This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Since there are many, I will take them all in order.
1. "This is total incorrect. Hungary had more Romanian schools than Romania itself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)
Looking at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
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)
"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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
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)
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
^A. J. P. Taylor, "The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809-1918 : A History of the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary", Hamish Hamilton, London, 1948, page 186.
^Teich, Mikuláš; Dušan Kováč; Martin D. Brown (3 February 2011). Slovakia in History. Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-80253-6. Retrieved 15 September 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. JSTOR2603603.
^Slovenský náučný slovník, I. zväzok, Bratislava-Český Těšín, 1932.
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)
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:
My understanding is that the US were actively involved in the Treaty of Trianon, a party to it and a signatory [1]. 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)
