completely agree. That's another way to say the same thing. I just repeat that what happens today is not (should not) be the topic of this debate. Trianon and the Awards are history.Juro 01:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've unprotected the article - three weeks should be long enough. Izehar 16:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Relevance of economic power in the introduction?

What make this so important that it needs to be included in the introduction?

The winning powers included one economic mainstream within Europe, that is the nations that had gone through rapid progress in the 19th century due to industrial revolution and, to a certain extent, to colonialism (Britain, France, and to a smaller extent Italy). Austria-Hungary also experienced economic progress especially in the late 19th century (without relying on colonization), but remained a European country with a relatively underdeveloped economy.

-- nyenyec ☎ 01:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Consequences

It should be mentioned how the effects of the treaty determined Hungarian foreign and military policy leading up to and including WW2. -- nyenyec ☎ 01:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

House of Terror

What does it have to do with the treaty of Trianon?

-- nyenyec ☎ 01:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Tragedy

As to the discussion about whether Trianon is considered as a national tragedy for Hungary or only for Hungarian nationalists, I can confirm the former. But to cite a neutral source, according to Loney Planet Hungary (by Steve Fallon, 2000): "Trianon became the singularly most hated word in Hungary, and the diktátum is often reviled today as if it were imposed on the nation only yesterday." Vay 13:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this a mainstream view or is it constrained to right-wing nationalists, similar to the Pan-Germanism still embraced e.g. by the Austrian FPÖ. Jbetak 14:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering it as a tragedy is fairly mainstream, seeking territorial revision is constrained to the extreme right (without representation in the Parliament). Vay 15:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Would it be fair to compare the mainstream views of Trianon to those of the Battle of Mohács? Obviously, Trianon was not followed by an enemy invasion, but the similarities are IMHO striking. Jbetak 15:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be fair. It is common to describe Hungarian history as a sequence of tragedies (lost battles, failed revolutions): conquest of Tartars, Mohács, Világos (where the revolutionary army finally capitulated in 1849), Trianon, Nyilas takeover in 1944, and finally 1956. It would be interesting to know whether these experiences lead to the pessimism that is so all-pervading in Magyar culture, or this pessimism determined somehow the way of telling the story. BTW the period between 1867 and 1918 is among the few that is regarded as successful by most people (thus further distancing Magyar POV from that of others regarding this era primarily as the period of Magyarization). Vay 15:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Plebiscites

PANONIAN insists on the fact that plebiscites were held in Alba Iulia and Novi Sad, reverting a version by HunTomy. According to a neutral (Croatian) source: "For this reason, it is surprising that the winning forces of the First World War did not adopt the principle of self-determination (which they themselves emphasized in the context of Wilson’s 11 Points) and conduct a plebiscite in Vojvodina." 1 According to a Romanian source, there was indeed a plebiscite in Alba Iulia: a plebiscite of all Romanians in Transylvania and Hungary, and later an other one in Cernauti: a plebiscite of all Romanians. 2. It is fair to tell that this was not a vote by all inhabitants of the territories concerned, the electorate having been the Romanian community. I will not revert to HunTomy's version, but wait for PANONIAN's sources. Vay 19:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's disgusting how extreme nationalists hustling here who say that there were plebiscites in the historical Hungary. There was some congresses where some extreme sepetarists declared something supperted by foreign powers. Abominable.... HunTomy 2006.01.19.

I wrote now that there were no plebiscites held in the "Hungarian majority areas", because it is why you object to this, right? But to say that there were no any plebiscites and that non-Hungarian peoples were separated from Hungary against their will is simply wrong. They did said what is their will. PANONIAN (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I missed that edit. That is OK for me, of course I don't think Romanians were not happy to unite with Romania, etc. Vay 18:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What "Hungarian majority areas" existed at that time? Vasile 17:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Roughly where Hungarian communities still live today. Szeklerland, eastern part of Partium, several cities of Partium and Transylvania (Oradea, Cluj, etc.), southern part of Slovakia including Kosice, and norther part of Vojvodina including Subotica. It would have been useful to held plebiscites in ethnically mixed areas like Bratislava, etc. as well. It's history now, so you might even admit that it wouldn't have been a bad idea after all. Vay 18:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It would have been a very bad solution for those peoples. --Vasile 21:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Holding plebiscites? Why? Vay 22:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

How do imagine the peoples of 1918, after 4 years of war? Had any Alsace and Lorraine, Czech & Sudetland or Poland plebiscite? An unfriendly plebiscite was kept in Sopron, between friendly Hungary and Austria. --Vasile 23:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Had plebiscites been held, there might have been no 2nd WW. Vay 00:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Not in 1939, but in 1919. --Vasile 00:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, there's an interesting article by one Sabin Gherman on the previous version of the page by HunTomy. Who is that guy? Maybe you should write an article about him... BTW, don't be naive, HunTomy, Romanians _were_ happy to unite, Wesselényi warned already before 1848 that the historic country was in danger... I guess Gherman is a Transylvanist, or simply a guy fed up with usual E-European provincialism (we could cite Endre Ady about Hungarians and the magyar ugar as well...) Vay 23:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not naive. Who wants to live in a balcan level country? Transylvania became part of an Eastern Europen country, which is poor, undeveloped and corrupt. Vojvodina now belongs to the balcan. Very joyful. And i would not talk about the level of Subcarpathia (which is now belongs to Ukraine)... Endre Ady did not want to seperate from Hungary just wrote critics about the social system of the contemporary Hungary. Or you can read "És ha Erdélyt elveszik?" (And what will happen if they took Transylvania?) from Ady from 1912

And remember: the "magyarisation" was a natural process not dictatorial like romanians, czeckslovaks and yugoslavs did after 1920. This is a great difference...

Well, Vojvodina "do not belong to the Balkans". As an native Vojvodinian I can tell you that Vojvodina is still in Central Europe where it always was, and present day Serbia is both, Balkanic and Central European country, as well as Serbs are both, Balkanic and Central European people. So, please do not teach me where I live, ok? PANONIAN (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ask some people from the real central or western europe about serbia. Serbia is primarily balcanic. I know what is the balcanic character.

The question was about Vojvodina. The geographical, physical and natural region Balkans (one of Europe's 11 such regions) ends at the Sava river and at the Danube in Serbia, i.o.w. Vojvodina is not part of the Balkans. If we add a historical point of view, it is not part of the Balkans all the more. Juro 20:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

From the "real" Central Europe? And I live in the "false" one then, right? Please... As Juro explained, geographical borders of Balkans are clear. As for cultural borders of Balkans some people claim that those are same as the borders of the former Ottoman Empire in Europe, thus most of the neighbouring parts of Hungary, Romania, and Croatia are culturally Balkanic too, but that was not the point. PANONIAN (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

New Hungarian state vs continuity

I think it is wrong to put "new Hungarian state" in the first paragraph since the state following the Trianon dictate was the same Kingdom of Hungary, albeit dismembered. Also, instead of a simple "agreement", I would insist to put "enforced agreement" since Hungary did not voluntarily renounce two thirds of its historical territory but the country signed the treaty under duress.81.183.183.18 21:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Over-emphasizing the distinction between Hungary and Kingdom of Hungary is clearly POV - Kingdom of Hungary existed until the end of WW2. For Vasile: Whether Hungary having been independent or not, created as a "new state" or not, see the above discussion and the article and discussion on Kingdom of Hungary, where a compromise has been reached. Vay 03:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The state of 1918 is clearly a continuation of that of 1867. It achieved the sovereignty and was totally separated by Austria: that was the sense of the expression "new independent state". Despite the name still in use until 1945, it seems that "kingdom of Hungary" ceased to exist in 1918. I doubt that kingdom of Hungary actually existed between 1867 and 1918. The army was the essential and traditional element connecting the monarchic institution with a people or nation in 19th century. (Info in Ausgleich article is very unclear anyway.) --Vasile 02:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If the Kingdom of Hungary did not exist after the Compromise, what did the acronym k.u.k refer to? (just a brief question...). The truth is, the Kingdom of Hungary had retained its existence since St. Stephen's coronation, even the Austrian emperors ruled the country as Hungarian kings (they had to be crowned by St. Stephen's Holy Crown in order to be considered legal rulers). Thus Hungary was not a hereditary province of Austria, but as an independent kingdom, part of the Habsburg Empire. (As opposed to like Slovakia, which name is always used by Slovak nationalists for the medieval history of Northern Hungary, it never existed as a separate administrative entity, it was always an integral part of the Kingdom of Hungary.) 84.2.101.172 12:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear fascist, I can repeat that 100 times if you want. The term Slovakia exists at least from the 15th century. It is now used by ALL Slovaks and everybody else in Europe (not by "nationalists"). Regions in the world have their names, even if they are no administrative entities or states. And nobody has ever claimed that there was a POLITICAL entity called Slovakia, that is your personal invention to have at least something you could critise. Juro 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear "drótos tót", regions usually follow administrative or historical boundaries, and the region you calling Slovakia was called "Felsőmagyarország" or "Felföld" or "Felvidék" for the most part of history.

Dear nomadic Asian fascist (I hope I have used the equivalent of your above 19th century insult), "Felsőmagyarország" referred to eastern Slovakia and in the 19th century to the territory to the north of the Danube, Tisza and including the Carpathian Ruthenia (I see no similarity to the territory of Slovakia and no chronological relevance). And above all, it was completely inofficial in the second sense. And dear nothing-knowing fascist, "Felvidék", as you can read in Hungarian literature of the 19th century on this topic, did not mean anything, the word was a neologism and referred to "the territories to the north of the place of the speaker" or the "northern mountanous territories" or sometimes was just confused with "Felsőmagyarország". The Hungarian language name for Slovakia in the late 19th century was "Szlovenskó". Irrespective of this, this is an international encyclopedia, and English books, Czech, French, German etc. used (also) the term Slovakia for the "territory inhabited by Slovaks". It is that simple. Juro 02:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong again, just as everywhere, first of all, "drótos (tinker) tót" was not an insult but an occupation, just as "szódás tót". The words "Felsőmagyarország, Felvidék and not the least, Felföld" have been extensively used throughout history, Felföld exactly meant the mountaineous area north of the Alföld (Plains), here is an example from a Hungarian literary gem: Péter Bornemissza: Siralmas énnékem

(Sorrowful song):

Az Felföldet bírják az kevély nímötök

Szerémséget bírják az fene törökök

(Rough translation:

Our upper land is in the hands of the haughty Germans

Szerémség is in the hands of the hellish Ottomans).

Examples like this exists galore. And btw, the "Land inhabited by Slovaks" would have had no meaning in the Middle Ages (it could have only represented some villages in the North), since the urban population and the intelligentsia was mainly composed of Hungarian and (mostly) German ethnics.Enigma1 22:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"Szlovenszkó" was used briefly after WW1, when everybody was shocked by the emergence of the new state, and they simply translated the Slovak term. As for Slovakia, it couldn't have been a widespread indication, if even 1911 Britannica (with a clear pro-Slovak bias thanks to Scotus Viator) does not mention it: [[2]]. Vay 05:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Szlovenszkó was also used before WW1, however rarely, sure, I just wanted to point out that it even exists in Hungarian. As for Britannica, no the encyclopedia has the opposite bias, quite naturally, and it does not mention it (I have not checked that I have to believe you) because it was no administrative unit or state at that time. The biggest Czech encyclopedia, for example, mentions it. There are even encyclopedias in the 17th century that mention it, again - rarely, sure. Irrespective of this "encyclopedias", the term was used as a completely normal term at least from the 15th ncetury onward by the locals, especially by the Germans (Slowakey etc.). And, a Slovak nationalist would inform you that the term "Slovak land" occurs in the documents even in the middle ages (the translation of the Latin term is however disputed for that time). As for Upper Hungary, in the 19th century, even the Slovaks used ALSO to say that they live in Upper Hungary (i.e. in northern Hungary), since Slovakia and Upper Hungary are different terms, but intercept in a part. My point above was that nobody has ever claimed that there was a STATE called Slovakia in 1917, so I do not understand, what I have to react to this constant heckling here, actually. Juro 01:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You can not seriously assert the independece of KH between 1867 and 1918 without proving the existence of aspects of a modern sovereign state: national citizenship, external policy, national army and security force, and international recognition of the independent state. --Vasile 12:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

During the millennial history of the Hungarian Kingdom, the utmost sovereignty was exercised by the Holy Crown of St. Stephen, according to the Holy Crown Doctrine (Szent Korona Tan), even kings were subjected to the Crown (this is a unique feature of the Kingdom of Hungary, since no other nation had a crown that had such a sacred connotation), even Habsburgs had to be crowned with the Holy Crown in order to be accepted as legitimate rulers. Also an important aspect that the Hungarian kings were called "Apostolic King of Hungary", hence the apostolic cross in the Hungarian coat of arms. The main point is that the Kingdom of Hungary clearly existed separately from the hereditary provinces of Austria, like Bohemia (Czechia) for example, which had been an integral part of the German (and later, the Austrian Empire for most of the Middle Ages).Enigma1 22:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that Hungarians themselves claimed in 1918/1919 that their new independent state have no continuity with the Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary, and therefor their new state was not a kingdom, but REPUBLIC (Hungarian Democratic Republic and Hungarian Soviet Republic after it). Problem is that Hungarians in that time did not know what will be the borders of their new independent state. When borders of independent Hungary were defined in 1920, Hungarian nationalists who were not satisfied with these borders changed the story about the continuity and now claimed that Hungary have continuity with the former kingdom (the country was even officially named kingdom again, no matter that it did not had a king, but only regent). Thus, the whole story about continuity is a story about "right" to territories outside of the Hungarian borders, and its purpose is to justify border changes in favor of Hungary. Of course, the real question is why now in the 21st century somebody have need to talk about continuity of Hungary. Just imagine how would look if somebody would start talking about continuity of France or continuity of United Kingdom. PANONIAN (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with continuity, since in 1918/1919, for a brief period, Hungary was a republic and a Soviet republic, so obviously, they rejected any kind of continuity with the old kingdom (the Communists even went as far as renouncing their claim to Hungarian territorial integrity, however it is true that later on, Béla Kun's army beat the crap out of the Czechs and nearly liberated Felvidék, but this is off topic). As soon as legitimacy was restored in the name of the Holy Crown, continuity was restored, as well. Enigma1 22:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Apart from continuity, a section detailing the economic and cultural consequences of the Trianon Dictate would be most welcome, describing that the main driving force behind the treaty was to disempower a united, and highly prosperous economic region by dissolving the historical Hungary into more backward puppet states. Also, a forced and systematic destruction of Hungarian cultural instututions (schools, theaters, universities - like in Pozsony and Kolozsvár), mass expulsion and deportation of Hungarians should be documented objectively. Enigma1 22:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The country was NOT a prosperous region, it was a very backward country, especially Hungary. People were leaving the country in masses (hundreds of thousands). So, read a book of fairy tales or something and let normal people do their work, OK ? Juro 06:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't like the truth very much now, do you? Yes, there was mass emigration to America (mostly from poverty-ridden areas which were mostly inhabited by Rusyns or - incidentally - Slovaks) but the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and Hungary as a whole underwent its most prosperous growth period in the area, much of the current infrastructure (roads, railways, does the Kassa-Oderberg railway ring a bell?) was built in that period. But even after the dissolution of the Monarchy, Hungary always remained much more prosperous and westernized than the successor states. Take Czechoslovakia for instance in which the so-called "state-forming" nations were much less advanced than the "subjugated" Germans and Hungarians. 81.182.209.170 20:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Cease fire lines or borders

Hello PANONIAN (talk)! I think these borders became international borders by signing of the Treaty of Trianon by all sides. There were a lot of military movement in the region after November 1918 and I don't think, that you would accept that the border of Romania was in the middle of Budapest. I agree however, that there were only little clashes with the Serbian Army after December 1918 and the Serbian occupation zone existed as Serbian territory in this period (incuding today's South Hungary). The fully recognized international borders of Hungary were set by the Treaty of Trianon.

kelenbp 13:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the SCS Kingdom was internationally recognized as a country in 1919, and all its provinces that belonged to former Austria-Hungary were recognized as part of this country (The Treaty of Trianon only confirmed this with minor border corrections in the north). The point is that, the cease-fire lines from November 1918 were international borders (temporar ones of course) of SCS Kingdom when it was recognized as a country. Also, the Serbian occupation zone you mentioned officially was called like this only until November 25, 1918, when the area officially became part of Serbia. I do not know much about borders of Slovakia and Romania, but in the case of SCS Kingdom, it were not only cease fire lines. PANONIAN (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Whatever we say, the SCS Kingdom has fallen apart twice in history (in 1941 and in the 90's), the penultimate product of Trianon (except for Romania) is finding a miserable end right before our eyes, it is a question of time before Bácska votes for independence and reunion with Hungary Árpád 22:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hahahaha. Good joke. You made my day. :))) PANONIAN (talk) 02:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just watch it happening, Kosovo is next. What will remain afterwards from the Balkan's "pariah state"? Árpád 02:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, what ever you say... However, this is an encyclopaedia, not a political forum, thus, you should find some other place to present your "opinion". PANONIAN (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Then stick to the truth and stop claiming ridiculous things like Pécs being a Serbian town while objective statistics prove that the Hungarian ethnic area went as far down as Újvidék...

There is no conflikt between my and your data. Your data is from 1910 and mine is from 1715 (much has changed during these 200 years because of the Magyarization policy). PANONIAN (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

There are also data before the Turkish occupation when the population of the territory of the current Vojvodina was overwhelmingly Hungarian. The beginning of the 18th century shows a low number of Hungarians because they took the lion's share of fighting against the Turks so obviously their share in the population dwindled. This can also be ascribed to the settlement policy of the Habsburg Empire.

You only forgot to mention that before the Hungarian conquest in the 10th century, the population of present-day Vojvodina was overwhelmingly Slavic, and the research of the toponyms showed that these Slavs spoke the same language as Serbs. It is questionable whether all of them were Serbs by their national feeling (some of them certainly did), but linguistically and ethnologically they were no different than Serbs. PANONIAN (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There were Slavic population all in the Pannonian Plain between the 8-10th centuries but they were not modern nations like Serbs or Slovaks. In the case of the Slovaks it is sure that they are descendants of this Slavic population (although there were constants migration over the Carpathian Mountains in the Middle Ages). But the Serbs became an independent nation in the 9-10th century deep in the Balkan Peninsula, and the Slavs of the Great Plain assimilated into the Magyars in the early Middle Ages. I don't think there is any continuity of population between them and the Serbs. Zello 22:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And I did not said that there was a continuity between most of the Serbs who migrated from Rascia in the 14th century and their ethnic cousins that lived in Vojvodina in the 10th century, but there is also no continuity between Magyars who lived in Vojvodina in the 16th century and Magyars who migrated to Vojvodina from the north in the 18th and 19th century. PANONIAN (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Only one important difference: although the Magyars of Bácska were killed or fled in the Turkish Wars, and you are right that there is no continuity in persons, the Magyars as a nation or ethnicity are continous with themselves since the 10th century until now. Serbs are similary continous with themselves since the 9th century - but Serbs are not continous as a nation with the SLAVS of the Pannonian Plain. At most they are related to them as they are related to Croats, Slovenes etc. Zello 00:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is where you wrong because present-day Serbs are continuous as a nation with the Slavs of the Pannonian Plain. It is part of these Slavs that moved from the Pannonian plain to Balkans in the 6th century, and present-day Serbs are descendants of these Slavs. The Serbs that settled in Balkans a century latter were in fact the Sorbs (Lusatian Serbs), who mixed with Pannonian-Balkan Slavs, and transfered their name to them, but lost their Sorbian language. Present day Serbian language did not derived from Sorbian, but rather from Ukrainian, which confirm the Slavic migration from western Ukraine to Pannonian plain and Balkans. Present-day Serbs, Croats and Slovenes are all descendants of these Slavs. PANONIAN (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously what you wrote is the best argument against the national continuity between Serbs and Pannonian Slavs. These people didn't form a specific nation - they were a branch of that ancient Slavic people that migrated and settled in different areas of Central-Europe and later formed different nations. Every Slavic people are related to each other. But related is not "the same" - this is what I say. Even the Croats are not Serbs but a different nation. So you cannot claim that Pannonian Slavs were Serbs, they were Pannonian Slavs. They lost the opportunity to develop into a unique Slav nation and establish their own country because of the arrival of the Magyars. So they disappered in an early stage. But the medieval Magyars of Bácska were Magyars because the Magyar nation already took shape around the 11th century in the Pannonian Plain (as the Serb also but not in Vojvodina). Zello 02:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems that we do not have same difinition of a term nation. It is not name that define a nation, but common culture, language, religion, etc. The point is that ancestors of the Serbs lived in Pannonian plain before they settled in Balkans and the question whether they in that time called themselves Serbs, Slavs, Wends or Russians is really irrelevant for this question. Of course, I agree that these early Pannonian Slavs are also ancestors of Hungarians, thus the continuity of both nations would be the same. However, only Serbs kept the language and culture of their ancestors (Pannonian Slavs), while Pannonian Slavs who became Hungarians lost that language and culture and adopted language and culture of Hungarians instead. The second question is about that medieval Serb and Hungarian nation. The modern nations were formed in the 18th and 19th century, and in medieval times the term nation had very different meaning. When we speak about medieval Hungarians and Serbs we rather speak about citizens of Hungary and Serbia than about modern nations. In that time, the Hungarian was simply somebody who lived in Hungary, and the Serb was somebody who lived in Serbia. Much more important question is what language was spoken by people who lived there because modern ethnology classify nations by the language they speak. If we compare the language situation in Vojvodina in history, we can see that from the arrival of the Slavs in the 5th century to the 13th century (800 years), dominant language of population of Vojvodina was Slavic (and not just any Slavic, but exactly that which was later called Serbo-Croatian), between 13th and 16th century dominant language was Hungarian (300 years), and after 16th century until the present day it was Slavic again (500 years). Point is, if somebody was called Hungarian because he lived in medieval Hungarian state, but if Hungarian was not his native language, we cannot say that he was same with modern Hungarians, neither you can claim continuity between those people and modern Hungarians. PANONIAN (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Another very interesting question is a dialect spoken by Serbs in Vojvodina. See the map of Serbo-Croatian dialects: http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:DijalektiStok.jpg The Serbs in Vojvodina speak their own dialect, which is, besides Vojvodina, spoken elsewhere only in the territory of former banovina of Mačva which also belonged to the medieval Hungarian state. If Serbs of Vojvodina and Mačva were only migrants from the south, they would speak some of the southern dialects, but they do not (as opposite example, it is evident that Serbs of Bosanska Krajina and Croatia speak the same dialect as Serbs of Herzegovina, thus it is clear that they migrated from there). It is also important that all these dialects from the map are very old - Serbs settled in Bosanska Krajina and Croatia in the 16th century and they still speak the Herzegovinian dialect, still not formed their own. PANONIAN (talk) 11:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd have a few things to say but once we can follow the discussion in a more proper place, for example the History of Vojvodina article :) Zello 14:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Wherever you find it suitable. PANONIAN (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"national tragedy" clause

The sentence "Many Hungarians consider the treaty a national tragedy still today." is correct. I can't find any sources right now asserting this, but in fact if you google for "Trianon" and see the bulk quantity of heated discussions in Hungarian going on on various sites, that should be proof enough. K issL 07:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)