Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Number of Hungarians that moved back to Hungary - clarification needed

About this edit [3], I have reverted it because I have read this Hungarian-Slovak population exchanges where it stated in second paragraph The Czechoslovak government planned the removal of 25,0000[17][29] Hungarian people from South Slovakia to Hungary,[17] but 44,129[17]-45,475[30] – generally well-to-do businessmen, tradesmen, farmers and intellectuals[25] - which contains 2 references that the number is between 44,129-45,475 and not 100 000+. Since there are 2 references that say one thing and 1 recently added that says another, I added clarification needed tag at that claim until it is clarified. Adrian ( talk) 10:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply

It says 250,000 (not 25,0000). We should demonstrate other sources as well (especially from demographers as Kocsis's book). Fakirbakir ( talk) 10:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Yes, it says that the Czechoslovak government planed the exchange of 250 000 Hungarians, but according to this 44,129-45,475 is what it really exchanged. It is according to this source 1, page 29. Also the source you presented states that 120 000 of Hungarians fled or were deported. Is it reliable to say that all 120 000 were moved by force? Which is the real number that simply moved ? Adrian ( talk) 10:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The Slovak number is totally unsourced thus we should remove it as well. I have refined the sentence according to the source. Fakirbakir ( talk) 10:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
This change is really confusing, this source states that 44,129-45,475 were moved from south Slovakia, not Czech republic. Currenlt this is the wrong representation of sources in the article. Adrian ( talk) 11:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
I don`t know, I believe that the best solution is to add these sources and simply say many Hungarians(as it was until Szeget`s change) at this article and at the Hungarian-Slovak population exchanges leave it as per your last change. There is a clear difference between sources to leave it as per your last change (100 000+) and totally disregard the second source. Adrian ( talk) 10:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
I inserted other estimations, however I left the numbers because the previous sentences operated with numbers. Fakirbakir ( talk) 11:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Ok. Adrian ( talk) 11:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply

World War II

In the introduction and in the main text are sections about border changes before/during/after World War II. Surely this is not relevant to this article. Suggest replacing with a simple remark to the effect that the current borders match those of the Treaty except for the loss of the 3 villages to Czechoslovakia in 1947. Nigej 16:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hungary became an entirely "new state" after the Word War I?

Kingdom of Hungary was reestablished on 01/03/1920. This "new" Kingdom of Hungary accepted the Treaty of Trianon. Prior to Trianon, Soviet Hungary or the First Hungarian Republic or the "new" Kingdom of Hungary possessed the rights in connection with the territory of the "old" Kingdom of Hungary 'officially' (until 04/06/1920), however in the reality they could not validate those. Hungary was not a new state. It became entirely independent, but it was not new, the "old" Kingdom of Hungary was the predecessor. (more accurately Soviet Hungary for the 'new' Kingdom of Hungary) Fakirbakir ( talk) 20:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Recent edits

I reverted edits of user:HangingCurve because of clear POV nature of such edits. Claim that "The Allies not only assumed without question that the minority peoples of the pre-war Kingdom of Hungary wished to leave" is absolutely POV and unacceptable. Where is evidence that these peoples "did not wished to leave pre-war Kingdom of Hungary"? Also, claim that Hungary "lost almost three-fourths of their country's territory" is not accurate: firstly, that territory was mainly inhabited by Indo-European peoples whom saw separation from Hungary as their liberation. Second, pre-war Kingdom of Hungary is legally not same country as post-war Hungary. Pre-war kingdom was not independent country, but part of the Habsburg Monarchy. The treaty does not contain a single word that says that something was "taken" from Hungary. On the contrary, Treaty clearly claims that Romania, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia are successor states of pre-war Kingdom of Hungary, together with post-war Hungary and it defining borders of post-war Hungary as borders of an new independent country. PANONIAN 23:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Agree. Indeed the whole article tends to read like Hungarian nationalist propoganda, which is perhaps not surprising, but somewhat disappointing. Nigej 08:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You agree? That must prove it to be 'true' then. Just goes to show that if something, no matter how inaccurate or incorrect, is stated often enough, it will eventually be accepted as fact. Read into that what you will. 203.161.145.42 ( talk) 09:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Recent edit war on talk page

Please note that this is an article about The Treaty of Trianon. Nothing else. Nigej 11:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

But some people write comments about Aryan theories (scientifically (genetically and historically) obsolete linguistic-based belief-system from 17-18th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.153.160 ( talk) 11:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC) reply


The existence of ethnic/minority rights were unique in pre-WW1 Europe

The article did not mention that minority rights and laws were existed only in Austria and Hungary in pre-WW1 Europe! The first minority rights were invented firstly in Hungary in Europe in July 1849! But these were overturned after the Russian and Austrian armies crushed the Hungarian Revolution. When Hungary made a compromise with the dynasty in 1867 one of the first acts of the restored Parliament was to pass a Law on Nationalities (Act Number XLIV of 1868).


The situation of minorities in Hungary were much more better than in contemporary Western Europe. Other highly multinational countries were: France Russia and UK.


See the multi-national UK:

The situation of Scottish Irish Welsh people in "Britain" during the English hegemony is well known. They utmost forgot their original language, only english language cultural educational institutions existed. The only language was English in judiciary procedures and in offices and public administrations. It was not a real "United" Kingdom, it was rather a greater England.


See the multiethnic France:

In 1870, France was a similar-degree multi-ethnic state as Hungary, only 50% of the population of France spoke the French language as mothertongue. The other half of the population spoke Occitan, Catalan, Corsican, Alsatian, West Flemish, Lorraine Franconian, Gallo, Picard or Ch’timi and Arpitan etc... Many minority languages were closer to spanish or Italian language than French) French governments banned minority language schools , minority language newspapers minority theaters. They banned the usage of minority languages in offices , public adimistration, and judiciary procedures. The ratio of french mothertongue increased from 50% to 91% during the 1870-1910 period!!!


What about Russia?

Russian Empire was a similar multiethnic state as Hungary, without the existence of minority rights. The forced russification is also well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.36.77.20 ( talk) 09:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply

If you haven't noticed the article is about The Treaty of Trianon, not the status of minorities in late 19th century Europe. Nigej 09:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The article may not per se be about the status of European minorities in the nineteenth century, but these points (if established to be true) provide an apposite background for dispelling the myth of ‘magyarisation’ as mentioned in Criticism of the 1910 census. As ‘magyarisation’ was one of the main arguments the proponents of the Treaty used to support their case, these points by extension highlight the flimsy nature of this argument and the dire lack of any moral or legal validity of the Treaty. In this context the points are appropriate as they help to establish the fact the Treaty was a grab-bag of claims that was simply a case of victorious governments (and their allies) using their advantageous positions to unfairly claim the territory of a defeated and weakened nation. Let’s call Trianon what it was and not try to have it masquerade as some sort of fair and valid decree. If it is accepted that this is not a POV it therefore becomes suitable to include in an article such as this. Hunor-Koppany ( talk) 06:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Your reply simply shows the problem with opening up such topics. We get into the same argument again and again, getting nowhere, convincing no-one. Each side stressing their side of the argument. All completely pointless. We could equally have a section on how a small Hungarian elite maintained power in Hungary (eg. lack of Secret ballot) and the resentment that caused). BUT I don't want to start that discussion either. My point is simply that if we include these somewhat peripheral topics here, we'll never get anywhere with this article. It's already a rag-bag of attempts by extremists on both side to push their POV. My mark for the article is 1 (fail). Nigej 09:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


@Nigej See the article about the British election system before WW1! There were no secret ballots in Britain before WW1, and there were universal suffrage after the WW1. And learn about balkan countries: Serbia Romania etc.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.3.81 ( talk) 17:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what your point is but I would no more claim that 19th century UK enjoyed a democratic Golden age than I would claim such for Greater Hungary. MY point simply relates to a Wikipedia article. Taking the UK theme: take a look at the Anglo-Irish Treaty article under which the UK "lost" the Irish Free State (now called the Republic of Ireland) in 1922. The article is quite formal with only a small amount of space given to pre and post-partition issues. The Troubles are in a separate article. I am simply suggesting a similar approach here. (By the way secret ballots were actually made compulsory in the UK in 1872. Universal MALE suffrage (age 21) arrived in the UK in 1918 (excluding Lords, lunatics, prisoners and conscientious objectors) and for all women in 1928.) Nigej 18:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, I must repeat: learn the details of the history of British election system, there weren't general suffrage and secret ballots in Britain before WW1. The system of universal suffrage did not exist in the United Kingdom until 1928 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_Kingdom#History

I'm confused now. The page you quote quite clearly says "The Ballot Act 1872 replaced open elections with secret ballot system." (poor English, by the way) WW1 was 1914-1918, so secret ballots came in 42 years before WW1. I think you'll also find that I said 1928 too. Nigej 09:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary did not exist after WW1, therefore your examples in post WW1 Europe are not accurate. Your Irish example is not accurate too.

My example was simply an example of a Wikipedia article about a treaty at about the same time. Nothing more than that. No others parallels were intended. Nigej

The people's self determination idea of president Wilson did not happend in Kingdom of Hungary, because: The successor states protested against the helding of democratic referendums (universal suffrge secret ballots) about the disputed areas and borders. (perhabs the leader elite of the successor states did not trust in their own ethnic groups???)

There was only 1 democratic plebiscite about the borders (with general suffrage and secret ballots) in city of Sopron and its sorriunding 8 villages in North - Western Hungary in 1921. (Where every polling stations were under the controll and leadership of Entente army-officers) The treaty did not based on the people' will, therefore the Treaty hadn't legitimacy behind it. The decision-making of Paris treaties were remindful of early-modern era primitive Peace of Westphalia, rather than a modern 20th century democratic decision.

This whole discussion rather proves my point. Nigej 09:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No Nigej, read it again and again if it is necessary. This whole discussion rather proves my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.3.81 ( talk) 12:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Consequences

I removed the following unsourced fragment: Although the territories of the former Kingdom of Hungary that were assigned by the treaty to neighbouring states in total (and each of them separately) had a majority of non-Hungarian population, they also included some areas with Hungarian majority (including areas with over 80–90% Hungarians) as well as some areas with sizable Hungarian minorities, numbering 3,318,000 in total.

It had no source since July 2012. After a later google search, I realized that it is a verbatim quote from "The Babylonian Code - Vol. One: The Unholy Scriptures" by Saladin F . There are 2 problems:

  • It is a WP:COPYVIO, so the text must be rephrased
  • Even if rephrased, is this a reliable source? Raysdiet ( talk) 08:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
It is quite a important statement. I am pretty sure we can find other sources. Fakirbakir ( talk) 10:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The same idea is affirmed in an already existing affirmation of the article: "Areas with significant Hungarian populations included the Székely Land (Kulish, Nicholas (2008-04-07). "Kosovo's Actions Hearten a Hungarian Enclave". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-04-08.) in Eastern Transylvania, the area along the newly defined Romanian-Hungarian border (cities of Arad, Oradea), the area north of the newly defined Czechoslovakian-Hungarian border ( Komárno, Csallóköz), southern parts of Subcarpathia and northern parts of Vojvodina". And the demographic data are already presented at Treaty_of_Trianon#Distribution_of_the_non-Hungarian_and_Hungarian_populations. However I made a little change to the lead. Raysdiet ( talk) 11:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Harghita, Covasna and Săcueni counties

What does this exactly refer to? There were no counties with these names in interwar Romania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Judete_1919-25.png Raysdiet ( talk) 12:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply

It is my fault. The source does not mention counties, it mentions only "districts". [4] (p 299) I mistranslated it. Fakirbakir ( talk) 12:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I agree that you respect the source now, but it is still strange. Apparently there aren't such administriative units (not even units ranking below counties ( Plăşi) - see the detailed map http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Romania_1930_counties.500px.svg) Raysdiet ( talk) 12:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I have found "Covasna" and "Sacueni" districts however "Hargita" is still problem. There was no Hargita district according to the map. Fakirbakir ( talk) 12:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I can see Săcueni is just a town in Bihor county while Covasna (Kovászna) is a post-1968 county roughly corresponding to the interwar Trei Scaune county and the Hungarian Háromszék County. Harghita County is also a modern Romanian county, corresponding to the interwar Ciuc and Odorhei counties, respectively to the old Hungarian counties Csík and Udvarhely Raysdiet ( talk) 13:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Map replacement

I replaced Map 1 with Map 2 because Map 2 is a derivative work of Map 1, where there are added red Hungarian-populated areas. There is no reason to include them, as long as we already have in teh article ethnic maps (e. g. File:Ethnographic map of hungary 1910 by teleki carte rouge.jpg), which include all the ethnicities, not only the Hungarians. It is a little POV I think to present only the Hungarian-populated areas 82.79.215.211 ( talk) 11:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Msp 1
Map 2

an interesting map

I have found a contemporary map (1915) about the early plans for the disintegration of Austria-Hungary. [5] I am not sure if it is a public domain. Fakirbakir ( talk) 22:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

An interesting map indeed. But it would be useful to know who is the author of the map. In 1916 Romania claimed more territory than it is represented there . See Treaty of Bucharest (1916). 82.79.213.39 ( talk) 07:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The author is George F. Morrell. Fakirbakir ( talk) 09:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Photo from the Versailles

A long-bearded-man in the middle is Nikola Pašić, not Apponyi. Alexzr88 ( talk) 13:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Maybe, but if you click on the photo you can see that the photo is referenced in a number of places (including non-English wikipedias). As such it makes no sense to change one link. Best to find the correct answer and change all at the same time. See both had long beards. Nigej ( talk) 14:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Trianon Memorials

How many Trianon memorials should the article contain? There are already 3 such pictures and the one added by Rovibroni would be the 4th. I also ask the neutral editor User:AndyTheGrump to comment. 82.79.214.83 ( talk) 00:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure I could be described as 'neutral' - I've already made clear that I agree that the image added by Rovibroni seems out of place, and adds nothing to the article to actually help the reader to understand the topic. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply
By "neutral" I mean not emotionally involved; you are neither Hungarian nor from the states that benefited from the treaty (Slovakia, Serbia, Romania, Ukraine) 79.117.176.221 ( talk) 06:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Yes. Too much already about Hungarian resentment of the Treaty. The new photo adds nothing. Personally I'd be happy to remove some of the others. The article should be primarily about the Treaty itself. Sadly it is very lacking in this area. For instance, the above comment about "Photo from the Versailles" highlights the fact that the article doesn't actually mention Pašić or Apponyi (except in the photo description). Nigej ( talk) 08:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply
+1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.91.5.50 ( talk) 18:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC) reply

File:1dec1918.jpg nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_June_20 Avpop ( talk) 08:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Signatories

It feels out of place to put Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia in the "Others" category, since they were the main beneficiaries and largely shaped the borders of the treaty trough both military and political actions, way before it was signed. I mean don't tell me that Japan had more to do with this than Romania, are you insane? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.34.218 ( talk) 09:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Introduction is just a complaint on the perceived unfairness of the treaty

The whole introduction tells how much Hungary "lost" because of the treaty. It is therefore not a summary of the treaty, but a summary of complaints about it, I gather mostly from the Hungarian side. Not neutral at all.

I propose we use this section of the talk page to come up with a decent introduction, that summarizes the actual Contents of the treaty. Syats ( talk) 13:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC) reply

You are 100% correct and I welcome your suggestion. Hopefully others will do likewise and we can end up with something understandable to the average reader. We must always remember that, of the world population, there are 500 non-Hungarians for every Hungarian, and so we need to write the article in such a way that non-Hungarians can understand it, having perhaps little knowledge of post-Trianon politics. Basic issues that need sorting out are things like the pre-WWI and post-Trianon areas and populations, including whether we should include Croatia-Slavonia in the pre-WWI numbers or just "Hungary proper". We could move the "complaints" to a separate article. Nigej ( talk) 16:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC) reply
I don't know if all the areas thing needs to be included at all in the introduction, specially not in such a big detail. I would suggest including the following points:
  • One of the treaties signed after WWI
  • Defined the borders of Hungary and the other states that were created from the Austrohungarian empire: Austria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, and the Kingdom of Croats Serbs and Slovenes.
  • Made Hungary recognize the above states and renounce any territorial claims in them.
  • Set limits to the military capabilities of Hungary
  • Set terms of reparations to be paid by Hungary to the victors
  • Signatories, including the protest stance of the Hungarian representatives.
  • Criticisms: 33% of Hungarian were left outside of Hungary.
Furthemore, I would suggest omitting any reference to "beneficiaries".
The reason I think the areas thing should be omitted from the introduction is because it forces on the reader the assumption that pre- and post-war Hungaries are comparable. However, the kingdom of Hungary was not a the state belonging to a single nationality (people), and thus this comparison leads the reader to believe that the current Hungary is somehow entitled to territories inhabited by other nationalities. This clarification involves many concepts and points of view that are way too much for the introduciton. That being said, the changes in area and population are interesting facts from the Treaty, and should be included in the article, I think not just in the intro.
Syats ( talk) 22:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC) reply


Areas

I think we can deal in 1,000s of square kilometers for the intro. Post-Trianon we have 93,000 which matches up with the current area of Hungary, but the current intro says that "the pre-war Kingdom of Hungary (the Hungarian half of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy)" had an area of 325,411 which doesn't match up with Kingdom of Hungary which has 282,870 for 1910 in the infobox. Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen infobox has 325,000 for 1890 (and 328.000 for 1918) while Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia infobox has 42,541 which with the 282,870 from Kingdom of Hungary gives 325,000. So we can immediately see that we have contradictions with pre-WWI "Kingdom of Hungary" having areas of either 325,000 or 283,000 depending on which page you read. Of course this is a matter of whether Croatia-Slavonia is included or not and what names are used for the 325,000 or 283,000 parts. Currently Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen has redirects from Transleithania (which makes sense to me) and Kingdom of Hungary (1867-1918) (which doesn't).

Perhaps we can use someone like this "The treaty regulated the status of an independent Hungarian state and defined its borders. The newly defined Hungary had an area of 93,000 square kilometers. Pre-war Transleithania (the Hungarian part of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy) had an area of 325,000 square kilometers, made of up of the Kingdom of Hungary, the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Fiume (modern Rijeka), so that Hungary had just 28% of the area of pre-war Transleithania, 33% of the area of the pre-war Kingdom of Hungary." Nigej ( talk) 10:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Using only 1910 census is violation of the neutral point of view

Using only 1910 census is violation of the neutral point of view, as it shows only Hungarian view. To be accurate, these statistics must be complemented with the statistics of the new countries, like the 1921 census in Czechoslovakia, to give objective picture and reduce bias. I added one sentence into the 1910 census discussion to give an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.105.246.114 ( talk) 15:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Congress of Oppressed Nations

What exactly is the "Congress of Oppressed Nations"? It is referred to in the article and with a wikilink. Being capitalized and without explanation implies that it is a title of a real thing that should be known as an official entity of some sort, but the link is red. There needs to be either a separate article defining this title or it should be defined in this one. A wiki search yielded no results, so maybe the title is misnamed? A google search elicits a mention in an article in the Encyclopedia Brittanica as "Congress of Oppressed Nationalities", but no separate article there either. I've found no other google similarities. A wiki search on that last title elicits the article League for Small and Subject Nationalities, an article insufficient to explain the usage of the contested title in the present article. LisztianEndeavors ( talk) 19:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

See: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/44054188/the_times_dispatch/ so clearly it did exist under this name. There seems to have been a Congress of Oppressed Nationalities of Austria Hungary as well: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/44054377/the_times/ Nigej ( talk) 20:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
This https://www.newspapers.com/clip/44058792/vancouver_daily_world/ refers to both - the Prague one being called here "a similar congress" to the Rome one. "The Czecho-Slovak race has had to suffer yet another act of criminal oppression at the hands of its Austrian and Magyar masters." Clearly strong feeling. Nigej ( talk) 21:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
You should create a new article with that redlink (and another with the alternate title containing a redirect), and reference those newspaper articles in it. BTW, I assume the Canadian article meant the Bohemians had conquered Serbia not Siberia, yes? Siberia is a big place and would anybody ever desire to conquer it? LisztianEndeavors ( talk) 21:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Of course the Canadian article is just pure propaganda. However articles like this https://www.newspapers.com/clip/19233844/the_times/ do seem to show that the Rome congress did harden Wilson's attitude against the Austrians/Maygars, perhaps explaining the very poor outcome for the "Magyars" in the treaty, whatever the reality of the situation. Not sure I can create an article, it would need someone with much more knowledge than me. Nigej ( talk) 22:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply


Who were the real Opressed nations or people? Those who lived in such countries whose legal system did not even recognize minority rights. Just some example: Welsh, Irish, Scottish in Britain, the Occitan, Catalan, Corsican, Alsatian, West Flemish, Lorraine Franconian, Gallo, Picard or Ch’timi and Arpitan, who were in super majority before the mid 19th century in France. (forced francisation of Paris) OR we can countinue the list of non-white Biritsh and French colonies, where the people lived without any civil rights.-- Liltender ( talk) 19:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure that's relevant. The point is that they called themselves the "Congress of Oppressed Nations" or the "Congress of Oppressed Nationalities" or the "Congress of Oppressed Nationalities of Austria Hungary", so presumably regarded themselves as oppressed in some sense. And we've seem many times that giving people legal rights does not guarantee anything. Equal pay for women is a good example. Nigej ( talk) 20:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply

In nationalist/chauvinist sense they were "opressed". Many of them imagined own country and even own army etc... despite many of the minorities had not even spoke their new artificailly created 19th century mutually intelligible common language. (like slovaks)-- Liltender ( talk) 05:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Repatriations

Did Hungary pay the repatriations specified under the treaty? Hugo999 ( talk) 02:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply

The treaty did not specify exactly, just theoretically, the League of Nations determined it later. Shipping of goods were continous, since 1923 the payments started but never finished because of the great depression, the changes of status quo thus the nullification of earlier treaties, and last but not least WWII. I.e. those dollar-bonds that have been issued in 1924 in order to be able to pay the reparations were finally redeemed in 2013.( KIENGIR ( talk) 03:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)) reply

There were no democratic referendums in the disputed areas.

It must be mentioned, that there were no democratic referendums in the disputed areas.

Trianon was against Wilson's self-determination theory,because it WASN'T based on democratic referendums (general equal&secret ballots). It was not a wonder that Czech, Romanian and Serbian politicians vehemently PROTESTED against the very idea of democratic referendums about the borders at the Paris Peace Conference. Czech politicians didn't trust in Slovaks, because only very few Slovaks joined to the so-called "Czechoslovak"army against the Hungarians in 1919 (and Slovaks represented only 53% ratio in Northen parts of Hungary). Romanian politicians didn't trust in Transylvanian Romanians, perhabs they didn't want to join to the traditionally seriously backward & poor Romania (the ratio of Romanians were only 53% in Transylvania). Serbs were small minority (22% !!!) in Voivodine. Similar to Romania, Serbia was also a very backward Orthodox country without serious urbanization or industrialization.

It was not wonder that the USA did not sign this anti-democratic dictate.

There were only one democratic referendum about the borders between Hungary and Austria: The Sopron area referendum in Western Hungary in 1921, where Entente officers were the leaders of the voting districts, there were general equal and secret ballots with electoral registers (or poll books) of the LOCAL residents, and every local citizen could take part in the elections over 18year, regardless the ethnicity, social status or sex) Some villages voted to remain in Austria, some villages and citiy of Sopron voted to remain part of Hungary.


The "national councils" were brutal mockery and caricature of democracy. They were organized directly to avoid democratic referendums , thus grab more territory than it was possible for them.


  • 1. There were not even so-called "minimal voter turnout"

It means that even few gathered people of a (single ethnicity "voters") in a very small pub/bar (as it often happened) could decide the future/fate of whole huge cities within some minutes.....

  • 2. The privilege of the single ethnicity, and the rule of ethnic discriminations:

Only the Romanians were allowed to vote in Transylvania, only Slovaks were allowed to vote in Uper Hungary, Only the small Serb minority was allowed to vote in Voivodina, and only men were allowed to vote. Hungarians were not allowed to participate in these strange "elections".

  • 3. The open ballot:

There weren't secret ballot systems in that "elections", the elections were held as public open ballot/voting, with the simple raise of their hands.


  • 4. Zero written documentation of the local events:

The "elections" of the envoys of "national" councils were not even locally documented, only the decision of the self-appointed and locally established "national" councils in the small pubs/bars.

  • 5. No Electorial registers / poll books were used:

These so-called "elections" didn't use any ELECTORAL REGISTERS (or POLL BOOKS) of the LOCAL RESIDENTS, thus it made the gerrymandering directly possible. None of the voters in the open ballots votes were identified before the voting, it was in sharp contrast with normal democratic secret ballot systems. Like the participation of foreign voters from other countries and from foreign settlements were common, thus many people take part in the "elections" who had not any relationship with the area of the actual voting districts or even with the country. So without electoral registers, even foreign stranger "voters" or foreign soldiers could participate in the "elections" (An open possibility for brutal gerrymandery) The participation of foreign Serbian soldiers in the undocumented "elections" of "national councils" was usual in Southern Hungary Voivodine too. Without electoral registers of local residents, a usually unidentified single voter could vote in many many voting districts, thus a single man could vote in many times in many places without any problems...-- Liltender ( talk) 15:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you should read the first two sentences at the top of this talk page. Nigej ( talk) 16:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply


Tomás Garrigue Masaryk, the first president of Czechoslovakia:
"We had to choose between the formation of Czechoslovakia or a plebiscite".

Nigej, you don't like the words of your first own president?

"Only"

@ Nigej:,

really? No way, it is a comparison, since the previous state was bigger, nothing to do with any POV. Similary, if a height Lion baby is only x percent of the Lion mother...I disagree removal, and really amazed...( KIENGIR ( talk) 22:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)) reply

There's a big difference between saying something is "50% of the size ..." than saying "only 50% of the size ...". or saying "I'm getting half the money" as opposed to "I'm only getting half the money". The latter is expressing some surprise or displeasure at the situation. The former is NPOV. Nigej ( talk) 22:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

First sentence

Quoting Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#First sentence: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject." and "[...] use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead."

Nonspecialist in this context is and average visitor not living in central Europe and not familiar with World War I and surrounding events.

Based on this, the first sentence should describe the primary context where the treaty fits: it is one of the peace treaties prepared on the Paris Peace Conference related to end of World War I, with links to the broader context. Essential preceding events (armistices) and major consequences can be then described in later sentences and paragraphs. See also the related Treaty of Versailles for inspiration and comparison.

The recent edits by Rjensen and KIENGIR inserted a specific aspect of the treaty as the first sentence: "[Treaty] reduced the size and population of Hungary by about two thirds, not just divesting it of virtually all areas that were not purely Hungarian, but leaving approx. 3 million Hungarians outside the new borders which was the cause of deep resentment in Hungary for generations.", which might be important topic for Hungarian visitors, but is not giving the proper context for others and in this sense is violation of the Neutral Point of View, more specifically this gives undue weight to one aspect of the treaty by placing it at the prominent place. The effects on the Hungarian population are extensively described both in the lead paragraph as well as in a separate section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark5245 ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Sorry, the first sentence completely informs the nonspecial reader about the essential point of the event (and it is not just a specific aspect, but the essential result of it). Thus your argumentation that it would not be the proper context or would just important for Hungarian visitors does not hold, neither violate NPOV or due, the information presented is a fact.( KIENGIR ( talk) 21:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)) reply
The discussion is not about whether the added sentence is a fact, but whether it is appropriate to place it at such prominent place. Based on my above analysis, it is not appropriate place for this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark5245 ( talk • contribs) 08:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC) reply
The treaty has many aspects: it recognizes Hungary as a sovereign state, it specifies its borders, it ends the war between the allies and Hungary, it specifies size of Hungarian army, it deals with availability of Hungarian infrastructure to alies, etc, etc. The effects on population is one specific aspect. -- Mark5245 ( talk) 09:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Sorry, if the dispute is not about whether the added sentence is a fact, then the tag may be safely removed. Your analysis does not conclude it to be inappropriate. Hungary has been also before reconized as a sovereign state, she also had it's borders, the rest are other details, including many specific aspects, but it is clear what is cutting edge.( KIENGIR ( talk) 02:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)) reply
Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#How can one disagree about NPOV?: There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are: While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact establishes neutrality.-- Mark5245 ( talk) 05:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply
You grabbed out from the context two sentences, although the whole inference is starting from the point if someone would believe something as a fact and claim it factual, etc. although the situation is not about this because - as you pointed out also - the material we discuss are undisputed facts. On the the other sentence you copy-pasted, there are not any very selection or omission of anything, since all the all the complete informations is present. Hence, I fairly removed the tag you put erroneusly, as It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given..( KIENGIR ( talk) 05:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)) reply
The long term historical importance of the treaty I suggest is captured in the first sentence. Details about how it got there are covered in subsequent sentences. What's more the victors in the war knew what they were doing: weakening Hungary. The reliable sources I think are largely in agreement on what happened. The Treaty is especially important in shaping 21st century Irredentism and neonationalism in Hungary [on this see (1) "Memory-Politics and Neonationalism: Trianon as Mythomoteur" by Feischmidt, in Nationalities Papers (Jan 2020). and (2) 'No, nay, never' (once more): The Resurrection Of Hungarian Irredentism" by Beiner, History Ireland (May/Jun 2013). The anger in the 1930s led Hungary to form an alliance with Hitler's Germany. ["Hungary's participation in World War II resulted from a desire to revise the Treaty of Trianon so as to recover territories lost after World War I. This revisionism was the basis for Hungary's interwar foreign policy." states Eva S. Balogh, in Hungarian Studies Review. Spring 1983] Rjensen ( talk) 06:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply
I'm here because the issue was mentioned in the Teahouse.
I believe that the first sentence should state what the treaty was. Then the second sentence can state what it did, and a third can point out the injustice. Mentioning the (IMHO justified) resentment before saying what the treaty was makes the article appear biased, and is likely to lose the sympathy of readers.
I'd prefer things ordered something like this:
The Treaty of Trianon (French: Traité de Trianon, Hungarian: Trianoni békeszerződés) was one of the five major peace treaties prepared at the Paris Peace Conference and signed in the Grand Trianon Palace in Versailles on June 4, 1920. It formally ended World War I between most of the Allies of World War I and the Kingdom of Hungary, the latter being one of the successor states to defeated Austria-Hungary. It reduced the size and population of Hungary by about two thirds, not only divesting it of virtually all areas that were not purely Hungarian, but leaving approx. 3 million Hungarians outside the new borders, causing  deep resentment in Hungary for generations.
Maproom ( talk) 07:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Try this: The Treaty of Trianon (French: Traité de Trianon, Hungarian: Trianoni békeszerződés) was the 1920 peace treaty imposed on the Republic of Hungary after it lost World War I. It reduced the size of the old Hungarian state, and removed two thirds of the population. About 3 million Hungarians became minorities in several new countries, causing deep resentment in Hungary that still shapes its politics. ===details about the location are given later in the lead. Rjensen ( talk) 07:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply
I'm 100% against anything that fails to mention that the pre-war Hungary was actually a part of the Habsburg Empire. We mustn't give the impression that it had been a fully-independent state. Nigej ( talk) 08:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I restored the original form of the first sentence because some information were already present in the lead section ("Its population was 7.6 million, 36% of the pre-war kingdom's population of 20.9 million.[8] The areas that were allocated to neighbouring countries in total (and each of them separately) had a majority of non-Hungarians but 31% of Hungarians (3.3 million)[9] were left outside of post-Trianon Hungary."). 82.78.135.134 ( talk) 08:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply

The following phrase: "The treaty builds on the fact that "on the request of the former Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Government an Armistice[6] was granted to Austria-Hungary on November 3, 1918, by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, and completed as regards Hungary by the Military Convention of November 13[7], in order that a Treaty of Peace might be concluded" from the lead section may be moved to the article body I think to let the reader to reach the text about consequences faster. 82.78.135.134 ( talk) 09:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Obvious axe being ground here...

Some of my best friends are Hungarians, but I'm afraid some of you are losing your perspective in this article. Austro-Hungary was an Empire, and empires tend to absorb adjacent populations. History tends to correct this process. I know it must have felt bad at the time, but no worse than it did for the neighbouring Czechs when they were absorbed in the first place.

People, this is an encyclopedia, and we need to retain a neutral viewpoint. We can surely state the facts, and let them speak for themselves. The article is about the Treaty, not just the Hungarian reaction to it. Please take a deep breath, relax, and let some neutral encyclopediasts tidy this article up. We will not betray your feelings.

Don't revert edits, work positively forward.

Also, the population figures in the lead contradict themselves. Somebody who knows more about it please choose one of the figures, and go with it.

Thanks: Peace and Love! Billyshiverstick ( talk) 03:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Billyshiverstick:,
I don't see how i.e. Hungary absorbed adjacent populations per your argumentation, as well I don't see the Czech analogy, which was an Austrian deal much earlier Austria-Hungary came to existence.
I don't see what neutrality issue would be with the article, of course we are interested to keep all suitable improvements, if it really fulfills inclusion and other criterias.
I clarified the lead (on the other hand, it was not conradictive, but apparently in brackets there was a reference of the data of the pre-war kingdom, despite earlier the subject of the sentence were clear)
Peace to you as well!( KIENGIR ( talk) 03:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)) reply
axes to grind? nope. Our job is to summarize the RS, and not tell readers what to believe based on our personal own values/opinions/POV. As for the views of non-Hungarians, the article includes the French. I have been looking and so far found zero RS talking about other ethnic groups outside of Hungary view of Trianon--so they don't get mentioned. Rjensen ( talk) 03:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Nope. A very well-written, neutral POV, and most importantly, excellently SOURCED article. Your personal opinion is less than worthless on Wikipedia - all that matters is what the sources say. And reverted edits are sometimes necessary, if they are inaccurate, stress a non-neutral POV, etc., etc. 50.111.5.65 ( talk) 15:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC) reply

The role of the French

I think the phrase "French diplomats played the major role in designing the treaty, with a mind to establishing French-led coalition of the newly formed nations" is given an undue weight in the lead section. For instance the American, Bristish, French and Italian proposals for the Hungarian-Romanian border were not are not substantially different: https://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/img/transterk-map31-j.jpg - the French and British proposals are almost identical, both of them include the railway line Satu Mare (Szatmárnémeti) - Oradea (Nagyvárad) - Arad. 86.120.251.89 ( talk) 12:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

No, it is not undue weight, since French diplomats approached the most predetermined and hostile way the question, with their interests as well regarding in the Little Entente and systematically blocked any attempt to change aims. The Millerand cover letter has been issued just to convince the Hungarian delegation not to refuse to sign the treaty (stated in case of injust resulution would take place, that may be revised), but it has been identified a Fench economic interest was behind it regarding Hungary, after revealed even the initiator retreated from the subject. No, none of the French/British proposals contain the railway line you mentioned, and the British finally wished to revise the initial plans, and the American/Italian proposal would have included the Hungarian majority areas nearby, which the earlier did not, on the other hand the full scope is not just the Hungarian-Romanian border.( KIENGIR ( talk) 10:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)) reply
KIENGIR, thanks for your answer. Speaking of the Little Entente, I have some doubts regarding the text from Treaty_of_Trianon#Treaty_preparation. More exactly, the phrase This led to the "Little Entente" of Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia, but Hungary was not included sound weird. How could Hungary have been included, given that it was created "with the purpose of common defense against Hungarian revanchism and the prospect of a Habsburg restoration"? It is not a surprise that Hungary was not included, since the alliance guaranteed mutual assistance in the event of an unprovoked attack launched by Hungary against any stipulator 82.78.135.82 ( talk) 11:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Correct, corrected.( KIENGIR ( talk) 03:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)) reply

The aftermath

This page describes the period till 1921, but some pictures are new. Some of results of the treaty are described in Trianon Syndrome, only listed here, not linked. The Romanian day is listed, nothing about the Hungarian one. Nothing about Trianon Museum in Hungary. My additions have beed removed from 'Trianon Syndrom'. Where do they belong? Many informations are in Hungarian only, I do not understand them. There is a big blank space here. Are current tenstions between Hungary and its neighbours result of Trianon or definitely not? Xx236 ( talk) 09:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC) The German page contains two sections about recent events. Xx236 ( talk) 09:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The Hungarian article contains 36 312 bytes. This redirect does not change much. Xx236 ( talk) 08:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply
No. However its worth knowing that there are no articles about Memorial Day for the Victims of the Holocaust, Memorial Day for the Victims of the Communist Dictatorships, etc. too, not just Day of National Unity (Hungary). Nigej ( talk) 12:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply
I have asked for comments here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary. Xx236 ( talk) 12:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Concerning OrionNimrod's edits

Since there are many, I will take them all in order.

1. "This is total incorrect. Hungary had more Romanian schools than Romania itself ( /info/en/?search=Magyarization). The page shows the population data, so it is incorrect to state that Hungarian population was less than half."

You removed this section: The treatment of minorities under the Kingdom of Hungary was one of the main causes for their desire to be separated from Hungary. [1]

Faced with the danger of national competition, the Magyar gentry dared not fulfil the provisions of the Nationalities Law of 1868; on the other hand, to make their work easier, they demanded a knowledge of Magyar from all the inhabitants of Hungary. No state school, elementary or secondary, was ever provided for any national minority; the secondary schools which the Slovaks had set up for themselves were closed in 1874; Magyar was made compulsory in all schools in 1883. The highest expression of this policy was the Education Law promoted by [Prime minister, Count] Apponyi in 1907, which imposed a special oath of loyalty on all teachers and made them liable to dismissal if their pupils did not know Magyar. Similarly, the Magyar gentry attacked any political display by the nationalities -drove their few members from parliament and condemned their organisations. By these means, the Magyar gentry gained and kept a monopoly of state employment and of the liberal professions. At the beginning of the twentieth century, 95 per cent of the state officials, 92 per cent of the county officials, 89 per cent of the doctors, and 90 per cent of the judges were Magyar. Eighty per cent of the newspapers were in Magyar, and the remainder mostly German: three million Roumanians had 2,5 per cent of the newspapers, two million Slovaks had 0,64 per cent.

Pre-WW1 Kingdom of Hungary was a capitalist state and not a communist one. In capitalist countries the newspapers were owned organized and published by private companies and private entrepreneurs and not by the state. Their number and their number of copy based on the laws of the market: the demand and suppy. That's why I can not understand that as an argument. In a communist state, all newspapers are owned organized and released by the state itself, so if there are very few nminority language newspapers in a country, than you can blame the state for that without doubt.-- Longsars ( talk) 14:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Looking at the /info/en/?search=Magyarization, it doesn't seem to confirm what you are saying: "For a long time, the number of non-Hungarians that lived in the Kingdom of Hungary was much larger than the number of ethnic Hungarians. According to the 1787 data, the population of the Kingdom of Hungary numbered 2,322,000 Hungarians (29%) and 5,681,000 non-Hungarians (71%). In 1809, the population numbered 3,000,000 Hungarians (30%) and 7,000,000 non-Hungarians (70%). An increasingly intense Magyarization policy was implemented after 1867." "Overall, between 1880 and 1910, the percentage of the total population that spoke Hungarian as its first language rose from 46.6% to 54.5%" But looking at /info/en/?search=Demographics_of_Hungary it seems this 54.5% is excluding Croatia for some reason, which was part of the Kingdom of Hungary. "According to the census of 1910, the largest ethnic group in the Kingdom of Hungary were Hungarians, who were 54.5% of the population of Kingdom of Hungary, excluding Croatia-Slavonia. Although the territories of the former Kingdom of Hungary that were assigned by the treaty to neighbouring states in total had a majority of non-Hungarian population, they also included areas of Hungarian majority and significant Hungarian minorities, numbering 3,318,000 in total."

This sentence, already existing on the Trianon page: "In the last census before the Treaty of Trianon held in 1910, which recorded population by language and religion, but not by ethnicity, speakers of the Hungarian language included approximately 48% of the entire population of the Kingdom of Hungary. [2]" Is more correct because it includes Croatia as well, that was part of the Kingdom of Hungary. As such, I find the assertion of the source you tried to remove correct, and am against removing it.

2. Quote from Francesco Saverio Nitti, I'm not opposed to that.

3. "Incorrect statement. The Romanian and non-Romanians were almost 50-50 according to the census which is on the page. The borders was decided in Paris by the Treaty of Trianon not by the will of the locals. For example, Nagyvárad (Oradea) and many other areas had absolute Hungarian population. Oradea had 95% Hungarian population in 1920 and it is only 10km from today's borders, so it is incorrect to say for example this city did not want to be part of Hungary, because the locals decided" This is simply incorrect. The census that is on this page: Romanian – 2,819,467 (54%), 1,658,045 (31.7%). And this is considering that:

"Several demographers (David W. Paul, [3] Peter Hanak, László Katus [4]) state that the outcome of the 1910 census is reasonably accurate, while others (Teich Mikuláš, Dušan Kováč, Martin D. Brown, Seton-Watson, Robert William, Owen Johnson, Kirk Dudley) believe that the 1910 census was manipulated by exaggerating the percentage of the speakers of Hungarian, [5] [6] pointing to the discrepancy between an improbably high growth of the Hungarian-speaking population and the decrease of percentual participation of speakers of other languages due to Magyarization in the Kingdom of Hungary in the late 19th century. [7] For example, the 1921 census in Czechoslovakia (only one year after the Treaty of Trianon) shows 21% Hungarians in Slovakia, [8] compared to 30% based on 1910 census. While the Romanian statistics (only one year before the Treaty of Trianon) shows 25% Hungarians in Transylvania."

So 31.7% may not even be the real number of Hungarians.

4. "total incorrect, check page ( /info/en/?search=Magyarization) it was many thousand schools for minorities, even Hungarian Kingdom had more Romanian schools where Romanians thaught everything in Romanian than Romanian Kingdom itself. Hungary asked the knowledge of the state language as basic level, this is not violate any human right, in Romania the Hungarians can speak Romanian and this is expected also, in England the immigrant people can speak English, this is quite normal" Can you point me out exactly where to check it? Because from what I can read, it only seems to reinforce the accuracy of the source that you removed: "By 1900, Transleithanian state administration, businesses, and high society were exclusively magyarophone, and by 1910, 96% of civil servants, 91.2% of all public employees, 96.8% of judges and public prosecutors, 91.5% of secondary school teachers and 89% of medical doctors had learned Hungarian as their first language."

5. "It was no referendum, nobody asked 5 million residents in Transylvania. Romania attacked Hungary again when WW1 was over when Hungarian army was disarmed. This one-sided Romanian rally was behind the threatening presence of the Romanian army, and Hungarians were total ignored. Also you did not mention it was a Hungarian contra rally which affirmed Transylvania remain in Hungary. Did the Romanian rally decide the Hungarian majority cities next today's borders became part of Romania?"

You removed this part:

The 1918-1920 period however, was marked by multiple general assemblies of minorities in Austria-Hungary where their elected representatives would express the aims of their people, such as the National Assembly of Romanians of Transylvania and Hungary on 1st of December 1918 who decreed by unanimous vote "the unification of those Romanians and of all the territories inhabited by them with Romania", [9] the National Assembly of Germans of Transylvania and Banat in 1919 who passed a declaration to support the decision to unite with the Kingdom of Romania, [10] [11] or the Slovak National Council's issue of the Martin Declaration in 1918, in effect declaring Slovakia's independence and presaging Slovakia's unification with the Czech lands as part of a new state. [12]

Yes, there was no referendum. You are correct. But then why remove the source? Because the source doesn't say there was a referendum either. The national assemblies of 1918-1920 were not meant to upersede democratic full-scale plebiscites/referendums, they were meant to express the will of the minorities of Austria-Hungary to the Entente. It is already mentioned previously that the only plebiscite was held in Sopron.

Actually, no. The Hungarian-Romanian War of 1919 was started by Hungary ( /info/en/?search=Hungarian%E2%80%93Romanian_War). I do not believe that "this one-sided Romanian rally was behind the threatening presence of the Romanian army" not is it our place to judge it, since no OR. "Hungarians were total ignored" the Hungarian had a national assembly of their own where they voted in favor of staying with Hungary. But according to the results of the national assemblies of Romanians, Germans and Hungarians. 65% (Romanians + Germans) of the population wanted union with Romania and 31% (Hungarians) wanted union with Hungary. We can all speculate what all of that means, but Wikipedia is not a place for OR.

Overall, I disagree with your reasons for removing the sources as I find them ill-informed. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 09:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I think you did edits adding a lot of incorrect data, marking unreadable (uncheckable) sources from communist times. I am concering your edit, so I removed those recently edits. I provided a source with a readable link from a famous contemporary politician (Nitti) who participated in the Treaty of Trianon, you talk about "different opinions", but your wrote only anti-Hungarian opinions, and ironically you removed the different opinion of the contemporary politican... OrionNimrod ( talk) 12:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
"While the Romanian statistics (only one year before the Treaty of Trianon) shows 25% Hungarians in Transylvania."
For example, when the Romanians made a new census after Trianon, it was many threatening, many Hungarians identified themself as “Romanians” to keep their possessions. We know well how many possession was confiscated from Hungarians after 1920 in Transylvania. And 200 000 Hungarians fled from Transylvania around 1920 who were afraid of from Romanians. At that time of the Hungarian census in 1910, it was no war situation, no political motivation, so we can assume the numbers shows the reality. However in 1920, we can see the Romanian census instantly shows different proportions, which is clear propaganda to justify the territorial occupation.
You talk about voting, but the Entente decided the new borders in Paris by Treaty of Trianon and not these rallies. Irrevelant one sided rally behind the threatening presence of the Romanian army.
Romania attacked Hungary again (first 1916) when the WW1 was over when Hungarian army was disarmed. /info/en/?search=Hungarian–Romanian_War It was not at all referendum, so the people of Transylvania did not vote. Nobody asked the residents one by one. In Transylvania lived 5 million people in 1920. I do not understand why the Romanians are talking about voting, because it was no plebiscite, nobody asked 5 million people one by one about this or with a democratic referendum. Only some people from 5 million and many other Romanians from outside of Transylvania voted in not a secret vote to join Romania in wartime and of course, at the presence of the Romanian army behind this one-sided Romanian assembly. Moreover, the Hungarian partner was not invited at all, so hard to talk about any voting. Perhaps the full Hungarian populated cities, especially next to the today Hungarian border voted to join Romania? I do not believe this. Romania claimed the Hungarian territory until the Tisza river. Perhaps the full Hungarian populated Tisza region voted to join Romania? I do not think so. The borders were decided in Paris, not in the Romanian assembly.
If only some Saxon politician voted for Romania, only because by fear, do not forget the Romanian army (and behind the Entente) was in the background. So the Saxons did not vote. For example, also in the referendum of Sopron in 1921, 60% of the Germans vote for Hungary against Austria. So if the Germans preferred Hungary instead of Austria so why they would vote for Romania? But we do not know, because it was no referendum. In 1920, in Transylvania lived about 5 million people, among this 560 000 Saxons. The Saxons were invited by Hungarian kings 800 years ago to settle in Transylvania around 1150. There were many nice Saxon cities, they lived a good relationship with the Hungarians. We can see nice Transylvanian cities, all of them built by Hungarians and Saxons, not by Romanians. Hungary was a German-influenced country and belongs to the western culture, while Romania is a Balcanian country and belongs to the eastern culture, to the orthodox Christianity, and at that time Romania was a more backward country compared with Hungary. Today after 100 years the number of Transylvanian Saxons is only 13 000. The numbers show what does mean live in Romania and what does mean live in Hungary 800 years long. And do you say the voted to join Romania?
Also you did not mention this: Contra reaction for the Romanian National Assembly: December 22, 1918 - In response, a Hungarian General Assembly in Cluj (Kolozsvár), central Transylvania, and the most important Hungarian town in Transylvania reaffirms the loyalty of Hungarians from Transylvania to Hungary.
"But according to the results of the national assemblies of Romanians, Germans and Hungarians. 65% (Romanians + Germans) of the population wanted union with Romania and 31% (Hungarians) wanted union with Hungary. "
You said it was not referendum and vote... but now you day 65% of the population wanted join Romania. If it was no referendum, how do you know? So you repeat illogical things. Trianon was decided by the Great Powers not by the locals and by the will of the locals, or I ask again, do you think full Hungarian populated settlements (Oradea for example only 10km from today border) wanted to join Romania? I do not think so, so your content total irrevelant and incorrect.
"The Hungarian-Romanian War of 1919 was started by Hungary"
During World War 1 Romania attacked Hungary in 1916, but Hungarian and Central Power troops were in Bucharest fast within 3 months, so Romania lost World War, later Romania signed the peace treaty with the Central Powers. On 11th November 1918, World War I ended and Austria-Hungary lost the war, even if at the time of the collapse, all forces (1,4 million Hungarian troops) were standing outside the borders of 1914, so the Entente did not occupy/conquer any Austrian-Hungarian land during the World War I, but soon after the end of the war the Hungarian army was disarmed and the Hungarian soldiers went home. When the war ended Romania attacked again this time disarmed Hungary, on 7th December 1918, Brassó a city in Southeastern Transylvania was occupied by the Romanian Army. What is this if not start the war? Romanian soldiers on the territory of Kingdom of Hungary? A school class trip?
Czechia and Serbia also attacked disarmed Hungary from other directions. The Hungarian Soviet Republic established only on 21st March 1919.
After WW1 it was chaos and coups in Hungary, the new Karolyi government demilitarized the country. But the Romanians, Czechs, and Serbs always violated the demarcation lines, which were in the territory of Hungary and not outside of Hungary! And this impotent and pacific government resigned, then the communist took power in 21th of March. So the Romanians already occupied big Hungarian regions before the communist took power. The Romanian invasion violated already 4 month long many times the demarcation lines and the occupying Romanian army pushed deep into Hungarian land without much resistance, much earlier than the communist took the power or much earlier than they made defensive operations. Actually, the Romanian, and Czech… aggression also emerged the communists in power, because a lot of non-communist ex-soldiers joined red army because the communist promised to protect the country. The Hungarian red army with Monarchy general (Aurel Stromfeld) liberated north Hungary from the Czech aggressors, but the communist wanted to make a Slovak communist state, so the Hungarian people in the army were disappointed. The red army also made operations against the Romanian army which was deep in Hungary, and not against Romania! I assume in other countries this army is named as “home defender”, “freedom fighters”, “liberators”, “partizans”… who defend their land against a foreign invasion. Similar to today the Ukrainian protect their country from the Russian invasion. But Entente demanded to stop the fight, and Bela Kun fleed to Russia, then the Romanians marched and plundered the unprotected country.
Who started the war? OrionNimrod ( talk) 13:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
1. Please check the sources, not only that they are not from communist time, but most of them are not even Romanian.
2. I think that I'm not adding incorrect data but you have a lot of incorrect information about the historial context at the time. But this isn't about what we think.
3. You offer a lot of information, but hardly anything verifiable. For example, to start out with your first sentence "For example, when the Romanians made a new census after Trianon, it was many threatening, many Hungarians identified themself as “Romanians” to keep their possessions". There are 2 sources that contradict you, one of which I listed previously.
"Several demographers (David W. Paul,[3] Peter Hanak, László Katus[4]) state that the outcome of the 1910 census is reasonably accurate, while others (Teich Mikuláš, Dušan Kováč, Martin D. Brown, Seton-Watson, Robert William, Owen Johnson, Kirk Dudley) believe that the 1910 census was manipulated by exaggerating the percentage of the speakers of Hungarian,[5][6] pointing to the discrepancy between an improbably high growth of the Hungarian-speaking population and the decrease of percentual participation of speakers of other languages due to Magyarization in the Kingdom of Hungary in the late 19th century.[7] For example, the 1921 census in Czechoslovakia (only one year after the Treaty of Trianon) shows 21% Hungarians in Slovakia,[8] compared to 30% based on 1910 census. While the Romanian statistics (only one year before the Treaty of Trianon) shows 25% Hungarians in Transylvania." -> This is taken from Wikipedia. This is not my opinion, but the opinion of a historian. You can surely be of the opinion that this was the case, but we don't work with OR on Wikipedia.
4. The rest of your comment follows a similar style. I do not wish to start a Hungarian-Romanian debate here. Your argument for wanting to remove those additions is that "it's false information", despite it being sourced information. Please, show us with equally sourced information, how that information is wrong. And specifically that information only. Stuff like "If only some Saxon politician voted for Romania, only because by fear" is OR and irrelvant to the discussion at hand. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 17:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
If this sourced info, then please show me the original readable source, because in this way impossible to check the source:
Joseph Held, "The Heritage of the Past: Hungary before World War I", in Ivan Volgyes (editor), "HUNGARY IN REVOLUTION. 1918-19. Nine Essays", University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1971, pages 6-7. OrionNimrod ( talk) 18:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Sources
Teich, Mikuláš; Dušan Kováč; Martin D. Brown (February 3, 2011). Slovakia in History. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-80253-6. Retrieved September 15, 2011.
Murad, Anatol (1968). Franz Joseph I of Austria and his Empire. New York: Twayne Publishers. p. 20. Retrieved November 30, 2011.
Seton-Watson, Robert William (1933). "The Problem of Treaty Revision and the Hungarian Frontiers". International Affairs. 12 (4): 481–503. doi:10.2307/2603603. JSTOR 2603603.
Slovenský náučný slovník, I. zväzok, Bratislava-Český Těšín, 1932. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 18:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this "Joseph Held, "The Heritage of the Past: Hungary before World War I", in Ivan Volgyes (editor), "HUNGARY IN REVOLUTION. 1918-19. Nine Essays", University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1971, pages 6-7", you want the full text, here.
Page 6:
most of its energy in organizing these unions since the workers were not enfranchised. The trade-unions often engaged in violent tactics in order to gain higher wages and better social insurance for workers. There can be little doubt about their success; by the end of the century living conditions were improving for the Hungarian proletariat. A system of medical institutions— small hospitals, pharmacies, etc.— were being extended into the countryside; the government introduced compulsory medical insurance for the workers— not yet for the , peasants— and wages were improving. This was part of the general progress in the* economic conditions of the lower strata of Hungarian society that was being slowly achieved. Yet, these improvements did not diminish social and political antagonisms between different classes in Hungary. Moreover, the cleavages often cut through' class lines. Within the peasantry, for instance, there was much scorn for landless peasants on the part of the more well-to-do peasantry. Village peasants hated those who worked and lived on the large estates as servants. City residents and country people remained deeply suspicious of each other’s intentions. These antagonisms were so deep that they were carried over well into the twentieth century.11 The only clear break within this society appeared to have been between Hungarians as a whole on the one hand, and the non-Hungarian majority of their state on the other. By the turn of the century the nationality question had reached an acute stage in both halves of the Habsburg monarchy. In the Hungarian half there was, if possible, greater antagonism between the nationalities and the ruling nation than in the Austrian half. Even in recent times, long after these antagonisms supposedly had been solved by the 1919 redistribution of territory among the nations of eastern Europe, they still linger on.'3 The basic problem in Hungary was that less than half of the population were ethnically Hungarian. After the Ausgleich the Hungarians made at least one attempt to solve the cultural problem involved in the situation with the nationality law of 1868. The intent of this law was to arrange for a compromise between the non-Magyar nationalities and the Hungarians. The fact was, however, that the nationalities demanded more than cultural nationalism. They were in the process of establishing ties with their conationals— the Rumanians, Serbians, Czechs— living outside the monarchy or in the Austrian half, and were working for political independence. Moreover, the nationality law was seldom observed in Hungary; the rights of the nationalities were violated continuously by the Hungarian government. Their schools were closed and confiscated; their protests were suppressed by the police; their leaders were
Page 7:
jailed for long periods of time. Hungarian propagandists spoke of a country of thirty million Hungarians, and of the sacred right of Hungary to “ Magyarize” its nationalities. The M agyarizing efforts caused great indignation among the Rumanians, Croatians, Serbs, and Slovenes. >4 The few representatives who were permitted to enter the Hungarian Parliament found themselves in an alien environment and were continuously insulted by their legislative colleagues. They, in turn, replied to the insults with more insults, often causing fistfights among the representatives. Finally, they boycotted the sittings of Parliament conspiring, instead, to end their participation in Hungarian politics by becoming independent from Hungary. What aggravated the situation was the connection between the nationality question and the struggle for political power among different social classes in Hungary. The representatives of the nobility— especially the two Tiszas— were fearful that the democratization of Hungarian political life would eventually result in the dominance of the other nationalities.^ Keeping the non-Magyar nationalities disfranchised, as well as keeping the Hungarian peasants and workers off the voting rolls, seemed to be the only way to maintain the status quo and to secure the supremacy of the nobility. Hungarian nationalism was accustomed to frightening the populace about the danger of enfranchising the non-Hungarians; thus, the democratic progress o f Hungary was retarded greatly by the unsolved problem of integrating the other nationalities. The atmosphere between the non-Magyars and the Hungarians was becoming so poisonous by the end of the century, that the smallest insult often caused battles between the antagonists. By the time the celebrations of the Hungarian millennium were held, reconciliation between the two camps was an impossibility. It would be erroneous, however, to maintain that all Hungarians were “ jingoistic,” or that there was no opposition whatsoever to the oppressive policies of the ruling elites. There was a group of young Hungarian intellectuals, writers, publicists, poets, musicians, sometimes called the second generation of reformers in Hungary,14 56 who set out at the beginning o f the twentieth century to do battle with bigotry and prejudice in the hope o f building a better country for themselves and their children. Their history is the story of the establishment of a radical party in Hungary, of teaching workerk and students to fight for their rights, of the founding of the Galilei Circle for self-education, and, indeed, of the revolutionary era in Hungary after the end of World War I. Today it is hardly possible to write a comprehensive history of this generation for the single reason that the biographies of the participants have not yet been written. Their activities created such opposition within the Hungarian ruling elites, that for more than two decades research on this problem was almost impossible. After World War II, Hungarian historians were too absorbed in problems of correcting the general
Page 8:
misconceptions and eliminating the chauvinistic bias in Hungarian historiography to return to the subject of the second reform generation. Only after 1956 was attention turned to their activities, and it is only in very recent times that basic research is becoming possible on this subject. The designation, “ second generation nf rpfnrnumj” in Hungary, is a reflection on the fact that a first reform generation had operated on the Hungarian scene in the nineteenth century. Thiásífirst generation began acting in Hungarian political life at about the middle of the third decade of that century. Its most outstanding members included Lajos Kossuth, István Széchenyi, József Eötvös, Ferenc Deák, Antal Csengery, László Szalay, and others. Their efforts were directed toward the reorganization of Hungarian economic and political life to correspond to the prevalent liberal ideology of progressive forces in Europe at the time. The labors of this generation came to an end abruptly with the revolutions of 1848-49; they shared the fate of many other European liberals whose ideas had been appropriated by conservative forces after 1850. The Ausgleich of 1867 incorporated many of their ideas without accepting the spirit in which these ideas had been formulated. The egalitarianism and rationalism of the first reform generation was replaced in the compromise by class consciousness and Realpolitik» The second reform generation largely shared the fate of the first. Their labors came to an end in another catastrophe— this time one of worldwide proportions— World War I. Their abrupt ends were the only similarity in the two groups’ activities. If the first reform generation failed mainly because they underestimated the power of conservatism and of the Habsburg Dynasty, the second generation fell because they overestimated conservative power. It is true that they faced overwhelming odds. Men such as Mihály Károlyi, Oszkár Jászi, Ernő Garami, Zsigmond Kunfi, Endre Ady, and Béla Bartók, never succeeded in becoming spokesmen for Hungarian public opinion before 1917. The Hungarian public was too absorbed in its own chauvinism, too selfishly negligent of other peoples’ rights and interests, and too blind in recognizing the dangers of nationalism, to take notice of the warnings issued by this generation of reformers. Most of these men remained outside the main stream of Hungarian political and cultural life; most of them were subjected to humiliations and rejection when they advocated a humane and sensible policy toward the subject nationalities as well as toward the lower classes of Hungarians. The strength o f Hungarian conservatism, however, was largely an illusion. It is true that István Tisza ruled Hungary with an iron fist for a long time. It is also true that the police and gendarmery did succeed in quelling the movements of the peasants and workers for reform. But the men in power acted hesitantly, treating only the consequences, not the causes of dissatisfaction. The conservatives succeeded in remaining in power largely because o f the lack of self-confidence on the part of the would-be reformers. When revolution finally came, the second reform generation1, was too fragmented, too enervated, to be able to act in a concerted way. They, too, were drifting with the events instead of giving them a new direction. Herein lies the tragedy of twentieth-century Hungary. Thus, when World War I began, Hungarian society was utterly unprepared for this TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 18:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Could you provide me the original link? I would like to see these info in the original book.
If you have sources, this does not mean the info is correct. I can add to the page 100 of similar sources. Should I do?
This page shows it was thousand of ethnic schools in Hungary, while your source state the schools were closed.
source: Magyarization
30 million Hungarians? Who said this? Hungary had 18 million population, not 30 million Hungarians!
source: Kingdom of Hungary
But what is business these info with Trianon? By the way I think thtese things is total of topic regarding the Treaty of Trianon and you flooded the site with these incorrect data. OrionNimrod ( talk) 18:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I have the book in original Google "After the Ausgleich the Hungarians made at least one attempt to solve the cultural problem involved in the situation with the nationality law of 1868" and you should find PDF versions of the book specifically on the page in question.
I found this: https://dokumen.pub/hungary-in-revolution-1918-19-nine-essays-0803207883-9780803207882.html
The Magyarization page also says "The Hungarian secondary school is like a huge machine, at one end of which the Slovak youths are thrown in by the hundreds, and at the other end of which they come out as Magyars". So the extent these schools were for minorities is up to the question. And it also says " In practice, the majority of students in commune-funded schools who were native speakers of minority languages were instructed exclusively in Hungarian" and "Beginning with the 1879 Primary Education Act and the 1883 Secondary Education Act, the Hungarian state made more efforts to reduce the use of non-Magyar languages, in strong violation of the 1868 Nationalities Law".
Personally, I see no contradiction between this and the quote that you want removed. Both say that there was a law of minorities in 1868 but was not respected by the Hungarians.
As the book says, it was propagandists who said this, meaning that they wanted to create a country full of Hungarians (no minorities) with 30 million people.
This is relevant because historian Joseph Held further emphasizes the desire for self-determination of nationalities inside Hungary as one of the main reasons for the gravity of Trianon. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 19:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I do not think if somebody has elementary school on mother language, he spoke with his family on their mother languge and go secondary school in other language, how can be "magyarized"? For example, in UK today there is many kind of people, even Hungarians and Romanians, they speak in English in the common communication each other, but they keep their identity and language at home and with their ethnic group, it should be generations to become English and mixed marriages. But this is again off topic. Your quote say "the ethnic schools were closed" but you can see on that page even from a Romanian source, that Hungary had many thousand ethnic schools, but I see you did not mention this info which was the questioned thing by me.
"minorities were not respected by the Hungarians."
If you wrote these things, it would be fair to compare the contemporary situation with other countries.
What about Romania at that time? No minorites had any school... What about Russia?
The situation of minorities in Hungary were much more better than in contemporary Western Europe. Other highly multinational countries were: France Russia and UK.
See the multi-national UK:
The situation of Scottish Irish Welsh people in "Britain" during the English hegemony is well known. They utmost forgot their original language, only english language cultural educational institutions existed. The only language was English in judiciary procedures and in offices and public administrations. It was not a real "United" Kingdom, it was rather a greater England.
See the multiethnic France:
In 1870, France was a similar-degree multi-ethnic state as Hungary, only 50% of the population of France spoke the French language as mothertongue. The other half of the population spoke Occitan, Catalan, Corsican, Alsatian, West Flemish, Lorraine Franconian, Gallo, Picard or Ch’timi and Arpitan etc... Many minority languages were closer to spanish or Italian language than French) French governments banned minority language schools , minority language newspapers minority theaters. They banned the usage of minority languages in offices , public adimistration, and judiciary procedures. The ratio of french mothertongue increased from 50% to 91% during the 1870-1910 period.
"As the book says, it was propagandists who said this, meaning that they wanted to create a country full of Hungarians (no minorities) with 30 million people."
Who? I bet you do not know...I dn not know either. I think this is a total irrevelant info in the topic of Treaty of Trianon, but you wrote on that page. This is a spam quality info. OrionNimrod ( talk) 11:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
You cannot compare immigrats of the 21st century, to natives born in the country of the 19th cenutry. Nor do I care for a comparison with UK or France because we are not talking about UK or France here. For all your talk, I have yet to see a direct response on these quotes from the Magyarization Wikipedia page:
"The Hungarian secondary school is like a huge machine, at one end of which the Slovak youths are thrown in by the hundreds, and at the other end of which they come out as Magyars"
"In practice, the majority of students in commune-funded schools who were native speakers of minority languages were instructed exclusively in Hungarian"
"Beginning with the 1879 Primary Education Act and the 1883 Secondary Education Act, the Hungarian state made more efforts to reduce the use of non-Magyar languages, in strong violation of the 1868 Nationalities Law".
Would you argue that this is not the case? That these sources already present on Wikipedia saying that there was a law of minorities in 1868 but was not respected by the Hungarians who perfectly compliments the source you labeled "incorrect information" are wrong? do you have a source that directly contradicts them? TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 13:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I see you again was unable to recognize how many thousand ethnic school was in Hungary, so this is not true when you want to put quotes which suggest all "schools were closed".
"You cannot compare immigrats of the 21st century, to natives born in the country of the 19th cenutry."
Yes I can compare. Hungary asked the basic knowledge of Hungarian language, and the anti-Hungarian propaganda says "this is cruel magyarization", but it is very normal thing if a Hungarian living in Romania speak Romanian, even Romanians expect the same, or in UK peoples should speak English. Typical double standard.
In Romania and in many other countries the situation of minorities were more bad than in Hungary at that time, but you do not want to be fair, you just simply put anti-Hungarian things to pretend "how bad" was everything in Hungary to justify why the people wanted "break", just in reality by Treaty of Trianon 3,5 million Hungarians were moved to new countries, this fact proves, that this "very bad treatment" argument is exaggerated, because why full Hungarian settlements were moved to new countries? Because of bad minority treatment? Where is the logic in this? OrionNimrod ( talk) 16:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I see you failed to provide a a direct response on these quotes from the Magyarization Wikipedia page. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 16:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I see you failed to recognize the thousand of ethnic schools on that page. OrionNimrod ( talk) 17:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
You are seeing wrong then, I saw how many ethnic schools were on that page, what you don't see is that that's off the point. Why is that off the point? Because of the 3 quotes you failed to provide a direct response on from the Magyarization Wikipedia page. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 19:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ A. J. P. Taylor, "The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809-1918 : A History of the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary", Hamish Hamilton, London, 1948, page 186.
  2. ^ Frucht, p. 356.
  3. ^ Brass, p. 156.
  4. ^ Brass, p. 132.
  5. ^ Teich, Mikuláš; Dušan Kováč; Martin D. Brown (3 February 2011). Slovakia in History. Cambridge University Press. ISBN  978-0-521-80253-6. Retrieved 15 September 2011.
  6. ^ Murad, Anatol (1968). Franz Joseph I of Austria and his Empire. New York: Twayne Publishers. p. 20. Retrieved 30 November 2011.
  7. ^ Seton-Watson, Robert William (1933). "The Problem of Treaty Revision and the Hungarian Frontiers". International Affairs. 12 (4): 481–503. doi: 10.2307/2603603. JSTOR  2603603.
  8. ^ Slovenský náučný slovník, I. zväzok, Bratislava-Český Těšín, 1932.
  9. ^ Grecu, Florin (2018). "Elitele politice din Transilvania în realizarea Marii Uniri de la 1 decembrie 1918". Revista Polis (in Romanian). 6 (2): 207–217.
  10. ^ Lucy Mallows, Rudolf Abraham, Transylvania p. 212
  11. ^ Fráter, Olivér (2000). "The Romanian Occupation of Transsylvania in 1918-1919". epa.oszk.hu. Kisebbségkutatás - 9. évf. 2000. 2. szám.
  12. ^ Miller, Daniel (15 July 1999). Forging Political Compromise: Antonín Svehla and the Czechoslovak Republican Party, 1918–1933. University of Pittsburgh Pre. p. 66. ISBN  978-0-8229-7728-5.

A lot of incorrect info added

A lot of incorrect info added by: /info/en/?search=User:TheLastOfTheGiants By the way I am unable to read your sources, also if you have sources with a lot of incorrect info, it is not right to flood the page with them. "The 1918-1920 period however, was marked by multiple general assemblies of minorities in Austria-Hungary where their elected representatives would express the aims of their people, such as the National Assembly of Romanians of Transylvania and Hungary on 1st of December 1918 who decreed by unanimous vote "the unification of those Romanians and of all the territories inhabited by them with Romania" "the National Assembly of Germans of Transylvania and Banat in 1919 who passed a declaration to support the decision to unite with the Kingdom of Romania"

Romania attacked Hungary again (first 1916) when the WW1 was over when Hungarian army was disarmed. /info/en/?search=Hungarian–Romanian_War It was not at all referendum, so the people of Transylvania did not vote. Nobody asked the residents one by one. In Transylvania lived 5 million people in 1920. I do not understand why the Romanians are talking about voting, because it was no plebiscite, nobody asked 5 million people one by one about this or with a democratic referendum. Only some people from 5 million and many other Romanians from outside of Transylvania voted in not a secret vote to join Romania in wartime and of course, at the presence of the Romanian army behind this one-sided Romanian assembly. Moreover, the Hungarian partner was not invited at all, so hard to talk about any voting. Perhaps the full Hungarian populated cities, especially next to the today Hungarian border voted to join Romania? I do not believe this. Romania claimed the Hungarian territory until the Tisza river. Perhaps the full Hungarian populated Tisza region voted to join Romania? I do not think so. The borders were decided in Paris, not in the Romanian assembly.

Also you did not mention this: Contra reaction for the Romanian National Assembly: December 22, 1918 - In response, a Hungarian General Assembly in Cluj (Kolozsvár), central Transylvania, and the most important Hungarian town in Transylvania reaffirms the loyalty of Hungarians from Transylvania to Hungary.

If only some Saxon politician voted for Romania, only because by fear, do not forget the Romanian army (and behind the Entente) was in the background. Some people do not represent the full Saxon community, 550 000 people, who mostly during the history had a very good relationship with Transylvanian Hungarians. But these things do not matter at all, the Entente decided about the new borders in Paris by Treaty of Trianon and not these rallies.

"Hungary had hoped to maintain Greater Hungary, they hoped that all the regions of old Hungary would remain part of Hungary, but were not taking into account what the nationalities who lived inside Greater Hungary wanted. In Transylvania, where 54% of the population was Romanian, trying to maintain this region as part of Hungary was an utopia, for the president of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, came with his 14 points about the right of nationalities for self-determination, and the Romanians in Transylvania who were a majority, didn't want to be part of Hungary. Essentially, the Hungarian politicians hoped to keep the status quo but the historical reality, the debates during the peace conference and the arguments of the nationalities who wished to break free from Hungary, were the ones that mattered and eventually weighted decisively in favor of creating the eventual borders of Trianon."

This is not ture, Wilson points were total ignored for the Hungarians, the nationalities for self-determination for Hungarians was total ignored, that is why 3,5 million Hungarians moved to new countries, many border regions had full Hungarian population and moved to new countries. Please do not say that these full Hungarian settlements did not want remain in Hungary. "and the Romanians in Transylvania who were a majority" It should provide exact details and numbers, because Romania got bigger part from Hungary, not only Transylvania, but Partium, Banat... Romanians had 53,8% in that region which was moved from Hungary, so it was almost 50-50, but we can see the Hungarians were total ignored from the self-determination. "the debates during the peace conference and the arguments of the nationalities who wished to break free from Hungary" For example Nagyvárad (Oradea), only 10km from today's border had only 5% Romanian population and 95% non Romanian, 91% Hungarian population. Do you say the Hungarians wanted to break free from Hungary in that city? Please do not write incorrect data. /info/en/?search=Oradea Hungary offered democratic referendums about the disputed borders for minorities, however the political leaders of those minorities refused the idea of democratic referendums regarding disputed territories at the Paris peace conference, because they knew the majority of the settlements and many peoples (even many minorities) would vote to stay in Hungary. Nobody asked the residents, there were no referendums. Nobody listened Hungary in the peace treaty, when the negotiation was ended just the disarmed Hungarian country forced to sign the dictate behind the military presence of the Entente. The Hungarian diplomats were accompanied by guards. Is this the self-determination? And arguments, if the Hungarian member was not invited?

"The basic problem in Hungary was that less than half of the population were ethnically Hungarian. After the Ausgleich the Hungarians made at least one attempt to solve the cultural problem involved in the situation with the nationality law of 1868. The intent of this law was to arrange for a compromise between the non-Magyar nationalities and the Hungarians. The fact was, however, that the nationalities demanded more than cultural nationalism. They were in the process of establishing ties with their co-nationals — the Rumanians, Serbians, Czechs — living outside the monarchy or in the Austrian half, and were working for political independence. Moreover, the nationality law was seldom observed in Hungary; the rights of the nationalities were violated continuously by the Hungarian government. Their schools were closed and confiscated; their protests were suppressed by the police; their leaders were jailed for long periods of time. Hungarian propagandists spoke of a country of thirty million Hungarians, and of the sacred right of Hungary to “Magyarize” its nationalities."

The page clearly show the population data, it is incorrect that Hungarians had less than half of the population. Do not count Kingdom of Croatia, Croatia was personal union with Hungary, also you did not mention the Croatians in your text among the nationalities, but you calculate them to decrease the number of Hungarians. 30 million Hungarians? Source? Who say this? Total irrevelant topic. Schools closed? It was many thousand schools for minorities, even Hungarian Kingdom had more Romanian schools where Romanians thaught everything in Romanian than Romanian Kingdom itself. Hungary asked the knowledge of the state language as basic level, this is not violate any human right, today in Romania the Hungarians can speak Romanian and this is expected also, in England the immigrant people can speak English, this is quite normal. /info/en/?search=Magyarization

"Faced with the danger of national competition, the Magyar gentry dared not fulfil the provisions of the Nationalities Law of 1868; on the other hand, to make their work easier, they demanded a knowledge of Magyar from all the inhabitants of Hungary. No state school, elementary or secondary, was ever provided for any national minority; the secondary schools which the Slovaks had set up for themselves were closed in 1874; Magyar was made compulsory in all schools in 1883. The highest expression of this policy was the Education Law promoted by [Prime minister, Count] Apponyi in 1907, which imposed a special oath of loyalty on all teachers and made them liable to dismissal if their pupils did not know Magyar. Similarly, the Magyar gentry attacked any political display by the nationalities -drove their few members from parliament and condemned their organisations. By these means, the Magyar gentry gained and kept a monopoly of state employment and of the liberal professions. At the beginning of the twentieth century, 95 per cent of the state officials, 92 per cent of the county officials, 89 per cent of the doctors, and 90 per cent of the judges were Magyar. Eighty per cent of the newspapers were in Magyar, and the remainder mostly German: three million Roumanians had 2,5 per cent of the newspapers, two million Slovaks had 0,64 per cent." Again, it is incorrect, it was many thousand schools for minorities, even Hungarian Kingdom had more Romanian schools where Romanians thaught everything in Romanian than Romanian Kingdom itself. Hungary asked the knowledge of the state language as basic level, this is not violate any human right, today in Romania the Hungarians can speak Romanian and this is expected also, in England the immigrant people can speak English, this is quite normal. Check out how many thousand school were for the minorites: /info/en/?search=Magyarization — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionNimrod ( talk • contribs) 12:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I'll try to only addess the essential parts;
1. "Romania attacked Hungary again (first 1916) when the WW1 was over when Hungarian army was disarmed. /info/en/?search=Hungarian–Romanian_War" Romania attacked Hungary in 1916, then you link to an article about 1919? Romania attacked Austria-Hungary in 1916. They are different events.
2. "It was not at all referendum, so the people of Transylvania did not vote. Nobody asked the residents one by one. In Transylvania lived 5 million people in 1920. I do not understand why the Romanians are talking about voting, because it was no plebiscite, nobody asked 5 million people one by one about this or with a democratic referendum." I see this more of a list of personal grievances than anything having to do with the source in question.
Please read the paragraph right above this one, a lot of your greviances are explained there.
"The borders were decided in Paris, not in the Romanian assembly." This is correct, what is also correct is that the national assemblies of 1918-1920 influenced the decision made at Paris.
"Also you did not mention this: Contra reaction for the Romanian National Assembly: December 22, 1918 - In response, a Hungarian General Assembly in Cluj (Kolozsvár), central Transylvania, and the most important Hungarian town in Transylvania reaffirms the loyalty of Hungarians from Transylvania to Hungary." Indeed, I did mention it in the paragraph right above this one, where I addressed your original notes.
"If only some Saxon politician voted for Romania, only because by fear, do not forget the Romanian army (and behind the Entente) was in the background. Some people do not represent the full Saxon community, 550 000 people, who mostly during the history had a very good relationship with Transylvanian Hungarians. But these things do not matter at all, the Entente decided about the new borders in Paris by Treaty of Trianon and not these rallies." The Romanian army did not occupy all of Transylvania at that point. And I am not making a case of what this does/doesn't represent. I merely listed what happened. Actually, after 1867 they became subjects of magyarization as well and started to have bad relationship with the Hungarians.
"This is not ture, Wilson points were total ignored for the Hungarians, the nationalities for self-determination for Hungarians was total ignored, that is why 3,5 million Hungarians moved to new countries, many border regions had full Hungarian population and moved to new countries. Please do not say that these full Hungarian settlements did not want remain in Hungary" Is this the self-determination? And arguments, if the Hungarian member was not invited?" This is not true. Point 10 of the 14 points was specifically about Austria-Hungary.
"and the Romanians in Transylvania who were a majority, It should provide exact details and numbers, because Romania got bigger part from Hungary, not only Transylvania, but Partium, Banat... Romanians had 53,8% in that region which was moved from Hungary, so it was almost 50-50, but we can see the Hungarians were total ignored from the self-determination" I don't understand, you yourself say that the Romanians were 53,8% in Transylvania and then, also say that it was 50-50? The real number of Hungarians was 31.8%
"the debates during the peace conference and the arguments of the nationalities who wished to break free from Hungary. For example Nagyvárad (Oradea), only 10km from today's border had only 5% Romanian population and 95% non Romanian, 91% Hungarian population. Do you say the Hungarians wanted to break free from Hungary in that city? Please do not write incorrect data. /info/en/?search=Oradea Hungary offered democratic referendums about the disputed borders for minorities, however the political leaders of those minorities refused the idea of democratic referendums regarding disputed territories at the Paris peace conference, because they knew the majority of the settlements and many peoples (even many minorities) would vote to stay in Hungary. Nobody asked the residents, there were no referendums. Nobody listened Hungary in the peace treaty, when the negotiation was ended just the disarmed Hungarian country forced to sign the dictate behind the military presence of the Entente. The Hungarian diplomats were accompanied by guards." You are heavily conflicted because there was no refferendum. Yes, there was no refferendum, only national assemblies. But that doesn't make the sources incorrect, because none of the sources say there was a refferendum.
I'm sorry, but I can only conclude that your reason for arguing this is "incorrect data" is poor historical knowledge from your part.
A lot of your arguments are more like a personal list of greviances about Hungary's loss at Trianon rather than actual examples of what is wrong with the sources and where. And for the few cases where you did actually attempt to provide a reasoning, such as the population being 50-50, it is completely wrong. Please read the very Wikipedias you are trying to quote for accurate historical information.
If you can find a source that can support any of your claims, that would be great, but Wikipedia as it is right now does not allow OR, specifically because original research could be wrong, as it is in your case with the 50-50 population or Romania attacking first in the Hungarian-Romanian War. What you are saying is simply not true. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 12:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
To read the sources, hoover the mouse over the blue number. For example here [1] hoover the mouse over the number and you will see the source. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 12:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
"Please read the paragraph right above this one, a lot of your greviances are explained there."
It is not grievances the fact that is was no referendum, but you talk always "voting" and still "65% wanted to join Romania", simply this is incorrect, because if nobody asked the people how we do know it? Perhaps did you ask 5 million people one by one in 1920? And incorrect to add to the page morover in the first section to pretend this one sided "vote" (like a communist-style when the verdict is already written) caused the Treaty of Trianon. Romania claimed the Hungarian territory until the Tisza river. Perhaps the full Hungarian populated Tisza region voted to join Romania? Perhaps the full and almost full Hungarian cities, especially next to the today's Hungarian border voted to join Romania? Did they vote? Almost full Hungarian Oradea did vote to join Romania? Or this Romanian rally decided that full Hungarian cities like Oradea should join Romania? What do you think? If not why these full Hungarian populated citied moved to Romania? It means this rally did not decide anything.
"This is correct, what is also correct is that the national assemblies of 1918-1920 influenced the decision made at Paris."
I can ask again. Do you say the Romanian rally decided that full Hungarian cities like Oradea, Satu Mare etc should join Romania? I do not think so. By the way these cities are not in Transylvania, but in the Partium. Because it was a Hungarian contra assembly, where Hungarians did the same what the Romanians did, but we can see the Entente total ignored this rally, so again it is not true that these rallies influenced anything. Even Romania joined to Entente and attacked Hungary in 1916 to occupy all Hungarian land until the Tisza river, the Entente promised this land to Romania to ask his help against the Central Powers. It means not these rallies influenced the decision, because it was already earlier decided whitout the ask of the residents.

Romania’s entry into World War 1, 27 August 1916. Detail from Proclamation of King Ferdinand of Romania:

“In our moral energy and our valour lie the means of giving him back his birthright of a great and free Romania from the Tisza to the Black Sea, and to prosper in peace in accordance with our customs and our hopes and dreams.”

https://royalromania.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/romanias-entry-into-the-great-war-27-august-1916-king-ferdinands-proclamation/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionNimrod ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

"Actually, after 1867 they became subjects of magyarization as well and started to have bad relationship with the Hungarians."
Source about the magyarization of Germans? In Austria-Hungary? In a German oriented empire?
In 1920, in Transylvania lived about 5 million people, among this 560 000 Saxons. The Saxons were invited by Hungarian kings 800 years ago to settle in Transylvania around 1150. There were many nice Saxon cities, they lived a good relationship with the Hungarians. We can see nice Transylvanian cities, all of them built by Hungarians and Saxons, not by Romanians. Hungary was a German-influenced country and belongs to the western culture, while Romania is a Balcanian country and belongs to the eastern culture, to the orthodox Christianity, and at that time Romania was a more backward country compared with Hungary. Today after 100 years the number of Transylvanian Saxons is only 13 000. Where are 500 000 Saxons? Perhaps are they romanianized or expelled? Voted to join Romania? The numbers show what does mean live in Romania and what does mean live in Hungary 800 years long. Of course the Romanians are talking always about "magyarization" but never about the "romanianization" which is more recently and more longer, more stronger according to the population data than the magyarization, check out previous Hungarian settlements, population change: Oradea.
In the Hungarian Kingdom, the Romanians had more Romanian schools than in the Romanian Kingdom where they could learn in Romanian. The Hungarian state asked the minorities to learn the language of the state at a basic level like everybody learns English today. For example, many peoples from different ethnic backgrounds live in the UK, they are using their native language but they can speak in English because English is the language of the state. Today many Hungarians live in Romania, I think those Hungarians learn and could speak in Romanian too. This is a normal thing.
For example, I cannot read this source: Joseph Held HUNGARY IN REVOLUTION. 1918-19. Nine Essays OrionNimrod ( talk) 13:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
"It is not grievances the fact that is was no referendum", there was no referendum, and the information you want to remove doesn't say there was a referendum. So why do you want to remove it?

You wrote "unanimous vote the unification of those Romanians and of all the territories inhabited by them with Romania", but it was not a referendum, nobody knew the will of the locals, your text pretend that Treaty of Trianon happened because some Romanians from 5 million locals voted to join Romania, however the Treaty was decided in Paris by the Great Powers not by this rally, also you ignored the Hungarians made contra rally to vote remain in Hungary. And? Does not matter, because the Treaty made in Paris. Also the rally was mentioned in the text already, so you duplicated the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionNimrod ( talk • contribs) 17:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

"Do you say the Romanian rally decided that full Hungarian cities like Oradea, Satu Mare etc should join Romania? I do not think so" again, how is this relevant to this discussion about the sources? I don't want to take part in a Hungarian-Romanian debate but simply identify whether the sources are accurate or not.
Your argument is that "The site was flooded with a lot of anti-Hungarian propaganda from communist times, whitout readable sources, also these sentences had a lot of incorrect info (Talk page explained). I provided a source with a readable link from a famous contemporary politician who participated in the Treaty of Trianon, the user talks about "different opinions", but he wrote only anti-Hungarian opinions, and ironically he removed the different opinion of the contemporary politican", please, stick only to information related to that. Show us how. As for the removed one, it's because it was part of your edit and I undoed the edit wholly. You can read it in my origina reply to you "2. Quote from Francesco Saverio Nitti, I'm not opposed to that." TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 17:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
And you can read our short discussion for yourself:
- Unsupervised Discriminative single-ethnicity assemblies and their proclamations without international supervise can not supersede democratic full-scale plebiscites/referendums (with minimal voter turnout , secret ballots of local regardless ethnicity) about disputed borders.
- The national assemblies of 1918-1920 were not meant to upersede democratic full-scale plebiscites/referendums, they were meant to express the will of the minorities of Austria-Hungary to the Entente. It is already mentioned previously that the only plebiscite was held in Sopron.
And that was it. He didn't further object. The first section is a summary of the rest of the article. 20-1 = 10 days?
If I want to remove content on Wikipedia, I can't wake up one day and remove content added by someone to which there was no objection at the time saying that "well, I object to it now".
Either way, I am still waiting for your arguments on those sources why are incorrect as you claim. And will completely disregard anything else but talking about those sources since I have no interest in making this wall of text larger than it is. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 17:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
To clarify, his issue was that the National Assembly of Romanians, National Assembly of Germans and Slovak National Council could be falsely intepreted as a plebiscite. I told him it wasn't the case because previously it was mentioned that the only plebiscite was held in Sopron. And that was the end of our discussion. You on the other hand are claiming far greater things. That everything you wanted to remove is false.
Let us be orderly and take them 1 by 1 and have you indentify with sources which parts are false and how.
1. The 1918-1920 period however, was marked by multiple general assemblies of minorities in Austria-Hungary where their elected representatives would express the aims of their people, such as the National Assembly of Romanians of Transylvania and Hungary on 1st of December 1918 who decreed by unanimous vote "the unification of those Romanians and of all the territories inhabited by them with Romania", the National Assembly of Germans of Transylvania and Banat in 1919 who passed a declaration to support the decision to unite with the Kingdom of Romania, or the Slovak National Council's issue of the Martin Declaration in 1918, in effect declaring Slovakia's independence and presaging Slovakia's unification with the Czech lands as part of a new state.
Sources for 1 - Grecu, Florin (2018). "Elitele politice din Transilvania în realizarea Marii Uniri de la 1 decembrie 1918". Revista Polis (in Romanian). 6 (2): 207–217; Lucy Mallows, Rudolf Abraham, Transylvania p. 212; Fráter, Olivér (2000). "The Romanian Occupation of Transsylvania in 1918-1919". epa.oszk.hu. Kisebbségkutatás - 9. évf. 2000. 2. szám; Miller, Daniel (15 July 1999). Forging Political Compromise: Antonín Svehla and the Czechoslovak Republican Party, 1918–1933. University of Pittsburgh Pre. p. 66. ISBN 978-0-8229-7728-5.
2 According to historian Dorin Stanescu, Hungarian bitterness following Trianon was bound to happen given Hungary's unrealistic expectation of keeping the status quo after losing a war. Hungary had hoped to maintain Greater Hungary, they hoped that all the regions of old Hungary would remain part of Hungary, but were not taking into account what the nationalities who lived inside Greater Hungary wanted. In Transylvania, where 54% of the population was Romanian, trying to maintain this region as part of Hungary was an utopia, for the president of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, came with his 14 points about the right of nationalities for self-determination, and the Romanians in Transylvania who were a majority, didn't want to be part of Hungary. Essentially, the Hungarian politicians hoped to keep the status quo but the historical reality, the debates during the peace conference and the arguments of the nationalities who wished to break free from Hungary, were the ones that mattered and eventually weighted decisively in favor of creating the eventual borders of Trianon.
Sources for 2 - Florin Critescu, Dorin Stanescu, Oral History Archive, The Treaty of Trianon, 2021
3 Historian Joseph Held further emphasizes the desire for self-determination of nationalities inside Hungary as one of the main reasons for the gravity of Trianon. "The basic problem in Hungary was that less than half of the population were ethnically Hungarian. After the Ausgleich the Hungarians made at least one attempt to solve the cultural problem involved in the situation with the nationality law of 1868. The intent of this law was to arrange for a compromise between the non-Magyar nationalities and the Hungarians. The fact was, however, that the nationalities demanded more than cultural nationalism. They were in the process of establishing ties with their co-nationals — the Rumanians, Serbians, Czechs — living outside the monarchy or in the Austrian half, and were working for political independence. Moreover, the nationality law was seldom observed in Hungary; the rights of the nationalities were violated continuously by the Hungarian government. Their schools were closed and confiscated; their protests were suppressed by the police; their leaders were jailed for long periods of time. Hungarian propagandists spoke of a country of thirty million Hungarians, and of the sacred right of Hungary to “Magyarize” its nationalities."
Sources for 3 - Joseph Held, "The Heritage of the Past: Hungary before World War I", in Ivan Volgyes (editor), "HUNGARY IN REVOLUTION. 1918-19. Nine Essays", University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1971, pages 6-7.
4 The treatment of minorities under the Kingdom of Hungary was one of the main causes for their desire to be separated from Hungary. Faced with the danger of national competition, the Magyar gentry dared not fulfil the provisions of the Nationalities Law of 1868; on the other hand, to make their work easier, they demanded a knowledge of Magyar from all the inhabitants of Hungary. No state school, elementary or secondary, was ever provided for any national minority; the secondary schools which the Slovaks had set up for themselves were closed in 1874; Magyar was made compulsory in all schools in 1883. The highest expression of this policy was the Education Law promoted by [Prime minister, Count] Apponyi in 1907, which imposed a special oath of loyalty on all teachers and made them liable to dismissal if their pupils did not know Magyar. Similarly, the Magyar gentry attacked any political display by the nationalities -drove their few members from parliament and condemned their organisations. By these means, the Magyar gentry gained and kept a monopoly of state employment and of the liberal professions. At the beginning of the twentieth century, 95 per cent of the state officials, 92 per cent of the county officials, 89 per cent of the doctors, and 90 per cent of the judges were Magyar. Eighty per cent of the newspapers were in Magyar, and the remainder mostly German: three million Roumanians had 2,5 per cent of the newspapers, two million Slovaks had 0,64 per cent.
4 Sources for 4 - A. J. P. Taylor, "The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809-1918 : A History of the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary", Hamish Hamilton, London, 1948, page 186.
5 Historian Gabor Vermes argues that although national sentiments have been sparked by the treatment of minorities by the Austrians and Hungarians, it was the political atmosphere that caused the partitions of Austria and Hungary. The Austro-Hungarian monarchy had been a conglomerate of various nations. From any logical and pragmatic point of view, some form of federalism should have been accomplished. However, the two ruling nations, the Germans in Austria and the Magyars in Hungary, clung stubbornly to the maintenance of “dualism” which was based on a joint rule of Germans and Magyars. The resentment of the other nations was boiling beneath the surface, and the monarchy’s defeat in World War I brought to the fore their bitterness, and by 1918, their wish to secede. Croats, Serbians, Slovaks, and Rumanians harbored a long list of grievances against the Magyars, and the chaotic conditions of 1918—disintegrating armies, fluctuating demarcation lines, ambiguous armistice terms—only intensified them. Above all, active Entente support played into their hands. It would be futile to argue the issues from a legal viewpoint, or even from an ideological viewpoint, because in 1918, the military and political atmosphere was charged with emotions, and conflict between the onetime rulers and onetime subjects was not to be solved in a rational and sensible way.
Sources for 5 - Gabor Vermes, "The October Revolution in Hungary: from Karolyi to Kun", in Ivan Volgyes (editor), "Hungary in Revolution. 1918-19. Nine Essays", Univ. of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1971, page 47.
As you can see, none of these sources are from the communist era and most of them are written by non-Romanians.
Please, identify what is wrong in this sources, using sources of your own. As personally, I believe most of the information you came up with such as "If only some Saxon politician voted for Romania, only because by fear, do not forget the Romanian army (and behind the Entente) was in the background" is incorrect.
Please, no outside the subject mentionings or personal speculations. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 17:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I already provided detalied answer above why your info is incorrect. Also I quoted your text by you copy paste and spam the site with the same thing ignoring my arguments.
Your text was reverted by an another user and you added again, so again it is not true that you say "nobody objected", by the way, Romanian assembly already was mentioned in that page, just not in the first section. So you added a duplicate info. You changed already "the status quo of the page", your text added recently, and if somebody has own life and do not supervise every Wikipedia page 24/7 it does not mean that your content is correct what you added 10 days ago.
"The first section is a summary of the rest of the article. 20-1 = 10 days?"
So you admit it is not true when you stated that "nobody objected". You added a lot of info 9th of June, if somebody does not watch a website 24/7, it does not mean the recently added info is correct. OrionNimrod ( talk) 18:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I did not ignore your arguments. As I said, I believe that 90% of what you're saying is wrong. But this is not about what I or you believe. You provided unsourced content, original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. You can't just go and say "I think the Mongols were Spanish!" and expect people to believe you. I asked you to offer me sources and previously told you that "A lot of the content you removed was sourced content. A case could be made that this is not 'incorrect statement' but simply historians having different opinions over the same event". I am offering the opinion of historians, you are offering your own personal opinion.
Why you repeat again the same thing that I already gave you a response for? As I said "you can read our short discussion for yourself (...) And that was it. He didn't further object". Again, as I said "The first section is a summary of the rest of the article". Again, as I said, "If I want to remove content on Wikipedia, I can't wake up one day and remove content added by someone to which there was no objection at the time saying that "well, I object to it now".
You can check it yourself, the content was first added on 1st of June, and the discussion with that persion was on 3rd of June. That's 19 days.
I made an exception this time but still noticed you haven't said anything about the sources, instead, everything you said was about me. So, as I said "Either way, I am still waiting for your arguments on those sources why are incorrect as you claim. And will completely disregard anything else but talking about those sources since I have no interest in making this wall of text larger than it is."
This time, I mean it, I will only address statements related to the subject at hand. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 18:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
90% wrong of my arguments? For example? So you did not talk them one by one, just name all of them wrong. I linked a lot of other Wikipedia sites and refered to the current site, not personal research. For example when I posted the quote from Nitti, it was sourced, I provided the readable link to the book, that everybody can check what I posted, while you did not provide readable links from your quotes. You posted only anti-Hungarian opinions, whit lot of incorrect states inside these quotes, " the rights of the nationalities were violated continuously by the Hungarian government. Their schools were closed and confiscated;", etc, and I provided the wikipedia links whichs showed how many thousand ethnic schools was in Hungary. I was talking about the content.
You added those quotes on 9th of June.
Above I already provided detailed explanation why these quotes are incorrect, this is not my strategy to write down 100 times the same. OrionNimrod ( talk) 18:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I did address them in "Concerning OrionNimrod's edits", the first post. Take for example this one:
You were saying that "This is total incorrect. Hungary had more Romanian schools than Romania itself ( /info/en/?search=Magyarization). The page shows the population data, so it is incorrect to state that Hungarian population was less than half". And my reply to you was this one.
Looking at the /info/en/?search=Magyarization, it doesn't seem to confirm what you are saying: "For a long time, the number of non-Hungarians that lived in the Kingdom of Hungary was much larger than the number of ethnic Hungarians. According to the 1787 data, the population of the Kingdom of Hungary numbered 2,322,000 Hungarians (29%) and 5,681,000 non-Hungarians (71%). In 1809, the population numbered 3,000,000 Hungarians (30%) and 7,000,000 non-Hungarians (70%). An increasingly intense Magyarization policy was implemented after 1867." "Overall, between 1880 and 1910, the percentage of the total population that spoke Hungarian as its first language rose from 46.6% to 54.5%" But looking at /info/en/?search=Demographics_of_Hungary it seems this 54.5% is excluding Croatia for some reason, which was part of the Kingdom of Hungary. "According to the census of 1910, the largest ethnic group in the Kingdom of Hungary were Hungarians, who were 54.5% of the population of Kingdom of Hungary, excluding Croatia-Slavonia. Although the territories of the former Kingdom of Hungary that were assigned by the treaty to neighbouring states in total had a majority of non-Hungarian population, they also included areas of Hungarian majority and significant Hungarian minorities, numbering 3,318,000 in total."
This sentence, already existing on the Trianon page: "In the last census before the Treaty of Trianon held in 1910, which recorded population by language and religion, but not by ethnicity, speakers of the Hungarian language included approximately 48% of the entire population of the Kingdom of Hungary.[2]" Is more correct because it includes Croatia as well, that was part of the Kingdom of Hungary. As such, I find the assertion of the source you tried to remove correct, and am against removing it.
Simply put, the link /info/en/?search=Magyarization only confirmed what Joseph Held said (which you wanted to remove) and your claim that "The page shows the population data, so it is incorrect to state that Hungarian population was less than half" is again false. Not only it does not show that, but it shows the opposite.
I have a hard time seeing how you got to those conclusions using those Wikipedia links you provided given that they contradict you.
But for the vast majority of the things you said, I don't need to give an answer because (a) they are not relevant, (b) you did not offer a source for them. And I'm not here to discuss OR.
For example, and this is the 3rd time I say the same thing, you said that "If only some Saxon politician voted for Romania, only because by fear, do not forget the Romanian army (and behind the Entente) was in the background" which I believe it is incorrect, but the important thing is that you did not offer any source for that, its merely personal opinion and frankly not relevant to the subject at hand. So I can dismiss it without addressing it.
Likewise, it's not my strategy to write down 100 times the same. I even made a list of the things you wanted to remove to make it easier for you to explain which information from there is wrong and why, but you didn't do any of that. And seeing how this discussion goes, you're not likely to do it. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 18:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Hungarian population was around 40% in these sites (and not 29%) around 1780-90: Demographics of Hungary, Magyarization. But why are you talking about 1790??? Off topic again.
According to the census of 1910, the largest ethnic group in the Kingdom of Hungary were Hungarians, who were 54.5% of the population of Kingdom of Hungary, excluding Croatia-Slavonia. Croatia was personal union with Hungary, not Hungarian land!
Even the red map showed only Hungarian land and not Croatia which was provided to Entente.
Treaty of Trianon#/media/File:Ethnographic map of hungary 1910 by teleki carte rouge.jpg
So it is not true to say it was less than half. So you admit this info was on the page already, why do you want to duplicate info on the page?
The page has already the Romanian assembly with a picture, but you duplicated this info. You mentioned more assembly, but only you ignored the Hungarian one. OrionNimrod ( talk) 19:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Please offer the exact quotes from the link where it says the Hungarian population was around 40% in these sites.
I am not talking about 1790?! you are the first one to bring 1790 up and I'm not even sure why.
"According to the census of 1910, the largest ethnic group in the Kingdom of Hungary were Hungarians, who were 54.5% of the population of Kingdom of Hungary, excluding Croatia-Slavonia. Croatia was personal union with Hungary, not Hungarian land!" According to the same census, but including Croatia, the Hungarians were 48% of the population of Kingdom of Hungary.
I believe the author did not consider the fact that Croatia was in a personal union or not with Hungary relevant. And I don't consider it either, given that as far as the Austrian state aparatus was concerned, Croatia was part of Hungary. It was administrated by Hungary rather than Austria, taxes went to Hungary, the leaders were appointed by Hungary, etc.
If we include Croatia in the census, it is true that less than half of the population was Hungarian, if we don't 54.5% is still not a significantly higher number from 48% to drastically alter the meaning of the whole sentence.
Please, tell me what you understand by "The first section is a summary of the rest of the article" ? For example, this "The principal beneficiaries were the Kingdom of Romania, the Czechoslovak Republic, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia), and the First Austrian Republic." is also present in the article, and for good reason. The first section is a summary of the rest of the article, therefore, everything else that is present in the summary should also be present in the article but in a more expanded upon form. Ok, so we can add the Hungarian assembly as well, no problem with that. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 19:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Please offer the exact quotes from the link where it says the Hungarian population was around 40% in these sites.
Demographics of Hungary,
1790
It is not problem if you do not see the numbers in the charts.
Anyway talking about 1787 or 1790 is total off topic, even nothing about this in your quotes, but you who are many times copy paste this.
Croatia was under the Holy Crown of Hungary but it was not Hungarian land, even the Hungarian red map did not include Croatia. Croatia was administered own: Croatian–Hungarian Settlement
"if we don't 54.5% is still not a significantly higher number from 48% to drastically alter the meaning of the whole sentence."
Treaty of Trianon: "2,831,222 Romanians (53.8%). [7]"
Romanians had only 53.8% in Hungary, You say it is not a problem to say 54% is less than half, but Romanians always ephasize "Romanian majority" Thanks for showing us your double standard! Even you said many times this majority "voted" to join Romania. Which is incorrect.

As I said the page has already the Romanian assembly and you duplicated the info that suggest these "votes" caused the Treaty of Trianon, however not. OrionNimrod ( talk) 19:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Ok, so that particular link says 35-40% Hungarians in 1790. While /info/en/?search=Magyarization says 29% Hungarians in 1787. I agree that is irrelevant for the subject at hand.
/info/en/?search=Kingdom_of_Croatia_(Habsburg)#Dual_Monarchy_Period "In 1868 the Croatian–Hungarian Settlement was negotiated, which combined Croatia and Slavonia into the autonomous Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. With this agreement, the Kingdom of Croatia received autonomy in administrative, educational, religious and judicial affairs. However, the governor (ban) was still appointed by Hungary, 55% percent of all tax money went to Budapest, and Hungary had authority over the biggest sea port of Rijeka (something that was reportedly not part of the Settlement actually agreed upon)".
Isn't 53.8% still a Romanian majority? Even without the rounding up to 54% it's still a Romanian majority. Actually, it is correct, the national assembly of Romania was made up by elected representatives of Transylvanian Romanians, they voted for them. And they voted for union with Romania. /info/en/?search=Union_of_Transylvania_with_Romania
As I said the first section is a summary of the rest of the article, and they did not cause the Treaty of Trianon by themselves, but they influenced the Great Powers, so the national assemblies of Romanians, Germans and Slovaks did have an influence over the Treaty of Trianon. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 20:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I do not understand why do you talk about always off topics like seaports in Croatia, taxation, 1787, etc...
53,8% is a slightly majority, which is emphasised by your quotes as "huge majority" while you have no problem that your sources say Hungarians had less than half of the population however Hungarian population was in 54% in Hungarian land. Of course Hungarian population was much less if we calculate together the full population of Austria-Hungary, but the topic is only Hungary, and Croatia belonged under the crown of Hungary as personal union same as Austria and Hungary was in personal union (but nobody calculate the proportions of Hungarians in full Austria-Hungary regarding this treaty) so Croatia was not Hungarian land, but a partner country. Hungarian diplomats provided to the Entente the Teleki map what was based on real census, we can see this map in the Wiki page because this map is relating to the topic. We can clearly see Hungarians at that time did not consider Croatia as Hungarian land regarding the Treaty.
Treaty of Trianon#/media/File:Ethnographic map of hungary 1910 by teleki carte rouge.jpg
Also Hungarians made a rally, but of course you forget to mention it. Romania joined to Entente because Hungarian lands was promised much earlier than these rallies. Hungarians were not invited to the one-sided "peace" talk. The Entente gave lands to neighboars, not the rallies, that is why the topic is "treaty of Trianon".
Territorial evolution of Romania
You wrote "unanimous vote "the unification of those Romanians and of all the territories inhabited by them with Romania"
The topic already mentioned the national asemmblis with a picture, why do you want to duplicate this? If some Romanians from 2,8 million vote for Romania in a not secrect vote, what is this? A theater. Romania got many full Hungarian populated regions, which cleary proves not these national rallies decided anything. As I mentioned it was already on that page with a picture. Treaty of Trianon#/media/File:AsambleaDeAlbaIulia19181201.jpg OrionNimrod ( talk) 11:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Because it shows that Croatia was under the administration of Hungary. Therefore it makes sense to include Croatia in the Hungarian census.
54% in Hungarian land excluding Croatia, who was administred by Hungary. You're not arguing against me here, you're arguing against historian Joseph Held, between your original research and Joseph Held I tend to side with Joseph Held.
Obviously Hungarian diplomats would not want to consider Croatia as part of Hungary after the war ended. Because it was clear they were going to lose some land and wanted Hungary to be as Hungarian as possible (like you right now, with 54% > 48%), but that doesn't change the fact that Croatia was under the administration of Hungary. Historian Joseph Held considered this more relevant so he counted Hungary's population to 48% Hungarians. That you have a different opinion, it's your opinion vs a certified historian.
"Also Hungarians made (...)" half of what you say here is wrong, but the real question is, how is this relevant to the subject at hand? because it doesn't seem relevant at all.
You wrote "unanimous vote" "the unification of those Romanians and of all the territories inhabited by them with Romania", yes, because that was it. Unanimous vote of the National Assembly of Romanians.
I already answered the same question you 4 times, do you think the 5th time is the charm and I'm going to give you a different answer?
"If some Romanians from 2,8 million vote for (...)", do you seriously want me to explain all the history of the region to you? I'm sorry, but you are very ill-informed, I made some concessions in the past and went out of my way to explain you what/how it actually happened despite being off-topic, but at this point you keep bombarding me with new wrong information after new wrong information that's not relevant for the edits in question and I'm not willing to provide for unfounded assertions anymore. You want to make a serious case? provide sources, for example "If some Romanians from 2,8 million vote for Romania in a not secrect vote, what is this? A theater", do you have any source for that? if not, my automatic response is "I don't believe you". TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 13:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
And Hungary was administred by Austria, money and military was under Austrian control and nobody calculate the population rate of Hungarians by full Austria-Hungary. This is not my opinion. Already on the page:
"of the entire population of the kingdom, and 54% of the population of the territory referred to as "Hungary proper", i.e. excluding Croatia-Slavonia." "Hungary proper" = original Hungarian land
You argue againts contemporary real events which is on the page, the Teleki map was provided by officially by Hungary to the Entente to show the Hungarian population. Croatia had almost no Hungarian population and was a partner country.
"Unanimous vote" This is already on the Wiki page with a picture below! How many times do you want to post it? Not the "Unanimous vote" of some Romanians decided the Treaty in Paris but the leaders of the Great Power. Definitely not 2,8 million Romanians "voted", also you did not know what do they want one by one each person, because nobody asked them, it was no referendum. Unnecessary to duplicate this one-sided thing. OrionNimrod ( talk) 16:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
"And Hungary was administred by Austria, money and military was under Austrian control", this doesn't exclude the fact that Croatia was under the administration of Hungary.
"nobody calculate the population rate of Hungarians by full Austria-Hungary", actually they did. But what is relevant here is that people also calculated the population rate of Hungary by including Croatia.
"Hungary proper = original Hungarian land" still doesn't exclude what was said above.
"You argue againts contemporary real events which is on the page, the Teleki map was provided by officially by Hungary to the Entente to show the Hungarian population. Croatia had almost no Hungarian population and was a partner country" I'm argue in favor of what actual historians say. We already talked about the map, my response is the same as above.
"This is already on the Wiki page with a picture below! How many times do you want to post it?" remember when I said this "I already answered the same question you 4 times, do you think the 5th time is the charm and I'm going to give you a different answer?", yeah, it's still true. I already gave you an answer, that you don't want to accept the answer and keep repeating the same thing that was already answered again and again in not my issue.
"Not the "Unanimous vote" of some Romanians decided the Treaty in Paris but the leaders of the Great Power", why do you keep saying things that I already answered above? Do you think my answer will change? At least, if you want to make a proper reply, address my answer, don't repeat back what you just said. I might as well copy-paste my answers at this point. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 16:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The Romanian assembly is already on the page with picture, but I see for you it is not a problem to duplicate it and beside ignore the Hungarian assembly.
Croatia had its own adiminstration and Hungary had its own administration. Croatians and Hungarians did the same compromise like Austrians did with the Hungarians. As you can see in the Wiki page nobody calculate the proportion of Hungarians regarding full Austria-Hungary regarding the Treaty of Trianon, because Hungary had own land, and Croatia had own land. And Hungarian and Croatian land was under the rule of the Hungarian crown, and the Hungarian crown was under the rule of the Austrian emperor.
I see nobody calculated the proportion of Austrians together in the empire, and we can see the listing the regions which lost Austria, these regions was a separate regions which was under the Austrian Crown: Land of the Bohemian Crown, Kingdom of Galicia, etc
Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919)
Kingdom of Hungary = Hungary + Croatia
Croatian–Hungarian Settlement
On the page: "The Settlement confirmed the existing territorial distinction between Croatia-Slavonia, number 17, and the remainder of the Kingdom of Hungary. Dalmatia, number 5, was the other Croatian kingdom within Austria-Hungary."
Croatian–Hungarian Settlement#/media/File:Austria-Hungary map new.svg
Do you deny the existing of Kingdom of Croatia? Do you want talk to Croatian users?
Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia: 1868–1918
Hungarian politicians provided the ethnic map which showed the Hungarians lands only, and Croatia was not considered Hungarian land. Do you want to know this better than the contemporary politicians who lived there and participated in the Treaty? Do you deny these maps what I provided which cleary show that Hungary and Croatia is a separate land?
Treaty of Trianon#/media/File:Ethnographic map of hungary 1910 by teleki carte rouge.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Austria-Hungary_map.svg
  • Empire of Austria (Cisleithania): 1. Bohemia, 2. Bukovina, 3. Carinthia, 4. Carniola, 5. Dalmatia, 6. Galicia, 7. Küstenland, 8. Lower Austria, 9. Moravia, 10. Salzburg, 11. Silesia, 12. Styria, 13. Tyrol, 14. Upper Austria, 15. Vorarlberg;
  • Kingdom of Hungary (Transleithania): 16. Hungary 17. Croatia-Slavonia;
  • Austrian Condominium: 18. Bosnia and Herzegovin
OrionNimrod ( talk) 13:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I see you are simply ignoring what I said previously and simply repeat the same things I already gave you an answer from. Unless you are willing to actually address my answer rather than repeat what you previously said, there is nothing I can do. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 14:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I see you are who ignore that Croatia was a separate state and you are who ignore the contemporary map and the thinking of contemporary politicans. OrionNimrod ( talk) 14:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
You made a claim. I gave you an answer. You ignored my answer and simply reinforced your claim. So who is ignoring who? You have yet to address any of the reasons I had for objection. And yes, I'm long aware of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, doesn't change anything. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 14:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
If you are aware Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, then you should know Hungarian mainland was a different land as the maps shows above, and it is incorrect to calculate the proportion of Hungarians together. And talking about "30 millio Hungarians by a noname people" total irrevelant info. OrionNimrod ( talk) 14:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Plenty of historians did just that, that's how we got the 48% number, and I tend to believe the opinion of a certified historian over your own personal opinion. And, as said above but 100% ignored by you, in Croatia, "the governor (ban) was still appointed by Hungary, 55% percent of all tax money went to Budapest, and Hungary had authority over the biggest sea port of Rijeka" (from Wikipedia). Croatia was under the administration of Hungary. Therefore it makes sense to include Croatia in the Hungarian census. I believe this is the reason why plenty of historians did count Croatia as part of Hungary. It was at the end of the day, still a territory ruled by Hungary.
Also, you are wrong that "I see nobody calculated the proportion of Austrians together in the empire" it's just not relevant for the Treaty of Trianon (since the treaty was made only with Hungary, not with Austria-Hungary) so it wasn't included here. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 15:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
/info/en/?search=Ethnic_and_religious_composition_of_Austria-Hungary see? Somebody calculated the proportion of Austrians together in the empire. 23% German, 19% Hungarian, 12% Czech, 10% Serbo-Croatian, 9% Polish, 7% Ruthenian, 6% Romanian, 3% Slovak, 2% Slovene, 1% Italian, 2% Other.
And the page says, quote:
"In the Austrian Empire (Cisleithania), the census of 1911 recorded Umgangssprache, everyday language. Jews and those using German in offices often stated German as their Umgangssprache, even when having a different Muttersprache. The Istro-Romanians were counted as Romanians.
In the Kingdom of Hungary (Transleithania), the census was based primarily on mother tongue, [8] [9] 48.1% of the total population spoke Hungarian as their native language. Not counting autonomous Croatia-Slavonia, more than 54.4% of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Hungary were native speakers of Hungarian. This included also the Jews (around 5% of the population), as mostly they were Hungarian-speaking (the Yiddish speakers were recorded as German). [10] [11]"
So, as you can see, the 48% of the total population of Hungary is also mentioned by other sources. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 15:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I think the original authors and people who participated in this Treaty know better than historians who lived later. Also if historians provide population data, it should be correct to mention "together with Croatia" and the "proportion of Hungarians in the Hungarian part". Historians should provide precise numbers.
I see the calculation of this page is correct, Hungary and Croatia are in separate. 54% Hungarian on Hungarian land, which means "saying less than half" is incorrect, 20% also less than half. And the page mention 48% together with Croatia, but your historians did not povide any precise info. Sorry I forget: your "important" source mention "30 millio Hungarians" :) which is nonsense and total irrevelant. Probably this is not the best quote from this historian.
Ethnic and religious composition of Austria-Hungary
On the "Hungarian irredentism" page you are worring about the accurate numbers, you worte "I simply do not find it accurate to use the 1941 census to represent the state of Northern Transylvania in 1940.", I see in this case you have not a problem to calculate 2 countries together to decrease the proportion of Hungarians, however Croatia and Hungary was a separate country, but in personal union, like Hungary was personal union with Austria.
Do you deny the text of the Treaty of Trianon?
The text mention only few times Croatia, and as a separte country, and no more mention. Because the Treaty of Trianon was applied on the Hungarian land and not together Croatia+Hungary.
The text of the Treaty of Trianon said that Croatia and Hungary was a separate country:
"the old administrative boundary between Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia"
"then to its junction with the old boundary between Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia"
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon/Part_II
"and which formerly belonged to the Kingdom of Bohemia, the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Republic of Ragusa, the Venetian Republic,"
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon/Part_IX OrionNimrod ( talk) 15:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
"I think the original authors and people who participated in this Treaty know better than historians who lived later" Wikipedia doesn't work like that. The word of modern historians take precedence over the word of contemporaries, because they can put them into the proper context.
Fair point, proper numbers should be listed, perhaps we can put an anecdote saying "48.1% with the Kingdom of Croatia, 54.4% without the Kingdom of Croatia" would that be okay for you?
Given that Croatia was actually an autonomus region of Hungary (as far as Austria-Hungary was concerned, Croatia was in the Hungarian half), I would argue saying "less than half" is correct.
It is not non-sense, it is what Hungarian propagandist aimed for. Just like Nazi Germany wanted a Europe full of Germans, Hungarians wanted a Hungary full of Hungarians (rather than 48.1/54.4% of the population) with a population of 30 million people. I have seen this claim from other sources as well.
In effect, Croatia was an autonomus region of Hungary, rather than in a personal union with Hungary. On paper it was a personal union, but it not behave like a country in a personal union. Rather like a country subordonate to Hungary.
And on the "Hungarian irredentism" page, I kept your 1941 census, despite not making any sense since we already have the Romanian estimations of 1940 (37% Hungarians) and Hungarian estimations of 1940 (38% Hungarians), and the reason it got from 37-38% Hungarians in 1941 to 53% Hungarians in 1941 is simple: 100.000 Hungarians came in from South Transylvania. 100.000 (officially) but 140.000 - 150.000 (unofficially) Romanians were kicked out of North Transylvania + the deportation of Jews meant the percentage would increase + In Máramaros and Szatmár Counties, dozens of settlements had many people who had declared themselves as Romanian but now identified themselves as Hungarian although they had not spoken any Hungarian even in 1910. So your listing of Hungarian numbers in 1941 for the 1940 annexation makes no sense, but I allowed it just to humor you, as long as the relevant numbers are also displayed. So you're welcome.
I don't deny the text of the Treaty of Trianon. But this is a perfect example why "Wikipedia doesn't work like that. The word of modern historians take precedence over the word of contemporaries, because they can put them into the proper context". Croatia already had its own thing by the time of the Treaty of Trianon, that was indepednent of Hungary and not caused by the Hungarians. At the point of the treaty of Trianon, Croatia and Hungary was a separate country, but shortly before that, it wasn't. The reason minorities wanted out of Hungary, is related to the time when it wasn't.
"the old administrative boundary between Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia" ; "then to its junction with the old boundary between Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia" -> In free translation "Hungary won't get to own Croatia anymore" aka "Hungary lost Croatia". So Croatia was already understood as part of Hungary previously. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 20:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
If modern historians write something, this does not mean automatically that info is correct. Morover your "important" quote is OLDER THAN 50 YEARS (the book is from 1971 where there is a collection from many authors, so your source probably is more older than 1971), this is CLEARLY NOT A MODERN historian work. Please consider this fact, if you emphasized how works Wikipedia. The authors says " in Hungary was that less than half of the population were ethnically Hungarian" and he did not say together with Croatia or "Kingdom of Hungary" but just Hungary, and Croatia and Hungary was a separate state (but under one crown) as we can see clearly itselft in the original treaty. And the page is about the Treaty of Trianon. Your author says "the rights of the nationalities were violated continuously by the Hungarian government. Their schools were closed and confiscated; their protests were suppressed by the police; their leaders wereary", if Croatia had a separate administration, Croatia has own leaders, and Croatian schools were closed by a different administration? How? How many Croatian schools were closed by Hungarians? Your text cleary do not talk about Croatia, if your text do not talk about Croatia it is incorrect to calculate the population of Hungarians together with the population of Croatia.
"It is not non-sense, it is what Hungarian propagandist aimed for. Just like Nazi Germany wanted a Europe full of Germans, " Total off topic talking about WW2 and Nazis, we can also mention the Romanian living space planes and the reality how Romania romanianized and suppressed their ethnic groups after Romania became super big from a small state, but this is also off topic. Nobody know who is your "Hungarian propagandists", Hungary had around 10 million people and talking about 30 million is total nonsense, morover total irrevelant what a noname people said, what is the bussiness with this with the page of the Treaty of Trianon? Like a spam.
"In effect, Croatia was an autonomus region of Hungary, rather than in a personal union with Hungary. On paper it was a personal union, but it not behave like a country in a personal union." This is your personal opinion. You can consult Croatians, why you deny the existence of their country.
Following your personal opinion, I see you deny those Wiki pages too:
Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia
Croatia in personal union with Hungary
Croatian–Hungarian Settlement
This map from 1880: we can cleary see the separate border between Hungary and Croatia: (By the way, you mentioned you do not accept these contemporary sources, because today, in 2022 you know better this, than the contemporary Croatians and Hungarians, and the makers of the Treaty of Trianon)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Literacy_in_Austria-Hungary_%281880%29.JPG
https://www.mapsandantiqueprints.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Austro-Hungarian-Empire-antique-map.jpg
map 1895:
https://www.amazon.com/MAPS-PAST-Austria-Hungary-McNally/dp/B0728MBJD9?th=1
You wrote an off topic again: "100.000 Hungarians came in from South Transylvania. 100.000 (officially) but 140.000 - 150.000 (unofficially) Romanians were kicked out of North Transylvania + the deportation of Jews meant the percentage would increase" If Romanians were "kicked out" by your standard, the Hungarians also were "kicked out" who came from south Transylvania which was under Romanian control. Also you can mention that 200 000 Hungarians fled to Hungary after the Treaty of Trianon from the Romanians.
(Off topic again) Jews was deported only after 1944 when the Germans took control on Hungary and not in 1940:
History of the Jews in Hungary
While Romania already massacred Jews in 1941 whitout German help:
Iași pogrom OrionNimrod ( talk) 08:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
"If modern historians write something, this does not mean automatically that info is correct", true, but given how Wikipedia works. If historians write something, it can be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Our function is editors, not researchers to tell what is right and wrong.
"The authors says in Hungary was that less than half of the population were ethnically Hungarian and he did not say together with Croatia or Kingdom of Hungary but just Hungary", which is technically correct given that Croatia was de facto an autonomus region of Hungary.
"Croatia had a separate administration, Croatia has own leaders, and Croatian schools were closed by a different administration? How? How many Croatian schools were closed by Hungarians?" Croatia was an autonomus region within Hungary.
"Total off topic talking about WW2 and Nazis" it's called comparison.
"Hungary had around 10 million people and talking about 30 million is total nonsense, morover total irrevelant what a noname people said, what is the bussiness with this with the page of the Treaty of Trianon? Like a spam" 1. This is wrong. 2. I already answered that before. I've done this before but I won't repeat myself anymore just because you can't read. From now on, if you repeat a question I've already answered, I'll simply tell you that I already answered that before. It's much more efficient than having you spam the same question again and again and again expecting a different answer.
"This is your personal opinion. You can consult Croatians, why you deny the existence of their country." My god, do you not see the double standards? All your "arguments" were personal opinion, all of them, and the vast majority of your personal opinion is wrong. But when I make a case that Croatians were de facto an autonomus part of Hungary because "the governor (ban) was still appointed by Hungary, 55% percent of all tax money went to Budapest, and Hungary had authority over the biggest sea port of Rijeka", you're all like, "this is your personal opinion. The double standards are off the roof.
It's not about consulting Croatians, it's about consulting historians. For that, look at the quote above with the governor (ban).
The very problem with your claim that a certified historian is wrong, is that this is your personal opinion. The reason we have this discussion in the first place is because of your personal opinion.
I don't deny the existence of their country but nice fallacy.
"This map from 1880: we can cleary see the separate border between Hungary and Croatia" nice fallcy, that doesn't prove anything.
"you mentioned you do not accept these contemporary sources" I didn't, nice fallacy again.
"You wrote an off topic again" how is that off-topic?
"(Off topic again) Jews was deported only after 1944 when the Germans took control on Hungary and not in 1940" false. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 14:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I see in other page you know very well which numbers can be correct if this info is pro-Romanian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hungarian_irredentism&diff=next&oldid=1094422779
Your quoted historian is clearly not a modern historian, more than 50 years old source.
"Croatia was de facto an autonomus region of Hungary" Again you deny the facts. They were in personal union. And no Croatian schools were closen by Hungary and no Croatian politicians were suppressed by Hungarian police, because Croatia has own police. So your author cleary do not talk about the Croatian part of the Kingdom. It means calculating the population together is total incorrect.
You can consult the authors of these pages, tell them you know it better and request the delete of these pages:
Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia
Croatia in personal union with Hungary
Croatian–Hungarian Settlement
This is not my problem if you deny the contemporary old maps, which clearly show Croatia and Hungary had border as a separate country.
I see for you is ok to put to the page with 50+ years non modern sources with off topic.
I do not know from where do you get the tax info. Hungary had Fiume (Rijeka), it was part of Hungary not part of Croatia. The Treaty text itself deal with this city, because this city was part of Hungary not part of Croatia, and it had significant Hungarian population. By order of Empress Maria Theresa in 1779, the city was annexed to the Kingdom of Hungary and governed as corpus separatum directly from Budapest by an appointed governor, as Hungary's only international port. You know 1 city is not full Croatia.
Rijeka OrionNimrod ( talk) 16:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
It's not my fault you don't understand that the word of modern historians take precedence over the word of contemporaries, because they can put them into the proper context.
We already had this conversation, not going to give you the same answer for the 7th time.
I get the tax info from Wikipedia, even gave you the link for it. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 18:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Good to know that 50+ years quote is "modern" for you... "proper text" he calculates together Hungary+Croatia, then he talked about only Hungary, this is incorrect. I do not know the other works of that historian, but you choose not the best quotes from him. You did not provide me any tax info, no tax info even in your quote, this is also off topic. Your strategy to spam the conversation with off topics and deny the contemporary reality. OrionNimrod ( talk) 19:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes, it is. Yes, he does. No, that is correct. That is your personal opinion. Yes I did provide, more than once, this only confirms the fact that you often plainly ignored what I said and simply repeated yourself. My strategy was to be nice to you and explain it to you despite your apparent lack of knowledge, but your strategy was to not even listen and ask the same question/make the same statements continously despite already receiving an answer on them. You won't even discuss the answer, you just repeat yourself. You're the last person who should be talking about off-topic. Your wrong personal opinion is not reality. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 21:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I provided facts, links, maps, other Wiki pages, while you are who ignore them, and just forcing personal opinions. Croatia and Hungary was in personal union, this is fact, this is not my personal opinion, this is the knowledge of Croatians and Hungarians as you can see this fact on other Wiki pages, but even if you say it was "autonomous region", it means Croatia has own parliament, own police, the Hungarian police has no authority there, while your "modern" quote says "Hungarian police harrased the ethnic politicians", but this is impossibe in Croatia in the "autonomous region" (by your standard), so this statement is not true, despite your quote calculates the population together Hungary+Croatia. That is why this calculation is incorrect and not at all modern work (50+years), but you ignore this fact also. OrionNimrod ( talk) 08:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
No, you did not, you provided links to Wikipedia pages that don't even agree with you. That's as vague and misleading as you can get. Talking about forcing personal opinions, you should look in the mirror. I did not ignore any of your facts, I simply disagree. Either because I find them wrong or irrelevant. "Hungarian police harrased the ethnic politicians" meaning Slovaks, Romanians, Serbs. He didn't say "Croatians" so your statement that "this is impossibe in Croatia" is outright misleading and made in bad faith. That was the reason why this calculation is incorrect? misleading and bad faith argument made by you? That can be easily dismissed. As I told you since day 1, the word of modern historians take precedence over the word of contemporaries and your personal opinion. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 11:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Your historian is not MODERN. Your historian calculate the Hungarians+Croatians together. Then he write stories about the ethnics in Hungary, and in these stories Croatia and Croatians is not involved due to the different administration, so it is incorrect to calculate together relating these stories. And still there were many thousand ethnic school in Hungary, your quote pretent that all was closed. Wiki pages clearly writes the personal union, so these pages agree with me. OrionNimrod ( talk) 12:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
1971 is considered modern. And you can't blame it on "Romanian communism" since Joseph Held wasn't Romanian nor was he living in communist Romania. Yes, he did the Hungarians+Croatians together, and the reasons for this are explained above. That you would have prefered Joseph Held not doing that is personal opinion. If you wouldn't haven't ignored the part where I explained it to you, you would have realised the administrations of Hungary and Croatia weren't entirely different. The Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was subordonated to the Kingdom of Hungary, not merely a personal union but administrated by Hungary with a degree of personal autonomy, so his statement is not incorrect since Croatia was de facto part of Hungary.
"Wiki pages clearly writes the personal union, so these pages agree with me", what? I never said it wasn't a personal union, I said it was a personal union and more than that. It's that part with and more than that (which I explained how that more than that worked in practice with a quote from Wikipedia that you ignored) that makes his writing accurate. As for the schools, remember the 3 quotes you failed to provide a direct response on from the Magyarization Wikipedia page? Here I'll refresh your memory: "The Hungarian secondary school is like a huge machine, at one end of which the Slovak youths are thrown in by the hundreds, and at the other end of which they come out as Magyars", "In practice, the majority of students in commune-funded schools who were native speakers of minority languages were instructed exclusively in Hungarian", "Beginning with the 1879 Primary Education Act and the 1883 Secondary Education Act, the Hungarian state made more efforts to reduce the use of non-Magyar languages, in strong violation of the 1868 Nationalities Law". Until you stop repating yourself and start addressing what are the actual issues with your assertions, there's no way this conversation can go forward. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 13:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
1971 is not modern, 50+ years how can be modern??? Do you know which cars and computers were that time? Are they modern for you? So do you say the Hungarian police harrased Croatian politicians and Croatian people in Croatia? And Hungary closed Croatian schools in Croatia? In a different administered region? These things are not true. That is why it is incorrect to calculate the populations together if the next part of the text not the events which was in Croatia. "The Hungarian secondary school is like a huge machine, at one end of which the Slovak youths are thrown in by the hundreds, and at the other end of which they come out as Magyars" This is typical propaganda, if you quote from other wiki page, it does not mean that page is correct. If a Slovak people has a Slovak mother language, speak Slovak at home, speak Slovak in the basic school, then how can be Magyar if he do not want be Magyar? If a Hungarian young people go to an English secondary school where the teaching is English, then he will be English man? I do not think so. We are talking English, so we became English? Nonsense. Your text pretended that all ethnic school were closed, but this is not true, it was thousand of ethnic schools. Even in Hungary it was more Romanian school than in Romania itself, we can mention this info also to be fair. And also the ethnic situation in Romania was much worst at that time than in Hungary. OrionNimrod ( talk) 14:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
That's not how modern works. No, I don't say that. But I do say that the point you are trying to make is completely off the grid. Whether or not Hungarian police harrased Croatian politicians and Croatian people in Croatia is irrelevant, whether that happened or not it doesn't contradict what I said above, so your point si simply off-topic and irrelevant. It is a quote from the adviser of the Hungarian prime minister between 1875 - 1890. Ok, so you doubt the vaidity of that quote as well now. And proper reasons why? Slovak mother language and Slovak at home is not something Hungarians could control (but they would have if they could), the Slovak in the basic school is incorrect if you look at the 2nd quote (you didn't address at all the 2nd and 3rd quotes). TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 15:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
What the quote you disagree with because "incorrect information" and the Wikipedia Magyarization page both are saying is that minorities made schools for themselves in their own langauges (so they did exist) but the Hungarian government tried to stop them, either by making learning in Hungarian mandatory in all of these schools (breaking the whole point of a minoritiy school) or by simply closing these schools, violating the Nationalities Law of 1868 (so they did have laws, but didn't respect them). At this point, we have a quote that you disagree with because "incorrect information" that is confirmed by 2 other Wikipedia pages /info/en/?search=Magyarization and /info/en/?search=Ethnic_and_religious_composition_of_Austria-Hungary. So the issue is not that this is "incorrect information", the issue is that you have a personal opinion that is simply wrong. And please, don't try to strawman me again with things like "So do you say the Hungarian police harrased Croatian politicians and Croatian people in Croatia?", at this point, I offered you multiple sources for the same thing, while you offered no sources, all you have is personal opinion, OR, so I'm not even obligated to answer you anymore, but I'm still doing it because I want to help you understand it. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 19:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
You can try to force this, but 1971 is not modern (but you say it is modern history work). Soon it will be 2023, then 2024... Magyarization in this page is almost nothing about Croatia, and your source say "Hungarian police harrased ethnic politicians, their shcools were closed"... your text do not talk about Croatia, of course not because it was under different administration. And if you text do not talk about Croatia, it is incorrect to calculate the Croatian population together with other ethnics in the previous sentence to pretend that Crotians got the same "treatment" (which was much better than in Romania, and other countries at that time), however it is not true. I already showed many sources here above, please do not deny it! Scroll up. OrionNimrod ( talk) 11:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC) reply
You can try to force this, but 1971 is modern. I literally quoted you which part about the Magyarization page and Ethnic and Religious Compositions of Austria-Hungary are relevant. This is correct to calculate the Croatian population for the reasons mentioned above. There is nothing to deny, you showed many sources..... that contradict you. You brought attention on the Magyarization page, only to find out that it actually contradicts you after reading it. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 22:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Adrian Severin; Sabin Gherman; Ildiko Lipcsey (2006). Romania and Transylvania in the 20th Century. Corvinus Publications. p. 24. ISBN  9781882785155.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Britannica2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "The Encyclopedia Americana". Americana Corporation. 6 April 1968 – via Google Books.
  4. ^ Jonathan Dewald, Europe 1450 to 1789: encyclopedia of the early modern world, Charles Scribner's Sons, 2004, p. 230 [1]
  5. ^ József Kovacsics, Population history of Hungary mirrored by the conference-series (896-1870) (Magyarország népességtörténete a konferenciasorozat tükrésben (896-1870)), In: Demographia, 1996 - VOLUME 39, NUMBER 2-3, p. 145-165
  6. ^ Arthur J. Sabin, Red Scare in Court: New York Versus the International Workers Order, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999, p. 4 [2]
  7. ^ Árpád Varga. "Hungarians in Transylvania between 1870 and 1995".
  8. ^ "Magyarország népessége".
  9. ^ "1910. ÉVI NÉPSZÁMLÁLÁS 1. A népesség főbb adatai községek és népesebb puszták, telepek szerint (1912) | Könyvtár | Hungaricana".
  10. ^ "N psz ml l sok Erd ly ter let n 1850 s 1910 k z tt". www.bibl.u-szeged.hu. Archived from the original on 2019-02-07.
  11. ^ A. J. P. Taylor, The Habsburg Monarchy 1809–1918, 1948.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Events leading to World War II

I think that the Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine should be added to the list under number, because only it is omitted from all the peace treaties. In addition, I think of another event that directly affects the start of the second world war - the assassination attempt in Marseille on October 9, 1934. 212.75.27.213 ( talk) 07:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Refusal of US to Ratify the Treaty Feels Hidden Behind Easy-to-Miss Note in the Lead, Buried in Text, Despite Being Important Fact and Part of Article

I was reading this article and was very surprised to find that there was no explicit mention in the lead of the fact that the US failed to ratify the treaty and negotiated a separate treaty with Hungary.

Instead, this major fact is relegated to a minuscule superscripted note, which most users will quickly gloss over as just one of several references on the page (given the identical styling, if they are not intimately familiar with the quirks and stylings of Wikipedia). I would think this fact at least deserves a sentence in the lead, such as "It formally ended World War I between most of the Allies of World War I and the Kingdom of Hungary. Despite its important role in fighting and negotiating an end to the war, the United States ultimately failed to ratify the treaty, instead negotiating the U.S.–Hungarian Peace Treaty (1921) separately.", or if not a full sentence, than just extracting the note out into a simple clause following that sentence, something like "It formally ended World War I between most of the Allies of World War I and the Kingdom of Hungary, with the notable exception of the United States, which negotiated the U.S.–Hungarian Peace Treaty separately."—with the appropriate terms linked, obviously.

This fact is then only mentioned in the very last sentence of section 1.3, buried in the main text of the article.

Unearthing this important fact about the treaty from its current buried position would clear up what may seem like a mystery to readers unfamiliar with the subject, and provide an opportunity to place a cross link to a closely related treaty directly in the lead of the article, facilitating ease of navigation and discovery/learning.

Edit: Just to add to this, one reason I feel it is important to bring out this fact in the lead is because the US, and organizations in the US, were actually quite involved in how the Treaty of Trianon developed, so it is therefore notable that the country itself failed to ratify the treaty. For more on what I mean, see:

Csutak, Zsolt (2021-03-08). "The Role of the United States in Hungary's Trianon Tragedy". Hungarian Review. 12 (1). Archived from the original on 2023-06-05. Retrieved 2023-12-05.
Pastor, Peter (2014). "The United States' Role in the Shaping of the Peace Treaty of Trianon". The Historian. 76 (3): 550–566. JSTOR  24456554. Retrieved 2023-12-05.

Best,

Hermes Thrice Great ( talk) 11:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply

My understanding is that the US were actively involved in the Treaty of Trianon, a party to it and a signatory [6]. However, for domestic reasons, they were unable to ratify it (relating I think to the League of Nations stuff in the treaty, an organisation that the US never joined) and came back with a modified version of it, with the offending stuff removed. Probably we ought to have something more prominent about the non-ratification, as long we make it clear that they we're an active party to this treaty, otherwise we might go the other way, making people think that the US had little or nothing to do with the Treaty of Trianon. Nigej ( talk) 12:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Treaty_of_Trianon&oldid=1207577963"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Number of Hungarians that moved back to Hungary - clarification needed

About this edit [3], I have reverted it because I have read this Hungarian-Slovak population exchanges where it stated in second paragraph The Czechoslovak government planned the removal of 25,0000[17][29] Hungarian people from South Slovakia to Hungary,[17] but 44,129[17]-45,475[30] – generally well-to-do businessmen, tradesmen, farmers and intellectuals[25] - which contains 2 references that the number is between 44,129-45,475 and not 100 000+. Since there are 2 references that say one thing and 1 recently added that says another, I added clarification needed tag at that claim until it is clarified. Adrian ( talk) 10:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply

It says 250,000 (not 25,0000). We should demonstrate other sources as well (especially from demographers as Kocsis's book). Fakirbakir ( talk) 10:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Yes, it says that the Czechoslovak government planed the exchange of 250 000 Hungarians, but according to this 44,129-45,475 is what it really exchanged. It is according to this source 1, page 29. Also the source you presented states that 120 000 of Hungarians fled or were deported. Is it reliable to say that all 120 000 were moved by force? Which is the real number that simply moved ? Adrian ( talk) 10:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
The Slovak number is totally unsourced thus we should remove it as well. I have refined the sentence according to the source. Fakirbakir ( talk) 10:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
This change is really confusing, this source states that 44,129-45,475 were moved from south Slovakia, not Czech republic. Currenlt this is the wrong representation of sources in the article. Adrian ( talk) 11:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
I don`t know, I believe that the best solution is to add these sources and simply say many Hungarians(as it was until Szeget`s change) at this article and at the Hungarian-Slovak population exchanges leave it as per your last change. There is a clear difference between sources to leave it as per your last change (100 000+) and totally disregard the second source. Adrian ( talk) 10:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
I inserted other estimations, however I left the numbers because the previous sentences operated with numbers. Fakirbakir ( talk) 11:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
Ok. Adrian ( talk) 11:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply

World War II

In the introduction and in the main text are sections about border changes before/during/after World War II. Surely this is not relevant to this article. Suggest replacing with a simple remark to the effect that the current borders match those of the Treaty except for the loss of the 3 villages to Czechoslovakia in 1947. Nigej 16:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hungary became an entirely "new state" after the Word War I?

Kingdom of Hungary was reestablished on 01/03/1920. This "new" Kingdom of Hungary accepted the Treaty of Trianon. Prior to Trianon, Soviet Hungary or the First Hungarian Republic or the "new" Kingdom of Hungary possessed the rights in connection with the territory of the "old" Kingdom of Hungary 'officially' (until 04/06/1920), however in the reality they could not validate those. Hungary was not a new state. It became entirely independent, but it was not new, the "old" Kingdom of Hungary was the predecessor. (more accurately Soviet Hungary for the 'new' Kingdom of Hungary) Fakirbakir ( talk) 20:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Recent edits

I reverted edits of user:HangingCurve because of clear POV nature of such edits. Claim that "The Allies not only assumed without question that the minority peoples of the pre-war Kingdom of Hungary wished to leave" is absolutely POV and unacceptable. Where is evidence that these peoples "did not wished to leave pre-war Kingdom of Hungary"? Also, claim that Hungary "lost almost three-fourths of their country's territory" is not accurate: firstly, that territory was mainly inhabited by Indo-European peoples whom saw separation from Hungary as their liberation. Second, pre-war Kingdom of Hungary is legally not same country as post-war Hungary. Pre-war kingdom was not independent country, but part of the Habsburg Monarchy. The treaty does not contain a single word that says that something was "taken" from Hungary. On the contrary, Treaty clearly claims that Romania, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia are successor states of pre-war Kingdom of Hungary, together with post-war Hungary and it defining borders of post-war Hungary as borders of an new independent country. PANONIAN 23:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Agree. Indeed the whole article tends to read like Hungarian nationalist propoganda, which is perhaps not surprising, but somewhat disappointing. Nigej 08:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You agree? That must prove it to be 'true' then. Just goes to show that if something, no matter how inaccurate or incorrect, is stated often enough, it will eventually be accepted as fact. Read into that what you will. 203.161.145.42 ( talk) 09:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Recent edit war on talk page

Please note that this is an article about The Treaty of Trianon. Nothing else. Nigej 11:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

But some people write comments about Aryan theories (scientifically (genetically and historically) obsolete linguistic-based belief-system from 17-18th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.153.160 ( talk) 11:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC) reply


The existence of ethnic/minority rights were unique in pre-WW1 Europe

The article did not mention that minority rights and laws were existed only in Austria and Hungary in pre-WW1 Europe! The first minority rights were invented firstly in Hungary in Europe in July 1849! But these were overturned after the Russian and Austrian armies crushed the Hungarian Revolution. When Hungary made a compromise with the dynasty in 1867 one of the first acts of the restored Parliament was to pass a Law on Nationalities (Act Number XLIV of 1868).


The situation of minorities in Hungary were much more better than in contemporary Western Europe. Other highly multinational countries were: France Russia and UK.


See the multi-national UK:

The situation of Scottish Irish Welsh people in "Britain" during the English hegemony is well known. They utmost forgot their original language, only english language cultural educational institutions existed. The only language was English in judiciary procedures and in offices and public administrations. It was not a real "United" Kingdom, it was rather a greater England.


See the multiethnic France:

In 1870, France was a similar-degree multi-ethnic state as Hungary, only 50% of the population of France spoke the French language as mothertongue. The other half of the population spoke Occitan, Catalan, Corsican, Alsatian, West Flemish, Lorraine Franconian, Gallo, Picard or Ch’timi and Arpitan etc... Many minority languages were closer to spanish or Italian language than French) French governments banned minority language schools , minority language newspapers minority theaters. They banned the usage of minority languages in offices , public adimistration, and judiciary procedures. The ratio of french mothertongue increased from 50% to 91% during the 1870-1910 period!!!


What about Russia?

Russian Empire was a similar multiethnic state as Hungary, without the existence of minority rights. The forced russification is also well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.36.77.20 ( talk) 09:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply

If you haven't noticed the article is about The Treaty of Trianon, not the status of minorities in late 19th century Europe. Nigej 09:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The article may not per se be about the status of European minorities in the nineteenth century, but these points (if established to be true) provide an apposite background for dispelling the myth of ‘magyarisation’ as mentioned in Criticism of the 1910 census. As ‘magyarisation’ was one of the main arguments the proponents of the Treaty used to support their case, these points by extension highlight the flimsy nature of this argument and the dire lack of any moral or legal validity of the Treaty. In this context the points are appropriate as they help to establish the fact the Treaty was a grab-bag of claims that was simply a case of victorious governments (and their allies) using their advantageous positions to unfairly claim the territory of a defeated and weakened nation. Let’s call Trianon what it was and not try to have it masquerade as some sort of fair and valid decree. If it is accepted that this is not a POV it therefore becomes suitable to include in an article such as this. Hunor-Koppany ( talk) 06:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC) reply
Your reply simply shows the problem with opening up such topics. We get into the same argument again and again, getting nowhere, convincing no-one. Each side stressing their side of the argument. All completely pointless. We could equally have a section on how a small Hungarian elite maintained power in Hungary (eg. lack of Secret ballot) and the resentment that caused). BUT I don't want to start that discussion either. My point is simply that if we include these somewhat peripheral topics here, we'll never get anywhere with this article. It's already a rag-bag of attempts by extremists on both side to push their POV. My mark for the article is 1 (fail). Nigej 09:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


@Nigej See the article about the British election system before WW1! There were no secret ballots in Britain before WW1, and there were universal suffrage after the WW1. And learn about balkan countries: Serbia Romania etc.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.3.81 ( talk) 17:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure what your point is but I would no more claim that 19th century UK enjoyed a democratic Golden age than I would claim such for Greater Hungary. MY point simply relates to a Wikipedia article. Taking the UK theme: take a look at the Anglo-Irish Treaty article under which the UK "lost" the Irish Free State (now called the Republic of Ireland) in 1922. The article is quite formal with only a small amount of space given to pre and post-partition issues. The Troubles are in a separate article. I am simply suggesting a similar approach here. (By the way secret ballots were actually made compulsory in the UK in 1872. Universal MALE suffrage (age 21) arrived in the UK in 1918 (excluding Lords, lunatics, prisoners and conscientious objectors) and for all women in 1928.) Nigej 18:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, I must repeat: learn the details of the history of British election system, there weren't general suffrage and secret ballots in Britain before WW1. The system of universal suffrage did not exist in the United Kingdom until 1928 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_Kingdom#History

I'm confused now. The page you quote quite clearly says "The Ballot Act 1872 replaced open elections with secret ballot system." (poor English, by the way) WW1 was 1914-1918, so secret ballots came in 42 years before WW1. I think you'll also find that I said 1928 too. Nigej 09:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary did not exist after WW1, therefore your examples in post WW1 Europe are not accurate. Your Irish example is not accurate too.

My example was simply an example of a Wikipedia article about a treaty at about the same time. Nothing more than that. No others parallels were intended. Nigej

The people's self determination idea of president Wilson did not happend in Kingdom of Hungary, because: The successor states protested against the helding of democratic referendums (universal suffrge secret ballots) about the disputed areas and borders. (perhabs the leader elite of the successor states did not trust in their own ethnic groups???)

There was only 1 democratic plebiscite about the borders (with general suffrage and secret ballots) in city of Sopron and its sorriunding 8 villages in North - Western Hungary in 1921. (Where every polling stations were under the controll and leadership of Entente army-officers) The treaty did not based on the people' will, therefore the Treaty hadn't legitimacy behind it. The decision-making of Paris treaties were remindful of early-modern era primitive Peace of Westphalia, rather than a modern 20th century democratic decision.

This whole discussion rather proves my point. Nigej 09:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No Nigej, read it again and again if it is necessary. This whole discussion rather proves my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.3.81 ( talk) 12:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Consequences

I removed the following unsourced fragment: Although the territories of the former Kingdom of Hungary that were assigned by the treaty to neighbouring states in total (and each of them separately) had a majority of non-Hungarian population, they also included some areas with Hungarian majority (including areas with over 80–90% Hungarians) as well as some areas with sizable Hungarian minorities, numbering 3,318,000 in total.

It had no source since July 2012. After a later google search, I realized that it is a verbatim quote from "The Babylonian Code - Vol. One: The Unholy Scriptures" by Saladin F . There are 2 problems:

  • It is a WP:COPYVIO, so the text must be rephrased
  • Even if rephrased, is this a reliable source? Raysdiet ( talk) 08:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
It is quite a important statement. I am pretty sure we can find other sources. Fakirbakir ( talk) 10:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
The same idea is affirmed in an already existing affirmation of the article: "Areas with significant Hungarian populations included the Székely Land (Kulish, Nicholas (2008-04-07). "Kosovo's Actions Hearten a Hungarian Enclave". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-04-08.) in Eastern Transylvania, the area along the newly defined Romanian-Hungarian border (cities of Arad, Oradea), the area north of the newly defined Czechoslovakian-Hungarian border ( Komárno, Csallóköz), southern parts of Subcarpathia and northern parts of Vojvodina". And the demographic data are already presented at Treaty_of_Trianon#Distribution_of_the_non-Hungarian_and_Hungarian_populations. However I made a little change to the lead. Raysdiet ( talk) 11:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Harghita, Covasna and Săcueni counties

What does this exactly refer to? There were no counties with these names in interwar Romania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Judete_1919-25.png Raysdiet ( talk) 12:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply

It is my fault. The source does not mention counties, it mentions only "districts". [4] (p 299) I mistranslated it. Fakirbakir ( talk) 12:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I agree that you respect the source now, but it is still strange. Apparently there aren't such administriative units (not even units ranking below counties ( Plăşi) - see the detailed map http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Romania_1930_counties.500px.svg) Raysdiet ( talk) 12:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I have found "Covasna" and "Sacueni" districts however "Hargita" is still problem. There was no Hargita district according to the map. Fakirbakir ( talk) 12:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply
I can see Săcueni is just a town in Bihor county while Covasna (Kovászna) is a post-1968 county roughly corresponding to the interwar Trei Scaune county and the Hungarian Háromszék County. Harghita County is also a modern Romanian county, corresponding to the interwar Ciuc and Odorhei counties, respectively to the old Hungarian counties Csík and Udvarhely Raysdiet ( talk) 13:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Map replacement

I replaced Map 1 with Map 2 because Map 2 is a derivative work of Map 1, where there are added red Hungarian-populated areas. There is no reason to include them, as long as we already have in teh article ethnic maps (e. g. File:Ethnographic map of hungary 1910 by teleki carte rouge.jpg), which include all the ethnicities, not only the Hungarians. It is a little POV I think to present only the Hungarian-populated areas 82.79.215.211 ( talk) 11:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Msp 1
Map 2

an interesting map

I have found a contemporary map (1915) about the early plans for the disintegration of Austria-Hungary. [5] I am not sure if it is a public domain. Fakirbakir ( talk) 22:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC) reply

An interesting map indeed. But it would be useful to know who is the author of the map. In 1916 Romania claimed more territory than it is represented there . See Treaty of Bucharest (1916). 82.79.213.39 ( talk) 07:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply
The author is George F. Morrell. Fakirbakir ( talk) 09:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Photo from the Versailles

A long-bearded-man in the middle is Nikola Pašić, not Apponyi. Alexzr88 ( talk) 13:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Maybe, but if you click on the photo you can see that the photo is referenced in a number of places (including non-English wikipedias). As such it makes no sense to change one link. Best to find the correct answer and change all at the same time. See both had long beards. Nigej ( talk) 14:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Trianon Memorials

How many Trianon memorials should the article contain? There are already 3 such pictures and the one added by Rovibroni would be the 4th. I also ask the neutral editor User:AndyTheGrump to comment. 82.79.214.83 ( talk) 00:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure I could be described as 'neutral' - I've already made clear that I agree that the image added by Rovibroni seems out of place, and adds nothing to the article to actually help the reader to understand the topic. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 00:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply
By "neutral" I mean not emotionally involved; you are neither Hungarian nor from the states that benefited from the treaty (Slovakia, Serbia, Romania, Ukraine) 79.117.176.221 ( talk) 06:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply
Yes. Too much already about Hungarian resentment of the Treaty. The new photo adds nothing. Personally I'd be happy to remove some of the others. The article should be primarily about the Treaty itself. Sadly it is very lacking in this area. For instance, the above comment about "Photo from the Versailles" highlights the fact that the article doesn't actually mention Pašić or Apponyi (except in the photo description). Nigej ( talk) 08:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC) reply
+1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.91.5.50 ( talk) 18:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC) reply

File:1dec1918.jpg nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_June_20 Avpop ( talk) 08:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC) reply

Signatories

It feels out of place to put Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia in the "Others" category, since they were the main beneficiaries and largely shaped the borders of the treaty trough both military and political actions, way before it was signed. I mean don't tell me that Japan had more to do with this than Romania, are you insane? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.34.218 ( talk) 09:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Introduction is just a complaint on the perceived unfairness of the treaty

The whole introduction tells how much Hungary "lost" because of the treaty. It is therefore not a summary of the treaty, but a summary of complaints about it, I gather mostly from the Hungarian side. Not neutral at all.

I propose we use this section of the talk page to come up with a decent introduction, that summarizes the actual Contents of the treaty. Syats ( talk) 13:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC) reply

You are 100% correct and I welcome your suggestion. Hopefully others will do likewise and we can end up with something understandable to the average reader. We must always remember that, of the world population, there are 500 non-Hungarians for every Hungarian, and so we need to write the article in such a way that non-Hungarians can understand it, having perhaps little knowledge of post-Trianon politics. Basic issues that need sorting out are things like the pre-WWI and post-Trianon areas and populations, including whether we should include Croatia-Slavonia in the pre-WWI numbers or just "Hungary proper". We could move the "complaints" to a separate article. Nigej ( talk) 16:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC) reply
I don't know if all the areas thing needs to be included at all in the introduction, specially not in such a big detail. I would suggest including the following points:
  • One of the treaties signed after WWI
  • Defined the borders of Hungary and the other states that were created from the Austrohungarian empire: Austria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, and the Kingdom of Croats Serbs and Slovenes.
  • Made Hungary recognize the above states and renounce any territorial claims in them.
  • Set limits to the military capabilities of Hungary
  • Set terms of reparations to be paid by Hungary to the victors
  • Signatories, including the protest stance of the Hungarian representatives.
  • Criticisms: 33% of Hungarian were left outside of Hungary.
Furthemore, I would suggest omitting any reference to "beneficiaries".
The reason I think the areas thing should be omitted from the introduction is because it forces on the reader the assumption that pre- and post-war Hungaries are comparable. However, the kingdom of Hungary was not a the state belonging to a single nationality (people), and thus this comparison leads the reader to believe that the current Hungary is somehow entitled to territories inhabited by other nationalities. This clarification involves many concepts and points of view that are way too much for the introduciton. That being said, the changes in area and population are interesting facts from the Treaty, and should be included in the article, I think not just in the intro.
Syats ( talk) 22:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC) reply


Areas

I think we can deal in 1,000s of square kilometers for the intro. Post-Trianon we have 93,000 which matches up with the current area of Hungary, but the current intro says that "the pre-war Kingdom of Hungary (the Hungarian half of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy)" had an area of 325,411 which doesn't match up with Kingdom of Hungary which has 282,870 for 1910 in the infobox. Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen infobox has 325,000 for 1890 (and 328.000 for 1918) while Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia infobox has 42,541 which with the 282,870 from Kingdom of Hungary gives 325,000. So we can immediately see that we have contradictions with pre-WWI "Kingdom of Hungary" having areas of either 325,000 or 283,000 depending on which page you read. Of course this is a matter of whether Croatia-Slavonia is included or not and what names are used for the 325,000 or 283,000 parts. Currently Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen has redirects from Transleithania (which makes sense to me) and Kingdom of Hungary (1867-1918) (which doesn't).

Perhaps we can use someone like this "The treaty regulated the status of an independent Hungarian state and defined its borders. The newly defined Hungary had an area of 93,000 square kilometers. Pre-war Transleithania (the Hungarian part of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy) had an area of 325,000 square kilometers, made of up of the Kingdom of Hungary, the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Fiume (modern Rijeka), so that Hungary had just 28% of the area of pre-war Transleithania, 33% of the area of the pre-war Kingdom of Hungary." Nigej ( talk) 10:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Using only 1910 census is violation of the neutral point of view

Using only 1910 census is violation of the neutral point of view, as it shows only Hungarian view. To be accurate, these statistics must be complemented with the statistics of the new countries, like the 1921 census in Czechoslovakia, to give objective picture and reduce bias. I added one sentence into the 1910 census discussion to give an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.105.246.114 ( talk) 15:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Congress of Oppressed Nations

What exactly is the "Congress of Oppressed Nations"? It is referred to in the article and with a wikilink. Being capitalized and without explanation implies that it is a title of a real thing that should be known as an official entity of some sort, but the link is red. There needs to be either a separate article defining this title or it should be defined in this one. A wiki search yielded no results, so maybe the title is misnamed? A google search elicits a mention in an article in the Encyclopedia Brittanica as "Congress of Oppressed Nationalities", but no separate article there either. I've found no other google similarities. A wiki search on that last title elicits the article League for Small and Subject Nationalities, an article insufficient to explain the usage of the contested title in the present article. LisztianEndeavors ( talk) 19:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply

See: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/44054188/the_times_dispatch/ so clearly it did exist under this name. There seems to have been a Congress of Oppressed Nationalities of Austria Hungary as well: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/44054377/the_times/ Nigej ( talk) 20:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
This https://www.newspapers.com/clip/44058792/vancouver_daily_world/ refers to both - the Prague one being called here "a similar congress" to the Rome one. "The Czecho-Slovak race has had to suffer yet another act of criminal oppression at the hands of its Austrian and Magyar masters." Clearly strong feeling. Nigej ( talk) 21:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
You should create a new article with that redlink (and another with the alternate title containing a redirect), and reference those newspaper articles in it. BTW, I assume the Canadian article meant the Bohemians had conquered Serbia not Siberia, yes? Siberia is a big place and would anybody ever desire to conquer it? LisztianEndeavors ( talk) 21:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Of course the Canadian article is just pure propaganda. However articles like this https://www.newspapers.com/clip/19233844/the_times/ do seem to show that the Rome congress did harden Wilson's attitude against the Austrians/Maygars, perhaps explaining the very poor outcome for the "Magyars" in the treaty, whatever the reality of the situation. Not sure I can create an article, it would need someone with much more knowledge than me. Nigej ( talk) 22:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply


Who were the real Opressed nations or people? Those who lived in such countries whose legal system did not even recognize minority rights. Just some example: Welsh, Irish, Scottish in Britain, the Occitan, Catalan, Corsican, Alsatian, West Flemish, Lorraine Franconian, Gallo, Picard or Ch’timi and Arpitan, who were in super majority before the mid 19th century in France. (forced francisation of Paris) OR we can countinue the list of non-white Biritsh and French colonies, where the people lived without any civil rights.-- Liltender ( talk) 19:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure that's relevant. The point is that they called themselves the "Congress of Oppressed Nations" or the "Congress of Oppressed Nationalities" or the "Congress of Oppressed Nationalities of Austria Hungary", so presumably regarded themselves as oppressed in some sense. And we've seem many times that giving people legal rights does not guarantee anything. Equal pay for women is a good example. Nigej ( talk) 20:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply

In nationalist/chauvinist sense they were "opressed". Many of them imagined own country and even own army etc... despite many of the minorities had not even spoke their new artificailly created 19th century mutually intelligible common language. (like slovaks)-- Liltender ( talk) 05:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Repatriations

Did Hungary pay the repatriations specified under the treaty? Hugo999 ( talk) 02:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply

The treaty did not specify exactly, just theoretically, the League of Nations determined it later. Shipping of goods were continous, since 1923 the payments started but never finished because of the great depression, the changes of status quo thus the nullification of earlier treaties, and last but not least WWII. I.e. those dollar-bonds that have been issued in 1924 in order to be able to pay the reparations were finally redeemed in 2013.( KIENGIR ( talk) 03:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)) reply

There were no democratic referendums in the disputed areas.

It must be mentioned, that there were no democratic referendums in the disputed areas.

Trianon was against Wilson's self-determination theory,because it WASN'T based on democratic referendums (general equal&secret ballots). It was not a wonder that Czech, Romanian and Serbian politicians vehemently PROTESTED against the very idea of democratic referendums about the borders at the Paris Peace Conference. Czech politicians didn't trust in Slovaks, because only very few Slovaks joined to the so-called "Czechoslovak"army against the Hungarians in 1919 (and Slovaks represented only 53% ratio in Northen parts of Hungary). Romanian politicians didn't trust in Transylvanian Romanians, perhabs they didn't want to join to the traditionally seriously backward & poor Romania (the ratio of Romanians were only 53% in Transylvania). Serbs were small minority (22% !!!) in Voivodine. Similar to Romania, Serbia was also a very backward Orthodox country without serious urbanization or industrialization.

It was not wonder that the USA did not sign this anti-democratic dictate.

There were only one democratic referendum about the borders between Hungary and Austria: The Sopron area referendum in Western Hungary in 1921, where Entente officers were the leaders of the voting districts, there were general equal and secret ballots with electoral registers (or poll books) of the LOCAL residents, and every local citizen could take part in the elections over 18year, regardless the ethnicity, social status or sex) Some villages voted to remain in Austria, some villages and citiy of Sopron voted to remain part of Hungary.


The "national councils" were brutal mockery and caricature of democracy. They were organized directly to avoid democratic referendums , thus grab more territory than it was possible for them.


  • 1. There were not even so-called "minimal voter turnout"

It means that even few gathered people of a (single ethnicity "voters") in a very small pub/bar (as it often happened) could decide the future/fate of whole huge cities within some minutes.....

  • 2. The privilege of the single ethnicity, and the rule of ethnic discriminations:

Only the Romanians were allowed to vote in Transylvania, only Slovaks were allowed to vote in Uper Hungary, Only the small Serb minority was allowed to vote in Voivodina, and only men were allowed to vote. Hungarians were not allowed to participate in these strange "elections".

  • 3. The open ballot:

There weren't secret ballot systems in that "elections", the elections were held as public open ballot/voting, with the simple raise of their hands.


  • 4. Zero written documentation of the local events:

The "elections" of the envoys of "national" councils were not even locally documented, only the decision of the self-appointed and locally established "national" councils in the small pubs/bars.

  • 5. No Electorial registers / poll books were used:

These so-called "elections" didn't use any ELECTORAL REGISTERS (or POLL BOOKS) of the LOCAL RESIDENTS, thus it made the gerrymandering directly possible. None of the voters in the open ballots votes were identified before the voting, it was in sharp contrast with normal democratic secret ballot systems. Like the participation of foreign voters from other countries and from foreign settlements were common, thus many people take part in the "elections" who had not any relationship with the area of the actual voting districts or even with the country. So without electoral registers, even foreign stranger "voters" or foreign soldiers could participate in the "elections" (An open possibility for brutal gerrymandery) The participation of foreign Serbian soldiers in the undocumented "elections" of "national councils" was usual in Southern Hungary Voivodine too. Without electoral registers of local residents, a usually unidentified single voter could vote in many many voting districts, thus a single man could vote in many times in many places without any problems...-- Liltender ( talk) 15:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you should read the first two sentences at the top of this talk page. Nigej ( talk) 16:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply


Tomás Garrigue Masaryk, the first president of Czechoslovakia:
"We had to choose between the formation of Czechoslovakia or a plebiscite".

Nigej, you don't like the words of your first own president?

"Only"

@ Nigej:,

really? No way, it is a comparison, since the previous state was bigger, nothing to do with any POV. Similary, if a height Lion baby is only x percent of the Lion mother...I disagree removal, and really amazed...( KIENGIR ( talk) 22:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)) reply

There's a big difference between saying something is "50% of the size ..." than saying "only 50% of the size ...". or saying "I'm getting half the money" as opposed to "I'm only getting half the money". The latter is expressing some surprise or displeasure at the situation. The former is NPOV. Nigej ( talk) 22:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC) reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

First sentence

Quoting Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#First sentence: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject." and "[...] use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead."

Nonspecialist in this context is and average visitor not living in central Europe and not familiar with World War I and surrounding events.

Based on this, the first sentence should describe the primary context where the treaty fits: it is one of the peace treaties prepared on the Paris Peace Conference related to end of World War I, with links to the broader context. Essential preceding events (armistices) and major consequences can be then described in later sentences and paragraphs. See also the related Treaty of Versailles for inspiration and comparison.

The recent edits by Rjensen and KIENGIR inserted a specific aspect of the treaty as the first sentence: "[Treaty] reduced the size and population of Hungary by about two thirds, not just divesting it of virtually all areas that were not purely Hungarian, but leaving approx. 3 million Hungarians outside the new borders which was the cause of deep resentment in Hungary for generations.", which might be important topic for Hungarian visitors, but is not giving the proper context for others and in this sense is violation of the Neutral Point of View, more specifically this gives undue weight to one aspect of the treaty by placing it at the prominent place. The effects on the Hungarian population are extensively described both in the lead paragraph as well as in a separate section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark5245 ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Sorry, the first sentence completely informs the nonspecial reader about the essential point of the event (and it is not just a specific aspect, but the essential result of it). Thus your argumentation that it would not be the proper context or would just important for Hungarian visitors does not hold, neither violate NPOV or due, the information presented is a fact.( KIENGIR ( talk) 21:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)) reply
The discussion is not about whether the added sentence is a fact, but whether it is appropriate to place it at such prominent place. Based on my above analysis, it is not appropriate place for this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark5245 ( talk • contribs) 08:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC) reply
The treaty has many aspects: it recognizes Hungary as a sovereign state, it specifies its borders, it ends the war between the allies and Hungary, it specifies size of Hungarian army, it deals with availability of Hungarian infrastructure to alies, etc, etc. The effects on population is one specific aspect. -- Mark5245 ( talk) 09:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Sorry, if the dispute is not about whether the added sentence is a fact, then the tag may be safely removed. Your analysis does not conclude it to be inappropriate. Hungary has been also before reconized as a sovereign state, she also had it's borders, the rest are other details, including many specific aspects, but it is clear what is cutting edge.( KIENGIR ( talk) 02:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC)) reply
Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#How can one disagree about NPOV?: There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are: While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact establishes neutrality.-- Mark5245 ( talk) 05:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply
You grabbed out from the context two sentences, although the whole inference is starting from the point if someone would believe something as a fact and claim it factual, etc. although the situation is not about this because - as you pointed out also - the material we discuss are undisputed facts. On the the other sentence you copy-pasted, there are not any very selection or omission of anything, since all the all the complete informations is present. Hence, I fairly removed the tag you put erroneusly, as It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given..( KIENGIR ( talk) 05:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)) reply
The long term historical importance of the treaty I suggest is captured in the first sentence. Details about how it got there are covered in subsequent sentences. What's more the victors in the war knew what they were doing: weakening Hungary. The reliable sources I think are largely in agreement on what happened. The Treaty is especially important in shaping 21st century Irredentism and neonationalism in Hungary [on this see (1) "Memory-Politics and Neonationalism: Trianon as Mythomoteur" by Feischmidt, in Nationalities Papers (Jan 2020). and (2) 'No, nay, never' (once more): The Resurrection Of Hungarian Irredentism" by Beiner, History Ireland (May/Jun 2013). The anger in the 1930s led Hungary to form an alliance with Hitler's Germany. ["Hungary's participation in World War II resulted from a desire to revise the Treaty of Trianon so as to recover territories lost after World War I. This revisionism was the basis for Hungary's interwar foreign policy." states Eva S. Balogh, in Hungarian Studies Review. Spring 1983] Rjensen ( talk) 06:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply
I'm here because the issue was mentioned in the Teahouse.
I believe that the first sentence should state what the treaty was. Then the second sentence can state what it did, and a third can point out the injustice. Mentioning the (IMHO justified) resentment before saying what the treaty was makes the article appear biased, and is likely to lose the sympathy of readers.
I'd prefer things ordered something like this:
The Treaty of Trianon (French: Traité de Trianon, Hungarian: Trianoni békeszerződés) was one of the five major peace treaties prepared at the Paris Peace Conference and signed in the Grand Trianon Palace in Versailles on June 4, 1920. It formally ended World War I between most of the Allies of World War I and the Kingdom of Hungary, the latter being one of the successor states to defeated Austria-Hungary. It reduced the size and population of Hungary by about two thirds, not only divesting it of virtually all areas that were not purely Hungarian, but leaving approx. 3 million Hungarians outside the new borders, causing  deep resentment in Hungary for generations.
Maproom ( talk) 07:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Try this: The Treaty of Trianon (French: Traité de Trianon, Hungarian: Trianoni békeszerződés) was the 1920 peace treaty imposed on the Republic of Hungary after it lost World War I. It reduced the size of the old Hungarian state, and removed two thirds of the population. About 3 million Hungarians became minorities in several new countries, causing deep resentment in Hungary that still shapes its politics. ===details about the location are given later in the lead. Rjensen ( talk) 07:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply
I'm 100% against anything that fails to mention that the pre-war Hungary was actually a part of the Habsburg Empire. We mustn't give the impression that it had been a fully-independent state. Nigej ( talk) 08:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply

I restored the original form of the first sentence because some information were already present in the lead section ("Its population was 7.6 million, 36% of the pre-war kingdom's population of 20.9 million.[8] The areas that were allocated to neighbouring countries in total (and each of them separately) had a majority of non-Hungarians but 31% of Hungarians (3.3 million)[9] were left outside of post-Trianon Hungary."). 82.78.135.134 ( talk) 08:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply

The following phrase: "The treaty builds on the fact that "on the request of the former Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Government an Armistice[6] was granted to Austria-Hungary on November 3, 1918, by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, and completed as regards Hungary by the Military Convention of November 13[7], in order that a Treaty of Peace might be concluded" from the lead section may be moved to the article body I think to let the reader to reach the text about consequences faster. 82.78.135.134 ( talk) 09:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Obvious axe being ground here...

Some of my best friends are Hungarians, but I'm afraid some of you are losing your perspective in this article. Austro-Hungary was an Empire, and empires tend to absorb adjacent populations. History tends to correct this process. I know it must have felt bad at the time, but no worse than it did for the neighbouring Czechs when they were absorbed in the first place.

People, this is an encyclopedia, and we need to retain a neutral viewpoint. We can surely state the facts, and let them speak for themselves. The article is about the Treaty, not just the Hungarian reaction to it. Please take a deep breath, relax, and let some neutral encyclopediasts tidy this article up. We will not betray your feelings.

Don't revert edits, work positively forward.

Also, the population figures in the lead contradict themselves. Somebody who knows more about it please choose one of the figures, and go with it.

Thanks: Peace and Love! Billyshiverstick ( talk) 03:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Billyshiverstick:,
I don't see how i.e. Hungary absorbed adjacent populations per your argumentation, as well I don't see the Czech analogy, which was an Austrian deal much earlier Austria-Hungary came to existence.
I don't see what neutrality issue would be with the article, of course we are interested to keep all suitable improvements, if it really fulfills inclusion and other criterias.
I clarified the lead (on the other hand, it was not conradictive, but apparently in brackets there was a reference of the data of the pre-war kingdom, despite earlier the subject of the sentence were clear)
Peace to you as well!( KIENGIR ( talk) 03:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)) reply
axes to grind? nope. Our job is to summarize the RS, and not tell readers what to believe based on our personal own values/opinions/POV. As for the views of non-Hungarians, the article includes the French. I have been looking and so far found zero RS talking about other ethnic groups outside of Hungary view of Trianon--so they don't get mentioned. Rjensen ( talk) 03:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Nope. A very well-written, neutral POV, and most importantly, excellently SOURCED article. Your personal opinion is less than worthless on Wikipedia - all that matters is what the sources say. And reverted edits are sometimes necessary, if they are inaccurate, stress a non-neutral POV, etc., etc. 50.111.5.65 ( talk) 15:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC) reply

The role of the French

I think the phrase "French diplomats played the major role in designing the treaty, with a mind to establishing French-led coalition of the newly formed nations" is given an undue weight in the lead section. For instance the American, Bristish, French and Italian proposals for the Hungarian-Romanian border were not are not substantially different: https://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/img/transterk-map31-j.jpg - the French and British proposals are almost identical, both of them include the railway line Satu Mare (Szatmárnémeti) - Oradea (Nagyvárad) - Arad. 86.120.251.89 ( talk) 12:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC) reply

No, it is not undue weight, since French diplomats approached the most predetermined and hostile way the question, with their interests as well regarding in the Little Entente and systematically blocked any attempt to change aims. The Millerand cover letter has been issued just to convince the Hungarian delegation not to refuse to sign the treaty (stated in case of injust resulution would take place, that may be revised), but it has been identified a Fench economic interest was behind it regarding Hungary, after revealed even the initiator retreated from the subject. No, none of the French/British proposals contain the railway line you mentioned, and the British finally wished to revise the initial plans, and the American/Italian proposal would have included the Hungarian majority areas nearby, which the earlier did not, on the other hand the full scope is not just the Hungarian-Romanian border.( KIENGIR ( talk) 10:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)) reply
KIENGIR, thanks for your answer. Speaking of the Little Entente, I have some doubts regarding the text from Treaty_of_Trianon#Treaty_preparation. More exactly, the phrase This led to the "Little Entente" of Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia, but Hungary was not included sound weird. How could Hungary have been included, given that it was created "with the purpose of common defense against Hungarian revanchism and the prospect of a Habsburg restoration"? It is not a surprise that Hungary was not included, since the alliance guaranteed mutual assistance in the event of an unprovoked attack launched by Hungary against any stipulator 82.78.135.82 ( talk) 11:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC) reply
Correct, corrected.( KIENGIR ( talk) 03:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)) reply

The aftermath

This page describes the period till 1921, but some pictures are new. Some of results of the treaty are described in Trianon Syndrome, only listed here, not linked. The Romanian day is listed, nothing about the Hungarian one. Nothing about Trianon Museum in Hungary. My additions have beed removed from 'Trianon Syndrom'. Where do they belong? Many informations are in Hungarian only, I do not understand them. There is a big blank space here. Are current tenstions between Hungary and its neighbours result of Trianon or definitely not? Xx236 ( talk) 09:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC) The German page contains two sections about recent events. Xx236 ( talk) 09:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The Hungarian article contains 36 312 bytes. This redirect does not change much. Xx236 ( talk) 08:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply
No. However its worth knowing that there are no articles about Memorial Day for the Victims of the Holocaust, Memorial Day for the Victims of the Communist Dictatorships, etc. too, not just Day of National Unity (Hungary). Nigej ( talk) 12:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply
I have asked for comments here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary. Xx236 ( talk) 12:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Concerning OrionNimrod's edits

Since there are many, I will take them all in order.

1. "This is total incorrect. Hungary had more Romanian schools than Romania itself ( /info/en/?search=Magyarization). The page shows the population data, so it is incorrect to state that Hungarian population was less than half."

You removed this section: The treatment of minorities under the Kingdom of Hungary was one of the main causes for their desire to be separated from Hungary. [1]

Faced with the danger of national competition, the Magyar gentry dared not fulfil the provisions of the Nationalities Law of 1868; on the other hand, to make their work easier, they demanded a knowledge of Magyar from all the inhabitants of Hungary. No state school, elementary or secondary, was ever provided for any national minority; the secondary schools which the Slovaks had set up for themselves were closed in 1874; Magyar was made compulsory in all schools in 1883. The highest expression of this policy was the Education Law promoted by [Prime minister, Count] Apponyi in 1907, which imposed a special oath of loyalty on all teachers and made them liable to dismissal if their pupils did not know Magyar. Similarly, the Magyar gentry attacked any political display by the nationalities -drove their few members from parliament and condemned their organisations. By these means, the Magyar gentry gained and kept a monopoly of state employment and of the liberal professions. At the beginning of the twentieth century, 95 per cent of the state officials, 92 per cent of the county officials, 89 per cent of the doctors, and 90 per cent of the judges were Magyar. Eighty per cent of the newspapers were in Magyar, and the remainder mostly German: three million Roumanians had 2,5 per cent of the newspapers, two million Slovaks had 0,64 per cent.

Pre-WW1 Kingdom of Hungary was a capitalist state and not a communist one. In capitalist countries the newspapers were owned organized and published by private companies and private entrepreneurs and not by the state. Their number and their number of copy based on the laws of the market: the demand and suppy. That's why I can not understand that as an argument. In a communist state, all newspapers are owned organized and released by the state itself, so if there are very few nminority language newspapers in a country, than you can blame the state for that without doubt.-- Longsars ( talk) 14:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Looking at the /info/en/?search=Magyarization, it doesn't seem to confirm what you are saying: "For a long time, the number of non-Hungarians that lived in the Kingdom of Hungary was much larger than the number of ethnic Hungarians. According to the 1787 data, the population of the Kingdom of Hungary numbered 2,322,000 Hungarians (29%) and 5,681,000 non-Hungarians (71%). In 1809, the population numbered 3,000,000 Hungarians (30%) and 7,000,000 non-Hungarians (70%). An increasingly intense Magyarization policy was implemented after 1867." "Overall, between 1880 and 1910, the percentage of the total population that spoke Hungarian as its first language rose from 46.6% to 54.5%" But looking at /info/en/?search=Demographics_of_Hungary it seems this 54.5% is excluding Croatia for some reason, which was part of the Kingdom of Hungary. "According to the census of 1910, the largest ethnic group in the Kingdom of Hungary were Hungarians, who were 54.5% of the population of Kingdom of Hungary, excluding Croatia-Slavonia. Although the territories of the former Kingdom of Hungary that were assigned by the treaty to neighbouring states in total had a majority of non-Hungarian population, they also included areas of Hungarian majority and significant Hungarian minorities, numbering 3,318,000 in total."

This sentence, already existing on the Trianon page: "In the last census before the Treaty of Trianon held in 1910, which recorded population by language and religion, but not by ethnicity, speakers of the Hungarian language included approximately 48% of the entire population of the Kingdom of Hungary. [2]" Is more correct because it includes Croatia as well, that was part of the Kingdom of Hungary. As such, I find the assertion of the source you tried to remove correct, and am against removing it.

2. Quote from Francesco Saverio Nitti, I'm not opposed to that.

3. "Incorrect statement. The Romanian and non-Romanians were almost 50-50 according to the census which is on the page. The borders was decided in Paris by the Treaty of Trianon not by the will of the locals. For example, Nagyvárad (Oradea) and many other areas had absolute Hungarian population. Oradea had 95% Hungarian population in 1920 and it is only 10km from today's borders, so it is incorrect to say for example this city did not want to be part of Hungary, because the locals decided" This is simply incorrect. The census that is on this page: Romanian – 2,819,467 (54%), 1,658,045 (31.7%). And this is considering that:

"Several demographers (David W. Paul, [3] Peter Hanak, László Katus [4]) state that the outcome of the 1910 census is reasonably accurate, while others (Teich Mikuláš, Dušan Kováč, Martin D. Brown, Seton-Watson, Robert William, Owen Johnson, Kirk Dudley) believe that the 1910 census was manipulated by exaggerating the percentage of the speakers of Hungarian, [5] [6] pointing to the discrepancy between an improbably high growth of the Hungarian-speaking population and the decrease of percentual participation of speakers of other languages due to Magyarization in the Kingdom of Hungary in the late 19th century. [7] For example, the 1921 census in Czechoslovakia (only one year after the Treaty of Trianon) shows 21% Hungarians in Slovakia, [8] compared to 30% based on 1910 census. While the Romanian statistics (only one year before the Treaty of Trianon) shows 25% Hungarians in Transylvania."

So 31.7% may not even be the real number of Hungarians.

4. "total incorrect, check page ( /info/en/?search=Magyarization) it was many thousand schools for minorities, even Hungarian Kingdom had more Romanian schools where Romanians thaught everything in Romanian than Romanian Kingdom itself. Hungary asked the knowledge of the state language as basic level, this is not violate any human right, in Romania the Hungarians can speak Romanian and this is expected also, in England the immigrant people can speak English, this is quite normal" Can you point me out exactly where to check it? Because from what I can read, it only seems to reinforce the accuracy of the source that you removed: "By 1900, Transleithanian state administration, businesses, and high society were exclusively magyarophone, and by 1910, 96% of civil servants, 91.2% of all public employees, 96.8% of judges and public prosecutors, 91.5% of secondary school teachers and 89% of medical doctors had learned Hungarian as their first language."

5. "It was no referendum, nobody asked 5 million residents in Transylvania. Romania attacked Hungary again when WW1 was over when Hungarian army was disarmed. This one-sided Romanian rally was behind the threatening presence of the Romanian army, and Hungarians were total ignored. Also you did not mention it was a Hungarian contra rally which affirmed Transylvania remain in Hungary. Did the Romanian rally decide the Hungarian majority cities next today's borders became part of Romania?"

You removed this part:

The 1918-1920 period however, was marked by multiple general assemblies of minorities in Austria-Hungary where their elected representatives would express the aims of their people, such as the National Assembly of Romanians of Transylvania and Hungary on 1st of December 1918 who decreed by unanimous vote "the unification of those Romanians and of all the territories inhabited by them with Romania", [9] the National Assembly of Germans of Transylvania and Banat in 1919 who passed a declaration to support the decision to unite with the Kingdom of Romania, [10] [11] or the Slovak National Council's issue of the Martin Declaration in 1918, in effect declaring Slovakia's independence and presaging Slovakia's unification with the Czech lands as part of a new state. [12]

Yes, there was no referendum. You are correct. But then why remove the source? Because the source doesn't say there was a referendum either. The national assemblies of 1918-1920 were not meant to upersede democratic full-scale plebiscites/referendums, they were meant to express the will of the minorities of Austria-Hungary to the Entente. It is already mentioned previously that the only plebiscite was held in Sopron.

Actually, no. The Hungarian-Romanian War of 1919 was started by Hungary ( /info/en/?search=Hungarian%E2%80%93Romanian_War). I do not believe that "this one-sided Romanian rally was behind the threatening presence of the Romanian army" not is it our place to judge it, since no OR. "Hungarians were total ignored" the Hungarian had a national assembly of their own where they voted in favor of staying with Hungary. But according to the results of the national assemblies of Romanians, Germans and Hungarians. 65% (Romanians + Germans) of the population wanted union with Romania and 31% (Hungarians) wanted union with Hungary. We can all speculate what all of that means, but Wikipedia is not a place for OR.

Overall, I disagree with your reasons for removing the sources as I find them ill-informed. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 09:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I think you did edits adding a lot of incorrect data, marking unreadable (uncheckable) sources from communist times. I am concering your edit, so I removed those recently edits. I provided a source with a readable link from a famous contemporary politician (Nitti) who participated in the Treaty of Trianon, you talk about "different opinions", but your wrote only anti-Hungarian opinions, and ironically you removed the different opinion of the contemporary politican... OrionNimrod ( talk) 12:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
"While the Romanian statistics (only one year before the Treaty of Trianon) shows 25% Hungarians in Transylvania."
For example, when the Romanians made a new census after Trianon, it was many threatening, many Hungarians identified themself as “Romanians” to keep their possessions. We know well how many possession was confiscated from Hungarians after 1920 in Transylvania. And 200 000 Hungarians fled from Transylvania around 1920 who were afraid of from Romanians. At that time of the Hungarian census in 1910, it was no war situation, no political motivation, so we can assume the numbers shows the reality. However in 1920, we can see the Romanian census instantly shows different proportions, which is clear propaganda to justify the territorial occupation.
You talk about voting, but the Entente decided the new borders in Paris by Treaty of Trianon and not these rallies. Irrevelant one sided rally behind the threatening presence of the Romanian army.
Romania attacked Hungary again (first 1916) when the WW1 was over when Hungarian army was disarmed. /info/en/?search=Hungarian–Romanian_War It was not at all referendum, so the people of Transylvania did not vote. Nobody asked the residents one by one. In Transylvania lived 5 million people in 1920. I do not understand why the Romanians are talking about voting, because it was no plebiscite, nobody asked 5 million people one by one about this or with a democratic referendum. Only some people from 5 million and many other Romanians from outside of Transylvania voted in not a secret vote to join Romania in wartime and of course, at the presence of the Romanian army behind this one-sided Romanian assembly. Moreover, the Hungarian partner was not invited at all, so hard to talk about any voting. Perhaps the full Hungarian populated cities, especially next to the today Hungarian border voted to join Romania? I do not believe this. Romania claimed the Hungarian territory until the Tisza river. Perhaps the full Hungarian populated Tisza region voted to join Romania? I do not think so. The borders were decided in Paris, not in the Romanian assembly.
If only some Saxon politician voted for Romania, only because by fear, do not forget the Romanian army (and behind the Entente) was in the background. So the Saxons did not vote. For example, also in the referendum of Sopron in 1921, 60% of the Germans vote for Hungary against Austria. So if the Germans preferred Hungary instead of Austria so why they would vote for Romania? But we do not know, because it was no referendum. In 1920, in Transylvania lived about 5 million people, among this 560 000 Saxons. The Saxons were invited by Hungarian kings 800 years ago to settle in Transylvania around 1150. There were many nice Saxon cities, they lived a good relationship with the Hungarians. We can see nice Transylvanian cities, all of them built by Hungarians and Saxons, not by Romanians. Hungary was a German-influenced country and belongs to the western culture, while Romania is a Balcanian country and belongs to the eastern culture, to the orthodox Christianity, and at that time Romania was a more backward country compared with Hungary. Today after 100 years the number of Transylvanian Saxons is only 13 000. The numbers show what does mean live in Romania and what does mean live in Hungary 800 years long. And do you say the voted to join Romania?
Also you did not mention this: Contra reaction for the Romanian National Assembly: December 22, 1918 - In response, a Hungarian General Assembly in Cluj (Kolozsvár), central Transylvania, and the most important Hungarian town in Transylvania reaffirms the loyalty of Hungarians from Transylvania to Hungary.
"But according to the results of the national assemblies of Romanians, Germans and Hungarians. 65% (Romanians + Germans) of the population wanted union with Romania and 31% (Hungarians) wanted union with Hungary. "
You said it was not referendum and vote... but now you day 65% of the population wanted join Romania. If it was no referendum, how do you know? So you repeat illogical things. Trianon was decided by the Great Powers not by the locals and by the will of the locals, or I ask again, do you think full Hungarian populated settlements (Oradea for example only 10km from today border) wanted to join Romania? I do not think so, so your content total irrevelant and incorrect.
"The Hungarian-Romanian War of 1919 was started by Hungary"
During World War 1 Romania attacked Hungary in 1916, but Hungarian and Central Power troops were in Bucharest fast within 3 months, so Romania lost World War, later Romania signed the peace treaty with the Central Powers. On 11th November 1918, World War I ended and Austria-Hungary lost the war, even if at the time of the collapse, all forces (1,4 million Hungarian troops) were standing outside the borders of 1914, so the Entente did not occupy/conquer any Austrian-Hungarian land during the World War I, but soon after the end of the war the Hungarian army was disarmed and the Hungarian soldiers went home. When the war ended Romania attacked again this time disarmed Hungary, on 7th December 1918, Brassó a city in Southeastern Transylvania was occupied by the Romanian Army. What is this if not start the war? Romanian soldiers on the territory of Kingdom of Hungary? A school class trip?
Czechia and Serbia also attacked disarmed Hungary from other directions. The Hungarian Soviet Republic established only on 21st March 1919.
After WW1 it was chaos and coups in Hungary, the new Karolyi government demilitarized the country. But the Romanians, Czechs, and Serbs always violated the demarcation lines, which were in the territory of Hungary and not outside of Hungary! And this impotent and pacific government resigned, then the communist took power in 21th of March. So the Romanians already occupied big Hungarian regions before the communist took power. The Romanian invasion violated already 4 month long many times the demarcation lines and the occupying Romanian army pushed deep into Hungarian land without much resistance, much earlier than the communist took the power or much earlier than they made defensive operations. Actually, the Romanian, and Czech… aggression also emerged the communists in power, because a lot of non-communist ex-soldiers joined red army because the communist promised to protect the country. The Hungarian red army with Monarchy general (Aurel Stromfeld) liberated north Hungary from the Czech aggressors, but the communist wanted to make a Slovak communist state, so the Hungarian people in the army were disappointed. The red army also made operations against the Romanian army which was deep in Hungary, and not against Romania! I assume in other countries this army is named as “home defender”, “freedom fighters”, “liberators”, “partizans”… who defend their land against a foreign invasion. Similar to today the Ukrainian protect their country from the Russian invasion. But Entente demanded to stop the fight, and Bela Kun fleed to Russia, then the Romanians marched and plundered the unprotected country.
Who started the war? OrionNimrod ( talk) 13:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
1. Please check the sources, not only that they are not from communist time, but most of them are not even Romanian.
2. I think that I'm not adding incorrect data but you have a lot of incorrect information about the historial context at the time. But this isn't about what we think.
3. You offer a lot of information, but hardly anything verifiable. For example, to start out with your first sentence "For example, when the Romanians made a new census after Trianon, it was many threatening, many Hungarians identified themself as “Romanians” to keep their possessions". There are 2 sources that contradict you, one of which I listed previously.
"Several demographers (David W. Paul,[3] Peter Hanak, László Katus[4]) state that the outcome of the 1910 census is reasonably accurate, while others (Teich Mikuláš, Dušan Kováč, Martin D. Brown, Seton-Watson, Robert William, Owen Johnson, Kirk Dudley) believe that the 1910 census was manipulated by exaggerating the percentage of the speakers of Hungarian,[5][6] pointing to the discrepancy between an improbably high growth of the Hungarian-speaking population and the decrease of percentual participation of speakers of other languages due to Magyarization in the Kingdom of Hungary in the late 19th century.[7] For example, the 1921 census in Czechoslovakia (only one year after the Treaty of Trianon) shows 21% Hungarians in Slovakia,[8] compared to 30% based on 1910 census. While the Romanian statistics (only one year before the Treaty of Trianon) shows 25% Hungarians in Transylvania." -> This is taken from Wikipedia. This is not my opinion, but the opinion of a historian. You can surely be of the opinion that this was the case, but we don't work with OR on Wikipedia.
4. The rest of your comment follows a similar style. I do not wish to start a Hungarian-Romanian debate here. Your argument for wanting to remove those additions is that "it's false information", despite it being sourced information. Please, show us with equally sourced information, how that information is wrong. And specifically that information only. Stuff like "If only some Saxon politician voted for Romania, only because by fear" is OR and irrelvant to the discussion at hand. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 17:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
If this sourced info, then please show me the original readable source, because in this way impossible to check the source:
Joseph Held, "The Heritage of the Past: Hungary before World War I", in Ivan Volgyes (editor), "HUNGARY IN REVOLUTION. 1918-19. Nine Essays", University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1971, pages 6-7. OrionNimrod ( talk) 18:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Sources
Teich, Mikuláš; Dušan Kováč; Martin D. Brown (February 3, 2011). Slovakia in History. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-80253-6. Retrieved September 15, 2011.
Murad, Anatol (1968). Franz Joseph I of Austria and his Empire. New York: Twayne Publishers. p. 20. Retrieved November 30, 2011.
Seton-Watson, Robert William (1933). "The Problem of Treaty Revision and the Hungarian Frontiers". International Affairs. 12 (4): 481–503. doi:10.2307/2603603. JSTOR 2603603.
Slovenský náučný slovník, I. zväzok, Bratislava-Český Těšín, 1932. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 18:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this "Joseph Held, "The Heritage of the Past: Hungary before World War I", in Ivan Volgyes (editor), "HUNGARY IN REVOLUTION. 1918-19. Nine Essays", University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1971, pages 6-7", you want the full text, here.
Page 6:
most of its energy in organizing these unions since the workers were not enfranchised. The trade-unions often engaged in violent tactics in order to gain higher wages and better social insurance for workers. There can be little doubt about their success; by the end of the century living conditions were improving for the Hungarian proletariat. A system of medical institutions— small hospitals, pharmacies, etc.— were being extended into the countryside; the government introduced compulsory medical insurance for the workers— not yet for the , peasants— and wages were improving. This was part of the general progress in the* economic conditions of the lower strata of Hungarian society that was being slowly achieved. Yet, these improvements did not diminish social and political antagonisms between different classes in Hungary. Moreover, the cleavages often cut through' class lines. Within the peasantry, for instance, there was much scorn for landless peasants on the part of the more well-to-do peasantry. Village peasants hated those who worked and lived on the large estates as servants. City residents and country people remained deeply suspicious of each other’s intentions. These antagonisms were so deep that they were carried over well into the twentieth century.11 The only clear break within this society appeared to have been between Hungarians as a whole on the one hand, and the non-Hungarian majority of their state on the other. By the turn of the century the nationality question had reached an acute stage in both halves of the Habsburg monarchy. In the Hungarian half there was, if possible, greater antagonism between the nationalities and the ruling nation than in the Austrian half. Even in recent times, long after these antagonisms supposedly had been solved by the 1919 redistribution of territory among the nations of eastern Europe, they still linger on.'3 The basic problem in Hungary was that less than half of the population were ethnically Hungarian. After the Ausgleich the Hungarians made at least one attempt to solve the cultural problem involved in the situation with the nationality law of 1868. The intent of this law was to arrange for a compromise between the non-Magyar nationalities and the Hungarians. The fact was, however, that the nationalities demanded more than cultural nationalism. They were in the process of establishing ties with their conationals— the Rumanians, Serbians, Czechs— living outside the monarchy or in the Austrian half, and were working for political independence. Moreover, the nationality law was seldom observed in Hungary; the rights of the nationalities were violated continuously by the Hungarian government. Their schools were closed and confiscated; their protests were suppressed by the police; their leaders were
Page 7:
jailed for long periods of time. Hungarian propagandists spoke of a country of thirty million Hungarians, and of the sacred right of Hungary to “ Magyarize” its nationalities. The M agyarizing efforts caused great indignation among the Rumanians, Croatians, Serbs, and Slovenes. >4 The few representatives who were permitted to enter the Hungarian Parliament found themselves in an alien environment and were continuously insulted by their legislative colleagues. They, in turn, replied to the insults with more insults, often causing fistfights among the representatives. Finally, they boycotted the sittings of Parliament conspiring, instead, to end their participation in Hungarian politics by becoming independent from Hungary. What aggravated the situation was the connection between the nationality question and the struggle for political power among different social classes in Hungary. The representatives of the nobility— especially the two Tiszas— were fearful that the democratization of Hungarian political life would eventually result in the dominance of the other nationalities.^ Keeping the non-Magyar nationalities disfranchised, as well as keeping the Hungarian peasants and workers off the voting rolls, seemed to be the only way to maintain the status quo and to secure the supremacy of the nobility. Hungarian nationalism was accustomed to frightening the populace about the danger of enfranchising the non-Hungarians; thus, the democratic progress o f Hungary was retarded greatly by the unsolved problem of integrating the other nationalities. The atmosphere between the non-Magyars and the Hungarians was becoming so poisonous by the end of the century, that the smallest insult often caused battles between the antagonists. By the time the celebrations of the Hungarian millennium were held, reconciliation between the two camps was an impossibility. It would be erroneous, however, to maintain that all Hungarians were “ jingoistic,” or that there was no opposition whatsoever to the oppressive policies of the ruling elites. There was a group of young Hungarian intellectuals, writers, publicists, poets, musicians, sometimes called the second generation of reformers in Hungary,14 56 who set out at the beginning o f the twentieth century to do battle with bigotry and prejudice in the hope o f building a better country for themselves and their children. Their history is the story of the establishment of a radical party in Hungary, of teaching workerk and students to fight for their rights, of the founding of the Galilei Circle for self-education, and, indeed, of the revolutionary era in Hungary after the end of World War I. Today it is hardly possible to write a comprehensive history of this generation for the single reason that the biographies of the participants have not yet been written. Their activities created such opposition within the Hungarian ruling elites, that for more than two decades research on this problem was almost impossible. After World War II, Hungarian historians were too absorbed in problems of correcting the general
Page 8:
misconceptions and eliminating the chauvinistic bias in Hungarian historiography to return to the subject of the second reform generation. Only after 1956 was attention turned to their activities, and it is only in very recent times that basic research is becoming possible on this subject. The designation, “ second generation nf rpfnrnumj” in Hungary, is a reflection on the fact that a first reform generation had operated on the Hungarian scene in the nineteenth century. Thiásífirst generation began acting in Hungarian political life at about the middle of the third decade of that century. Its most outstanding members included Lajos Kossuth, István Széchenyi, József Eötvös, Ferenc Deák, Antal Csengery, László Szalay, and others. Their efforts were directed toward the reorganization of Hungarian economic and political life to correspond to the prevalent liberal ideology of progressive forces in Europe at the time. The labors of this generation came to an end abruptly with the revolutions of 1848-49; they shared the fate of many other European liberals whose ideas had been appropriated by conservative forces after 1850. The Ausgleich of 1867 incorporated many of their ideas without accepting the spirit in which these ideas had been formulated. The egalitarianism and rationalism of the first reform generation was replaced in the compromise by class consciousness and Realpolitik» The second reform generation largely shared the fate of the first. Their labors came to an end in another catastrophe— this time one of worldwide proportions— World War I. Their abrupt ends were the only similarity in the two groups’ activities. If the first reform generation failed mainly because they underestimated the power of conservatism and of the Habsburg Dynasty, the second generation fell because they overestimated conservative power. It is true that they faced overwhelming odds. Men such as Mihály Károlyi, Oszkár Jászi, Ernő Garami, Zsigmond Kunfi, Endre Ady, and Béla Bartók, never succeeded in becoming spokesmen for Hungarian public opinion before 1917. The Hungarian public was too absorbed in its own chauvinism, too selfishly negligent of other peoples’ rights and interests, and too blind in recognizing the dangers of nationalism, to take notice of the warnings issued by this generation of reformers. Most of these men remained outside the main stream of Hungarian political and cultural life; most of them were subjected to humiliations and rejection when they advocated a humane and sensible policy toward the subject nationalities as well as toward the lower classes of Hungarians. The strength o f Hungarian conservatism, however, was largely an illusion. It is true that István Tisza ruled Hungary with an iron fist for a long time. It is also true that the police and gendarmery did succeed in quelling the movements of the peasants and workers for reform. But the men in power acted hesitantly, treating only the consequences, not the causes of dissatisfaction. The conservatives succeeded in remaining in power largely because o f the lack of self-confidence on the part of the would-be reformers. When revolution finally came, the second reform generation1, was too fragmented, too enervated, to be able to act in a concerted way. They, too, were drifting with the events instead of giving them a new direction. Herein lies the tragedy of twentieth-century Hungary. Thus, when World War I began, Hungarian society was utterly unprepared for this TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 18:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Could you provide me the original link? I would like to see these info in the original book.
If you have sources, this does not mean the info is correct. I can add to the page 100 of similar sources. Should I do?
This page shows it was thousand of ethnic schools in Hungary, while your source state the schools were closed.
source: Magyarization
30 million Hungarians? Who said this? Hungary had 18 million population, not 30 million Hungarians!
source: Kingdom of Hungary
But what is business these info with Trianon? By the way I think thtese things is total of topic regarding the Treaty of Trianon and you flooded the site with these incorrect data. OrionNimrod ( talk) 18:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I have the book in original Google "After the Ausgleich the Hungarians made at least one attempt to solve the cultural problem involved in the situation with the nationality law of 1868" and you should find PDF versions of the book specifically on the page in question.
I found this: https://dokumen.pub/hungary-in-revolution-1918-19-nine-essays-0803207883-9780803207882.html
The Magyarization page also says "The Hungarian secondary school is like a huge machine, at one end of which the Slovak youths are thrown in by the hundreds, and at the other end of which they come out as Magyars". So the extent these schools were for minorities is up to the question. And it also says " In practice, the majority of students in commune-funded schools who were native speakers of minority languages were instructed exclusively in Hungarian" and "Beginning with the 1879 Primary Education Act and the 1883 Secondary Education Act, the Hungarian state made more efforts to reduce the use of non-Magyar languages, in strong violation of the 1868 Nationalities Law".
Personally, I see no contradiction between this and the quote that you want removed. Both say that there was a law of minorities in 1868 but was not respected by the Hungarians.
As the book says, it was propagandists who said this, meaning that they wanted to create a country full of Hungarians (no minorities) with 30 million people.
This is relevant because historian Joseph Held further emphasizes the desire for self-determination of nationalities inside Hungary as one of the main reasons for the gravity of Trianon. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 19:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I do not think if somebody has elementary school on mother language, he spoke with his family on their mother languge and go secondary school in other language, how can be "magyarized"? For example, in UK today there is many kind of people, even Hungarians and Romanians, they speak in English in the common communication each other, but they keep their identity and language at home and with their ethnic group, it should be generations to become English and mixed marriages. But this is again off topic. Your quote say "the ethnic schools were closed" but you can see on that page even from a Romanian source, that Hungary had many thousand ethnic schools, but I see you did not mention this info which was the questioned thing by me.
"minorities were not respected by the Hungarians."
If you wrote these things, it would be fair to compare the contemporary situation with other countries.
What about Romania at that time? No minorites had any school... What about Russia?
The situation of minorities in Hungary were much more better than in contemporary Western Europe. Other highly multinational countries were: France Russia and UK.
See the multi-national UK:
The situation of Scottish Irish Welsh people in "Britain" during the English hegemony is well known. They utmost forgot their original language, only english language cultural educational institutions existed. The only language was English in judiciary procedures and in offices and public administrations. It was not a real "United" Kingdom, it was rather a greater England.
See the multiethnic France:
In 1870, France was a similar-degree multi-ethnic state as Hungary, only 50% of the population of France spoke the French language as mothertongue. The other half of the population spoke Occitan, Catalan, Corsican, Alsatian, West Flemish, Lorraine Franconian, Gallo, Picard or Ch’timi and Arpitan etc... Many minority languages were closer to spanish or Italian language than French) French governments banned minority language schools , minority language newspapers minority theaters. They banned the usage of minority languages in offices , public adimistration, and judiciary procedures. The ratio of french mothertongue increased from 50% to 91% during the 1870-1910 period.
"As the book says, it was propagandists who said this, meaning that they wanted to create a country full of Hungarians (no minorities) with 30 million people."
Who? I bet you do not know...I dn not know either. I think this is a total irrevelant info in the topic of Treaty of Trianon, but you wrote on that page. This is a spam quality info. OrionNimrod ( talk) 11:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
You cannot compare immigrats of the 21st century, to natives born in the country of the 19th cenutry. Nor do I care for a comparison with UK or France because we are not talking about UK or France here. For all your talk, I have yet to see a direct response on these quotes from the Magyarization Wikipedia page:
"The Hungarian secondary school is like a huge machine, at one end of which the Slovak youths are thrown in by the hundreds, and at the other end of which they come out as Magyars"
"In practice, the majority of students in commune-funded schools who were native speakers of minority languages were instructed exclusively in Hungarian"
"Beginning with the 1879 Primary Education Act and the 1883 Secondary Education Act, the Hungarian state made more efforts to reduce the use of non-Magyar languages, in strong violation of the 1868 Nationalities Law".
Would you argue that this is not the case? That these sources already present on Wikipedia saying that there was a law of minorities in 1868 but was not respected by the Hungarians who perfectly compliments the source you labeled "incorrect information" are wrong? do you have a source that directly contradicts them? TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 13:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I see you again was unable to recognize how many thousand ethnic school was in Hungary, so this is not true when you want to put quotes which suggest all "schools were closed".
"You cannot compare immigrats of the 21st century, to natives born in the country of the 19th cenutry."
Yes I can compare. Hungary asked the basic knowledge of Hungarian language, and the anti-Hungarian propaganda says "this is cruel magyarization", but it is very normal thing if a Hungarian living in Romania speak Romanian, even Romanians expect the same, or in UK peoples should speak English. Typical double standard.
In Romania and in many other countries the situation of minorities were more bad than in Hungary at that time, but you do not want to be fair, you just simply put anti-Hungarian things to pretend "how bad" was everything in Hungary to justify why the people wanted "break", just in reality by Treaty of Trianon 3,5 million Hungarians were moved to new countries, this fact proves, that this "very bad treatment" argument is exaggerated, because why full Hungarian settlements were moved to new countries? Because of bad minority treatment? Where is the logic in this? OrionNimrod ( talk) 16:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I see you failed to provide a a direct response on these quotes from the Magyarization Wikipedia page. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 16:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I see you failed to recognize the thousand of ethnic schools on that page. OrionNimrod ( talk) 17:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
You are seeing wrong then, I saw how many ethnic schools were on that page, what you don't see is that that's off the point. Why is that off the point? Because of the 3 quotes you failed to provide a direct response on from the Magyarization Wikipedia page. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 19:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ A. J. P. Taylor, "The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809-1918 : A History of the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary", Hamish Hamilton, London, 1948, page 186.
  2. ^ Frucht, p. 356.
  3. ^ Brass, p. 156.
  4. ^ Brass, p. 132.
  5. ^ Teich, Mikuláš; Dušan Kováč; Martin D. Brown (3 February 2011). Slovakia in History. Cambridge University Press. ISBN  978-0-521-80253-6. Retrieved 15 September 2011.
  6. ^ Murad, Anatol (1968). Franz Joseph I of Austria and his Empire. New York: Twayne Publishers. p. 20. Retrieved 30 November 2011.
  7. ^ Seton-Watson, Robert William (1933). "The Problem of Treaty Revision and the Hungarian Frontiers". International Affairs. 12 (4): 481–503. doi: 10.2307/2603603. JSTOR  2603603.
  8. ^ Slovenský náučný slovník, I. zväzok, Bratislava-Český Těšín, 1932.
  9. ^ Grecu, Florin (2018). "Elitele politice din Transilvania în realizarea Marii Uniri de la 1 decembrie 1918". Revista Polis (in Romanian). 6 (2): 207–217.
  10. ^ Lucy Mallows, Rudolf Abraham, Transylvania p. 212
  11. ^ Fráter, Olivér (2000). "The Romanian Occupation of Transsylvania in 1918-1919". epa.oszk.hu. Kisebbségkutatás - 9. évf. 2000. 2. szám.
  12. ^ Miller, Daniel (15 July 1999). Forging Political Compromise: Antonín Svehla and the Czechoslovak Republican Party, 1918–1933. University of Pittsburgh Pre. p. 66. ISBN  978-0-8229-7728-5.

A lot of incorrect info added

A lot of incorrect info added by: /info/en/?search=User:TheLastOfTheGiants By the way I am unable to read your sources, also if you have sources with a lot of incorrect info, it is not right to flood the page with them. "The 1918-1920 period however, was marked by multiple general assemblies of minorities in Austria-Hungary where their elected representatives would express the aims of their people, such as the National Assembly of Romanians of Transylvania and Hungary on 1st of December 1918 who decreed by unanimous vote "the unification of those Romanians and of all the territories inhabited by them with Romania" "the National Assembly of Germans of Transylvania and Banat in 1919 who passed a declaration to support the decision to unite with the Kingdom of Romania"

Romania attacked Hungary again (first 1916) when the WW1 was over when Hungarian army was disarmed. /info/en/?search=Hungarian–Romanian_War It was not at all referendum, so the people of Transylvania did not vote. Nobody asked the residents one by one. In Transylvania lived 5 million people in 1920. I do not understand why the Romanians are talking about voting, because it was no plebiscite, nobody asked 5 million people one by one about this or with a democratic referendum. Only some people from 5 million and many other Romanians from outside of Transylvania voted in not a secret vote to join Romania in wartime and of course, at the presence of the Romanian army behind this one-sided Romanian assembly. Moreover, the Hungarian partner was not invited at all, so hard to talk about any voting. Perhaps the full Hungarian populated cities, especially next to the today Hungarian border voted to join Romania? I do not believe this. Romania claimed the Hungarian territory until the Tisza river. Perhaps the full Hungarian populated Tisza region voted to join Romania? I do not think so. The borders were decided in Paris, not in the Romanian assembly.

Also you did not mention this: Contra reaction for the Romanian National Assembly: December 22, 1918 - In response, a Hungarian General Assembly in Cluj (Kolozsvár), central Transylvania, and the most important Hungarian town in Transylvania reaffirms the loyalty of Hungarians from Transylvania to Hungary.

If only some Saxon politician voted for Romania, only because by fear, do not forget the Romanian army (and behind the Entente) was in the background. Some people do not represent the full Saxon community, 550 000 people, who mostly during the history had a very good relationship with Transylvanian Hungarians. But these things do not matter at all, the Entente decided about the new borders in Paris by Treaty of Trianon and not these rallies.

"Hungary had hoped to maintain Greater Hungary, they hoped that all the regions of old Hungary would remain part of Hungary, but were not taking into account what the nationalities who lived inside Greater Hungary wanted. In Transylvania, where 54% of the population was Romanian, trying to maintain this region as part of Hungary was an utopia, for the president of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, came with his 14 points about the right of nationalities for self-determination, and the Romanians in Transylvania who were a majority, didn't want to be part of Hungary. Essentially, the Hungarian politicians hoped to keep the status quo but the historical reality, the debates during the peace conference and the arguments of the nationalities who wished to break free from Hungary, were the ones that mattered and eventually weighted decisively in favor of creating the eventual borders of Trianon."

This is not ture, Wilson points were total ignored for the Hungarians, the nationalities for self-determination for Hungarians was total ignored, that is why 3,5 million Hungarians moved to new countries, many border regions had full Hungarian population and moved to new countries. Please do not say that these full Hungarian settlements did not want remain in Hungary. "and the Romanians in Transylvania who were a majority" It should provide exact details and numbers, because Romania got bigger part from Hungary, not only Transylvania, but Partium, Banat... Romanians had 53,8% in that region which was moved from Hungary, so it was almost 50-50, but we can see the Hungarians were total ignored from the self-determination. "the debates during the peace conference and the arguments of the nationalities who wished to break free from Hungary" For example Nagyvárad (Oradea), only 10km from today's border had only 5% Romanian population and 95% non Romanian, 91% Hungarian population. Do you say the Hungarians wanted to break free from Hungary in that city? Please do not write incorrect data. /info/en/?search=Oradea Hungary offered democratic referendums about the disputed borders for minorities, however the political leaders of those minorities refused the idea of democratic referendums regarding disputed territories at the Paris peace conference, because they knew the majority of the settlements and many peoples (even many minorities) would vote to stay in Hungary. Nobody asked the residents, there were no referendums. Nobody listened Hungary in the peace treaty, when the negotiation was ended just the disarmed Hungarian country forced to sign the dictate behind the military presence of the Entente. The Hungarian diplomats were accompanied by guards. Is this the self-determination? And arguments, if the Hungarian member was not invited?

"The basic problem in Hungary was that less than half of the population were ethnically Hungarian. After the Ausgleich the Hungarians made at least one attempt to solve the cultural problem involved in the situation with the nationality law of 1868. The intent of this law was to arrange for a compromise between the non-Magyar nationalities and the Hungarians. The fact was, however, that the nationalities demanded more than cultural nationalism. They were in the process of establishing ties with their co-nationals — the Rumanians, Serbians, Czechs — living outside the monarchy or in the Austrian half, and were working for political independence. Moreover, the nationality law was seldom observed in Hungary; the rights of the nationalities were violated continuously by the Hungarian government. Their schools were closed and confiscated; their protests were suppressed by the police; their leaders were jailed for long periods of time. Hungarian propagandists spoke of a country of thirty million Hungarians, and of the sacred right of Hungary to “Magyarize” its nationalities."

The page clearly show the population data, it is incorrect that Hungarians had less than half of the population. Do not count Kingdom of Croatia, Croatia was personal union with Hungary, also you did not mention the Croatians in your text among the nationalities, but you calculate them to decrease the number of Hungarians. 30 million Hungarians? Source? Who say this? Total irrevelant topic. Schools closed? It was many thousand schools for minorities, even Hungarian Kingdom had more Romanian schools where Romanians thaught everything in Romanian than Romanian Kingdom itself. Hungary asked the knowledge of the state language as basic level, this is not violate any human right, today in Romania the Hungarians can speak Romanian and this is expected also, in England the immigrant people can speak English, this is quite normal. /info/en/?search=Magyarization

"Faced with the danger of national competition, the Magyar gentry dared not fulfil the provisions of the Nationalities Law of 1868; on the other hand, to make their work easier, they demanded a knowledge of Magyar from all the inhabitants of Hungary. No state school, elementary or secondary, was ever provided for any national minority; the secondary schools which the Slovaks had set up for themselves were closed in 1874; Magyar was made compulsory in all schools in 1883. The highest expression of this policy was the Education Law promoted by [Prime minister, Count] Apponyi in 1907, which imposed a special oath of loyalty on all teachers and made them liable to dismissal if their pupils did not know Magyar. Similarly, the Magyar gentry attacked any political display by the nationalities -drove their few members from parliament and condemned their organisations. By these means, the Magyar gentry gained and kept a monopoly of state employment and of the liberal professions. At the beginning of the twentieth century, 95 per cent of the state officials, 92 per cent of the county officials, 89 per cent of the doctors, and 90 per cent of the judges were Magyar. Eighty per cent of the newspapers were in Magyar, and the remainder mostly German: three million Roumanians had 2,5 per cent of the newspapers, two million Slovaks had 0,64 per cent." Again, it is incorrect, it was many thousand schools for minorities, even Hungarian Kingdom had more Romanian schools where Romanians thaught everything in Romanian than Romanian Kingdom itself. Hungary asked the knowledge of the state language as basic level, this is not violate any human right, today in Romania the Hungarians can speak Romanian and this is expected also, in England the immigrant people can speak English, this is quite normal. Check out how many thousand school were for the minorites: /info/en/?search=Magyarization — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionNimrod ( talk • contribs) 12:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I'll try to only addess the essential parts;
1. "Romania attacked Hungary again (first 1916) when the WW1 was over when Hungarian army was disarmed. /info/en/?search=Hungarian–Romanian_War" Romania attacked Hungary in 1916, then you link to an article about 1919? Romania attacked Austria-Hungary in 1916. They are different events.
2. "It was not at all referendum, so the people of Transylvania did not vote. Nobody asked the residents one by one. In Transylvania lived 5 million people in 1920. I do not understand why the Romanians are talking about voting, because it was no plebiscite, nobody asked 5 million people one by one about this or with a democratic referendum." I see this more of a list of personal grievances than anything having to do with the source in question.
Please read the paragraph right above this one, a lot of your greviances are explained there.
"The borders were decided in Paris, not in the Romanian assembly." This is correct, what is also correct is that the national assemblies of 1918-1920 influenced the decision made at Paris.
"Also you did not mention this: Contra reaction for the Romanian National Assembly: December 22, 1918 - In response, a Hungarian General Assembly in Cluj (Kolozsvár), central Transylvania, and the most important Hungarian town in Transylvania reaffirms the loyalty of Hungarians from Transylvania to Hungary." Indeed, I did mention it in the paragraph right above this one, where I addressed your original notes.
"If only some Saxon politician voted for Romania, only because by fear, do not forget the Romanian army (and behind the Entente) was in the background. Some people do not represent the full Saxon community, 550 000 people, who mostly during the history had a very good relationship with Transylvanian Hungarians. But these things do not matter at all, the Entente decided about the new borders in Paris by Treaty of Trianon and not these rallies." The Romanian army did not occupy all of Transylvania at that point. And I am not making a case of what this does/doesn't represent. I merely listed what happened. Actually, after 1867 they became subjects of magyarization as well and started to have bad relationship with the Hungarians.
"This is not ture, Wilson points were total ignored for the Hungarians, the nationalities for self-determination for Hungarians was total ignored, that is why 3,5 million Hungarians moved to new countries, many border regions had full Hungarian population and moved to new countries. Please do not say that these full Hungarian settlements did not want remain in Hungary" Is this the self-determination? And arguments, if the Hungarian member was not invited?" This is not true. Point 10 of the 14 points was specifically about Austria-Hungary.
"and the Romanians in Transylvania who were a majority, It should provide exact details and numbers, because Romania got bigger part from Hungary, not only Transylvania, but Partium, Banat... Romanians had 53,8% in that region which was moved from Hungary, so it was almost 50-50, but we can see the Hungarians were total ignored from the self-determination" I don't understand, you yourself say that the Romanians were 53,8% in Transylvania and then, also say that it was 50-50? The real number of Hungarians was 31.8%
"the debates during the peace conference and the arguments of the nationalities who wished to break free from Hungary. For example Nagyvárad (Oradea), only 10km from today's border had only 5% Romanian population and 95% non Romanian, 91% Hungarian population. Do you say the Hungarians wanted to break free from Hungary in that city? Please do not write incorrect data. /info/en/?search=Oradea Hungary offered democratic referendums about the disputed borders for minorities, however the political leaders of those minorities refused the idea of democratic referendums regarding disputed territories at the Paris peace conference, because they knew the majority of the settlements and many peoples (even many minorities) would vote to stay in Hungary. Nobody asked the residents, there were no referendums. Nobody listened Hungary in the peace treaty, when the negotiation was ended just the disarmed Hungarian country forced to sign the dictate behind the military presence of the Entente. The Hungarian diplomats were accompanied by guards." You are heavily conflicted because there was no refferendum. Yes, there was no refferendum, only national assemblies. But that doesn't make the sources incorrect, because none of the sources say there was a refferendum.
I'm sorry, but I can only conclude that your reason for arguing this is "incorrect data" is poor historical knowledge from your part.
A lot of your arguments are more like a personal list of greviances about Hungary's loss at Trianon rather than actual examples of what is wrong with the sources and where. And for the few cases where you did actually attempt to provide a reasoning, such as the population being 50-50, it is completely wrong. Please read the very Wikipedias you are trying to quote for accurate historical information.
If you can find a source that can support any of your claims, that would be great, but Wikipedia as it is right now does not allow OR, specifically because original research could be wrong, as it is in your case with the 50-50 population or Romania attacking first in the Hungarian-Romanian War. What you are saying is simply not true. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 12:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
To read the sources, hoover the mouse over the blue number. For example here [1] hoover the mouse over the number and you will see the source. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 12:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
"Please read the paragraph right above this one, a lot of your greviances are explained there."
It is not grievances the fact that is was no referendum, but you talk always "voting" and still "65% wanted to join Romania", simply this is incorrect, because if nobody asked the people how we do know it? Perhaps did you ask 5 million people one by one in 1920? And incorrect to add to the page morover in the first section to pretend this one sided "vote" (like a communist-style when the verdict is already written) caused the Treaty of Trianon. Romania claimed the Hungarian territory until the Tisza river. Perhaps the full Hungarian populated Tisza region voted to join Romania? Perhaps the full and almost full Hungarian cities, especially next to the today's Hungarian border voted to join Romania? Did they vote? Almost full Hungarian Oradea did vote to join Romania? Or this Romanian rally decided that full Hungarian cities like Oradea should join Romania? What do you think? If not why these full Hungarian populated citied moved to Romania? It means this rally did not decide anything.
"This is correct, what is also correct is that the national assemblies of 1918-1920 influenced the decision made at Paris."
I can ask again. Do you say the Romanian rally decided that full Hungarian cities like Oradea, Satu Mare etc should join Romania? I do not think so. By the way these cities are not in Transylvania, but in the Partium. Because it was a Hungarian contra assembly, where Hungarians did the same what the Romanians did, but we can see the Entente total ignored this rally, so again it is not true that these rallies influenced anything. Even Romania joined to Entente and attacked Hungary in 1916 to occupy all Hungarian land until the Tisza river, the Entente promised this land to Romania to ask his help against the Central Powers. It means not these rallies influenced the decision, because it was already earlier decided whitout the ask of the residents.

Romania’s entry into World War 1, 27 August 1916. Detail from Proclamation of King Ferdinand of Romania:

“In our moral energy and our valour lie the means of giving him back his birthright of a great and free Romania from the Tisza to the Black Sea, and to prosper in peace in accordance with our customs and our hopes and dreams.”

https://royalromania.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/romanias-entry-into-the-great-war-27-august-1916-king-ferdinands-proclamation/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionNimrod ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

"Actually, after 1867 they became subjects of magyarization as well and started to have bad relationship with the Hungarians."
Source about the magyarization of Germans? In Austria-Hungary? In a German oriented empire?
In 1920, in Transylvania lived about 5 million people, among this 560 000 Saxons. The Saxons were invited by Hungarian kings 800 years ago to settle in Transylvania around 1150. There were many nice Saxon cities, they lived a good relationship with the Hungarians. We can see nice Transylvanian cities, all of them built by Hungarians and Saxons, not by Romanians. Hungary was a German-influenced country and belongs to the western culture, while Romania is a Balcanian country and belongs to the eastern culture, to the orthodox Christianity, and at that time Romania was a more backward country compared with Hungary. Today after 100 years the number of Transylvanian Saxons is only 13 000. Where are 500 000 Saxons? Perhaps are they romanianized or expelled? Voted to join Romania? The numbers show what does mean live in Romania and what does mean live in Hungary 800 years long. Of course the Romanians are talking always about "magyarization" but never about the "romanianization" which is more recently and more longer, more stronger according to the population data than the magyarization, check out previous Hungarian settlements, population change: Oradea.
In the Hungarian Kingdom, the Romanians had more Romanian schools than in the Romanian Kingdom where they could learn in Romanian. The Hungarian state asked the minorities to learn the language of the state at a basic level like everybody learns English today. For example, many peoples from different ethnic backgrounds live in the UK, they are using their native language but they can speak in English because English is the language of the state. Today many Hungarians live in Romania, I think those Hungarians learn and could speak in Romanian too. This is a normal thing.
For example, I cannot read this source: Joseph Held HUNGARY IN REVOLUTION. 1918-19. Nine Essays OrionNimrod ( talk) 13:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
"It is not grievances the fact that is was no referendum", there was no referendum, and the information you want to remove doesn't say there was a referendum. So why do you want to remove it?

You wrote "unanimous vote the unification of those Romanians and of all the territories inhabited by them with Romania", but it was not a referendum, nobody knew the will of the locals, your text pretend that Treaty of Trianon happened because some Romanians from 5 million locals voted to join Romania, however the Treaty was decided in Paris by the Great Powers not by this rally, also you ignored the Hungarians made contra rally to vote remain in Hungary. And? Does not matter, because the Treaty made in Paris. Also the rally was mentioned in the text already, so you duplicated the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionNimrod ( talk • contribs) 17:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

"Do you say the Romanian rally decided that full Hungarian cities like Oradea, Satu Mare etc should join Romania? I do not think so" again, how is this relevant to this discussion about the sources? I don't want to take part in a Hungarian-Romanian debate but simply identify whether the sources are accurate or not.
Your argument is that "The site was flooded with a lot of anti-Hungarian propaganda from communist times, whitout readable sources, also these sentences had a lot of incorrect info (Talk page explained). I provided a source with a readable link from a famous contemporary politician who participated in the Treaty of Trianon, the user talks about "different opinions", but he wrote only anti-Hungarian opinions, and ironically he removed the different opinion of the contemporary politican", please, stick only to information related to that. Show us how. As for the removed one, it's because it was part of your edit and I undoed the edit wholly. You can read it in my origina reply to you "2. Quote from Francesco Saverio Nitti, I'm not opposed to that." TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 17:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
And you can read our short discussion for yourself:
- Unsupervised Discriminative single-ethnicity assemblies and their proclamations without international supervise can not supersede democratic full-scale plebiscites/referendums (with minimal voter turnout , secret ballots of local regardless ethnicity) about disputed borders.
- The national assemblies of 1918-1920 were not meant to upersede democratic full-scale plebiscites/referendums, they were meant to express the will of the minorities of Austria-Hungary to the Entente. It is already mentioned previously that the only plebiscite was held in Sopron.
And that was it. He didn't further object. The first section is a summary of the rest of the article. 20-1 = 10 days?
If I want to remove content on Wikipedia, I can't wake up one day and remove content added by someone to which there was no objection at the time saying that "well, I object to it now".
Either way, I am still waiting for your arguments on those sources why are incorrect as you claim. And will completely disregard anything else but talking about those sources since I have no interest in making this wall of text larger than it is. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 17:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
To clarify, his issue was that the National Assembly of Romanians, National Assembly of Germans and Slovak National Council could be falsely intepreted as a plebiscite. I told him it wasn't the case because previously it was mentioned that the only plebiscite was held in Sopron. And that was the end of our discussion. You on the other hand are claiming far greater things. That everything you wanted to remove is false.
Let us be orderly and take them 1 by 1 and have you indentify with sources which parts are false and how.
1. The 1918-1920 period however, was marked by multiple general assemblies of minorities in Austria-Hungary where their elected representatives would express the aims of their people, such as the National Assembly of Romanians of Transylvania and Hungary on 1st of December 1918 who decreed by unanimous vote "the unification of those Romanians and of all the territories inhabited by them with Romania", the National Assembly of Germans of Transylvania and Banat in 1919 who passed a declaration to support the decision to unite with the Kingdom of Romania, or the Slovak National Council's issue of the Martin Declaration in 1918, in effect declaring Slovakia's independence and presaging Slovakia's unification with the Czech lands as part of a new state.
Sources for 1 - Grecu, Florin (2018). "Elitele politice din Transilvania în realizarea Marii Uniri de la 1 decembrie 1918". Revista Polis (in Romanian). 6 (2): 207–217; Lucy Mallows, Rudolf Abraham, Transylvania p. 212; Fráter, Olivér (2000). "The Romanian Occupation of Transsylvania in 1918-1919". epa.oszk.hu. Kisebbségkutatás - 9. évf. 2000. 2. szám; Miller, Daniel (15 July 1999). Forging Political Compromise: Antonín Svehla and the Czechoslovak Republican Party, 1918–1933. University of Pittsburgh Pre. p. 66. ISBN 978-0-8229-7728-5.
2 According to historian Dorin Stanescu, Hungarian bitterness following Trianon was bound to happen given Hungary's unrealistic expectation of keeping the status quo after losing a war. Hungary had hoped to maintain Greater Hungary, they hoped that all the regions of old Hungary would remain part of Hungary, but were not taking into account what the nationalities who lived inside Greater Hungary wanted. In Transylvania, where 54% of the population was Romanian, trying to maintain this region as part of Hungary was an utopia, for the president of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, came with his 14 points about the right of nationalities for self-determination, and the Romanians in Transylvania who were a majority, didn't want to be part of Hungary. Essentially, the Hungarian politicians hoped to keep the status quo but the historical reality, the debates during the peace conference and the arguments of the nationalities who wished to break free from Hungary, were the ones that mattered and eventually weighted decisively in favor of creating the eventual borders of Trianon.
Sources for 2 - Florin Critescu, Dorin Stanescu, Oral History Archive, The Treaty of Trianon, 2021
3 Historian Joseph Held further emphasizes the desire for self-determination of nationalities inside Hungary as one of the main reasons for the gravity of Trianon. "The basic problem in Hungary was that less than half of the population were ethnically Hungarian. After the Ausgleich the Hungarians made at least one attempt to solve the cultural problem involved in the situation with the nationality law of 1868. The intent of this law was to arrange for a compromise between the non-Magyar nationalities and the Hungarians. The fact was, however, that the nationalities demanded more than cultural nationalism. They were in the process of establishing ties with their co-nationals — the Rumanians, Serbians, Czechs — living outside the monarchy or in the Austrian half, and were working for political independence. Moreover, the nationality law was seldom observed in Hungary; the rights of the nationalities were violated continuously by the Hungarian government. Their schools were closed and confiscated; their protests were suppressed by the police; their leaders were jailed for long periods of time. Hungarian propagandists spoke of a country of thirty million Hungarians, and of the sacred right of Hungary to “Magyarize” its nationalities."
Sources for 3 - Joseph Held, "The Heritage of the Past: Hungary before World War I", in Ivan Volgyes (editor), "HUNGARY IN REVOLUTION. 1918-19. Nine Essays", University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1971, pages 6-7.
4 The treatment of minorities under the Kingdom of Hungary was one of the main causes for their desire to be separated from Hungary. Faced with the danger of national competition, the Magyar gentry dared not fulfil the provisions of the Nationalities Law of 1868; on the other hand, to make their work easier, they demanded a knowledge of Magyar from all the inhabitants of Hungary. No state school, elementary or secondary, was ever provided for any national minority; the secondary schools which the Slovaks had set up for themselves were closed in 1874; Magyar was made compulsory in all schools in 1883. The highest expression of this policy was the Education Law promoted by [Prime minister, Count] Apponyi in 1907, which imposed a special oath of loyalty on all teachers and made them liable to dismissal if their pupils did not know Magyar. Similarly, the Magyar gentry attacked any political display by the nationalities -drove their few members from parliament and condemned their organisations. By these means, the Magyar gentry gained and kept a monopoly of state employment and of the liberal professions. At the beginning of the twentieth century, 95 per cent of the state officials, 92 per cent of the county officials, 89 per cent of the doctors, and 90 per cent of the judges were Magyar. Eighty per cent of the newspapers were in Magyar, and the remainder mostly German: three million Roumanians had 2,5 per cent of the newspapers, two million Slovaks had 0,64 per cent.
4 Sources for 4 - A. J. P. Taylor, "The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809-1918 : A History of the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary", Hamish Hamilton, London, 1948, page 186.
5 Historian Gabor Vermes argues that although national sentiments have been sparked by the treatment of minorities by the Austrians and Hungarians, it was the political atmosphere that caused the partitions of Austria and Hungary. The Austro-Hungarian monarchy had been a conglomerate of various nations. From any logical and pragmatic point of view, some form of federalism should have been accomplished. However, the two ruling nations, the Germans in Austria and the Magyars in Hungary, clung stubbornly to the maintenance of “dualism” which was based on a joint rule of Germans and Magyars. The resentment of the other nations was boiling beneath the surface, and the monarchy’s defeat in World War I brought to the fore their bitterness, and by 1918, their wish to secede. Croats, Serbians, Slovaks, and Rumanians harbored a long list of grievances against the Magyars, and the chaotic conditions of 1918—disintegrating armies, fluctuating demarcation lines, ambiguous armistice terms—only intensified them. Above all, active Entente support played into their hands. It would be futile to argue the issues from a legal viewpoint, or even from an ideological viewpoint, because in 1918, the military and political atmosphere was charged with emotions, and conflict between the onetime rulers and onetime subjects was not to be solved in a rational and sensible way.
Sources for 5 - Gabor Vermes, "The October Revolution in Hungary: from Karolyi to Kun", in Ivan Volgyes (editor), "Hungary in Revolution. 1918-19. Nine Essays", Univ. of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1971, page 47.
As you can see, none of these sources are from the communist era and most of them are written by non-Romanians.
Please, identify what is wrong in this sources, using sources of your own. As personally, I believe most of the information you came up with such as "If only some Saxon politician voted for Romania, only because by fear, do not forget the Romanian army (and behind the Entente) was in the background" is incorrect.
Please, no outside the subject mentionings or personal speculations. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 17:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I already provided detalied answer above why your info is incorrect. Also I quoted your text by you copy paste and spam the site with the same thing ignoring my arguments.
Your text was reverted by an another user and you added again, so again it is not true that you say "nobody objected", by the way, Romanian assembly already was mentioned in that page, just not in the first section. So you added a duplicate info. You changed already "the status quo of the page", your text added recently, and if somebody has own life and do not supervise every Wikipedia page 24/7 it does not mean that your content is correct what you added 10 days ago.
"The first section is a summary of the rest of the article. 20-1 = 10 days?"
So you admit it is not true when you stated that "nobody objected". You added a lot of info 9th of June, if somebody does not watch a website 24/7, it does not mean the recently added info is correct. OrionNimrod ( talk) 18:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I did not ignore your arguments. As I said, I believe that 90% of what you're saying is wrong. But this is not about what I or you believe. You provided unsourced content, original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. You can't just go and say "I think the Mongols were Spanish!" and expect people to believe you. I asked you to offer me sources and previously told you that "A lot of the content you removed was sourced content. A case could be made that this is not 'incorrect statement' but simply historians having different opinions over the same event". I am offering the opinion of historians, you are offering your own personal opinion.
Why you repeat again the same thing that I already gave you a response for? As I said "you can read our short discussion for yourself (...) And that was it. He didn't further object". Again, as I said "The first section is a summary of the rest of the article". Again, as I said, "If I want to remove content on Wikipedia, I can't wake up one day and remove content added by someone to which there was no objection at the time saying that "well, I object to it now".
You can check it yourself, the content was first added on 1st of June, and the discussion with that persion was on 3rd of June. That's 19 days.
I made an exception this time but still noticed you haven't said anything about the sources, instead, everything you said was about me. So, as I said "Either way, I am still waiting for your arguments on those sources why are incorrect as you claim. And will completely disregard anything else but talking about those sources since I have no interest in making this wall of text larger than it is."
This time, I mean it, I will only address statements related to the subject at hand. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 18:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
90% wrong of my arguments? For example? So you did not talk them one by one, just name all of them wrong. I linked a lot of other Wikipedia sites and refered to the current site, not personal research. For example when I posted the quote from Nitti, it was sourced, I provided the readable link to the book, that everybody can check what I posted, while you did not provide readable links from your quotes. You posted only anti-Hungarian opinions, whit lot of incorrect states inside these quotes, " the rights of the nationalities were violated continuously by the Hungarian government. Their schools were closed and confiscated;", etc, and I provided the wikipedia links whichs showed how many thousand ethnic schools was in Hungary. I was talking about the content.
You added those quotes on 9th of June.
Above I already provided detailed explanation why these quotes are incorrect, this is not my strategy to write down 100 times the same. OrionNimrod ( talk) 18:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I did address them in "Concerning OrionNimrod's edits", the first post. Take for example this one:
You were saying that "This is total incorrect. Hungary had more Romanian schools than Romania itself ( /info/en/?search=Magyarization). The page shows the population data, so it is incorrect to state that Hungarian population was less than half". And my reply to you was this one.
Looking at the /info/en/?search=Magyarization, it doesn't seem to confirm what you are saying: "For a long time, the number of non-Hungarians that lived in the Kingdom of Hungary was much larger than the number of ethnic Hungarians. According to the 1787 data, the population of the Kingdom of Hungary numbered 2,322,000 Hungarians (29%) and 5,681,000 non-Hungarians (71%). In 1809, the population numbered 3,000,000 Hungarians (30%) and 7,000,000 non-Hungarians (70%). An increasingly intense Magyarization policy was implemented after 1867." "Overall, between 1880 and 1910, the percentage of the total population that spoke Hungarian as its first language rose from 46.6% to 54.5%" But looking at /info/en/?search=Demographics_of_Hungary it seems this 54.5% is excluding Croatia for some reason, which was part of the Kingdom of Hungary. "According to the census of 1910, the largest ethnic group in the Kingdom of Hungary were Hungarians, who were 54.5% of the population of Kingdom of Hungary, excluding Croatia-Slavonia. Although the territories of the former Kingdom of Hungary that were assigned by the treaty to neighbouring states in total had a majority of non-Hungarian population, they also included areas of Hungarian majority and significant Hungarian minorities, numbering 3,318,000 in total."
This sentence, already existing on the Trianon page: "In the last census before the Treaty of Trianon held in 1910, which recorded population by language and religion, but not by ethnicity, speakers of the Hungarian language included approximately 48% of the entire population of the Kingdom of Hungary.[2]" Is more correct because it includes Croatia as well, that was part of the Kingdom of Hungary. As such, I find the assertion of the source you tried to remove correct, and am against removing it.
Simply put, the link /info/en/?search=Magyarization only confirmed what Joseph Held said (which you wanted to remove) and your claim that "The page shows the population data, so it is incorrect to state that Hungarian population was less than half" is again false. Not only it does not show that, but it shows the opposite.
I have a hard time seeing how you got to those conclusions using those Wikipedia links you provided given that they contradict you.
But for the vast majority of the things you said, I don't need to give an answer because (a) they are not relevant, (b) you did not offer a source for them. And I'm not here to discuss OR.
For example, and this is the 3rd time I say the same thing, you said that "If only some Saxon politician voted for Romania, only because by fear, do not forget the Romanian army (and behind the Entente) was in the background" which I believe it is incorrect, but the important thing is that you did not offer any source for that, its merely personal opinion and frankly not relevant to the subject at hand. So I can dismiss it without addressing it.
Likewise, it's not my strategy to write down 100 times the same. I even made a list of the things you wanted to remove to make it easier for you to explain which information from there is wrong and why, but you didn't do any of that. And seeing how this discussion goes, you're not likely to do it. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 18:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Hungarian population was around 40% in these sites (and not 29%) around 1780-90: Demographics of Hungary, Magyarization. But why are you talking about 1790??? Off topic again.
According to the census of 1910, the largest ethnic group in the Kingdom of Hungary were Hungarians, who were 54.5% of the population of Kingdom of Hungary, excluding Croatia-Slavonia. Croatia was personal union with Hungary, not Hungarian land!
Even the red map showed only Hungarian land and not Croatia which was provided to Entente.
Treaty of Trianon#/media/File:Ethnographic map of hungary 1910 by teleki carte rouge.jpg
So it is not true to say it was less than half. So you admit this info was on the page already, why do you want to duplicate info on the page?
The page has already the Romanian assembly with a picture, but you duplicated this info. You mentioned more assembly, but only you ignored the Hungarian one. OrionNimrod ( talk) 19:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Please offer the exact quotes from the link where it says the Hungarian population was around 40% in these sites.
I am not talking about 1790?! you are the first one to bring 1790 up and I'm not even sure why.
"According to the census of 1910, the largest ethnic group in the Kingdom of Hungary were Hungarians, who were 54.5% of the population of Kingdom of Hungary, excluding Croatia-Slavonia. Croatia was personal union with Hungary, not Hungarian land!" According to the same census, but including Croatia, the Hungarians were 48% of the population of Kingdom of Hungary.
I believe the author did not consider the fact that Croatia was in a personal union or not with Hungary relevant. And I don't consider it either, given that as far as the Austrian state aparatus was concerned, Croatia was part of Hungary. It was administrated by Hungary rather than Austria, taxes went to Hungary, the leaders were appointed by Hungary, etc.
If we include Croatia in the census, it is true that less than half of the population was Hungarian, if we don't 54.5% is still not a significantly higher number from 48% to drastically alter the meaning of the whole sentence.
Please, tell me what you understand by "The first section is a summary of the rest of the article" ? For example, this "The principal beneficiaries were the Kingdom of Romania, the Czechoslovak Republic, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia), and the First Austrian Republic." is also present in the article, and for good reason. The first section is a summary of the rest of the article, therefore, everything else that is present in the summary should also be present in the article but in a more expanded upon form. Ok, so we can add the Hungarian assembly as well, no problem with that. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 19:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Please offer the exact quotes from the link where it says the Hungarian population was around 40% in these sites.
Demographics of Hungary,
1790
It is not problem if you do not see the numbers in the charts.
Anyway talking about 1787 or 1790 is total off topic, even nothing about this in your quotes, but you who are many times copy paste this.
Croatia was under the Holy Crown of Hungary but it was not Hungarian land, even the Hungarian red map did not include Croatia. Croatia was administered own: Croatian–Hungarian Settlement
"if we don't 54.5% is still not a significantly higher number from 48% to drastically alter the meaning of the whole sentence."
Treaty of Trianon: "2,831,222 Romanians (53.8%). [7]"
Romanians had only 53.8% in Hungary, You say it is not a problem to say 54% is less than half, but Romanians always ephasize "Romanian majority" Thanks for showing us your double standard! Even you said many times this majority "voted" to join Romania. Which is incorrect.

As I said the page has already the Romanian assembly and you duplicated the info that suggest these "votes" caused the Treaty of Trianon, however not. OrionNimrod ( talk) 19:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Ok, so that particular link says 35-40% Hungarians in 1790. While /info/en/?search=Magyarization says 29% Hungarians in 1787. I agree that is irrelevant for the subject at hand.
/info/en/?search=Kingdom_of_Croatia_(Habsburg)#Dual_Monarchy_Period "In 1868 the Croatian–Hungarian Settlement was negotiated, which combined Croatia and Slavonia into the autonomous Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. With this agreement, the Kingdom of Croatia received autonomy in administrative, educational, religious and judicial affairs. However, the governor (ban) was still appointed by Hungary, 55% percent of all tax money went to Budapest, and Hungary had authority over the biggest sea port of Rijeka (something that was reportedly not part of the Settlement actually agreed upon)".
Isn't 53.8% still a Romanian majority? Even without the rounding up to 54% it's still a Romanian majority. Actually, it is correct, the national assembly of Romania was made up by elected representatives of Transylvanian Romanians, they voted for them. And they voted for union with Romania. /info/en/?search=Union_of_Transylvania_with_Romania
As I said the first section is a summary of the rest of the article, and they did not cause the Treaty of Trianon by themselves, but they influenced the Great Powers, so the national assemblies of Romanians, Germans and Slovaks did have an influence over the Treaty of Trianon. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 20:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I do not understand why do you talk about always off topics like seaports in Croatia, taxation, 1787, etc...
53,8% is a slightly majority, which is emphasised by your quotes as "huge majority" while you have no problem that your sources say Hungarians had less than half of the population however Hungarian population was in 54% in Hungarian land. Of course Hungarian population was much less if we calculate together the full population of Austria-Hungary, but the topic is only Hungary, and Croatia belonged under the crown of Hungary as personal union same as Austria and Hungary was in personal union (but nobody calculate the proportions of Hungarians in full Austria-Hungary regarding this treaty) so Croatia was not Hungarian land, but a partner country. Hungarian diplomats provided to the Entente the Teleki map what was based on real census, we can see this map in the Wiki page because this map is relating to the topic. We can clearly see Hungarians at that time did not consider Croatia as Hungarian land regarding the Treaty.
Treaty of Trianon#/media/File:Ethnographic map of hungary 1910 by teleki carte rouge.jpg
Also Hungarians made a rally, but of course you forget to mention it. Romania joined to Entente because Hungarian lands was promised much earlier than these rallies. Hungarians were not invited to the one-sided "peace" talk. The Entente gave lands to neighboars, not the rallies, that is why the topic is "treaty of Trianon".
Territorial evolution of Romania
You wrote "unanimous vote "the unification of those Romanians and of all the territories inhabited by them with Romania"
The topic already mentioned the national asemmblis with a picture, why do you want to duplicate this? If some Romanians from 2,8 million vote for Romania in a not secrect vote, what is this? A theater. Romania got many full Hungarian populated regions, which cleary proves not these national rallies decided anything. As I mentioned it was already on that page with a picture. Treaty of Trianon#/media/File:AsambleaDeAlbaIulia19181201.jpg OrionNimrod ( talk) 11:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Because it shows that Croatia was under the administration of Hungary. Therefore it makes sense to include Croatia in the Hungarian census.
54% in Hungarian land excluding Croatia, who was administred by Hungary. You're not arguing against me here, you're arguing against historian Joseph Held, between your original research and Joseph Held I tend to side with Joseph Held.
Obviously Hungarian diplomats would not want to consider Croatia as part of Hungary after the war ended. Because it was clear they were going to lose some land and wanted Hungary to be as Hungarian as possible (like you right now, with 54% > 48%), but that doesn't change the fact that Croatia was under the administration of Hungary. Historian Joseph Held considered this more relevant so he counted Hungary's population to 48% Hungarians. That you have a different opinion, it's your opinion vs a certified historian.
"Also Hungarians made (...)" half of what you say here is wrong, but the real question is, how is this relevant to the subject at hand? because it doesn't seem relevant at all.
You wrote "unanimous vote" "the unification of those Romanians and of all the territories inhabited by them with Romania", yes, because that was it. Unanimous vote of the National Assembly of Romanians.
I already answered the same question you 4 times, do you think the 5th time is the charm and I'm going to give you a different answer?
"If some Romanians from 2,8 million vote for (...)", do you seriously want me to explain all the history of the region to you? I'm sorry, but you are very ill-informed, I made some concessions in the past and went out of my way to explain you what/how it actually happened despite being off-topic, but at this point you keep bombarding me with new wrong information after new wrong information that's not relevant for the edits in question and I'm not willing to provide for unfounded assertions anymore. You want to make a serious case? provide sources, for example "If some Romanians from 2,8 million vote for Romania in a not secrect vote, what is this? A theater", do you have any source for that? if not, my automatic response is "I don't believe you". TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 13:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
And Hungary was administred by Austria, money and military was under Austrian control and nobody calculate the population rate of Hungarians by full Austria-Hungary. This is not my opinion. Already on the page:
"of the entire population of the kingdom, and 54% of the population of the territory referred to as "Hungary proper", i.e. excluding Croatia-Slavonia." "Hungary proper" = original Hungarian land
You argue againts contemporary real events which is on the page, the Teleki map was provided by officially by Hungary to the Entente to show the Hungarian population. Croatia had almost no Hungarian population and was a partner country.
"Unanimous vote" This is already on the Wiki page with a picture below! How many times do you want to post it? Not the "Unanimous vote" of some Romanians decided the Treaty in Paris but the leaders of the Great Power. Definitely not 2,8 million Romanians "voted", also you did not know what do they want one by one each person, because nobody asked them, it was no referendum. Unnecessary to duplicate this one-sided thing. OrionNimrod ( talk) 16:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
"And Hungary was administred by Austria, money and military was under Austrian control", this doesn't exclude the fact that Croatia was under the administration of Hungary.
"nobody calculate the population rate of Hungarians by full Austria-Hungary", actually they did. But what is relevant here is that people also calculated the population rate of Hungary by including Croatia.
"Hungary proper = original Hungarian land" still doesn't exclude what was said above.
"You argue againts contemporary real events which is on the page, the Teleki map was provided by officially by Hungary to the Entente to show the Hungarian population. Croatia had almost no Hungarian population and was a partner country" I'm argue in favor of what actual historians say. We already talked about the map, my response is the same as above.
"This is already on the Wiki page with a picture below! How many times do you want to post it?" remember when I said this "I already answered the same question you 4 times, do you think the 5th time is the charm and I'm going to give you a different answer?", yeah, it's still true. I already gave you an answer, that you don't want to accept the answer and keep repeating the same thing that was already answered again and again in not my issue.
"Not the "Unanimous vote" of some Romanians decided the Treaty in Paris but the leaders of the Great Power", why do you keep saying things that I already answered above? Do you think my answer will change? At least, if you want to make a proper reply, address my answer, don't repeat back what you just said. I might as well copy-paste my answers at this point. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 16:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The Romanian assembly is already on the page with picture, but I see for you it is not a problem to duplicate it and beside ignore the Hungarian assembly.
Croatia had its own adiminstration and Hungary had its own administration. Croatians and Hungarians did the same compromise like Austrians did with the Hungarians. As you can see in the Wiki page nobody calculate the proportion of Hungarians regarding full Austria-Hungary regarding the Treaty of Trianon, because Hungary had own land, and Croatia had own land. And Hungarian and Croatian land was under the rule of the Hungarian crown, and the Hungarian crown was under the rule of the Austrian emperor.
I see nobody calculated the proportion of Austrians together in the empire, and we can see the listing the regions which lost Austria, these regions was a separate regions which was under the Austrian Crown: Land of the Bohemian Crown, Kingdom of Galicia, etc
Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919)
Kingdom of Hungary = Hungary + Croatia
Croatian–Hungarian Settlement
On the page: "The Settlement confirmed the existing territorial distinction between Croatia-Slavonia, number 17, and the remainder of the Kingdom of Hungary. Dalmatia, number 5, was the other Croatian kingdom within Austria-Hungary."
Croatian–Hungarian Settlement#/media/File:Austria-Hungary map new.svg
Do you deny the existing of Kingdom of Croatia? Do you want talk to Croatian users?
Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia: 1868–1918
Hungarian politicians provided the ethnic map which showed the Hungarians lands only, and Croatia was not considered Hungarian land. Do you want to know this better than the contemporary politicians who lived there and participated in the Treaty? Do you deny these maps what I provided which cleary show that Hungary and Croatia is a separate land?
Treaty of Trianon#/media/File:Ethnographic map of hungary 1910 by teleki carte rouge.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Austria-Hungary_map.svg
  • Empire of Austria (Cisleithania): 1. Bohemia, 2. Bukovina, 3. Carinthia, 4. Carniola, 5. Dalmatia, 6. Galicia, 7. Küstenland, 8. Lower Austria, 9. Moravia, 10. Salzburg, 11. Silesia, 12. Styria, 13. Tyrol, 14. Upper Austria, 15. Vorarlberg;
  • Kingdom of Hungary (Transleithania): 16. Hungary 17. Croatia-Slavonia;
  • Austrian Condominium: 18. Bosnia and Herzegovin
OrionNimrod ( talk) 13:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I see you are simply ignoring what I said previously and simply repeat the same things I already gave you an answer from. Unless you are willing to actually address my answer rather than repeat what you previously said, there is nothing I can do. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 14:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I see you are who ignore that Croatia was a separate state and you are who ignore the contemporary map and the thinking of contemporary politicans. OrionNimrod ( talk) 14:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
You made a claim. I gave you an answer. You ignored my answer and simply reinforced your claim. So who is ignoring who? You have yet to address any of the reasons I had for objection. And yes, I'm long aware of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, doesn't change anything. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 14:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
If you are aware Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, then you should know Hungarian mainland was a different land as the maps shows above, and it is incorrect to calculate the proportion of Hungarians together. And talking about "30 millio Hungarians by a noname people" total irrevelant info. OrionNimrod ( talk) 14:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Plenty of historians did just that, that's how we got the 48% number, and I tend to believe the opinion of a certified historian over your own personal opinion. And, as said above but 100% ignored by you, in Croatia, "the governor (ban) was still appointed by Hungary, 55% percent of all tax money went to Budapest, and Hungary had authority over the biggest sea port of Rijeka" (from Wikipedia). Croatia was under the administration of Hungary. Therefore it makes sense to include Croatia in the Hungarian census. I believe this is the reason why plenty of historians did count Croatia as part of Hungary. It was at the end of the day, still a territory ruled by Hungary.
Also, you are wrong that "I see nobody calculated the proportion of Austrians together in the empire" it's just not relevant for the Treaty of Trianon (since the treaty was made only with Hungary, not with Austria-Hungary) so it wasn't included here. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 15:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
/info/en/?search=Ethnic_and_religious_composition_of_Austria-Hungary see? Somebody calculated the proportion of Austrians together in the empire. 23% German, 19% Hungarian, 12% Czech, 10% Serbo-Croatian, 9% Polish, 7% Ruthenian, 6% Romanian, 3% Slovak, 2% Slovene, 1% Italian, 2% Other.
And the page says, quote:
"In the Austrian Empire (Cisleithania), the census of 1911 recorded Umgangssprache, everyday language. Jews and those using German in offices often stated German as their Umgangssprache, even when having a different Muttersprache. The Istro-Romanians were counted as Romanians.
In the Kingdom of Hungary (Transleithania), the census was based primarily on mother tongue, [8] [9] 48.1% of the total population spoke Hungarian as their native language. Not counting autonomous Croatia-Slavonia, more than 54.4% of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Hungary were native speakers of Hungarian. This included also the Jews (around 5% of the population), as mostly they were Hungarian-speaking (the Yiddish speakers were recorded as German). [10] [11]"
So, as you can see, the 48% of the total population of Hungary is also mentioned by other sources. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 15:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I think the original authors and people who participated in this Treaty know better than historians who lived later. Also if historians provide population data, it should be correct to mention "together with Croatia" and the "proportion of Hungarians in the Hungarian part". Historians should provide precise numbers.
I see the calculation of this page is correct, Hungary and Croatia are in separate. 54% Hungarian on Hungarian land, which means "saying less than half" is incorrect, 20% also less than half. And the page mention 48% together with Croatia, but your historians did not povide any precise info. Sorry I forget: your "important" source mention "30 millio Hungarians" :) which is nonsense and total irrevelant. Probably this is not the best quote from this historian.
Ethnic and religious composition of Austria-Hungary
On the "Hungarian irredentism" page you are worring about the accurate numbers, you worte "I simply do not find it accurate to use the 1941 census to represent the state of Northern Transylvania in 1940.", I see in this case you have not a problem to calculate 2 countries together to decrease the proportion of Hungarians, however Croatia and Hungary was a separate country, but in personal union, like Hungary was personal union with Austria.
Do you deny the text of the Treaty of Trianon?
The text mention only few times Croatia, and as a separte country, and no more mention. Because the Treaty of Trianon was applied on the Hungarian land and not together Croatia+Hungary.
The text of the Treaty of Trianon said that Croatia and Hungary was a separate country:
"the old administrative boundary between Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia"
"then to its junction with the old boundary between Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia"
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon/Part_II
"and which formerly belonged to the Kingdom of Bohemia, the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Republic of Ragusa, the Venetian Republic,"
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon/Part_IX OrionNimrod ( talk) 15:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
"I think the original authors and people who participated in this Treaty know better than historians who lived later" Wikipedia doesn't work like that. The word of modern historians take precedence over the word of contemporaries, because they can put them into the proper context.
Fair point, proper numbers should be listed, perhaps we can put an anecdote saying "48.1% with the Kingdom of Croatia, 54.4% without the Kingdom of Croatia" would that be okay for you?
Given that Croatia was actually an autonomus region of Hungary (as far as Austria-Hungary was concerned, Croatia was in the Hungarian half), I would argue saying "less than half" is correct.
It is not non-sense, it is what Hungarian propagandist aimed for. Just like Nazi Germany wanted a Europe full of Germans, Hungarians wanted a Hungary full of Hungarians (rather than 48.1/54.4% of the population) with a population of 30 million people. I have seen this claim from other sources as well.
In effect, Croatia was an autonomus region of Hungary, rather than in a personal union with Hungary. On paper it was a personal union, but it not behave like a country in a personal union. Rather like a country subordonate to Hungary.
And on the "Hungarian irredentism" page, I kept your 1941 census, despite not making any sense since we already have the Romanian estimations of 1940 (37% Hungarians) and Hungarian estimations of 1940 (38% Hungarians), and the reason it got from 37-38% Hungarians in 1941 to 53% Hungarians in 1941 is simple: 100.000 Hungarians came in from South Transylvania. 100.000 (officially) but 140.000 - 150.000 (unofficially) Romanians were kicked out of North Transylvania + the deportation of Jews meant the percentage would increase + In Máramaros and Szatmár Counties, dozens of settlements had many people who had declared themselves as Romanian but now identified themselves as Hungarian although they had not spoken any Hungarian even in 1910. So your listing of Hungarian numbers in 1941 for the 1940 annexation makes no sense, but I allowed it just to humor you, as long as the relevant numbers are also displayed. So you're welcome.
I don't deny the text of the Treaty of Trianon. But this is a perfect example why "Wikipedia doesn't work like that. The word of modern historians take precedence over the word of contemporaries, because they can put them into the proper context". Croatia already had its own thing by the time of the Treaty of Trianon, that was indepednent of Hungary and not caused by the Hungarians. At the point of the treaty of Trianon, Croatia and Hungary was a separate country, but shortly before that, it wasn't. The reason minorities wanted out of Hungary, is related to the time when it wasn't.
"the old administrative boundary between Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia" ; "then to its junction with the old boundary between Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia" -> In free translation "Hungary won't get to own Croatia anymore" aka "Hungary lost Croatia". So Croatia was already understood as part of Hungary previously. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 20:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC) reply
If modern historians write something, this does not mean automatically that info is correct. Morover your "important" quote is OLDER THAN 50 YEARS (the book is from 1971 where there is a collection from many authors, so your source probably is more older than 1971), this is CLEARLY NOT A MODERN historian work. Please consider this fact, if you emphasized how works Wikipedia. The authors says " in Hungary was that less than half of the population were ethnically Hungarian" and he did not say together with Croatia or "Kingdom of Hungary" but just Hungary, and Croatia and Hungary was a separate state (but under one crown) as we can see clearly itselft in the original treaty. And the page is about the Treaty of Trianon. Your author says "the rights of the nationalities were violated continuously by the Hungarian government. Their schools were closed and confiscated; their protests were suppressed by the police; their leaders wereary", if Croatia had a separate administration, Croatia has own leaders, and Croatian schools were closed by a different administration? How? How many Croatian schools were closed by Hungarians? Your text cleary do not talk about Croatia, if your text do not talk about Croatia it is incorrect to calculate the population of Hungarians together with the population of Croatia.
"It is not non-sense, it is what Hungarian propagandist aimed for. Just like Nazi Germany wanted a Europe full of Germans, " Total off topic talking about WW2 and Nazis, we can also mention the Romanian living space planes and the reality how Romania romanianized and suppressed their ethnic groups after Romania became super big from a small state, but this is also off topic. Nobody know who is your "Hungarian propagandists", Hungary had around 10 million people and talking about 30 million is total nonsense, morover total irrevelant what a noname people said, what is the bussiness with this with the page of the Treaty of Trianon? Like a spam.
"In effect, Croatia was an autonomus region of Hungary, rather than in a personal union with Hungary. On paper it was a personal union, but it not behave like a country in a personal union." This is your personal opinion. You can consult Croatians, why you deny the existence of their country.
Following your personal opinion, I see you deny those Wiki pages too:
Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia
Croatia in personal union with Hungary
Croatian–Hungarian Settlement
This map from 1880: we can cleary see the separate border between Hungary and Croatia: (By the way, you mentioned you do not accept these contemporary sources, because today, in 2022 you know better this, than the contemporary Croatians and Hungarians, and the makers of the Treaty of Trianon)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Literacy_in_Austria-Hungary_%281880%29.JPG
https://www.mapsandantiqueprints.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Austro-Hungarian-Empire-antique-map.jpg
map 1895:
https://www.amazon.com/MAPS-PAST-Austria-Hungary-McNally/dp/B0728MBJD9?th=1
You wrote an off topic again: "100.000 Hungarians came in from South Transylvania. 100.000 (officially) but 140.000 - 150.000 (unofficially) Romanians were kicked out of North Transylvania + the deportation of Jews meant the percentage would increase" If Romanians were "kicked out" by your standard, the Hungarians also were "kicked out" who came from south Transylvania which was under Romanian control. Also you can mention that 200 000 Hungarians fled to Hungary after the Treaty of Trianon from the Romanians.
(Off topic again) Jews was deported only after 1944 when the Germans took control on Hungary and not in 1940:
History of the Jews in Hungary
While Romania already massacred Jews in 1941 whitout German help:
Iași pogrom OrionNimrod ( talk) 08:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
"If modern historians write something, this does not mean automatically that info is correct", true, but given how Wikipedia works. If historians write something, it can be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Our function is editors, not researchers to tell what is right and wrong.
"The authors says in Hungary was that less than half of the population were ethnically Hungarian and he did not say together with Croatia or Kingdom of Hungary but just Hungary", which is technically correct given that Croatia was de facto an autonomus region of Hungary.
"Croatia had a separate administration, Croatia has own leaders, and Croatian schools were closed by a different administration? How? How many Croatian schools were closed by Hungarians?" Croatia was an autonomus region within Hungary.
"Total off topic talking about WW2 and Nazis" it's called comparison.
"Hungary had around 10 million people and talking about 30 million is total nonsense, morover total irrevelant what a noname people said, what is the bussiness with this with the page of the Treaty of Trianon? Like a spam" 1. This is wrong. 2. I already answered that before. I've done this before but I won't repeat myself anymore just because you can't read. From now on, if you repeat a question I've already answered, I'll simply tell you that I already answered that before. It's much more efficient than having you spam the same question again and again and again expecting a different answer.
"This is your personal opinion. You can consult Croatians, why you deny the existence of their country." My god, do you not see the double standards? All your "arguments" were personal opinion, all of them, and the vast majority of your personal opinion is wrong. But when I make a case that Croatians were de facto an autonomus part of Hungary because "the governor (ban) was still appointed by Hungary, 55% percent of all tax money went to Budapest, and Hungary had authority over the biggest sea port of Rijeka", you're all like, "this is your personal opinion. The double standards are off the roof.
It's not about consulting Croatians, it's about consulting historians. For that, look at the quote above with the governor (ban).
The very problem with your claim that a certified historian is wrong, is that this is your personal opinion. The reason we have this discussion in the first place is because of your personal opinion.
I don't deny the existence of their country but nice fallacy.
"This map from 1880: we can cleary see the separate border between Hungary and Croatia" nice fallcy, that doesn't prove anything.
"you mentioned you do not accept these contemporary sources" I didn't, nice fallacy again.
"You wrote an off topic again" how is that off-topic?
"(Off topic again) Jews was deported only after 1944 when the Germans took control on Hungary and not in 1940" false. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 14:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I see in other page you know very well which numbers can be correct if this info is pro-Romanian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hungarian_irredentism&diff=next&oldid=1094422779
Your quoted historian is clearly not a modern historian, more than 50 years old source.
"Croatia was de facto an autonomus region of Hungary" Again you deny the facts. They were in personal union. And no Croatian schools were closen by Hungary and no Croatian politicians were suppressed by Hungarian police, because Croatia has own police. So your author cleary do not talk about the Croatian part of the Kingdom. It means calculating the population together is total incorrect.
You can consult the authors of these pages, tell them you know it better and request the delete of these pages:
Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia
Croatia in personal union with Hungary
Croatian–Hungarian Settlement
This is not my problem if you deny the contemporary old maps, which clearly show Croatia and Hungary had border as a separate country.
I see for you is ok to put to the page with 50+ years non modern sources with off topic.
I do not know from where do you get the tax info. Hungary had Fiume (Rijeka), it was part of Hungary not part of Croatia. The Treaty text itself deal with this city, because this city was part of Hungary not part of Croatia, and it had significant Hungarian population. By order of Empress Maria Theresa in 1779, the city was annexed to the Kingdom of Hungary and governed as corpus separatum directly from Budapest by an appointed governor, as Hungary's only international port. You know 1 city is not full Croatia.
Rijeka OrionNimrod ( talk) 16:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
It's not my fault you don't understand that the word of modern historians take precedence over the word of contemporaries, because they can put them into the proper context.
We already had this conversation, not going to give you the same answer for the 7th time.
I get the tax info from Wikipedia, even gave you the link for it. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 18:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Good to know that 50+ years quote is "modern" for you... "proper text" he calculates together Hungary+Croatia, then he talked about only Hungary, this is incorrect. I do not know the other works of that historian, but you choose not the best quotes from him. You did not provide me any tax info, no tax info even in your quote, this is also off topic. Your strategy to spam the conversation with off topics and deny the contemporary reality. OrionNimrod ( talk) 19:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Yes, it is. Yes, he does. No, that is correct. That is your personal opinion. Yes I did provide, more than once, this only confirms the fact that you often plainly ignored what I said and simply repeated yourself. My strategy was to be nice to you and explain it to you despite your apparent lack of knowledge, but your strategy was to not even listen and ask the same question/make the same statements continously despite already receiving an answer on them. You won't even discuss the answer, you just repeat yourself. You're the last person who should be talking about off-topic. Your wrong personal opinion is not reality. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 21:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I provided facts, links, maps, other Wiki pages, while you are who ignore them, and just forcing personal opinions. Croatia and Hungary was in personal union, this is fact, this is not my personal opinion, this is the knowledge of Croatians and Hungarians as you can see this fact on other Wiki pages, but even if you say it was "autonomous region", it means Croatia has own parliament, own police, the Hungarian police has no authority there, while your "modern" quote says "Hungarian police harrased the ethnic politicians", but this is impossibe in Croatia in the "autonomous region" (by your standard), so this statement is not true, despite your quote calculates the population together Hungary+Croatia. That is why this calculation is incorrect and not at all modern work (50+years), but you ignore this fact also. OrionNimrod ( talk) 08:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
No, you did not, you provided links to Wikipedia pages that don't even agree with you. That's as vague and misleading as you can get. Talking about forcing personal opinions, you should look in the mirror. I did not ignore any of your facts, I simply disagree. Either because I find them wrong or irrelevant. "Hungarian police harrased the ethnic politicians" meaning Slovaks, Romanians, Serbs. He didn't say "Croatians" so your statement that "this is impossibe in Croatia" is outright misleading and made in bad faith. That was the reason why this calculation is incorrect? misleading and bad faith argument made by you? That can be easily dismissed. As I told you since day 1, the word of modern historians take precedence over the word of contemporaries and your personal opinion. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 11:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Your historian is not MODERN. Your historian calculate the Hungarians+Croatians together. Then he write stories about the ethnics in Hungary, and in these stories Croatia and Croatians is not involved due to the different administration, so it is incorrect to calculate together relating these stories. And still there were many thousand ethnic school in Hungary, your quote pretent that all was closed. Wiki pages clearly writes the personal union, so these pages agree with me. OrionNimrod ( talk) 12:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
1971 is considered modern. And you can't blame it on "Romanian communism" since Joseph Held wasn't Romanian nor was he living in communist Romania. Yes, he did the Hungarians+Croatians together, and the reasons for this are explained above. That you would have prefered Joseph Held not doing that is personal opinion. If you wouldn't haven't ignored the part where I explained it to you, you would have realised the administrations of Hungary and Croatia weren't entirely different. The Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was subordonated to the Kingdom of Hungary, not merely a personal union but administrated by Hungary with a degree of personal autonomy, so his statement is not incorrect since Croatia was de facto part of Hungary.
"Wiki pages clearly writes the personal union, so these pages agree with me", what? I never said it wasn't a personal union, I said it was a personal union and more than that. It's that part with and more than that (which I explained how that more than that worked in practice with a quote from Wikipedia that you ignored) that makes his writing accurate. As for the schools, remember the 3 quotes you failed to provide a direct response on from the Magyarization Wikipedia page? Here I'll refresh your memory: "The Hungarian secondary school is like a huge machine, at one end of which the Slovak youths are thrown in by the hundreds, and at the other end of which they come out as Magyars", "In practice, the majority of students in commune-funded schools who were native speakers of minority languages were instructed exclusively in Hungarian", "Beginning with the 1879 Primary Education Act and the 1883 Secondary Education Act, the Hungarian state made more efforts to reduce the use of non-Magyar languages, in strong violation of the 1868 Nationalities Law". Until you stop repating yourself and start addressing what are the actual issues with your assertions, there's no way this conversation can go forward. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 13:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
1971 is not modern, 50+ years how can be modern??? Do you know which cars and computers were that time? Are they modern for you? So do you say the Hungarian police harrased Croatian politicians and Croatian people in Croatia? And Hungary closed Croatian schools in Croatia? In a different administered region? These things are not true. That is why it is incorrect to calculate the populations together if the next part of the text not the events which was in Croatia. "The Hungarian secondary school is like a huge machine, at one end of which the Slovak youths are thrown in by the hundreds, and at the other end of which they come out as Magyars" This is typical propaganda, if you quote from other wiki page, it does not mean that page is correct. If a Slovak people has a Slovak mother language, speak Slovak at home, speak Slovak in the basic school, then how can be Magyar if he do not want be Magyar? If a Hungarian young people go to an English secondary school where the teaching is English, then he will be English man? I do not think so. We are talking English, so we became English? Nonsense. Your text pretended that all ethnic school were closed, but this is not true, it was thousand of ethnic schools. Even in Hungary it was more Romanian school than in Romania itself, we can mention this info also to be fair. And also the ethnic situation in Romania was much worst at that time than in Hungary. OrionNimrod ( talk) 14:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
That's not how modern works. No, I don't say that. But I do say that the point you are trying to make is completely off the grid. Whether or not Hungarian police harrased Croatian politicians and Croatian people in Croatia is irrelevant, whether that happened or not it doesn't contradict what I said above, so your point si simply off-topic and irrelevant. It is a quote from the adviser of the Hungarian prime minister between 1875 - 1890. Ok, so you doubt the vaidity of that quote as well now. And proper reasons why? Slovak mother language and Slovak at home is not something Hungarians could control (but they would have if they could), the Slovak in the basic school is incorrect if you look at the 2nd quote (you didn't address at all the 2nd and 3rd quotes). TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 15:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
What the quote you disagree with because "incorrect information" and the Wikipedia Magyarization page both are saying is that minorities made schools for themselves in their own langauges (so they did exist) but the Hungarian government tried to stop them, either by making learning in Hungarian mandatory in all of these schools (breaking the whole point of a minoritiy school) or by simply closing these schools, violating the Nationalities Law of 1868 (so they did have laws, but didn't respect them). At this point, we have a quote that you disagree with because "incorrect information" that is confirmed by 2 other Wikipedia pages /info/en/?search=Magyarization and /info/en/?search=Ethnic_and_religious_composition_of_Austria-Hungary. So the issue is not that this is "incorrect information", the issue is that you have a personal opinion that is simply wrong. And please, don't try to strawman me again with things like "So do you say the Hungarian police harrased Croatian politicians and Croatian people in Croatia?", at this point, I offered you multiple sources for the same thing, while you offered no sources, all you have is personal opinion, OR, so I'm not even obligated to answer you anymore, but I'm still doing it because I want to help you understand it. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 19:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC) reply
You can try to force this, but 1971 is not modern (but you say it is modern history work). Soon it will be 2023, then 2024... Magyarization in this page is almost nothing about Croatia, and your source say "Hungarian police harrased ethnic politicians, their shcools were closed"... your text do not talk about Croatia, of course not because it was under different administration. And if you text do not talk about Croatia, it is incorrect to calculate the Croatian population together with other ethnics in the previous sentence to pretend that Crotians got the same "treatment" (which was much better than in Romania, and other countries at that time), however it is not true. I already showed many sources here above, please do not deny it! Scroll up. OrionNimrod ( talk) 11:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC) reply
You can try to force this, but 1971 is modern. I literally quoted you which part about the Magyarization page and Ethnic and Religious Compositions of Austria-Hungary are relevant. This is correct to calculate the Croatian population for the reasons mentioned above. There is nothing to deny, you showed many sources..... that contradict you. You brought attention on the Magyarization page, only to find out that it actually contradicts you after reading it. TheLastOfTheGiants ( talk) 22:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ Adrian Severin; Sabin Gherman; Ildiko Lipcsey (2006). Romania and Transylvania in the 20th Century. Corvinus Publications. p. 24. ISBN  9781882785155.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Britannica2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "The Encyclopedia Americana". Americana Corporation. 6 April 1968 – via Google Books.
  4. ^ Jonathan Dewald, Europe 1450 to 1789: encyclopedia of the early modern world, Charles Scribner's Sons, 2004, p. 230 [1]
  5. ^ József Kovacsics, Population history of Hungary mirrored by the conference-series (896-1870) (Magyarország népességtörténete a konferenciasorozat tükrésben (896-1870)), In: Demographia, 1996 - VOLUME 39, NUMBER 2-3, p. 145-165
  6. ^ Arthur J. Sabin, Red Scare in Court: New York Versus the International Workers Order, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999, p. 4 [2]
  7. ^ Árpád Varga. "Hungarians in Transylvania between 1870 and 1995".
  8. ^ "Magyarország népessége".
  9. ^ "1910. ÉVI NÉPSZÁMLÁLÁS 1. A népesség főbb adatai községek és népesebb puszták, telepek szerint (1912) | Könyvtár | Hungaricana".
  10. ^ "N psz ml l sok Erd ly ter let n 1850 s 1910 k z tt". www.bibl.u-szeged.hu. Archived from the original on 2019-02-07.
  11. ^ A. J. P. Taylor, The Habsburg Monarchy 1809–1918, 1948.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Events leading to World War II

I think that the Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine should be added to the list under number, because only it is omitted from all the peace treaties. In addition, I think of another event that directly affects the start of the second world war - the assassination attempt in Marseille on October 9, 1934. 212.75.27.213 ( talk) 07:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Refusal of US to Ratify the Treaty Feels Hidden Behind Easy-to-Miss Note in the Lead, Buried in Text, Despite Being Important Fact and Part of Article

I was reading this article and was very surprised to find that there was no explicit mention in the lead of the fact that the US failed to ratify the treaty and negotiated a separate treaty with Hungary.

Instead, this major fact is relegated to a minuscule superscripted note, which most users will quickly gloss over as just one of several references on the page (given the identical styling, if they are not intimately familiar with the quirks and stylings of Wikipedia). I would think this fact at least deserves a sentence in the lead, such as "It formally ended World War I between most of the Allies of World War I and the Kingdom of Hungary. Despite its important role in fighting and negotiating an end to the war, the United States ultimately failed to ratify the treaty, instead negotiating the U.S.–Hungarian Peace Treaty (1921) separately.", or if not a full sentence, than just extracting the note out into a simple clause following that sentence, something like "It formally ended World War I between most of the Allies of World War I and the Kingdom of Hungary, with the notable exception of the United States, which negotiated the U.S.–Hungarian Peace Treaty separately."—with the appropriate terms linked, obviously.

This fact is then only mentioned in the very last sentence of section 1.3, buried in the main text of the article.

Unearthing this important fact about the treaty from its current buried position would clear up what may seem like a mystery to readers unfamiliar with the subject, and provide an opportunity to place a cross link to a closely related treaty directly in the lead of the article, facilitating ease of navigation and discovery/learning.

Edit: Just to add to this, one reason I feel it is important to bring out this fact in the lead is because the US, and organizations in the US, were actually quite involved in how the Treaty of Trianon developed, so it is therefore notable that the country itself failed to ratify the treaty. For more on what I mean, see:

Csutak, Zsolt (2021-03-08). "The Role of the United States in Hungary's Trianon Tragedy". Hungarian Review. 12 (1). Archived from the original on 2023-06-05. Retrieved 2023-12-05.
Pastor, Peter (2014). "The United States' Role in the Shaping of the Peace Treaty of Trianon". The Historian. 76 (3): 550–566. JSTOR  24456554. Retrieved 2023-12-05.

Best,

Hermes Thrice Great ( talk) 11:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply

My understanding is that the US were actively involved in the Treaty of Trianon, a party to it and a signatory [6]. However, for domestic reasons, they were unable to ratify it (relating I think to the League of Nations stuff in the treaty, an organisation that the US never joined) and came back with a modified version of it, with the offending stuff removed. Probably we ought to have something more prominent about the non-ratification, as long we make it clear that they we're an active party to this treaty, otherwise we might go the other way, making people think that the US had little or nothing to do with the Treaty of Trianon. Nigej ( talk) 12:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Treaty_of_Trianon&oldid=1207577963"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE