Before World War I, only three European countries declared ethnic minority rights, and enacted minority-protecting laws: the first was Hungary (1849 and 1868), the second was Austria (1867), and the third was Belgium (1898). In contrast, the legal systems of other pre-WW1 era European countries did not allow the use of European minority languages in primary schools, in cultural institutions, in offices of public administration and at the legal courts.[2]
Only issue is that the 1868 minority law was no longer applied in practice after 1870 when the liberal government was overthrown. After that, a series of new laws promoted active discrimination against national minorities, such as restraining their use of their language in public administration, judiciary and business sector. So yes, while Hungary did pass a minority law, the law itself remained on paper and from 1870 onwards systematic violations were recorded.
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth You can not cite (year of issue and number of act) such discriminative laws. Read that book, it is on the web: Józsa Hévizi (2004): Autonomies in Hungary and Europe, A COMPARATIVE STUDY After reading, compare the situation of minorities in pre - WW1 era serbia and romania.
@@FerencBulker There were various discriminatory laws that were in contradiction with the minority law itself. Such as the primary and secondary grade education acts in the 1870s and this culminated with the infamous Apponyi Law. Apponyi Law in just its first year of implementation closed 600 Romanians elementary schools. The situation of minorities in Romania and Serbia were superior to those of Hungary, that is for sure.
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth Please do not lie. see school statistics of the old Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. There were more Romanian language elementary schools in Transylvania than in pre-WW1 Kingdom of Romania.
@@FerencBulker Please do not lie. Check the school statistics from the Kingdom of Romania. There were already more schools in the Kingdom in 1880 than in Transylvania for Romanians. Not to mention universities, high schools, and trade schools. I checked Encyclopedia Britannica in 1911. It says clearly that by 1911, the number of elementary Romanian schools in Transylvania dropped from around 2300, to 1200. Thanks to Lex Apponyi. In 1907 alone, 600 Romanian schools were closed.
Slovaks become a nation in the seco d half of the 19th century... Sooo no there is no ethnical slovaks basically living there... And you guys do the same so do not yapping
@@kristof.demeter Slovaks became a nation at the same time everyone else were starting to gain a national consciousness. Including Hungarians. Hungarians started to get a national consciousness while experiencing forced Germanization during the 18th century. As for there being no ethnic Slovaks before that, just because the people did not have a national consciousness, does not mean they don't exist. Slovaks did not do anything against Hungarians after Trianon. They only extended a helping hand to them hoping that will work for the better.
@@kristof.demeter "Sooo no there is no ethnical slovaks basically living there... " what is this bullsh*t? Do You think that Slovaks came from space in mid 19th century or what?
@@Lukaskovac-ex4nf The simple political interests and the typical chauvinist national narcissism created the so-called NATIVIST theories in the era of the national awakening. In the 19th century , it was politically very hard for the Slovaks to build any territorial demands and claims on the basis of their late medieval era migratory past, thus the early Slovak nationalists had to fabricate a NATIVIST autochonist fairy tale history to create a national identity. Despite their extreme level of wannabee-ist tales and stubborn wishful thinking, the modern Slovaks are not really related to local ancient Slavs. Rather they are descendant of late medieval migrant-Slavs, mostly after the Mongol invasion of Hungary in 1241-42, and the migration to Upper (Northern) Hungary also occoured after the devastation of Ottoman wars, when ethnic Hungarians moved to the south to repopulate present-day territories of Hungary. Slovak is one of the youngest ethnonym in Europe, the "Slovak" term was born only in the 15th century, in the early modern period. Without own ethnonym, we can't even speak about identity or ethnicity. Unlike the Czechs, Croats, Polish (some white Croats), Serbs etc...who had real ethnonyms, their late born ethnonym the "Slovak" is not a real ethnonym , its meaning: "something Slavic language speakers". Nomen est omen. No wonder: Slovaks were early modern period mixture of immigrants: Czech Hussites from the N-west, Polish immigrants from the north, Local Hungarians, nomadic Vlach settlers in Eastern Slovakia, Rusyn people in the east, and some German settlers. This modern mixture had a clear impact on various Slovak "dialects". In the reality this were not dialects but rather different languages. This mixature is mirrored in their many old languages Until the birth of the unified "Central Slovak" language in the 19th century, some of the Slovak dialects were closer to Czech language, others were closer to Polish language another dialects were closer to the Rusyn language. So Slovaks did not have even a common mutually intelligible language (which is a corner point of a real nation or an ethnic group) until the Slovak linguistic reforms of the 19th century. You can read about it here: www.101languages.net/slovak/dialects.html?fbclid=IwAR19gTNaoArw_vhLG3A5bJoXDZ2UWYC7BgHvInt6S66q2NQxnKIJOuaRrzo The common unified mutually intelligible Slovak language was spread by the Czechoslovak school system during the interwar period and the communist era, which remained the central policy and goal of the Czechoslovak governments. The Slovak “ethnic group” is a young modern artificially and politically designed/MANUFACTURED product instead of real natural/organic historic development.
@@kristof.demeter Slovaks became a nation only during WW2 under Tiso. You confuse the term ethnic group and nation. A nation have own laws parliament public administration and legal courts.
Another correction, the people's self-determination was not allowed by the ENTENTE after WW1: After World War I, despite the "self-determination of peoples" idea of the Allied Powers, only one plebiscite was permitted (later known as the Sopron plebiscite) to settle disputed borders on the former territory of the Kingdom of Hungary,[21] settling a smaller territorial dispute between the First Austrian Republic and the Kingdom of Hungary, During the Sopron plebiscite in late 1921, the polling stations were supervised by British, French, and Italian army officers of the Allied Powers.[22]
That would mean eradication as a state for what they were doing to the indigenous peoples of the lands they invaded, including modern day Hungary, and the vast majority of the Hungarian population is a mixture of germans, slavs and vlachs, and less than 3% have a genetic connection to the Magyars.
@@chriswanger284 Furthermore, as is there a general consensus that we are of daco-roman stock(as by our exonym vlachs=romance speaking people), most of the medieval fortresses and cities in Transilvania have at their bases/were built upon Roman and Dacian settlements, especially in what you people call "Szekelyfold".
@@ade9597 You forget that the nationalist Daco-Roman fantasy is general consensus only in romania (official state propaganda) The vlach ancestors of Romanians were the latest nomadic people in Europe.
In Belgium the new German citizens in annexed territory after WW1. were only happy being Belgian after German became an official language and the territory they live got cultural independence. They are only 0,4% of the population but have a Parliament and can do everything in German in their part of the country. But they mainly live together because it was German territory. In WW2 they welcomed the German invaders as liberators. After the cultural independence they feel German speaking Belgians. They have more autonomy now then if they would be still German for such a small group of people. And if they are happy and don’t want a return, Germany has no problem with tan old border change.
7:06 Magyar "authorities were embarking on this policy of ethinc assimilation" of minorities. Just great. So now they accuse the same phenomenon they practiced. 21:07 "Nowadays..the biggest (magyar) group is in Romania, it's around 1 milion" Well yes, it is the biggest by far but it never was a majority on Transylvania alone.
Before World War I, only three European countries recognized ethnic minority rights and implemented laws to protect these minorities. Hungary was the first, doing so in 1849 and 1868, followed by Austria in 1867, and Belgium in 1898. In contrast, the legal frameworks of other European countries prior to WWI did not permit the use of minority languages in primary schools, cultural institutions, public administration offices, or in legal courts.
The dissolution of empire that rules different (completely unrelated) nations can hardly be called a tragedy. Hungary captured and rulled neighboring nations for centuries and Hungarised part of those people. Not all of those people wanted to be rulled by Hungary. There was very different treatment of those nations - e.g. compare tratment of Croats with treatment of Slovaks and Rusyns. The treatment of Rusyns was on the level of chauvinism and discrimination. E.g. one Hungarian bishop once visited the church in the area where Rusyns lived. He was invited to the dinner by a family of local priest. There he strongly criticised the priest that his daughter still spoke "barabian language". Compare it to Czechoslovakia where Czechs, Slovaks and Rusyns/Ukrainains lived together with respect to each other.
@@herptek Of course, Russian Empire was partitioned. Then it unfortunately was resurrected in a form of USSR and recaptured almost all lost territories. They failed to recapture Poland and Finland, but they tried to. Now it is the similar scenario: USSR was partitioned (this time in a legal way) but Russian Federation tries to recapture lost lands. Unfortunately those cycles will continue until Russia is completely partitioned into much smaller parts. But Russia has nukes. And the West fears the dissolution of Russia, the same way they feared the dissolution of USSR and even tried to persuade Ukraine not to leave USSR. Unfortunately due to Western cowardice Russia is about to remain intact and de facto with imperial ambitions. When West realizes that this was a huge mistake it will be too late. Russia and other similar dictatorships will create hot conflicts throughout the World with the aim to ruin the World order and redraw the spheres of influence.
@@Anton_Danylchenko The red army had to be fought off from the Baltics as well the first time around. The second time they didn't even bother to make a fuss about it, it just took some singing. Why not a third round while we are at it? Karelia is still not free. Finland can take the nuclear stockpiles on Kola Peninsula for better safekeeping, for just altruistic reasons of course. Just so some renegade officer with intercontinental arsenal doesn't decide to blow up the world for Russia going down for good. It would require annexing White- and Olonets Karelia as well, for starters. Estonia can get Ingria.
@@handle1603 Unfortunately that was the real story about "barbaric language" and not an anecdote. Of course there were some ethnic tensions in Czechoslovakia as well. However Czechoslovakia had 10 times better treatment of minorities than e.g. Poland or Romania. At least this is the fact for treatment of Rusyn/Ukrainian minority in 3 countries. I do not know much about how Czechs and Slovaks treated Hungarians on their territory at that time. But I can imagine that Hungarians created tensions themselves due to lack of the wish to be loyal to Czechoslovakia. Regarding the lost Hungarian ethnic territories. I can say for sure only for South-Eastern Slovakia. There are maps of XVIII century were those territories are clearly shown as ethnic Rusyn (to the the east of Kosice) and ethnic Slovak (to the west of Kosice). Hungarians resettled there and Hungarised local population only in XIX century.
@@handle1603 Humor aside, all this is easy to understand and pretty obvious in my opinion. Whats is more interesting is that why only some countries or ethnic groups gaining self-rule over themselves and a rule over minorities living in their midst is considered a positive thing and the complete opposite in other cases. When there are different ethnicities competing for control over the same territory it is basically impossible to be fair and impartial about it, but if any contender of such a dispute would come to be convinced that it is wrong for ones own group to play by the same rules as its competitors surely that group would diminish even before a fight. To have a country is to have a dignity of believing in its fate and rightful position in the world, even if that means coming into conflict with demands of minorities or neighbouring countries. If this is argued to have been the right thing to do to Hungary, which wasn't a huge country in European stantards in any case, why is it always so wrong or at least sensitive matter to propose to have the same treatment visit Russia, which is gigantic multi-ethnic behemoth, entirely unnatural as far as ethnic lines are considered.
The state of loyalties of ethnic groups to a country you can measure with the participation of young people in cheering for the national football team. Do they cheer for the team of the country they live in or for the country of their ethnicity, or for both? Maybe they do not participate in either support. This is also a measurement of the state of an ethnic group. Then there are also forms of showing allegiance totally different to those patterns. E.g. Bosnian Muslims, albeit Slavic, cheer for Turkey, Bosnian Serbs for Serbia only, Bosnian Croats for Croatia only.
Some corrections: Hungary did not lose any territory, when the WW1 ended in Europe. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon During the war, Count Mihály Károlyi led a small but very active pacifist anti-war maverick faction in the Hungarian parliament.[31] He even organized covert contacts with British and French diplomats in Switzerland.[32] On 25 October 1918 Károlyi had formed the Hungarian National Council. The Austro-Hungarian monarchy politically collapsed and disintegrated as a result of a defeat in the Italian front. On 31 October 1918, in the midst of armistice negotiations, the Aster Revolution in Budapest brought the liberal Károlyi, a supporter of the Allies, to power. On the 1st of November, Mihály Károlyi's new Hungarian government decided to recall all of the troops, who were conscripted from the territory of Kingdom of Hungary, which was a major blow for the Habsburg's armies.[33] King Charles had no other option than the appointment of Károlyi as prime minister of Hungary. The Hungarian Royal Honvéd army still had more than 1,400,000 soldiers[34][35] when Károlyi was announced as prime minister. Károlyi yielded to President Wilson's demand for pacifism by ordering the unilateral self-disarmament of the Hungarian army. This happened under the direction of Minister of War Béla Linder on 2 November 1918[36][37] When Oszkár Jászi became the new Minister for National Minorities of Hungary, he immediately offered democratic referendums about the disputed borders for minorities; however, the political leaders of those minorities refused the very idea of democratic referendums regarding disputed territories at the Paris peace conference.[38] Disarmament of its army meant that Hungary was to remain without a national defence at a time of particular vulnerability. The unilateral self-disarmament made the occupation of Hungary directly possible for the relatively small armies of Romania, the Franco-Serbian army, and the armed forces of the newly established Czechoslovakia.[39][40][41] After self-disarmament, Czech, Serbian, and Romanian political leaders chose to attack Hungary instead of holding democratic plebiscites concerning the disputed areas.[42] On the request of the Austro-Hungarian government, an armistice was granted to Austria-Hungary on 3 November 1918 by the Allies.[43] Military and political events changed rapidly and drastically after the Hungarian unilateral disarmament: On 5 November 1918, the Serbian army, with the help of the French army, crossed the southern borders. On 8 November, the Czechoslovak army crossed the northern borders. On 10 November d'Espérey's army crossed the Danube River and was poised to enter the Hungarian heartland. On 11 November Germany signed an armistice with Allies, under which they had to immediately withdraw all German troops in Romania and in the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Russian Empire back to German territory and Allies to have access to these countries.[44] On 13 November, the Romanian army crossed the eastern borders of the Kingdom of Hungary. During the rule of Károlyi's pacifist cabinet, Hungary rapidly lost control over approximately 75% of its former pre-WWI territories (325,411 km2 (125,642 sq mi)) without a fight and was subject to foreign occupation.[45]
شكرا على التفاصيل التي ذكرتها . يبدو ان فرنسا و بريطانيا و قوى أوروبية أخرى كانت لها نية مبيتة قبل الحرب العالمية الأولى ، على تفتيت الكيان السياسي و العرقي للشعب المجري ، وكانت الحرب العالمية الأولى فرصتهم ! قامو بنزع الأرض ومنحها للبلدان الأخرى التي تعاونت معهم ، و الخطير في الأمر أنهم حرمو الشعب المجري من منفذ على البحر ، وجعله معزولا عن العالم ! . أنا من المغرب ، أستغرب عندما ألاحظ وجود عدد كبير من الأطباء و المهندسين من رومانيا و بلغاريا يشتغلون هنا منذ عدة سنوات ، و لا أجد مهندس مجري واحد ،و توجد مبادلات تجارية قوية بين رومانيا و بلغاريا مع المغرب ....وللأسف لا توجد مبادلات تجارية مع المجر ، أعتقد ان سبب ذالك هو عدم وجود ميناء مجري على البحر . ولكن رغم كل هذا يجب على السياسيين المجريين القيام بمجهود من أجل عقد إتفاقيات مع بلدان خارج أوروبا، مثل المغرب ، لتمكين الشركات المجرية من إستثمار الموانئ المغربية و تمكين الشركات المجرية من التصدير إلى الأسواق الإستهلاكية الصاعدة مثل إفريقيا و أمريكا اللاتينية و إسبانيا و البرتغال . تحياتي لك من المغرب 🇲🇦🤝🇭🇺
I thought the Austrians were pretty butt hurt about Southern Tyrol that was annexed by Italy and still has a large German population? Tho I guess since schengen that has also lost relevance. Open borders within the EU makes ethnically diverse border regions much less of an issue. If you can just drive across to visit family and friends the logo of your passport isn't as relevant anymore. Also since we are all NATO members, of worst comes to worst we all fight on the same side. Because of that most people born after the fall of communism care less and less about old grudges.
What???? “The assimilation was difficult because the the Hungarian is such a different language”??? Not because the Hungarian minority ( at least in Romania) is guaranteed educational , administrative , political and cultural rights??? Please analize the truth, not false propaganda. The interviewed is contradicting himself - “there are political parties in Romania”. According to Romania's minority rights law, Hungarians have the right to education in their native language, including as a medium of instruction. In localities where they make up more than 20% of the population they have the right to use their native language with local authorities. The same does not apply to the Romanian minority in Hungary!
The tragedy that Romanians were not deported back to their ancient homeland of their late nomad migrant Vlach ancestors in the southern Balkans. Or Slovaks did not go back to Poland Czechia and Ruthen lands, where their high medieval ancestors migrated.
Yeah well, Hungary's borders are set by the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty not Trianon. Two wars of aggression lost and crying over lands and peoples it enslaved and forcefully assimilated/Magyarized, with signs even to this day in Hungary "proper" that other peoples lived and live there but are subsumed by the aggressive policies of prior centuries from Budapest. This is just like if Britain would cry about losing its former empire and demanding every chance it got to be "given back" its colonies. Pathetic and shameful behavior from a arrogant and weak/unworthy nation. Sic Semper Tyrranis
Did a Romanian open his mouth and mention aggression? In both World Wars, it was Romania, which declared war. After your blatant Balkanite lies, who can take you seriously?" In Transylvania, your late-nomad Vlach sepherd ancestors were the migrants, who migrated from southern Balkans since the 13th century.
What is not the emphases of the video is the MAIN reason: the VAST majority of population in the regions that Hungary lost was not formed by Magyars. In Transylvania, that has always been Romanian territory, the great majority was Romanian. Same in Slovakia or Serbia. So, it is not a tragedy, it is a historic restoration and normalization.
Why didn't you go back to your ancient homeland at south Balkans, where your late nomad Vlach sepherd ancestors migrated since the 13th century ? Why did your ancestors continuously migrate there from Moldavia and Wallachia if Hungarians were so oppressive?
@@chriswanger284 Try to learn history from other sources than your nationalistic propaganda you call history, it would be good for your development, you would look at other nations with normality and respect.
It Is not true that the Hungarian minority was more oppressed by the communist regime in Romania then the other citizens! I lived in Transylvania in that period and I saw that Hungarians had schools ( from kindergarten to university), theaters, operas, all in Hungarian. People spoke Hungarian freely, they didn’t have to change their name or last name from Hungarian to Romanian. They were respected by the community for what they were. Definitely different from what my romanian family had to endure under the Appony rule, while Transylvania was a part of the Habsburgic empire ( not Hungary, even if they think they had a state). Give proof of the “assimilation policy” you are talking about! I think that Hungarians have an obsession with the “assimilation culture” since they tried to do that to the population they managed in the Austro-Hungarian empire. They just couldn’t grasp that those regions were gifted to them by the power of the Habsburgic rule, not because they earned it or deserved it. To the interviewer: please ask relevant questions! Otherwise this seems to be just a therapeutical session for the interviewed. Saying all these, I had Hungarian colleagues and friends that I loved and treated with respect, and never thought less of because of their ethnicity or because of the history between us. People are people.
@@Varcell01 Nah, he is right. There was a brief increase in anti-Hungarian rhetoric and practice during the last 4-5 years of Ceausescu's rule, but in general Hungarians were treated well by the regime. In the first half of communist regime of Romania they were treated even better than Romanians. In the late 40s and early 50s, there were more Hungarians in the communist party than Romanians.
So much garbage, I did not read for a long time. Practically, almost every thing you listed is not true. Hungarian schools were all romanized. It was forbidden to the communities to have their own schools. Only mixed schools were allowed. University lectures in Romanian exclusively. Theaters and operas were mixed as well (with exception of Cluj, after forcing out the Hungarian section from it's own main opera building to the summer / secondary building). People were threatened and harassed (including me) for speaking Hungarian on the streets. A huge campaign of forced romanization of Hungarian surnames was performed in the '50s and remained in practice also afterwards, but in lesser magnitude. Hungarians were definitely not respected, but isolated and forced out of every relevant positions, which were reserved for Romanians only. Exceptions were made only for converts, who denounced their identity. Active assimilation policies were carried out by the state in the 70' and '80 to break the Hungarian majority in cities. And lastly, Transylvania was an integral part of the Hungarian kingdom since 1008, until the Ottoman rule of central Hungary, when Transylvania functioned as an independent province and was known under the name of Eastern Hungarian Kingdom, until reconnecting with the rest of kingdom, under Franz Joseph, who held the position of King of Hungary. Yes, in the dualist monarchy, the kingdom of Hungary was a separate entity, ruled by the same person.
@@axoloneidolon4702 Almost everything you wrote is false. 1. Hungarian schools were not Romanized. There were Hungarian language schools and mixed schools even back then. One could learn in Hungarian from kindergarten to university. University lectures could be held in Hungarian exclusively at Cluj and Targu Mures. There were sections back then as today dedicated to Hungarian speakers. 2. Theaters and operas were mixed because in general the population was mixed. There were Hungarian and Romanian language events. 3. Nobody was threatened or harassed for speaking Hungarian on the streets. This is fake. You can't tell me you were harassed for speaking Hungarian, when a Romanian was being told by Hungarians back then that one day we will enter with passports in Transylvania. "A huge campaign of forced romanization of Hungarian surnames was performed" Never was. Fake news. In the 50s Hungarians had more rights than even Romanians. They were a higher representation in the communist party and they even had an autonomous region where they pretty much ruled as a parallel state until like the early 60s. Hungarians back then were represented in pretty much all domains of life. They had mayors, city councilors, prefects, MPs, etc. The only area where they were less represented was in the secret services and army officials. But in all other domains of life, they were omnipresent. As such, no discrimination.
Before World War I, only three European countries declared ethnic minority rights, and enacted minority-protecting laws: the first was Hungary (1849 and 1868), the second was Austria (1867), and the third was Belgium (1898). In contrast, the legal systems of other pre-WW1 era European countries did not allow the use of European minority languages in primary schools, in cultural institutions, in offices of public administration and at the legal courts.[2]
Only issue is that the 1868 minority law was no longer applied in practice after 1870 when the liberal government was overthrown. After that, a series of new laws promoted active discrimination against national minorities, such as restraining their use of their language in public administration, judiciary and business sector. So yes, while Hungary did pass a minority law, the law itself remained on paper and from 1870 onwards systematic violations were recorded.
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth You can not cite (year of issue and number of act) such discriminative laws.
Read that book, it is on the web: Józsa Hévizi (2004): Autonomies in Hungary and Europe, A COMPARATIVE STUDY
After reading, compare the situation of minorities in pre - WW1 era serbia and romania.
@@FerencBulker There were various discriminatory laws that were in contradiction with the minority law itself. Such as the primary and secondary grade education acts in the 1870s and this culminated with the infamous Apponyi Law. Apponyi Law in just its first year of implementation closed 600 Romanians elementary schools. The situation of minorities in Romania and Serbia were superior to those of Hungary, that is for sure.
@@Kalimdor199Menegroth Please do not lie. see school statistics of the old Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. There were more Romanian language elementary schools in Transylvania than in pre-WW1 Kingdom of Romania.
@@FerencBulker Please do not lie. Check the school statistics from the Kingdom of Romania. There were already more schools in the Kingdom in 1880 than in Transylvania for Romanians. Not to mention universities, high schools, and trade schools. I checked Encyclopedia Britannica in 1911. It says clearly that by 1911, the number of elementary Romanian schools in Transylvania dropped from around 2300, to 1200. Thanks to Lex Apponyi. In 1907 alone, 600 Romanian schools were closed.
Yeah, Slovaks just loved Hungarian nationalism and forced Magyarization of their land!
Slovaks become a nation in the seco d half of the 19th century... Sooo no there is no ethnical slovaks basically living there... And you guys do the same so do not yapping
@@kristof.demeter Slovaks became a nation at the same time everyone else were starting to gain a national consciousness. Including Hungarians. Hungarians started to get a national consciousness while experiencing forced Germanization during the 18th century. As for there being no ethnic Slovaks before that, just because the people did not have a national consciousness, does not mean they don't exist. Slovaks did not do anything against Hungarians after Trianon. They only extended a helping hand to them hoping that will work for the better.
@@kristof.demeter "Sooo no there is no ethnical slovaks basically living there... " what is this bullsh*t? Do You think that Slovaks came from space in mid 19th century or what?
@@Lukaskovac-ex4nf The simple political interests and the typical chauvinist national narcissism created the so-called NATIVIST theories in the era of the national awakening. In the 19th century , it was politically very hard for the Slovaks to build any territorial demands and claims on the basis of their late medieval era migratory past, thus the early Slovak nationalists had to fabricate a NATIVIST autochonist fairy tale history to create a national identity. Despite their extreme level of wannabee-ist tales and stubborn wishful thinking, the modern Slovaks are not really related to local ancient Slavs. Rather they are descendant of late medieval migrant-Slavs, mostly after the Mongol invasion of Hungary in 1241-42, and the migration to Upper (Northern) Hungary also occoured after the devastation of Ottoman wars, when ethnic Hungarians moved to the south to repopulate present-day territories of Hungary.
Slovak is one of the youngest ethnonym in Europe, the "Slovak" term was born only in the 15th century, in the early modern period. Without own ethnonym, we can't even speak about identity or ethnicity. Unlike the Czechs, Croats, Polish (some white Croats), Serbs etc...who had real ethnonyms, their late born ethnonym the "Slovak" is not a real ethnonym , its meaning: "something Slavic language speakers". Nomen est omen. No wonder: Slovaks were early modern period mixture of immigrants: Czech Hussites from the N-west, Polish immigrants from the north, Local Hungarians, nomadic Vlach settlers in Eastern Slovakia, Rusyn people in the east, and some German settlers. This modern mixture had a clear impact on various Slovak "dialects". In the reality this were not dialects but rather different languages. This mixature is mirrored in their many old languages Until the birth of the unified "Central Slovak" language in the 19th century, some of the Slovak dialects were closer to Czech language, others were closer to Polish language another dialects were closer to the Rusyn language. So Slovaks did not have even a common mutually intelligible language (which is a corner point of a real nation or an ethnic group) until the Slovak linguistic reforms of the 19th century.
You can read about it here: www.101languages.net/slovak/dialects.html?fbclid=IwAR19gTNaoArw_vhLG3A5bJoXDZ2UWYC7BgHvInt6S66q2NQxnKIJOuaRrzo
The common unified mutually intelligible Slovak language was spread by the Czechoslovak school system during the interwar period and the communist era, which remained the central policy and goal of the Czechoslovak governments.
The Slovak “ethnic group” is a young modern artificially and politically designed/MANUFACTURED product instead of real natural/organic historic development.
@@kristof.demeter Slovaks became a nation only during WW2 under Tiso. You confuse the term ethnic group and nation. A nation have own laws parliament public administration and legal courts.
Another correction, the people's self-determination was not allowed by the ENTENTE after WW1: After World War I, despite the "self-determination of peoples" idea of the Allied Powers, only one plebiscite was permitted (later known as the Sopron plebiscite) to settle disputed borders on the former territory of the Kingdom of Hungary,[21] settling a smaller territorial dispute between the First Austrian Republic and the Kingdom of Hungary, During the Sopron plebiscite in late 1921, the polling stations were supervised by British, French, and Italian army officers of the Allied Powers.[22]
I don't want to be rude but in my opinion their is no reason as to why Romania should not get transylvania.
Justice for Hungary !
That would mean eradication as a state for what they were doing to the indigenous peoples of the lands they invaded, including modern day Hungary, and the vast majority of the Hungarian population is a mixture of germans, slavs and vlachs, and less than 3% have a genetic connection to the Magyars.
@@ade9597 Why don't you migrate back to the original Southern Balkan homeland of your late-nomad Vlach ancestors ?
@@chriswanger284 Because our homeland is on both banks of the Danube, all the way to your Western border, my dear neighbor.
@@chriswanger284 Furthermore, as is there a general consensus that we are of daco-roman stock(as by our exonym vlachs=romance speaking people), most of the medieval fortresses and cities in Transilvania have at their bases/were built upon Roman and Dacian settlements, especially in what you people call "Szekelyfold".
@@ade9597 You forget that the nationalist Daco-Roman fantasy is general consensus only in romania (official state propaganda)
The vlach ancestors of Romanians were the latest nomadic people in Europe.
In Belgium the new German citizens in annexed territory after WW1. were only happy being Belgian after German became an official language and the territory they live got cultural independence. They are only 0,4% of the population but have a Parliament and can do everything in German in their part of the country. But they mainly live together because it was German territory. In WW2 they welcomed the German invaders as liberators. After the cultural independence they feel German speaking Belgians. They have more autonomy now then if they would be still German for such a small group of people. And if they are happy and don’t want a return, Germany has no problem with tan old border change.
7:06 Magyar "authorities were embarking on this policy of ethinc assimilation" of minorities. Just great. So now they accuse the same phenomenon they practiced.
21:07 "Nowadays..the biggest (magyar) group is in Romania, it's around 1 milion" Well yes, it is the biggest by far but it never was a majority on Transylvania alone.
Before World War I, only three European countries recognized ethnic minority rights and implemented laws to protect these minorities. Hungary was the first, doing so in 1849 and 1868, followed by Austria in 1867, and Belgium in 1898. In contrast, the legal frameworks of other European countries prior to WWI did not permit the use of minority languages in primary schools, cultural institutions, public administration offices, or in legal courts.
The dissolution of empire that rules different (completely unrelated) nations can hardly be called a tragedy. Hungary captured and rulled neighboring nations for centuries and Hungarised part of those people. Not all of those people wanted to be rulled by Hungary. There was very different treatment of those nations - e.g. compare tratment of Croats with treatment of Slovaks and Rusyns. The treatment of Rusyns was on the level of chauvinism and discrimination.
E.g. one Hungarian bishop once visited the church in the area where Rusyns lived. He was invited to the dinner by a family of local priest. There he strongly criticised the priest that his daughter still spoke "barabian language".
Compare it to Czechoslovakia where Czechs, Slovaks and Rusyns/Ukrainains lived together with respect to each other.
Can this treatment be considered on bigger empires as well? Consider partitioning of Russia.
@@herptek Of course, Russian Empire was partitioned. Then it unfortunately was resurrected in a form of USSR and recaptured almost all lost territories. They failed to recapture Poland and Finland, but they tried to. Now it is the similar scenario: USSR was partitioned (this time in a legal way) but Russian Federation tries to recapture lost lands. Unfortunately those cycles will continue until Russia is completely partitioned into much smaller parts. But Russia has nukes. And the West fears the dissolution of Russia, the same way they feared the dissolution of USSR and even tried to persuade Ukraine not to leave USSR. Unfortunately due to Western cowardice Russia is about to remain intact and de facto with imperial ambitions. When West realizes that this was a huge mistake it will be too late. Russia and other similar dictatorships will create hot conflicts throughout the World with the aim to ruin the World order and redraw the spheres of influence.
@@Anton_Danylchenko The red army had to be fought off from the Baltics as well the first time around. The second time they didn't even bother to make a fuss about it, it just took some singing.
Why not a third round while we are at it? Karelia is still not free. Finland can take the nuclear stockpiles on Kola Peninsula for better safekeeping, for just altruistic reasons of course. Just so some renegade officer with intercontinental arsenal doesn't decide to blow up the world for Russia going down for good. It would require annexing White- and Olonets Karelia as well, for starters. Estonia can get Ingria.
@@handle1603 Unfortunately that was the real story about "barbaric language" and not an anecdote. Of course there were some ethnic tensions in Czechoslovakia as well. However Czechoslovakia had 10 times better treatment of minorities than e.g. Poland or Romania. At least this is the fact for treatment of Rusyn/Ukrainian minority in 3 countries. I do not know much about how Czechs and Slovaks treated Hungarians on their territory at that time. But I can imagine that Hungarians created tensions themselves due to lack of the wish to be loyal to Czechoslovakia.
Regarding the lost Hungarian ethnic territories. I can say for sure only for South-Eastern Slovakia. There are maps of XVIII century were those territories are clearly shown as ethnic Rusyn (to the the east of Kosice) and ethnic Slovak (to the west of Kosice). Hungarians resettled there and Hungarised local population only in XIX century.
@@handle1603 Humor aside, all this is easy to understand and pretty obvious in my opinion. Whats is more interesting is that why only some countries or ethnic groups gaining self-rule over themselves and a rule over minorities living in their midst is considered a positive thing and the complete opposite in other cases.
When there are different ethnicities competing for control over the same territory it is basically impossible to be fair and impartial about it, but if any contender of such a dispute would come to be convinced that it is wrong for ones own group to play by the same rules as its competitors surely that group would diminish even before a fight.
To have a country is to have a dignity of believing in its fate and rightful position in the world, even if that means coming into conflict with demands of minorities or neighbouring countries.
If this is argued to have been the right thing to do to Hungary, which wasn't a huge country in European stantards in any case, why is it always so wrong or at least sensitive matter to propose to have the same treatment visit Russia, which is gigantic multi-ethnic behemoth, entirely unnatural as far as ethnic lines are considered.
The state of loyalties of ethnic groups to a country you can measure with the participation of young people in cheering for the national football team.
Do they cheer for the team of the country they live in or for the country of their ethnicity, or for both?
Maybe they do not participate in either support. This is also a measurement of the state of an ethnic group.
Then there are also forms of showing allegiance totally different to those patterns.
E.g. Bosnian Muslims, albeit Slavic, cheer for Turkey, Bosnian Serbs for Serbia only, Bosnian Croats for Croatia only.
Some corrections: Hungary did not lose any territory, when the WW1 ended in Europe. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon
During the war, Count Mihály Károlyi led a small but very active pacifist anti-war maverick faction in the Hungarian parliament.[31] He even organized covert contacts with British and French diplomats in Switzerland.[32] On 25 October 1918 Károlyi had formed the Hungarian National Council. The Austro-Hungarian monarchy politically collapsed and disintegrated as a result of a defeat in the Italian front. On 31 October 1918, in the midst of armistice negotiations, the Aster Revolution in Budapest brought the liberal Károlyi, a supporter of the Allies, to power. On the 1st of November, Mihály Károlyi's new Hungarian government decided to recall all of the troops, who were conscripted from the territory of Kingdom of Hungary, which was a major blow for the Habsburg's armies.[33] King Charles had no other option than the appointment of Károlyi as prime minister of Hungary. The Hungarian Royal Honvéd army still had more than 1,400,000 soldiers[34][35] when Károlyi was announced as prime minister. Károlyi yielded to President Wilson's demand for pacifism by ordering the unilateral self-disarmament of the Hungarian army. This happened under the direction of Minister of War Béla Linder on 2 November 1918[36][37] When Oszkár Jászi became the new Minister for National Minorities of Hungary, he immediately offered democratic referendums about the disputed borders for minorities; however, the political leaders of those minorities refused the very idea of democratic referendums regarding disputed territories at the Paris peace conference.[38] Disarmament of its army meant that Hungary was to remain without a national defence at a time of particular vulnerability. The unilateral self-disarmament made the occupation of Hungary directly possible for the relatively small armies of Romania, the Franco-Serbian army, and the armed forces of the newly established Czechoslovakia.[39][40][41] After self-disarmament, Czech, Serbian, and Romanian political leaders chose to attack Hungary instead of holding democratic plebiscites concerning the disputed areas.[42]
On the request of the Austro-Hungarian government, an armistice was granted to Austria-Hungary on 3 November 1918 by the Allies.[43] Military and political events changed rapidly and drastically after the Hungarian unilateral disarmament:
On 5 November 1918, the Serbian army, with the help of the French army, crossed the southern borders.
On 8 November, the Czechoslovak army crossed the northern borders.
On 10 November d'Espérey's army crossed the Danube River and was poised to enter the Hungarian heartland.
On 11 November Germany signed an armistice with Allies, under which they had to immediately withdraw all German troops in Romania and in the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Russian Empire back to German territory and Allies to have access to these countries.[44]
On 13 November, the Romanian army crossed the eastern borders of the Kingdom of Hungary.
During the rule of Károlyi's pacifist cabinet, Hungary rapidly lost control over approximately 75% of its former pre-WWI territories (325,411 km2 (125,642 sq mi)) without a fight and was subject to foreign occupation.[45]
شكرا على التفاصيل التي ذكرتها . يبدو ان فرنسا و بريطانيا و قوى أوروبية أخرى كانت لها نية مبيتة قبل الحرب العالمية الأولى ، على تفتيت الكيان السياسي و العرقي للشعب المجري ، وكانت الحرب العالمية الأولى فرصتهم ! قامو بنزع الأرض ومنحها للبلدان الأخرى التي تعاونت معهم ، و الخطير في الأمر أنهم حرمو الشعب المجري من منفذ على البحر ، وجعله معزولا عن العالم ! . أنا من المغرب ، أستغرب عندما ألاحظ وجود عدد كبير من الأطباء و المهندسين من رومانيا و بلغاريا يشتغلون هنا منذ عدة سنوات ، و لا أجد مهندس مجري واحد ،و توجد مبادلات تجارية قوية بين رومانيا و بلغاريا مع المغرب ....وللأسف لا توجد مبادلات تجارية مع المجر ، أعتقد ان سبب ذالك هو عدم وجود ميناء مجري على البحر . ولكن رغم كل هذا يجب على السياسيين المجريين القيام بمجهود من أجل عقد إتفاقيات مع بلدان خارج أوروبا، مثل المغرب ، لتمكين الشركات المجرية من إستثمار الموانئ المغربية و تمكين الشركات المجرية من التصدير إلى الأسواق الإستهلاكية الصاعدة مثل إفريقيا و أمريكا اللاتينية و إسبانيا و البرتغال . تحياتي لك من المغرب 🇲🇦🤝🇭🇺
I got news for Hungary! In Transylvania Romanians has been always majority of population and oppressed by Hungarians minority
Why didn't you go back to your ancient homeland at south Balkans, where your late nomad Vlach sepherd ancestors migrated since the 13th century ?
@@chriswanger284 i am well here in my country Moldova
Just by the way, why you asking?
I thought the Austrians were pretty butt hurt about Southern Tyrol that was annexed by Italy and still has a large German population?
Tho I guess since schengen that has also lost relevance. Open borders within the EU makes ethnically diverse border regions much less of an issue. If you can just drive across
to visit family and friends the logo of your passport isn't as relevant anymore. Also since we are all NATO members, of worst comes to worst we all fight on the same side. Because of that most people born after the fall of communism care less and less about old grudges.
What???? “The assimilation was difficult because the the Hungarian is such a different language”??? Not because the Hungarian minority ( at least in Romania) is guaranteed educational , administrative , political and cultural rights??? Please analize the truth, not false propaganda. The interviewed is contradicting himself - “there are political parties in Romania”. According to Romania's minority rights law, Hungarians have the right to education in their native language, including as a medium of instruction. In localities where they make up more than 20% of the population they have the right to use their native language with local authorities. The same does not apply to the Romanian minority in Hungary!
Still, In modern Romania the minorities have fewer rights than the minorities in Kingdom of Hungary.
The tragedy of trianon was that the Hungarians weren't deported back to hungary.
The tragedy that Romanians were not deported back to their ancient homeland of their late nomad migrant Vlach ancestors in the southern Balkans. Or Slovaks did not go back to Poland Czechia and Ruthen lands, where their high medieval ancestors migrated.
Yeah well, Hungary's borders are set by the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty not Trianon. Two wars of aggression lost and crying over lands and peoples it enslaved and forcefully assimilated/Magyarized, with signs even to this day in Hungary "proper" that other peoples lived and live there but are subsumed by the aggressive policies of prior centuries from Budapest. This is just like if Britain would cry about losing its former empire and demanding every chance it got to be "given back" its colonies. Pathetic and shameful behavior from a arrogant and weak/unworthy nation. Sic Semper Tyrranis
Did a Romanian open his mouth and mention aggression? In both World Wars, it was Romania, which declared war. After your blatant Balkanite lies, who can take you seriously?" In Transylvania, your late-nomad Vlach sepherd ancestors were the migrants, who migrated from southern Balkans since the 13th century.
What is not the emphases of the video is the MAIN reason: the VAST majority of population in the regions that Hungary lost was not formed by Magyars. In Transylvania, that has always been Romanian territory, the great majority was Romanian. Same in Slovakia or Serbia.
So, it is not a tragedy, it is a historic restoration and normalization.
Why didn't you go back to your ancient homeland at south Balkans, where your late nomad Vlach sepherd ancestors migrated since the 13th century ? Why did your ancestors continuously migrate there from Moldavia and Wallachia if Hungarians were so oppressive?
@@chriswanger284 Try to learn history from other sources than your nationalistic propaganda you call history. It is a good thing for your development.
@@chriswanger284 Try to learn history from other sources than your nationalistic propaganda you call history, it would be good for your development, you would look at other nations with normality and respect.
The name of the country 100 years ago was Austria-Hungary not kingdom of Hungary 👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻
Kingdom of Hungary was an official part of Austria-Hungary. So Kingdom of Hungary was a legal entity!
@@Varcell01 Before 1856 was only the Habsburg Empire.
Independent Hungarian Kingdom disappeared at Mohacs.
It Is not true that the Hungarian minority was more oppressed by the communist regime in Romania then the other citizens! I lived in Transylvania in that period and I saw that Hungarians had schools ( from kindergarten to university), theaters, operas, all in Hungarian. People spoke Hungarian freely, they didn’t have to change their name or last name from Hungarian to Romanian. They were respected by the community for what they were. Definitely different from what my romanian family had to endure under the Appony rule, while Transylvania was a part of the Habsburgic empire ( not Hungary, even if they think they had a state). Give proof of the “assimilation policy” you are talking about! I think that Hungarians have an obsession with the “assimilation culture” since they tried to do that to the population they managed in the Austro-Hungarian empire. They just couldn’t grasp that those regions were gifted to them by the power of the Habsburgic rule, not because they earned it or deserved it. To the interviewer: please ask relevant questions! Otherwise this seems to be just a therapeutical session for the interviewed.
Saying all these, I had Hungarian colleagues and friends that I loved and treated with respect, and never thought less of because of their ethnicity or because of the history between us. People are people.
!
Ok, that pure roman nationalist propaganda far from the rerality!
@@Varcell01 Nah, he is right. There was a brief increase in anti-Hungarian rhetoric and practice during the last 4-5 years of Ceausescu's rule, but in general Hungarians were treated well by the regime. In the first half of communist regime of Romania they were treated even better than Romanians. In the late 40s and early 50s, there were more Hungarians in the communist party than Romanians.
So much garbage, I did not read for a long time. Practically, almost every thing you listed is not true.
Hungarian schools were all romanized. It was forbidden to the communities to have their own schools. Only mixed schools were allowed. University lectures in Romanian exclusively. Theaters and operas were mixed as well (with exception of Cluj, after forcing out the Hungarian section from it's own main opera building to the summer / secondary building). People were threatened and harassed (including me) for speaking Hungarian on the streets. A huge campaign of forced romanization of Hungarian surnames was performed in the '50s and remained in practice also afterwards, but in lesser magnitude. Hungarians were definitely not respected, but isolated and forced out of every relevant positions, which were reserved for Romanians only. Exceptions were made only for converts, who denounced their identity. Active assimilation policies were carried out by the state in the 70' and '80 to break the Hungarian majority in cities. And lastly, Transylvania was an integral part of the Hungarian kingdom since 1008, until the Ottoman rule of central Hungary, when Transylvania functioned as an independent province and was known under the name of Eastern Hungarian Kingdom, until reconnecting with the rest of kingdom, under Franz Joseph, who held the position of King of Hungary. Yes, in the dualist monarchy, the kingdom of Hungary was a separate entity, ruled by the same person.
@@axoloneidolon4702 Almost everything you wrote is false.
1. Hungarian schools were not Romanized. There were Hungarian language schools and mixed schools even back then. One could learn in Hungarian from kindergarten to university. University lectures could be held in Hungarian exclusively at Cluj and Targu Mures. There were sections back then as today dedicated to Hungarian speakers.
2. Theaters and operas were mixed because in general the population was mixed. There were Hungarian and Romanian language events.
3. Nobody was threatened or harassed for speaking Hungarian on the streets. This is fake. You can't tell me you were harassed for speaking Hungarian, when a Romanian was being told by Hungarians back then that one day we will enter with passports in Transylvania.
"A huge campaign of forced romanization of Hungarian surnames was performed"
Never was. Fake news. In the 50s Hungarians had more rights than even Romanians. They were a higher representation in the communist party and they even had an autonomous region where they pretty much ruled as a parallel state until like the early 60s.
Hungarians back then were represented in pretty much all domains of life. They had mayors, city councilors, prefects, MPs, etc. The only area where they were less represented was in the secret services and army officials. But in all other domains of life, they were omnipresent. As such, no discrimination.