Talk:Treaty of Trianon/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

about tte phrase "Hungary lost eight of its ten biggest Hungarian cities as well."

1911 Encyclopeddia Britannica

At the census of 1900 fifteen towns had more than 40,000 inhabitants, namely: Budapest, 732322; - today Hungary Szeged, 100270; - today Hungary Szabadka (Maria-Theresiopel), 81464; - today Serbia Debreczen, 72351; - today Hungary Pozsony (Pressburg), 61537; - today Slovakia Hodmezo-Vasarhely, 60824; - today Hungary Zagrab (Agram), 61002; today Croatia Kecskemet, 56786; - today Slovakia Arad, 53903; - today Romania Temesvar, 53033; - today Romania Nagyvarad (Grosswardein), 47018; - today Romania Kolozsvar (Klausenburg), 46670; - today Romania Pecs (Fiinfkirchen), 42252; - today Hungary Miskolcz, 40833; - today Hungary Kassa, 35,856. - today Slovakia

4 of the biggest 10 cities remained in Hungary 6 of the biggest 15 cities remained in Hungary

Strange list. It starts with "had more than 40,000 inhabitants", then lists Kassa as 35856. More importantly, fortunately Kecskemét is not Slovakia (what kind of borders would make that possible?), so if your list is correct, then 5 cities remained and 5 were detached. Qorilla (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your observation. It was a typing mistake. I know Kekskemet is Hungary Here is the source http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Hungary (Iaaasi (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC))

psychical aftermatch

United states didn't signed the teatry, because it is not based on Census. (Romania yugoslavia Czechoslovakia refused to held census in the disputes territories. (Perhabs they didn't trust in their own ethnic groups.). Slovakia hadn't Slovak majority (49%) Serbians were minority in the south (15-20%) and Romanians have weak majority (53%) in 1910's.

Speak about Romania and Serbia. They had non-western orthodox cultural background and backward poor agricultural economies. The successor states hadn't real big cities. Look the population of Bucharest and Belgrad in 1911. These cities were very little cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.184.193 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

""Areas with significant Hungarian populations include the Székely Land[29] in Eastern Transylvania and some areas along the new Romanian-Hungarian border (cities of Arad, Timişoara)"

Timisoara 1900 60.551 only 19.162 Magyars Oradea 1900 54,109 48 000 Magyars —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaaasi (talk • contribs) 15:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Temesvár was 40-50% German, and Hungarians were only the second after the Germans, but it doesn't mean that a population of 28000 (1910) Hungarians is not 'significant'. But Nagyvárad is certainly a better example if one has to choose. Qorilla (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But that Germans were not the so*called transylvanian saxons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.5.202 (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, rather Banat Swabians, as the city is not in Transylvania proper. Qorilla (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Only saxons considered themselves as Germans in Transylvania. People from Bayern and Swabia did not considered themselves as Germans in the late 19th and early XX century. In 1920, their mother tongue was Hungarian, the German language was a foreign or second language for them

motivations for treaty

Should mention that one of the reasons for the terms of the treaty was that there was a perception among the Allied powers that the Hungarian elites or aristocracy had enthusiastically collaborated with the Germans in suppressing Slavic nationalities within the Austro-Hungarian empire before 1914. The main goal of the post-WW1 territorial adjustments in central Europe was Slavic self-determination, and those who devised the treaties generally didn't give much weight to Hungarian claims as a reason to prevent realization of that goal (or the goal of rewarding Romania for its wartime services)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

pov

This article shows just why it was important to free all the subject peoples from Magyar domination. The mix of self-pity and arrogance is breathless and the bland support for Hungary's disgraceful role in joining Hitler is shameful. 80.169.162.100 (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Distribution of the non-Hungarian population in the Kingdom of Hungary

What is a Serbo-Croatian nationality???????Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The "contradiction"

An IP editor asserts that this article is contradicted by Vienna Awards and Pozsony County. The editor did not start a Talk page discussion as the Template (and link) would suggest, so I am doing so as preface to removing the contradiction template. The IP editor's concerns are set forth in very short fashion in two edit summaries. The first claims that, "Vienna Awards says 'Hungary lost again the territory it had gained.' whereas this article says the boundaries were NOT the same." The second edit summary merely says, "same issue" as to Pozsony County. Diffs here and here.

It's hard to see the problem. This article describes a peace treaty at the end of WW I by which Hungary lost certain territory. This article says that the territories were largely restored to Hungary during the Third Reich, and then approximately lost again following WW II. The Vienna Awards were apparently the mechanism by which the Nazis granted the territory back to Hungary; and, as is pointed out, that article says that after WW II, Hungary "lost again the territory it had gained". The best I can tell, the "contradiction" is the difference between Hungary "approximately" losing territory back to its 1920 borders (as stated here) and "precisely" losing that territory (implied but not stated in Vienna Awards). The difference is trivial and not worth a template.

Since the IP editor did not specify, I am assuming that the complaint with Pozsony County is the statement there that Hungary's "Trianon borders were restored after World War II." Here I have the same observation. The difference is in shading, it's not a contradiction, and an editor with more knowledge of these items (I have none) can easily harmonize them all.

Summing up - there's a difference in emphasis, the kind of thing you could probably find in any two Wikipedia articles that cover some of the same subject area. I've removed the template. Anyone who thinks I've completely missed the boat is welcome to restore it and explain the contradiction here. JohnInDC (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right to those conclusions. I would not say that it is only a shading difference. I am happy for the sentences to be changed, however they are, but those templates should be left up there so other editors can more readily see a problem with the articles.174.3.123.220 (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the "contradiction" by softening the language in the other two articles. They were simple edits. Next time please consider making such straightforward revisions yourself instead of adding cryptic template messages to articles and relying on other editors to sort things out. JohnInDC (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This treaty is a controversy and still discussed ?

About this sentence in the Political consequences section : The Treaty and its consequences are debated in Central European politics to this day. One of the main controversies regarding the Treaty of Trianon concerns the borders of Hungary. I have added these 2 tags for obvious reasons. I doubt that Treaty of Trianon has any controversies for start and that it is discussed to this day anywhere in the World in the last 50 years at least. Can someone please explain this sentence and provide a valid reference for this statement? If not, I will delete this, what only seems to be a biased sentence. Adrian (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica 1911

Online Free contents about Hungary http://www.archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabrit13chisrich#page/894/mode/2up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.100.11 (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This is quite ridiculous to say "Hungarian" cities when those cities were Hungarian of course when they were a part of Kingdom of Hungary and afterwards they wasn`t anymore (common logic and it is already said in the sentence "Hungary lost..." - Kingdom of Hungary lost it`s cities), add a reference for it and delete all other tags that still lack any reference. Adrian (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The ethnic majority in the bigger cities were Hungarian in Hungary. There aren't Slovak Romanian or Serbian majority in the big cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.104.41 (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A-H Empire was not the only multinational state in 1867

Great Britain was also multinational. (Irish Scottish English etc...) English suppressed their language and culture. The other multinational state was France. Only 50% of population of France was French in 1850. The local identities of these ethnic minorities were stronger than french identity in 1870 yet. These minority languages based on different grammar and words. They weren't closer to french than Italian or Spanish language. French nationalism and forced assimilation grew the ratio of French mother tongue and identity from 50% to 91% in 1900. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.146.48 (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Russian Empire was similarly multiethnic country too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.114.153 (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Biased Article?

Is this article not biased in favour of the Hungarian point of view? The thrust is that the breakup of the Austrian-Hungarian empire was a bad idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.11.57 (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

independent Hungary

Hungary hasn't a celebration of independence,see treaty, Part 1 - IV:

Whereas the Allied and Associated Powers are equally desirous that the war in which certain among them were successively involved, directly or indirectly, against Austria-Hungary, and which originated in the declaration of war by the former Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Government on July 28, I914, against Serbia, and in the hostilities conducted by Germany in alliance with Austria-Hungary, should be replaced by a firm, just, and durable Peace, and

Whereas the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy has now ceased to exist, and has been replaced in Hungary by a national Hungarian Government:

In plain language independence of Hungary was given only with this treaty. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a large distortion to present the Treaty of Trianon as a kind of gift of independence to Hungary. Hungary ended the dual Monarchy alliance with Austria on October 30, 1918. Since then it has been independent. Some historians even say Hungary was independent since 1867, with a union in certain important aspects with Austria. What the Treaty says is true, it does not say Hungary became independent in 1920, just that it has gone independent. An then came the Treaty. Qorilla (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected the sentence. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Independence was not a gift, first intention of France and England was weakening of German, but in reality, Hungary became independent (dream of Kossuth, Petofi ...) at 1/3 of territorium. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

One could say: With this proclamation (1918) of independence was independence launched, but only with the treaty was independence set definitely. And Hungarian haven't a celebration of independence, only a memorial of Trianon. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a celebration of the foundation of the country. And there were millennial celebrations of 1000 year old Hungarian statehood in 1896 and 1100 years in 1996, also in 2000 millennial celebrations of Hungary being recognized as a kingdom and taking Christianity at the same time. There is no celebration of what you say because Austria-Hungary did not exist in 1920, it's a simple historical fact. Since it did not exist at that time, it is impossible that Hungary gained independence from Austria-Hungary(a non existing entity) in 1920. And that's with accepting that its possible to gain independence from partly itself (ie Hungary from Austria-Hungary). Hobartimus (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There is further celebration on October 23rd for the 1956 Revolution in Hungary and the end of Communist era in Hungary, they are at the same day because in 1989 the end of the communist era was announced on October 23rd. But the last Soviet occupying troops only left Hungary in 1991 so there are some issues with that as well. Hobartimus (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hungary has no celebration of his independence - see Trianon. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Till 1918 was Hungary only part of Austria-Hungary not an independent country. Kossuth Függetlenségi nyilatkozat (1849). Magyarország és a vele törvényesen egyesült Erdély szabad, független, önálló, európai állam. Reality only after Trianon at 1 / 3 of area.--Nina.Charousek (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Till 1918 yes until 1918, because AFTER 1918 Austria-Hungary didn't exist any more so Hungary couldn't be part of something that didn't exist. Hobartimus (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss cause and not just delete.--Nina.Charousek (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

You are now falsifying /misrepresenting sources (citing a source which does not say what your sentence says) it's a serious offence which is followed by serious consequences if it is noticed by admins. Hobartimus (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

you are not right, source 1000 % say: it establish Hungarian border in new hungarian state, that is first fully independent hunagian state since Mohacs. You do not need close your eyes before the truth. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I added an entry to Wikipedia:Third opinion. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What about Kingdom of Hungary, Transylvania? Cited: "Treaty of Trianon internationally guaranteed Hungarian borders, since Battle of Mohács". Hungarian borders were always 'internationally' guaranteed, Hungarian history is more complex if we want to talk about 'independent' Hungarian state after Mohács. What about the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom after Mohács? Independent Transylvania after Mohács (prior to the Ottoman suzeinarity, and this vassal state status was always altered during the time)?, moreover, we should count with Kingdom of Hungary (Royal Hungary) like separate entity with internationally recognised borders. And of course, the K.u.K. state (Austria-Hungary), It was a sort of form for "Hungarian independency". This sentence sounds like Hungary was not existed "internationally" before 1920. Additionally, Hobartimus is right, Austria-Hungary was existed till 1918.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I say Hungary between 1528 and 1918 was not an independent country, that is fact. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Nina.Charousek, Please, cite your source. Thank you!Fakirbakir (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• 1918-1921, there were no stablile situation in Hungary, especially with signature on the contract it was more stability in hungary and in the region. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What about Transylvania? For instance under Stephen Báthory? Principality of Transylvania was not vassal state at this time. I do not state Hungary has been independent for 400 years (after Mohács) because it is not true, but it is more complicated, and I do not like "sweeping statements".Fakirbakir (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, Nina, your addition [1] is entierly ungrammatical.--Nmate (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

That is really not problem, I'm not only one, who edit wp. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Transylvania has nothing to do with today Hungary
• Transylvania was an Ottoman vassal state, where native princes, who paid the Turks tribute, ruled with considerable autonomy. see Transylvania. Please give objective arguments. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• I said Principality of Transylvania under Stephen Báthory, He was against the Ottomans.
• Transylvania was ruled by Hungarian princes, Transylvania was part of Kingdom of Hungary (before Mohács, after 1867). The ruling class was consisted of Hungarian nobles in Transylvania, Transylvania has Hungarian population.......etc... Fakirbakir (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

How dare you state Hungary has nothing to do with Transylvania? Transylvania is part of the Hungarian history!!!!!!!!Fakirbakir (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Transylvania was part of Hungarian history (true), but today Hungary has nothing to do with Transylvania.(true)
• Bathory made a secret oath to Habsburg Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor - see Hungarian wikipedia. We can not speak about independent country. And I'm not sure if we can say Hungarian == Transylvan, the history is not so easy. But that one is easy. Hungary has since 1526 fought for his independence and only 1918/1920 won it, but only at 1/3 of territorium. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yes in his early reign. But Later he became king of Poland as well without tributary.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I need to correct myself. Sigismund Bathory's reign was 'independent' without Ottoman tributary (for a few years). Stephen Bathory paid for the Ottomans.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As I can understand, according to this discussion, Hungary gained it`s (full)independence after the Treaty of Trianon. So,...What is the problem? Adrian (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

• When did Austria-Hungary cease precisely?
• When did Hungary lose its independence exactly?
• Can we use this form "Hungarian state" for Transylvania (in the past, after Mohács)?
• When was Principality of Transylvania without suzerainty?
• What about Eastern Hungarian Kingdom?
• What are our opinions about "internationally recognised borders" in connection with Hungary, after Mohács?
• How can we handle Royal Hungary like separate entity?Fakirbakir (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, that is like thesis writing, please make a recommendation, write my sentence so, that it is short, true and neutral. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

—Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have found a verifiable book source for the statement that Austria -Hungary broke up in October to November of 1918. It states that the revolution against the emperor started in 28-30 October, the emperor abdicated on 14 November, and Hungary was declared a republic on 16 November. Thus it appears that Hungary gained complete independence after its revolution against the emperor. The book is here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. There was no more Austria-Hungary after 1918, thus Nina.Charousek's claims are unfounded. Hobartimus (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)