The Treaty of Trianon (1920)

[chyyris]

That's standards acc. to you. And still both bolded parts are contradictory. How long it needs to be considered native? Gypsies have been in the Balkans for 600 years. They are still not natives? But Slavic people who have arrived from Prytsak marshes 1300 years ago are natives? Historical rights are determined by medieval and antiquity kingdoms. Gypsies have none and that's why they have no right.
Hungarians have since 10th century. Vlahs and Serbs also have medieval states but really everywhere covered by Romania, Serbia today?

From where Slavs came 1300 years ago?

[Böri]

From where Slavs came 1300 years ago?

More or less from what's today Poland. They immigrated, that didn't happen under a state conquest form but immigration. They got state building skills from other people (Bulgars, Khazars, Franks etc.).

[chyyris]

More or less from what's today Poland. They immigrated, that didn't happen under a state conquest form but immigration. They got state building skills from other people (Bulgars, Khazars, Franks etc.).

Poland is in the middle of Europe, even if Slavs came from Poland to the Balkans and Russia they migrated from one place in Europe to other place in Europe.
Gypsies came from India which is different continent from Europe, they belong to alien race in eyes of Europeans.
It's funny when Albanians say that Slavs came from Carpathians as if they somewhere outside of Europe. Carpathians belong partly to the Balkans, they begin in eastern Serbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_Carpathians

[Jana]

Southern Slovakia and north of Vojvodina should have remained part of Hungary , if was absolutely nonsensical to give it to neighbours when it had Hungarian majority. I'd also give them back Baranya , most of villages there were Hungarian. Burgerland also ended up in Austria without good reason, it was never ethnically much German.

I think most of Slovakia had right to form their own state though. Same for southern Bacska / Syrmia were there was very few Hungarians. And in case of Croatia Međimurje, which was almost completely ethnicaly Croat.

Tranyslvania should have never be given to Romania, it's crucial for Hungarian history and identity and Romanians represented only slight majority at that time. Not to forget completely Hungarian Szekely Land in the east Carpathians.

In my opinion most fair solution would be indipendent Transylvania where Hungarians and Romanians (and Saxons, but that wasn't possible) would enjoy equal rights and each would have their own adminstration/education/language etc.

[Bobby Martnen]

Southern Slovakia and north of Vojvodina should have remained part of Hungary , if was absolutely nonsensical to give it to neighbours when it had Hungarian majority. I'd also give them back Baranya , most of villages there were Hungarian.
Burgerland also eneded up in Austria without good reason, it was never ethnically much German.

Burgenland voted to join with Austria, and was mostly German. The part that voted to remain Hungarian (Odenburg/Sopron) stayed with Hungary.
Austria should have been allowed to keep South Tyrol, as well.

[Jana]

Burgenland voted to join with Austria, and was mostly German. The part that voted to remain Hungarian (Odenburg/Sopron) stayed with Hungary.
Austria should have been allowed to keep South Tyrol, as well.

No, Burgerland had huge Croatian population that was later very badly treated by Germans, tried to forecefully germanize etc.....especially during nazi rule.

During treaty of Trianon there were no referendums conducted on disputed territories, they were simply taken from Hungary because they lost the war (and because many of them were inhabited by minorities)

[Bobby Martnen]

No, Burgerland had huge Croatian population that was later very badly treated by Germans, tried to foecefully germanize etc.....especially during nazi rule.

During treaty of Trianon there were no referendums conducted on disputed territories, they were simply taken from Hungary because they lost the war (and because many other them were inhabited by minotirties)

Germans outnumbered Croatians more than 5:1, and Hungarians more than 8:1

According to the 1910 census 291,800 people lived on the territory of present-day Burgenland. Among them 217,072 were German-speaking (74%), 43,633 Croatian-speaking (15%) and 26,225 (9%) Hungarian-speaking. Roma people were counted according to their native language.

[Jana]

Germans outnumbered Croatians more than 5:1, and Hungarians more than 8:1

and ? German speaking =/= ethnically German.

[Bobby Martnen]

and ?

Thus, it makes sense for Burgenland to be united with the German state of Austria, given that Germans were 3/4 of its population.

[Jana]

Thus, it makes sense for Burgenland to be united with the German state of Austria, given that Germans were 3/4 of its population.

Many Croats in Burgerland were German speakers, but not ethnically German.