Diszkusz
>>499500
this treaty shouldn't happen. I hope Hungbros will take their land back.
>>499500
shit happens
>>499692
I always knew you were not a real Slav, good to have you with us bro.
>>499692
With what? We have no armed forces and hungarians are genrally retarded
>>500000
worst day of my life
t. hungaraboo
>>499500
You should have fought against it, like Turks did for the Sevres.
>>499959
My country was consuming Orava and Szepes at the moment, though (it sounds hilarious) I would not annex it.
As an OP I recommend answering another questions
Q1 for fellow Magyars: Do Hungarians also keep in mind teritories acquired by Poland In Treaty of Trianon?
Q2: (About map from this post which was created by hungarian side in Trianon "negotiations") What do you think about such point of view, also keep in mind that most of industry on terrain dominated by slavic ethnicities were hungarian, and hungarian minority on these lands was concentrated in towns?
BEST DAY OF MY LIFE
PIC RELATED, HUNGARIAN HOPES AND DREAMS
>>499500
Why did Hungary need all that land full of non-Hungarians anyway
>>499692
Yeah, and Germans should have 3/4th of western Poland while Russians/Ukrainians should take everything else.
>>501951
shut your fucking face they defended europe hurr durr 1000 years strong, that land is hungarian!
>>499786
Who is the idiot that made this map? Belgrade and half of Serbia? Bucharest? Also missing Krakow and L'vov.
Only if we get the monarchy back. I don't want to replace a shitty republic with another shitty republic.
>>499786
This map is rubbish
>wage war on aggression on pretext you know is false
>kill eighteen million (18,000,000) people
>bawwwwwwwwwwwww they're taking our colonies away
Can we at least agree that the dismemberment of Hungary was a pure Entente dictate and not something born out of will of the people living in those territories?
>>502653
Never side with germans
>>502660
Germans honestly went full retard before and during that war, that doesn't excuse the Entente for partitioning the shit out of Austria-Hungary.
>>499500
I mean, they got screwed out of some areas on the fringes and that big Magyarblob in the Rumania area, but otherwise it seems like a fairly reasonable thing to do.
>>499500
As a Hungarian I think it would have been OK if actual borders had followed ethnic lines (quite problematic in the case of Szeklerland), they had figured something out against Hungary disproportionally losing most of its economy and if there had been some supervision on the treatment of Hungarian minorities that remained in now foreign countries. Slovakians and Croats getting their own country (well, not immediately but still) is cool, I don't think entire nations' worth of people living under a foreign government against their will is good, similar things apply to Romanian-dominated Transylvania.
However, >>502653 is quite right. Trianon was a means for the Entente to 'punish' Hungary, secure new allies and vent off their butthurt. It wasn't done out of goodwill towards the somewhat newly emancipated nations living in Hungary. The entire Versailles peace process was retarded, it only ensured of the breakout of the arguably avoidable WWII 20 years later, as it has been pointed out not only in the coming decades by tons of people, but also at the time of it's signing by the more sensible.
"This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years"
>>503127
>it only ensured of the breakout of the arguably
minus the first of
>>503140
>but also at the time of it's signing
its
>>503127
Slovaks didn't actually want to secede from Hungary, by the way, it was the unelected Entente-approved clique led by a French general who decided they should join Czechoslovakia. Hungary demanded a referendum in the upper country which the Entente refused.
>>503077
It was obviously coming, but it could had been more fair, even if just the Northern part of Vojvodina and the Southern parts of Slovakia with Hungarian majority (around 2 million people) weren't cut off, there wouldn't be that much crying. I dunno if some of Transylvania could had been salvaged, bit cities like Arad/Nagybarad which were right next to the border probably.
All I'm saying that maybe if peace-treates focused on actually making peace and not humiliating the losing side, WW2 could had been avoided. Trianon and Versialles are the best examples of fucking ecerything up knowingly.
>>503227
But Austria--Hungary wasn't just "the losing side." It was an aggressor that invaded another country it knew was innocent of any wrongdoing against it (and which had in fact prevented it from trying to come to harm) merely in the hopes of gaining territory. If there's no punishment for aggression by a stronger country against a weaker country, then stability is shot as a goal anyway.
>>503127
>"This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years"
You do realise Foch wanted harsher terms, hence why he said this?
He wanted Germany and Austria punished even more than they were.
>>503387
This is just politics, let's be honest: did the average peasant/worker deserve to be stricted from his homeland? I'm still talking about countless villages/cities which were RIGHT NEXT TO THE BORDERS, and were only cut off because of railway lines or "natural borders". Not even Austria was punished as harshly as Hungary, and don't say Austria didn't have more saying in starting the war than Hungary.
Even more of a hipocricity that until 1917 there were no plans to break up the Empire by the Entence in the case of victory, because it would break up the power-balance of Europe, only after Austria was too dependent on Germany they choose to do it.
>>503387
Can your sllavshit brain comprehend that keeping most Hungarian areas would still mean losing half of the country, and sobe an appropriate punishment for whatever horrible attrocity your imagine happened?
>>503227
To be fair, Germany got off relatively lightly. The problem was that many people had an interest in MISCONSTRUING the events and the context under which the treaty was signed.
The winners, for example, excluded Germany from participating from Versailles, which made Versailles a treaty created unilaterally. However, I'm certain that the Russians negotiated the Brest-Litovsk treaty and the outcome was nothing short of disastrous (though the Soviets did fulfill their promise of ending the war, something the Tsar nor the Provisional government had done). In addition, the new German government coming to power DID sign the treaty. But the secrecy under which the treaty was signed (in a railcar along the Franco-German border iirc) made the treaty easy to misrepresent. Many soldiers and civilians were unable to believe that they lost and so construed the treaty as being a sell out by socialist politicians and jews. This played into the general's hands; they knew that their army was totally exhausted and communicated this to the new government, but in order to direct the blame away from the fact that they lost the war, they had an incentive to play up the idea that the "home front" (i.e. jews and socialists) and not the war front, was the reason for Germany's loss in the war. This was made more believable by the fact that the allies never entered Germany at the end of the war, and revolution broke out among the sailors and workers in the cities.
>>499500
Should have been this with heavy population exchange
>>503412
If germany was treated about the same as Hungary regarding territorial losses, would WWII have happened?
>>503965
>(in a railcar along the Franco-German border iirc)
ayy I looked this up and I'm wrong. I must be thinking of the armistice signed by the german military
>>503412
Uh, I actually didn't know that. Thanks for enlightening me, I just remembered the quote from HS.
>>503628
The reality is that there were no sharp or stable boundaries between ethnic zones at that time, there were broad ethnically mixed zones, and and possible border would be open to criticism as being arbitrary, and some significant number of people would feel left out of any settlement.
>>503921
You're basing your argument on ethnic self-determination. If that's a valid principle, then the Habsburg empire was already liable to total dissolution before it committed aggression. Aggression is an enormous outrage, morally tantamount to murder and in this case costing eighteen million people their lives. How can something like that deserve no punishment of its own?
>>504096
>nd some significant number of people would feel left out of any settlement.
Bro
Cities, villages, literally RIGHT NEXT TO THE BORDERS with majorly hungarian population were cut off just because of railwaylines
Just look at Szabadka or Arad, they were majorly hungarian, historic cities, and they were cut of just because off greed
True, you can't avoid cutting off some people, but literally 2 million people along the borders sounds a pretty big bullshit
>no punishment
But why punish the fucking average guy? You think the average peasant went to war so fucking gladly? Fucking no, they were dragged to the lines and had to sit in a wrench for 12 month in a trench, while his family was starving
All I'm saying that collective punishment is wrong in any case or scenario.
At the end of WW1 Europe had a chance to make a lasting peace, but they fucked it up, and if you look at Trianon you can see why, the French were so scared of communism that they made multiply buffer states between the West and Russia, and at the end of WW2 they gladly throwed all of them into the gutter.
>>504096
Nice hypocrisy, so since we can never have just borders lets not try even try.
>The reality is that there were no sharp or stable boundaries between ethnic zones
Shameless nationalist propaganda. Simply false, most detached Hungarians lived in a compact block running along the modern border, the only real issue was Transylvania. Said boundaries were stable sine the 1700s.
>possible border would be open to criticism as being arbitrary
All borders are arbitrary, void argument.
>and some significant number of people would feel left out of any settlement.
You can never satisfy everyone, but can aim for consensus.
>You're basing your argument on ethnic self-determination. If that's a valid principle
Don't be so shamelessly two-faced m8, the little entente insisted on ethnic principle (as long as it favoured them)
>then the Habsburg empire was already liable to total dissolution
Putting aside no country in peacetime would dissect itself most of the minorities goal pre WW1 was autonomy and practically noone wanted to secede.
> How can something like that deserve no punishment of its own?
You are parroting some theoritical moral idea no one gives a shit about. If it were true then Germany and Austria would have got proportionally heavier punishment, otherwise it means Hungary was the greatest evil and wrong-doer.
The reality is fates of countries are decided case-by-case. Napoleonic wars killed lot of people yet France left peace talks as a great power only having to give up lands annexed during the war. Germany in WW1 also killed lot of people buther ethnic land loss was minor compared to us,
Hungary which was a lesser party got the most royally fucked even though losing its ethnic minority lands alone would have meant losing half the country and much of its economic and military power, on top of monetary reparations. The country would be still fucked and wounded but could be free of a burden that shadows us to day.
>>504331
Just as a side note,my family comes from one of those "pure Hungarian border villages," and they were far form being monoethnic. You see this in Transylvania, Vojvodina/Banat, Ruthenia, etc. Basically everywhere.
But more importantly, you're the one trying to have it both ways.
Either self-determination matters or it doesn't. If not, then Trianon can't have wronged the Hungarians. If so, then the German Austrian and the Hungarians had an enormous evil to answer for--before 1914--and it's insane to expect a perfectly calibrated response.
Either mass killing can be clearly unjustified or it can't. If not, then there's no morality at all and this whole discussion is a waste of oxygen. If so, the Austro-Hungarian leadership are monsters on par with the SS, and, once again, you're out of line whining about border village.
Anyway, I'm out of this thread. Your hypocrisy is obvious to everyone and you're clearly not coming here with an open mind.
>>504331
Fuck off faggot, you lost, everybody else won, you're still butthurt almost a century later. Deal with it, you are Central Europe's bitches and nobody, and I do mean nobody likes you. Except the Poles, but theire heads are so screwed by being constantly double-teamed by Hans and cyka blyat I wouldn't trust their judgement.
>>501953
To be fair much of today's Poland that was within the Kingdom of Prussia was majority German. There's a reason the creation of the Polish state didn't originally include all that land and Danzig wasn't fully annexed.
>>504746
>and they were far form being monoethnic.
Yes, in 100 years they may stop to be monoethnic if they are part of another country. But I see your point, Szabadka itself had 60% Hungarian population, but thats still an obvious majority, and most border cities/villages had absolute hungarian majority.
>>504746
>If so, then the German Austrian and the Hungarians had an enormous evil to answer for
You say this as like a three-way monarchy and a normal confederation wasn't planned, when it was, just the guy who wanted to fo GOT FUCKING SHOT.
Most countries had fucked up ethnicity policies, just look at how the english treated the irish, or germans/russians the poles, it was fucked up time, but maybe if you want to make a lasting peace you should thrive for the best possible scenario for everyone.
Hell, the very reason that "trianon revision" is such a big thing in out country right now because the whole thing wasn't solved after WW2, and communist banned any kind of discussion of the world outside the borders.
>>504922
fuck off retard
>>505112
>just the guy who wanted to fo GOT FUCKING SHOT
And he got shot specifically for wanting to do that too, since making the Hapsburg Serbs and Croats happy would have jeopardized muh Pan-Slavism. It's was a pretty shitty situation all around.
