Talk:Treaty of Trianon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Part of this talkpage has been archived. For old discussions, see here.

[edit] Relevance of economic power in the introduction?

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

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

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

[edit] Consequences

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

[edit] House of Terror

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

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

[edit] Tragedy

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Plebiscites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And remember: the "magyarisation" was a natural process not dictatorial like romanians, czeckslovaks and yugoslavs did after 1920. This is a great difference... (This was added by 81.182.105.231 dsl51b669e7.pool.t-online.hu).

Haha you are so funny! Milanmm 14:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] New Hungarian state vs continuity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Sorrowful song):

Az Felföldet bírják az kevély nímötök

Szerémséget bírják az fene törökök

(Rough translation:

Our upper land is in the hands of the haughty Germans

Szerémség is in the hands of the hellish Ottomans).

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

"Szlovenszkó" was used briefly after WW1, when everybody was shocked by the emergence of the new state, and they simply translated the Slovak term. As for Slovakia, it couldn't have been a widespread indication, if even 1911 Britannica (with a clear pro-Slovak bias thanks to Scotus Viator) does not mention it: [[1]]. Vay 05:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Cease fire lines or borders

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

kelenbp 13:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] "national tragedy" clause

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

From the Hungarian viewpoint, it can be considered a national tragedy: dismemberment of a major regional power, loss of 2/3 of territory and population, establishment of an artificial border cutting through organically developed regions.Árpád 11:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes for Hungarians Treaty of Trianon is tragedy but for Slovaks thats Victory in independence from that time hatefull empire called Hungary of whatever Yes its our history and We are Independent now. As I been reading that we was last developed region in Hungary..Yes its true Hungary was bad master for as Slovaks...User:Marek.kvackaj 23:32, 9 october 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minorities

Speaking about Trianon only the 1920 official census numbers matter not before or later ten years, although the 1930 and 1941 censuses are mentioned to indicate the process of slow decline until WW2. This is not a place for Czechoslovakian propaganda numbers which lack any official census background. In Hungarian sources I didn't find any distinction in the 1920 census like Slovak or "Slovak-speaking" so present any evidence that these higher numbers were part of the 1920 official census and not a Czechoslovakian claim. Zello 19:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

And did you find them for 1910 (e.g.)? Because it is very difficult to find such detailed data in full - I myself found them (for 1910) only by coincidence. Secondly, it is interesting that you call Hungarian figures "Czechoslovak propaganda numbers" as soon as you do not like them. (If I added real "propaganda" numbers the whole list would be even much worse for you) Finally, I have given the source; and after all, I can even delete the Czechoslovak estimate, the Hungarian numbers are quite enough.Juro 19:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, and as for your notice board remark regarding the "slow decline": 1920: 145 000 Slovaks vs. 1930: 100 000 Slovaks [using your (wrong) numbers] - do you call this a "slow" decline??? I got used to Hungarian propaganda in the meantime, but this cannot be even qualified as an exaggeration.Juro 19:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The "wrong" numbers are from Romsics' book about Hungary in the 20th century. He says that these numbers show the the minorities according to the MOTHER-LANGUAGE data of the 1920 census. So where are your higher numbers from és what they mean? Zello 19:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote from the source "the official Hungarian statistical data from 1920 say that 399,170 citizens speak [speak well/have a good command - difficult to translate] of the Slovak language. In reality there were far more Slovaks living in Hungary....". I do not think that someone is able to invent such an number (the other numbers in the book are correct) and given that determining the "Slovak etc. speaking Hungarians" (that was the official name in 1910 at least) was a standard in Hungary (both in 1910 and in 1930), I see no reason to assume that this was not the case in 1920. Juro 20:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The whole population of Hungary increased between 1920 and 1930 so higher numbers are natural for minorities. There is no reason to use misleading 1930 data for 1920 when we have an official census in 1920. Zello 19:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, note that I do not have the "speaking" data for 1920 except for the Slovaks (unfortunately), therefore you cannot compare the 1920 "non-speaking" data and the 1930 "speaking" data (other type of question). E.g. the number of Germans cannot have increased and did not increase from 500 000 to 800 000 - that would countradict historic facts and demographic rules. In reality, the lower number are persons where it cannot be denied that they are Germans, while the 300 000 difference are those Germans where something has been found to declare them not "fully" German although they spoke German. Secondly, I have rounded down the figures. Thirdly, I could agree with you if the differences would be in several percentage points or so, but they are always at least in 50 p.p. or much higher and that cannot be explained by a general population increase. And after all, if the whole population increased, how does it come than that the percentage of Slovaks decreased by 1/3 then (a remark: in reality it stayed at around 400 000 - 500 000 all the time until after WWII, because that number was counted (be)for the population exchange and it perfectly fits the higher figures).Juro 20:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Juro, the total population of Hungary was 7,9 million in 1920, 8,6 million in 1930 and 9,3 million in 1941 (without regained territories). This is a rapid increase in absolute numbers so highly misleading to use 1930 data for 1920. It is possible that the situation was different with the different nationalities ie. probably Germans increased in absolute numbers and Slovaks decreased, I don't know. But the only possible way to establish post-Trianon data is to use the 1920 census numbers and mention in brackets your claim that "the official Hungarian statistical data from 1920 say that 399,170 citizens speak [speak well/have a good command - difficult to translate] of the Slovak language" together with the citation. Although I don't understand at all - if the 1920 census numbers show "mother-language" as Romsics said what is this 400 000? Probably there were another question for second language knowledge or I don't know. Zello 05:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You will not believe me, but I perfectly understand what you mean (the first thing I looked at was the 7.9 vs. 8.6 difference). I will try to divide this into several points:

Point 1: Forget the 1941 numbers
Point 2: The problem is that Hungarian censi distinguished between "true" (e.g.) Slovaks (what they classified by mother tongue, the most frequently spoken language etc. - whatever) and "untrue" Slovaks (what was classified as "Slovak speaking Hungarians" in 1910 and "Slovak speaking persons (minus "Slovaks")" in 1930). In reality however, this distinction does not make sense, because no Magyar would make himself "Slovak speaking", because using Slovak was virtually prohibited in practise and Slovaks were literally hated ("shepherds" etc.) and there was no reason to learn that language (rather the opposite). In other words the true number of Slovaks is the second number, i.e. that including "Slovak speaking Hungarians" (or whatever the name).
Point 3: I am not sure that the "mother tongue" is what was really asked in 1920; it also frequently claimed that the mother tongue was asked in 1910, but that is not quite correct, the actual fact inserted in the forms was the most frequently spoken language in everyday life.
Point 4: Now, the problem is that we could forget these differences between the lower and the higher numbers, if they were low (and that would be nothing new in the field of ethnicities), but the differences are huge both absolutely and relatively (more than 50% up to more than 100 % ) and this cannot be ignored.
Point 5: As for the population increase: (1) There were no substantial population moves from /to abroad between 1920 and 1930 - at least not in these magnitudes. (2) The total population change between 1920 and 1930 was 8% - now compare that with the 50% and more differences for the minorities - that just does not make any sense. It is evident that this is a pure issue of census definitions. (3) The fertility of Slovaks was higher than average, therefore they would have to increase and not decrease. The fertility of Germans was lower than average, therefore they would have to decrease and not increase etc.
Point 5: Let me repeat the official Hungarian numbers for Slovaks (rounded): 1910 (in 7 counties only) - 128 000 "Slovaks" + 158 700 "Slovak speaking Hungarians"; 1920 - 141 882 "Slovaks" + (399 000 - 141 882) "Slovak speaking Hungarians"; 1930 - 104 819 "Slovaks" + n/a (n/a for Slovaks; 473 000 counted for the population exchange in 1946). This clearly shows that 300 000 - 400 000 is a minimum estimate for the true number of Slovaks.
Point 6: It would be very helpful to have the "speaking" (or whatever the names) numbers for the other nationalities for 1920 as well, but I am unable to find them. Don't you have detailed results for the 1920 census somewhere in a library or so? (Libraries are a problem in the summer, I know).

Juro 18:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I also understand your point but I think the distinction wasn't between "true" Slovaks and "untrue" Slovaks but Slovaks by mother tongue/most frequently spoken language and Slovaks by national identity. The first should be the higher number because in the post-Trianon atmosphere it wasn't very popular to declare yourself Slovak although the language remained. There are other reasons mostly the process of assimiliation, merging of Hungarian (citizen) identity with Magyar identity etc.

But you are right: the only way to decide in the numbers is to look up more data. The National Library is open yet (until 1 August) so I will go there in Saturday and try to collect every information we need from the 1920 and 1930 census publications together with exact questions. Zello 14:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent (and note that I put the word true under quotation marks). Juro 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This is good work you are both doing, but I must say some of it borders on OR. Aren't there any systematic studies of these data by academics with clear conclusions we can cite? Perhaps multiple differing views? Dsol 14:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Searching for official census data is no original research. And as for analyses, I do not know such analyses, I only know mentions in (other) texts; in any case, there are no well-known studies or so about this. Juro 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correct data

I went to the National Library and found the census data at last.

There were the same two questions in 1920 and 1930:

"What is your mother language?"
"What languages do you speak?"

There was no question about nationality in Hungarian censi until 1941.

The second question was about bilingualism and produced much higher data for minorities as the first one (of course the same is true for the Magyar language - it was mother language for 7'147'053 people in 1920 and was spoken by 7'722'441 people at the same time).

It is true that the percentage, the absolute numbers and even bilingualism was decreasing in the next decade. I have the same data for 1930 and all numbers are lower.

There is no way to establish the number of minorities from the second question. That question only shows how much people were able to speak Slovak. Among them certainly were people whose parents or grandparents spoke Slovak as a mother language but the family began assimilation. But there were people also who lived together with Slovaks and were able to express themselves on the language of their neighbours. It is the same as many Slovaks in present-day Komárno and Csallóköz speak some Hungarian but they are not Magyars at all. The high number of German speakers is obviosly a cultural phenomenon as German was widely taught in Hungarian secondary schools (ie. the same as the high number of English speakers now). We are not able to separate these two groups among the bilinguals in lack of other data. The problem wasn't raised by me but demographic historian József Kovacsics who presented the census data. Zello 18:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean that the second question (if it really went exactly like you are presenting it here - you probably mean "speak" not "spoke") resulted in data like "xy speak French", "xy speak English" etc., or what? This is very strange for a population census, if this was really the whole question without any additions. I can hardly imagine that the results contain the numbers of e.g. English speakers, but they should then... And as for Slovaks, the situation was different in 1910, there were no Slovak schools whatsoever anymore and it is impossible that there were 150 000 Slovaks, but also 150 000 (!) Magyars (unless they have at least a Slovak parent) speaking that language just because they are their neighbours, especially given that in 1910 the use of the language in the public was sanctioned (although officially not, of course). Such numbers - i.e. resulting only from "neigbourship" - would be impossible even in present-day Finland or so. Juro 19:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are English-speakers, French-speakers, Italian-speakers also (with smaller numbers as these languages were only spoken by the elite). As for the Slovaks there can be different groups among this plus 250 000 people:

People with Slovak ancestry who were more fluent in Magyar than Slovak but they didn't forget the language of their parents totally
Magyars living in Slovak villages who learned some Slovak
Magyar civil servants who lived in Upper Hungary, learned Slovak there but left after Trianon (or anybody living in former Upper Hungary in the decades before Trianon)

I'm sure that the most populous of this groups were people with Slovak ancestry but 1, nobody knows their number; 2, they declared themselves that their mother language was already Magyar that time. Zello 20:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not able to insert my references but here are:

József Kovacsics: Magyarország történeti demográfiája : Magyarország népessége a honfoglalástól 1949-ig, Budapest : Közgazd. és Jogi Kiadó ; 1963 Budapest Kossuth Ny.

Lajos Thirring: Az 1869-1980. évi népszámlálások története és jellemzői [kész. a Központi Statisztikai Hivatal Népesedésstatisztikai Főosztályán], Bp. : SKV, 1983

Zello 20:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "unable to insert" ??? Juro 03:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I see in the history section that you gave your reference but I don't see it in the article. But why? Zello 12:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Because I deleted it yesterday :)) (it is not used in the article anymore as a source). Juro 18:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Juro is right here. --Eliade 19:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

- - - -

The sum total (10.4%) with a non-Magyar mother tongue, does not equal the individual percentages listed in the article, the sum of which is only 9.0%. I suspect the percentage figure for German should be higher. I cannot tell if it is the total that's wrong or the individual figures. Could someone check? The following is the current text in the article:

According to the 1920 census 10.4 % of the population spoke one of the minority languages as mother language:

551,211 German (6.9%)

141,882 Slovak (1.8%)

23,760 Romanian (0.3%)

36,858 Croatian (0.5%)

17,131 Serb (0.2%)

23,228 other Southern Slavic dialects, mainly Bunjevac and Šokac (0.3%)

Bardwell 17:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The sum of these numbers is neither 10.4, nor 9.0, but 10.0%:-) Tankred 23:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

The article is full of them:

Some demographers believe...
On the other hand, many argue that ...
Many Hungarians consider ...
Some claim that the real motive...

etc. bogdan 15:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second-class country

It's well accepted the idea that Austria-Hungary became a second-class country. Indeed Austria-Hungary also experienced economic progress especially in the late 19th century (without relying on colonization), but remained a European country with a relatively underdeveloped economy, a second-class regional power. Can one argue that is not true? --Eliade 07:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

(I wrote this before reading Zello's contribution:) Basically, this part is correct, but the question is: How is this relevant for the treaty? Because whether A-H grew or not in the late 19th century (it grew like all poor countries do when catching up with the advanced countries), the point is that it remained a very poor country compared to the west. Also, the development and level in Hungary was different than the development and level in the Austrian part and even within these parts there were huge differences in some cases. So, as far as I am concerned, I do not get the point here. Juro 17:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the treaty had economic consequences and there is reliable literature about this. If somebody have time and sources it is possible to make good contributions in this topic. Now this is not the case, we have only a simplified sentence that doesn't make the article better. The article was fairly NPOV until now and I would like preseverve this against attempts like "second-class country" or "ouright racist treaty". Zello 18:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the rest of course, but note that economic CONSEQUENCES (i.e. changes after the treaty) for the countries in question are something totally different from the general economic situation BEFORE the treaty, especially given that the sentence referred to a territory covering not only the KoH. Such issues belong to the A-H article (and actually they are already there).Juro 18:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree - this is why I deleted the sentence with my revert together with the other problematic new paragraph inserted by Giordano. Zello 18:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There were big differences in the economic development of the countries and provinces of Austria-Hungary. We are speaking about a country which was so varied that contained Tyrol and Bukovina. These differences were several hundred years old and products of totally different historical development. The Monarchy as an integrated econimic unit had a positive effect on the underdeveloped provinces in the second half of 19th century. There was a process of regional integration and economic development which was broken by WW1. As for second-class country - Austria-Hungary was traditionally a member of the "European concert", one of the main powers of the continent because of it size and military strength. Tsarist Russia was more underdeveloped than Austria-Hungary but wasn't considered a second-class country at all. Zello 17:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the way it decayed and desintegrate very quickly after only some decades, it's a measure of "great" it was.--Eliade 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary was the successor of the Habsburg Empire which existed in Europe almost 500 years. That's not some decades. Zello 18:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Here it's about something else. Austria lost so much during Habsburg so that they accepted an alliance with Hungary. Even this solution proved to be a temporary solution. --Eliade 10:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Every solution is "temporary" because every country disappear sooner or later. The Habsburg Empire with its 500 years lifetime certainly existed long enough to shape the history of Europe. Zello 16:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It may also be worthwhile to enter into the analysis that today many of the successor states are economic disasters. The only consistent exception to this is Austria (and even that only after WWII). Slovenia has been successful for the last decade, if this tendency keeps up, all the better, on the other hand Transylvania nowadays is much more below the European average than it was during Habsburg times, it is hardly above the Third World. One has to wonder whether the purpose of the treaty was to create a new Dark Ages. And as far as Juro's comment: no, Czechoslovakia was never an economic superpower. The Czech side was reasonably industrialized, and this had some benefits, but to consider CS among the world's strongest economies is a severe overstatement. (Have you driven a Skoda before it became VW?)

The A-H was a regional superpower with a reasonable economic status. It was not behind the "West" economically: the situation of those who emigrated to the US was hardly better after emigration, since they usually fell for the "in America the streets are paved with gold" myth. It is also questionable in the case of Fiume, Istria, Friuli, Trieste whether they were better off during the monarchy than afterwards. Considering ethnic strife certainly not.

At last: to suggest ethnic bias or racism is not inappropriate nor is it POV. After all the article itself states that Sopron was the only place allowed to have a plebiscite (this fact renders the censuses made after the treaty somewhat questionable, since the new countries forced its citizens to take loyalty oaths: for example the family of the writer Hamvas refused to take the Slovak nationality oath, and were for this reason expelled from Slovakia). Giordano Giordani 09:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The truth is that even Benes himself conceded that with a plebiscite, they would never have been able to create Czechoslovakia, especially in the present-day eastern Slovakia (which still has a sizeable Rusyn population), the people were more Magyar-oriented.

The fact that present-day countries that were part of the former Yugoslavia are today economic disasters have nothing to do with the Treaty of Trianon. It is simply a consequence of the Yugoslav wars during the 1990s. Before these wars Yugoslavia was economicaly developed country. For example, Vojvodina was economically most developed in 1974-1990 period (most developed in its history I mean). On the contrary, it was poorest when it was ruled by Austria-Hungary. PANONIAN (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, other countries such as Romania, Ukraine, or Slovakia also do not have bad economy because of this treaty, but because of the former communist regimes that ruled over these countries. Tell me, why Austria do not have bad economy if this treaty affected it so much? PANONIAN (talk) 12:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me why Hungary's economy is not "bad" even if it was a communist country itself?

I am sure that you will tell me. PANONIAN (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

For one, the Kádár regime was more liberal and less dogmatic than all of the other Communist countries of the world, I remember in the 80s, taking a trip to Romania or Czechoslovakia was like a trip back in time. I'm sure you have heard of the expression "Goulash Communism".

Giordano XY, the best answer to your edits and comments is that they are just a big mess and collection of nonsense. What Panonian says is very trivial and clear to everybody from Central Europe, but obviously someone has to tell you that explicitely. As for Czechoslovakia, if you need a number it was among the 10 most advanced countries in the whole world between the two world wars. And we could go on like this endlessly. So just do no try to invent associations where there are no associations. A treaty is not responsible for the history of the 20th century. Juro 15:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy was a backward country but somehow, after the creation of Czechoslovakia, this situation changed suddenly and miraculously, giving rise to one of the superpowers of the world. Go figure!

[edit] Proposal

If a sub-chapter on the nationalities of post-Trianon Hungary is included, a similar sub-chapter should detail the history of the Hungarian minorities in the successor states. Árpád 08:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear fascist vandal, first of all you as a person that should have been banned 6 mpnths ago, should go to h...; secondly, obviously - like always - you have problems with basic rational thinking (things like bigger territory, smaller territory, uneven spread of production inputs etc. are too difficult for you, I know - because everything that does not concern Hungary or Hungarians is too difficult for you). So as an "answer", visit an elementary school again, such an institution will provide you with the necessary answers. Juro 03:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The answer is again very simple: the country named Czechoslovakia was created from two parts of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy which were indeed undergoing rapid industrialization during the Monarchy years but the cultural elite in the former Bohemia was German (Prague itself was a German speaking city for much of its history, and for a long time in history, Bohemia itself had belonged to the German empire, to the point that the Bohemian king was an elector of the emperor) and in the former Felvidék it was Hungarian (and to a lesser part, German). Incidentally, even elements of popular culture like Czech beer (Pilsner, Budweiser) were developed by Germans, not to mention Becherovka, which is originally Karlsbader Becherbitter. As for Slovak folk culture, one just needs to listen to typical Slovak folk music to appreciate that much of it has been derived from Hungarian folk music (like csárdás, verbunkos) except that this fact (again, just simple facts, no personal attacks or deletion of the comments of others) has been suppressed by the forced cultural assimilation policies that were going on in present-day Slovakia since 1920. Whatever insults you may write, I can corroborate each of my statements with hard core facts. Moreover, the destruction of the economic unity of the Central European space (or the Carpathian basin for that matter where - as Apponyi put it - the rivers were still flowing towards the Hungarian plain and not towards Prague, but the problem of the Tot rafters trying to sell their merchandise was not the only one that caused the economic and cultural decline of the former Felvidék - a perfect natural geographic and economic unity was dismembered). Finally, if Czechoslovakia was so perfect, how come the greatest Slovak national heros (like Hlinka who ended up on the fascist side) complained about the fictitious "Czechoslovak" nation and being treated as a colony by Prague or having suffered as much during several month of Czech occupation as during decades of Hungarian rule. See this link for instance, written by an independent author: http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/bonsal/bonsal11.htm. Meanwhile, it is also important to point out the double standard applied at the peace conference: Bohemia was allowed to retain its historical borders despite including millions of Germans... (in fact it is also worth mentioning that the ratio of the German population was much higher than the Slovaks at that time, since the latter didn't even form an absolute majority in what was to become Slovakia). Árpád 03:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, like always with you: every single sentence you are saying is a lie - in other words it is so wrong that actually the exact opposite holds (current Hungarian "folk" is mostly derived from the lokal Slavic folk and not vice versa etc. etc.). Irrespective of this: Like always, you have written a typical irrational long fascist hypernational elaborate here that is completeley unrelated to the very technical topic at hand. But even if you wrote a poem, that does not change the fact that what you have been trying to deny above holds because these are pure numbers and logics. You can equally claim that the Earth is plane, that is the same. And like always: Any further such lies will be deleted by me, if this wikipedia and other Hungarian users are unable to cope with you, this is the only way how to prevent the spread of fascism and idiotism in this wikipedia. Juro 12:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

What you maintain about Hungarian folk music is easy to rebut since the Hungarian cultural area (to transliterate "magyar kultúrkör" or "Ungarischer Kulturkreis") is much larger than the Slovak ethnic territory, it is quite unlikely that the Transylvanian folk music (see for example, the Muzsikás band) is of Slovak origin or that the original pentatonic Hungarian folk tunes (that can be related to ancient Asian - Chinese, Ujgur - melodies) or the motifs of folk art (see the tulip which is very common in ancient Persian and Mesopotamian culture) are of Slovak origin Árpád 08:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

While I can't find a single statement of Árpád that I would back up myself, I'm puzzled as to how he is either fascist, or a vandal. There exist established ways on Wikipedia to deal with irrational claims, or even trolling. Further reading at WP:NPA, WP:DFTT, and WP:CIVIL. Please. K issL 14:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See the comment on my talk page. And Arpad is only one of his 100 accounts (e,g, HunTomy), so you do not know the history, qnd I have removed all his explicit insults from the talk pages, therefore I cannot find them (I should have collected them). And I am happy that finally someone has noticed the problem he poses here. And as for being fascist - he turns any issue here into the "divine Hungarians" - "primitive Hungarian neigbours" issue and does not even try to hide that. Read the above discussion - what do folk songs have to do with the economy of A-H??? That is pure fascism. Juro 16:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC) P.S.: And most importantly, he is a permanent lier, the only way of reaction to his "contributions" is to say that every sentence is a lie. He also quite openly tries by seemingly "disussing" to place his long chauvinist views on the talk pages of the wikipedia in order to increase their hits in google and I will not allow that (when others do not see that, I see that).Juro 16:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

if he keeps up you can start an RFC or ask for partial protection of this page, but still please abide by WP:NPA, even with fascist vandals. Dsol 18:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

FUNDAMENTALLY THE PROPOSAL OF ARPAD IS APPOSITE: IF THERE IS A SECTION ON TREATMENT OF MINORITIES IN HUNGARY IT IS ONLY FAIR THAT THERE IS ONE ON THE TREATMENT OF HUNGARIANS IN SLOVAKIA, ROMANIA, ETC.

This should be the main point of the discussion, not personal attacks (like calling someone "liar", or "fascist vandal", etc.). This way of arguing is extremely primitive. Alphysikist 08:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! I'm very hesitant to enter such a heated discussion as I do not want to get flamed, but as folk music (one of my favorite subjects!) has entered the discussion I feel I may have something to contribute. As near as I can figure out from Árpád's strange post at the beginning of this section, he seems to be practically denying the existence of the Slovak nation by pointing out that Slovak folk music sounds just like Hungarian folk music.....well, actually, Slovak folk music DOESN'T sound exactly like Hungarian folk music. There are definite close similarities--the pentatonic scale, frequent use of the fifth at the cadence, sometimes they use the old Magyar pattern of repeating a phrase a third or fourth higher, etc. But, despite the close similarities, there are differences as well, mainly rhythmic (due to the great difference between Magyar and Slavic languages!) and also melodic. (Read Kodály Zoltán's book Folk Music of Hungary--it's excellent!) But jeez, similarities in folk music doesn't mean the Slovaks don't exist as a nation, or whatever you were driving at. It just means that the Slovaks and Magyars have lived right next to each other for centuries. People move around, they meet strangers, swap tall tales, folklore, and especially exchange tunes! I would also here point out that not ALL Slovak music even sounds Hungarian. A lot of it is very much more "Slavic-sounding", more like the music of their other neighbors the Czechs, but it too is its own music. Please, as annoyed as you may be by the ongoing political mess between Hungary and Slovakia, please don't try to claim there really are no Slovaks, especially not on the basis of folk music... :) With hopes for friendship between peoples, K. Lastochka 05:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To user PANONIAN:

I see you have already been involved in at least one 3RR. State which part of my contribution (16:30, September 4, 2006) you think is not factual or not encyclopedic or disputable before erasing again. I will be happy to discuss it here.
Yours, with all my love, Bardwell 21:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not play games with me. If you came here to write about "cruel unjust treaty that was imposed on Hungary" you found wrong place for that, believe me. You have a dozen nationalistic forums on the whole Internet where you can expess your opinion. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be serious encyclopaedia, not place where people will express their nationalistic frustrations. PANONIAN ;;;;;;;;(talk) 22:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

You are the sole nationalist here, nobody else. You should be banned indefinitely for this: [[2]] 195.56.249.131 23:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That map is simply illustration for my user page. It is based on prediction of a possible future demographic and political processes in these two countries. I do not offend anybody with this map neither I want to post it in any article. It is just an illustration for my own user page. PANONIAN (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

However regarding your own edit here, your nationalistic goals here are evident: "the peace agreement imposed on Hungary" This is POV wording because representatives of Hungary signed that treaty, thus I do not see how somebody could impose on them to sign (it were their own hands that signed it). Also Hungary did not "ceded" lands to neighbouring countries. The text of the treaty only speak how borders of new independent Hungary are DEFINED, it does not speak that any land was "ceded". Finally, you will achieve nothing with your reverts, since tomorrow there will be more users that will revert your nationalistic reverts (I just spent my 3 reverts for today). If you continue with vandalism however, the article will be probably locked and you will be banned. Have a nice day. PANONIAN (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear PANONIAN, I think you are mistaken. But to err is human and I forgive you. If you would care to check facts, undisputable facts, you would see that Hungary was not only uninvited to the conferences where the Treaty was decided but she wasn't even allowed to present her case. This DOES mean that the Treaty WAS imposed on her. The fact that she signed it is irrelevant - in the circumstances of the time she had no other option. Not signing the treaty was not a realistic option. I see you are quick to apply 3RR and to make threats. This is quite uncalled for and it demonstrates an aptitude for the kind of tragic ethnic hate witnessed so recently between Serbs and their neighbour states. This here is a forum where you can use reasoned arguments to make your case. Have you ever read the Treaty? I have. Have you ever researched the circumstances and the actual conduct of the conferences? I have. Have you provided sources? I have. You can check them. In particular, I would refer you to Professor Macartney's work October Fifteenth. Read chapter one, pages 3 -24. Macartney was a well-respected expert on the subject; a research fellow at All Souls College, Oxford. He was English (probably Scottish if you wish me to be pedantic). You can hardly accuse him of being 'nationalistic' in the context we are discussing.
With best wishes to you and good reading, your fellow wikipedian: Bardwell 00:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I know that representatives of Hungary were not invited to the conference and I do not object that it is mentioned in the article, but not in the preface part. It belong here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon#Frontiers_of_Hungary Or the separate section named "Peace conference" should be written. What I object is your POV usage of words "ceded lands", "imposed treaty", "unrightfull treaty", etc. That are nothing but points of view, because most of the inhabitants of Central Europe consider this treaty very rightfull. If you read the treaty then you would know that treaty do not use your POV words, it only precisely DEFINE borders. Read it again to remind yourself: http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/versa/tri1.htm And finally, please stop using sockpuppets, because this one is obviously your: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treaty_of_Trianon&diff=73845204&oldid=73845023 PANONIAN (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I can writte entire new article with the statements of people who claim how rightfull was this treaty. The purpose of Wikipedia IS NOT to decide whether something was rightfull or not but to describe events in NPOV manner. PANONIAN (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Also please read the text of the treaty and quote part that claim that lands were "ceded" (I do not see such part): http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/versa/tri1.htm PANONIAN (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My dear PANONIAN, If your other contributions to Wikipedia are as accurate and well-informed as this one:

"And finally, please stop using sockpuppets, because this one is obviously your" [sic]

then, I’m afraid they are all equally worthless. I have no idea whatsoever who user 195.56.249.131 is. It certainly isn’t me. You have my permission to ask the powers that be at wikipedia to confirm or deny whether my ISP has any connection with 195.56.249.131. Take the challenge! If you or wikipedia can show a link, I’ll pay you £100,000. I am not even asking you to pay me a penny if you lose the challenge. It would be immoral of me to take your money on a challenge I know for sure you can only lose. Your allegation is completely and totally baseless. Why do you do it?
Bardwell 04:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore: For precise reference to terminology of "imposed on Hungary" see: The Oxford Dictionary of 20th Century History 1914-1990. Oxford University Press (1992) ISBN 0192116762, page 470, which reads:

Trianon, Treaty of (4 June 1920), peace treaty imposed on Hungary after World War I. [quoted here word for word!]

For a precise definition of the meaning of the word cede, I am quoting from The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1933) 3rd Rev. ed. (1965) [No ISBN]

cede

(1) To give way, yield

(2) To give up, grant; to yield, surrender

Bardwell 09:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You registered your nick very recently (on 18 August). There is very good chance that you are sockpuppet of HunTomy and Arpad and all your edits made between 18 August and 4 September were probably made with a purpose to hide your true identity (However, you made an mistake and used your other sockpuppet - Giordano Giordani, which clearly show who you are and why you are here). Expect that I as soon as tomorrow will write new section in this article describing events preceding the treaty explaining the reasons why Hungarian delegation was not allowed to participate in peace conference, including mention of war crimes that Austro-Hungarian army commited against civilian population of Serbia. PANONIAN (talk) 13:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record!
If a definition is good enough for inclusion in an internationally and academically respected publication issued by one of the world’s most respected university printing presses then I dare say it is sufficiently clean and authoritative for inclusion in a wikipedia article. I have reinserted the following reference, and will keep on doing so because I do not believe in appeasing bullies.

The Oxford Dictionary of 20th Century History 1914-1990. Oxford University Press (1992) ISBN 0192116762 (The entry for ‘Trianon’ gives a definition of the Treaty.)

Bardwell 16:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

And what happens when some "internationally and academically respected publications issued by one of the world’s most respected university printing presses" happen to contradict each other? K issL 18:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Then it is proper to include at least both viewpoints. The Mitterrand quote lends further support to the viewpoint advocated by myself and user Bardwell. It may also be that these views are underrepresented, since it was the winning powers who imposed the Trianon dictats on the people of the Carpathian basin, and they (that is to say their media, press, etc.) are less likely to question the rational of the "treaty" for a variety of reasons. Considering these circumstances, the fact that our viewpoints are supported it is all the more reason to include them in the article.Giordano Giordani 23:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The treaty was imposed upon Hungary that's a fact. Even by common sense: does anybody think that Hungary would accepted the loss of two-thirds of its territory without utmost constraint? Would any country in the the world ever made such an "agreement"? The Treaty of Trianon was a dictate, and Hungary hadn't got any other choice. There was no army, the economy was ruined, big parts of the country were still under occuptation. If Hungary wouldn't signed the treaty other regions would be annexed by Romania and Serbia. Agreements are made by two willing parties. The Treaty of Trianon wasn't an agreement but a total surrender of a collapsed country. Zello 01:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, "agreement" was a bit of an euphemism. However, for the definition of the lead, I still prefer not to have any words that can be considered emotive. Any interested reader will have enough understanding to know anyway that peace treaties usually contain the winners' will. K issL 09:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Kiss1, - It is a fuzzy editorial assumption that the reader of an encyclopedic article will have any prior knowledge or understanding of the subject of an article for them to realise that peace treaties " usually contain the winners' will ". In any case, why do you think it is wrong to state it? And on another note altogether - what kind of a justification is there to repeatedly remove source references, as you have done with the ref. to OUP Dict. of 20C History, when it is a clear wiki policy to encourage, nay, to specifically request, the provision of references. Bardwell 09:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think other points-of-view shold be explained in text, not in the lead. Zello 10:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Even the very best dictionary is sort of irrelevant as a reference about a peace treaty. K issL 10:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Kiss1 – You appear to be justifying repeated deletes of a definition from a specialist historical dictionary as “sort of irrelevant as a reference to a peace treaty.” Isn’t your justification a little fuzzy? Isn’t your justification a personal point of view in itself and as such clearly not a sufficient reason to delete another editor's reference? However, sat asside, would you be happier with a more authorative source? How about the Encyclopaedia Britannica? Would you accept that as a reasonable source? Here are a couple of relevant citations from the Fifteenth Edition, Rev. (2002) [ISBN 0-85229-787-4]:

“… The Allies’ presentation of their terms for peace with Hungary was delayed because of … on Jan. 16, 1920at Neuilly a Hungarian delegation received the draft treaty.”

“By the terms of the treaty, Hungary was shorn of at least two-thirds of its former territory and two-thirds of its inhabitants.”

There is, of course, more, much more and in much more severe languages, but all I am trying to demonstrate is that

(a) the OUP Dictionary of 20thC History is not an isolated source of reference.
(b) my use of the phrase “treaty imposed” is not a biased presentation of reality (based on the above) even if one omits to spell out that the final text of the Treaty that was handed to the Hungarian Government on 5 May 1920, differed from the January draft only in two minor alterations in the question of optants and with regard to the Danube catchment area and that no further alterations were made to the final draft.
(c) the use of the word ‘ceded’ in the context, is, if anything, a much tamer and milder expression than ‘ shorn of ’.

Bardwell 14:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Bardwe11 – There are many sources in comparison to which the proposed formulation is better; some of these sources are respectable. In what way does this constitute a proof that the proposed formulation is better than the current one? See also: Ignoratio elenchi. K issL 15:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Panonian! If u find "unrightfull treaty" not true...than look at the map. Clearly there were parts given to Romania, Slovakia, Serbia and Austria that were inhabited mostly by Hungarians (I am not saying all!!!! Csabap 14:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether Treaty in general was rightful or not (whether parts of the treaty regarding exact positions of the borders were rightful or not is completelly different question). Just see these numbers: before the Treaty, 10 million non-Hungarians lived in the Kingdom of Hungary, and after the Treaty, 3,5 million Hungarians lived outside Hungary. 10 million is quite larger number than 3,5 million, not to mention that countries like Croatia and Slovakia would not even exist today if the Treaty of Trianon did not happened. These two facts speak for themselves. PANONIAN (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Unrightful" depends on the reader's definition of what is right, and therefore, once you insert this word into any article, you've violated WP:NPOV, and most importantly, the rule of thumb "Let the facts speak for themselves". K issL 10:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

- - - - -

Panonian, your sentence “(LOL Bardwell, you even do not trying to hide the fact that you are same person with Milanmm)” is not English! It isn’t even bad English, it is nonsense. You obviously cannot write in English. I am now wondering if you can read English? If you can, please read my reasons for the changes to the lead paragraph. You can find them below.
With lots of love, Bardwell 18:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Too bore comment. Just leave me alone. Thank you. PANONIAN (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mitterrand

Actually, the Mitterrand quote is an interesting one, but it doesn't say a word about this treaty specifically, so it's better to keep it out of here, at least until there is a very comprehensive and very NPOV description of why and how Hungarians consider the treaty unjust (which is unlikely to happen too soon with all the disruptive nationalist behavior around the article, meaning all "sides" not just one). In such a situation, even if it could be fair to mention some details in the lead, a short NPOV version is better than anything.

As for "ceded", the connotations for this word are clearly not as neutral and non-emotive as the formulation originally in the article. Let's not start comparing the world's web-based dictionaries for a point as simple as that. What's wrong with the current version?

K issL 14:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial considerations for a complete rewrite of this article

The Treaty of Trianon dealt specifically with issues relating to Hungary. This is evidenced by the very title of the treaty: " Treaty of Peace Between The Allied and Associated Powers and Hungary ” ( see: http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/versa/tri1.htm).

From an editorial point of view this wiki article on the Treaty of Trianon should, I think, deal only with the treaty and not with claims, arguments, explanations, etc., relating to extraneous ethnic and territorial issues, which it would be more appropriate to list under other headings in the wiki system, especially as they tend to be divisive.

The Treaty of Trianon is in itself clearly defined under XIV parts, as follows:

PART I. THE COVENANT OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
PART II. FRONTIERS OF HUNGARY
PART III. POLITICAL CLAUSES FOR EUROPE
PART IV. HUNGARIAN INTERESTS OUTSIDE EUROPE.
PART V. MILITARY, NAVAL AND AIR CLAUSES.
PART VI PRISONERS OF WAR AND GRAVES.
PART VII. PENALTIES.
PART VIII. REPARATION
PART IX. FINANCIAL CLAUSES.
PART X. ECONOMIC CLAUSES.
PART XI. AERIAL NAVIGATION.
PART XII. PORTS, WATERWAYS AND RAILWAYS
PART XIII. LABOUR
PART XIV. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

From a logical editorial perspective, these are the only sections that should populate the article. The article should be void of all personal interpretations and opinions. One should bear in mind that the article is an encyclopaedic entry. It is not supposed to be a vehicle for opinions. One cannot be more accurate or more neutral than by quoting the original document without extraneous embroidery. With this in mind it is my intention to reformat the Treaty of Trianon article in conformity with the above because I firmly believe that this would conform totally and indisputably with wikipedia objectives to provide accurate and unbiased information.

I hereby invite anyone interested in this subject to state their views with regards to whether they consider this approach to be sufficient and fair to resolve differences of opinion about what the Treaty of Trianon was.
Bardwell 10:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This wouldn't be very informative to the reader. The historical impact of the treaty is far more important than the specifics of "aerial navigation". The implications of the treaty on the history and politics of the region throughout the 20th centuty are immense and the text should reflect that. I suggest you take a look around: Category:Peace treaties. -- nyenyec ☎ 19:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't simply publish sources but write an encyclopaedia, even it is difficult sometimes. That's not the right way to reach neutrality. Zello 19:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

nyenyec and zello:
Thanks for your comments. I think your points are valid. The problem I see with the current version has primarily to do with the inadequacy of the leadeer and with the determination of some parties to stick to wishy-washy weasel definition in order to obscure the fact that this agreement was a clear case of victors imposing their terms on the vanquished. Not for nothing is there a fair warning above the leading article cautioning readers about this. If you have been following the various reverts and erasures and the arguments over the past few days then no doubt you would be aware that some parties here object to and erase words such as ‘imposed’ and ‘ceded’ in favour of alternatives that do not convey to the casual reader the true and generally accepted and acknowledged fact that the treaty was imposed on Hungary. I find this quite incomprehensible as this terminology is in no way derogatory to any of the successor states. Some users have even gone as far as to repeatedly eradicate reference to a book from a highly-respected academic institution just because it has the ‘temerity’ to define the treaty as “imposed on Hungary”. Precisely in order to sidestep this zealous opposition by some parties to calling a spade a spade, have I come up with the suggestion that by confining the article to undeniable facts, i.e. to the actual provisions of the treaty itself, it should be possible to get rid of weasel words and of ambiguity and to have that warning banner removed from the top and to bring an end to the bickering.

Looking at the Treaty of Versailles article, which is the natural twin for the Treaty of Trianon, one can see the phrase “ Terms imposed on Germany …” etc. and I fail to see why this terminology should be objected to so vehemently in the Trianon article. I would be interested to hear users’ views on whether the Treaty of Versailles article could be or should be used as a model for Trianon.
Bardwell 22:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

- - - - - - -

Evidently the Treaty of Trianon is a contentious article, although it is silly that this should be so. Wikipedia’s encyclopaedic part is about factual information, not interpretations of events. With this in mind, I have redrafted the lead paragraph, being very careful all along to stick to documented facts and terminologies. If I have got any of these facts wrong, please give chapter and verse and I will reconsider and rectify as appropriate.

Please note: In the opening para. I have defined “ Allied and Associated Powers” exactly as defined in the treaty’s header. Please note carefully that the treaty is with HUNGARY, not Austro-Hungary or its representative (if in doubt, see the Treaty)

I would have liked to include the sentence: “The most contentious Parts of the Trianon Treaty were Hungary’s new borders because they reduced post-Trianon Hungary to 30 per cent of its former size.” This might perhaps enlighten an enquiring mind, reading this wiki-article in search of knowledge and information, as to what all the fuss is about with this treaty. In fact, I would challenge anyone to name, if they can, a more contentious Part of the Treaty. In the end, I left out the sentence because, obvious as this is to me, God alone knows the mindsets of the various still warring nationalities here, all anxious to put their own shine on history, as if it made the slightest difference now, with the Treaty being very long past its sell-by date.

With regard to reference to separate peace treaty with USA, my reasoning is that in the context, especially with regard to explicit exclusion of Part II of the Trianon Treaty, the reference is relevant.

Bardwell 17:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Concure with the need for a re-write. The subject invokes too much emotion rather than the acceptance of the fact. Most of mainland Europe's national boundaries have been changed by a significant degree and is now accepted as part of history - as this subject should now be treated. User:Branston Pickle

Branston Pickle? When you registered nickname? Today? Another sockpuppet of Bardwell I presume? So, mister Bardwell-Branston Pickle-Milanmm-Giordano Giordani (or to say Hun Tomy instead?), do you suggest that we simply copy-paste the text of the treaty from here and to remove everything else from the article including mention how many Hungarians were left outside Hungary after this treaty? PANONIAN (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

My Dear Panonian, I can confirm that I am not related in any other way to the above mentioned, nor have any allegiance or contact whatsoever. I am merely looking at a practical aspect for a basic model that the average person can absorb emphasising on the facts of the matter. This is a complicated subject and as you can see emotive issues can fog the overall issue. Personally speaking, being a citizen of the European Union (Hungary/Western Pannonia), I would prefer if our boundaries were left as present i.e. peaceful co-existences rather than use such subjects to whip up a frenzy and incitement to hatred, as as happened so may times in our bloodthirsty history. Perhaps I am wrong and you have a more practical experience taking into account the region you are located in.User:Branston Pickle

I believe Bardwell's opinions (and the like) are stand-outs here with regards to intelligent and rational thought, and they display a notable lack of extremist opinion, which this talkpage is sadly littered with. Therefore it is no surprise to me that this view and proposal is being attacked. I concur with Bardwell.Hunor-Koppany

[edit] Poland

See this map: http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/169.gif According to the map, a small part of KOH was also included into Poland. I think this should be noted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon#Frontiers_of_Hungary However, I do not know when exactly this area was included into Poland. Does somebody have more information about this? PANONIAN (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The small territory is still in Poland. The northern parts of Árva (Orava) and Szepes (Spis) counties with polish majority population was annexed by Poland, as I know, by the decision of an arbitration comitee in 1920. You can find a detailed map under: http://terkeptar.transindex.ro/legbelso.php3?nev=165 After the Munich conference in 1938 Poland annexed more Polish inhabited territories along the Slovak-Polish border. After the German attack against Poland in 1939, Slovakia regained those territories. --Kelenbp 17:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

Hi everybody.

I am really tired from fights here. Each my contribution is simply ignored. People are all the time reverting to their version without a discussion. I was even accused to be somebode else, what is ridiculus.

I propose to build the article from the beginning. Everybody can say his opinion about each part and we will try to find a version that everybody will agree with. I do not want to find a version that majority agrees with, but everybody agrees with. Let's base everything on facts. In this way any "puppet" would be useless.

Mentioning your nationality would help to see somebody else's point. I am Slovak.

OK, I would start with the beginning. 1) "The Treaty of Trianon was a peace treaty that regulated the situation of the new Hungarian state" - this is only partially true as the treaty regulated the situation of all succesor countries (see for example: http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/versa/tri3.htm "Each of the States to which territory of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy is transferred, and each of the States arising from the dismemberment of that Monarchy, including Hungary, shall assume responsibility for a portion of the unsecured bonded debt of the former Hungarian Government as it stood on July 28, 1914, calculated on the basis of the ratio between the average for the three financial years....."

2) "new Hungarian state that replaced the Kingdom of Hungary" - not only thenew Hungarian state that replaced the Kingdom of Hungary

3) "winning powers, their allied countries, and the losing side" - the losing country was Austria-Hungary, not Hungary - so this is not correct, Austro-Hungarian monarchy was not represented by Hungary

Milanmm 15:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How about a version like this? I've tried to fix the problems you pointed out:

The Treaty of Trianon was a peace treaty that regulated the situation of the states that replaced the former Kingdom of Hungary, part of pre-war Austria-Hungary, after World War I. It was signed on June 4, 1920, at the Grand Trianon Palace at Versailles, France.

The winning parties to the Treaty were the Allied Powers, including the United States, Britain, France and Italy; and their allied countries ("Associated Powers"), Romania, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, and Czechoslovakia. The losing party was Hungary alone, since Austria-Hungary had by this time disintegrated.

Something like that. I know it's far from perfect, this is why I'm not putting it into the article directly – feel free to improve or criticise it. K issL (don't forget to vote!) 20:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

- - - - -

I cannot understand the attraction of wanting to bowdlerize the wording of the Treaty, especially as all such attempts are likely to lead into a quagmire. The surest way to obtain consensus is to stick with simple and undisputable words, where possible taken from the Treaty itself. The Treaty of Trianon was a peace treaty between Hungary and the Allied and Associated Powers of WW1. This is clearly stated, in bold letters, at the top of the Treaty! It has nothing to do with the former Austro-Hungarian Empire. Why labour on inventing a new name for it? This traety is between Hungary and the Allied and Associated Poers! How many Treaties of Trianon are there?

The Treaty does NOT “regulate the situations of the states that replaced the former Kingdom of Hungary”, It does not regulate the size of any of the Allied and Associated Powers’ armies, or armaments, or the ratio of officers to men in the army, or restrict their manufacture of tanks and aeroplanes, or the building of high-power wireless telegraphy stations, and half a million other things. It simply spells out, specifically with regard to Hungary what she may or may not do. It regulates only Hungary! This is not unusual, after all, this is a peace treaty. And like in all peace treaties that are signed between victors and vanquished, it contains the terms on which the winners are willing to bring an end to a state of war. So why not just stick to the simple fact and state the simple truth in a simple, unoffending language - The Peace Treaty set out the terms on which the victorious powers were willing to bring an end the state of war with Hungary. Full stop! No need for inventive language or euphemisms. Is this such a terrible thing? Please, tell me by all means, what's objectionable about this? Where is the problem? Bardwell 22:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The "problem" has already been pointed out before: ALL successor states (i.e. not only Hungary) assumed financial (and partly also other) obligations determined by the Treaty. I really like KissL's version of the lead because it is precise and neutral. I think it should be put into the article. Tankred 00:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

- - - - -

I cannot see how one can be more neutral than by stating that The Treaty of Trianon was a peace treaty between Hungary and the Allied and Associated Powers of WW1 To portray this as “The Treaty of Trianon was a peace treaty that regulated the situation of the states that replaced the former Kingdom of Hungary, part of pre-war Austria-Hungary, after World War I.” is an interpretaion of the traety’s title. Like all interpretaions, it represents a POV. Whether it is a right or wrong POV, neutral or biased, is irrelevan to the argument when the wording is disputed and when the precise definition is available and can be cited, as is the case in this instance. From this it follows, I think, and please correct me if I am wrong, that I, or anyone else so inclined, would have full justification to remove it, as an unsourced and uncited interpretation, and replace it with a cited version which is NOT an interpretation but the real McCoy. (Do we really want a never-ending reverts war over this?)

As for the treaty ― this traety, the treaty with Hungary, that is ― "was a peace treaty that regulated the situation of the states that replaced the former Kingdom of Hungary", can anyone provide any relevant citations for this from within the text of the Treaty? I think this wording, well-intentioned though as it may be, is but an inept disguise of what the treaty was - peace terms offered by the victors to the vanquished. There is nothing to be ashamed about this. This was, and probably still is, the way of the world. All the actors in this drama had made their stage exits a long time ago and are now dead and burried. Let the ink on the document speak for itself. Bardwell 16:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What bout this version?

The Treaty of Trianon is a peace treaty between Hungary and the Allied and Associated Powers signed on June 4, 1920, at the Grand Trianon Palace at Versailles, France. The winning parties of the Treaty included the "Allied Powers" (United States, Britain, France, Italy, and Japan) and the smaller "Associated Powers" (especially Romania, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, and Czechoslovakia) of World War I. The losing party was Hungary alone, since Austria-Hungary had by this time disintegrated. The Treaty regulated the situation of the states that replaced the former Kingdom of Hungary, part of pre-war Austria-Hungary, after World War I.

The first sentence characterizes the Treaty in the same way as it is described in its own Preamble. As to the last sentence, it can be illustrated by the articles about obligations of the successor states other than Hungary (namely Article 44, 47, 51, 52, 61). I hope the new proposal adequately addresses all issues that you have raised. Tankred 23:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

- - - - -

I think this is a step in the right direction and is neatly composed. I would however question the need for singling out and naming, as you have done, the three countries from the Associated Powers. There were outher countries that were given land from Hungary, namely Austria and Italy, and even more countries towards whom Hungary was left with financial or other obligations. So what exactly is the point of naming three countries with an ‘especially’ tag? It only muddies the waters, I think. Don't you agree? If not - why do you think this is necessary?

You might find it interesting to visit wikipedia:No original research. The following are the key operative policy statements:

Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position.
Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article and to adhere to what those sources say. (My emphasis) Bardwell 00:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I did not get your point about original research. The lead just summarizes the article about the Treaty of Trianon and does not include any original research. Please, let us focus on how to improve this article. If you please, we can replace the word "especially" by "such as". Why those three countries? Because they were successor states along with Hungary. Austria received some territory, but it was not an Associated Power. Italy is already mentioned among the Allied Powers. Do you agree with the current version of the proposal (with "such as" instead of "especially")? Tankred 00:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

- - - - -

Tankred, Hungary was NOT a successor state. To argue otherwise would, I think, invite justifiable charges that the article was interpretive and manipulative. [For ref. to who the successor states were see Macartney: Hungary - a Short History, (1962), page 107, etc.] Irrespective of the above, I don’t think it would be right to pick three of the Associated Powers and drop them into the lead section unless it enhanced the meaning of the lead section, for example: “The principal beneficiaries of territorial adjustment were Romania, The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (Yugoslavia), and Czechoslovakia”. The reason for the presence of the names of the principal beneficiaries in the lead section , without a brief explanation, would, I think, be unclear to the reader and therefore, from an editorial perspective, wrong. Bardwell 10:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the lead of an article about a peace treaty should mention the signatory states. But it would not be reader-friendly to list all the Associated Powers (including Siam and Panama). The three Associated Powers mentioned in the lead are the most relevant. I do not think that a brief explanation why they are more relevant than Siam and Panama is necessary in this part of the article - everything is explained in detail in the main text. Well, I hope other editors will express their opinions too and we will reach consensus about the lead. Tankred 15:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The book can be found here: http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/macartney/ Bardwell, where is the part correcponding to p. 107? Milanmm 18:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look here: Allies of World War I, Romania and Serb-Croat-Slovene State are not listed, but Czechoslovakia. Who can explain it? Milanmm 18:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

My version:

The Treaty of Trianon is a Treaty of Peace Between The Allied and Associated Powers and Hungary signed on June 4, 1920, at the Grand Trianon Palace at Versailles, France. The Treaty regulated the situation of the Hungary and its relation to other states (Serb-Croat-Slovene State, Romania, Czechoslovakia) that replaced the former Kingdom of Hungary, part of pre-war Austria-Hungary, after losing the World War I.

Milanmm 18:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what a mess!

hi guys, I've just been looking through old bits of the archive here, and WHAT A MESS. For heaven's sake, you all sound like a bunch of schoolchildren fighting on the playground. How about a new rule for discussion here? How about: no one will call any of their fellow editors a fascist, revisionist, chauvinist, troll, vandal or other nasty names that have been thrown around here, and quit accusing people you don't agree with of being sockpuppets of vandals. Are you here to write an article, or to compete for the title of Most Obnoxious Wikipedian, Most Paranoid, Most Childish etc.? Look, Trianon was a messy affair, there are legitimate complaints (and legitimate good things) on all sides. As soon as everyone here stops flinging ethnic/nationalist insults back and forth, some progress might be made. Try putting conspiracy theories behind you and be intelligent Wikipedians please!! K. Lastochka 03:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Census citation

I hesitate to stir this pot, but there seem to be no citations for the census data here. I have no reason to think any of it is inaccurate, just that the article fails to cite for it. - Jmabel | Talk 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

True enough. Another strange thing is that the pre-war census data (which would show a more mixed population) are for areas outside Hungary, while post-war census data (which would show a less mixed population, due to population transfers) is given only for Hungary. Smells like a weasel to me. Causantin 13:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably if you read the article you would know that the borders changed between the two dates... Zello 22:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/e/Talk%7ETreaty_of_Trianon_089b.html"

Talk:Treaty of Trianon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Relevance of economic power in the introduction?

[edit] Consequences

[edit] House of Terror

[edit] Tragedy

[edit] Plebiscites

[edit] New Hungarian state vs continuity

[edit] Cease fire lines or borders

[edit] "national tragedy" clause

[edit] Minorities

[edit] Correct data

[edit] Weasel words

[edit] Second-class country

[edit] Proposal

[edit] To user PANONIAN:

[edit] Mitterrand

[edit] Editorial considerations for a complete rewrite of this article

[edit] Poland

[edit] Consensus

[edit] what a mess!

[edit] Census citation

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search