Regarding Trianon and the Kingdom of Hungary

QUOTE

Croatia-Slavonia were not part of Hungary proper, but they were part of the Kingdom of Hungary. Therefor, when talking about the population of the Kingdom of Hungary, it would be correct to include Croatia-Slavonia too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_the_Kingdom_of_Hungary#1867_-_1918

First, Slavonia is not Slovenia
Slavonia is a region in eastern Croatia, while Slovenia is a country that lies west of Croatia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavonia

Second, Croatia was a co-state in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, so it formed a separate entity from Hungary. It has to be included only when one talks abou the Austro-Hungarian Empire as a whole:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Austria-hungary.png


Gen. Dénes

So you claim that 17 (Croatia and Slavonia) did not belong to the Hungarian Kingdom? The map's caption is "Map of Austria-Hungary with the Kingdom of Hungary shown in green shades" (that is 17 too). Moreover, I find all the references on the kingdom containing this part.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Trianonhungary.png

Also note here that there were counties of Hungary proper that had parts of Slovenia in present: Vas (Szombathely), Zala (Zalaegerszeg).

We are talking of two different notions.

Initially, I was talking about the ethnic composition of 'Greater Hungary', while you about the whole Kingdom of Hungary, with self-determined territories never claimed by Hungary proper, pre- or post-Trianon.

As I mentioned, Croatia should be included into the equation only when talking about the Austro-Hungarian Empire as a whole. Similarly, no-one claims Bukovina as part of 'Greater Austria', as the territory was part of the Austrian Empire, not Austria proper.

Gen. Dénes

P.S. I suggest you to change the name of this thread to a more appropriate one, to increase clarity.

Ok then. So by 1910, the Hungarian population was about 54% in the Greater Hungary and 45% in the Hungarian Kingdom.

That is correct. :cheers:

Gen. Dénes

Intresting subject. Being a Transilvanian and all I must say that Transilvania is not a hungarian teritory. Let's not forget that the huns, or hungarians, are not european they are asian. What are they doing in Europe I do not know. All that the hungarians wanted is to conquer their neighbours. I learned at history that the huns came in Panonia about 900-1000, while the ancesters of the Romanians were already formed in large comunities. What the huns did was to conquer these comunities and therefor Transilvania DOES NOT BELONG in the so called Hungarian Empire. The hungarians were so weak that they had to form an aliance with the Austrians. In WW1 the hungarians alone couldn't have stopped the Romanian army all by themselves, truth seen in 1918 when the Romanian army defeated the hungarian one and reached Budapest. Did the hungarian army ever entered Bucuresti alone whitout the help of the German and Austrian army? Let's not forget the atrocities comited by the hungarians in Transilvania, many of you may not heard about the genocide at Ip, a town in Salaj county.

^All^ just how old are you?
You got your history pretty much confused here.

The Huns and Hungarians are two different peoples. The Huns established themselves in Pannonia and raided the two Roman Empires in the 5th century AD. The Hungarians arrived in Pannonia in the 9th century AD, that is more than 400 years later. In 1867 it was the Austrian Empire that was in a very dellicate position that had to associate the Hungarians to power.

Very peculiar view of local history, ^All^. :|

I'd suggest to read through several topics on this forum, which would help you form a clearer and less distorted picture on history.

Gen. Dénes

Denes, what is the official position of the Hungarian historians in the matter of the assimilation before WWI. There are any information from inside the Hungarian "system" regarding the assimilation?
I would be curious to know how the Hungarian historians see the pre WWI era (starting with 1867).

Besides of various sites on the 'net (many of them of dubious quality), I recommend a book published by Hungarian academics, in English, titled 'History of Transylvania', by Bela Kopeczi, Budapest, Akademiai Kiado, 1994. 806 pp. Maps, illustrations, tables, bibliographical references, and index. $80.00 (cloth), ISBN 9-6305-6703-2

Contents:
Part 1: Transylvania in Prehistoric and Ancient Times, 3-106
Part 2: Transylvania in the Mediaeval Hungarian Kingdom, 107-243
Part 3: The Principality of Transylvania, 247-411
Part 4: Transylvania under the Habsburg Empire, 415-523
Part 5: From the Empire to Civic Hungary, 527-661
Part 6: Transylvania since 1918, 665-692
List of Abbreviations; Bibliography; List of Illustrations;
Chronology of the History of Transylvania; Index, 693-806

Here is a review of the book (the only one I found):
Review of Book

You can find it used on amazon.com for 49.95 USD:

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on September 19, 2004 03:02 am

who gives a hoot? does it matter who you are or where you are from? i guess you wouldn't like the "oh, you're from Romania" quote when you're abroad, do you?
that happened more than 1000 years ago for goodness sake.

alliance? hmmm... then please explain the 1848/49 revolution.

wasn't that 1919?

there was no "austrian" or "hungarian" army, if you're refering to WW1. but there was an "austro-hungarian" army.

staying awake during classes is usually a Good Thing ™.

We have to consider 2 main things in this problem:

- the facts: at 1 december 1918, at Alba-Iulia, more than 100,000 representants of romanian comunities from all over Transilvania decided to be united hith Romania. This universal principle - of self-determination - cannot be refused or discussed. More than that, also, the germanians from Transilvania (saxons and swabs) decided to be in agree with what was voted at Alba-Iulia at 1 december 1918.

Important hint: Romanian army was outside of Transilvania in december 1918.

- international treaty - Trianon. As Zsoldos Tamás said, the hungarian delegacy was just a wiever. But this is not a romanian guilty, becouse the romanian delegacy was not very well treated too. There was a sharing between France, United Kingdom, USA and Italy. This treaty was signed years after december 1918. Anyway, Transilvania already was a romanian province.

Here s a photo wich has been taken by Samoila Marza (1886-1967), at Alba Iulia, 1 december 1918.

This post has been edited by Dan Po on October 31, 2004 08:01 pm

Attached Image

Another photos taken by Samoila Marza at Alba-Iulia, 1 december 1918.

Attached Image

also ...

Attached Image

In these photographs we can see a lot of men in military uniform. If the army was outside Transylvania, then what are they?