Talk:Treaty of Trianon

about tte phrase "Hungary lost eight of its ten biggest Hungarian cities as well."

1911 Encyclopeddia Britannica

At the census of 1900 fifteen towns had more than 40,000 inhabitants, namely: Budapest, 732322; - today Hungary Szeged, 100270; - today Hungary Szabadka (Maria-Theresiopel), 81464; - today Serbia Debreczen, 72351; - today Hungary Pozsony (Pressburg), 61537; - today Slovakia Hodmezo-Vasarhely, 60824; - today Hungary Zagrab (Agram), 61002; today Croatia Kecskemet, 56786; - today Slovakia Arad, 53903; - today Romania Temesvar, 53033; - today Romania Nagyvarad (Grosswardein), 47018; - today Romania Kolozsvar (Klausenburg), 46670; - today Romania Pecs (Fiinfkirchen), 42252; - today Hungary Miskolcz, 40833; - today Hungary Kassa, 35,856. - today Slovakia

4 of the biggest 10 cities remained in Hungary 6 of the biggest 15 cities remained in Hungary

Strange list. It starts with "had more than 40,000 inhabitants", then lists Kassa as 35856. More importantly, fortunately Kecskemét is not Slovakia (what kind of borders would make that possible?), so if your list is correct, then 5 cities remained and 5 were detached. Qorilla (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your observation. It was a typing mistake. I know Kekskemet is Hungary Here is the source http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Hungary (Iaaasi (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC))

psychical aftermatch

United states didn't signed the teatry, because it is not based on Census. (Romania yugoslavia Czechoslovakia refused to held census in the disputes territories. (Perhabs they didn't trust in their own ethnic groups.). Slovakia hadn't Slovak majority (49%) Serbians were minority in the south (15-20%) and Romanians have weak majority (53%) in 1910's.

Speak about Romania and Serbia. They had non-western orthodox cultural background and backward poor agricultural economies. The successor states hadn't real big cities. Look the population of Bucharest and Belgrad in 1911. These cities were very little cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.184.193 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

""Areas with significant Hungarian populations include the Székely Land[29] in Eastern Transylvania and some areas along the new Romanian-Hungarian border (cities of Arad, Timişoara)"

Timisoara 1900 60.551 only 19.162 Magyars Oradea 1900 54,109 48 000 Magyars —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaaasi (talk • contribs) 15:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Temesvár was 40-50% German, and Hungarians were only the second after the Germans, but it doesn't mean that a population of 28000 (1910) Hungarians is not 'significant'. But Nagyvárad is certainly a better example if one has to choose. Qorilla (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But that Germans were not the so*called transylvanian saxons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.5.202 (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, rather Banat Swabians, as the city is not in Transylvania proper. Qorilla (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Only saxons considered themselves as Germans in Transylvania. People from Bayern and Swabia did not considered themselves as Germans in the late 19th and early XX century. In 1920, their mother tongue was Hungarian, the German language was a foreign or second language for them

motivations for treaty

Should mention that one of the reasons for the terms of the treaty was that there was a perception among the Allied powers that the Hungarian elites or aristocracy had enthusiastically collaborated with the Germans in suppressing Slavic nationalities within the Austro-Hungarian empire before 1914. The main goal of the post-WW1 territorial adjustments in central Europe was Slavic self-determination, and those who devised the treaties generally didn't give much weight to Hungarian claims as a reason to prevent realization of that goal (or the goal of rewarding Romania for its wartime services)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

pov

This article shows just why it was important to free all the subject peoples from Magyar domination. The mix of self-pity and arrogance is breathless and the bland support for Hungary's disgraceful role in joining Hitler is shameful. 80.169.162.100 (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Distribution of the non-Hungarian population in the Kingdom of Hungary

What is a Serbo-Croatian nationality???????Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The "contradiction"

An IP editor asserts that this article is contradicted by Vienna Awards and Pozsony County. The editor did not start a Talk page discussion as the Template (and link) would suggest, so I am doing so as preface to removing the contradiction template. The IP editor's concerns are set forth in very short fashion in two edit summaries. The first claims that, "Vienna Awards says 'Hungary lost again the territory it had gained.' whereas this article says the boundaries were NOT the same." The second edit summary merely says, "same issue" as to Pozsony County. Diffs here and here.

It's hard to see the problem. This article describes a peace treaty at the end of WW I by which Hungary lost certain territory. This article says that the territories were largely restored to Hungary during the Third Reich, and then approximately lost again following WW II. The Vienna Awards were apparently the mechanism by which the Nazis granted the territory back to Hungary; and, as is pointed out, that article says that after WW II, Hungary "lost again the territory it had gained". The best I can tell, the "contradiction" is the difference between Hungary "approximately" losing territory back to its 1920 borders (as stated here) and "precisely" losing that territory (implied but not stated in Vienna Awards). The difference is trivial and not worth a template.

Since the IP editor did not specify, I am assuming that the complaint with Pozsony County is the statement there that Hungary's "Trianon borders were restored after World War II." Here I have the same observation. The difference is in shading, it's not a contradiction, and an editor with more knowledge of these items (I have none) can easily harmonize them all.

Summing up - there's a difference in emphasis, the kind of thing you could probably find in any two Wikipedia articles that cover some of the same subject area. I've removed the template. Anyone who thinks I've completely missed the boat is welcome to restore it and explain the contradiction here. JohnInDC (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right to those conclusions. I would not say that it is only a shading difference. I am happy for the sentences to be changed, however they are, but those templates should be left up there so other editors can more readily see a problem with the articles.174.3.123.220 (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the "contradiction" by softening the language in the other two articles. They were simple edits. Next time please consider making such straightforward revisions yourself instead of adding cryptic template messages to articles and relying on other editors to sort things out. JohnInDC (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This treaty is a controversy and still discussed ?

About this sentence in the Political consequences section : The Treaty and its consequences are debated in Central European politics to this day. One of the main controversies regarding the Treaty of Trianon concerns the borders of Hungary. I have added these 2 tags for obvious reasons. I doubt that Treaty of Trianon has any controversies for start and that it is discussed to this day anywhere in the World in the last 50 years at least. Can someone please explain this sentence and provide a valid reference for this statement? If not, I will delete this, what only seems to be a biased sentence. Adrian (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica 1911

Online Free contents about Hungary http://www.archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabrit13chisrich#page/894/mode/2up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.100.11 (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This is quite ridiculous to say "Hungarian" cities when those cities were Hungarian of course when they were a part of Kingdom of Hungary and afterwards they wasn`t anymore (common logic and it is already said in the sentence "Hungary lost..." - Kingdom of Hungary lost it`s cities), add a reference for it and delete all other tags that still lack any reference. Adrian (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The ethnic majority in the bigger cities were Hungarian in Hungary. There aren't Slovak Romanian or Serbian majority in the big cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.104.41 (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A-H Empire was not the only multinational state in 1867

Great Britain was also multinational. (Irish Scottish English etc...) English suppressed their language and culture. The other multinational state was France. Only 50% of population of France was French in 1850. The local identities of these ethnic were stronger than french identity in 1870 yet. These minority languages based on different grammar and words. They weren't closer to french than Italian or Spanish language. French nationalism and forced assimilation grew the ratio of French mother tongue and identity from 50% to 91% in 1900. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.146.48 (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Russian Empire was similarly multiethnic country too.