Originally posted by Vrylakas
The Treaty of Trianon between Hungary and the Allies in 1920 was an intrinsically unjust treaty, born not of an Allied commitment to amending local aggravating issues but rather of French political intrigue.


I hesitate to response to this paragraph ... but this is not exactely correct ... :(


In the Treaty of Trianon Hungary lost two-thirds of its pre-war territory, and in a single day Hungarians became the largest ethnic minoritry in Europe as 3 million were left outside the Hungarian state borders.


Yes ... but mainly in areas where they was a minority ...


Partium Romanian borders which would have put almost 1 million of those 3 million back in Hungary (with almost no minorities), but to no avail.


What exactely is "Partium Romania" ? The teritory between Mures river and Cris river ? :rolleyes:


including Romania’s claim to all Hungarian lands up to the Tisza (Theiss) River – about one-third of modern Hungary (which was refused over Anglo-American complaints)


Here is a wrong presentations of historical facts.
After the defeat of Austro-Hungary and the armistice which lead to eliberation of Transilvanya ( ocupation ... maybe ... :confused: ) the Romanian 1 Army took defensive position of new border.
But in 21 March 1919 the bolshevyck Bela Kuhn took power in Budapest and soon the Hungarian Red Army attacked romanian units for "removing" consequesces of Trianon Treaty and try to make a link with the Soviet Red Army in Ukraine. In two phases the romanian army succeded to defeat the hungarian rebelious forces in decisive conterstikes - first time stop at Tisza River and second time occuping Budapest ( togheter with units of Cehoslovakia and some French support ).

After this attack marechal Prezan said he will not retreat from Tisza River because the hungarian forces broke the armistice and "should teach them a lesson" and also the romanian army will have a better defensive/offensive position for further attacks ... ;)
And - of course - the was the claim of ~350.000 romanian which lived in that area. But the foreign intervention forced him to retreat - as you said.


and not just those with majority ethnic Hungarian populations – but Hungary was hardly alone with absurd border claims in 1920s and 30s Europe.


The big problem in Transilvanya is that the hungarian mionority had the majority in two ( or three ) comitee exactely ... inside the country - the so-called "Secuy Land" ... Hitler himself agree that the Viena Treaty ( Diktat in romanian books ;) ) was unjust, because 52% of population of "retrocedated" teritory in 1940 was romanians - and those came mainly from the "linker teritory" which included almost 100% romanian inhabited area ( like part of Maramures ). :mad:


In the 1930s many states feared the USSR more than Germany, or at least as much as Germany.


That's perfectfully true ... :o

That's all for now ... regards

Mîtiu Ioan wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Vrylakas
The Treaty of Trianon between Hungary and the Allies in 1920 was an intrinsically unjust treaty, born not of an Allied commitment to amending local aggravating issues but rather of French political intrigue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hesitate to response to this paragraph ... but this is not exactely correct ...

I wrote this "brief outline" at the request of Benderino with no reference and my aim was to be as (believe this if you can) short as possible. Cramming a country's 1000 year history into a few short paragraphs is going to necessitate a certain level of simplification and generalization. Such is the case above; of course many events and conditions combined to create the final result of the Treaty of Trianon but in my experience I have come to primarily point the finger for the drastic nature of Trianon at the Quai d'Orsay, which strongly supported the Károlyi government until suddenly in Spring 1919 when it shifted gears and isolated Károlyi for reasons related exclusively to Paris' interests in Eastern Europe and had nothing to do with the Hungarians per se. When Károlyi's government resigned and the communist Kun Béla seized power, he behaved badly enough that it gave Paris the excuse it needed to implement what had already been decided. A friend and colleague translated the published French foreign affairs documents relating to this period, and it is quite clear that France decided in Spring 1919 that it could live with a very diminished Hungary if it could gain a stable new alliance in the region. Simply said, Austria, though an old enemy for France, was a known commodity and considered "European", hence its territorial sacrifice was very limited while Hungary was an exotic unknown who could be sacrificed to serve general European and French security interests. Very much akin to Chamberlain's speech about Czechoslovakia in 1938.

By my statement I did not mean to imply - refer to my statement in the preceding paragraph about simplification and generalization - that 1919 Hungary did not deserve to lose any territory; clearly a substantial amount of the Hungarian kingdom's territory was inhabited by non-Hungarians and in the age of nationalism and the nation-state this simply would not do. Hungary was going to lose lots of land to its neighbors, and in the interests of peace this was a good thing. However, what followed in 1919 was something of a land-grab of Hungary by its neighbors whereby many regions inhabited by Hungarians or never historically connected to these states were seized. The result was an embittered country just waiting for the next opportunity to grab them back.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Treaty of Trianon Hungary lost two-thirds of its pre-war territory, and in a single day Hungarians became the largest ethnic minoritry in Europe as 3 million were left outside the Hungarian state borders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes ... but mainly in areas where they was a minority ...

Hmmm, not exactly. The reality of course was that no one in 1918 could draw a political map in Europe that neatly kept all the ethnic groups and nationalities in their respective countries. The ethnic map is just too messy and too overlapping to do so. There would always be minorities in a Europe of nation-states.

Transylvania is the classic example. Transylvania today has a population of some 1.5 million ethnic Hungarians, though most of them live not near the Hungarian border but deep into Transylvania where the Carpathians bend westward, near Brasov. The territory nearest Hungary is mostly Romanian populated. There are small islands of Hungarian villages here and there throughout Transylvania but the primary concentration is in the farthest eastern area. Simply said, it is impossible to draw any border in Transylvania today that will completely separate Romanians and Hungarians.

However, the story is different in Slovakia, Ukraine and to a lesser extent Bánság/Backa, where the overwhelming number of Hungarians live just along the border. In Slovakia and Ukraine in particular, where President Wilson suggested making a slight adjustment, nearly all the ethnic Hungarians lived within a few miles of the Hungarian border. A century later today that is no longer true but in 1919 it was. To boot, no major cities lay within the Hungarian areas, only villages, so even if Slovakia had lost this thin strip of territory it would still have kept all its major cities (Pozsóny/Bratislava, Kassa/Kosice, etc.). In Ukraine only one city of consequence was in the Hungarian region, Ungvár/Uzhhorod. Here (http://www.anesi.com/rmap1.jpg) is very primitive map from 1919 that illustrates this point. I have a much better and more detailed language map hanging on my wall in front of me but my scanner isn't working.

:cry:

In short, my point was that the borders of post-WW I Hungary could quite easily have been drawn much more equitably and fairly. As it was, Trianon only radicalized 1920s and 30s Hungary and, as many have said, the Versailles Treaty system merely laid the foundations for the next war. The Hungarian borders were drawn without reference to Hungary, but in several committees whose job it was to draw the new Czechoslovak, Romanian and Yugoslav borders. As one British delegate put it afterwards, "It was only too late that it was realized that these two [sic] separate Committees had between them imposed upon Hungary a loss of territory and population which, when combined, was very serious indeed." (Margaret MacMillan, Paris 1919, 2002; pg. 260)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Partium Romanian borders which would have put almost 1 million of those 3 million back in Hungary (with almost no minorities), but to no avail.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What exactely is "Partium Romania" ? The teritory between Mures river and Cris river ?

You're reading it wrong; "Partium" is a Latin term Hungarians use(d) to refer to a region abutting Backa and Transylvania. It's a thin strip along the modern Hungarian-Romanian border that had in 1919 a significant Hungarian population (especially the northern Partium) but no longer does. It ran roughly between Arad and Oradea (Nagyvárad). It was created by the French in early 1919 as an artificial buffer between the Hungarian and Romanian armed forces though while the Hungarians were not allowed in this zone the Romanians were allowed to bring their army fully into this zone. This was critical because Transylvania's fate had not yet been decided by the Paris Peace Conference but the French wanted to be sure the Romanians had time to set up administration there - a fait accompli. It was when the French colonel Ferdinand Vix presented the Partium demands to Károlyi that his government was virtually overthrown and he fled into exile.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
including Romania’s claim to all Hungarian lands up to the Tisza (Theiss) River – about one-third of modern Hungary (which was refused over Anglo-American complaints)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a wrong presentations of historical facts.
After the defeat of Austro-Hungary and the armistice which lead to eliberation of Transilvanya ( ocupation ... maybe ... ) the Romanian 1 Army took defensive position of new border.
But in 21 March 1919 the bolshevyck Bela Kuhn took power in Budapest and soon the Hungarian Red Army attacked romanian units for "removing" consequesces of Trianon Treaty and try to make a link with the Soviet Red Army in Ukraine. In two phases the romanian army succeded to defeat the hungarian rebelious forces in decisive conterstikes - first time stop at Tisza River and second time occuping Budapest ( togheter with units of Cehoslovakia and some French support ).

After this attack marechal Prezan said he will not retreat from Tisza River because the hungarian forces broke the armistice and "should teach them a lesson" and also the romanian army will have a better defensive/offensive position for further attacks ...
And - of course - the was the claim of ~350.000 romanian which lived in that area. But the foreign intervention forced him to retreat - as you said.

First of all, again, this was a short and general description of Hungarian history. I do make mention of Kun's adventures in attacking the Romanians in my article here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58676); specifically:

A communist regime came to power in March 1919, led by Béla Kun, which initiated a nice Red Terror among the Hungarian peasantry. Kun repulsed an attack by the new Czechoslovakia, and feeling cocky his troops provoked another war with Romania (both Czechoslovakia and Romania were occupying pre-1918 areas of Hungary), which didn’t go so well. The Allies gave their ascent to a full-fledged Romanian invasion of Hungary and by late July 1919 Kun had fled and the Romanians occupied Budapest. (Kun fled to Soviet Russia BTW, where he befriended Lenin but was executed by Stalin on trumped-up charges in 1937.)

A briefer explanation to be sure, but one nonetheless.

Secondly, the Romanian claims for all Hungarian territory up to the Tisza River in 1919 are not exclusively tied to the May-November Romanian occupation of Hungary. Bratianu made demands for a border on the Tisza River in early 1919, only moderating them months later under intense British and American pressure. In particular his demands were for all land between (and including) the Banat/Backa and the city of Debrecen, up to the Tisza. He made these demands in Paris, and indeed the very extreme nature of his demands and his uncompromising attitude led to his recall and the sending of the more eloquent and socially-agreeable Queen Marie in late March. Even the very pro-Romanian French delegates were infuriated by Bratianu's demands. Even as late as 21. June 1919 an American delegate had to argue (successfully) for Szeged and territory immediately south of Szeged, almost completely Hungarian-populated.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and not just those with majority ethnic Hungarian populations – but Hungary was hardly alone with absurd border claims in 1920s and 30s Europe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The big problem in Transilvanya is that the hungarian mionority had the majority in two ( or three ) comitee exactely ... inside the country - the so-called "Secuy Land" ... Hitler himself agree that the Viena Treaty ( Diktat in romanian books ) was unjust, because 52% of population of "retrocedated" teritory in 1940 was romanians - and those came mainly from the "linker teritory" which included almost 100% romanian inhabited area ( like part of Maramures ).

In 1919 Transylvania was just 23% Hungarian, though for obvious reasons most of the positions of power were in Hungarian hands. The assembly at Alba Iulia/Gyulafehérvár in December 1918 that voted to join Romania proper made only a minimal impact on the Paris Peace talks until the Transylvanian "Saxons" (Germans), fed up with the Hungarian aristocrats, joined the Romanians in calling for unification with Romania.

Yes, the old Szekély lands were the core of Hitler's Vienna award to Hungary, and it was indeed quite unjust in many respects because of the circumstances - though again, drawing any border in Transylvania will always create large minority populations. The Hungarians who took over the Vienna Award territory in Transylvania precipitated some very nasty atrocities against ethnic Romanians unfortunate enough to live on the Hungarian side of the new border, and indeed the Romanians answered in kind in 1944 when they (with the Soviet army) re-took all of Transylvania.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 1930s many states feared the USSR more than Germany, or at least as much as Germany.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's perfectfully true...

Much of my second post derived from an answer I had given on another forum to a Russian who expressed satisfaction with Hungary's fate in 1945 and 1956 as the just desserts of a former Axis country. I wanted to make this person aware of the fact that for most of the little countries in Eastern Europe between the wars, Soviet Russia was seen - rightfully so - as much of an aggressive predatory state as Hitler's Germany. Given the events of the Second World War the USSR's pre-war reputation has softened a bit in some people's eyes, but to understand how the smaller Eastern European countries behaved and made their decisions in that time period one needs to understand how much of a threat the USSR seemed to them at the time. Some in the former Allied countries like to see things exclusively in terms of "all Axis countries = 'bad'; all Allied countries = 'good'", an over-simplification that glosses over some very complex realities for many countries.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Transylvania is the classic example. Transylvania today has a population of some 1.5 million ethnic Hungarians, though most of them live not near the Hungarian border but deep into Transylvania where the Carpathians bend westward, near Brasov. The territory nearest Hungary is mostly Romanian populated. There are small islands of Hungarian villages here and there throughout Transylvania but the primary concentration is in the farthest eastern area.


That's my point also - so is no needed for debate anymore from my point of view ... ;)
But I feel that this wasn't clear from your first post. :confused:


Even as late as 21. June 1919 an American delegate had to argue (successfully) for Szeged and territory immediately south of Szeged, almost completely Hungarian-populated.


And this was the correct way ... :)


The assembly at Alba Iulia/Gyulafehérvár in December 1918 that voted to join Romania proper made only a minimal impact on the Paris Peace talks until the Transylvanian "Saxons" (Germans), fed up with the Hungarian aristocrats, joined the Romanians in calling for unification with Romania.


In fact there was two "key minorities" - the Jew and the Germans. The hungarians had almost completly the support of jew minority ( which formed the middle class in many city of Transylvanya ), but the romanian administration managed somehow to atract the germans on their side.
Strangely - even the Germany was a defeted nation this lead the romanian cause to be the wining one !!!
But - as a "pervert consequence" this fact inflamate the antisemitic rhetoric of some right-wing parties ( traitors bla, bla )... :rolleyes:


in Transylvania precipitated some very nasty atrocities against ethnic Romanians unfortunate enough to live on the Hungarian side of the new border, and indeed the Romanians answered in kind in 1944 when they (with the Soviet army) re-took all of Transylvania.


One of my relatives was in the "victim-list" ... :(
Anyway - the Soviets was very tricky : they accept to re-took back this part of Transylvanya only after mr. Petru Groza formed one cvasi-communist, pro-soviet governement ... one BIG blackmail ... :mad:


Some in the former Allied countries like to see things exclusively in terms of "all Axis countries = 'bad'; all Allied countries = 'good'", an over-simplification that glosses over some very complex realities for many countries.

I agree - I personally feel myself very unconfortable when read some "simplifications" like this ... :cry:

Regards

Hah, I spend some time in Canada, and what do I see when I return! ;)
I have some errands to run, but just a short reaction for the most "problematic" part of the Hungarian history (of course I speak of the Trianon treaty).
About who deserves what: I think the French would deserve some serious beating :p My favorite is a revisionist fiction-map, which shows what would have happened with France if they loose the same amount of territory to the neighbours. :lol:
But seriously, losing some of the old Hungarian territories was inevitable, we were on the losing side of the war and furthermore, some of those territories were really not Hungarian ones from the ethnic standpoint. But many of them were clearly ethnic Hungarian territories, just as Vrylakas noted in the case of southern Slovakia. And we shouldn't forget that the Hungarian aristocracy was really out of context and hard-headed, and we were "punished" for the Communist revolution also.
Of course Transylvania is a different case, with its well-segregated Hungarian minority in Hargita and Csik. But I also think that there is a serious bias in this case in both the Hungarian and the Romanian history education, so for instance Mitiu and myself see a very different part of the same picture.
So I do think that the treaty was unfair and we lost way more than we would deserve, and it's basically because the French diplomacy, which wanted to create big enough "small states" in eastern europe to counterbalance a revisionist hungary. But of course there's nothing to do about it, on the long run all eastern european countries will be EU members and it will render the borders much less significant.

And thanks for Vrylakas to write this, I'll go to read and see what I can learn! :goodjob:

Originally posted by klazlo
But I also think that there is a serious bias in this case in both the Hungarian and the Romanian history education, so for instance Mitiu and myself see a very different part of the same picture.


I'm pretty sure about this ... :devil2:

Just one clarification somewhat off-topic : the main and essential issue which oppose Bratianu and romanian delegations at Paris with allied staffs after WWI was not the borders problem ( which satisfied the most the romanians ;) ), but the question of concession of romanian oil field to French, American and English companies to very low prices ( as a "reward" ... :( ) and navigation on Danube River.

Regards

Territory was still a major sticking point for Bratianu in Paris though. One critical political battle he had to fight was that the Allies had considered the treaties of 1916 that granted Romania Transylvania and the Banat for entering the war against Germany and Austria-Hungary void when the Romanians signed the Treaty of Bucharest with Germany in May 1918. This meant that all Romanian border issues were being negotiated from scratch, with no reference to the 1916 treaties.

This is probably why Bratianu was so extreme in his demands for România Mare, and why the French were willing to foist such ridiculus military demands onto the Hungarians - to secure Transylvania. Oddly enough though, perhaps because Transylvania was militarily secure, Bratianu's main sticking point was over the Banat; he claimed all of it and even concocted a story at one point of Serbs murdering Romanian peasants.

Originally posted by Vrylakas
This meant that all Romanian border issues were being negotiated from scratch, with no reference to the 1916 treaties.


And - more like this - the 1916 treaty was a secret one and this was totally opposed to the principle of Wodrow Willson ...


Oddly enough though, perhaps because Transylvania was militarily secure, Bratianu's main sticking point was over the Banat; he claimed all of it and even concocted a story at one point of Serbs murdering Romanian peasants.

The Banat was divided between Romania and Yugoslavia and even a limited population change took place.
Initial romanian demands was pretty absurd - because would lead that Belgrad became a "border-city" - something that the Serbs never agree ( perfectfully justified IMHO ... :p ). Also the posesion of industrial city of Re****za was one major issue - the serb army occupied for a while almost all this part of teritory ( and that story was not a invented one, just a ... "very exagerated" one ... :D :D ).
In 1941 when Hitler invaded Yugoslavia he invited the romanian dictator, Ion Antonescu, to "complete the integration of all Banat province", but, wisely and normaly, Antonescu purely and simply ignore the "invitation" ... :)

Damn !!! This should be moved at a new created "Peace treaties at Paris after WW1" thread .... :rolleyes: - because there are some more interesting issues ...
I'm sorry for hijacking the thread ( and still not discuss beginning since the Xth century ... :D :D ).

Regards

Done. :)

Must be the first time I've splited off a thread, and then splited off another thread out of that. :)

Originally posted by XIII
Done. :)

Must be the first time I've splited off a thread, and then splited off another thread out of that. :)

Thanks a lot XIII !!! :goodjob:

I wanted to write you a PM but I observed that you already do this ...

That's very good - first is possible to disscus many other aspects here and second many hungarians people from here may said that is somewhat a "sacrilege" to talk about this at a section dedicated to history of Hungary.

Regards :)