Hungarians and Slovaks

**hajduk** · 03-04-2011, 07:36 PM

Positive

**Magister Eckhart** · 03-07-2011, 01:10 AM

Originally Posted by Harcos

Sure, why don't we have the Serbs in Bosnia, Montenegro, Croatia and Kosovo move to Serbia aswell then?

It is definately a big hole in our heart to see our historical territory outside of our nation... We lost 72% of our territory and three milion, or a third of all Magyars were sperated from their motherland following this treaty. This treaty was not aimed at granting freedom to our minorities, but to humiliate our great nation in the most shameful way. June 4 1920 was the most devastating day in our nations existence after Mohács. This affected not just Magyars, but all people who have contributed and died for this land over the milennia.

Slovakia's history starts in 1918 when the Czechs, in violation of the armistice, invaded and annexed northern Hungary and first got it's ultimate independence in 1993. It is a young nation.

'Slovakia' has been part of Hungary since the 9th century and been called Upper Hungary since. Prior to that it used to be part of the Hun and Avar empires (5-8th century AD ), Slavs first started to settle 'Slovakia' during the reign of the latter. The Slovaks have had a close historical, cultural and ethnic ties with us, as we've been part of the same nation over a milennia. This revisionist phobia against each other, this fragmentation serves no one but the Jew.

No plebiscite was given in any of these territories. Excpet for in Sopron, in spite of it's German majority, the people decided to remain in Hungary. If plebiscites would of been given elsewhere, Magyar populated or not, we would have seen similiar results therefore plebiscites weren't allowed.

''The reason why elections could not be held in the occupied territory of Felvidék ( Hungarian Highlands ) was that Czechoslovakia would not have come into existence after the population would of voted against it'' - André Tardieu

''We had to chose between a direct vote by the people, or the creation of Czechoslovakia'' - Masaryk.

Really if you want my honest opinion, the whole notion of a Czecho-slovak nation is illegitimate. Much like the Polish state, it's an arbitrary invention of Anglo-American liberals with little to no knowledge or interest in the history of the region.

There were never enough Czechs or Slovaks anywhere to justify giving them their own state-- in Bohemia, it was predominately German and in Felvidék Hungarian. Neither Slovaks nor Czechs deserved more than half of the territory they were rewarded by ignorant liberals in Britain, France, and America, it took another world war for the liberal powers to force the unjust treaty down the throats of Hungarians and Germans alike. It would have made some sense to perhaps give Moravia its own state (here there was a majority Czech population) and perhaps split Felvidék, but to give the entire thing away is just absurd, and the reasoning was entirely economic, not ethnic at all. Germans were forcibly separated from Germany and Hungarians from Hungary because the liberals felt that the new Czecho-slovak state would be at a disadvantage if they did not give them these huge swathes of territory that were not theirs to give, which itself completely invalidates their vapid excuse of "ethnic self-determination".

But that's from someone who isn't an ethnic Magyar.

**~~Guapo~~** · 03-07-2011, 01:18 AM

How many Hungarians have Slovak ancestry like the famous Lajos Kossuth...

**Hess** · 03-07-2011, 01:43 AM

I confess that i have never consciously met a Slovak. However, i grew up in Moscow so there is a slight possibility that i have seen them before.

**~~Guapo~~** · 03-07-2011, 03:13 AM

how about subconsciously?

**~~Harcos~~** · 03-07-2011, 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by Guapo

How many Hungarians have Slovak ancestry like the famous Lajos Kossuth...

How many Serbs have Turkish ancestry?

**Magister Eckhart** · 03-07-2011, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by Harcos

How many Serbs have Turkish ancestry?

That's not really a fair response here -- Kossuth was well known to be minimally Magyar by blood, even though he took up the Magyar cause; it distinguishes him from actual Magyars like Deak, Szechenyi, and other nobleman-nationalists, and actually speaks to the good relations and positive feelings felt between Hungarians and Slovaks historically, even if such relations were soured in the 20th century.

Besides the analogy it a little inaccurate; it might be better if you wanted a sarcastic quip to ask "how many Serbs have Albanian ancestry", since Slovaks never ruled over Hungary the way the Turks ruled Serbia.

**~~Albion~~** · 03-07-2011, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Harcos

Ideally I want all of Slovakia reunited with Hungary, but due to chauvinism from both sides I don't see it happening in our lifetime. What we must focus on is the liberation of the Magyars in Slovakia, there are still roughly 500 000 Magyars in Slovakia today and there is no excuse as to why these people shouldn't be given the right of self-determination and the option of a plebiscite.

...

Magyars in in those areas deserve as much right of self-determination and freedom as do Slovaks, Vlachs, Serbs...
In spite of this, I generally do like our northern neighbours.

Yes, I agree the Magyars have a right to self determination and that majority Magyar areas which are contingous with Hungary could be annexed by it.
But why incorporate all of Slovakia into Hungary? Wouldn't this go against the whole self-determination part?
Personally I'd rather see Slovakia remain independent but the majority Magyar areas contingous with Hungary join Hungary.

newly created state that was historically Hungarian.

The nation didn't exist but the ethnicity and the Slavic tribe did.

Slavs first started to settle 'Slovakia' during the reign of the latter. The Slovaks have had a close historical, cultural and ethnic ties with us, as we've been part of the same nation over a milennia. This revisionist phobia against each other, this fragmentation serves no one but the Jew.

Maybe my Slovak / Hungarian history is a little rusty, but didn't the Slavs move southwards including into Pannonia before the Magyars even arrived there? Surely it must be that the Magyars simply absorbed or booted out the previous Slavic inhabitants.

There were never enough Czechs or Slovaks anywhere to justify giving them their own state-- in Bohemia, it was predominately German

Large areas of it were German but much of the territory of Czechia was indeed Czech. Besides, the Germans have been encrouching on Slavic territory for centuries (although much of it was East Germanic before the Slavic migrations).

Felvidék Hungarian.

The lowlands perhaps and the areas which continue from the Pannonian plain.

The first ethic data of whole Hungarian Kingdom by county was published in 1842. According to this survey the total population of the counties in Upper Hungary exceeded 2.4 million, with the following ethnic distribution: 59.5 % Slovaks, 22 % Magyars, 8.3 % Ruthenians, 6.7 % Germans and 3.6 % Jews.

Neither Slovaks nor Czechs deserved more than half of the territory they were rewarded by ignorant liberals in Britain, France, and America, it took another world war for the liberal powers to force the unjust treaty down the throats of Hungarians and Germans alike. It would have made some sense to perhaps give Moravia its own state (here there was a majority Czech population) and perhaps split Felvidék, but to give the entire thing away is just absurd, and the reasoning was entirely economic, not ethnic at all.

I agree that the borders could have been better drawn, instead Germans were expelled from Czechoslovakia when the borders should have been drawn in such a way as to include them with Germany.
Its the same with Slovakia, the borders could have been a bit more precise - well a lot but I hardly think Hungary should have kept the whole of Slovakia.