The Treaty of Trianon (1920)

[chyyris]

Vlahs and Serbs took lands they never had in history I guess it’s what make Hungarians frustrated and think that’s not just

Hungarians were on the wrong side in WW1.

[Böri]

Hungarians were on the wrong side in WW1.

They were part of an empire which ruling dynasty was German. They paid a higher cost than which paid by Germans.

[Mingle]

With this treaty, Hungarians have lost their historical lands mostly to Orthodox nations like Serbia and Romania. Sevres was a bit the same, it was also designed by French and wanted to give lands historically controlled by Turkic states (Seljuk, Ottoman) and principalities (Beyliks) to fabricated nations. Mustafa Kemal and the Young Turks squad ripped Sevres which Istanbul had to accept.
Hungarians must suffer result of their alliance with Germans who lost the war. Today there are millions of Hungarians who are minority in neighboring Serbia, Romanian, Slovakia etc.

1. Slovakia was Slovak/Slavic land and the people there didn't consider themselves Hungarians.

2. Romanians were the majority in Transylvania and were there before the Hungarians. Hungarians just politically controlled it for centuries.

3. Serbs were in Vojvodina first. Although I'm not sure if they were the majority at the time of the treaty.

4. Hungary also lost some land to Croatia but for some reason I never see them complaining about it.

5. Armenians weren't a fabricated nation but lived in that land for several centuries. Same applies to the Greeks (maybe to a lesser degree though).

[Böri]

1. Slovakia was Slovak/Slavic land and the people there didn't consider themselves Hungarians.

2. Romanians were the majority in Transylvania and were there before the Hungarians. Hungarians just politically controlled it for centuries.

3. Serbs were in Vojvodina first. Although I'm not sure if they were the majority at the time of the treaty.

4. Hungary also lost some land to Croatia but for some reason I never see them complaining about it.

5. Armenians weren't a fabricated nation but lived in that land for several centuries. Same applies to the Greeks (maybe to a lesser degree though).

Friend, Extreme north of Afghanistan lives Uzbeks and Turkmens. Those regions must be separated from Afghanistan and join neighboring countries according to your Pashtun logic? Serb and Vlah despotates or principalities never controlled in medieval history most of lands they got after Trianon treaty. Hungarians had a state control. Being majority population in a region doesn't give any right per see. Following that logic, Gypsies in Romania should also have their country in some parts of the country. That's not rightful.

[Mingle]

Friend, Extreme north of Afghanistan lives Uzbeks and Turkmens. Those regions must be separated from Afghanistan and join neighboring countries according to your Pashtun logic? Serb and Vlah despotates or principalities never controlled in medieval history most of lands they got after Trianon treaty. Hungarians had a state control. Being majority population in a region doesn't give any right per see. Following that logic, Gypsies in Romania should also have their country in some parts of the country. That's not rightful.

Uzbeks are recent migrants. Neither Uzbeks of Afghanistan nor Uzbeks of Uzbekistan want that land to secede. Not even the hardcore ultra-nationalists ever entertain that idea. Go to google and type 'Greater Uzbekistan' and nothing will come up. Same with the Turkmens.

Establishing a state shouldn't be a prerequisite to having claims on it. If the people are natives there and especially if they are the majority there (in addition to being native), then they deserve the right to self-determination. The land is defined by the people that live in it. You can't just conquer a land and tell the people to either be loyal or get out. Let's say there's a place somewhere in North Asia that is Turkic majority and then it later gets conquered by Russians. Do Turks no longer have the right to want to separate from Russia?

Gypsies aren't indigenous to any part of Romania, bad comparison.

[chyyris]

Friend, Extreme north of Afghanistan lives Uzbeks and Turkmens. Those regions must be separated from Afghanistan and join neighboring countries according to your Pashtun logic? Serb and Vlah despotates or principalities never controlled in medieval history most of lands they got after Trianon treaty. Hungarians had a state control. Being majority population in a region doesn't give any right per see. Following that logic, Gypsies in Romania should also have their country in some parts of the country. That's not rightful.

Even in Austrian and Austro-Hungarian time Serbs were more numerous than Hungarians in Vojvodina.

Until mid of 18th century Serbs were absolute majority in Vojvodina.
In second half of 18th century Maria Theresa began to brought Germans, Hungarians, Slovaks, Vlachs, Rusyns and even Catalans and French in Vojvodina.
Besades of that in year 1787 Serbs were 59% of population of Vojvodina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr...Vojvodina#1690
At census 1840 Serbs first time were under 50% in Vojvodina (in 1840 they were 49,1%).

[Bobby Martnen]

They were part of an empire which ruling dynasty was German. They paid a higher cost than which paid by Germans.

Yeah, but the Germans lost 25% of their country 25 years later, so it balances out.

[Bobby Martnen]

With this treaty, Hungarians have lost their historical lands mostly to Orthodox nations like Serbia and Romania. Sevres was a bit the same, it was also designed by French and wanted to give lands historically controlled by Turkic states (Seljuk, Ottoman) and principalities (Beyliks) to fabricated nations. Mustafa Kemal and the Young Turks squad ripped Sevres which Istanbul had to accept.
Hungarians must suffer result of their alliance with Germans who lost the war. Today there are millions of Hungarians who are minority in neighboring Serbia, Romanian, Slovakia etc.

I'm going to write up a rebuttal to this, but it was so stupid that it needed an entire post devoted to facepalming it. Here, I'll do it again:

[Carpatz]

[Böri]

Uzbeks are recent migrants. Neither Uzbeks of Afghanistan nor Uzbeks of Uzbekistan want that land to secede. Not even the hardcore ultra-nationalists ever entertain that idea. Go to google and type 'Greater Uzbekistan' and nothing will come up. Same with the Turkmens.

Establishing a state shouldn't be a prerequisite to having claims on it. If the people are natives there and especially if they are the majority there (in addition to being native), then they deserve the right to self-determination. The land is defined by the people that live in it. You can't just conquer a land and tell the people to either be loyal or get out. Let's say there's a place somewhere in North Asia that is Turkic majority and then it later gets conquered by Russians. Do Turks no longer have the right to want to separate from Russia?

Gypsies aren't indigenous to any part of Romania, bad comparison.

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?