PDA

View Full Version : Trianon: why Hungarians hate Romanians, and vice versa



Pages : [1] 2

Loki
04-30-2013, 07:43 PM
This is a fact. Trianon means to a Hungarian as much as The Armenian Genocide ® means to an Armenian. Now if you understand that little detail, you are halfway there in understanding a Hungarian. ;)

Fight it out in this thread guys, and don't let it get personal. We are all just human and not responsible for what our politicians did in the past.

Szegedist
04-30-2013, 07:48 PM
This should really be in the Hungarian topic, and Trianon hardly concerns only Romanians ;)

Loki
04-30-2013, 07:49 PM
This should really be in the Hungarian topic, and Trianon hardly concerns only Romanians ;)

It is true, I can move it to the Hungarian section.

Dacul
04-30-2013, 07:54 PM
I do not hate Hungarians,as I already told,I have 2 nd degree cousins who are half Hungarian and I am getting very well with them.
And more,my godmother is half-hungarian also,she is also my aunt by alliance,being the wife of one of my 1st degree uncles.
As for the treaty of Trianon was a very normal thing.

Szegedist
04-30-2013, 07:54 PM
This is a fact. Trianon means to a Hungarian as much as The Armenian Genocide ® means to an Armenian. Now if you understand that little detail, you are halfway there in understanding a Hungarian. ;)

Well this is true, Trianon is like our own Holocaust, only a part of it was physical, the other part was psychological, a massive humiliation that transferred into a national depression. There is a reason why today about 1 in 3 Hungarians suffer from some sort of depression.

"One in three Hungarians suffer from some level of depression, president of the Hungarian Psychiatric Association Pál Lehóczky has told a medical conference in Budapest, a follow-up to World Mental Health Day."
http://www.budapesttimes.hu/2012/11/03/depression-at-crisis-levels/


We are all just human and not responsible for what our politicians did in the past.
But, the effects of the Diktat still exist today.
People support still the Diktat today.

Szegedist
04-30-2013, 07:57 PM
I do not hate Hungarians,
Why would the opportunist criminal have a reason to hate the victim after the crime was committed?
.

As for the treaty of Trianon was a very normal thing.
There was absolutely nothing normal about it.

Compared to other treaties at the time
http://pctrs.network.hu/clubblogpicture/3/1/_/31555_808266284_big.jpg

Loki
04-30-2013, 07:57 PM
Well this is true, Trianon is like our own Holocaust, only a part of it was physical, the other part was psychological, a massive humiliation that transferred into a national depression. There is a reason why today about 1 in 3 Hungarians suffer from some sort of depression.

"One in three Hungarians suffer from some level of depression, president of the Hungarian Psychiatric Association Pál Lehóczky has told a medical conference in Budapest, a follow-up to World Mental Health Day."
http://www.budapesttimes.hu/2012/11/03/depression-at-crisis-levels/



In all honesty, I think these traits of Hungarians predate Trianon. Hungarians are generally pessimistic and negative. It is normal there.

Szegedist
04-30-2013, 08:00 PM
In all honesty, I think these traits of Hungarians predate Trianon. Hungarians are generally pessimistic and negative. It is normal there.

Maybe it does predate, in which case it still got worse after Trianon.

Baluarte
04-30-2013, 08:03 PM
Szeg, can you really say that the depression and potential suicide of the average Hungarian comes from Trianon? A bit farfetched in my opinion.

For what I've seen, the public in Hungary has mostly abandoned entirely the quest to revise their borders and care more about 1) Their private life 2) Sorting out the country's problems while keeping the borders.

Szegedist
04-30-2013, 08:04 PM
Its ingrained into the national consciousness, you dont think about it, its just there




For what I've seen, the public in Hungary has mostly abandoned entirely the quest to revise their borders and care more about 1) Their private life 2) Sorting out the country's problems while keeping the borders.

Then you havent seen enough.

Baluarte
04-30-2013, 08:16 PM
I suppose.

Give me your opinion on this paper, please:
http://blogs.shu.edu/diplomacy/files/archives/ambrosio.pdf

Szegedist
04-30-2013, 08:41 PM
I spotted mistake already
Consequently,the new Hungarian state lost nearly one-third of its historic territory and an equal
percentage of its Magyar population.1

Nearly 1/3?? Try almost 3/4 of our historic territory!

I am off now, will read it tomorrow, night!

Dacul
04-30-2013, 09:22 PM
Actually Hungarian tribes started to conquer more territories around 10th Century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelou_%28duke%29
As you can see,Transylvania was inhabited and ruled by Romanians,before Hungarians conquered it.
They also tried to conquer Wallachia,but they could not manage.

Here is the battle of Possada,for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Posada
So actually the treaty of Trianon was normal,releasing conquered populations from under Hungarian oppression.


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Posada)

Baluarte
04-30-2013, 09:25 PM
Transylvania was ruled by Hungarians in spite of its large Romanian population.

Reading on the origin of the Szekely, it would seem they were sent there by the Hungarian king as a military garrison to protect the land. That's why their settling pattern is almost a straight line with the epicenter in Szekely Land.

Rastko
04-30-2013, 09:28 PM
Why would the opportunist criminal have a reason to hate the victim after the crime was committed?
.

There was absolutely nothing normal about it.

Compared to other treaties at the time
http://pctrs.network.hu/clubblogpicture/3/1/_/31555_808266284_big.jpg

Don't know about other territories and countries,but weeping because of Croatian lands?

Like any Hungarian majority ever lived there.

Besides,two regions of Croatia(Hrvatska,Slavonija) that were under Hungarian jurisdiction after Austro-Hungar agreement(1867.) also gained level of autonomity after Croato-Hungar agreement,so they weren't esentially parts of Hungary.

Dacul
04-30-2013, 09:29 PM
"Ruled" is an exaggeration most Hungarians boyars were incompetents,who were staying most time in Budapest or Viena spending whatever money they were receiving from the lands they were given.
Romanian and Hungarian and other ethnicities peasants were working hard,for the idiotic Turkic leading class.
Now this idiotic Turkic leading class lost their power,there are some noobs who would want to see this Turkic leading class leading again,and/or maybe people with Turkic genetics,who would want to live again without doing nothing on European people backs.

Baluarte
04-30-2013, 09:30 PM
I don't see how "genetics" are important at all.

I thought we were talking about history and politics.

Dacul
04-30-2013, 09:37 PM
Sure genetics is important,because some idiotic Turks speaking some mongrel language,a mixture of ugric with turkic, came and took the leadership of Hungary and started to oppress European people from there and after they also conquered Transylvania and other regions and were oppressing more people.
You have seen that Szekely are having East Asian genetics,cause they are idiot Turkic people and they were remained very likely from the people who conquered Transylvania.

Mary
04-30-2013, 09:41 PM
It has nothing to do with either Hungary or Rumania. Instead think of Transylvania as a separate country. After WW1 Transylvania was annexed to Rumania. This has nothing to do with Hungary it is an issue between Transylvania and the rest of the Rumanian state.

Baluarte
04-30-2013, 09:43 PM
Sure genetics is important,because some idiotic Turks speaking some mongrel language,a mixture of ugric with turkic, came and took the leadership of Hungary and started to oppress European people from there and after they also conquered Transylvania and other regions and were oppressing more people.
You have seen that Szekely are having East Asian genetics,cause they are idiot Turkic people and they were remained very likely from the people who conquered Transylvania.

I really couldn't care any less on what they score in genetic tests.
Finno-Ugrian languages are not Indo-European but other than the academic and cultural curiosity, I really don't see the importance, it is what it is.

Again, what is the relevance to the political context?

Philo
04-30-2013, 09:43 PM
This is going to be a good thread. Should get some popcorn to see Dacul and Szeg fighting. Also try to educate myself on Trianon because I don't really know anything about it.

Siberian Cold Breeze
04-30-2013, 09:46 PM
I see Romanians in you tube constantly trolling Hungarians calling them names like Bozgor or other ..must be really annoying

urban dictionary:


The word "bozgor" is used on group of Romanians (Romanian nationality) in Transylvania.

Enormous number of Romanians (from Moldova and South-Romania) were moved unwillingly to Transylvania during the communist regime to change the ethnic composition of the population. Having no roots in this country, these people are called "bozgor" - meaning: without country.

The other meaning is used by the Romanians (Vlach) as a response. The native Hungarians are often called "bozgor".

Both meanings are extremely racist and used only by the lower class with lack of education.

Baluarte
04-30-2013, 09:47 PM
It has nothing to do with either Hungary or Rumania. Instead think of Transylvania as a separate country. After WW1 Transylvania was annexed to Rumania. This has nothing to do with Hungary it is an issue between Transylvania and the rest of the Rumanian state.

It was a broadly authonomous region, but the political ties with Hungary were always quite strong and it was considered integral part of the Hungarian kingdom.

Demographic was always favourable to the Romanians, except Székely Land.

Map of 1815

http://allanbecker-gardenguru.squarespace.com/storage/austro-hungarian-empire1815map.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=13171 54997674

Austro Hungarian Empire 1911:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/at-kuk-austria-hungary-1911.jpg

2002:

http://www.novinite.com/media/images/2008-02/90497.jpg


The thing is, before the XIXth Century multinational States were not a problem for anyone. Nationalism is a product of the French Revolution (which is why it was always associated with the political left during the XIXth Century) and only became a "right-wing" element after the first national-catholic and fascist authors made peace with it in the early XXth Century.

That's why the 1848 revolutions where anti-monarchist, while XXth century Nationalism have never had a problem with autocracy.

Dacul
04-30-2013, 09:48 PM
Mary is clueless Swede,which wants to enrage Hungarians against Romanians.
Most people of Transylvania wanted to join Romania (including most Hungarians,not only Romanians,cause they were peasants).
Because they knew an agrarian reform would be made and they will receive land,which actually happened.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 05:05 AM
Actually Hungarian tribes started to conquer more territories around 10th Century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelou_%28duke%29
As you can see,Transylvania was inhabited and ruled by Romanians,before Hungarians conquered it.
They also tried to conquer Wallachia,but they could not manage.


:laugh: Gelou fairy tales, the love of all Romanian chauvinists.


A number of authors who dispute the credibility[7] of the Gesta claim that the author probably had no information (apart from some familial and tribal legends) regarding the actual circumstances of the conquest.[3][17] According to them, he invented enemies and rivals for his heroes to vanquish and casually borrowed the names of rivers (Laborc), mountains (Tarcal and Zobor), settlements (Galád), and castles (Gyalu) to conjure up knights and chieftains (e.g., the Bulgarian Laborcy, the Cuman Turzol, the Czech Zobur, and the Vlach Gelou) who are not mentioned in other primary sources.[3][17][18] They also claim that Anonymus had no knowledge of the settlers' real enemies (e.g., Svatopluk II, Emperor Arnulf I, the Bulgar Tzar Simeon); of the settlers' actual adversaries, which included the Moravians, Slovenes, Karantans, Franks, and Bavarians, and that he knew only of the Bulgarians.[3][17] Thus he arbitrarily counted among the Hungarians' opponents the Czechs, who at the time lived exclusively in the Czech Basin; the Cumanians, who moved to Europe only in the 11th century; and the Vlachs which, according to these authors, suggest that his choices reflect the ethnic and political realities of the 12th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesta_Hungarorum#Arguments_against

No proof has been found your "Gelou" ever existed, your Romanian "historians" have been searching, searching, and searching for him for eterninty, and found no traces. Its not like with Dacian theory, where you can just rearange some stones and call it ancient Daco-Romanian fortress, you need more than this :rotfl:

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 05:06 AM
Mary is clueless Swede,which wants to enrage Hungarians against Romanians.
Most people of Transylvania wanted to join Romania (including most Hungarians,not only Romanians,cause they were peasants).
Because they knew an agrarian reform would be made and they will receive land,which actually happened.

Bull...shit, please stop writing your idiotic propaganda. You are famous on this forum to make things up as you go along, and this is one of those many times.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 05:07 AM
I see Romanians in you tube constantly trolling Hungarians calling them names like Bozgor or other ..must be really annoying

Bozgor started out as a Hungarian insult for Romanians, but they are soo clever so they copied it and started using it against us.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 05:13 AM
It has nothing to do with either Hungary or Rumania. Instead think of Transylvania as a separate country. After WW1 Transylvania was annexed to Rumania. This has nothing to do with Hungary it is an issue between Transylvania and the rest of the Rumanian state.

Until 1526, Transylvania was part of Hungary. Then Hungary (due to pro-Habsburg vs anti-Habsburg, and the Ottoman wars) was separated into 3 parts.
Transylvania was called the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom, then became principality of Transylvania, and was eventually united back with Hungary.

Transylvania has more to do with Hungarians than Romanians, most of the cities, castles, heritage sites, even ancient universities, toponyms have nothing to do with Romania.

Romanians are the Bantus of Transylvania.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 05:18 AM
Balurate, such maps do not show reality, because a lot of those areas were in fact not populated by anybody (due to mountains, etc).

Also read this
http://www.magyarnews.org/photos/MNO_jun_12.pdf

excerpt:

"As I stepped into the hall at the appointed hour, I once again felt very
strongly the uniqueness of the situation.
I was to speak to an audience among
whom there was not the smallest fraction of sympathizing elements, an audience of enemies in the technical sense
of the word, mostly hostile with a small
sprinkling of indifferent participants…
The arrangement of the hall robbed me
of the possibility of looking into the
face of that part of the audience among
whom I presumed a less hostile bias,
the British, the Italians and the Japanese; I stood face to face with only
Clemenceau and his staff, and this portion of the audience could not, or would
not, disguise their unfriendly attitude at
the beginning of my presentation. I had
before me some serious, malevolent
faces, other mocking smiling ones, I
could not doubt with what sort of prejudice my words would be received…
I began without any introduction, with
the declaration that the peace terms
were totally unacceptable for us and
that I would prove this on the major
provisions. I noted immediately that
this dry tone, avoiding all sentimentality, surprised at least that part of my
listeners whose impression I could observe, and worked favorably on their
disposition…
A large portion of my exposition was
devoted to establishing how totally mistaken the territorial provisions of the
Trianon Treaty were from the ethnographic point of view; that the provisions in this regard were a punch in the
face of the nationality principle, which
served as its pretense…
Clemenceau gave (British Prime Minister David) Lloyd George the floor, and
he called on me to go into greater detail
about the distribution of the nationalities which I had mentioned in the
course of my talk, specifically, of the
Magyars in the territories detached
from Hungary… Fortunately, I was
prepared for such questions; I had Paul
Teleki’s excellent ethnographic map of
Hungary with me, and with this, went
to Lloyd George’s seat, where all the
main representatives hurried, and listened to my explanation with their
heads together over the map…
I heard that, at the end of this session,
some rather sharp statements were
made by the British, who were brought
into the unpleasant situation of being
participants in such constructional mistakes. (Italian Prime Minister Orlando)
Nitti even made a serious attempt to
bring about a change of the most absurd
provisions; but he too had to give way
to the argument that the whole house of
cards of the peace treaties would collapse if any change were to be allowed…"

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 05:23 AM
I really couldn't care any less on what they score in genetic tests.
Finno-Ugrian languages are not Indo-European but other than the academic and cultural curiosity, I really don't see the importance, it is what it is.

Again, what is the relevance to the political context?
It has no relevance whatsoeever, it is just typical dribbles from an angry Vlach.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 05:32 AM
Sure genetics is important,because some idiotic Turks speaking some mongrel language,a mixture of ugric with turkic, came and took the leadership of Hungary and started to oppress European people from there and after they also conquered Transylvania and other regions and were oppressing more people.
You have seen that Szekely are having East Asian genetics,cause they are idiot Turkic people and they were remained very likely from the people who conquered Transylvania.

What do we have here? King of mongrels calling others mongrels. You speak a pig-latin slavic bastard language and genetically a Romanian is what you get when you put a Gypsy, Cuman, Pecheneg, Albanian, Slav, Hungarian together.

We might have been invaders, but doesnt change the fact that first attested records of Vlachs in Transylvania is in the 13th century (it even says in your Moldovan chronicles that you were settled down), and the fact that most of the toponyms are of non Romanian origin, therefore it is impossible for Rumanians to be natives there.

You dont even have your name for it, Transylvania was first used by Hungarians in our Chronicles ( we spoke Latin as state language, unlike Slavic for Romanian), and Ardeal also comes from Hungarian Erdély.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 06:02 AM
Article translated from the Croatian weekly "Globus"



In our time, however, there are very few people with such clear vision. If we take for instance the peace agreements written at the end of the First and Second World Wars, we will see monstrous, even inhuman mistakes. Let us look for instance at the maps drawn in Versailles, Saint Germain and Trianon, not to mention the agreements of Neuilly and Sevres. Artificial countries were established, creating at the same time more minorities than existed previously, although it was claimed that the agreements were in the interests of national groups.

Characteristic of the illustration of this procedure are the borders imposed on Hungary, which created today's still unsolved problems. This is all the more absurd when we see that the majority of the Hungarian minorities live on the border with their mother country. If only there had been a little more common sense and if only - for reasons of geographic ignorance - they had not been deceived by forged maps provided by such political tricksters as Eduard Benes, events would have evolved differently. However, something similar has happened in our time as well, when German borders were determined. If people only knew how they were really being governed they would be very surprised.

It is necessary to point out, however, that there have always been those who at critical times have been able to foresee future events but their advise was rarely listened to. Most suffered the fate of prophets and were then forgotten.

Today's conflict in the former Yugoslavia shows how damaging it was that the right to self-determination was not carried out consistently for all peoples.

In this way, for instance, immediately after the First World War in 1921, the great French journalist Jacques Bainville published a book entitled "Les consequences politiques de la paix" ("Political Consequences of Peace").

If we look at this work today, we will determine that the great thinker foresaw all later events up to the break out of the Second World War.

If Bainville, therefore, was able to foresee what was coming, it was, surely, the duty of responsible politicians to perceive the consequences of their actions.



The War Returns

In regards, particularly, to the situation in the former Yugoslavia, it is significant that a French diplomat, who worked subsequently as a journalist, clearly perceived the unhappy path of mankind in that part of the world. This was Henri Pozzi, born 1879 in Begerac, died 1946.

Pozzi received the task of preparing the peace agreement in Trianon. As a young man he was an enthusiastic supporter of the Serbs and did everything in his power to satisfy the wishes of Belgrade. He subsequently travelled to this area and because of the political respect he had, he was able to discern what he had done was wrong.

For this reason, during the thirties he published a book "La Guerre revient" (published in English under the title "Black Hand over Europe"), in which he, on the basis of his knowledge of the situation in the territories of Macedonia, Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia, foresaw what would happen.

The book remained practically unnoticed, and today it can hardly be obtained anywhere.

If we read the book, in particular the descriptions of his experiences as a journalist from Ljubljana to Skopje, we will literally have the impression that we are reading a report in which events occurring today in Bosnia and Croatia are being described.

This Frenchman tried to warn his people of the accumulation of injustices in these regions, as well as of the serious consequences.

No one listened to him, and even today no one wishes to accept the lessons of the past.

Above all, no one wanted to understand that it was a real crime to force a highly civilized Croatian nation to submit to a nation which still had a lot to learn. Many parts of the book are read as if they were written today: the description of the attitude of the Serbs in Croatia and Macedonia or the interview which Pozzi held with Ante Trumbic in Zagreb.

It would be good if some of our leading politicians were prepared to read Pozzi's book. It is doubtful however, if they have the time or the inclination. In this way, error after error is accumulated, instead of carrying out a policy which would, at the very least, curb evil.

http://mirror.veus.hr/blackhand/globus.html


By the way notice the difference, I post sources, Dacul dribbles self invented conspiracy theories about "Turkic invaders", "Ugric oppressors", etc. This is the usual most of the time when debating with Rumanians.

Cern
05-01-2013, 09:02 AM
As for the treaty of Trianon was a very normal thing.

Trianon unjust inhuman, unrealistic. Check out Victor Ponta chauvinist anti-Hungarian.
I think reasonable borders 1938-1945:
http://i41.tinypic.com/5plks6.gif


Sure genetics is important,because some idiotic Turks speaking some mongrel language,a mixture of ugric with turkic, came and took the leadership of Hungary and started to oppress European people from there and after they also conquered Transylvania and other regions and were oppressing more people.


Why the insults Dacul? Hungarian language beautiful, expressive, rich and perfect.
Appropriate tool to poetry, refined, nuanced, and creative .



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbG3PNtSA6U&t=0m37s

Dacul
05-01-2013, 10:02 AM
Ardeleni are a group of Romanian people,but they are not Vlachs,anyone who went at least once in Ardeal/Transylvania should have noticed the very different accent with which they are speaking Romanian language and also some different Romanian words they are using and are only common to that area.
What Szegedist does not know is that most genetics of Hungary is from ancient Thraco-Dacians and 2nd is from Germanic tribes,most being from Visigoths.
And that Thraco-Dacian people from Hungary were related to the one from Transylvania,cause they are talking using same accent.
Szegedist "missed" to tell you that Romanians from Transylvania who were christian orthodox were harassed because of this by Austrian Empire.
So they were told to pass under Pope and they will gain a better situation.
But Hungarians continued to discriminate against Romanians there,even if they passed under pope.
See about Inocentiu Miclu Klein who complained about the fact Romanian people of Transylvania are opressed and he was exiled because of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inocen%C5%A3iu_Micu-Klein
Ardeleni/Romanian people of Transylvania were kept as serfs,as you can see.
Most of the people of Transylvania,being Romanians or Hungarians,were peasants and were of European ancestry,while leading Hungarian class was of Turkic genetics.
All peasants (both Romanian and Hungarian peasants) from Transylvania received lots of land,which was taken from Hungarian boyars (called grofi in Romanian) so normally they liked Romania more than Hungary.
Is clear that the current leaders of Hungary want to use European people of Hungary for their pro-Turkic purposes,to sacrifice these people for their purposes.

So Loki,before you open such threads to complain about Hungarians "loosing their lands" inform yourself better.
I saw that Hungarian fanatics deleted lots from Inet,informations about the fact that Romanians are actually Thraco-Dacian population (Slavs are also from this group of population,what do you think it happened to Thracians,who 2k years ago were most numerous people after Indian?Because they were Slavs,Romanians,who were speaking those times a language much more closed to Slavic etc)
They all died?
I already wrote somewhere else Dacians,were wolf people,saying they are descending from a grey wolf (which is something common with Serbians old religion,because Serbians are also descendants of Dacians and they kept more from old customs,that other neighbouring populations) and you can see that tradition of putting wolf names to people was still kept in Serbia.
So Romanians,Slavs are descendants of Thracians and native to these lands with Albanians being descendants of Ilyrians mostly but they also have Thracians blood.

Hoca
05-01-2013, 10:08 AM
The allies also wanted to let Turkey sign such a treaty, we shuffed that treaty up theirs. I'm truly sad Hungarians didn't do that :/

Corvus
05-01-2013, 10:11 AM
Austria gained Burgenland which is good :)
A little bit of the Pannonian plate belongs to us now.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 10:14 AM
So Hungarians came and enslaved people here,cause they also had lands from Slovakia and Croatia and Serbia,besides Romania and you Loki come and opened a thread to say that your political leaders made a mistake with this treaty?
Hungarian language is no way Finnic,their language is just a mixture of a Ugric language with Turkic language.
Maybe those leaders were actually informed and they did the right thing while you are not informed and permit Szegedist to throw with all kind of insults towards other people here.

poiuytrewq0987
05-01-2013, 10:20 AM
Bulgaria was delivered multiple blows when Bulgarian Macedonia and South Morava were stolen by Serbia, Western Outlands gipped by Serbia and Greece who had no hand in a military victory over Bulgaria, etc. Yet you don't hear Bulgarians whining about 20th century conflicts everyday like Hungarians do aside a few nationalists who don't even have one seat in the parliament. We've moved on and our politicians don't call for another war or a revision of 20th century treaties like Jobbik politicians do. Furthermore living standards are still terrible in Hungary at least compared to Western standards and I figure that should be their first concern and not land that are tiny when compared to China or Russia.

Kastrioti1443
05-01-2013, 10:21 AM
I really feel bad that hungarians and romanians are so hostile to eachother.....

Dacul
05-01-2013, 10:21 AM
Hungarians as European race,do not exist,they are just mix of Ardeleni from there with Eastern Slavs and Germanic people.
Who were living very well in peace,till some idiotic Ugro-Turkic came and conquered them and imposed them that language and started to use them to try make them an empire.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 10:26 AM
Szegedist never posted a picture of him,I posted more times and I am not gypo,as most Romanians are not having gypo ancestry.
While Szegedist knows Swedish,you do not find that very weird?
I did not saw him posting something in Hungarian language and he is also very clueless about Transylvania which shows that he have never been in Transylvania.
I remember that untermenschen of Mary opened another thread,called "Should Rumania annex Hungary?"
Which makes me think that Szegedist is just an idiot troll who want to make Romanians and Hungarians look bad.
(think he is Swedish,or so,of who knows what ethnicity).

Hoca
05-01-2013, 10:28 AM
Thraex, it is not comparable with Bulgaria.. Macedonia didn't belong to you any way, and you had it only for a very short period.

It is not comparable to Hungary who lost much higher % of their land and people to other nations.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 10:50 AM
I really feel bad that hungarians and romanians are so hostile to eachother.....

Average Hungarian from Romania is getting very well with Average Romanian from Romania are a lot of mixed families.
But this idiot pro-turk off Jobbik came and he started to agitate people from Hungary.
Till now,he does not have too much support in Hungary.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 10:56 AM
See what flag Jobbik adepts are using,is very closed to Austrian one:
http://www.globalpost.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/gp3_small_article/Hungary-far-right-Jobbik-2010-06-01.jpg


http://www.istokpravoslavni.org/images/madjarska_jobbik_Jobik_fasisti03.jpg

If Szegedist called Romanians cock suckers,well than I can call Austria gypo state,who is producing nothing,but living from what they robbed from other states mostly.
OMV,a large Austrian oil company robbed all Romania oil and natural gases,they were given these resources together with lots of refineries and gasoline selling points for 2 billions euro.
Another Austrian company,cut a lot and sold from Romania secular coniferous forests.


If you Austrian or Hungarian cunts want Transylvania,come try take it.
:laugh:
You know how I look if any Germanic here feels offended about the fact I have called in the past Scandos gypos from higher castes (which opinion I maintain) and that I called Austria gypo state (which opinion I maintain) come get it,come show me how tough you are,in Romania,in Bucharest!
I am waiting for you!I am curious to see it!
:laugh:
Ask me for my address on PM and I will give it to you.I am not actually joking,I am serious.

robar
05-01-2013, 11:04 AM
Hungarians as European race,do not exist,they are just mix of Ardeleni from there with Eastern Slavs and Germanic people.
Who were living very well in peace,till some idiotic Ugro-Turkic came and conquered them and imposed them that language and started to use them to try make them an empire.

Lol before the hungarians came to the carpathian basin for a short time (59 years) there was some kind of great Moravia, and before that tha Avar kaganate, for several hundred years, so what kind of romanians slavs etc lived there ....

robar
05-01-2013, 11:06 AM
By the way the romanians arrived to the basin in the 13. th century

Cern
05-01-2013, 11:08 AM
I really feel bad that hungarians and romanians are so hostile to eachother.....



http://www.euractiv.com/culture/hungary-romania-face-ethnic-disp-analysis-517991


For Bucharest, exchanging accusations with Hungary offers an opportunity to temporarily distract attention from its domestic situation. The country is emerging from the political crisis that engulfed it in 2012 caused by a dispute between Ponta and President Traian Basescu.

Romania had three prime ministers in 2012 amid protests over the country's economic situation and mutual animosity between the main political parties, and the situation only began to stabilize after the December elections.

To a large extent, the claims by ethnic minorities in Romania are largely intended to preserve their cultural identity -- the ability to teach their own language in schools or fly their own flags, for example. These issues alone do not represent an immediate threat to the territorial unity of the country.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 11:08 AM
Come on Cern,you are courageous ,show in facts,m8,do not be just internet warrior like Szegedist who thrown insults at me,your nation is a just a nation of gypo cowards,while people who are supporting you in taking Transilvania,nigger/wigger-like or gypo-like behaviour people.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 11:11 AM
Sorry I have other things to do,than argue with you Hungarians here,you are just internet warriors,there is no danger from you taking Transylvania.
And those Jobbik adepts,who are saying are "tough" guys,are just tough guys in walking with flags,they would never have courage to come take Transylvania by using arms or so.

Geni
05-01-2013, 11:11 AM
They have problems because they are neighbors .. looks ..they have no problems with Montengro and Albania ..:rolleyes:

Corvus
05-01-2013, 11:17 AM
See what flag Jobbik adepts are using,is very closed to Austrian one:
http://www.globalpost.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/gp3_small_article/Hungary-far-right-Jobbik-2010-06-01.jpg


http://www.istokpravoslavni.org/images/madjarska_jobbik_Jobik_fasisti03.jpg

If Szegedist called Romanians cock suckers,well than I can call Austria gypo state,who is producing nothing,but living from what they robbed from other states mostly.
OMV,a large Austrian oil company robbed all Romania oil and natural gases,they were given these resources together with lots of refineries and gasoline selling points for 2 billions euro.
Another Austrian company,cut a lot and sold from Romania secular coniferous forests.


If you Austrian or Hungarian cunts want Transylvania,come try take it.
:laugh:
You know how I look if any Germanic here feel offended about the fact I have called in the past Scandos gypos from higher castes (which opinion I maintain) and that I called Austria gypo state (which opinion I maintain) come get it,come show me how tough you are,in Romania,in Bucharest!
I am waiting for you!I am curious to see it!
:laugh:
Ask me for my address on PM and I will give it to you.I am not actually joking,I am serious.

Dacul having one of his "tough" patriotic days. Calm down man, I can`t take you serious for all you have written in the past.
And do not insult Austria. This issue is Hungarian versus Romanian. Take Austria out of the equation.
Austrian companies invested much in Romania. Without it you would struggle much more economicaly.

Btw: The man you depicted is an Austrian skinhead attending a Jobbik pararde because he has obviously sympathy for the party

The Lawspeaker
05-01-2013, 11:18 AM
Why would the opportunist criminal have a reason to hate the victim after the crime was committed?
.

There was absolutely nothing normal about it.

Compared to other treaties at the time
http://pctrs.network.hu/clubblogpicture/3/1/_/31555_808266284_big.jpg

There is only one word to describe Trianon: obscene. I am beginning to like it how France, the instigator of what was Trianon and Versailles, got raped in 1940. They deserved it.

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 11:21 AM
There is only one word to describe Trianon: obscene. I am beginning to like it how France got raped in 1940. They deserved it.

How does that work?

All the Freemasons that were behind Versailles/Trianon comfortably took a boat or plane to London and stayed there until they Allies gave them back total control of the country.

The ones that had to pay were the French peasants who barely understood what that Treaty was.

If we're going by cheap shots, then long live the Duke of Alba and the massacre of Dutch heretics.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 11:22 AM
By the way the romanians arrived to the basin in the 13. th century

What are you saying?That is Hungarians land?
Than come try take it!You people are just skilled in endless arguments on inet,lol.
Romanians are native here,being here a lot before when Hungarians ruling people came around 900.
:laugh:

The Lawspeaker
05-01-2013, 11:24 AM
-----
Clemenceau was not in London in 1940 because this hardliner and the murderer of many starved German child had died 1929 (and I hope he died in a great deal of pain like his starving victims). Neither was Petain that worked together with the Nazi's. Neither were all these fucks that are responsible for Versailles. What was happening in 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 was nothing but a power struggle about who would rule Europe. France had always dominated it since the Holy Roman Empire had collapsed and they could not accept competitors. In the alliance system in the 1920s there were France, Belgium, Britain, Czechoslovakia, Italy and Romania making sure that France's will was done. The other alliance system: Germany, the USSR (during the 1920s you can look it up), Austria, Hungary (while they themselves had a struggle about the Burgenland) and Turkey had been completely divided and killed off by their competitors.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 11:26 AM
There is only one word to describe Trianon: obscene. I am beginning to like it how France, the instigator of what was Trianon and Versailles, got raped in 1940. They deserved it.

Oh really.
Because Serfdom or Romanians,Slovakian and Croats and Serbian people on racially criteria (because we are Slavic/Eastern European people) was so glorious.
And after the discrimination of the people on racially criteria was so good.
If anyone was invader here,than the invaders were Gothic tribes first (goths,visigoths,ostrogoths etc),who were Germanics or South Scandos,after Roman Empire,who were Western Europeans and after Turks,not Balkano-Eastern european people which are making almost all of the genetics of South Slavs,Albanians,Romanians,Ukraine and also lots from Hungarian people genetics.
Hungarians were favoured by Habsburg Empire for being more Germanics,which is true,confirmed by genetic testing,but is not right.

Cern
05-01-2013, 11:27 AM
Come on Cern,you are courageous ,show in facts,m8,do not be just internet warrior like Szegedist who thrown insults at me,your nation is a just a nation of gypo cowards,while people who are supporting you in taking Transilvania,nigger/wigger-like or gypo-like behaviour people.

Peace Dacul!:)

Cern
05-01-2013, 11:28 AM
This thread too provocative! :icon_rolleyes: :ohwell:

The Lawspeaker
05-01-2013, 11:29 AM
Oh really.
Because Serfdom or Romanians,Slovakian and Croats and Serbian people on racially criteria (because we are Slavic/Eastern European people) was so glorious.
And after the discrimination of the people on racially criteria was so good.
If anyone was invader here,than the invaders were Goths first,who were Germanics or South Scandos,after Roman Empire,who were Western Europeans and after Turks,not Balkano-Eastern european people which are making almost all of the genetics of South Slavs,Albanians,Romanians,Ukraine and also lots from Hungarian people genetics.
Hungarians were favoured by Habsburg Empire for being more Germanics,which is true,confirmed by genetic testing,but is not right.

Yawnie yawnie yawn. Why don't you people go build an economy like Hungary (despite being robbed as it is) had been doing for the past 20 years until the crisis came ? We don't see Hungarians skimming banks and robbing our elderly here.

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 11:30 AM
France didn't dominate anything since 1815. After Sedan it didn't even have the full capacity to defeat Germany 1 on 1.

The Lawspeaker
05-01-2013, 11:31 AM
France didn't dominate anything since 1815. After Sedan it didn't even have the full capacity to defeat Germany 1 on 1.
:picard1: History and politics: not your strongest sides. Primary school. History classes. Now.

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 11:32 AM
Instead of commenting back, insult the user?

After Waterloo France was no longer the continental leader. After Napoleon III lost the Franco-Prussian War it was clear the German Empire was stronger.

The Lawspeaker
05-01-2013, 11:36 AM
Instead of commenting back, insult the user?

After Waterloo France was no longer the continental leader. After Napoleon III lost the Franco-Prussian War it was clear the German Empire was stronger.
Right. Until you have done a thorough study of the general European situation of the pre-1914 era. Please do not post in this thread. Also look up the word: revanchisme.

Pourquoi ? France knew that it could not hold against Germany but, unlike Germany, it had numerous colonial possessions and thus far more possibilities. They wanted to preserve their power base in Europe and when they won World War I they were actually brazen enough to charge Germany for damages to non-existing property or property they themselves had damaged. Pourquoi ? Simple they wanted to damage Germany so bad that it could, never never stand up again. Germany only paid off the last penny for WWII some what.. 20 years ago ?

They had also lost the majority German-speaking Alsace-Lorraine to the Germans in 1870 and they were pissed off about it ? Why ? Eventhough the people aren't French. They don't care because what France wanted was control ("la gloire de la France !" that's the only fucking thing they ever cared about and what a hollow glory it is), absolute control: that's why they occupied parts of Flanders, why they took parts of Catalonia, the Bask Country, Corsica etc. (between the Middle Ages and very much the 18th century). They just wanted a jumping off point for further conquests and this the Germans had denied them.

And that's exactly why they signed the alliance with Britain and Russia: to envelop Germany and her partners and that's also why after World War I they signed similar treaties with Belgium (until they reaffirmed their neutrality), Romania, Poland, Italy, Czechoslovakia (because they were all the same shit anyway: imperalist powers that trampled upon the rights of others: Romania with the Hungarians, Czechoslovakia with the Hungarians, the Germans, the Belarussians, and the Ukranians), the Poles with the Lithuanians, the Germans, the Czechs, the Belarussians, the Ukranians, the Belgians with their own Flemish, the Italians with the German-speaking Tirolians. In comes the other nightmare: Yugoslavia. Another fake state formed by France.

Fortunately karma had not forgotten about France by 1940 and it came to say "hi !". The same stuff can now be seen in the European Union. You know Germany is bad ? Try France: we all pay our arses off to support France's farmers and what do we get ? Third rate shit for the most part.

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 11:39 AM
Revanchisme regarding Alsace/Lorraine? It's well-known.
For what matters it was Moltke who proposed the annexion while Bismarck opposed it, knowing it would trigger a French reaction sooner or later.

The Lawspeaker
05-01-2013, 11:44 AM
Revanchisme regarding Alsace/Lorraine? It's well-known.
For what matters it was Moltke who proposed the annexion while Bismarck opposed it, knowing it would trigger a French reaction sooner or later.
Annex what ? Their own country that France stole during the 17th century ?

Dacul
05-01-2013, 11:45 AM
Dacul having one of his "tough" patriotic days. Calm down man, I can`t take you serious for all you have written in the past.
And do not insult Austria. This issue is Hungarian versus Romanian. Take Austria out of the equation.
Austrian companies invested much in Romania. Without it you would struggle much more economicaly.

Btw: The man you depicted is an Austrian skinhead attending a Jobbik pararde because he has obviously sympathy for the party

I already insulted Austria.And I was very serious,when I said that if Germanic here feels offended about me insulting Austria,I am giving him my address to come "punish me" for my insults towards Austria.Your nation have stolen Romania oil reserves and gas reserves,so you are gypo nation for me.
That Romanian gypos went and ate the swans from some lake in Austria,is because they felt your nation closed to them,as behaviour.
Without OMV (which is owned by Austrian state) receive Romania oil and natural gass reserves Austria would have a lots of economical problems.
And I am not nervous at all.
(I am actually laughing when I am writing this message).
What you think,that I do not know that Romanians fought against Hungarian-Austrian troops in WW1,cause Austria was supporting Hungary in getting Transylvania?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_M%C4%83r%C4%83%C5%9Fe%C5%9Fti
Also that the invader troops of Austria-Hungary and Germany,were together allied?
(see that Germany also wanted than to steal Romanian oil,for nothing)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Bucharest,_1918
And that communism was brought in Russia with support from Germany,you think I do not know that either?
And when communism came to Russia,they stop fighting Germany and Austria-Hungary so Romania was forced to surrender.
And so on.
Anyway,fact is your country and Germany and Hungary are defeated countries and justice have been served,with Transylvania being lead by most people there,which are Romanian Ardeleni.

Peyrol
05-01-2013, 11:46 AM
1938-1945 magyar borders make more sense than the asburgic ones...Croatia as part of Hungary is totally senseless.
BTW, also modern magyar borders are senseless.

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 11:49 AM
The incorporation to France was done legally through treaties.

A few mentions:

"Beset by enemies and to gain a free hand in Hungary, the Habsburgs sold their Sundgau territory (mostly in Upper Alsace) to France in 1646, which had occupied it, for the sum of 1.2 million Thalers. Thus, when the hostilities finally ceased in 1648 with the Treaty of Westphalia, most of Alsace went to France with some towns remaining independent."

"France consolidated her hold with the 1679 Treaties of Nijmegen, which brought the towns under her control. France occupied Strasbourg in 1681 in an unprovoked action, and from 1688 onwards devastated large parts of southern Germany according to the Brűlez le Palatinat! policy. These territorial changes were reinforced at the 1697 Treaty of Ryswick which ended the War of the Grand Alliance. "


Louis XIV was even merciful enough to spare the Protestants from this region:

"The Edict of Fontainebleau, which legalized the suppression of French Protestantism, was not applied in Alsace. In contrast to the rest of France, there was a relative religious tolerance, although the French authorities tried to promote Catholicism"


Even if I tend to site historically more with the Habsburgs than with the Bourbons, the French foreign policy under Richelieu+Mazarin+Louis XIV was extremely succesful, and that cannot be denied.

The Lawspeaker
05-01-2013, 11:51 AM
The incorporation to France was done legally through treaties.

A few mentions:

"Beset by enemies and to gain a free hand in Hungary, the Habsburgs sold their Sundgau territory (mostly in Upper Alsace) to France in 1646, which had occupied it, for the sum of 1.2 million Thalers. Thus, when the hostilities finally ceased in 1648 with the Treaty of Westphalia, most of Alsace went to France with some towns remaining independent."

"France consolidated her hold with the 1679 Treaties of Nijmegen, which brought the towns under her control. France occupied Strasbourg in 1681 in an unprovoked action, and from 1688 onwards devastated large parts of southern Germany according to the Brűlez le Palatinat! policy. These territorial changes were reinforced at the 1697 Treaty of Ryswick which ended the War of the Grand Alliance. "


Louis XIV was even merciful enough to spare the Protestants from this region:

"The Edict of Fontainebleau, which legalized the suppression of French Protestantism, was not applied in Alsace. In contrast to the rest of France, there was a relative religious tolerance, although the French authorities tried to promote Catholicism"


Even if I tend to site historically more with the Habsburgs than with the Bourbons, the French foreign policy under Richelieu+Mazarin+Louis XIV was extremely succesful, and that cannot be denied.
If you put a pistol on someone's head and force someone to sign something.. is it legal ? No it isn't.

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 11:53 AM
None of the representatives of those treaties was forced to sign against their will. The document was the result of the negotiations.

Of course, the paper tends to favour the victor, but that has been the case with all treaties since the dawn of time.

The Lawspeaker
05-01-2013, 11:57 AM
None of the representatives of those treaties was forced to sign against their will. The document was the result of the negotiations.

Of course, the paper tends to favour the victor, but that has been the case with all treaties since the dawn of time.
Always look up the position of the other power at the moment something was signed. When France stole possessions from Spain: Spain was already at it's weakest. When they took the Alsace-Lorainne: the Holy Roman Empire was weakened after the Thirty Years War.

Arend
05-01-2013, 11:57 AM
Bla.Funny how you whine about 16th century English piracy while at the same time you justify French (Catholic) robbery. And next time maybe the Rhine is also the natural border of France….

The Lawspeaker
05-01-2013, 11:59 AM
Funny how you whine about 16th century English piracy while at the same time you justify French (Catholic) robbery. And next time maybe the Rhine is also the natural border of France….
And a good jumping off point for further conquests. He also seems to forget that at some moments in time Catholics and Protestant s fought together, to the death if need be, to keep France out. I am talking about the wars at the end of the 17th to mid 18th century. France was on the move and everyone else was fighting them. Also during the Napoleonic Wars: Protestant English fighting and dying alongside Catholic Spanish guerilla's.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 11:59 AM
Here,see an example of how "human" and "civilised" was Austria-Hungary empire,here are some soldiers from Austria-Hungary troops killing serbian civilians in WW1:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Hromadn%C3%A1_poprava_srbsk%C3%A9ho_obyvatelstva.j pg

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 11:59 AM
Funny how you whine about 16th century English piracy while at the same time you justify French (Catholic) robbery. And next time maybe the Rhine is also the natural border of France….

There is a huge difference between piracy and privateering, which is simply criminal theft and harassment of merchants, and open warfare that is then closed by international treaties.

If I follow your reasoning, Armed Forces = Criminal Gangs.

The Lawspeaker
05-01-2013, 12:00 PM
Here,see an example of how "human" and "civilised" was Austria-Hungary empire,here are some soldiers from Austria-Hungary troops killing serbian civilians in WW1:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Hromadn%C3%A1_poprava_srbsk%C3%A9ho_obyvatelstva.j pg

Probably another faked propaganda picture. We know how those work. :) It was very typical of WWI. Right: the Germans were cutting off babies hands in Belgium at the same time ? According to the British press. :P

The Lawspeaker
05-01-2013, 12:00 PM
There is a huge difference between piracy and privateering, which is simply criminal theft and harassment of merchants, and open warfare that is then closed by international treaties.

If I follow your reasoning, Armed Forces = Criminal Gangs.
Hypocrite. It's essentially the same stuff. Alright then: diplomats and politicians are tuto di tuti capi and the soldiers are the foot soldiers. Get it ? And all that for the great French crime family.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 12:01 PM
Now,support that Austria-Hungary empire will be remake.
This time we will not have shooting,but people let to not have what to eat,because they are not Hungarians or Austrians,on racial criteria.
You have Balkanic and/or North East European genetics?
No good conditions for you.
You have Atlantid and /or NW admixture mostly?There you go have good conditions of life and so on.
That Inquiring Mind is in Austria and lives from social welfare,that does not proves anything,is just an exception.

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 12:02 PM
Yes, the armed forces follow the will and plans of the Foreign Ministry of a country, that is quite normal.

Arend however seem to equate war diplomacy to simple crime and piracy against merchants (often times without a war being declared).

The Lawspeaker
05-01-2013, 12:03 PM
Yes, the armed forces follow the will and plans of the Foreign Ministry of a country, that is quite normal.

Arend however seem to equate war diplomacy to simple crime and piracy against merchants (often times without a war being declared).
Because a declaration of war against weaker nations makes it all o.k. "Haha we're going to rape and rob you and there is fuck all you can do about it !"

Dacul
05-01-2013, 12:07 PM
So there are some revisionists here supporting Hungarian taking Transylvania back,but who cares about them?
:laugh:
Most people of Transylvania do not want now to join Hungary,they do not want to be autonomous either,so meh,hard cause to support you got.

Arend
05-01-2013, 12:08 PM
Yes, the armed forces follow the will and plans of the Foreign Ministry of a country, that is quite normal.

Arend however seem to equate war diplomacy to simple crime and piracy against merchants (often times without a war being declared).So I summarize:
Frogs take the Elsaß by Force = It’s ok. Never mind that it was never French
German States beat France and take the Elsaß back = Great injustice. They should give it back, since they are heretics.
France wins WWI and finally they get their rightful lands back.

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 12:08 PM
War is never a "nice" thing to do.
But a legal declaration respects international public law, ius bellum, and the basic principles of foreign policy.

It is not an ideal world by any means, but it's certainly better than the scenario where criminals are allowed to rob civilians and merchants.

The Lawspeaker
05-01-2013, 12:08 PM
So there are some revisionists here supporting Hungarian taking Transylvania back,but who cares about them?
:laugh:
Most people of Transylvania do not want now to join Hungary,they do not want to be autonomous either,so meh,hard cause to support you got.
Nobody asked the Hungarian/ German minority that is now being replaced by an imported Romanian/gypo majority.

The Lawspeaker
05-01-2013, 12:09 PM
War is never a "nice" thing to do.
But a legal declaration respects international public law, ius bellum, and the basic principles of foreign policy.

It is not an ideal world by any means, but it's certainly better than the scenario where criminals are allowed to rob civilians and merchants.
In this country you would be a called a hypocrite, mate. A declaration of war is nothing more than a brief announcement before it the rape and plunder begins. It usually is a bunch of made up, hypocritical lies summed up in a half-hearted document.

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 12:09 PM
So I summarize:
Frogs take the Elsaß by Force = It’s ok. Never mind that it was never French
German States beat France and take the Elsaß back = Great injustice. They should give it back, since they are heretics.
France wins WWI and finally they get their rightful lands back.

Otto von Bismarck did not agree to annex Alsace and Lorraine:

The final decision to include Alsace Lorraine in the newly founded German Empire was never a foregone conclusion.
The proposal came from Helmuth von Moltke and the German military, eager to underscore their clear cut victory with more than just a symbolic monument or two and Wilhelm I, against his better judgement, simply gave in to ther pressure. Bismarck, who had a better strategic vision of future areas of conflict with France, opposed it to the last. On the other hand, France had shown no qualms in its urge to reach the "natural border" of the Rhine in previous centuries and the annexation/acquisition of this rich bi-lingual Region in 1648 had only been brought about in order to downsize Austro-Spanish Habsburg presence in the area. It is one of the European tragedies that "border areas" of mixed heritage play such a negative role in the stability of the Continent. The Balkans and the Kosovo region are one of the most recent examples.

Source(s):
Bismarck by A.J.P. Taylor - Alfred A. Knops, New York (1969)

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 12:10 PM
Dacul your goal here is obviously not to be constructive but only to provoke. I cannot speak Swedish (wtf?) And the fact that you tried to pass the Árpád flag (13th century) as "Austrian" flag shows how idiotic you truly are.

The Lawspeaker
05-01-2013, 12:11 PM
So I summarize:
Frogs take the Elsaß by Force = It’s ok. Never mind that it was never French
German States beat France and take the Elsaß back = Great injustice. They should give it back, since they are heretics.
France wins WWI and finally they get their rightful lands back.
France didn't win WWI. They fought until the last British, Belgian, Canadian and American, colonial soldier. There have been some French battles but the majority of all battles were fought by their allies. What did France do in the meantime ? Let me help you:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfvrrSOkJ3o

Arthur Guy Empey in Over the Top (he, as an American, had fought in the British army in 1915):


Allumettes: French term for whatever they sell to Tommy as matches , the sulphurous fumes from which have been known to gas an entire platoon.

Estaminet: a French public house or saloon, where muddy water is sold as beer.

Vin Rouge: French wine made from vinegar and red ink. Tommy pays good money for it. ..

Vin Blanc: French wine made from vinegar. They forgot the red ink.

Stephen Clark in 1000 Years of Annoying the French mentions on page 516 that:

(mentioning Robert Graves, historian)


In Goodbye to All That, he is shocked to learn that the French railways are actually charging British hospital trains Ł 200 per day to use their rails.

The Lawspeaker
05-01-2013, 12:12 PM
Otto von Bismarck did not agree to annex Alsace and Lorraine:

The final decision to include Alsace Lorraine in the newly founded German Empire was never a foregone conclusion.
The proposal came from Helmuth von Moltke and the German military, eager to underscore their clear cut victory with more than just a symbolic monument or two and Wilhelm I, against his better judgement, simply gave in to ther pressure. Bismarck, who had a better strategic vision of future areas of conflict with France, opposed it to the last. On the other hand, France had shown no qualms in its urge to reach the "natural border" of the Rhine in previous centuries and the annexation/acquisition of this rich bi-lingual Region in 1648 had only been brought about in order to downsize Austro-Spanish Habsburg presence in the area. It is one of the European tragedies that "border areas" of mixed heritage play such a negative role in the stability of the Continent. The Balkans and the Kosovo region are one of the most recent examples.

Source(s):
Bismarck by A.J.P. Taylor - Alfred A. Knops, New York (1969)
Let's look up who this A.J.P Taylor is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._J._P._Taylor#Criticisms The man is not without his storm of criticism.

Arend
05-01-2013, 12:15 PM
Otto von Bismarck did not agree to annex Alsace and LorraineSo what ? It was not French! Even some Frenchmen admit that, but I guess that they are simply not as stubborn as you. France had no reason to be angry about their loss, since it wasn’t their rightful territory anyway.

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 12:15 PM
France didn't win WWI. They fought until the last British, Belgian, Canadian and American soldier. There have been some French battles but the majority of all battles were fought by their allies.

False, France was the country that lost the most soldiers for the Allies in the Western Front:


France: 1,697,800
British Empire (with all Commonwealth countries included): 1,226,597
United States: 117,465

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 12:17 PM
Nobody asked the Hungarian/ German minority that is now being replaced by an imported Romanian/gypo majority.

General Bandholtz’s daily contact with the Romanian military and diplomatic
personnel for these six months gave him a unique learning experience. He made no
secret about his conclusions. On November 11, 1919, he wrote in his Diary: “It is
simply impossible to conceive such national depravity as those miserable “Latins”
of Southeast Europe are displaying”.

Having spent six months in Hungary, General Bandholtz was impressed by the
Hungarians. Before his departure he concluded in his Diary:
“Personally I came here rather inclined to condone or extenuate much of the
Roumanian procedure, but their outrageous conduct in violation of all
international law, decency, and humane considerations, has made me become an
advocate of the Hungarian cause. Turning over portions of Hungary with its
civilized and refined population will be like turning over Texas and California to
the Mexicans. The great Powers of the Allies should hang their heads in shame for
what they allowed to take place in this country after an armistice.”
http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/bandh/bandh.pdf

Bandholtz is also famous for preventing the Romanians from looting the National Museum of Hungary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hill_Bandholtz

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 12:18 PM
Let's look up who this A.J.P Taylor is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._J._P._Taylor#Criticisms The man is not without his storm of criticism.

Perhaps, I just quoted him since it was the first reference to the episode. Let's go to wiki:

At the end, France had to surrender Alsace and part of Lorraine, because Moltke and his generals insisted that it was needed as a defensive barrier. Bismarck opposed the annexation because he did not wish to make a permanent enemy of France. France was also required to pay an indemnity[35]; the indemnity figure was calculated, on the basis of population, as the precise equivalent of the indemnity which Napoleon I imposed on Prussia in 1807

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 12:21 PM
So what ? It was not French! Even some Frenchmen admit that, but I guess that they are simply not as stubborn as you. France had no reason to be angry about their loss, since it wasn’t their rightful territory anyway.

Alsace/Lorraine has been part of France since Ryswick.
Prior to that it was part of the domains of Austrian-Spanish Habsburgs.

Other than the brief 1870-1914 hiatus (perhaps the short Nazi rule too), the current German State, built over the basis of the Prussian Kingdom, has little to no claim to it.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 12:23 PM
This is a fact. Trianon means to a Hungarian as much as The Armenian Genocide ® means to an Armenian. Now if you understand that little detail, you are halfway there in understanding a Hungarian. ;)

Fight it out in this thread guys, and don't let it get personal. We are all just human and not responsible for what our politicians did in the past.

Romanians dont hate us because of Trianon, they hate us because of their hard inferiority complex.
Look at the Romanian poster on here, I posted articles, while this poster whose name I wont mention started attacking, taunting insulting, dribbling random crap, lies and even going into one huge anti-Austrian rant :laugh: They are scared of the truth, so they try to change the topic, distract others, etc.

The Lawspeaker
05-01-2013, 12:24 PM
France didn't win WWI. They fought until the last British, Belgian, Canadian and American, colonial soldier. There have been some French battles but the majority of all battles were fought by their allies. What did France do in the meantime ? Let me help you:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfvrrSOkJ3o

Arthur Guy Empey in Over the Top (he, as an American, had fought in the British army in 1915):


Stephen Clark in 1000 Years of Annoying the French mentions on page 516 that:

(mentioning Robert Graves, historian)

France and World War I.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 12:24 PM
Dacul your goal here is obviously not to be constructive but only to provoke. I cannot speak Swedish (wtf?) And the fact that you tried to pass the Árpád flag (13th century) as "Austrian" flag shows how idiotic you truly are.

You are disturbed by my courage,that is the thing.
Old Dacian religion was also saying that who will die in battle is going to Heavens and most Balkanics and Romanians have this in the depth of their minds.
As for the German minority,the German minority is doing very well in Romania.
Besides,lots of companies from Germany came and opened here also offices not because they love us,but because they like this crazy courage of Romanians,we are working lots and do not ask too much money,without being afraid of getting ill from too much work.
Some romanian woman died of exhaustion at work,working at a multi-national company,in how many other European countries did that happened?
Germans or Scandos can not rule Romanians,they are more than welcome to come do bussiness but they are too mild and lacked of courage people to for ruling current day Romanians.
Hungarians are also mild and light mode compared to Romanians,they can not rule Romanians either.

Arend
05-01-2013, 12:27 PM
permanent enemy of France.Top lel ! Until 1871, France was always our enemy Number 1. It was the French that invaded German lands all the time, not the other way around. They were already our permanent enemy, later the Elsaß was just used as a pretext to declare war again, but they would have fond one either way.

The Elsaß was never French culturally, demographic or linguistically.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 12:27 PM
Don't know about other territories and countries,but weeping because of Croatian lands?

Like any Hungarian majority ever lived there.

Besides,two regions of Croatia(Hrvatska,Slavonija) that were under Hungarian jurisdiction after Austro-Hungar agreement(1867.) also gained level of autonomity after Croato-Hungar agreement,so they weren't esentially parts of Hungary.

Nobody "weeps" because of Croatian lands. The only part of todays Croatia that we would weep for is the lost status of Rijeka-Fiume (all our naval activities, trade associated with it, etc was lost). As a result we were ruled by an Admiral in a country without a Coastline :laugh:

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 12:28 PM
mindless dribbles

Try again gypo, stop ruining this thread with your mindless dribbles, we know it is difficult for a vlach from Buchurest such as yourself to act civilized, but at least try.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 12:28 PM
Romanians dont hate us because of Trianon, they hate us because of their hard inferiority complex.
Look at the Romanian poster on here, I posted articles, while this poster whose name I wont mention started attacking, taunting insulting, dribbling random crap, lies and even going into one huge anti-Austrian rant :laugh: They are scared of the truth, so they try to change the topic, distract others, etc.

I am not scared of anything,I am just very aggressive as most people here already know because I am raised in South Romania,in Bucharest.
Arguing is my delight.

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 12:29 PM
France and World War I.

Hmm, those seem to wartime jokes. Curious song too.
I know Stephen Clarke's books. I read "A year in the merde", it was a good laugh seeing how the Brit guy tries to understand life in Paris.

But I don't see the point of it truly.
If we're measuring who put more weight into the military effort, it's clear that France lost more soldiers than the whole British Empire units combined.
Except Russia, who had to face Hindenburg and the Austro-Hungarian Empire on its own, France was the Allied nation that lost the most.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 12:32 PM
Try again gypo, stop ruining this thread with your mindless dribbles, we know it is difficult for a vlach from Buchurest such as yourself to act civilized, but at least try.
I do not have gypo ancestry,anyway even if I would have I would not find anything bad in it.
You know that if you compared how good average citizen of India knows to talk English compared to how average Hungarian is talking English,average Indian is better?
And I think Indian people,even if they are so many,did not made so many genocides compared to Hungarians.
Your people is backward compared to India,no offense.
As for Gypos,now average Hungarian is much worse as how unhuman he is compared to average gypo,Gypos are robbing and are happy with few robbing and stealing,while Hungary have stolen Transylvania,a part of Slovakia,a part of Croatia,a part of Serbia.
And they were robbing all these people here,so you see,even if I would be gypo,which I am not,I would be superior to average hungarian,as level of humanity.

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 12:33 PM
Top lel ! Until 1871, France was always our enemy Number 1. It was the French that invaded German lands all the time, not the other way around. They were already our permanent enemy, later the Elsaß was just used as a pretext to declare war again, but they would have fond one either way.

The Elsaß was never French culturally, demographic or linguistically.

When you say "our" who are you talking about?
Germany did not exist before 1870 (even if the Napoleon's confederacy broadly gave some sense of unity).
If we go to State genealogy, I suppose you're referring to Prussia, a country that was at odds quite often with Austria, Russia and other German principates like Saxonny during the XVIIIth Century.

Prussia only started to matter to France after the Treaty of Utrecht, and specially during the reign of Frederick II. The biggest French concern, since the days of the Valois dinasty, had always been the double threat of the Spanish-Austrian Habsburgs.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 12:34 PM
The allies also wanted to let Turkey sign such a treaty, we shuffed that treaty up theirs. I'm truly sad Hungarians didn't do that :/

We couldn't. We were completely surrounded, cut off from resources (there was no coal, and most Hungarians spent their winters of that year without any heating).
Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania were waiting to attack us, Romania claimed what is todays East Hungary, Czechoslovakia wanted all of North Hungary, Serbia wanted Southern Hungary. If we refused to comply they would have been given the green light to do whatever they want, while being funded and supported by the Entente and their troops too.

Another thing, the first government after WW1 was a "liberal demokratic" government, they decided to play by "international law", and thought that if they act "civilised" they will get some sympathy, so they disarmed completly. But this did not work, and a Communist dictatorship took power who quickly created a "Red Army" who had some success against Czechoslovaks, but by then it was too little, too late.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 12:35 PM
I do not have gypo ancestry,anyway even if I would have I would not find anything bad in it.
You know that if you compared how good average citizen of India knows to talk English compared to how average Hungarian is talking English,average Indian is better?
And I think Indian people,even if they are so many,did not made so many genocides compared to Hungarians.
Your people is backward compared to India,no offense.
As for Gypos,now average Hungarian is much worse as how unhuman he is compared to average gypo,Gypos are robbing and are happy with few robbing and stealing,while Hungary have stolen Transylvania,a part of Slovakia,a part of Croatia,a part of Serbia.
And they were robbing all these people here,so you see,even if I would be gypo,which I am not,I would be superior to average hungarian,as level of humanity.


During WW2 alone, Romanians made far more genocides, read about the Oddessa massacre for example, Iasi pogrom, etc.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 12:36 PM
Now, Szegedist,come with something better,cause I am quite bored.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 12:37 PM
During WW2 alone, Romanians made far more genocides, read about the Oddessa massacre for example, Iasi pogrom, etc.

They were taught by Nazis to do that,so most of the responsibility belongs to the Nazi who manipulated them to do that.
Anyway,Hungarians in WW2 did a lot more genocides against Jews than Romanians did.

Arend
05-01-2013, 12:39 PM
When you say "our" who are you talking about?While I think you know what I mean, I will explain it to you anyway: WE=ALL GERMANS. Just because we didn’t had a state until 1870 doesn’t mean that we didn’t existed (Just like the Italians) I don’t need lessons about my own countries history from some Columbian.

We never wanted anything from France, while France was constantly occupying German lands

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 12:40 PM
To give you an idea how absurd Trianon is

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-P7jI-iI29pg/T9R8PCPCP4I/AAAAAAAAA2o/uUu6_EFFdyA/s1600/224525_144467395638645_5291788_n.jpg

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 12:41 PM
Demographic map of Hungary 1941
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/7181/mo41.jpg

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 12:42 PM
While I think you know what I mean, I will explain it to you anyway: WE=ALL GERMANS. Just because we didn’t had a state until 1870 doesn’t mean that we didn’t existed (Just like the Italians) I don’t need lessons about my own countries history from some Columbian.

A "German" identity did not exist. Bavarians of the XVIIIth Century knew they were different both from Austrians and from Prussians.

If you talk to the Italian members of this board, you'll see that Garibaldi's creation has a lot of cracks. There is a reason for which separatist parties like Lega Nord exist (even If I don't really like them either).

PS: Columbia is an University in the US. Colombia is a country in South America.

Loki
05-01-2013, 12:42 PM
This thread too provocative! :icon_rolleyes: :ohwell:

http://www.bimmerboost.com/images/imported/2013/02/this_thread_delivers_ups_chick_amaz-1.jpg

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 12:43 PM
To give you an idea how absurd Trianon is


I think reducing the US to those proportions would be a good thing for the world :)

Dacul
05-01-2013, 12:44 PM
What are you telling there Szegedist,in the rep you gave me,Gypos are actually nice hearted persons,compared to South Romanians.
:laugh:
Western and Northern Europeans got scared by gypos,but from whom you think gypos learned to behave like that?
Since Indians are very mild people and non-violent.
From ancient Dacians from here.You did not read to see what is wrote about Thracians?
That they were disliking to work the land and were liking the wars.
And Dacians were attacked by Roman Empire because in the winter they were passing over Danube and robbing Roman Empire.
If Hungary managed to occupy Transylvania it was because the lack of unity between Dacians here,Dacian tribes from Transylvania were on their own,these from South Romania,on their own ,those from Moldavia same.
But now we got more civilised anyway,we need to become more human and civilised.
Take for example Norway,how civilised and human they became and how they were during the time Norwegian vikings were raiding in UK.
So if they could become civilised we can also.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 12:46 PM
Where were Dacians in 500? 700? 900? Nowhere to be seen, nowhere to be found. How come most of the toponyms in Transylvania are of non-Romanian, and non-Dacian origin?

Most of the placenames in Transylvania are of Hungarian origin, and Romanian ones just being copies.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 12:49 PM
Oh really?
Most toponyms in Romania are of unknown origin and after that,of Slavic origin not of Hungarian origin.
Dacians are mentioned by some chronicle around 700 or so,when they are called once "Dacians" and other time "these slavs" ,which shows Dacians belonged to Slavs.
See for example Bozna from Zalau county,obvious cognate with Bosna from Bosnia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosna
And this one:
http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bozna,_S%C4%83laj
I put this one,because it belongs to Treznea ,where some Hungarians did some genocide against Romanian civilian population.

Arend
05-01-2013, 12:49 PM
A "German" identity did not exist. Bavarians of the XVIIIth Century knew they were different both from Austrians and from Prussians.A "French" identity did not exist. Bretons of the XVIIIth Century knew they were different both from Corsicans and from Alsatians. Quit talking about things you know nothing about.

Columbia is an University in the US. Colombia is a country in South America.Boo hoo. But when all else fails I guess the grammar nazi has to come out

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 12:51 PM
Oh really?
Most toponyms in Romania are of unknown origin and after that,of Slavic origin not of Hungarian origin.
Dacians are mentioned by some chronicle around 700 or so,when they are called once "Dacians" and other time "these slavs" ,which shows Dacians belonged to Slavs.

You truly have no clue what you are talking about. You are a waste of time, goodbye Dacul. Is this how you distract people while you rob them in Bucuresti?

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 12:54 PM
A "French" identity did not exist. Bretons of the XVIIIth Century knew they were different both from Corsicans and from Alsatians. Quit talking about things you know nothing about.
Boo hoo. But when all else fails I guess the grammar nazi has to come out

Prior to 1789, the idea of Nation, and nationalism as an ideology did not really exist. Loyalty was given to the monarch, not to the volk.
The idea of "making everybody French" through enforced language restrictions and stronger centralism was a policy of the Convention, Robespierre and Abbé Gregoire leading the way.

Regarding Alsace/Lorraine, since Ryswick they were territories that served the French Crown, and most of them followed without question the centralization of the Revolution.
Thus the acquisitions of the Bourbons was followed by loyalty to the French Republic and the French Empire. Their Alsatian identity, is therefore quite linked to France, given that their previous Austrian affiliation was quite forgotten.

People from Strasbourg usually identify as "First Alsatian, then French", which is quite normal in my opinion.




I just wanted to correct a quick spelling mistake that people make, no harm intended.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 01:04 PM
I already insulted Austria.And I was very serious,when I said that if Germanic here feels offended about me insulting Austria,I am giving him my address to come "punish me" for my insults towards Austria.Your nation have stolen Romania oil reserves and gas reserves,so you are gypo nation for me.
That Romanian gypos went and ate the swans from some lake in Austria,is because they felt your nation closed to them,as behaviour.
Without OMV (which is owned by Austrian state) receive Romania oil and natural gass reserves Austria would have a lots of economical problems.
And I am not nervous at all.
(I am actually laughing when I am writing this message).
What you think,that I do not know that Romanians fought against Hungarian-Austrian troops in WW1,cause Austria was supporting Hungary in getting Transylvania?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_M%C4%83r%C4%83%C5%9Fe%C5%9Fti
Also that the invader troops of Austria-Hungary and Germany,were together allied?
(see that Germany also wanted than to steal Romanian oil,for nothing)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Bucharest,_1918
And that communism was brought in Russia with support from Germany,you think I do not know that either?
And when communism came to Russia,they stop fighting Germany and Austria-Hungary so Romania was forced to surrender.
And so on.
Anyway,fact is your country and Germany and Hungary are defeated countries and justice have been served,with Transylvania being lead by most people there,which are Romanian Ardeleni.

Why do you hate Austrians? They supported your Gypo "national hero" Avram Iancu who was a mass murderer of Hungarians, a Criminal that swore an allegiance to the Austrians.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 01:07 PM
Could be another thing,here:
We are christian orthodox people while Austria and Hungary mostly catholic.
So they want to force us to renounce Christian Orthodoxy and pass to Catholicism,that was obvious,cause the peasants who accepted to move under pope,received land,but not much,cause they were still keep Christian Orthodox faith,they would have been accepted as full right citizens when they would have accepted all catholic dogmas.
(that has happened when Hungary was rulling Transylvania).
Szegedist might be just a fanatic catholic in disguise,who knows.

I know that Austrian Empire did genocide agaisnt some Vlachs who were refugees in Slovakia,cause they refused to pass to Catholic religion.
Now they (most catholics) are saying they are not behaving like in the past,who knows if that is true,or not.

IM very likely was put to pass to Catholicism to receive Austrian citizenship,I think.

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 01:08 PM
"IM very likely was put to pass to Catholicism to receive Austrian citizenship."

I suddenly have the urge to never read you again.

Arend
05-01-2013, 01:08 PM
Prior to 1789, the idea of Nation, and nationalism as an ideology did not really exist. Loyalty was given to the monarch, not to the volk.Wrong. With the American and French Revolutions these movement were just intensified, but it did not caused them. Besides, I somehow have the feeling that you would like to have these times back….

Regarding Alsace/Lorraine, since Ryswick they were territories that served the French Crown, and most of them followed without question the centralization of the Revolution.So I guess that you must really hate them :rolleyes:

Thus the acquisitions of the Bourbons was followed by loyalty to the French Republic and the French Empire. Their Alsatian identity, is therefore quite linked to France, given that their previous Austrian affiliation was quite forgotten.The language and the culture are German. Herder and Goethe studied in Strasburg. They are closer to the Germans East of the Rhine than to the whole rest of France. It’s only French for you because of your weird Monarchist/Catholic Supremacy agenda. When they have forgotten their old Austrian affiliation, I think they could also forget about their French….

Dacul
05-01-2013, 01:08 PM
Why do you hate Austrians? They supported your Gypo "national hero" Avram Iancu who was a mass murderer of Hungarians, a Criminal that swore an allegiance to the Austrians.
Because they are Catholics.

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 01:10 PM
Because they are Catholics.

Fuck you too Dacul.

The Lawspeaker
05-01-2013, 01:11 PM
Ah. The cracks in the unholy Freemason-Catholic-Orthodox alliance begin to appear. :)

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 02:20 PM
Austria gained Burgenland which is good :)
A little bit of the Pannonian plate belongs to us now.

You had a bit of the Pannonian Basin before too
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Pannonian_Basin.svg

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 02:46 PM
Corvus brings up an interesting point.

Trianon also destroyed demographic unity too.

http://lazarus.elte.hu/hun/summer.jpg
You can clearly see the map of historic Hungary just by looking at geography.

Here is a recent map by NASA
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/77000/77126/europelsta_tmo_2012025.jpg
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/77000/77126/europelsta_tmo_2012025_palette.png
from
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=77126


As you can see it is an irredentist map, so NASA should apologize to Slovakia, Romania :laugh:

River Tisza was once called "The most Hungarian river" as until changes in the territory in 1920, it flowed within Hungary for its entire length (from source to draining).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Carpathian_basin_waters.jpg

Geminus
05-01-2013, 03:52 PM
I can understand Hungarians want the territories back who are populated by Hungarians now or were when they lost them. But I don't understand how they can justify their claims of territories in which didn't even make up the majority in population 100 years or earlier.

Geminus
05-01-2013, 03:53 PM
I can understand Hungarians want the territories back who are populated by Hungarians now or were when they lost them. But I don't understand how they can justify their claims of territories in which didn't even make up the majority in population 100 years ago or earlier.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 04:00 PM
I can understand Hungarians want the territories back who are populated by Hungarians now or were when they lost them. But I don't understand how they can justify their claims of territories in which didn't even make up the majority in population 100 years ago or earlier.

Because population was not considered to be everything.

The Lawspeaker
05-01-2013, 04:05 PM
Because population was not considered to be everything.
It should be.

Loki
05-01-2013, 04:08 PM
It should be.

Yes I think you're right. In a truly democratic state the majority population should have the rule. Anything more than that is empire building or colonialism. You can look at it like this: Hungary essentially lost its colonies.

The Lawspeaker
05-01-2013, 04:11 PM
Yes I think you're right. In a truly democratic state the majority population should have the rule. Anything more than that is empire building or colonialism. You can look at it like this: Hungary essentially lost its colonies.
But also a chunk of it's actual country to other Raubstaten like Romania.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 04:12 PM
Yes I think you're right. In a truly democratic state the majority population should have the rule. Anything more than that is empire building or colonialism. You can look at it like this: Hungary essentially lost its colonies.

They can not really be colonies, if they were part of Hungary since the times Hungary was existed as a state.

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 04:13 PM
Yes I think you're right. In a truly democratic state the majority population should have the rule. Anything more than that is empire building or colonialism. You can look at it like this: Hungary essentially lost its colonies.


Democracy is not an argument to authority really. Most people believe in it today, but it's a historical exception rather than a rule.

The Lawspeaker
05-01-2013, 04:14 PM
Democracy is not an argument to authority really. Most people believe in it today, but it's a historical exception rather than a rule.
It's the logical result of centuries of tyranny and imperialism: people rising up to establish a state that suits their needs. In fact, I believe, that democracy (like socialism or evolution) is inevitable.

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 04:15 PM
Nothing is inevitable, that kind of historicism usually serves as a convenient legitimation to new political groups or ideas.
Scientific Socialism among others.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 04:16 PM
It should be.

The situation is more complex than this. Many of the non-Magyar minorities were considered to be part of the Hungarian nation too, like with the Slovaks, one nation two languages. But with the rise of ethnic nationalism, this idea became strained.

In my opinion, what should have have happened would be federal reforms, but the Historic entity kept together.

The Lawspeaker
05-01-2013, 04:17 PM
Nothing is inevitable, that kind of historicism usually serves as a convenient legitimation to new political groups or ideas.
Scientific Socialism among others.
Anything is better than what the old crap has brought us. :)

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 04:18 PM
The situation is more complex than this. Many of the non-Magyar minorities were considered to be part of the Hungarian nation too, like with the Slovaks, one nation two languages. But with the rise of ethnic nationalism, this idea became strained.

In my opinion, what should have have happened would be federal reforms, but the historic entity kept together.

I agree entirely.
Nationalism, while being a mostly positive solution in today's world, can easily degenerate.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 04:32 PM
Balurate, regarding that article you posted on page two, this quote from it says it all.

"The opposition in the Hungarian National Assembly, and ordinary Hungarians
in both Slovakia and Hungary blasted the Hungary-Slovakia Basic Treaty. Thousands
demonstrated in front of St. Stephen Basilica in Budapest when the treaty was made
public.59 Three Hungarian opposition parties – the Federation of Young Democrats
(Fidesz), the Christian Democratic People’s Party, and the Hungarian Democratic
Forum – called upon Horn not to sign the treaty. Fidesz chairman Viktor Orban
proclaimed that “the Hungarian government has capitulated. [Slovak Prime Minister] Vladimir Meciar has defeated Gyula Horn.”60 The parliamentary debate was tense, with the opposition arguing that the Horn Government in essence sold out the
Magyars of Slovakia in order to get a basic treaty as quickly as possible.61 However,
some newspapers praised the treaty and its international implications for Hungary.62
Similarly, the Alliance of Free Democrats (coalition partner with the MSP) “argued
that the basic treaty helps Hungary’s Euroatlantic integration."

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 04:33 PM
The Hungary-Romania Basic Treaty was more difficult to reach because of intransigence from the Romanian side and the Romanian elections, which relied in large part on anti-Hungarian demagoguery. In addition, the fervor in the Hungarian parliament was stronger because of events in Slovakia: the Slovakian government passed a language law which made Slovak the official language, thus raising doubts about the
Magyars’ ability to freely use Hungarian, which was supposed to be guaranteed under the Slovakia-Hungary Basic Treaty.64 While the Hungarian government reacted negatively to the Slovak language law, the opposition claimed that it had foreseen this
outcome. By being too quick to sign a treaty with Slovakia (i.e., without holding out
for sufficient minority rights guarantees), the Horn Government put the Magyar
minority at risk. As one MDF deputy put it, “the Hungarian-Slovak basic treaty was
a mere trick by which the two sides wanted to delude the international public.”65
Adding to the hysteria about the basic treaties, MDF Chairman Sandor Lezsak warned
that the MSP-led government was “preparing the ground for a third Trianon with the
Hungarian-Romanian basic treaty.


Some movement on cosmetic issues from the Romanian side allowed the finalization of a Romania-Hungary Basic Treaty; again, without political/territorial autonomy,
or collective rights for the Magyar minority.6

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 04:34 PM
In other words Balurate, our treacherous politicians threw the Hungarian minority to the dogs in order to get in bed with EU, NATO and other "European democratic integration" crap.

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 05:01 PM
Anything is better than what the old crap has brought us. :)

Today's world has been built over a mixture of Republicanism (mostly building itself over universal democracy), market economy built by the bourgeoisie, and liberal-libertarianism in what concerns collective culture.

The Old World has zero influence there.

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 05:02 PM
In other words Balurate, our treacherous politicians threw the Hungarian minority to the dogs in order to get in bed with EU, NATO and other "European democratic integration" crap.

It's somehow surprising that wherever you look, problems seem to come all the time from the same people.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 05:35 PM
In reality there is not much we can do...... in the current World (or maybe just EuroAtlantic) order.

The Lawspeaker
05-01-2013, 05:36 PM
Today's world has been built over a mixture of Republicanism (mostly building itself over universal democracy), market economy built by the bourgeoisie, and liberal-libertarianism in what concerns collective culture.

The Old World has zero influence there.
And yet we still have Kings, no democracy, concentrated wealth etc. So yes: the old world is still very much alive.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 06:19 PM
I suppose.

Give me your opinion on this paper, please:
http://blogs.shu.edu/diplomacy/files/archives/ambrosio.pdf


The recovery of Magyar-populated territories outside of the Hungarian borders became an obsession for every interwar government and the desire to overturn the Trianon borders pushed the young state into the camp of the rising fascist powers of Italy and Germany. Once again aligning with the losing side in a world war, Hungary – which had managed during the Second World War to unite nearly all of the Magyars of Central Europe – was once again partitioned.
That quote sums up our interwar politics quite well.

By the way, I dont quite understand what he meant by
"As Adrian Hyde-Price puts it,
Hungary’s behavior in the 1930s and during the war; the suffering it caused to other
countries and to itself, the lasting damage it did to Hungary’s name – the bad memories of all of this led to a considerable moral revulsion against irredentism.”"

What the hell did the expect from us? Given our situation, our reaction was mild. Our treatment of Slovaks, Romanians, Serbs cannot be compared with the treatment Germans gave Poles and others. Apart from a few isolated cases of bullet exchanges in a few villages, no massacres took place.


Also this is quite good too.


Whether one accepts or rejects the view that revision of the Treaty of Trianon was the sine qua non of the nation's "survival and independent existence," the fact remains that revisionism was the cornerstone of Hungary's interwar foreign policy. Successive governments preached the gospel of revisionism to anyone who would listen, repeating its message so often and with such fervor that many Westerners soon became convinced that "the Hungarian people were not quite sane on that subject."

The zeal with which Hungary promoted the cause of revisionism was commensurate with the difficulty of the undertaking. Istvan Bethlen, who as prime minister laid the foundation of Hungarian interwar foreign policy, did not exaggerate when he claimed that although "this nation had gone through many catastrophes, never in her history did she face such a formidable task as the question of revision." The obstacles in the way of revising the Treaty of Trianon were enormous: the opposition of those who had benefited from the reorganization of Central Europe in 1919, the Great Powers' antagonism toward or lack of sympathy for the Hungarian demands, and Hungary's insignificance in economic, military, and diplomatic terms. Without a general territorial reshuffle of the whole region between Germany and Russia, Hungarian revisionism did not have the slightest chance of success.

As peace began to give way to war by the late 1930s, revisionism became a more realistic goal. The obstacles which had formerly blocked Hungary's revisionist path were no longer insurmountable, and the futile rhetoric of the past could now be replaced with diplomatic maneuvering. Hungarian policymakers took full advantage of the new situation. Spurred on by early diplomatic triumphs, they relentlessly pursued their revisionist aims. Nonetheless, the result was total failure; after World War II the victorious Allies reimposed the same borders (with one minor change, and that to Hungary's detriment) which had been so odious to her after World War I and which she had tried to change for more than two decades....
^^ it has parallels to modern day
http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/bors/bors07.htm

Dacul
05-01-2013, 06:47 PM
What has affected most Hungary economy after Trianon was the loosing of access to ports at sea.
I do not see why some Hungarians are still complaining,about Trianon,now Slovenia and Hungary are both in Schengen area,so they got back fast and free access to sea ports.
As for Hungarian boyars from Transylvania,their land was taken,only 100 acres being left to them and they received instead gold,more than what the price of the land taken.
This happened in whole Romania,not only in Transylvania.
If Transylvania would get under Hungary rule,would be worse for them,because most Hungarian leaders are blind fanatics,who are rather making people avoiding to do bussiness with Hungary.
I remember that not long ago in Budapest was a celebration where Horthy was celebrated as a big hero,where some catholic bishop/s took part also.
So you see,people are avoiding nazis ,including most Germans.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 06:57 PM
Dacul, I see you are still talking out of your ass, where do you read that crap? Hungarians had it much, much worse under Romanian occupation, many had their properties taken away, kicked out of their houses to make room for inbred Vlach goat breeders from Wallachia,etc.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 07:05 PM
These really look like people who prefered Romanian rule



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCrC2edOnZ8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T2xNE3AEwI


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8qNas0OR29k

Dacul
05-01-2013, 07:05 PM
Dacul, I see you are still talking out of your ass, where do you read that crap? Hungarians had it much, much worse under Romanian occupation, many had their properties taken away, kicked out of their houses to make room for inbred Vlach goat breeders from Wallachia,etc.

No,they did not.
Actually it was better for Hungarian peasants,I have already told you that my aunt by alliance if half Hungarian,after her father.
He received at agrarian reform a nice amount of land ,how all peasants received.
You are just supporter of Jobbik who is pro-turkic movement and besides that,this movement is also supporting mostly the most rich people.
Some Turk there posted the truth about Turkey,there are very huge differences between poor people in Istanbul and rich people,this is the regime that Jobbik is proposing for Hungary also,this is how Turkic lead regime are.
What Siberian Cold Breeze posted about how Turks are proposing to lead,that they have strong social measures, are just shameless lies.
The current president Romania have,which is also half-turk did something pretty nasty in Romania,now there is very high social inequality here.
One of the founders of Jobbik movement is Gergely Pongrátz who is clearly looking very turanid,non-Caucasian,cause he has a very low forehead.

The Lawspeaker
05-01-2013, 07:09 PM
These really look like people who prefered Romanian rule



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCrC2edOnZ8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T2xNE3AEwI


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8qNas0OR29k

Compared to now.. it actually looked like Europe.

Cern
05-01-2013, 07:16 PM
No,they did not.
The current president Romania have,which is also half-turk did something pretty nasty in Romania,now there is very high social inequality here.


Are you kidding? Economic crisis and wild capitalism.


In today's Hungarian leaders did not Turanid.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 07:23 PM
Are you kidding? Economic crisis and wild capitalism.


In today's Hungarian leaders did not Turanid.
Wild capitalism is what Turanids are proposing and the Turkish way of leading countries.
What are you saying about Jobbik movement not supporting Turanism,because this is exactly one of their important points?
More exactly ,they are saying Hungary should improve their relations with Turkey.

And what is important,how Cluj was looking in 1940,or how average inhabitant from there was living than,compared to how is living now?
It seems for Tuan and Szegedist how buildings and town is looking are more important,than if all people have food,they have a place where to live,heat during winter and so on.
Sure,if you want to make poor people houses fast,those will not look good,but they will have a place where to live,which is much more important,than how the town is looking.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 07:26 PM
What Dacul fails to understand that Romania has been one of the most backward states in Europe, now and historically. And not just compared to Western Europe, but in Eastern Europe and even under Communism too.

Both Bulgaria and Romania have a coastline, but many preferred to drive across Romania into Bulgaria, because Bulgaria was almost paradise compared to Romania during communist times, and it is practically the same coastline too!

There were more Romanian language schools in Hungary pre Trianon, than there were schools in Romania.

As I posted earlier,the primitiveness of Romanians was even noted by an American general who was sent to Hungary to make sure Trianon goes without too much hassle.

Saying that Hungarians had it better under Romania goes in the same category as saying Whites had it better under Mandela :picard1:

Dacul
05-01-2013, 07:27 PM
Here:
http://www.tetedeturc.com/home/spip.php?article7348
Is not Gábor Vona the leader of Jobbik movement?
He is saying that Turkey could become "key allied" of Hungary.
Great "European" politics,from Jobbik movement.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 07:28 PM
Wild capitalism is what Turanids are proposing and the Turkish way of leading countries.
What are you saying about Jobbik movement not supporting Turanism,because this is exactly one of their important points?
More exactly ,they are saying Hungary should improve their relations with Turkey.

And what is important,how Cluj was looking in 1940,or how average inhabitant from there was living than,compared to how is living now?
It seems for Tuan and Szegedist how buildings and town is looking are more important,than if all people have food,they have a place where to live,heat during winter and so on.
Sure,if you want to make poor people houses fast,those will not look good,but they will have a place where to live,which is much more important,than how the town is looking.

You drriblw a lot about completely irrelevant things, but you say nothing.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 07:29 PM
Here:
http://www.tetedeturc.com/home/spip.php?article7348
Is not Gábor Vona the leader of Jobbik movement?
He is saying that Turkey could become "key allied" of Hungary.
Great "European" politics,from Jobbik movement.

I will let a European tell me about what is and isnt European politics, and certainly not Romanian, in many circles you barely qualify as white, if at all.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 07:33 PM
By the way, Turkey is a more civilized, prosperous and historically successful country than you. They built an empire, you had some principalities, and then destroyed everything that was built by Saxons and Hungarians in Transylvania. Romanians dont build, only leech off others, did in the past, do today, and will do in the future. The Romanian goverment SOLD its Germans for cash after WW2, but you feel no shame, just like about nothing else.

By the way, Oltenia was part of the Habsburg Monarchy in 1718, they tried to civilize you, but it was such a difficult task that they ended up letting go of Olteniá.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 07:37 PM
What Dacul fails to understand that Romania has been one of the most backward states in Europe, now and historically. And not just compared to Western Europe, but in Eastern Europe and even under Communism too.

Both Bulgaria and Romania have a coastline, but many preferred to drive across Romania into Bulgaria, because Bulgaria was almost paradise compared to Romania during communist times, and it is practically the same coastline too!

There were more Romanian language schools in Hungary pre Trianon, than there were schools in Romania.

As I posted earlier,the primitiveness of Romanians was even noted by an American general who was sent to Hungary to make sure Trianon goes without too much hassle.

Saying that Hungarians had it better under Romania goes in the same category as saying Whites had it better under Mandela :picard1:

What you fail to understand is that Romania,after Eastern Germany,was most developed country from ex-communist block.
And that Wallachia /South Romania have very wise people,this is how they managed to unite Wallachia to Moldavia,they went to make studies in France and knew there people with power they also gained support from UK,for this cause.
(that happened around 1850).
After Wallachia got united to Moldavia,Romania was a very strong economical power and I have already shown that Germany wanted to rob the oil from Wallachia (which they actually used in WW2,because Romanians were noobs enough to ally with the idiot nazis;without Romania joining nazis in WW2,they would have been beaten in max 1-2 years and I think the situation of Romania would have been much better).
What happened in Romania,after the "revolution" from 1989 is a different story,there is a lot of corruption.
And what you fail to understand is that most Hungarians from Romania do not want that Hungary would lead Transylvania,I am talking about average people and they also dislike Turkey.
They are not insane "pan-turanist".

And also what you,as a shameless liar that you are,not mention is that Hungarians from Transylvania are despised in Hungary,being called Vlachs or so while as I already told,they are very respected in South Romania and in Transylvania.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 07:45 PM
So we have a Ceausescu regime praiser? :laugh: :laugh:
This keeps getting better and better, next thing you will claim life standards under Ceausescu were comparable to Western Europe?

Dacul I will tell you something, my father showed me where they went on hollidays when he was young during Communist era.
He showed me on a map places in Bulgaria. I asked "Why not Romania?", he said it was so poor and undeveloped that it was better to travel longer to Bulgaria.

And he is not the only person who thinks this, it is a known fact that poverty was extreme in Romania, and some falsified figures will not make it otherwise.


But in comparison to the rest of Europe, Romania was poor and undeveloped before communism , during communism, and after communism.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 07:47 PM
By the way, Turkey is a more civilized, prosperous and historically successful country than you. They built an empire, you had some principalities, and then destroyed everything that was built by Saxons and Hungarians in Transylvania. Romanians dont build, only leech off others, did in the past, do today, and will do in the future. The Romanian goverment SOLD its Germans for cash after WW2, but you feel no shame, just like about nothing else.

By the way, Oltenia was part of the Habsburg Monarchy in 1718, they tried to civilize you, but it was such a difficult task that they ended up letting go of Olteniá.

Oltenia has very wise people,I have already posted lots of example of Oltenians will show again,Eugene Ionesco,one of important writers Absurd Theatre of France,is Oltenian:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eug%C3%A8ne_Ionesco
Or Constantin Brancusi,a very well known sculptor,is from there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantin_Brancusi

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 07:47 PM
By the way, having natural resources does not automatically mean you are rich and prosperous, otherwise many Europeans would start moving to some African hole :laugh:

Cern
05-01-2013, 07:53 PM
Wild capitalism is what Turanids are proposing and the Turkish way of leading countries.
What are you saying about Jobbik movement not supporting Turanism,because this is exactly one of their important points?



Jobbik voters motivated general discontent, poverty. Not the turanism.
Turanism: poor, frustrated people looking for glorious past. Turanism not identical social inequality.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 07:56 PM
And what you fail to understand is that most Hungarians from Romania do not want that Hungary would lead Transylvania,
Well, according to a bullshit survey that I just made up, 108% of Romanians want to become part of Russia.


Oltenia has very wise people,I have already posted lots of example of Oltenians will show again,Eugene Ionesco,one of important writers Absurd Theatre of France,is Oltenian:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eug%C3%A8ne_Ionesco
Or Constantin Brancusi,a very well known sculptor,is from there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantin_Brancusi


"Oltenians have very wise people"
"Cherrypicks two examples"


And also what you,as a shameless liar that you are,not mention is that Hungarians from Transylvania are despised in Hungary,being called Vlachs or so while as I already told,they are very respected in South Romania and in Transylvania.
Now you are calling me a shameless liar? :laugh: talk about pot calling the kettle black.
As for your lies, there was an example when the Socialists (globalist anti-Hungarian party) tried to demonize Transylvanian Hungarians as Romanians to cause division and destroy unity, but such cheap tricks will only work on the most stupid.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 08:08 PM
So we have a Ceausescu regime praiser? :laugh: :laugh:
This keeps getting better and better, next thing you will claim life standards under Ceausescu were comparable to Western Europe?

Dacul I will tell you something, my father showed me where they went on hollidays when he was young during Communist era.
He showed me on a map places in Bulgaria. I asked "Why not Romania?", he said it was so poor and undeveloped that it was better to travel longer to Bulgaria.

And he is not the only person who thinks this, it is a known fact that poverty was extreme in Romania, and some falsified figures will not make it otherwise.


But in comparison to the rest of Europe, Romania was poor and undeveloped before communism , during communism, and after communism.

Being poor,during communism,was because Romanian people struggled to build a very powerful infrastructure,which was not properly maintained,after 1989 and some of it has broken.
During communism,the railways network of Romania was one of the best from Europe,for example in 1988 you were making between Bucharest and Cluj,5 hours with the train (are 500km and the train is crossing the mountains).
Between Bucharest and Constanta,2 hours (are 250 km,but it is plain road).
Now the rail roads are not maintained,between Bucharest and Constanta you are making 5 hours,or so.

If you think about Romanians from South Romania,that we are gypos and poor,you are wrong.
Is fun,that I think most people from North Transylvania are thinking same about us.Sure is not like that.
As for Transylvania people,they got freedom - if they want to get autonomous,they can,if they want to unite with Hungary,they can do that again,no one is forcing them to stay united to South Romania/Wallachia and Moldavia.
Current Romanian government even wanted to let those 2 counties who are mostly Hungarian population to get autonomous,but they did not wanted,cause they would loose lots of subvention they are receiving from Romania budget (Hungary would not give them anything,that is clear) if they are doing that.

But they are very useful cause they have good conditions for tourism and lots of Romanians are going there.
So,lol,what would they want to unite with Hungary?
They have schools in their language,public services in their language (paid from Romania budget) ,receive subventions from Romanian budget gets money from mostly Romanian tourists.
I do not hate those Hungarians,I actually like them,Szegedist is just noob pro-Turk,that is the thing.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 08:13 PM
Szegedist,what you proposed,as mentally insane pan-Turanic,that you are,is that Transylvania would be taken by Hungary and Romanian population from here exiled,or exterminated.
That is truth.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 08:15 PM
Current Romanian government even wanted to let those 2 counties who are mostly Hungarian population to get autonomous,but they did not wanted,cause they would loose lots of subvention they are receiving from Romania budget (Hungary would not give them anything,that is clear) if they are doing that.


Now this is B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T
There was no talk about giving us referendum from the Romanian government, absolutely none. In fact, your politicians said " There will never ever be autonomy".

As for the rest, Székelyföld is one of the poorest, if not the poorest region in Romania. Simply because the Romanian government does not want to spend as much money for development of Hungarian regions. Instead you exploit it, you cut down forests after forests, in 30-40 years there will probably not be a tree left in the region.

You can save your lies when the EU comes to make report on "minority rights", but I know you and your tricks inside out, and they wont work for me.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 08:16 PM
Romanian population from here exiled,or exterminated.
That is truth.

You accused me of this before, I am still waiting for a quote to back it up, but why wait for something that does not exist.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 08:20 PM
Now this is B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T
There was no talk about giving us referendum from the Romanian government, absolutely none. In fact, your politicians said " There will never ever be autonomy".

As for the rest, Székelyföld is one of the poorest, if not the poorest region in Romania. Simply because the Romanian government does not want to spend as much money for development of Hungarian regions. Instead you exploit it, you cut down forests after forests, in 30-40 years there will probably not be a tree left in the region.

You can save your lies when the EU comes to make report on "minority rights", but I know you and your tricks inside out, and they wont work for me.

Lol,it was some Hungarian member of Parliament,who cut the woods there.
And you are miss-informed most poor areas in Romania are Vaslui county and Alba county,not Covasna and Harghita.
As for you idiotic pro-hunic propaganda,those Hungarain people from there are considering themselves European if you do not believe me,go tell them they are descendants of Atilla,see if they believe you.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 08:22 PM
You accused me of this before, I am still waiting for a quote to back it up, but why wait for something that does not exist.

I am not having time to search all your posts,lol,anyway I have wasted too much time to argue with a deluded person,that thinks Hungarians are related to Turks and should support Turkey interests.
Either that,either you are a Turk in disguise.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 08:23 PM
Dacul, it has been long established that you are a lost cause, who does not know what he is talking about.
In Székely mythology, they are descendants of Prince Csaba, look up who he is. He is even mentioned in their anthem. Your cheap tricks wont work on me.

From the sounds of it you never stepped foot in Transylvania.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 08:25 PM
Genetic testing is saying they are Europeans,I do not care what mythology is saying.

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 08:25 PM
It is more deluded to think Romanians are descendants of Romans or "Daco-Romans", which is something most of you believe in :picard1:

I wonder what ancient Romans would think if they saw Romanians claiming that they are the purest descendants of Roman legionaires. :laugh:

Szegedist
05-01-2013, 08:29 PM
I am not having time to search all your posts,

You can always do what you normally do, and you know, simply make up a quote, and take a print screen of it? :laugh:

Dacul
05-01-2013, 08:31 PM
It is more deluded to think Romanians are descendants of Romans or "Daco-Romans", which is something most of you believe in :picard1:

I wonder what ancient Romans would think if they saw Romanians claiming that they are the purest descendants of Roman legionaires. :laugh:
We are descendants of Thraco-Dacians and with some genetic from Germanic tribes and a very few from Pechenegs and Cumans.
What colonists Roman Empire brought here were Gaulish people,ok,we also have some Gaulish genetics.

Dacul
05-01-2013, 08:48 PM
Ye,whatever,my mistake that I started to get mislead by Szegedist,who does not want to promote good relations between European people and said bad words about Austria.
As I already saying,I highly doubt Szegedist is Hungarian,he never posted a picture of himself,might be very well from Hungary,but having lots of Turkish ancestry,having strong East Asian vibe.
Need to think more,to not fall in the trap of idiots here,who are against European unity.

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 08:58 PM
Genetics mean squat regarding politics. Quite off-topic


Btw Szeg, I'm glad you liked the paper I found :) If you find anything like that explains something about your country I'd be glad to take a look.
Cheers.

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 09:04 PM
And yet we still have Kings, no democracy, concentrated wealth etc. So yes: the old world is still very much alive.

What you have in Northern Europe is not monarchy, it's just a mediatic charade aimed to make the State more legitimate.
Are you really going to say that Dutch politics are controlled by the Crown and not by the Parliament. Crowned heads of State have no more power than the Italian President, they only get the job for life instead of 6 years.

I don't know by what definition of democracy you go (since there are a thousand or more) but if we go by broadly accepted definitions like Robert Dahl's polyarchical democracy, that is certainly the political system that rules most of Europe, most of the Americas (what is understood as "The West).

Concentrated wealth has always been of bourgeois Republics, from the 1776 US, 1789 France, or any example you can think of. Even in Athens there were rich families with more influence than the average system.


The system built over the double allegiance to the Crown and to the Church, based on defence of the land, no urbanization and demographic concentration, and upheld through the guild system and local charters (which built West European kingdoms) is nothing but a bygone.
We get to live with materialist Republics, populated by people desperate to get money and whose most noble goals are related to purely mundane goals (what some would call Mammonism).

The Lawspeaker
05-01-2013, 10:40 PM
We get to live with materialist Republics, populated by people desperate to get money and whose most noble goals are related to purely mundane goals (what some would call Mammonism).
As if Monarchies are not materialistic. Seriously: wake up and smell the coffee. It's time, for you to understand, that the Middle Ages were no fairy land and that the Nibelungen was just a romantic poem. There were no damsels in distress and righteous Kings and other fantasy tales.

Baluarte
05-01-2013, 10:57 PM
I don't see how poetry and pagan mythology have anything to do with what I've said.

I'm simply stating the fact that the political vision that used to mix Christendom and Monarchy to build States does not exist anymore.

Dacul
05-02-2013, 07:18 AM
I negged rep first 2 posts here of Loki,because I consider he opened this thread to enrage Romanians here against Hungarians.
Is just symbolic ,but I want Loki and others here to see,I am not revering Loki to accept anything he says or anything he does.
I consider he did a very wrong thing with opening this thread.
Because I am more dumb between Romanians here,I have fallen for a time in Loki's trap,but not any more.
Loki,so sorry m8,Matilda (who is also having Hungarian ancestry) did not got involved here,neither Nelopj (who is Hungarian from Romania) and so on.
I might be not that smart,but I know is not good to trust a person who took his name Loki,who is a negative character in Old Norse mythology.
And if Hungarian rights in Romania would not be respected,which is not actually happening,would't Nelopj complain about that?
Just to twist the blade in the wound,to show my real East European evilness against those who are trying doing harm against people to which I am related,I have been proposed jobs in Budapest,more than 1 time,but I declined since I can not leave yet Bucharest.Otherwise I would have accepted.
This just to show that Romanians and Hungarians are getting along very well,are just few noob fanatics,who are either deluded,or serving neither the interests of Romanians or Hungarians,who are fanatic against Romanians,despising Romanians,or
As you can see Bucharest is sister city with Budapest and Budapest sister city with Bucharest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucharest#Twin_towns_and_sister_cities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest#Twin_towns_and_sister_cities
If you say that is politics,most imports of Romania are coming through Hungary and Hungary sells a lot of their products in Romania ((Romania was 3rd export partner of Hungary,now maybe is 2nd) and that you can not say any more is politics,is just mutual liking between people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Hungary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Romania
(Hungary was 5th export partner of Romania,but I think now it might be 4th).
You can notice that both countries have as main export partner Germany.
:laugh:

The followers of Jobbik movement are few,so meh,you people who would like to see conflicts between Romanians and Hungarians would not have the chance to see this in the near future.
Because the people who happy in Hungary are a lot more than the people who are unhappy about European Union.

And I have already said,I highly doubt Szegedist is Hungarian because usual Hungarian is not having the character to argue so much on forums,you can see that he is actually the only one doing that here.
Maybe he is Hungarian,but with more Balkanic blood and this is why he argues so much.

Loki
05-02-2013, 10:29 AM
I negged rep first 2 posts here of Loki,because I consider he opened this thread to enrage Romanians here against Hungarians.
Is just symbolic ,but I want Loki and others here to see,I am not revering Loki to accept anything he says or anything he does.
I consider he did a very wrong thing with opening this thread.
Because I am more dumb between Romanians here,I have fallen for a time in Loki's trap,but not any more.
Loki,so sorry m8,Matilda (who is also having Hungarian ancestry) did not got involved here,neither Nelopj (who is Hungarian from Romania) and so on.
I might be not that smart,but I know is not good to trust a person who took his name Loki,who is a negative character in Old Norse mythology.


Dacul, I have nothing against you or Romanians. I didn't try to trick you. I wanted you two to discuss matters out in the thread (you and Szegedist) - because you were arguing about things all over the place. We cannot just ignore matters but we need to try and find each other. Hungarians and Romanians are neighbours, and it is sad that history and politics drive people away from each other.

Stears
05-02-2013, 02:50 PM
Are you kidding? Economic crisis and wild capitalism.


In today's Hungarian leaders did not Turanid.

It is enough to compare Hungarians with Romanian Serbian Slovak autosomal DNA Y and mt.DNA haplogroup markers and samples. They contain average higher non-european haplogroup markers than Hungarians. And don't forget their darker average pigmentation, and less european ( = less western) facial phenotypes :))))

And don't forget the late nomadic past of the vast majority romanian population (until the 16th century) and serbian population (until the 15th century. These countries are / where the shame of European continent.

Szegedist
05-02-2013, 02:53 PM
Need to think more,to not fall in the trap of idiots here,who are against European unity.

I am not against the concept of co-operation between some European countries. However we want nothing to do with those who were proven by history itself to be nothing more than liars, thieves and criminal opportunists.

You lie without shame.

For example, you said "Nothing stops Transylvania from being independent or joining Hungary".
Actually, in the Romanian constitution it says "Romania is a single indivisible state". So that prevents autonomy.

160,700 Gagauz have territorial autonomy in Rep of Moldova, while in Transylvania, 1.5 million Hungarians can only dream about having 1/10 of what the Gagauz have. It seems that the Soviet occupation actually knocked some sense into the heads of Moldovans.

The Romanian authorities in Hargita and Kovászna counties, where Hungarians are the majority, are currently prosecuting local mayors who had the temerity to peacefully display a local Hungarian flag, the blue and yellow Szekler emblem, alongside the Romanian one.

In Romania, you teach Hungarian children about how Mass murderers of Hungarians are heroes, you build statues of those mass murderers in Hungarian majority towns. You brainwash them about "great Romanian victories" and brainwash them against Hungarians.

But you have the nerve to come here and lie without shame that Hungarians prefer, or have it better under Romanian rule....

You are a nation without a sense of honour, without a sense of dignity. You are not our friends, never were and never will be. The less we have to do with your primitive ilk, the better. There is no "Mutual liking", most Romanians have a hard inferiority complex and prejudice against Hungarians, and most Hungarians do not have a positive opinion of Romanians, your lies will not change this fact.

Stears
05-02-2013, 03:05 PM
Romanians genetically culturally less European than Hungarians. (see autosomal, the Y and mt.DNA haplogroup researches), their average dark gypsy pigmentation, and they have less european (less western) facial features.
Don't forget, romanians (vlachs) were late nomads, which means: the vast majority of vlach population remained in shepherd nomad life-style until the 16th century. (IT IS A SHAME OF the EUROPEAN CONTINENT)

Arathor
05-02-2013, 03:07 PM
Greater Hungary is a tough, complicated issue, and I don't have a definite stance on it.

On the one hand, the land is Hungarian.

On the other hand, it isn't (and probably never will be) viable for the lands to be given back to Hungary.

Mary
05-02-2013, 05:10 PM
Nobody asked the Hungarian/ German minority that is now being replaced by an imported Romanian/gypo majority.

You sure?


November 28, 1918 - The elected 100-member General Congress of Bukovina passes a resolution of unconditional union with the Kingdom of Romania. Romanian (74), German (7) and Polish (6)-speaking deputies vote for, while the 13 Ukrainian deputies leave before the final vote.


December 15, 1918 - A National Assembly of Germans of Transylvania and Banat is held in Mediaş, central Transylvania, and a declaration is passed to support the decision of the Romanians to unite with the Kingdom of Romania.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Transylvania_with_Romania

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/RomaniansInHungary1890.png/798px-RomaniansInHungary1890.png

The Lawspeaker
05-02-2013, 05:13 PM
You sure?





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Transylvania_with_Romania

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/RomaniansInHungary1890.png/798px-RomaniansInHungary1890.png
But who elected the delegates in a time where there was no real democracy there ? Exactly. Handpicked by the victors. And the Hungarians themselves didn't even get to vote.

Szegedist
05-02-2013, 05:17 PM
Mary read your own posts, which part of Bukovina do you find it difficult to understand?

And your quote about Transylvania, there was no referendum, some Romanian "intellectuals" gathered in Gyulafehérvár (which at the time had a Hungarian majority) and proclaimed union, there was no referendum.

Secondly, anyone can draw such maps, on what basis were they drawn with?

Here is a different map
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Ethnographic_map_of_hungary_1910_by_teleki_carte_r ouge.jpg
Actual census map from 1910, and not some cartoon drawn by some kid on the internet.

And thirdly, the first record of Vlachs in Transylvania was 12-13th century, they are thought to have started immigrating there at that time, intensifying during the Mongol raids, intensifying again during Ottoman wars.

Mary
05-02-2013, 05:20 PM
But who elected the delegates in a time where there was no real democracy there ? Exactly. Handpicked by the victors. And the Hungarians themselves didn't even get to vote.

The region wasn't even under Rumanian control at the time. Every village or city elected their own delegates and sent them to these summits.

Szegedist
05-02-2013, 05:28 PM
Another issue with such maps, is that the Hungarian, German population were more concentrated in the cities, while the Romanians were scattered and spread out over the rural areas.

In fact I was looking at demographic chart of city vs rural areas by ethnic group about a week ago, now I am kicking myself for not saving it :picard2:

Stears
05-02-2013, 05:51 PM
Dacul, I have nothing against you or Romanians. I didn't try to trick you. I wanted you two to discuss matters out in the thread (you and Szegedist) - because you were arguing about things all over the place. We cannot just ignore matters but we need to try and find each other. Hungarians and Romanians are neighbours, and it is sad that history and politics drive people away from each other.

"Hungarians and Romanians are neighbours"

Culturally Hungary Czechia Poland are closer to Ireland or even Portugal than to Romania and other balkan states. Because romanians and Hungarians are not two different cultures, but they are two very different civilizatons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Civilizations_map.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Civilizations_map.png

Stears
05-02-2013, 05:54 PM
But who elected the delegates in a time where there was no real democracy there ? Exactly. Handpicked by the victors. And the Hungarians themselves didn't even get to vote.

Do not forget the Fact:
Before the WW1, Only Switzerland France Belgium had universal suffrage (aka: "democracy") in Europe.

Loki
05-02-2013, 05:54 PM
"Hungarians and Romanians are neighbours"

Culturally Hungary Czechia Poland are closer to Ireland or even Portugal than to Romania and other balkan states. Because romanians and Hungarians are not two different cultures, but they are two very different civilizatons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Civilizations_map.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Civilizations_map.png

Come on, you know it's not black and white like that. All things change gradually, not merely at the borders. Except for during the Iron Curtain days.

Stears
05-02-2013, 05:57 PM
Come on, you know it's not black and white like that. All things change gradually, not merely at the borders. Except for during the Iron Curtain days.

You forget: The history and the PAST are not changeable.

Loki
05-02-2013, 05:59 PM
You forget: The history and the PAST are not changeable.

But the present and future are.

Stears
05-02-2013, 06:06 PM
But the present and future are.

No, it that case the future is unchangeable too.

They were not part of the western civilization, , they were transition between asian and european Orthodox civilization.
Why? Because today the Western national cultures don't exist, it transformed into a globalist multiculti (non western) culture. Romanians can't change their "cultural" past, even if they copy the modernest think from the modern globalist west, it will be no more than Japan or South Korea copy globalist modern western "culture" into their own foreign culture. The result will be worse than the previous status (a mongelized strange cultural mix) :))))))

Loki
05-02-2013, 06:13 PM
No, it that case the future is unchangeable too.

They were not part of the western civilization, , they were transition between asian and european Orthodox civilization.
Why? Because today the Western national cultures don't exist, it transformed into a globalist multiculti (non western) culture. Romanians can't change their "cultural" past, even if they copy the modernest think from the modern globalist west, it will be no more than Japan or South Korea copy globalist modern western "culture" into their own foreign culture. The result will be worse than the previous status (a mongelized strange cultural mix) :))))))

What you are saying is illogical.

The Lawspeaker
05-02-2013, 06:17 PM
The region wasn't even under Rumanian control at the time. Every village or city elected their own delegates and sent them to these summits.
Yeah right. And there were no Hungarian voters.

Mary
05-02-2013, 06:19 PM
Yeah right. And there were no Hungarian voters.

Yes really. The Hungarians held their own vote.


November 28, 1918 - The National Assembly of Székelys in Târgu-Mureş reaffirms their support to the territorial integrity of Hungary.


December 22, 1918 - In response, a Hungarian General Assembly in Cluj (Hungarian: Kolozsvár), central Transylvania, and the most important Hungarian town in Transylvania reaffirms the loyalty of Hungarians from Transylvania to Hungary.

Rumanian troops didn't take most of Transylvania until January 22,


January 22, 1919 - Romanian troops now control the entire territory up to the new demarcation line indicated by the Entente powers. Inner Transylvania and Maramureş are under Romanian control, leaving Banat under Serbian, and Crişana under Hungarian control.

Until this point the area was still under Hungarian military and civilian authority. So there was no way for the Rumanian government to enforce how people would vote.

Szegedist
05-02-2013, 06:27 PM
But I thought Hungarians in Transylvania wanted Romanian rule? Is that not what Dacul said? :laugh: :laugh:

Anyway there was only one referendum that was allowed, and that was in Sopron, West Hungary. Votes in other places were symbolic only and were completely ignored.

Stears
05-02-2013, 06:44 PM
What you are saying is illogical.


It is clear and simply.

I think the most members of this forum agree: that there are no western culture anymore after the 1960s, when real national western cultures became more and more a global multi-culti and american controlled. So that global multi-culti which infiltrates to balkan orthodox countries are not western. Japan and Korean culture don't became western because of the simply infiltration of global multi-culti culture.

Mary
05-02-2013, 06:47 PM
If you guys want something to bitch about you can bitch about the issue of autonomy,


The union was conditional, and demanded the preservation of a democratic local autonomy, the equality of all nationalities and religions.


1923 - King Fedinand I of Romania signs a new Constitution, which centralizes the administration and does away with the autonomy of Transylvania. Iuliu Maniu and Alexandru Vaida-Voevod declare their opposition to the King.

Stears
05-02-2013, 06:53 PM
Yeah right. And there were no Hungarian voters.

No there were not real democratic referendums. There were no SECRET BALLOTS, tey did not used official lists of the declared address of local population. (without the official list of local citizens/residents of the settlements, every romanian could vote the process was therefore uncontrollable and it was a hotbed of free jerrymander. There were even such voters who didn't live in Transylvania! (forexaple: soldiers from Vallachia Moldavia of the Romanian Kingdom.)

There were no limit for the turnout, in some towns and villages a dozen people elected envoys/representatives for whole towns....

AGAIN: THERE WAS NO SECRET BALLOTS.

It was not democratic referendum even by late 18th century french standards :)))))))






There was only 1 democratic plebiscite about the borders (with general suffrage and secret ballots) in city of Sopron and its sorriunding 8 villages in North - Western Hungary in 1921. (Where every polling stations were under the controll and leadership of Entente army-officers) The treaty did not based on the people' will, therefore the Treaty hadn't legitimacy behind it. The decision-making of Paris treaties were remindful of early-modern era primitive Peace of Westphalia, rather than a modern 20th century democratic decision.

Szegedist
05-02-2013, 07:00 PM
Also, most of the details of Trianon took place without Hungarians, Hungarian representatives.

But the Romanian Royals, and trickers like Benes (who decided on the Czechoslovak-Hungarian border, see Benes-Ferdinand Foch agreement) had a say.

Essentially what you had, some Americans, Brits, Frenchmen sitting over a map of Hungary (having no clue whatsoever about it), with Romanians, Czechoslovaks, Yugoslavs whispering in their ear and pleading them for more lands.

Maps that you see on Apricity done on Paint have more legitemacy than borders decided at Trianon.

Stears
05-02-2013, 07:12 PM
Also, most of the details of Trianon took place without Hungarians, Hungarian representatives.

But the Romanian Royals, and trickers like Benes (who decided on the Czechoslovak-Hungarian border, see Benes-Ferdinand Foch agreement) had a say.

Essentially what you had, some Americans, Brits, Frenchmen sitting over a map of Hungary (having no clue whatsoever about it), with Romanians, Czechoslovaks, Yugoslavs whispering in their ear and pleading them for more lands.

Maps that you see on Apricity done on Paint have more legitemacy than borders decided at Trianon.

You are wrong, because

1.Hungarians were exclused.

2.There were no secret ballots.

3.There were not used the list of the local residents/citizents of the settlements, therefore it was a free hotbed of gerrymanders Forexample:
(Moldavians Vallachians could vote, even soldiers from the romanian kingdom could vote) Or the case of the multiple votes & multiple voters (a harsh type of gerrymander). Imagine somebody or agents traveled from place to place and they could elect more representatives of more settlements.

4. There were no minimal limit for the successful elections: in many cases a dozen romanian people gathered on streets and elected representatives (with a simple: loud exclamations) for large settlements.

Szegedist
05-02-2013, 07:18 PM
You are wrong, because
1.Hungarians were exclused.

Also, most of the details of Trianon took place without Hungarians, Hungarian representatives.
What is difficult to understand, can you not read or something?





2.There were no secret ballots.

3.There were not used the list of the local residents/citizents of the settlements, therefore it was a free hotbed of gerrymanders Forexample:
(Moldavians Vallachians could vote, even soldiers from the romanian kingdom could vote) Or the case of the multiple votes & multiple voters (a harsh type of gerrymander). Imagine somebody or agents traveled from place to place and they could elect more representatives of more settlements.

4. There were no minimal limit for the successful elections: in many cases a dozen romanian people gathered on streets and elected representatives (with a simple: loud exclamations) for large settlements.

I did not talk about any elections :picard1:
I was talking about what happened in France. When Albert Apponyi arrived, most of the details were already decided on.

Excerpts from Count Albert Apponyi's Memoirs
http://www.magyarnews.org/photos/MNO_jun_12.pdf




The arrangement of the hall robbed me
of the possibility of looking into the
face of that part of the audience among
whom I presumed a less hostile bias,
the British, the Italians and the Japanese; I stood face to face with only
Clemenceau and his staff, and this portion of the audience could not, or would
not, disguise their unfriendly attitude at
the beginning of my presentation. I had
before me some serious, malevolent
faces, other mocking smiling ones, I
could not doubt with what sort of prejudice my words would be received…
I began without any introduction, with
the declaration that the peace terms
were totally unacceptable for us and
that I would prove this on the major
provisions. I noted immediately that
this dry tone, avoiding all sentimentality, surprised at least that part of my
listeners whose impression I could observe, and worked favorably on their
disposition…
A large portion of my exposition was
devoted to establishing how totally mistaken the territorial provisions of the
Trianon Treaty were from the ethnographic point of view; that the provisions in this regard were a punch in the
face of the nationality principle, which
served as its pretense…

Clemenceau gave (British Prime Minister David) Lloyd George the floor, and
he called on me to go into greater detail
about the distribution of the nationalities which I had mentioned in the
course of my talk, specifically, of the
Magyars in the territories detached
from Hungary… Fortunately, I was
prepared for such questions; I had Paul
Teleki’s excellent ethnographic map of
Hungary with me, and with this, went
to Lloyd George’s seat, where all the
main representatives hurried, and listened to my explanation with their
heads together over the map…
I heard that, at the end of this session,
some rather sharp statements were
made by the British, who were brought
into the unpleasant situation of being
participants in such constructional mistakes.(Italian Prime Minister Orlando)
Nitti even made a serious attempt to
bring about a change of the most absurd
provisions; but he too had to give way
to the argument that the whole house of
cards of the peace treaties would collapse if any change were to be allowed…

glass
05-02-2013, 07:24 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Civilizations_map.png
Another pointless clown from eastern europe is trying to find "western" features in his lame country:picard1:
Nobody takes Toynbee seriously, only western wannabes from countries like Hungaria
So Bosnia is closer to Indonesia than to Croatia or Serbia, do you really think so?
Or Niger closer to Kazakhstan than to Nigeria?:picard1:

Stears
05-02-2013, 07:25 PM
What is difficult to understand, can you not read or something?



I did not talk about any elections :picard1:
I was talking about what happened in France. When Albert Apponyi arrived, most of the details were already decided on.

Excerpts from Count Albert Apponyi's Memoirs
http://www.magyarnews.org/photos/MNO_jun_12.pdf


A balkáni agyad a lényeget kihagyja, én csak kiegészítem fontos és hatásosabb információkkal.

Stears
05-02-2013, 07:27 PM
Another pointless clown from eastern europe is trying to find "western" features in his lame country:picard1:
Nobody takes Toynbee seriously, only western wannabes from countries like Hungaria
So Bosnia is closer to Indonesia than to Croatia or Serbia, do you really think so?
Or Niger closer to Kazakhstan than to Nigeria?:picard1:

I wrote : Culturally closer. Forexample Czech (Bohameian) kingdom had not real serious cultural connections with orthodox Russians. Czechs had even bigger cultural impact from England and France than from Russia. This is true for the relationship between Hungarian culture and romanian/balkan culture.


A good reading for you: www.educator.uw.hu

Szegedist
05-02-2013, 07:29 PM
Another pointless clown from eastern europe is trying to find "western" features in his lame country:picard1:
Nobody takes Toynbee seriously, only western wannabes from countries like Hungaria
So Bosnia is closer to Indonesia than to Croatia or Serbia, do you really think so?
Or Niger closer to Kazakhstan than to Nigeria?:picard1:

Hungary was historically the Easternmost Western nation. The only thing that makes us "Eastern Europe" is occupation and invasion by Kolhkoz peasants. Read about some history, we have more in common with Austria, Germany, Italy than we do with Russia and Belarus.

Szegedist
05-02-2013, 07:31 PM
As I posted here:

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?77362-Italian-Hungarian-relations

Stears
05-02-2013, 07:44 PM
What DID WRITE the BRITANNICA 1911? (The encyclopedia before the WW1)

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Hungary

HUNGARY (Hungarian Magyarorszag), a country in the south-eastern pertion of central Europe, bounded E. by Austria (Bukovina) and Rumania; S. by Rumania, Servia, Bosnia and Austria (Dalmatia); W. by Austria (Istria, Carniola, Styria and Lower Austria); and N. by Austria (Moravia, Silesia and Galicia). It has an area of 125,402 sq. m., being thus about 4000 sq. m. larger than Great Britain and Ireland.

Szegedist
05-02-2013, 07:54 PM
A balkáni agyad a lényeget kihagyja, én csak kiegészítem fontos és hatásosabb információkkal.


You are wrong, because
:picard1:



A balkáni agyad
Te fasz :rotfl: Felvidék nem Balkán...
https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balk%C3%A1n-f%C3%A9lsziget
http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felvid%C3%A9k

Stears
05-02-2013, 07:55 PM
Szegedi vagy nemde? ezek a városnevek általában lelencekre utalnak. te cigány



:picard1:



Te fasz :rotfl: Felvidék nem Balkán...

Permafrost
05-02-2013, 07:56 PM
I think Stears is a hilarious fella, according to him every sociocultural aspect in Europe can be brought down to the following duality - the Catholic & Protestant harbingers of civilization and advancement in Western Europe, and then the semi-retarded Orthodox mongrels of Eastern Europe.

But OMG, what about Catholics in Bulgaria? Or even worse, Protestant Romanians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petru_Dugulescu)!!!

IMO Hungarians should embrace their true roots (I'm speaking about Turanism here) rather than chasing this Western Euro fairytale.

Stears
05-02-2013, 07:57 PM
I think Stears is a hilarious fella, according to him every sociocultural aspect in Europe can be brought down to the following duality - the Catholic & Protestant harbingers of civilization and advancement in Western Europe, and then the semi-retarded Orthodox mongrels of Eastern Europe.

But OMG, what about Catholics in Bulgaria? Or even worse, Protestant Romanians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petru_Dugulescu)!!!

IMO Hungarians should embrace their true roots (I'm speaking about Turanism here) rather than chasing this Western Euro fairytale.

Protestant romanians? Do you think about the protestant Hungarian minority in present-day romania?

The only civilized part of medieval and early-modern Orthodox world were the byzantine greek territories.

I must remember your little and simple russian medieval "cathedrals" and semi-asian fine-arts and lifestyle of your medieval and early-modern population.

Szegedist
05-02-2013, 07:58 PM
Szegedi vagy nemde? ezek a városnevek általában lelencekre utalnak. te cigány


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szeged_Idea
http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyar_Orsz%C3%A1gos_V%C3%A9der%C5%91_Egylet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyula_G%C3%B6mb%C3%B6s


:picard1:

Szegedist
05-02-2013, 08:02 PM
IMO Hungarians should embrace their true roots (I'm speaking about Turanism here) rather than chasing this Western Euro fairytale.

What are you talking about? Balkan liar, all Hungarians are Nordics. Even I am a Serbian Gypsy (according to our very own Stears), even though I have blue eyes and light brown hair, and my roots come from further away from Serbia than his :picard1:

I mean, look at these Nordics
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Aradi13.jpg

Stears is most likely some sort of assimilated German from Buda hills who looks down on everyone else.

Permafrost
05-02-2013, 08:02 PM
Protestant romanians? Do you think about the protestant Hungarian minority in present-day romania?

I provided a link, the person in question was an ethnic Romanian Baptist pastor :)

But what I think is that you're giving way too much attention to religion, and this diatribe of yours is not holding the water. Or do you seriously believe a Sicilian is more 'europid' than a north Russian only becuase the former is Catholic and the latter Orthodox?

Stears
05-02-2013, 08:02 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szeged_Idea
http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyar_Orsz%C3%A1gos_V%C3%A9der%C5%91_Egylet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyula_G%C3%B6mb%C3%B6s

szegedi pesti debreceni.... ezeket a neveket lelenceknek adták. A megtalálásuk helyszíne lett a gyerekeknek vezetéknevük. Te rühes tetves cigány.
:picard1:

Stears
05-02-2013, 08:03 PM
What are you talking about? Balkan liar, all Hungarians are Nordics. Even I am a Serbian Gypsy (according to our very own Stears), even though I have blue eyes and light brown hair, and my roots come from further away from Serbia than his :picard1:

I mean, look at these Nordics
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Aradi13.jpg

Did you know that Only 3 generals had Hungarian origin?

Szegedist
05-02-2013, 08:06 PM
Did you know that Only 3 generls had Hungarian origin?

Did you know that all 13 are more Hungarian you than your Nordicist Labancphile ass from Buda hills will ever be?

Stears
05-02-2013, 08:07 PM
I provided a link, the person in question was an ethnic Romanian Baptist pastor :)

But what I think is that you're giving way too much attention to religion, and this diatribe of yours is not holding the water. Or do you seriously believe a Sicilian is more 'europid' than a north Russian only becuase the former is Catholic and the latter Orthodox?

Religion (western christian protestant vs. orthodox) from medieval age means civilization: technology (means of production) fine-arts architecture, science , social political/administrative (sharp) differences.

glass
05-02-2013, 08:14 PM
I wrote : Culturally closer. Forexample Czech (Bohameian) kingdom had not real serious cultural connections with orthodox Russians. Czechs had even bigger cultural impact from England and France than from Russia. This is true for the relationship between Hungarian culture and romanian/balkan culture.

I ask again
so Bosina culturally closer to Indonesia than to Croatia or Serbia?:picard1:
can u point me english / french impact on czech culture?

Permafrost
05-02-2013, 08:26 PM
Did you know that Only 3 generals had Hungarian origin?

Hungarians assimilated a great deal of people, and I think the sole fact that you managed to impose your culture on others as something flattering, as this implies your culture is also superior. But it's no wonder you keep loosing territory exponentially atm, take yourself for example, you consider half of your own people as unworthy mongrels ;)

I'm not going to answer your accusation above about me being Asian, but just so you know, I'm your western neighbour, in addition to being 1/8 Hungarian :p

Szegedist
05-02-2013, 08:45 PM
Hopefully now people will stop being confused, I am not from Szeged, and Szegedi is not my name. I named it after a Hungarian nationalist ideology that was born in Szeged 1919 (A szegedi gondolat) but for some people it was to difficult to grasp and that I am apparently a Serbian Gypsy from the Balkan :laugh:

Hungary is a country with a lot of variations, for some idiots to say "Darked Haired Hungarians have gypsy, Serb, Vlach admix" is totally idiotic. Is Tünde Kiszel more Hungarian than Vilmos Lázár? No further questions asked.

Like I said before, I have blue eyes and light brown hair, but I have no issue with Hungarians who have black hair, blonde hair, and whatever colour eyes, they are Hungarians to me. This Stears has some issues, and it is not with us, but with himself, probably of German descent who lives in Buda hills and looks down on Hungarians from other areas as "ethnically impure primitives", maybe a friend of Simicska and Zsolty Bayer too.

Dacul
05-02-2013, 08:56 PM
Romanians genetically culturally less European than Hungarians. (see autosomal, the Y and mt.DNA haplogroup researches), their average dark gypsy pigmentation, and they have less european (less western) facial features.
Don't forget, romanians (vlachs) were late nomads, which means: the vast majority of vlach population remained in shepherd nomad life-style until the 16th century. (IT IS A SHAME OF the EUROPEAN CONTINENT)

No.
Vlachs are mix of Balkanic people with Eastern Slavs,with either Eastern Slavic admixture of Balkanic admixture being more.
They also have NW admixture from Goths,mostly but from other Germanic tribes which which they mixed also and this admixture is also from Gaulish colonists that Roman Empire brought here.
They are not nomads,they are people of the moutains,who stood in Carpathian Mountains from South Romania,till migrators left the area and after moved back,but towards South,nor North.
They were poisoning the food,the fountains while invaders were coming here.
Not speaking about Goths,who were welcomed here,but about Huns,Turks,Tatars.
Vlachs are very harsh as character,that is true,but they are not gypos.
is not about genetics,is about education,young South Romanians,around 20 years,are not that harsh (but not that smart either) any more.

Dacul
05-02-2013, 09:01 PM
Hopefully now people will stop being confused, I am not from Szeged, and Szegedi is not my name. I named it after a Hungarian nationalist ideology that was born in Szeged 1919 (A szegedi gondolat) but for some people it was to difficult to grasp and that I am apparently a Serbian Gypsy from the Balkan :laugh:

Hungary is a country with a lot of variations, for some idiots to say "Darked Haired Hungarians have gypsy, Serb, Vlach admix" is totally idiotic. Is Tünde Kiszel more Hungarian than Vilmos Lázár? No further questions asked.

Like I said before, I have blue eyes and light brown hair, but I have no issue with Hungarians who have black hair, blonde hair, and whatever colour eyes, they are Hungarians to me. This Stears has some issues, and it is not with us, but with himself, probably of German descent who lives in Buda hills and looks down on Hungarians from other areas as "ethnically impure primitives", maybe a friend of Simicska and Zsolty Bayer too.
Lol,idiot,you were not the one sustaining earlyer that Hungarians are descendants of the Hunns of Atilla?
Now you changed your opinions?
If you blonde and with blue eyes,why you are pro-turk are you plain dumb?
Besides,Hungarian language is mix of Ugric language with a lot of Turkic words,why Hungarians who are closed to Austrian,as genetics are speaking this language?
Romanians do not have anything against Hungarians,but they dislike Hungarian language and Romanians know very well that Hungarians are not descendant of Hunns,that some deluded Hungarians are telling that non-sense.
And you should know Hungarians have besides NW admixture Balkanic and NE european admixture.
Hungarians also have plenty of I2-din and E-V13 on paternal lines which is Balkanic and also plenty of R1A1 which is Eastern Slavic/Central European.

Szegedist
05-02-2013, 09:05 PM
Dacul stop talking shit, I never said I have blonde hair.

As for the rest , typical usual nonsense for you, save it for Noua Dreapta meetings for the other Gypos there, ok? You base ridiculous conclusions on things I did not even mention in that post.

Dacul
05-02-2013, 09:07 PM
What some Hungarians think,that if they exit European Union and ally with Turkey they will have a much better economical situation?
:rofl:
What you see on this forum are between very educated Turks,you did not met un-educated Turk from Turkey country side which makes most of the population of Turkey.
Analphabetism in 10%,great "civilisation" I do not have what to say.
South Romania have a very nasty decline in civilisation since when we have this president who is half-turk,previous we had a president who was kind of communist and 25% gypo,with one of his grandmothers being Gypo but he was so much educated and civilised than this idiot,we got now,who can not even speak proper Romanian language,not to mention English language.
And during Ottoman Empire times,the boyar of South Romania who was going at Sultan with more money was getting the leadership of the country!
:picard2:
Do not believe the propaganda of Turks here,is not enough for you that you have seen Partizan who was most educated turk here,saying that Azerbaijani state man who axed an Armenian state man,while that Armenian was sleeping is a big hero?
This is are the turks and this is their "civilisation".

Dacul
05-02-2013, 09:10 PM
Dacul stop talking shit, I never said I have blonde hair.

As for the rest , typical usual nonsense for you, save it for Noua Dreapta meetings for the other Gypos there, ok? You base ridiculous conclusions on things I did not even mention in that post.

No,you said you have light brown hair and blue eyes.
Sorry,my mistake.

Hopefully now people will stop being confused, I am not from Szeged, and Szegedi is not my name. I named it after a Hungarian nationalist ideology that was born in Szeged 1919 (A szegedi gondolat) but for some people it was to difficult to grasp and that I am apparently a Serbian Gypsy from the Balkan :laugh:

Hungary is a country with a lot of variations, for some idiots to say "Darked Haired Hungarians have gypsy, Serb, Vlach admix" is totally idiotic. Is Tünde Kiszel more Hungarian than Vilmos Lázár? No further questions asked.

Like I said before, I have blue eyes and light brown hair, but I have no issue with Hungarians who have black hair, blonde hair, and whatever colour eyes, they are Hungarians to me. This Stears has some issues, and it is not with us, but with himself, probably of German descent who lives in Buda hills and looks down on Hungarians from other areas as "ethnically impure primitives", maybe a friend of Simicska and Zsolty Bayer too.

Freaking idiot,go take some genetic testing so you can see with your own eyes you have 0% turkic (East Asian or North Asian) genetics.
You are so idiot that you do not even believe genetic testing,which is science,you think is forged,this is how backward and idiot are Hungarians who are pro-Turks.
(happily they are very few and even fewer of them are so hard-headed as Huszár is).
I have seen some female member from Jobbik she is looking very Germanic and says Hungary should improve their relation with Turkey.
:picard2:
You do not see that average Hungarian is starting to laugh inside when he hears what absurdities the people from Jobbik are proposing.
People from Jobbik are actually worse than Noua Dreapta,we have an idiot ,named Vadim Tudor who is making crisis of hysteria while talking,which party,called Romania Mare,is the equivalent of Jobbik.
This people also throws with lots of insults towards Hungarians and so on,but they do not even have 5% of Romanians supporting them.
Mentally sane Romanians are having lots of fun while looking at Romania Mare people discourses ,I think is same with mentally sane Hungarians,when they see people from Jobbik talking.

Dacul
05-02-2013, 09:17 PM
Now Huszar,be good boy,go take your pills and after you can come back posting here,explaining how Hungarians are descendants of Hunns of Atilla.
And how Hungarians would have a better life if they become pro-Turk.

Szegedist
05-02-2013, 09:21 PM
Besides,Hungarian language is mix of Ugric language with a lot of Turkic words,why Hungarians who are closed to Austrian,as genetics are speaking this language?
Romanians do not have anything against Hungarians,but they dislike Hungarian language a

A Romanian is the last person to talk about languages. Your language is a Gypsified form of a hybrid of Slavic and Pig-latin. It is a language that is good for speaking to Goats, if I need to translate what a Goat or a sheep is saying I will ask a Romanian from Wallachia.

As for the rest, you must be really idiotic and simpleminded.

Jobbik proposes for Hungary to open up Eastwards economically, there is a lot of trade to be done there. This would reduce our dependence on the German economy which is what the situation is right now.

What is wrong with it? Absolutely nothing, focusing too much on the West was one of our biggest mistake. Today the goverment, Not just Jobbik, but even Fidesz is talking about an "Eastern foreign policy", "Eastern opening", and forming and strenghening links with Central Asia, Caucasus, China, Middle East, Russia, etc, and there is already success in this.

In fact this is no longer a Jobbik thing, because Fidesz is supporting, and implementing these ideas too.

If you are too idiotic to understand then dont even bother commenting.

As for Huns and Attila, that is none of your business.

Dacul
05-02-2013, 09:35 PM
Romanian language is very closed to Sicilian (Sicilian is not actually Romance,but gaulo-romance.And is very possible that before Dacians conquered Romania,Gauls ruled these lands a lot of time,and from there we have a lot of our language.)
And after Sicilian,we can understand a lot from what Italians are speaking.
After that ,is closed to Bulgarian language.
Anyway,Hungarian is not European language,because is not Finnic and is not pure Ugric either (but Ugric languages are not present in Europe,only Finnic languages),being strongly mixed with Turkic elements.
As for Jobbik policy,at the moment,you can be in good relations with both Turkey and Russia,but not with both Russia and Azerbaijan,for example.
And these people (from Jobbik) are either plain idiots,either they have pro-Turkic agenda.
Anyway,I do not think the good relations between Turkey and Russia will last too much and is clear Jobbik people are having as main priority the relations with Turkey.
If I will open a poll here,which language is more melodious,Romanian or Hungarian,is quite clear how results will be.
:laugh:
But I will not do that,cause Hungarians are speaking this language because some Turkic unhuman invaders forced them to learn it and speak it,they did not learned it by free will.
Oh,let me not forget Jobbik people are very against Israel,which is actually having lots of investors linked to them,what you were talking about Jobbik who wants to be opened towards Middle-Eastern who they expect to come invest in Hungary,Palestinians?
Or Jordanians?
Or Syrians,who have now a civil war in their country?
Or Saudi Arabia,who are anti-christian people?
:laugh:

robar
05-02-2013, 11:04 PM
:picard2:

Hoca
05-02-2013, 11:25 PM
dacul Turkish/Russia relations are better than ever. Trade volume is in the bilions between us. They are not going to jeopardise that for small things.

Dacul
05-02-2013, 11:30 PM
Well those relations between Turkey and Russia will go very bad very fast,because you are supporting very strong Azerbaijan while Russia is supporting very strong Armenia.
Azerbajan and Armenia are very close to start a war between them.

Kastrioti1443
05-02-2013, 11:33 PM
Well those relations between Turkey and Russia will go very bad very fast,because you are supporting very strong Azerbaijan while Russia is supporting very strong Armenia.
Azerbajan and Armenia are very close to start a war between them.

Really Azerbajan vs Armenian?

Dacul
05-03-2013, 12:01 AM
Yes.
They are actually at war:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia%E2%80%93Azerbaijan_relations#Soviet_period _.281922.E2.80.9391.29
But they are not fighting,just occasional shootings.
US and NATO States did a very dumb thing,to give Turkey so much armament,now some Turk politicians started to talk about re-making Ottoman Empire.
NATO and Russia should make a common alliance and bring troops to Bulgaria,at the border with Turkey (if Bulgaria people wants this).
NATO already has a base near Constanta,more troops should be brought,while Turkey should be warned to stop with aggressive declarations and if they do not stop,they should be removed from NATO.
I am wondering,how much from ex-Balkan wars(wars between Serbia and neighbours) was from Turkish provocations.
Turkey has all the interest to see Bosnia hating Serbs and Kosovar hating Serbians,so they can put the foot against in Balkans and from there,they can attack very easy Bulgaria,Serbia,Albania and Romania.
Szegedist is a mentally insane person,most Hungarians are blaming South Romanians that they did not fought enough against Ottoman Empire ,not being pro-Turks.

Dacul
05-03-2013, 12:10 AM
Just to add a thing,for people who do not know it here and are pro-Turks,Ottoman Empire was taking tribute from South Romania and a lot of times,part of this tribute were young children who were brainwashed in Ottoman Empire,being raised as turks and made from them elite troops of Ottoman Empire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary
This is how "civilized" was Ottoman Empire and today Turks are not too much human either.

Szegedist
05-03-2013, 05:49 AM
Dacul you talk so much nonsense, you begin to sound like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFT28SvfIiY

Hoca
05-03-2013, 11:20 AM
Well those relations between Turkey and Russia will go very bad very fast,because you are supporting very strong Azerbaijan while Russia is supporting very strong Armenia.
Azerbajan and Armenia are very close to start a war between them.

Armenia as a country is not worth the trade volume. Armenia will be sacrificed for the greater good.

glass
05-03-2013, 12:40 PM
Armenia as a country is not worth the trade volume. Armenia will be sacrificed for the greater good.
According to you trading with Turkey is kinda privilege:picard1:
Are there any goods that available only in Turkey?
Do you really think that all your tomatos and whatever else Russia import is worth our ally?
Russians never gave up their friends and allies

Stears
05-03-2013, 06:41 PM
Did you know that all 13 are more Hungarian you than your Nordicist Labancphile ass from Buda hills will ever be?

First I've never lived in "Buda hills" and I'm not german descendant.
Second, you tried to post pictures of the generals of non ethnic Hungarian generals of Hungarian revolution in an anthropology (facial forms phenotype) question, which was completely brutally illogicall and misleading thing.

Szegedist
05-03-2013, 06:48 PM
Describe to me, what is an ethnic Hungarian? I know many with last name Tót,Tóth, are they not ethnic Hungarians, but fake wanabes to you?


You know, when we begin to purge Hungary of all fake pretend Hungarians(the impure untermenschen), so we know which ones to go after, we will need a valid scientific method.

Anyway, you missed the point, my point was that all 13 had dark hair, while you try to portray dark haired Hungarians as "Serb descended" or "Gypsy admixed".