Talk:Greater Hungary (political concept)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] PANONIAN's Tyranny over this article

[edit] Grammar

Not even getting into the more complicated bias and reality of the situation, but just simple grammar fixes PANONIAN doesn't allow. It is clear this user does not have a suitable command of the English language, or he is so arrogant he would rather have his own broken English on this page than allow someone else to fix it. User:KPalicz

Wrong, mister KPalicz, we can analyze your edits here of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Hungary_%28political_concept%29&diff=84712368&oldid=82285657 Two things are evident from your edit: 1. you did not changed grammar but MEANING of that sentence, and 2. you blanked another sentence (I will discuss more about this below). PANONIAN (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

His language:

  • The post-Trianon Hungary had about half of the population less than the former Kingdom. The population on the territories of the former Kingdom of Hungary that were not assigned to the post-Trianon Hungary was mainly non-Hungarian, although, it also included a sizable minority of ethnic Magyars. User:KPalicz

My corrected language:

  • The post-Trianon Hungary had less than half of the population of the former Kingdom. The population of the territories of the former Kingdom of Hungary that were not assigned to the post-Trianon Hungary were mainly non-Hungarian, although, it also included a sizable minority of ethnic Magyars. User:KPalicz

My rationale:

  • PANONIAN's English grammar is simply wrong. This is an error and must be corrected. He has reverted my attempts to fix this half a dozen times and refuses to allow even simple grammar fixes. This is ridiculous. User:KPalicz

Answer: as I said above, mister KPalicz, you changed the meaning of the sentence. Let analyse both sentences:

  • 1. Original sentence: "The post-Trianon Hungary had about half of the population less than the former Kingdom."
  • 2. Your "corrected" sentence: "The post-Trianon Hungary had less than half of the population of the former Kingdom."

So, "your" sentence imply that post-Trianon Hungary is same country as former Kingdom and that it "lost" population. Thus, this sentence do not have same meaning as the previous sentence that say that these two are not same countries and compare their population. Conclusion: if the grammar in first sentence is not good, then please correct it, but without of changing of meaning of the sentence, ok? PANONIAN (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scare Quotes

There is more substantial bias in this article, but again I'm not getting into it, but his unnecessary use of scare quotes is a clear example of bias. User:KPalicz

His language:

  • After the Treaty of Trianon, a political concept known as Hungarian revisionism became popular in Hungary. Hungarian revisionism claims that the Treaty of Trianon was an "injury" for the Hungarian people. Hungarian revisionists have created a nationalistic conception based on the "injustice" of the Treaty of Trianon with the political goal of the "restoration of borders of a thousand-year-old Hungary". User:KPalicz

My correction & rationale:

  • His language already says the following is a claim by "Hungarian revisionism" there is no need to add quotes around the terms "injury" or "injustice". This is improper useage of quotes with no other intention than to add additional anti-Hungarian bias to this article. This is politically motivated and once again is contrary to simple writing standards. I have made this fix half a dozen times and he reverts it everytime. User:KPalicz
If we do not use "injury" or "injustice" then we would imply that it indeed was injury and injustice, which is in fact wrong. And of course there is nothing anti-Hungarian here. On the contrary, usage of words injury and injustice is nationalistic propaganda that support creation of Greater Hungary. PANONIAN (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It is redundant since you already state those are the claims of Hungarian revisionists. The article isn't making the claim, the "revisionists" are, so there is no implication that the article supports that view. Did they make that claim? Yes? Then you just need to state it simply without redundant and overly biased scare quotes.User:KPalicz
Fine, I changed these quotes now: instead of these words, the whole sentences are now in scare quotes. PANONIAN (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erne Kis

His language:

  • (For example, Erne Kis, ethnic Hungarian and one of the leaders of the communist resistance movement in Vojvodina, was sentenced to death by a court in Szeged and executed). User:KPalicz

My correction & rationale:

  • Erne doesn't at all seem to be a significant figure worthy of inclusion in this article. There isn't a wikipedia entry on him and a Google search doesn't turn up anything of significance on him. Why he, and he alone is pointed out as an example here is beyond me. I have attempted to remove this reference from the article but once again, PANONIAN has reverted my edits with no explination. KPalicz 22:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, Erne Kis is an important historical figure. He is well known person and streets in many towns and villages in Vojvodina are named after him. The fact that there is no Wikipedia article about him does not mean much (there are no Wikipedia articles about many other known persons too). Why mention of him is important for this article? Because he was Hungarian and because he was anti-fascist. You mentioned above anti-Hungarian bias. Well, removing of Erne Kis from this article is quite anti-Hungarian. If you remove him, you create here an impresion that all Hungarians in WW2 were fascists, which is far from the truth. Many Hungarians were partisans and fought against Greater Hungarian fascist regime, thus they also were victims of that regime. It pretty much illustrate what kind of regime ruled Greater Hungary in WW2: to be accepted by the state, the citizen of that state had to be not only ethnic Hungarian, but also fascist, and those Hungarians who were not fascists were persecuted by the state. I am sorry, but it is truth about this state, no matter if you like it or not. PANONIAN (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
So then just say that Hungarian communists were also killed (and I believe you do) throwing out an example in this instance is inconsistent with the rest of the article where no examples are listed or needed. This article is just an overview, pointing out this one guy is unnecessary. User:KPalicz
It is an interesting information, and I see no reason why we should not include it. The fact that other parts of the article do not contain similar examples does not imply that we should delete this one too. Wikipedia should be free source of information, not a place for censorship. PANONIAN (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I've tried to free this article from POV, but it still needs work. --Adam78 01:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic violence

However, hate crimes against members of the Hungarian diaspora as late as 2004 provided the EU with reason for concern about the protection of Hungarian minority in Serbia's Vojvodina.

  • I just want to write my comment about this. European investigators have visited Vojvodina recently and concluded that there is no ethnic violence in Vojvodina. There are some isolated cases of ethnic violence, and the victims of these isolated cases are mostly Hungarians, Croats and Serbs. So, both, ethnic Hungarians and Serbs attack people of another nationality. Of course, these are only acts of small number of aggressive individuals. There is no more ethnic violence in Vojvodina than in any other European country or region. Stories about ethnic violence in Vojvodina were mostly invented for election propaganda in Hungary. User:PANONIAN
    • PANONIAN = pack of lies of great Serbian idiology
      • A Greater Serbian ideology? Did I ever said that I support a Greater Serbia idea? No, I did not. What I said here is what European investigators concluded when they visited Vojvodina. Comparing this with recent events in France and Australia, Vojvodina is a very peaceful place. And by the way, since we discuss here about events in Vojvodina, and since Vojvodina is located inside Serbia, I do not see how Greater Serbia ideology could be related to events in Vojvodina, because Vojvodina is not "a foreign territory claimed by Serbia". There is no logic in your claims, dont you agree? PANONIAN (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"Stories about ethnic violence in Vojvodina were mostly invented for election propaganda in Hungary."

It can hardly be the case, since it was dealt with by the best-selling Hungarian leftish daily Népszabadság, and the left-wing (MSZP) is often accused of having too little concern about Hungarians over the borders. If it had been invented only for election propaganda, it would have been propagated by the right side (considered more patriotic), the Fidesz.

It is not quite reasonable to say that a minority group can "mistreat" a majority group similarly as they are mistreated in a country which is actually ruled by the majority. As Bernd Posselt, a member of the EU factfinding committee said: he doesn't like such incidents whose victims are always the minorities.

The committee of the Vojvodina Parliament dealing with relations between nations found that out of the 178 nationality-related incidents in that region in 2003-2004, 82 (46%) was against Hungarians (and 19 against Croats, 15 against Serbs, 14 against Albanians and 12 against Romas).

Suppressing these cases may be a means to promote Serb pride and self-content, not especially one of the best means though. Settling these things in a proper and honest way would perhaps profit them more on the long run in their European reputation. As Jelko Kacin, another member of the committee, said: this region may be the litmus paper to measure whether Serbs really wants to join the EU or not. – So the above paragraph should be rather clarified than simply removed.

Adam78 30 June 2005 20:15 (UTC)

Ok, return the paragraph if you want, but also wrote this part that there were attacks against other ethnic groups (including attacks against Serbs). There are very similar attacks against minorities in other European countries (recently this happened in Holland and Italy), but it is very unique that majority nation in Vojvodina (Serbs) are also victims of attacks. You posted this about attacks:

  • 82 against Hungarians
  • 19 against Croats
  • 15 against Serbs
  • 14 against Albanians
  • 12 against Romas

We can post these numbers in the article. User:PANONIAN

Also, you cannot ignore that, besides real attacks, there was also some election propaganda, which wanted to show these attacks to look greater than they really were. User:PANONIAN

This article is outragingly biased. "Greater Hungary" had been in exisetence for 1000 years, ie. one can call it Hungary rather than the present day Hungary (ie. Central Hungary). The data concerning minorities in Hungary after the Vienna Awards are simply not true: these were the borders that really reflected the doctrine of Wilsonian self-governance. In addition, calling UMDR nearly revisionist is a lie. If UMDR - and Hungarians - were radical, Transylvania would be like Northern Ireland.

Further remarks: - what about atrocities against Hungarians in Vojdovida and Transylvania? - no territories were ceded to Yugoslavia after WWII, only to Slovakia (Rusovce and other 2 villages near Bratislava).

It is not correct that Greater Hungary existed 1000 years. Just read something about Royal Hungary, and you will see that it was not so big. I think that this article mainly speak about Greater Hungary in World War II, which have nothing to do with the former Kingdom of Hungary. As for atrocities in Vojvodina, if you want, we can write here much about atrocities committed by Hungarian soldiers in Vojvodina between 1941 and 1944 against the civilian population (mainly Serbs and Jews). If already the whole World speaks about Greater Serbia and Srebrenica, why the story about Greater Hungary should be a taboo? User:PANONIAN

[edit] Northern Transylvania population

The anonimous user just changed the population number for Northern Transylvania in the article. Previous version of the article stated that population of Northern Transylvania was composed of 49.1% Romanians and 38.8% Hungarians. The current version stating that population was composed of 52% Hungarians and 41% Romanians. Since I do not know much about history of Transylvania could somebody to check what are correct numbers? User:PANONIAN

According to my source, Northern Transylvania had a population of 2 667 007, of which 50.2% Romanians and 37.1% Hungarians. It is also mentioned that at least 121 489 people left N. Transylvania after the teritory was awarded to Hungary. Perhaps that's the origin of the minor difference between my numbers and those of the previous version (50.2% Romanians instead of 49.1% Romanians and 37.1% Hungarians instead of 38.8% Hungarians). Anyway, the numbers as they are now are clearly wrong and the phrase where they are mentioned makes no sense at all: "other areas were mainly inhabited by non-Hungarians, for example the population of Northern Transylvania was composed of 41% Romanians and 52% Hungarians". If N. Transylvania is an example of an area inhabited mainly by non-Hungarians, it's clearly impossible for the Hungarians to represent 52% of the population.
The fragment obviously needs editing. I'm only in doubt whether to use my own source or the previous version. Perhaps if the author of that version would post here, we might reach common ground. I am of the oppinion that my numbers represent N. Transylvania's population just before the partition, while his'/her's describe N. Transylvania's population after the Vienna Award/Diktat (don't know which is the accepted word around here :)).Bogmih 07:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:HunTomy

This user constantly reverting this page, and I will elaborate here why his reverts are wrong:

1. He deleting the link to the Greater Hungary disambiguation page, which is important to be here.

2. He constantly write that "Greater Hungary means the territory of Hungary before 1920", but as Greater Hungary disambiguation page can show, there is already article about that subject, while this article speak only about Greater Hungary as irredentist political concept.

3. He deleting map of Austria-Hungary, which is important because the Kingdom of Hungary was part of Austria-Hungary. Instead of this map he posting some map of the Kingdom of Hungary with the explanation that his image is better. In fact, letters on his image can hardly be read, while the article already contain similar map of the Kingdom where the letters can be read easily.

4. He deleting that Greater Hungary is a political goal of Hungarin irredentists (which is by the way the subject of this article).

5. He changing the sentence that Habsburg Monarchy conquered the Ottoman territories of former Hungary into the word "reconquered". How can Habsburgs reconquer the land which never belonged to them?

6. He deleting the statement that Hungary was autonomous part of Austria-Hungary into the statement that it was "independent", which is a ridiculous.

7. He deleting the part about demographics of the Kingdom of Hungary and replacing this with the strange calculation (calculating together Hungarians and Austrians). This is ridiculous, since Hungarians and Austrians are not cognate peoples which could be calculated together in this manner (Hungarians are Finno-Ugric Uralians, while Austrians are Germanic Indo-Europeans).

8. He deleting the part which say that population of the parts of the former Kingdom of Hungary which were included into the new neighbouring countries had a non-Hungarian majority (and it is a historical fact).

9. He deleting the statement that 3,3 million Hungarians was located in the neighbouring countries. This is a historical fact. He also deleting the number of other nationalities which were located in the Hungary after Trianon Treaty.

10. He posting fascist posters and videos into article (The source of these videos is neo-fascist web site www.hvim.hu).

11. He changing the map of Hingary in 1941 with some suspicious propaganda map (His map create the impresion that Hungary in 1941 relieved, not enlarged).

12. He deleting the statement that WW2 Germany was a Nazi Germany.

PANONIAN (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Answer to PANONIAN - "User:HunTomy"

1. "He deleting the link to the Greater Hungary disambiguation page, which is important to be here."

I will look after.

2. "He constantly write that "Greater Hungary means the territory of Hungary before 1920", but as Greater Hungary disambiguation page can show, there is already article about that subject, while this article speak only about Greater Hungary as irredentist political concept."

But the irredentis concept takes that as one's starting point.

  • Yes, but this article speak about irredentist concept, not about old Kingdom of Hungary (That is important). PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

3. "He deleting map of Austria-Hungary, which is important because the Kingdom of Hungary was part of Austria-Hungary. Instead of this map he posting some map of the Kingdom of Hungary with the explanation that his image is better. In fact, letters on his image can hardly be read, while the article already contain similar map of the Kingdom where the letters can be read easily."

Hardly registered using a map which is used by the irredentists. Those map are about the Kingdom of Hungary not about the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Oh the letters of the map can be read easily, but there is nothing interesting on it. But if you want i will look for a bigger map.

  • All right, I will accept this map. PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

4. "He deleting that Greater Hungary is a political goal of Hungarin irredentists (which is by the way the subject of this article)."

I think this is mentioned, but later. I will look after.

  • That should be mentioned in the begining, since it is what about this article is. PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

5. "He changing the sentence that Habsburg Monarchy conquered the Ottoman territories of former Hungary into the word "reconquered". How can Habsburgs reconquer the land which never belonged to them?"

The Habsburgs reconquered the land as the King of Hungary, and the land was reannexed to Hungary (and through it to the Habsburg Empire)

  • It was a political propaganda that they "reconquered the land as the Kings of Hungary". Fact is that they simply conquered these lands, and they legally treated these lands as "new conquered", not as "reconquered" (check this if you want, I read it in the book written by Hungarian historians). For Habsburgs, Hungary was nothing more than the name in their title (The emperor was a king of Hungary, but also a king of Croatia, Bohemia, Lombardy, Venice, even a king of Jerusalem. These titles means nothing. The fact that Habsburgs joined some of the new conquered lands to one of their provinces named Hungary also means nothing. They simply did not "reconquered" the lands. PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

6. "He deleting the statement that Hungary was autonomous part of Austria-Hungary into the statement that it was "independent", which is a ridiculous."

Independent by internal affairs, so semi-independent. Autonomy is not the correct word for it, autonomous provinces aren't recognised as a country.

  • Kingdom of Hungary also WAS NOT recognized as a country. The word "independence" thus is not acceptable. Find amother word if you do not like autonomy. PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

7. "He deleting the part about demographics of the Kingdom of Hungary and replacing this with the strange calculation (calculating together Hungarians and Austrians). This is ridiculous, since Hungarians and Austrians are not cognate peoples which could be calculated together in this manner (Hungarians are Finno-Ugric Uralians, while Austrians are Germanic Indo-Europeans)."

I mentioned that because the German minority of the Kingdom was enhance the country. Because of Austria-Hungary, Austrians are state nations too. So it's not a linguistic consideration but political. And by the way I mentioned apartly the numbers of Germans and Hungarians too.

  • Sorry, it were not only Austrians and Hungarians "a state nations". Serbs also were recognized as a nation as well as Croats. So, you cannot calculate only Austrians and Hungarians like this. PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

8. "He deleting the part which say that population of the parts of the former Kingdom of Hungary which were included into the new neighbouring countries had a non-Hungarian majority (and it is a historical fact)."

And for example in Highland the Slovakians was in minorty... was it mentioned anywhere?

  • What is Highland? Never heard for this name. As for Slovaks they were majority in most of what is now Slovakia. PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

9. "He deleting the statement that 3,3 million Hungarians was located in the neighbouring countries. This is a historical fact. He also deleting the number of other nationalities which were located in the Hungary after Trianon Treaty."

And i replaced it with another approximation: the 1/3 of the Hungarian nation. The numbers of the non-Hungarian population isn't deleted, just corrected.

  • Why not mention both numbers? PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

10. "He posting fascist posters and videos into article (The source of these videos is neo-fascist web site www.hvim.hu)."

I posted that poster to demonstrate an IRRENDENTIST poster. The video is not a politically motivated video, it's only a documentary film. HVIM is not fascist, but irrendentist. Look after the differences. And who cares where is the file uploaded? I didn't linked the site.

  • The proper manner to post external links is on the end of the article under the title "External links". These links should be connected with the subject of the article. These videos are not connected with the subject of the article, but only with one event mentioned apropos. Also, I do not buy the story that something what come from www.hvim.hu is not politicaly motivated. This article should only to speak about irredentist ideas, but not to support or justify them. Poster maybe could be included, but with different explanation for it. PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

11. "He changing the map of Hingary in 1941 with some suspicious propaganda map (His map create the impresion that Hungary in 1941 relieved, not enlarged)."

It's not a proganda map. I think you are little bit paranoid. This map is useful to compare Great-Hungary, Trianon Hungary, and WWII Hungary and by the way: much detailed

  • Sorry, but it is clear that this map is written for propaganda purposes. The borders of Trianon Hungary are almost invisible, while the purpose of the map was obviously to show not that Hungary was enlarged during the war, but that it "did not reclaimed all of its territories". That is simply an irredentist propaganda. The article already contain a map of the old Kingdom of Hungary. The map of WW2 Hungary should represent Hungary during the war and before the war. What about another map of WW2 Hungary you uploaded? Maybe you can post this one instead. PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

12. "He deleting the statement that WW2 Germany was a Nazi Germany."

I don't like when someones everywhere see Nazis. They are destroyed in 1945. I wanted to avoid emotional arguments about war crimes etc.

  • They were destroyed in 1945, but before this they WERE Nazis. I do not understand why that disturb you. PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

And why do you deleted the link to the Encyclopadia Britannica (1911)? Are the editors of it fascists too?

  • As I said the proper place for external links is the separate "External lins" title on the end of the article. Your external link is not connected with the subject. The link is not about irredentist political concept but about Kingdom of Hungary, and I saw that you already posted this link in the Kingdom of Hungary article. It simply do not belong here. PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

The article is now protected. Please engage in a constructive dialog to describe the controvery 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 • @ 18:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


Well, ten days and not a peep. Unprotected. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalist Thoughts - Not From the Hungarians

I think that article tries to describe that the "real" Hungary was founded in 1918. It's in error only for about 1000 years; and it provides much of false information about the old kingdom. Somewhere in it I read that " The new government of autonomous Hungary took the stance that Hungary should be a Magyar nation state, and that all other peoples living in Hungary—Germans, Jews, Romanians, Slovaks, Ruthenes, Serbs, and other ethnic minorities—should be assimilated." That autonomous Hungary -in reality- provided the following rights for nations living inside its borders:

  • The use of the mother tongue in offices of places where non-Magyars lived.
  • The right to found non-Magyar schools.
  • The goverment of Hungary freed the bondmans; Magyar, Slavic, Romanian and etc. too.
  • No any difference before the law.
  • Before the Treaty of Trianon, some Magyar politicians supported the "Eastern Switzerland" idea, a country completely based on the nations of it. The idea was rejected by all nation.

"The franchise was greatly restricted so as to keep power in the hands of the Magyars.":

  • In these times, the most of the Magyar people had no right to vote. There were no ethnic-based differences in it.
  • Remember the country's half-feudalist state! It's a big thing that some non-noble had right to vote in a state like this!

"Ethnic Hungarians inhabited parts of the occupied areas, but other areas were mainly inhabited by non-Hungarians, for example the population of Northern Transylvania was composed of 50.2% Romanians and 37.1% Hungarians." (WW2):

  • 52% of the population of N Transylvania was Hungarian according to indepedent sources. The remaining 48 percents was divided by Romanians, Germans, Romas, etc.
  • The Treaty of Trianon gave a lot of ethnically Magyar territories to other countries. This is a fact. It cut families into several parts. It's bad, "Vae victis" ideology caused revisionism, fascism, caused the Holocaust, caused nationalism, caused a big fall in the growth of the economy, caused sadness, caused some powerless, but indepedent states. I suppose that it's real purpose was mainly economic. Dictated by the Entente, mostly by France, without asking the Hungarian -Magyar- delegation. Based on false "facts" similuar to the upper. If the Entente don't make the peaces near Versailles as hard as this, we could say: "Fascism? Holocaust? Hitler? What are these??" - and we should live in a much better Europe.

" Establishment of Hungarian rule was followed by brutal war crimes against the local non-Hungarian population in some areas, such is Bačka, where Hungarian military killed several thousand civilians, mainly Serbs and Jews, but also Hungarians who did not colaborate with the new authorities."

  • They were killed by some disloyal officers. The regent of Hungary ordered the investigation, and the committers were liquidated.
  • The Hungarians died under the communist rule, in the frame of the revenge. The article means "communists" under the "new authorities"?

Based on these facts, I feel a very staunch Serbian/Romanian nationalist behind the article. Since Wikipedia's view is neutral, somebody could rewrite this article.

And -of course- I don't support the revision of any of the disputed territories. Today's way is the European Union, and nationalist-free politics. In every country. - posted by User:Cserlajos, May 4, 2006

Hello, I think you are giving a highly whitewashed presentation of the Hungarian system prior to 1918. You have some genuine points (there were a lot of Magyars outside the borders of Trianon Hungary, certainly), but a lot of the points seem to be along the lines of nationalist propaganda. I can't address all your specific points now, but the point about the franchise is particularly misleading. Indeed, it is true that most Hungarians, whether Magyar or not, could not vote. But it was widely known that there were a lot more Magyars who could vote than there were members of the minority populations (except the Croats and Germans). The parliamentary districts in the Slovak and Romanian areas of the kingdom were essentially rotten boroughs, with almost no voters and essentially represented by pro-government placeholders elected through corrupt means. While the franchise was limited everywhere, the seats in the more Magyar-dominated parts of the kingdom had considerably larger electorates. There were virtually no Romanian or Slovak representatives in parliament, and it is quite clear that Hungary's leaders rejected expansion of the suffrage for that very reason - in order to make sure that the minority ethnicities would not be represented. The idea that Hungary's suffrage was somehow advanced is absurd - even Austria had universal male suffrage by 1914. Hungary's highly restrictive franchise was increasingly seen as retrograde over the course of the period from 1867 to 1914. I'm also rather astonished that you deny the exitence of Magyarization. This is a widely accepted phenomenon by historians. It is true that the magyarization process was not incredibly brutal, and that various accommodations had to be made to the fact that there were large parts of Hungary where Magyar wasn't really spoken. Eliminating Slovak or Romanian primary schools would have been very difficult, for instance. But this was a concession to the practical limitations which a 19th century government faced in trying to convert the majority of its population to speaking a language that was completely unrelated to their native tongue. It didn't change the fact that assimilation was the ultimate goal of the government. john k 14:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, please post new material at the bottom of the talk page, and you can sign your name and date your post by typing in four tildes (~~~~). john k 14:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the present day independent Hungary was founded in 1918, and it was only its political predecessor, the Kingdom of Hungary, that was founded in 1000 AD. So, I do not see error here. Regarding the statement that "the new government of autonomous Hungary took the stance that Hungary should be a Magyar nation state, and that all other peoples living in Hungary should be assimilated", it is correct. I have very good books about Magyarization and it is simply not correct that non-Hungarian nations living in the Kingdom of Hungary had rights. The policy of the Hungarian government in that time was to assimilate them all and Hungarian politicians from that time even were proud because of that political aim they had. The use of mother tongue of non-Hungarians in the Kingdom was very restricted and the number of schools in other languages was very very small. Also regarding the voting, the Hungarians had more votes than it was their participation in population. Here is example: in 1913, Hungarians were 54.5% of population of proper Hungary and they had 60.2% of votes in the elections. Romanians were 16.1% of population and had 9.9% votes, Serbs were 2.2% of population and had 1.4% of votes, etc. Regarding the killings in Bačka in 1942, it is proven that Horthy Miklos know for that and approved these killings. The motive of the killings was to convince Hitler that Hungarian troops should to fight with "internal" enemy and that they should not be sent to Russian front. Therefor, the leaders of Hungary with the pretext that they fight with "Serbian chetniks" commited genocide against civilian Serb and Jewish population. So, it were not some "disloyal officers", but the order for that came from the highest place. PANONIAN (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Modern Hungary is a direct successor state to the old Kingdom of Hungary. There was a continuity of political power, with King Charles having appointed Karolyi as prime minister. and, indeed, the modern state of Hungary was known from 1920 to 1944 as the Kingdom of Hungary. I agree with your third sentence. In terms of the next sentence, I don't know that that follows - just because the official state policy was (eventual) magyarization, that doesn't mean that no rights were allowed to non-Magyars. The use of mother tongues of non-Magyars was restricted, but it was not forbidden. I agree that Hungarians had more votes than their percentage of the population. john k 02:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To the author

Dear Author,

I found this article very interesting, especially when I read the References. I had the feeling that this article is strongly based on and interprets Serbian literature - which would not be a problem if it was mentioned in the article headline.

This article was written by many different users, and I was the one who recently added some references to the article. It is bad that other people who worked on this article did not added their references too, but I hope that they will do it in the future. PANONIAN (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it is an article written in English, some readers - contrary to those who leave in the Central Europen (CE) region - might have very little background info, so the political neutrality would be a desirable aim, or at least you should try to show the point from several aspects.

Since both, Hungarian and non-Hungarian editors worked on this article, I think that its current form could be seen as neutral. PANONIAN (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me highlight some parts - it is your decision to consider whether you make any changes or not.

1. I have never heared about "pan-Magyar" ideology, and the meaning is a question for me, especially if comparing it to the well-known pan-Slavic or pan-Turk ideology. The latter ones' aim were to unite (not reunite) closely related nations, e.g. to create a state containing Russia as well as Bohemia. Since the Hungarian-speaking people are part of the Hungarian nation, and the differences between the Hungarian ethincities cannot be compared to that of between the Slavic or Turk nations, the term "pan-Magyar" is inaccurate and misleading. Naturally, the re-unification of the Hungarian nation is an existing aim of several political formations in Hungary and in the neighboring countries, but the tools used in most cases are far from political irredentism or revisionism. Would you call pan-Serbism when Serbia gives citizenship to Serbs who live e.g. in Croatia? I think you would not.

I do not know who wrote that word "pan-Magyar" there (you should ask the person who wrote that), but the Greater Hungary concept is not about that only. PANONIAN (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The Greater Hungary concept is the concept to restore Hungary's pre-WWI borders. But the aim of Hungarian political parties and civilian movements (no matter they are in Hungary or in the neighboring countries) is to represent and protect the rights of Hungarian minorities and to help their development in their homeland without changing the borders - it is neither possible nor necessary. So it should be mentioned that the aim of ANY territorial restoration or revision is only declared by some political extremities; so it would show the position of the idea on today's Hungarian political "map". Timur
I agree that Greater Hungary concept is not such important political option in Hungary, but the Internet is full of the websites created by these political extremities you mentioned. Therefor, the idea itself is widely spread (at least on Internet), no matter that there is no important political party in Hungary itself that support this idea. PANONIAN (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

2. "relatively moderate Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania". Everything is relative. If you compare it to other parties in Romania, you should call it simply "moderate".

3. "Habsburg" is written in English "Hapsburg". I don't have a clue why...

4. "uprising in Hungary in 1848–1849". It was a bit more than an uprising. It was a revolution, then it turned into a liberty war, which lasted more than a year and many of it's political and social achievements persisted after its defeating and defined the following half century.

5. "This was mainly non-Hungarian population, which lived within the Kingdom of Hungary before 1918". What is mainly? 99 or 60 percent? You best give a range, since the neverending disputes on the ratios...

See Treaty of Trianon article, there you have exact numbers about Magyar and non-Magyar populations in these regions. PANONIAN (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

6. "Treaty of Trianon". Hungary not only lost the majority of it's population and area. She has lost it's mineral resources, while most of the Kingdom's industry remaind in the stub. She has lost it's only port (Fiume/Rijeka). And many rules were forced on the country, which seriously offended it's sovereignity (customs, army, transportation and so on). So this independence really was not that any of the nations would desire.

You forget that this population was mainly non-Hungarian and that this population did not exactly desired to live within Hungary before the Treaty. PANONIAN (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It is true and mentioned in the article. But the above facts help to understand why border revisions could be the primary political goal of interwar Hungary. Timur
Well the origin of the Greater Hungary idea is in fact in the Hungarian feudal society and politicaly wrong concept based on the "state historical rights to territory". The Greater Hungary idea between two world wars was a reflection of the fact that the former state policy based on the "historical rights" and Magyarization failed with the Trianon treaty. PANONIAN (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The aim of the Treaty of Trianon was not to create nation-states with flourishing economy but to preserve the instability and to ensure the Entente supremacy. Don't forget: The four big rulers of Central Europe were defeated. Chaos took place in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey disintegrated and there was a revolution in Russia. And these empires were not only defeated by their enemies, their political structure and leadership (be it Emperor, Tzar or Sultan) was dismissed by their nation as well. There was a political vacuum, an opportunity for other great powers. And their clear aim was to elongate this opportunity.

Well, this article is not about the aims of the Treaty but about people who wanted (or still want) to change it. PANONIAN (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course not. Anyway, I don't think it would be a mistake to mention that the Treaty created a hostile atmosphere for Hungary by creating the so-called small Entente, to represent the interests of the Entente and to limit the political latitude of Hungary (as well as Austria). This atmosphere helped the Gretaer Hungary idea to become the base of all interwar Hungarian political movements. Timur
As far as I know, the little Entente was created as a response to Greater Hungary policy. PANONIAN (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

7. You forget to mention that the newly created countries in CE were NOT nation states as well. Czechoslovakia (containing today's Zakarpatskaya oblast as well this time) and the SHS Kingdom were ethnically diverse even more than the former Kingdom of Hungary. And because they did not learn from the example of the Monarchy (and Hungary), they followed it's fate. Even the enlarged Romania, which had a Romanian absolute majority and declared (and still declares) herself as a nation-state, was more ethnically inhomogenious than the post-WWI Hungary. In this climate, it is not so surprising that Hungary claimed territories with non-Hungarian ethnic majority.

But new countries were nation states. SHS Kingdom was a nation state of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, it just had many minorities. Of course, nobody claim that borders after Trianon were 100% rightfull, but if you compare the data that before Trianon more than 10 million non-Hungarians lived in Hungary and after Trianon 3,5 million Hungarians lived outside Hungary, you can see that borders after Trianon certainly were more rightful than those before. PANONIAN (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I wonder what Croats thinks about your above statement... And such statements like "borders after Trianon certainly were more rightful than those before" are the base of all "Greater-XYCountry" concepts and century long hostilities in Europe. I think there is no such thing like "rightful border" in Europe, but it is strictly my opinion. Maybe I am not alone - it is enough to look at the aim of Schengen treaty. Timur
Well, the present-day Croatian historians are too much frustrated with the recent wars to ask them for objective opinion about Yugoslavia. However, it is fact that Croats were not minority in Yugoslavia (or in the SHS Kingdom), but one of the recognized nations. The dispute in Yugoslavia was in fact about whether country should be centralized or federalized. The dispute was partially solved in 1939 by creation of Banovina of Croatia, and finally solved in 1945 by creation of 6 republic and 2 autonomous provinces. Regarding the borders in Europe, I did not said that they are rightfull, but that the current borders in Europe are more rightfull than those 100 years ago. If you see the map of Europe as it was in the end of the 19th century, you can see that much of Europe was ruled by 3 empires (Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, and Russian), while today you have many independent states in this area. I do not think that somebody could not agree that the current situation is more rightful (which does not mean that it is 100% rightful). PANONIAN (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

8. "because this cosmopolitan identity existed for centuries, modern Hungarian culture includes significant elements that come from places, which were part of Hungary in history." The elements from the places of former Kingdom of Hungary are part of the Hungarian culture simply because it was one country then.

9. "50.2% Romanians and 37.1% Hungarians". You should give a range. There is no consensus on the ethnicity rates.

I think that one data for this is from Romanian census, and another from Hungarian. PANONIAN (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

10. "and some villages South of Bratislava". Three villages.

11. "According to some claims, from 1947 until the 1989 Romanian Revolution and the death of Ceauşescu, a systematic Romanianization of Hungarians took place". <<According to some claims, during WWII a systematic genocide of the Jews took place in Nazi-ruled parts of Europe>>. Don't you think it sounds strange?

Another fact: Romania was so "nice" to its minorities, that Germany "evacuated" the Saxons from Transylvania after the fall of the Ceausescu-regime. Timur

12. "Both during the Communist era and today, the Hungarian government has advocated for the rights of ethnic Hungarians" This is simply not true. The communist (not Communist) governements did nothing for the ethnic Hungarians. More accurately, they cancelled their citizenship during the 70s. That's all.

12. What you wrote about the "Trianon" film is interesting as well. It was on programme not only on one of tv channels in Hungary but in Romania as well. It is rather a documentary than a movie propagating revisionist ideas. And the neighboring countries' citizens are mature enough not to think that their territoritorial intactness will be offended by an EU and NATO member country, aren't they?

13. Even if the Magyarization seriously offended the nations of the pre-WWI Kingdom of Hungary, and set back their national development (it is enough to note that 100 000's of Slovakians emmigrated to the US, to escape from poverty), it would be not correct to describe it as a nationalist country, especially if we compare it to the new countries created after WWI, and in general to the government-supported nationalist movements of the XXth century. E.g. Hungary had not transported magyars to change ethnicity rates; but this was the practice of interwar and post-WWII Romania, Yugoslavia and post WWII Czechoslovakia (Sudeten), Soviet Union (Latvia), or Turkey (in the case of Cyprus). And in some aspects, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was more liberal than most European countries that time - just compare the situation of the Jews.

Actually, Hungary did transported Magyars to change ethnicity rates (this especially happened in Vojvodina, I am not sure for other places). For example, there was a plan to settle Magyars in Vojvodina around the rivers Danube and Tisa, so the Serbs in Bačka would be surounded by Hungarian settlements and they would be separated from other Serbs in Banat and Srem. PANONIAN (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I wonder what the magnitude of these settlements were. Especially compared to those mentioned above. Many Germans and Slovaks were settled in the Vajdaság/Wojwodina region as well during the centuries - without any political or nationalist concepts. Timur
You can check the current ethnic map and you can see that many of such Hungarian settlements along Danube and Tisa still exist, especially in northern Potisje, which had Serb ethnic majority in the first half of the 18th century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vojvodina_ethnic2002.jpg The Slovaks also were settled in Vojvodina with the Magyarization purpose, because those who settled them were aware that Slovaks very easy become Magyars. Indeed, most of the Slovaks of Catholic faith were Magyarized, and only those who were Protestants remained Slovaks. The Germans were settled because of another political concept (Germanization) implemented by Vienna. PANONIAN (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Check the banknotes of the Hapsburg Monarchy, you find the denomination written in ethnic languages (besides German and Hungarian), like in Switzerland, Belgium or Finland. Now check the banknotes of any of the countries neighboring Hungary. Do you find it written in Hungarian? No, you don't, except interwar Czechoslovak notes. And what do you think would happen, if ethnic Hungarians asked to write the denomination in Hungarian on the Slovak koruna, Romanian leu or Serb dinar? It would be considered "nationalism", "revisionism" or maybe - with your words - "pan-Magyarism". But maybe it would be only a step toward a full life in their homeland...

http://aes.iupui.edu/rwise/notedir/europe.html

Anyway, your article is a well organized and detailed one, but maybe you should use more sources and ask the opinion of Romanian, Slovakian - and not at least Hungarian specialists. This would help a lot to understand each other and could show that we are grown up to solve problems in a civilised way...

Your Sincerely,

Timur Lenk

And, as I said already, many non-Hungarian and Hungarian users worked on this article, so you simply do not have one single person which is "guilty" for this article. PANONIAN (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Noone mentioned "guilty", only the lack of political neutrality and diverse aspects. Thank you for your reactions. Timur

[edit] Near realisation of ...

Unreliable or not, the Hungarian census from 1941 was the only official we could talk about. The rest of the datas are only speculation, estimation. Sure this cenus could not take a "snapshot" of the demographic situation of the region form 1938 or 1940, right after the Wienna awards ... BUT this is an official census, like many others from 1850, or 1930 ... Sure I can (and I will) add anywhere to Wikipedia where recent censuses are mentioned that they are unreliable, and according to a book written by Jacob Gipsz the percent of hungarians in Transylvania is 40%. And the Romanian census from 2002 is unreliable ... Look at the Romanians article. However the Romanians pretends that in Hungary are still living more then 400,000 Romanians, the official census counted 7,000 ... --fz22 07:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The census performed during fascist occupation is unacceptable as valid source. Its results (on Yugoslav territory at least) were very different from both, previous census in 1931 and next one in 1948 (while results in these two are similar). Also, why you deleted numbers from 1931 census that I posted? I do not know much about population of Transylvania, but Vojvodina never had 40-47% Hungarians. See this Hungarian web site with 1941 census: http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/hmcb/Tab21.htm According to this site, the population of Vojvodina in 1941 was composed of 35.3% Serbs, 28.5% Hungarians, and 19.4% Germans. The numbers of 40-47% Hungarians is a number for Bačka, not for Vojvodina. If your source listed that as population of Vojvodina it is obvious error (no matter if that error is made purposelly or not). Also, all censa between 1880 and 1941 did not recorded ethnicity but language, thus we do not speak here about number of Hungarians, but about number of Hungarian language speakers. Ethnicity and language do not always correspond one with another, just see the Subotica article, where according to 2002 census you had 38.47% Hungarians and 24.14% Serbs, but languages spoken in the area are 46.60% Serbian and 38.82% Hungarian. If we judge by the language we would conclude that Subotica have relative Serb majority, right? PANONIAN (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
That's right we are talking about Bacska. Let's assume the census from 1920-1930 after the Trianon treaty were also unacceptable for Hungarians as a valid source (around 350,000 persecuted Hungarians fled their homeland + in Slovakia the number of Magyars decreased by 25% in a few years). So according to the 1910 census (the last before the Great War) we have 30% Magyars, 25% Serbs, 20% Germans. The 45.8% is the total number of Hungarian speaking persons in Bacska (they spoke Hungarian != have Hungarian as native language)--fz22 15:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
That is wrong comparasion here. You can compare Yugoslav censa from 1921 and 1931 with Austro-Hungarian censa from 1900 and 1910, but census from 1941 was something specific. It was performed in fascist state as a part of fascist propaganda and it is proved that its results were not valid. So, as you can see, I did not removed numbers from this census (no matter of its propagandist nature), I only added other data which is different from data on that census. I do not see problem that we have both data here, but it is you who removing other data and posting here only your own. That is called POV pushing and it is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Regarding data from 1910 you speak about, this data is not for Serbian part of Bačka, but for what was then Bačka-Bodrog county, which was larger territory and the percent of Hungarians in Serbian part of Bačka would not be so different if we compare censa from 1910 and 1931. The question of Hungarian language is also a problem. The question in Hungarian census was not about "mother tongue" but about "most frequently spoken language", thus the citizens simply answered what language they mostly use in everyday communication, not what language they use in home. Besides this, many non-Hungarians were afraid to say their true language in 1941, thus that is why we have this anomaly with that census. To conclude: you may say that data from Romanian book presented here is POV, but the data presented by you is also POV, so, we either will post both, either none. PANONIAN (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
1. Hungary wasn't a fascist state. Your statement is a 100% pure POV fz22 21:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course it was, both, Hungary and Nedićs Serbia were fascist states in that time, as well as all other allies of Nazi Germany. Claim that any of these states was not fascist state would be nothing else but history twisting. PANONIAN (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The 1941 ccensus may be unreliable, but Hungary under Horthy was never a fascist state. The only clearly fascist regime in Hungary was Szalasi's rule from 1944-5. john k 22:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
But what is a base for the claim that Hungarian regime was not fascist? What was so different between regime in Hungary and that in Nazi Germany? The policy of extermination of Jews was certainly same in both as early as in January 1942, long before Szalasi. PANONIAN (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
That's complete nonsense. There was killing of Jews in the Vojvodina in January 1942, but that doesn't mean that the Horthy regime had a "policy of extermination of Jews," much less that their Jewish policy was the same as that of the Nazis. The Hungarian Jews weren't sent to Auschwitz until Horthy was overthrown, and this was due to the regime explicitly refusing to countenance the deportation of Hungarian Jews. The Hungarian regime was certainly a right wing one, but up until 1944 it retained considerable liberal elements, perhaps due to the long liberal tradition in Hungary. I've seen it described as "reactionary liberalism." There were elections and a certain degree of civil society in Hungary throughout. Teleki, the Hungarian prime minister in 1939-1941, was certainly no fascist - he was an old school conservative, and his government represented a retreat from more fascistizing tendencies of the Gömbös and Imrédy regimes of the mid to late 30s. I don't really have any interest in defending the Horthy regime, whihch was certainly unpleasant, but I've never seen any scholar describe it as actually "fascist." Can you find any sources that support your contention? john k 18:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure, plenty of sources. I even do not know historical book published in former Yugoslavia which speak about these events that do not mention Hungarin state as fascist. What you think why the fight of the resistance movement was named "anti-fascist fight"? I am sure that those Jews killed in 1942 would like to hear your explanation how Hungary was liberal and free country. :) PANONIAN (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Saying that the Hungarian census from 1941 had more propaganda included than eg. the Romananian one held in 1930 is another POV. fz22 21:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It is proven by the comparision of that census with previous and subsequent censa and by the fact that it greatly differ from all of them, including those censa from Austria-Hungary. PANONIAN (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
3. You wrong there was two question one about mother tounge and another for "most frequently spoken language". This is something specific for Hungarian census since the Mid 19th cenutry. Maybe you're right some of the Serbians declared themself as Hungarian, but why don't you accept that in the same way in 1921-1931-195x there were also Hungarians who were "afraid to say their true language they use in home" (using your words) fz22 21:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
But the Yugoslav state between 1918 and 1941 did not had a policy of genocidal extermination of Hungarians like the Hungarian state between 1941 and 1944 had a policy of extermination of Serbs. I do not see why Hungarians in Yugoslavia would be afraid to declare their identity. Just remember why Pal Teleky commited suicide in 1941 and what he wrote in his last epistle. PANONIAN (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
4. As I promised I'll add for every single Wikipedia article a Hungarian POV saying the data mentioned there (eg. Romanian/Yugoslavian census from 2000-2002) is comming from unreliable sources and I know a book written by XY where the percentage for the specified territory is just the contrary. (e.g. the number of Hungarians in Transylvania is still above 2,5 million just beacause I know a book which says this...) Can you accept this ;)??--fz22 21:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
What is problem with you anyway? It is generally accepted that fascist propaganda from WW2 was false and served genocidal policy of both, Nazi Germany, and its allies. See this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Voting-booth-Anschluss-10-April-1938.jpg Do you really want to defend that??? That is same kind of propaganda on which you insist here. Census from 1941 was fabricated to serve fascist propaganda and that have nothing to do with any other censa in history. All other censa in this region, including Austro-Hungarian ones before 1918 were more or less free and are not fabricated like that. PANONIAN (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] After Trianon

We are talking here what Hungarians had thought about Trianon right after the Treaty. Right? so what's the problem?
Problem is that you did not stated what non-Hungarians had thought about Trianon. This is one-sided POV. PANONIAN (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course, not. i've just rectified the sentence started with "Hungarian revisionism claims" and at least here we could add what they (and not other non-Magyars) did claimed. Right? --fz22 11:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
But let me quote what you wrote: "and recognised later by a peace treaty widely regarded as unjust". So, you did not wrote that some Hungarians consider this unjust, but that it is "widely regarded as unjust" (by everybody). Can you notice the difference? PANONIAN (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
"was granted independence or joined neighbouring countries" this is Entente propaganda. In fact in November 1918 when Hungary signed the armistice there were no foreign troops on Hungarian soils. There were no civil war between Magyars and non-Magyars during the WWI (Irish people revolted against Brittain in 1917!). A new democratic government was formed but the new Hungarian state was invaded from 3 different directions and finally collapsed. The treaty just recognised the rights over the teritories occupied by the Romanian, Serbian and Czecks troops. Just think on what happened in Turkey when they became aware of the Entente "Peace". If Hungary would put up resitance our present day borders won't be the same as we know--fz22 10:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Entente propaganda??? No, Fz, it is truth that you do not want to accept. Read this article for example: Banat, Bačka and Baranja. You can see that separation from Hungary was initiative of local people, not something what was imposed by Entente (and even Serbian government did not recognized new government of Vojvodina formed by local people in 1918). They were citizens of Hungary and decided to separate from Hungary, simple thing. And you really do not want to know whose troops were on Vojvodinian soil in November 1918, but I will tell you: the troops of Serb Safeguard made by local Serbs who themselves expelled Austro-Hungarian soldiers from many places of the region including Novi Sad, before Serbian army actually arrived. PANONIAN (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok and why no plebiscites were held?
Because it was a policy of the peace conference, simple answer. If we start to ask why no plebiscites were held in many parts of the history, we can also ask why plebiscite was not held in 1860 when Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat was abolished and incorporated into Kingdom of Hungary. I am sure that most of its Slavic and Romanian inhabitants would vote against its incorporation into Kingdom of Hungary, but nobody asked them. Same things happened in other parts of the history. PANONIAN (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
QED. so you want to say that the Trianon Treaty was a gross injustice for Hungarians just like the incorporation of Banat into Hungary for "Yugoslav" people? :) btw the secret ballot was only introduced in 1890 in USA ;) Ok I can accept this :) --fz22 15:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
But, Fz, did you noticed that such stories about "land stolen from Hungary" always apply to the entire territory of the former Hungarian Kingdom, not only to those where Hungarians were ethnic majority? I would even agree if somebody say that "those lands where Hungarians were majority were stolen from Hungary in 1920", but I never hear that somebody say something like this. There is always story that "all lands were stolen from Hungary". Of course, the question from whom Hungary "stole" these lands is another story. :) PANONIAN (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Panonian, what you edited out here was meant to be (but wasn't quite, I admit) a NPOV description of the views of Hungarian irredentists. Then, for formal reasons refers to Hungary - they waited 1 day for formal reasons (so that de jure, Hungary didn't invade Yugoslavia because the territories in question were occupied by the Germans the day before). I've tried to clarify that.

I disagree with your addition "(mostly those who were connected with Axis authorities during the war)". Bloodshed against civilians is never as controlled as that, not to mention that "mostly" and "connected" are clear-cut weasel terms. It would be nice if you could rephrase it to something factual, or if that's not possible, remove it.

KissL 14:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then you write that Treaty was unjust from the point of view of Hungarians, and it would be fine with me. The invasion of Yugoslavia could be also described with another words, so, try to change the sentence. Regarding the killings made by Yugoslav partisans after the war, the problem is that such killings were not ethnically motivated. Maybe you are not aware, but partisans killed much more Serbs than Hungarians (I am not talking here about Bačka but about Yugoslavia in general). The aim of the partisans was in fact to punish those that collaborated with Axis regimes in Yugoslavia, althought I agree that criteria who was collaborator and who was not was ideologically motivated and that sometimes people were labeled as collaborators simply because new communist authorities considered them a threat for the state. There might be also some Hungarians who were killed after the war simply because of the revenge, but fact is that many Hungarians also were partisans, and actually the problem with this whole sentence is because it tend to imply that Hungarians were killed because of ethnical reasons, while reasons in fact were political. Remove that sentence added by me if you want, although, I will try to find some other phrase that could better to explain events after the war. PANONIAN (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] One vs three multiethnic states

the Croatians were definetely a state component element in Hungary. BTW the so called "Magyar Birodalom" (Empire of Hungary) was formed from three separate administrative entity after 1868: proper Hungary, Croatia-Dalmatia, and Fiume. Both of them had authonomous governments, this is why Hungarians offen called them "co-countries" (társ-orszag). This is why I suggest to use either 54% for Magyars in (proper) Hungary or we add the Croats percentage (in the same way as we do for the Slovaks percentage -12%- for Czechoslovakia)--fz22 07:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, I will come back to these numbers later. Juro 12:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Croats were not nation in the Kingdom of Hungary. They had territorial autonomy within the Kingdom, but autonomy is not same as nation status. In the Kingdom of Hungary after 1867, only Hungarians were recognized as a nation. The official policy was that all inhabitants of the Kingdom are Hungarians and that they all should speak Hungarian language. Germans which lived in the Kingdom of Hungary were not regarded as nation and official policy of the Kingdom was to Magyarize them too. The Croats were only ethnic group that had some kind of autonomy in the Kingdom, but it was only autonomy not a nation status. Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Hungary were not two equal political entities, but Croatia-Slavonia was subordinated to the Kingdom of Hungary. Besides this, the policy of the Kingdom was to Magyarize Croats like all other ethnic groups. PANONIAN (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
They have parliament(Sabor), government (see 1868/XXX), and a minister in the Hungarian government ... Don't you think this is more than just a simple autonomy? I think the Szekelys would be pleased with such an autonomy :) BTW I think you know why the Croats (as a nation!) were represented by the unionist party in the Croato-Hungarian negotiations from 1868 (If don't ask Levin Rauch :). Ferenc Deak was on the National Party side (and opposed count Andrássy and Lónyay). He proposed a monetary separation - among others - and he well knew that the public opinion of Croatia was behind the National Pary and they (Hungarians) were interested in a longstanding and prosperous Croato-Hungarian relationship ... unfortunately his demand was not accomplished ...--fz22 18:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
"They have parliament(Sabor), government (see 1868/XXX), and a minister in the Hungarian government ... Don't you think this is more than just a simple autonomy?" :))) No, Fz, this is just a simple autonomy. Present-day Autonomous Province of Vojvodina also have parliament, government as well as ministers in the Serbian government, so it is not something special. :) PANONIAN (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
You just compare something from the mid 19th century with an autonomy from the late 20th century. Tell me what kind of autonomy has been realised in Scotland or Ireland in the same time. Anyway the Croats had special status in the KoH leastwise comparable with their new status in the SCS Kingdom. Let alone their "rights" after 1929 --fz22 06:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/e/Talk%7EGreater_Hungary_%28political_concept%29_e5ae.html"