@Slovenization The language and culture of an ethnicity can be completely independent of the DNA composition. Ethnicity does not necessarily correlate with haplogroups. The DNA makeup off Ethnic Hungarians: (remove the spaces):
@BetyarPali So in your opinion you are against the self-determination of the other millions non-Hungarian who inhabit those territories (posted here) and you find this populations "irrelevant". Nice. And after all of this, still you are the wondered and nostalgic one.
1-it was counties under hungarian and austrian-hungarian empire who had their own language and culture.
2-France didn't decide it by itself, it was the decision of the winners (UK, France, Cszech, Romania etc etc), it was "just" signed in Trianon, but it could have been signed in London as well.
3- we're in 2012, move on..... Forget the past, look for the future... this how countries go forward.
@LaCuisineCrew You obviously missed the point of my video or failed to understand it. The part of Trianon I find most objectionable is the fact that over 3.3 million ethnic Hungarians were severed by the dictated-imposed Trianon borders, since there was no effort to draw the borders along linguistic or ethnic boundaries. Today these Hungarians are being mistreated as unwanted second class citizens in Slovakia, Romania and Serbia. And, it WAS the French who were the main force behind Trianon
@BetyarPali I understand perfectly, i also live in Hungary.......
What i want to say is that the borders were mainly decided by Americans "observatories", who (you're right) didn't consider the linguistic facts. But, let's not forget that this treate was the consequence of the lost of the WWI by germans, and Austria/Hungary.
Yes, 3.3 millions ethnic hungarians were severed from Hungary, but what is it compared to 1.4 million dead french soldiers, and ruined countries for decades?
@LaCuisineCrew "...3.3 millions ethnic hungarians were severed from Hungary, but what is it compared to 1.4 million dead french soldiers..."
.
What are you trying to say here, genius? Hungary had nothing to do with 1.4 million dead French soldiers, as the Hungarian army never fought the French ! Even so, why were the 3.3 million innocent Hungarian civilians punished collectively for alleged crimes of the Austrian Monarchy??? The country that was ruined for decades by Trianon was Hungary.
@BetyarPali And one last thing : in almost 100 years now, those "lost" hungarian never wanted to come to the motherland? Or nobody wanted to welcome them back home? Plus there are no longer borders in EU, although i understand it can be hard for a magyar to live in szlovakia and not be allowed to speak hungarian.. but then again, why not coming here.......?
@LaCuisineCrew The 3.3 million Hungarians who were severed in the new foreign countries have lived there for 1000 years, and should not be expected to move to the "little Hungary" of today, and give up their lands to the foreign occupiers. That is not an option. The only option is to move the borders to where the linguistic boundaries are. In other words, revise the Trianon borders to be more equitable to the ethnic Hungarians, after all, if the SLO + RO got their "freedom", why shouldn't we?
@LaCuisineCrew Obviously you're not Hungarian even though you may live here, you're probably some french transplant who escaped the "new multicultural france". For the record, you're the first person from Hungary who gave this video a thumbs down, and if that's the way you feel about Hungary, we don't want your kind here. Why don't you get the hell out of my country and go to Slovakia or Romania?
@BetyarPali Yes i'm french, and if i live in Hungary, my dear, it's because i chose to, years ago, as i love Budapest.
I gave a thumb down to this video because i'm fed up with all those winning hungarians who are so obsessed by a 100 years old event, and because your comment about "braking France into separate nations has absolutely" no sense.
But none of us will convice the other.
So i stay in "your" country", and i wish you a good life in the past with your big frustration ;)
@LaCuisineCrew "breaking France into separate nations has absolutely no sense."
.
I think we agree on something. Of course I meant it to be sarcasm, but breaking France into separate nations makes as much sense as breaking up Hungary did in 1920. It is senseless that you disagree with my video, if you're against breaking up France. Besides you live here now so why not act like you're Hungarian? The events of 91 years ago still effect us today since 2.8 million of us are still prisoners....
@BetyarPali i understand, i really do, what you say and why.
But as you say, i live here and what happens affects me. But i think we (hungarians and foreigners living here) should rather try to make the country stronger economically, and socially, especially nowadays. We're in a delicate period, and we should focus on the most urgent. And the size of the country has nothing to do (look Luxembourg or Denmark...).
And i give that to you : yes the borders were made in a bad way, that i agree.
@LaCuisineCrew "And i give that to you : yes the borders were made in a bad way, that i agree."
.
OK then, if you agree that the Trianon borders were made in a bad way, that essentially is the point of my video, so please remove your "thumbs down". Then I'll remove my previous comment about splitting up France.
U are all really insane lmao, since is no longer Hungary- Romanian border:)) and any hungarian could buy any property in Romania, just like any Romanian can buy any property in Hungary, What are u talking about then?:))
@qpae123 Are you out of your mind? What do you mean there is no Hungarian-Romanian border? The question is not the ability to buy property on either side of the border. The question is what should be the ADMINISTRATION of the territories where there are predominantly ethnic Hungarians in Transylvania. These territories must be administered by the Hungarian government, and should not have a Romanian administration, since the people there are Hungarian. What part of this do you not understand?
@BetyarPali We will be all administrated if we are not already by the Banks, Coca Cola, Pepsico, Microsoft , Google lmao... PS and the border is just with the name, since is an inner Euro border. Goverments are just puppets in this days, corupt puppets.
@qpae123 I'm not disagreeing with you about that, but let's get the "inner Euro borders" right first, and end the Romanian and Slovak occupation of Hungarian counties, towns and villages. Then we can solve the other problems, such as our puppet governments, and all the imports forced upon us by the multi-national corporations.
Trianon was against Wilson's self-determination theory,because it WASN'T based on democratic referendums(general equal&secret ballots).Czechs didn't trust in Slovaks,because very few slovaks joined to the"czechoslovak"army against Hungarians in 1919 (Slovaks were 48% in Northen part of Hungary).Romanian politicians didn't trust in Transylvanian romanians,perhabs they didn't want to join to backward poor romania(romanians were only 53% in Transylvania).Serbs were minority(22%)in Voivode,
Less indoeuropean blood & genes means higher culture and scientific technological advance in Europe. France Britain Italy haven't indoeuropean genetics. The Germanic people have also signifficantly very low ratio of IE origin genes, only Eastern Europeans have high ratio of IE haplogroups (genes). Type in English wikipedia: "Proto Indo Europeans", and see the gentics maps! Indoeuropean means: lower culture technology and lower scientific economic development in European History.
Learn genetics (which is a real science) instead of romantic nationalistic history.Romanians(similar to their genetic cousins:serbs&bulgars)contain serious NON-European genetic markers haplogroups. Romanian "culture" is Orthodox primitive anti-western so-called:"semi-asian" culture. You have average darker pigmentation(hair&eye color) and average shorter stature. Type in google image searcher:"hair color map"or type"eye color map"Anthropology maps show:you are a Gypsy-look nation
Just look anthropology maps about average pigmentation! Type in google image searcher:"hair color map"or type:"eye color map"Romanians have darker average pigmentation(brown monkey eye color, dark hair)Their average body stature is smaller.They have semi-asian primitive orthodox "culture".The vast majority of romanians were shepherd nomads until the 17th century.Learn genetics,don't forget your high ratio of middle-eastern haplogroups! That's why Hungarians call them gypsy nation.
T. of Trianon WASN'T based on democratic referendums(general equal&secret ballots)Therefore it became the satire of Wilson's idea: the nations' self-determination idea. Czechs don't trust in Slovaks(because very few slovaks joined/supported the"czechoslovak"army against Hungarians(Slovaks were 48%).Romanian politicians didn't trust in Transylvanian romanians,perhabs they didn't want to join to backward poor romania(romanians were 53% in Transylvania).Serbs were minority(22%)in Southern Hungary
@stears555 U and cousins gypsyes (still originated from asia) have that crazy behaviour! U have no right, no evidence but u continue scream that u are right and no one knows anything! Believe me boy, no one in this world believes ur history! As I said, everyone knows that u camed from asia like pradors, and still have the same behaviour! The romanians are gypsyes? Gypsyes are from asia, u 2 are from asia! U mongol scum! When our ancestors were here, yours still rubbering in asia and everywhere!
@panzer30 Gypsy people are indo-european people like the romani-an languge, their language considered the most archaic LIVING version of old proto-indoeuropean language. Sanscrit is the oldest IE language but it is a dead language. However the ancient Gypsy language still live.
@stears555 "However the ancient Gypsy language still live." - Yes I'm sure u know that very well - from ur asian language. On the other u are sustaining that Romanians are some kind of Albanians or something, now u are sustaining that they are gyspsies. It's all a piece of shit theory which is coming only from ur big and uncontrolable hate :) U only try to see what is working with these "theories". But beside hungarian nationalists noboby believes this full of crap theories of yours.
Treaty of Trianon WASN'T based on democratic referendums(general equal&secret ballots)The"national councils"were elected suspiciously-way,without any local documentations.Czechs don't trust in Slovaks(because very few slovaks joined/supported the"czechoslovak"army against Hungarians(Slovaks were 48%).Romanian politicians didn't trust in Transylvanian romanians,perhabs they didn't want to join to backward poor romania(romanians were 53% in Transylvania).Serbs were minority(22%)in Southern Hungary
And with relations to Croatia being on the map, the AU Monarchy was divided into two sections, Austrian and Hungarian, Croatia had autonomy within the realms of St. Stephen. That crown was also our crown because our kings ( Croatian and Hungarian) crowned with it for centuries.. I think that Croatia is the least of Hungarian problems since we always respected our neighbours ( that is those who didn't want to destroy us) and considering that we like Hungarians and feel sorry for what happened..
@Agramer11 Thank you for the words of sympathy for what had happened. Croatians are true friends of Hungarians. As you said, Croatia was always an autonomous region, with not many Hungarians living there, so we never had any claim to it. Unfortunately we cannot say that our other neighbors are friends, because they have stolen our lands, and they know it. They are the recipients of our stolen lands, and feel guilty, and that's why they are full of hatred towards us.
@BetyarPali hello bozgormale, i am a honest romanian who loves his country and likes the truth! therefore,i do not understand couple of things.. did we steal your land? hmmmm. when did you came in the area? in 896 bc . you conquered transilvania by the end of 11th century.... so ,you are unwelcomed migrators...what was before you? the dacian empire and their daco romanian followers.. do you know we have about 500 dacian words in romanian? who steal whos country pleae?
As far as Croatia is concerned what happened to Hungary was a disgrace cause the sam thing happened to us ( on a smaller scale). As for any hostility between Croatia and Hungary I think that is not true since we had the Drava (Dráva) river as a common border for something like 800 years, call me crazy but that should indicate good relations.
@Agramer11 You are not crazy, Hungary and Croatia always had good relations with each other. We have been on friendly terms for 1000 years, and it shall remain that way.
There are more than 2 million Hungarians living around Hungary. The territories where they are the majority, should belong to Hungary . It is about 20 000 km2. This is the truth, the rest is bullshit. You have a land, if you live there NOW. Doesn't matter what was in the past at all.
@malcomx4u You obviously didn't see the video before making your comment. Why don't you take the time to look at the video to see the injustice to ethnic Hungarians. To summarize it for you, the Trianon borders were drawn to the disadvantage of ethnic Magyars, severing 3.3 million in foreign countries. If you think that's justice, then you're a fool.
@BetyarPali Hey , you're country toke autonomy after Trianon , and Transylvania was Romania 1918 , so was justice for ROMANIA and the other countrys. And don't say the Roesler's stupid theory... And the hungarians who lived in Transylvania , the majority of them was romanians who was forced to speak hungarian. Vlachs lived here before huns come(Kezai , Nestor , Gesta Hungarorum).
In this movie are "fogoten" those almost 1000 years of slavery which they did upon other nations while they were rulling upon them. The Act of Trianon was an Act of Justice, of ELIBERATION of other nations from the hungarian barbarism. They took those lands by force and no one told them anything for hundred of years and that make them believe that they are ok about it. But, when someone came and told them: "this is not ok, gave back those people lands, set them free" - they begun to victimize!
@panzer30 Which slavery do you speak? Slavery existed in Romania until 1868!!! together with thralldom. Orthodox Serbs The vast majority of vlachs (romani-ans) and serbians lived shepherd-nomadic lifestyle until the 17th century. Romanians were the truly barbarians, the shame of European continent. You were orthodox semi-asian West-hater primitive culture ans poor backward countries. Read about your primitive "culture" here: educator(.)uw(.)hu
@stears555 U feel offended by the truth. I understand u! Ur only weapons are lies hide by offenses! :) It's so tipical! Get lost boy! The whole Europe knows that ur hordes camed in Europe 10 centuries ago. The whole Europe and the whole world knows that u were barbarian, try the force maghyarization with other nations, killings, torture etc. That's ur history. Even today u try to steal other lands with idot ideas believed only by extremist hungarians. U can lie only to yourself about what u say.
@stears555 U feel offended by the truth. I understand u! Ur only weapons are lies hide by offenses! :) It's so tipical! Get lost boy! The whole Europe knows that ur hordes camed in Europe 10 centuries ago. The whole Europe and the whole world knows that u were barbarian, try the force maghyarization with other nations, killings, torture etc. That's ur history. Even today u try to steal other lands with idot ideas believed only by extremist hungarians.U can lie only to yourself about what u say.
@panzer30 Did you read educator(.)uw(.)hu about your culture? Hungarians were nomads until the 10th century, but vast majority of balkan orthodox nations - like vlachs - remained shepherd nomads until the late 17th century. It is the shame of the European continent. The only civilized (agriculture) balkan orthodox country was the greek byzantine empire.
@stears555 Were considered like that by who? By u and ur stupid retard brain? Show only 1 evidence of migration from the south to the north of Romanian people. But international evidence not ur stupid history writen by ur crazy extremist "politicians". I'm tired already, everyone is, by this twisted "history" of yours! Beside u, no one believes it! Go back to mongolia and leave european nations alone! Stop stealing our land, our history, our identity! It's a tipically asian behaviour to steal!
@1007walker Do you ask yourself why the European Union was formed to replicate the former Hungarian Kingdom? The Hungarian Kingdom was 100 years ahead of it's time. It was a successful coalition of countries, different ethnic groups. Western Europe was jealous of this successful coalition, and had to destroy it to eliminate the competition. Also, the Romanians, Serbians and Slovaks lied during Trianon about mistreatment. Besides, why did Trianon not draw the new borders along linguistic lines?
@BetyarPali It seems you're used to answer with an other question. Doesn't matter. Anyway it wasn't an example to follow your Kingdom for Romanians, Serbians, Slovaks and Croatian too. In all of these countries (and in Italy too) there was a strong irredentism that was "the top of iceberg". And the iceberg was all these people you defined "a successful coalition". Sure, Austria was guilty too. But don't say Europe was jealous!!
@BetyarPali GB, France, Italy and USA won a war crying a lot of tears thaks to Austro-Hungarian Empire! And
who loses must pay. This is the history's law.
And about the "border along linguistic lines" it's not so easy how you think because this border isn't so clear. Usually the people are mixed and the languages too, so it's difficult. I'm sorry because I had other things to join.But the space is like Fraz Joseph :) For me, your big mistake was to avoid to do a real federal State 2-2
@1007walker , i rated this video as "funny". The hungarian version of history is actually hilarious. Hungarians deny the Romanians as natives of Transylvania, even though, pay attention, this fact is consemnated in the oldest Hungarian chronicle - Gesta Hungarorum AND numerous other chronicles PLUS the archeological evidences. And yet they deny it :D
@gogoasacenusie Sure...to deny an event becomes a sport:) Turkish too deny the Armenians' slaughter in 1915 when all the world recognizes it! Yes, Allied forces did some mistakes ("recently" they "forgot" existence and deleted Kurdistan with 40 millions of citizens from world's maps). But to draw a map following minorities and languages, it isn't so easy because of "mixing" of people. I have nothing against nobody, but to tell that the Austro-Hungarian empire was a kind of Heven, is a big lie!
@1007walker , the way i see it, the Austro-Hungarian empire was an artificial structure with a minority ruling a majority composed of various people with ancestral rights on their lands. At Trianon the lands simply returned to their native inhabitants.The dissolution of the Empire was a normal act just like what happened to the Ottoman Empire for example. Actually it doesn't even matter if there wouldn't have been a Trianon, because then a bloodbath it would have occurred and still loose
@gogoasacenusie 1-2* Exactly! And Soviet Empire too...with a lot of enslaved people with different languages and religions, tied by repression and terror. Like in Austro-Hungarian empire! Forced immigrations of people in other lands (e.g.like happened to Baltic Countries) in the name of Roman proverb "divide et impera" (divide and rule). Austro-Hungarian empire wasn't so different. Croatian, Serbian, Romanian, Slovak, and more Italian, Ukrainian and Czech people too against A-H empire
@gogoasacenusie 2-2* The A-H empire started the 1.st world war, lost and paid. This is severe truth! The important thing is to defend and give rights to minorities. All other things as "I was there before of you" , are a low-level show only. I hate the radical nationalism. The border that dividedes it from terrorism is very very thin....
@1007walker , let's not forget the forced assimilation or more known as "magyarization". During the entire history anyone who wanted to succed in society in a higher ranking in the Kingdom they had to have a Hungarian name and convert to Catholicism. Take for example the greatest leader of Hungary, Janos Hunyadi who was of Wallachian ( Romanian ) origin ( look on Britannica Enciclopedy ) Hungarians still deny its origin. The forced assimilation is a desperate attempt of a small minority
@gogoasacenusie I know... The same thing happened in other countries under communism and other kind of empire... I said one time: I don't like History told by "supporters", specially told by nationalist supporters because it's a big lie. And when all the world tell the same history, this means that "supporters" make a mistake...
@stears555 Those 2 enciclopedias must be updated and anyway aren't the Gospel. A lot of books and historians spoke about 50% , very less in Transylvania. Anyway this isn't a problem. The main problem was "Magyarisation". The freedom is possibility to chose! And those minorities hadn't it. Austro-Hungarian empire lost WW1 and paid. This is the only truth. None believes History told by ultra-nationalists: it'is a big lie!
@1007walker These world-famos encyclopedias are written by academic scholars of Britain and Germany. They were updated every 2 years. Don't want to be more clever than academic historians and scholars.
@stears555 Even if encyclopedias are updated, it's possible some news are updated later than newer editions:
it isn't necessary to be a professor to understand this. Anyway a difference of 3-4% isn't so important because are important other things. I think occidenal countries forgot what happened with Trianon treaty. I understand your mood, but this doesn't mean that other countries are wrong. I think ultra-nationalism is very dangerous
@1007walker All the english german french encyclopedias are outdated? I red the History section of "Hungary article" in Britannica and Brockhaus encyclopedias Both of them wrote about 54% ratio about pre ww1 Hungary
@stears555 sometimes is depending from historical documents they got. If some sources write a number, another sources write a different number. Anyway 48-50 or 54 doesn't matter: few thousends of people can't delete the Austro-Hungarian defeat. It seems all of you want to make a war against slovaks, romanians, ukrainians and serbians... Be quiet! We are in Europe in XXI century, not in Middle Age...
@1007walker It is historical data of census. Austria-Hungary was not defeated by Italy, because Austria-Hungary disintegrated before it. The greatest enemy of The A-H Empire was Tzarist WW1 statistics: Russia. Russia had 4Xmore soldiers and 2Xmore canons than ItalyT Most AH soldiers died on Russian frontlines. At the last Italian battles the Austro-Hungarian Army took to the field without any food and munition supply, and fought without any political supports for a de facto non-existent Empire.
@stears555 I didn't say "Italy won" I said "A-H Empire was defeated". It seems they are two different things.
The last battle in Italy there was 51 italian divisions, 3 british divisions, 2 french divisions, 1 czechoslowak division and 1 USA regiment against 57 and 1/2 A-H Empire divisions. So we have the same number of soldiers. If your generals was boastful and arrogant it isn't our fault. Russia went out of the war from 1917 and was better for A-H Empire
Before the ww1,only the Austro-Hungarian and Swiss legal-system knew the term of "ethnic and minority rights"in European continent.In western Europe(France Britain Germany)the ethnic and minority rights were unknown terms before ww1.Majority of Scottish Irish and Welsh people forgot their own languages under British rule.Only 50% of the total population spoke the french language as mother tongue in France in 1789.The minorities (50%) couldn't speak their original languages in France in 1900 yet!
@stears555 A thing is to know the term of "ethnic and minorities right". Other thing is "to give these rights" and Hungary didn't give any rights. I know "your history" tells the contrary. The history teaches: no empire coud live a "neverending story" when it has a lot of different people under its administration. And Hungary didn't understand and did "magyarisation"
@stears555 The A-H Empire finished in 1914 because did a stupid war against all the world. And lost. Hungary for me did a big mistake to stay with Austria and a big mistake to avoid to do a kind of federal state.
@stears555 "AH Empire declared war only with Serbia" and Russia protected Serbia. But your allied, Germany, declared war to Russia and France (because was allied with Russia). And so on. Italy, formerly allied with Central Empires, when realized that couldn't have Trento and Trieste from A-H Empire, changed allied and declared war only to A-H Empire. In Italy hated Austrians and irredentism was very strong. If Austrians hadn't help of Germany lost war in few time
@1007walker But your statement was false, that AH declared the war against all the world. It declared against Serbia. Entente used secret diplomacy and created secret alliances, that secret alliance created World war from a local Serbian-AH war.The contrast: The Austro-Hungarian alliance with Germany was not secret after 1900, and it was also declared in newspapers too.That's a huge difference.The GDP of Italy was lower,the A-H industrial strenght and producing capacity was higher than Italian
@1007walker Austria-Hungary had 4 frontlines: Russian Serbian Romani-an, Italian. Italy had only 1 frontline!
After the Battle of Caporetto ,the military and economic crisis of Italy was resolved by enormous material supports from the Allied powers: by 1918, huge amounts of war materials and American,British,and French divisions arrived in the Italian battle zone to stop the advance of the AH Empire.A-H,Britain and Germany were the only powers which used exclusively own manufactured weapons!
@stears555 wasn't our fault about your 4 frontlines. The english, french and italian diplomacies worked better and Austria was an Empire to be destroyed because of many nationalities inside of them, and Germany too: let's say 2 big dangers. About Italy, we hadn't crisis as you had and more, we were italians only and didn'y oblige anyone to fight with us, as you did!. Allied gave us only men as we gave some divisions to french too. 1-2
@stears555 2-2 Italy made his own weapons: guns, rifles, machine-guns, airplanes and tanks. The ww1 was last time that Italy had weapons like the bigger States. And Caporetto, if there wasn't germans free from "Russian army", didn't exist. And our tactical strategy in last battle, was did 50 years later by israelian army in "6 days war" where the "lower" officiers took decision like generals instead to call and wait for an aswer. It was a very fast strategy that paid with victory
@stears555 An other big mistake of A-H Empire was: inside of his army, had a lot of strangers (slovaks, croatians and so on) who didn't fight for themselvs but for an hated Empire. The same thing happened to Roman Empire
@1007walker I don't believe that slovaks hated Hungarians before the ww1. The ratio of Slovaks in the so-called "Czechoslovak army" didn't reached the 10%, becuae the Czech recruitment against Hungarians in the territoy of present-day Slovakia wasn't successful. Therefore 90% of the Czechoslovak army remained Czech:))) Croatians didn't want to belong to Yugoslavia, they want independent country (Croatia had full autonomy in AH Empire)
@1007walker Think it over: Why feared the new political elite of Czechoslovakia romania and yugoslavia from the holding plebiscites about the new borders in the disputed counties of former Hungary? They didn't want democratic referendums.Without referendums,the new borders were not based on Wilson's "self-determination theory". The people of the disputed areas were not asked, therefore it was not legitime for democracy-lover people. That's why presindent Wilson and USA not signed T. of Trianon!
@stears555 I'm laughing about yourt last message. Who told you? Ferenc Molnar? Our industry wasn't like Germany but always was better than yours. expecially in light weapons. Anyway we have industries still living since last century. Yours? Missed in the wind.
Yes it's true, our diplomacies worked better than yours. And for this, you had against all the world! And if Russia hadn't all those problems, now you speak russian
@1007walker Industry and industrial production of AH Empire was larger then Italian you can check data from ww1 economy books. "Anyway we have industries still living since last century. " Hahaha Learn History: Both Austria and Hungary disitegrated into small countries. Soviet occupation hegemony and communist planned economy ruined what left after ww1. HAve you ever learnt history in school?
@stears555 If you consider e.g a czech industry like your, is all ok. But Czech Republic is Czech Republic not A-H Empire. It's only an example. Anyway doesn't matter. I know history don't worry... That ww1 economy book was wroten "for nationalist users"only
@1007walker Your opinion has very strong so-called "double standars"! Italy wanted little territory and Italy wanted to figt a total-war for tiny territories (only 5% of Italy) in ww1, becuse of national pride. When Hungarians commiserate for the (72%!!) of its former 1000years territories it is considered as nationalism.
@stears555 why those nations must do referendum? Moldova did referendum? Istria did referendum? other countries did referendum? Now the border are open. If a man doesn't live good in a place, goes to an other place...
@1007walker Many countries had referendums, It was not an invention of latter days,. It is called democracy. And the idea of nation's self-determination was there in 1920! It was invented by US president W.Wilson.Therefore It was no wonder that such a treaty (Trianon) was not signed by United States. I think you are a romanian or slovak who work in Italy. Italy was the first country in Europe which realized the injustice of Trianon. Search: After Trianon there was a plebiscite about Sopron city
@1007walker Borders are open, but the jurisdiction the government legislature and execution remained slovak romani and Serb. Present-day Hungarians had less minority rights than Romani Slovak Serb minority in Hungary in 100 years ago!
@stears555 If I follow your messages I can think tha Italy won ww1 fighting with catapults!!! I repeat: the only help from allied was soldiers only. We did our weapons, don' worry...
@stears555 I told you. I have nothing against nobody...If was depending by me, I never did a war for a small region. But in that small region the people felt italian! And was since 1866 that Italy wanted that territory
@1007walker "But in that small region the people felt italian! And was since 1866 that Italy wanted that territory" After such a great (5% territory) injustice, why did you join to the German-AH military alliance? After 1915, you betrayed the alliance. Did you know that fraternal terms: honor and consistency
@stears555 When Italy asked to Austria to leave that territory, they run around the problem and didn't answer.
In Italy there was some politics against war and other no. These last won. Italy started war in 1915, not 1914.
As the allied signed to give us those territories, Italy signed a new alliance. Really was not the whole region: there was Trieste and its territory and Trento...but not Bolzano-Bozen! When the war was finished, Italy got Bolzano too
@1007walker Today the romani(as Hungarians call them due to their primitive culture)are high majority,but that time they were only 53% and mostly in Southern parts of Transylvania.I dont believe that the majority of romanians would have vote for unite with romania,which was one of the poorest country in Europe in early 1900s.Did you know: vast majority of romanians similar to Serbia Bulgaria Bosnia Albania lived shepherd nomadic life until the 1600s?They are the shame of European continent
@stears555 I think you are to hard with romanian. I was there and in your country too. In Romania I found great hospitality. And here a lot of people do a lot of confusion between rom and romanians. I read scientific american magazine that told gipsies has a different DNA (50%) like indians. I think the best country in east Europe is Slovenia
@1007walker Romanians are called as gypsy due to their low cultural level (shepherd nomadic lifestyle until the 1600s. As an orthodox (often called semi-asian civilistaion)They hadn't cathedrals univerities printing press guild industry in medieval times. The agriculture was minimal there. How many Nobel-award scientist had Romania (0) Slovakia(0) or Serbia(0)? Hungary has 16. Do you know why wasn only Hungary invited to the peace-treaty of France? Because
@stears555 eh...I read only that american magazine and I can't speak so good about your las message. I'm not catholic but protestant. If you want to write more messages, write. I must go now... have a nice night...:-)
@1007walker I know that Romani-ans genetically (Y and mt.DNA) closelly related to other balkan populations like Bulgarians and Albanians Southern Serbians, but they still cotain more non-European Haplogroups than Hungarians. The balkan orthodox culture is a transition between Asian (middle-Eastern) and European, as American social scientist Samuel Huntington said. The territory of Civilised Western World (catholic-protestant civilisation) became lesser in Europe after the ww1.
@stears555 , that's incorrect. If you look on the genetical map of Europe on Eupedia you'll see that Romanians are not at all similar with Albanians. The closest genetical relatives of Romanians are Hungarians and Bulgarians. Ortodox = semi-asian civilisation? Shepherd nomadic lifestyle until 1600? Seriosly? Because from what i read, in the oldest Hungarian chronicle, Gesta Hungarorum and about a dozen others, the Romanians were already present and organized in Transylvania at Hungarian arrival
@gogoasacenusie gesta hungarorum is not considered as reliable source by western historians. Forexample cumans arrived later after 1241 in hungary. and the cronicle speak about them as cumans were already here. Gesta Hungarorum is not compatible with Kijevian Nistor Polish and Byzantine chronicles.
@stears555 , really? Have you read Britannica Enciclopedy ? Quote:
".......Between the 10th and 14th centuries new political formations emerged in the Carpathian-Danube region. The Hungarians, who had settled in Pannonia at the end of the 9th century and who entered Dacia in the 10th century, overwhelmed the Slavic-Romanian duchies, or voivodates, that they encountered there."
@gogoasacenusie The fate of the Romanized, or Daco-Roman, population north of the Danube after Aurelian’s withdrawal has been a subject of great controversy. Many scholars, especially Hungarians, argue that Romanization in Dacia was, in fact, modest and that the later Romanian population living north of the Carpathians was not native to the region but migrated there from south of the Danube. (Encyclopedia Britannica Romania article)
"Because the Romanians are descendants of the Romans, a fact that even today is attested by their language, a language that, even though they are surrounded by diverse barbarian peoples, could not be destroyed.... even if all kinds of barbarian attacks flooded over the province of Dacia and the Roman people, we can see that the Roman colonies and legions that had been established there could not be annihilated"
Antonio Bonfini, greatest Italian humanist, 14th century
@gogoasacenusie Antonio bonfini didn't use the term of romanian, he used vlachs. Byzantines (until iUSTINIAN THE GREAT UNTIL the dissapear of latin as official language in constantinople) were also called as romans,
@gogoasacenusie Bonfini hahaha, he wrote without sources and informations, he found an ethnic group in the east which have some (20-25%) latin words, that's why he automatically thought they are romans :))))
@gogoasacenusie in the short 170 years roman rule in Dacia, there weren't ethnic roman (latin) soldiers there, only some officers had roman latin roots in the army.(barbarisation of the army)
@unurautare2 it is not true. They were mixed armies, with very few latins. Dacia was the shortest live province of the Roman Empire in the history, it lasted only 160 years. The relations remained hostile between Romans and dacians. It was not suitable for romaniisation latinisation. Ancestors of Vlachs arrived from bulgaria and albania in the 12-13th centuries. You (Vlachs) migrated from Bulgaria albania where the Roman rule lasted for 500 years.
@stears555 mixed armies were later,especially after the split of the Roman Empire,the colonist were mixed; The roman period could have lasted even less,that's not of any relevance; "Ancestors of Vlachs" were the latin speakers from the Roman Empire. *facepalm* ; You mean to tell me that the largest population of the balkans migrated from "Albania",we are twice as many as hungarians nowadays,after centuries of invasions by the turkic ppl,slavs and others. :))
@unurautare2 mixed armies were created from the end of 2th century. Italians and present-day romanians are genetically not related/similar people. (learn genetics Y and mt. haplogroup markers) Bulgarian and Southern Serbian and Romanian people are genetically the same or closelly related people.
@unurautare2 Romanians (in all countrues) were not so numerous folk. Forexample in 1910,the total number of etchnic Hungarian people were about 12,5 million(1.5M lived in USA).Romanians were 10,5M in 4 different states (inculding Romania) in 1910.But if you look 1870's data,the number of romanians in the world was 4M people, until Hungary had 7,8M etchnic Hungarians.Today,there are 19M etchnic Romanians.It's just an example about the growth rate of etchnic romanians between 1870-2010 period.
@stears555 I searched some demographic studies: Romanians(from Wallachia and small part of Moldova only,without Bukovina,Basarabia,Dobrogea and Transilvania+other subregions) were 4,424,961 in 1866; Hungarians(in current territory of Hungary) were 4.4 million in 1880. But Romanians had maybe almost double the population if we put romanians that were then living outside the border and not just "Little Romania",while Hungarians outside Hungary were never that many(even today).
@unurautare2 "while Hungarians outside Hungary were never that many"
.
Thay statement is simply not true. Take a look at the history of TransCarpathian Hungarian settlements, such as parts of Moldova, and others; for over 1000 years mostly populated by Hungarians, until they were forcefully Romanianized during the 1900s. Look at the history of Csöbörcsök/Ciuburciu, Dnyeszterfehérvár (Bilhorod-Dnyisztrovszkij, Cetatea Albă), Kilia (Kilija), Orhei (Várhely) és Kisinyov (Chişinău, Kisjenő).
@BetyarPali The Hungarians in Transylvania were never even 2 million at once,the Romanians there are at least 4-5 times more.The Hungarians in Slovakia&other parts(except for USA) make up at most 1 million.You also overestimate the assimilated "hungarian" population of Romania,even if we consider every Catholic as descendant from Hungarians,the Catholics in Moldova are again very few compared to the vast numbers of orthodox,I live there and I personally know catholic "Tamas" or "Boros",rarities.
@unurautare2 "The Hungarians in Transylvania were never even 2 million at once,the Romanians there are at least 4-5 times more" It seems like a typical chauvinist fantasy, who were educated in pubs/bars by older chauvinist uneducated proletars. Read real professional (academic) romanian or hungarian historians and their books about the demographics of transylvania instead of writing stupidities.
@stears555 Have you ever been to Romania? It's like butthurt huns like you say something total opposite to the field reality,for some reason.There are only 2 very small,size and pop,counties in Romania with a dominant Hungarian pop that are in the Carpathian mountain valleys,so called "Szekelyfold",rest 39 = romanian. Even at the height of Hungarian and German population in Transylvania in % the Romanians still represented over half of the entire population,while the Hungarians ~30% at most.
@stears555 I don't need to read "real high-rank academics",it's demographics,I just read the official census data. -_- Answer the question: have you been to Romania?
@unurautare2 but your "data" (fantasy) was born in your brain instead of official census. In 1880 there were 7M etchnic Hungarians and only 4,4M etchnic Romanians in the European continent. Balkan nations grew rapidly in 20th century as the third word nations.
@unurautare2 "if we consider every Catholic as descendant from Hungarians"
.
Once again the assumption yoiu make is absurd, because almost NONE of the Transylvanian and TransCarpathian Hungarians are Catholic, they are Protestants, or Reforemed Church, or Orthodox, or Lutheran church members. So why would any sensible person assume the Catholics are the descendants of the Romanianized Hungarians? It is only logical to assume that the Protestants are the descendants of the Hungarians.
@BetyarPali The Csango people(Moldova) and most of the Szekelys(Transylvania) are Catholic,and as you said Szekelys are also protestant,but fewer. I never heard of Orthodox Hungarians in Romania except in Medieval Times,but they were converted to Catholicism by the Hungarian King. :\ Why I mentioned this: I saw Hungarian sources that speculated on the numbers of Catholics in Moldova as being Hungarian descendants,yes it's silly but I only said it in case you'd consider the possibility.
@unurautare2 Hahaha,did you read fantasy demographics data? read the article "demographics of Hungary" in english wikipedia (wth tonns of citations of books about the topics) In 1880, Hungarians were around 7Million, Romanians (in all regions and countries) were only 4,4 M in 1880
@unurautare2 Read "demographics of Hungary" article of english wikipedia. There are all sources in the citations about the census in 1800s, and all linked census data confirm the 7M etchnic Hungarians, while Romanians were only 4,4Million in Europe at the same period. check mate
@stears555 Hungary 1880 - 13,749,603 but just 46% of the pop. hungarians,that means ~7 mil. hungarians,this is in all of Hungary. According to the 1910 hungarian survey there were 2,831,222 Romanians in Transylvania(53.8%) of the pop,and Hungarians - 1,662,948 (31.6%) in Transylvania only. Romania 1866 — 4,424,961 (Wallachia and Moldavia without Bessarabia, Bucovina, and Transylvania) that means most of the Romanian pop was outside Romania,there weren't "only" 4.4 in Europe,half were outside Ro.
@unurautare2 :)) geniu mai esti... chiar? asa multi erau? si sasii? unde is? erau orasi ca de exemplu reghin care are o pop de peste 35000 de loc si ei is romani nu? nah hai ca te las le stii u prea bine:))
@MegaGnova orasi? =)) Ce conteaza ce era la oras,majoritatea romanilor traiesc la sat,doar in timpul comunismului multi au fost fortati sa se mute la oras.
@gogoasacenusie Other scholars, including the majority of Romanians, insist that a substantial Romanized population maintained itself continuously in old Dacia and that the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people occurred precisely there. (Encyclopedia Bitannica Romania article) All the two contrary viewpoints are represented in Britannica, similarly to library of congess books, and Encyclopedia Americana
@stears555 , "Analysis of the genetic distance between Romanians and other Europeans who have been studied serologically are consistent with the hypothesis that Romanians descend from Roman ancestors who colonized Dacia."
@gogoasacenusie "Analysis of the genetic distance between Romanians and other Europeans who have been studied serologically are consistent with the hypothesis that Romanians descend from Roman ancestors who colonized Dacia." It is not true, because it was decades before the discovery of mt. DNA and Y DNA haplogroup markers. Plase give me a source for that after 2005. You can't.
@gogoasacenusie "Analysis of the genetic distance between Romanians and other Europeans who have been studied serologically are consistent with the hypothesis that Romanians descend from Roman ancestors who colonized Dacia." It is not true, because it was decades before the discovery of mt. DNA and Y DNA haplogroup markers. Plase give me a source for that after 2005. You can't.
@stears555 if Stefano Tisza had a strong support and was informed that allied was putting a trap to A-H Empire, I think he fought to save his country against treaty with Austria
@1007walker Tisza would have signed secret treaties before ww1, However nobody take seriously a country and its PM, which hadn't controll*rights over an army. The anti-war Tisza became supporter of the war only in 1916, when he saw Romania entered the war, and the so-called "czechoslovak legion" (90% czech deserted soldiers) joined to Russian armies. He knew that countries/armies entered the war to lacerate Hungary in the case of Entente victory.
@1007walker "I can't understand the reason why Hungary wasn't invited to sign the treaty"Today that would be called as racism.I have sources that leading western politicians(I must notice that :most of them have only high-school graduate)considered Hungarians as"yelow mongoloid folk"Despite our average lighter pigmentation and taller stature than sorrounding countries (except Austria)After the genetic researches it sounds laughable:most of our neighbours have higher ratio of mongoloid markers
@stears555 "I have sources that leading western politicians(I must notice that :most of them have only high-school graduate)considered Hungarians as"yelow mongoloid folk". But there was your allied too there! And didn't they defend you to sign Trianon? I had right: Tisza might go out from A-H empire before...
@1007walker , Hungarians always used the "cultural low" argument to the other nations from the Hungarian kingdom in order to justify their rule over them. These nations were kept from having rights, schools and forced to become hungarian by name ( see magyarization process ) and catholic religion in order to have a better life. On their own lands where they lived since the beggining ! Hungarians deny even their own oldest chronicles who speak clearly about the native people! What is this?
@gogoasacenusie The byzantine chronicles wrote: the ancestors of romanians the vlachs were in bulgaria and eastern serbia before the the 12th century. Polish chronicles speak about moldavian vlachs after the 14th century. According to archeological founds Vlachs (romanians) haven't any buildings (churches cemetries etc....) before the 13th century. You lived shepherd nomadic life. Do you think that every chronicles were "anti-romanian"? Polish Byzantine Kijevian Nistor chronicles?:))))))
@stears555 , there is no such thing, officially as ANY historical chronicle saying Romanians originate anywhere in south Balkans. Meanwhile Gesta, Kezai, Nestor, Oguzname, the Strategikon of kekaumenos ( who by the is Byzantin ), Descriptio Europae Orientalis, etc all of them write about the Romanians North of Danube. Even more, there are tones of archeological sites all over Transylvania including Ortodox cemeteries even from the VI century of the early Romanians next to the Pagan slavs
@gogoasacenusie medieval chronicles did'n speak about where were the Vlachs originated, they recorded only their contemporary accommodation areas. Byzantines also called themselves also romans. There weren't orthodox chiristian cemetries between 7th century until the 13th century in the territory Moldavia and Vallachia. The first orthodox archeological founds are from the 14th century in Transylvania.
@stears555 , you're obviously a troll and i'll stop the conversation. Try to feel good knowing that nobody cares about the Hungarian fantasies in the entire Europe and beyond. Have fun.
@stears555 , Jesus Christ! The Strategikon of Kekaumenos from the 11th century writes clearly how the branches of Romanians - aromanians, meglenoromanians etc formed. It is even written black on white that these Vlachs are "Dacians and Bessi" who fleed from Romans! Look at this French map and see the formation of Romanians and their branches:
@gogoasacenusie Brances of Romanians? similar to spanish, he refered only to linguistic terms here. There weren't ethnic latin soldiers/ population in Dacia. You have to know that dacia was the shortest lived province in the history of Roman Empire , it lasted only 170 years, which isn't enough for romanization of the locals. That's why I siad Romanians came from the areas of balkan which was under 400 years long roman rule
@stears555 in the short 170 years roman rule in Dacia, there weren't ethnic roman (latin) soldiers there, only some officers had roman latin roots in the army.(barbarisation of the army)
@stears555 , you have no basic clue what you are talking about! You speak about "nomadism" yet the Romanian farming vocabulary derives clearly from old Latin obviously because they were farmers during Roman times. Even the most basic and ancient word for "village" which is "sat" in Romanian derives from the latin "Fossatum"! Why do you lie? What's the point of denigrating others when nobody in Europe doesn't even care about these things? Do you feel good about yourself being a coward?
@gogoasacenusie vast majority of the words of modern roman romanian vocabulary is based on modern french italian etc.. words, and only 20% descend from original latin and vulgar-latin words. The old original vlach language contained mostly 60% slavic words. That's why you chosed the pravoslavic language orthodox church instead of latin roman catholicism. There were a language reform in romania during the 18th-19th century,when you adopted modern french italian spanish words and purged the slavic
@stears555 , "vlach" is not an ethnicity it is an exonym! It was given to Latin speaking populations! Romanians formed from Latin speaking Thracians, Dacians and Roman settlers. Later the Slavs, Cumans and Magyars were also assimilated. Easily checkable in genetics, archeological evidences and historical chronicles and sources. What really makes me wonder why the armada of Hungarian and Turk protochronic propaganda on youtube? Fighting against WHO? Against yourself my friend!
@gogoasacenusie Vlach, ethnonyms Aromani and Arman, also called Macedo-Romanian, Macedo-Vlach, Kutzo-Vlach, and Tsintsar, European ethnic group constituting a major element in the populations of Romania and Moldova and a smaller proportion of the population in the southern part of the Balkan Peninsula and south and west of the Danube River. ("Vlach" Encyclopedia Britannica online)
Eethnic hungarian, with R1a, slavic haplogroup, lol.
Slovenization 3 weeks ago
@Slovenization The language and culture of an ethnicity can be completely independent of the DNA composition. Ethnicity does not necessarily correlate with haplogroups. The DNA makeup off Ethnic Hungarians: (remove the spaces):
hpgl .stanford. edu/ publications/ Science_2000_v290_p1155.pdf
BetyarPali 3 weeks ago
You deleted the comment 'cause you couldn't answer it. Nice.
alex4ucj 3 weeks ago
@alex4ucj I deleted it because it was irrelevant.
BetyarPali 3 weeks ago
@BetyarPali So in your opinion you are against the self-determination of the other millions non-Hungarian who inhabit those territories (posted here) and you find this populations "irrelevant". Nice. And after all of this, still you are the wondered and nostalgic one.
alex4ucj 3 weeks ago
@BetyarPali : think before you write :
1-it was counties under hungarian and austrian-hungarian empire who had their own language and culture.
2-France didn't decide it by itself, it was the decision of the winners (UK, France, Cszech, Romania etc etc), it was "just" signed in Trianon, but it could have been signed in London as well.
3- we're in 2012, move on..... Forget the past, look for the future... this how countries go forward.
szia.
Szia.
LaCuisineCrew 1 month ago 2
@LaCuisineCrew You obviously missed the point of my video or failed to understand it. The part of Trianon I find most objectionable is the fact that over 3.3 million ethnic Hungarians were severed by the dictated-imposed Trianon borders, since there was no effort to draw the borders along linguistic or ethnic boundaries. Today these Hungarians are being mistreated as unwanted second class citizens in Slovakia, Romania and Serbia. And, it WAS the French who were the main force behind Trianon
BetyarPali 1 month ago
@BetyarPali I understand perfectly, i also live in Hungary.......
What i want to say is that the borders were mainly decided by Americans "observatories", who (you're right) didn't consider the linguistic facts. But, let's not forget that this treate was the consequence of the lost of the WWI by germans, and Austria/Hungary.
Yes, 3.3 millions ethnic hungarians were severed from Hungary, but what is it compared to 1.4 million dead french soldiers, and ruined countries for decades?
LaCuisineCrew 1 month ago
@LaCuisineCrew "...3.3 millions ethnic hungarians were severed from Hungary, but what is it compared to 1.4 million dead french soldiers..."
.
What are you trying to say here, genius? Hungary had nothing to do with 1.4 million dead French soldiers, as the Hungarian army never fought the French ! Even so, why were the 3.3 million innocent Hungarian civilians punished collectively for alleged crimes of the Austrian Monarchy??? The country that was ruined for decades by Trianon was Hungary.
BetyarPali 1 month ago
@BetyarPali And one last thing : in almost 100 years now, those "lost" hungarian never wanted to come to the motherland? Or nobody wanted to welcome them back home? Plus there are no longer borders in EU, although i understand it can be hard for a magyar to live in szlovakia and not be allowed to speak hungarian.. but then again, why not coming here.......?
LaCuisineCrew 1 month ago
@LaCuisineCrew The 3.3 million Hungarians who were severed in the new foreign countries have lived there for 1000 years, and should not be expected to move to the "little Hungary" of today, and give up their lands to the foreign occupiers. That is not an option. The only option is to move the borders to where the linguistic boundaries are. In other words, revise the Trianon borders to be more equitable to the ethnic Hungarians, after all, if the SLO + RO got their "freedom", why shouldn't we?
BetyarPali 1 month ago
@LaCuisineCrew Obviously you're not Hungarian even though you may live here, you're probably some french transplant who escaped the "new multicultural france". For the record, you're the first person from Hungary who gave this video a thumbs down, and if that's the way you feel about Hungary, we don't want your kind here. Why don't you get the hell out of my country and go to Slovakia or Romania?
BetyarPali 1 month ago 2
@BetyarPali Yes i'm french, and if i live in Hungary, my dear, it's because i chose to, years ago, as i love Budapest.
I gave a thumb down to this video because i'm fed up with all those winning hungarians who are so obsessed by a 100 years old event, and because your comment about "braking France into separate nations has absolutely" no sense.
But none of us will convice the other.
So i stay in "your" country", and i wish you a good life in the past with your big frustration ;)
szia haver.
LaCuisineCrew 1 month ago
@LaCuisineCrew "breaking France into separate nations has absolutely no sense."
.
I think we agree on something. Of course I meant it to be sarcasm, but breaking France into separate nations makes as much sense as breaking up Hungary did in 1920. It is senseless that you disagree with my video, if you're against breaking up France. Besides you live here now so why not act like you're Hungarian? The events of 91 years ago still effect us today since 2.8 million of us are still prisoners....
BetyarPali 1 month ago
@BetyarPali i understand, i really do, what you say and why.
But as you say, i live here and what happens affects me. But i think we (hungarians and foreigners living here) should rather try to make the country stronger economically, and socially, especially nowadays. We're in a delicate period, and we should focus on the most urgent. And the size of the country has nothing to do (look Luxembourg or Denmark...).
And i give that to you : yes the borders were made in a bad way, that i agree.
LaCuisineCrew 1 month ago 3
@LaCuisineCrew "And i give that to you : yes the borders were made in a bad way, that i agree."
.
OK then, if you agree that the Trianon borders were made in a bad way, that essentially is the point of my video, so please remove your "thumbs down". Then I'll remove my previous comment about splitting up France.
BetyarPali 1 month ago
@BetyarPali hahaha agreed
aglorincz 2 months ago
I think france should give the bretons independence. good recompense for what it did to hungary =)
aglorincz 2 months ago
U are all really insane lmao, since is no longer Hungary- Romanian border:)) and any hungarian could buy any property in Romania, just like any Romanian can buy any property in Hungary, What are u talking about then?:))
Sorry to bring the sad knews.....:))
qpae123 4 months ago
@qpae123 Are you out of your mind? What do you mean there is no Hungarian-Romanian border? The question is not the ability to buy property on either side of the border. The question is what should be the ADMINISTRATION of the territories where there are predominantly ethnic Hungarians in Transylvania. These territories must be administered by the Hungarian government, and should not have a Romanian administration, since the people there are Hungarian. What part of this do you not understand?
BetyarPali 4 months ago
@BetyarPali We will be all administrated if we are not already by the Banks, Coca Cola, Pepsico, Microsoft , Google lmao... PS and the border is just with the name, since is an inner Euro border. Goverments are just puppets in this days, corupt puppets.
qpae123 4 months ago
@qpae123 I'm not disagreeing with you about that, but let's get the "inner Euro borders" right first, and end the Romanian and Slovak occupation of Hungarian counties, towns and villages. Then we can solve the other problems, such as our puppet governments, and all the imports forced upon us by the multi-national corporations.
BetyarPali 4 months ago
@alex4ucj
You say that KOLOZSVAR sounds awfull.
I say, KOLOZSVAR, SOUNDS and MEANS : Culture, Arts, Architecture, History, Universities 1581 and 1872, Botanical garden, PROSPERITY.
Cluj, MEANS : Poverty, Misery, Rumanian Chauvinism, Hungarian pogroms even now and DECAY
lugano288 4 months ago
Trianon was against Wilson's self-determination theory,because it WASN'T based on democratic referendums(general equal&secret ballots).Czechs didn't trust in Slovaks,because very few slovaks joined to the"czechoslovak"army against Hungarians in 1919 (Slovaks were 48% in Northen part of Hungary).Romanian politicians didn't trust in Transylvanian romanians,perhabs they didn't want to join to backward poor romania(romanians were only 53% in Transylvania).Serbs were minority(22%)in Voivode,
stears555 4 months ago
Less indoeuropean blood & genes means higher culture and scientific technological advance in Europe. France Britain Italy haven't indoeuropean genetics. The Germanic people have also signifficantly very low ratio of IE origin genes, only Eastern Europeans have high ratio of IE haplogroups (genes). Type in English wikipedia: "Proto Indo Europeans", and see the gentics maps! Indoeuropean means: lower culture technology and lower scientific economic development in European History.
stears555 4 months ago
Learn genetics (which is a real science) instead of romantic nationalistic history.Romanians(similar to their genetic cousins:serbs&bulgars)contain serious NON-European genetic markers haplogroups. Romanian "culture" is Orthodox primitive anti-western so-called:"semi-asian" culture. You have average darker pigmentation(hair&eye color) and average shorter stature. Type in google image searcher:"hair color map"or type"eye color map"Anthropology maps show:you are a Gypsy-look nation
stears555 4 months ago
Just look anthropology maps about average pigmentation! Type in google image searcher:"hair color map"or type:"eye color map"Romanians have darker average pigmentation(brown monkey eye color, dark hair)Their average body stature is smaller.They have semi-asian primitive orthodox "culture".The vast majority of romanians were shepherd nomads until the 17th century.Learn genetics,don't forget your high ratio of middle-eastern haplogroups! That's why Hungarians call them gypsy nation.
stears555 4 months ago
T. of Trianon WASN'T based on democratic referendums(general equal&secret ballots)Therefore it became the satire of Wilson's idea: the nations' self-determination idea. Czechs don't trust in Slovaks(because very few slovaks joined/supported the"czechoslovak"army against Hungarians(Slovaks were 48%).Romanian politicians didn't trust in Transylvanian romanians,perhabs they didn't want to join to backward poor romania(romanians were 53% in Transylvania).Serbs were minority(22%)in Southern Hungary
stears555 5 months ago
@stears555 U and cousins gypsyes (still originated from asia) have that crazy behaviour! U have no right, no evidence but u continue scream that u are right and no one knows anything! Believe me boy, no one in this world believes ur history! As I said, everyone knows that u camed from asia like pradors, and still have the same behaviour! The romanians are gypsyes? Gypsyes are from asia, u 2 are from asia! U mongol scum! When our ancestors were here, yours still rubbering in asia and everywhere!
panzer30 5 months ago 3
@panzer30 Gypsy people are indo-european people like the romani-an languge, their language considered the most archaic LIVING version of old proto-indoeuropean language. Sanscrit is the oldest IE language but it is a dead language. However the ancient Gypsy language still live.
stears555 5 months ago
@stears555 "However the ancient Gypsy language still live." - Yes I'm sure u know that very well - from ur asian language. On the other u are sustaining that Romanians are some kind of Albanians or something, now u are sustaining that they are gyspsies. It's all a piece of shit theory which is coming only from ur big and uncontrolable hate :) U only try to see what is working with these "theories". But beside hungarian nationalists noboby believes this full of crap theories of yours.
panzer30 4 months ago 5
@stears555 Ur version of so called history it's going to end up at the world toilet of failed(or better say faked) histories!
panzer30 5 months ago 3
Treaty of Trianon WASN'T based on democratic referendums(general equal&secret ballots)The"national councils"were elected suspiciously-way,without any local documentations.Czechs don't trust in Slovaks(because very few slovaks joined/supported the"czechoslovak"army against Hungarians(Slovaks were 48%).Romanian politicians didn't trust in Transylvanian romanians,perhabs they didn't want to join to backward poor romania(romanians were 53% in Transylvania).Serbs were minority(22%)in Southern Hungary
stears555 5 months ago
And with relations to Croatia being on the map, the AU Monarchy was divided into two sections, Austrian and Hungarian, Croatia had autonomy within the realms of St. Stephen. That crown was also our crown because our kings ( Croatian and Hungarian) crowned with it for centuries.. I think that Croatia is the least of Hungarian problems since we always respected our neighbours ( that is those who didn't want to destroy us) and considering that we like Hungarians and feel sorry for what happened..
Agramer11 5 months ago
@Agramer11 Thank you for the words of sympathy for what had happened. Croatians are true friends of Hungarians. As you said, Croatia was always an autonomous region, with not many Hungarians living there, so we never had any claim to it. Unfortunately we cannot say that our other neighbors are friends, because they have stolen our lands, and they know it. They are the recipients of our stolen lands, and feel guilty, and that's why they are full of hatred towards us.
BetyarPali 5 months ago
@BetyarPali hello bozgormale, i am a honest romanian who loves his country and likes the truth! therefore,i do not understand couple of things.. did we steal your land? hmmmm. when did you came in the area? in 896 bc . you conquered transilvania by the end of 11th century.... so ,you are unwelcomed migrators...what was before you? the dacian empire and their daco romanian followers.. do you know we have about 500 dacian words in romanian? who steal whos country pleae?
imigrante0280 5 months ago
Respond to this video... learn some history bozgor bo! attila came from asia..
imigrante0280 5 months ago
As far as Croatia is concerned what happened to Hungary was a disgrace cause the sam thing happened to us ( on a smaller scale). As for any hostility between Croatia and Hungary I think that is not true since we had the Drava (Dráva) river as a common border for something like 800 years, call me crazy but that should indicate good relations.
Agramer11 5 months ago
@Agramer11 You are not crazy, Hungary and Croatia always had good relations with each other. We have been on friendly terms for 1000 years, and it shall remain that way.
BetyarPali 5 months ago
There are more than 2 million Hungarians living around Hungary. The territories where they are the majority, should belong to Hungary . It is about 20 000 km2. This is the truth, the rest is bullshit. You have a land, if you live there NOW. Doesn't matter what was in the past at all.
1526archangel 5 months ago
Valaki metudna nekem magyarazni hogy miert kapott a Magyar foldbola VESZTES Ausria is a trianoni beke diktatumkor??/?
alfoldibetyar 6 months ago
What injustice man ?! basicly Trianon Treaty brought freedom for serbs, slovaks , romanians and ukrainians
malcomx4u 6 months ago
@malcomx4u You obviously didn't see the video before making your comment. Why don't you take the time to look at the video to see the injustice to ethnic Hungarians. To summarize it for you, the Trianon borders were drawn to the disadvantage of ethnic Magyars, severing 3.3 million in foreign countries. If you think that's justice, then you're a fool.
BetyarPali 6 months ago
@BetyarPali A war of extermination? U ARE JOCKING ME? Tell me what Hungary do to romanian people in 1940-1944. elo romania
hellSnipeRII 6 months ago
@BetyarPali Hey , you're country toke autonomy after Trianon , and Transylvania was Romania 1918 , so was justice for ROMANIA and the other countrys. And don't say the Roesler's stupid theory... And the hungarians who lived in Transylvania , the majority of them was romanians who was forced to speak hungarian. Vlachs lived here before huns come(Kezai , Nestor , Gesta Hungarorum).
hellSnipeRII 5 months ago
In this movie are "fogoten" those almost 1000 years of slavery which they did upon other nations while they were rulling upon them. The Act of Trianon was an Act of Justice, of ELIBERATION of other nations from the hungarian barbarism. They took those lands by force and no one told them anything for hundred of years and that make them believe that they are ok about it. But, when someone came and told them: "this is not ok, gave back those people lands, set them free" - they begun to victimize!
panzer30 6 months ago 7
@panzer30 Which slavery do you speak? Slavery existed in Romania until 1868!!! together with thralldom. Orthodox Serbs The vast majority of vlachs (romani-ans) and serbians lived shepherd-nomadic lifestyle until the 17th century. Romanians were the truly barbarians, the shame of European continent. You were orthodox semi-asian West-hater primitive culture ans poor backward countries. Read about your primitive "culture" here: educator(.)uw(.)hu
stears555 5 months ago
@stears555 U feel offended by the truth. I understand u! Ur only weapons are lies hide by offenses! :) It's so tipical! Get lost boy! The whole Europe knows that ur hordes camed in Europe 10 centuries ago. The whole Europe and the whole world knows that u were barbarian, try the force maghyarization with other nations, killings, torture etc. That's ur history. Even today u try to steal other lands with idot ideas believed only by extremist hungarians. U can lie only to yourself about what u say.
panzer30 5 months ago 3
@stears555 U feel offended by the truth. I understand u! Ur only weapons are lies hide by offenses! :) It's so tipical! Get lost boy! The whole Europe knows that ur hordes camed in Europe 10 centuries ago. The whole Europe and the whole world knows that u were barbarian, try the force maghyarization with other nations, killings, torture etc. That's ur history. Even today u try to steal other lands with idot ideas believed only by extremist hungarians.U can lie only to yourself about what u say.
panzer30 5 months ago
@panzer30 Did you read educator(.)uw(.)hu about your culture? Hungarians were nomads until the 10th century, but vast majority of balkan orthodox nations - like vlachs - remained shepherd nomads until the late 17th century. It is the shame of the European continent. The only civilized (agriculture) balkan orthodox country was the greek byzantine empire.
stears555 5 months ago
@panzer30 Shepherd nomads are always considered as non-civilized (non-settled) people. The real late nomads and barbard were the romani-ans
stears555 5 months ago
@stears555 Were considered like that by who? By u and ur stupid retard brain? Show only 1 evidence of migration from the south to the north of Romanian people. But international evidence not ur stupid history writen by ur crazy extremist "politicians". I'm tired already, everyone is, by this twisted "history" of yours! Beside u, no one believes it! Go back to mongolia and leave european nations alone! Stop stealing our land, our history, our identity! It's a tipically asian behaviour to steal!
panzer30 5 months ago 5
Do you ask to yourself the reason
why Germany wasn't destroyed like Hungarian Kingdom?
The main problem is when the people are mixed and who rules, pretends to be God
against all other people who must be slave!
This was the big hungarian mistake!
What Hungary suffered, it's not the only situation happened on the Earth...
1007walker 6 months ago
@1007walker Do you ask yourself why the European Union was formed to replicate the former Hungarian Kingdom? The Hungarian Kingdom was 100 years ahead of it's time. It was a successful coalition of countries, different ethnic groups. Western Europe was jealous of this successful coalition, and had to destroy it to eliminate the competition. Also, the Romanians, Serbians and Slovaks lied during Trianon about mistreatment. Besides, why did Trianon not draw the new borders along linguistic lines?
BetyarPali 6 months ago
@BetyarPali It seems you're used to answer with an other question. Doesn't matter. Anyway it wasn't an example to follow your Kingdom for Romanians, Serbians, Slovaks and Croatian too. In all of these countries (and in Italy too) there was a strong irredentism that was "the top of iceberg". And the iceberg was all these people you defined "a successful coalition". Sure, Austria was guilty too. But don't say Europe was jealous!!
1/2
1007walker 6 months ago
@BetyarPali GB, France, Italy and USA won a war crying a lot of tears thaks to Austro-Hungarian Empire! And
who loses must pay. This is the history's law.
And about the "border along linguistic lines" it's not so easy how you think because this border isn't so clear. Usually the people are mixed and the languages too, so it's difficult. I'm sorry because I had other things to join.But the space is like Fraz Joseph :) For me, your big mistake was to avoid to do a real federal State 2-2
1007walker 6 months ago
@1007walker , i rated this video as "funny". The hungarian version of history is actually hilarious. Hungarians deny the Romanians as natives of Transylvania, even though, pay attention, this fact is consemnated in the oldest Hungarian chronicle - Gesta Hungarorum AND numerous other chronicles PLUS the archeological evidences. And yet they deny it :D
gogoasacenusie 6 months ago
@gogoasacenusie Sure...to deny an event becomes a sport:) Turkish too deny the Armenians' slaughter in 1915 when all the world recognizes it! Yes, Allied forces did some mistakes ("recently" they "forgot" existence and deleted Kurdistan with 40 millions of citizens from world's maps). But to draw a map following minorities and languages, it isn't so easy because of "mixing" of people. I have nothing against nobody, but to tell that the Austro-Hungarian empire was a kind of Heven, is a big lie!
1007walker 6 months ago
@1007walker , the way i see it, the Austro-Hungarian empire was an artificial structure with a minority ruling a majority composed of various people with ancestral rights on their lands. At Trianon the lands simply returned to their native inhabitants.The dissolution of the Empire was a normal act just like what happened to the Ottoman Empire for example. Actually it doesn't even matter if there wouldn't have been a Trianon, because then a bloodbath it would have occurred and still loose
gogoasacenusie 6 months ago
@gogoasacenusie 1-2* Exactly! And Soviet Empire too...with a lot of enslaved people with different languages and religions, tied by repression and terror. Like in Austro-Hungarian empire! Forced immigrations of people in other lands (e.g.like happened to Baltic Countries) in the name of Roman proverb "divide et impera" (divide and rule). Austro-Hungarian empire wasn't so different. Croatian, Serbian, Romanian, Slovak, and more Italian, Ukrainian and Czech people too against A-H empire
1007walker 6 months ago
@gogoasacenusie 2-2* The A-H empire started the 1.st world war, lost and paid. This is severe truth! The important thing is to defend and give rights to minorities. All other things as "I was there before of you" , are a low-level show only. I hate the radical nationalism. The border that dividedes it from terrorism is very very thin....
1007walker 6 months ago
@1007walker , let's not forget the forced assimilation or more known as "magyarization". During the entire history anyone who wanted to succed in society in a higher ranking in the Kingdom they had to have a Hungarian name and convert to Catholicism. Take for example the greatest leader of Hungary, Janos Hunyadi who was of Wallachian ( Romanian ) origin ( look on Britannica Enciclopedy ) Hungarians still deny its origin. The forced assimilation is a desperate attempt of a small minority
gogoasacenusie 6 months ago
@gogoasacenusie I know... The same thing happened in other countries under communism and other kind of empire... I said one time: I don't like History told by "supporters", specially told by nationalist supporters because it's a big lie. And when all the world tell the same history, this means that "supporters" make a mistake...
1007walker 6 months ago
It's not useful to quarrel with History. Hungarians scream against Trianon treaty: it was a big mistake, minorities, and so on.
Anyway the Big Hungarian Kingdom had less than 50% of hungarians (maybe hungarian history doesn't tell the same thing).
Anyway I don't believe to history told by "supporters", and your big Kingdom won't come back. Otherwise Rome too can pretend
to have the same borders she had in the age of Traian emperor :) : it's a foolish thing!
1007walker 6 months ago 4
@1007walker Read encíclopedia Britannica or German Brockhaus encíclopedia. Hungarians were majority in greater Hungary in 1910. 54% majority
stears555 5 months ago
@stears555 Those 2 enciclopedias must be updated and anyway aren't the Gospel. A lot of books and historians spoke about 50% , very less in Transylvania. Anyway this isn't a problem. The main problem was "Magyarisation". The freedom is possibility to chose! And those minorities hadn't it. Austro-Hungarian empire lost WW1 and paid. This is the only truth. None believes History told by ultra-nationalists: it'is a big lie!
1007walker 4 months ago
@1007walker These world-famos encyclopedias are written by academic scholars of Britain and Germany. They were updated every 2 years. Don't want to be more clever than academic historians and scholars.
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 Even if encyclopedias are updated, it's possible some news are updated later than newer editions:
it isn't necessary to be a professor to understand this. Anyway a difference of 3-4% isn't so important because are important other things. I think occidenal countries forgot what happened with Trianon treaty. I understand your mood, but this doesn't mean that other countries are wrong. I think ultra-nationalism is very dangerous
1007walker 4 months ago
@1007walker All the english german french encyclopedias are outdated? I red the History section of "Hungary article" in Britannica and Brockhaus encyclopedias Both of them wrote about 54% ratio about pre ww1 Hungary
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 sometimes is depending from historical documents they got. If some sources write a number, another sources write a different number. Anyway 48-50 or 54 doesn't matter: few thousends of people can't delete the Austro-Hungarian defeat. It seems all of you want to make a war against slovaks, romanians, ukrainians and serbians... Be quiet! We are in Europe in XXI century, not in Middle Age...
1007walker 4 months ago
@1007walker It is historical data of census. Austria-Hungary was not defeated by Italy, because Austria-Hungary disintegrated before it. The greatest enemy of The A-H Empire was Tzarist WW1 statistics: Russia. Russia had 4Xmore soldiers and 2Xmore canons than ItalyT Most AH soldiers died on Russian frontlines. At the last Italian battles the Austro-Hungarian Army took to the field without any food and munition supply, and fought without any political supports for a de facto non-existent Empire.
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 I didn't say "Italy won" I said "A-H Empire was defeated". It seems they are two different things.
The last battle in Italy there was 51 italian divisions, 3 british divisions, 2 french divisions, 1 czechoslowak division and 1 USA regiment against 57 and 1/2 A-H Empire divisions. So we have the same number of soldiers. If your generals was boastful and arrogant it isn't our fault. Russia went out of the war from 1917 and was better for A-H Empire
1007walker 4 months ago
Before the ww1,only the Austro-Hungarian and Swiss legal-system knew the term of "ethnic and minority rights"in European continent.In western Europe(France Britain Germany)the ethnic and minority rights were unknown terms before ww1.Majority of Scottish Irish and Welsh people forgot their own languages under British rule.Only 50% of the total population spoke the french language as mother tongue in France in 1789.The minorities (50%) couldn't speak their original languages in France in 1900 yet!
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 A thing is to know the term of "ethnic and minorities right". Other thing is "to give these rights" and Hungary didn't give any rights. I know "your history" tells the contrary. The history teaches: no empire coud live a "neverending story" when it has a lot of different people under its administration. And Hungary didn't understand and did "magyarisation"
1007walker 4 months ago
@stears555 The A-H Empire finished in 1914 because did a stupid war against all the world. And lost. Hungary for me did a big mistake to stay with Austria and a big mistake to avoid to do a kind of federal state.
1007walker 4 months ago
@1007walker AH Empire declared war only with Serbia. All other war-declarations were sent by entente countries against AH empire. You can check it!
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 "AH Empire declared war only with Serbia" and Russia protected Serbia. But your allied, Germany, declared war to Russia and France (because was allied with Russia). And so on. Italy, formerly allied with Central Empires, when realized that couldn't have Trento and Trieste from A-H Empire, changed allied and declared war only to A-H Empire. In Italy hated Austrians and irredentism was very strong. If Austrians hadn't help of Germany lost war in few time
1007walker 4 months ago
@1007walker But your statement was false, that AH declared the war against all the world. It declared against Serbia. Entente used secret diplomacy and created secret alliances, that secret alliance created World war from a local Serbian-AH war.The contrast: The Austro-Hungarian alliance with Germany was not secret after 1900, and it was also declared in newspapers too.That's a huge difference.The GDP of Italy was lower,the A-H industrial strenght and producing capacity was higher than Italian
stears555 4 months ago
@1007walker Austria-Hungary had 4 frontlines: Russian Serbian Romani-an, Italian. Italy had only 1 frontline!
After the Battle of Caporetto ,the military and economic crisis of Italy was resolved by enormous material supports from the Allied powers: by 1918, huge amounts of war materials and American,British,and French divisions arrived in the Italian battle zone to stop the advance of the AH Empire.A-H,Britain and Germany were the only powers which used exclusively own manufactured weapons!
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 wasn't our fault about your 4 frontlines. The english, french and italian diplomacies worked better and Austria was an Empire to be destroyed because of many nationalities inside of them, and Germany too: let's say 2 big dangers. About Italy, we hadn't crisis as you had and more, we were italians only and didn'y oblige anyone to fight with us, as you did!. Allied gave us only men as we gave some divisions to french too. 1-2
1007walker 4 months ago
@stears555 2-2 Italy made his own weapons: guns, rifles, machine-guns, airplanes and tanks. The ww1 was last time that Italy had weapons like the bigger States. And Caporetto, if there wasn't germans free from "Russian army", didn't exist. And our tactical strategy in last battle, was did 50 years later by israelian army in "6 days war" where the "lower" officiers took decision like generals instead to call and wait for an aswer. It was a very fast strategy that paid with victory
1007walker 4 months ago
@1007walker Again, Italy used foreign munitions cannons and other weapons. A-H army didn't use foreign manufactured munition and weapons.
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 An other big mistake of A-H Empire was: inside of his army, had a lot of strangers (slovaks, croatians and so on) who didn't fight for themselvs but for an hated Empire. The same thing happened to Roman Empire
1007walker 4 months ago
@1007walker I don't believe that slovaks hated Hungarians before the ww1. The ratio of Slovaks in the so-called "Czechoslovak army" didn't reached the 10%, becuae the Czech recruitment against Hungarians in the territoy of present-day Slovakia wasn't successful. Therefore 90% of the Czechoslovak army remained Czech:))) Croatians didn't want to belong to Yugoslavia, they want independent country (Croatia had full autonomy in AH Empire)
stears555 4 months ago
@1007walker Think it over: Why feared the new political elite of Czechoslovakia romania and yugoslavia from the holding plebiscites about the new borders in the disputed counties of former Hungary? They didn't want democratic referendums.Without referendums,the new borders were not based on Wilson's "self-determination theory". The people of the disputed areas were not asked, therefore it was not legitime for democracy-lover people. That's why presindent Wilson and USA not signed T. of Trianon!
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 I'm laughing about yourt last message. Who told you? Ferenc Molnar? Our industry wasn't like Germany but always was better than yours. expecially in light weapons. Anyway we have industries still living since last century. Yours? Missed in the wind.
Yes it's true, our diplomacies worked better than yours. And for this, you had against all the world! And if Russia hadn't all those problems, now you speak russian
1007walker 4 months ago
@1007walker Industry and industrial production of AH Empire was larger then Italian you can check data from ww1 economy books. "Anyway we have industries still living since last century. " Hahaha Learn History: Both Austria and Hungary disitegrated into small countries. Soviet occupation hegemony and communist planned economy ruined what left after ww1. HAve you ever learnt history in school?
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 If you consider e.g a czech industry like your, is all ok. But Czech Republic is Czech Republic not A-H Empire. It's only an example. Anyway doesn't matter. I know history don't worry... That ww1 economy book was wroten "for nationalist users"only
1007walker 4 months ago
@1007walker Your opinion has very strong so-called "double standars"! Italy wanted little territory and Italy wanted to figt a total-war for tiny territories (only 5% of Italy) in ww1, becuse of national pride. When Hungarians commiserate for the (72%!!) of its former 1000years territories it is considered as nationalism.
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 why those nations must do referendum? Moldova did referendum? Istria did referendum? other countries did referendum? Now the border are open. If a man doesn't live good in a place, goes to an other place...
1007walker 4 months ago
@1007walker Many countries had referendums, It was not an invention of latter days,. It is called democracy. And the idea of nation's self-determination was there in 1920! It was invented by US president W.Wilson.Therefore It was no wonder that such a treaty (Trianon) was not signed by United States. I think you are a romanian or slovak who work in Italy. Italy was the first country in Europe which realized the injustice of Trianon. Search: After Trianon there was a plebiscite about Sopron city
stears555 4 months ago
@1007walker Borders are open, but the jurisdiction the government legislature and execution remained slovak romani and Serb. Present-day Hungarians had less minority rights than Romani Slovak Serb minority in Hungary in 100 years ago!
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 If I follow your messages I can think tha Italy won ww1 fighting with catapults!!! I repeat: the only help from allied was soldiers only. We did our weapons, don' worry...
1007walker 4 months ago
@stears555 I told you. I have nothing against nobody...If was depending by me, I never did a war for a small region. But in that small region the people felt italian! And was since 1866 that Italy wanted that territory
1007walker 4 months ago
@1007walker "But in that small region the people felt italian! And was since 1866 that Italy wanted that territory" After such a great (5% territory) injustice, why did you join to the German-AH military alliance? After 1915, you betrayed the alliance. Did you know that fraternal terms: honor and consistency
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 When Italy asked to Austria to leave that territory, they run around the problem and didn't answer.
In Italy there was some politics against war and other no. These last won. Italy started war in 1915, not 1914.
As the allied signed to give us those territories, Italy signed a new alliance. Really was not the whole region: there was Trieste and its territory and Trento...but not Bolzano-Bozen! When the war was finished, Italy got Bolzano too
1007walker 4 months ago
@stears555 Italy completed the own northern territory till Alps Mountain
1007walker 4 months ago
Comment removed
1007walker 4 months ago
@1007walker Today the romani(as Hungarians call them due to their primitive culture)are high majority,but that time they were only 53% and mostly in Southern parts of Transylvania.I dont believe that the majority of romanians would have vote for unite with romania,which was one of the poorest country in Europe in early 1900s.Did you know: vast majority of romanians similar to Serbia Bulgaria Bosnia Albania lived shepherd nomadic life until the 1600s?They are the shame of European continent
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 I think you are to hard with romanian. I was there and in your country too. In Romania I found great hospitality. And here a lot of people do a lot of confusion between rom and romanians. I read scientific american magazine that told gipsies has a different DNA (50%) like indians. I think the best country in east Europe is Slovenia
1007walker 4 months ago
@1007walker Romanians are called as gypsy due to their low cultural level (shepherd nomadic lifestyle until the 1600s. As an orthodox (often called semi-asian civilistaion)They hadn't cathedrals univerities printing press guild industry in medieval times. The agriculture was minimal there. How many Nobel-award scientist had Romania (0) Slovakia(0) or Serbia(0)? Hungary has 16. Do you know why wasn only Hungary invited to the peace-treaty of France? Because
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 eh...I read only that american magazine and I can't speak so good about your las message. I'm not catholic but protestant. If you want to write more messages, write. I must go now... have a nice night...:-)
1007walker 4 months ago
@1007walker I know that Romani-ans genetically (Y and mt.DNA) closelly related to other balkan populations like Bulgarians and Albanians Southern Serbians, but they still cotain more non-European Haplogroups than Hungarians. The balkan orthodox culture is a transition between Asian (middle-Eastern) and European, as American social scientist Samuel Huntington said. The territory of Civilised Western World (catholic-protestant civilisation) became lesser in Europe after the ww1.
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 , that's incorrect. If you look on the genetical map of Europe on Eupedia you'll see that Romanians are not at all similar with Albanians. The closest genetical relatives of Romanians are Hungarians and Bulgarians. Ortodox = semi-asian civilisation? Shepherd nomadic lifestyle until 1600? Seriosly? Because from what i read, in the oldest Hungarian chronicle, Gesta Hungarorum and about a dozen others, the Romanians were already present and organized in Transylvania at Hungarian arrival
gogoasacenusie 4 months ago
@gogoasacenusie gesta hungarorum is not considered as reliable source by western historians. Forexample cumans arrived later after 1241 in hungary. and the cronicle speak about them as cumans were already here. Gesta Hungarorum is not compatible with Kijevian Nistor Polish and Byzantine chronicles.
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 , really? Have you read Britannica Enciclopedy ? Quote:
".......Between the 10th and 14th centuries new political formations emerged in the Carpathian-Danube region. The Hungarians, who had settled in Pannonia at the end of the 9th century and who entered Dacia in the 10th century, overwhelmed the Slavic-Romanian duchies, or voivodates, that they encountered there."
Britannica Enciclopedy
britannica(.)com/EBchecked/topic/508461/Romania/42864/Romanians-and-Hungarians
gogoasacenusie 4 months ago
@gogoasacenusie The fate of the Romanized, or Daco-Roman, population north of the Danube after Aurelian’s withdrawal has been a subject of great controversy. Many scholars, especially Hungarians, argue that Romanization in Dacia was, in fact, modest and that the later Romanian population living north of the Carpathians was not native to the region but migrated there from south of the Danube. (Encyclopedia Britannica Romania article)
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 ,
"Because the Romanians are descendants of the Romans, a fact that even today is attested by their language, a language that, even though they are surrounded by diverse barbarian peoples, could not be destroyed.... even if all kinds of barbarian attacks flooded over the province of Dacia and the Roman people, we can see that the Roman colonies and legions that had been established there could not be annihilated"
Antonio Bonfini, greatest Italian humanist, 14th century
Deny him
gogoasacenusie 4 months ago
@gogoasacenusie Antonio bonfini didn't use the term of romanian, he used vlachs. Byzantines (until iUSTINIAN THE GREAT UNTIL the dissapear of latin as official language in constantinople) were also called as romans,
stears555 4 months ago
@gogoasacenusie Bonfini hahaha, he wrote without sources and informations, he found an ethnic group in the east which have some (20-25%) latin words, that's why he automatically thought they are romans :))))
stears555 4 months ago
@gogoasacenusie in the short 170 years roman rule in Dacia, there weren't ethnic roman (latin) soldiers there, only some officers had roman latin roots in the army.(barbarisation of the army)
stears555 4 months ago 8
@stears555 idiot,the legions that stayed in and near Dacia were from Italy and Spain.
unurautare2 4 months ago
@unurautare2 it is not true. They were mixed armies, with very few latins. Dacia was the shortest live province of the Roman Empire in the history, it lasted only 160 years. The relations remained hostile between Romans and dacians. It was not suitable for romaniisation latinisation. Ancestors of Vlachs arrived from bulgaria and albania in the 12-13th centuries. You (Vlachs) migrated from Bulgaria albania where the Roman rule lasted for 500 years.
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 mixed armies were later,especially after the split of the Roman Empire,the colonist were mixed; The roman period could have lasted even less,that's not of any relevance; "Ancestors of Vlachs" were the latin speakers from the Roman Empire. *facepalm* ; You mean to tell me that the largest population of the balkans migrated from "Albania",we are twice as many as hungarians nowadays,after centuries of invasions by the turkic ppl,slavs and others. :))
unurautare2 4 months ago
@unurautare2 mixed armies were created from the end of 2th century. Italians and present-day romanians are genetically not related/similar people. (learn genetics Y and mt. haplogroup markers) Bulgarian and Southern Serbian and Romanian people are genetically the same or closelly related people.
stears555 4 months ago
@unurautare2 Romanians (in all countrues) were not so numerous folk. Forexample in 1910,the total number of etchnic Hungarian people were about 12,5 million(1.5M lived in USA).Romanians were 10,5M in 4 different states (inculding Romania) in 1910.But if you look 1870's data,the number of romanians in the world was 4M people, until Hungary had 7,8M etchnic Hungarians.Today,there are 19M etchnic Romanians.It's just an example about the growth rate of etchnic romanians between 1870-2010 period.
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 I searched some demographic studies: Romanians(from Wallachia and small part of Moldova only,without Bukovina,Basarabia,Dobrogea and Transilvania+other subregions) were 4,424,961 in 1866; Hungarians(in current territory of Hungary) were 4.4 million in 1880. But Romanians had maybe almost double the population if we put romanians that were then living outside the border and not just "Little Romania",while Hungarians outside Hungary were never that many(even today).
unurautare2 4 months ago
@unurautare2 "while Hungarians outside Hungary were never that many"
.
Thay statement is simply not true. Take a look at the history of TransCarpathian Hungarian settlements, such as parts of Moldova, and others; for over 1000 years mostly populated by Hungarians, until they were forcefully Romanianized during the 1900s. Look at the history of Csöbörcsök/Ciuburciu, Dnyeszterfehérvár (Bilhorod-Dnyisztrovszkij, Cetatea Albă), Kilia (Kilija), Orhei (Várhely) és Kisinyov (Chişinău, Kisjenő).
BetyarPali 4 months ago
@BetyarPali The Hungarians in Transylvania were never even 2 million at once,the Romanians there are at least 4-5 times more.The Hungarians in Slovakia&other parts(except for USA) make up at most 1 million.You also overestimate the assimilated "hungarian" population of Romania,even if we consider every Catholic as descendant from Hungarians,the Catholics in Moldova are again very few compared to the vast numbers of orthodox,I live there and I personally know catholic "Tamas" or "Boros",rarities.
unurautare2 4 months ago
@unurautare2 "The Hungarians in Transylvania were never even 2 million at once,the Romanians there are at least 4-5 times more" It seems like a typical chauvinist fantasy, who were educated in pubs/bars by older chauvinist uneducated proletars. Read real professional (academic) romanian or hungarian historians and their books about the demographics of transylvania instead of writing stupidities.
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 Have you ever been to Romania? It's like butthurt huns like you say something total opposite to the field reality,for some reason.There are only 2 very small,size and pop,counties in Romania with a dominant Hungarian pop that are in the Carpathian mountain valleys,so called "Szekelyfold",rest 39 = romanian. Even at the height of Hungarian and German population in Transylvania in % the Romanians still represented over half of the entire population,while the Hungarians ~30% at most.
unurautare2 4 months ago
@unurautare2 Again, read real high-rank academics historians (hungarians or romanians) about demographics.
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 I don't need to read "real high-rank academics",it's demographics,I just read the official census data. -_- Answer the question: have you been to Romania?
unurautare2 4 months ago
@unurautare2 but your "data" (fantasy) was born in your brain instead of official census. In 1880 there were 7M etchnic Hungarians and only 4,4M etchnic Romanians in the European continent. Balkan nations grew rapidly in 20th century as the third word nations.
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 "My" data is from hungarian sources. Maybe read better your own "data" and stop bullshiting?
unurautare2 4 months ago
@unurautare2 "if we consider every Catholic as descendant from Hungarians"
.
Once again the assumption yoiu make is absurd, because almost NONE of the Transylvanian and TransCarpathian Hungarians are Catholic, they are Protestants, or Reforemed Church, or Orthodox, or Lutheran church members. So why would any sensible person assume the Catholics are the descendants of the Romanianized Hungarians? It is only logical to assume that the Protestants are the descendants of the Hungarians.
BetyarPali 4 months ago
@BetyarPali The Csango people(Moldova) and most of the Szekelys(Transylvania) are Catholic,and as you said Szekelys are also protestant,but fewer. I never heard of Orthodox Hungarians in Romania except in Medieval Times,but they were converted to Catholicism by the Hungarian King. :\ Why I mentioned this: I saw Hungarian sources that speculated on the numbers of Catholics in Moldova as being Hungarian descendants,yes it's silly but I only said it in case you'd consider the possibility.
unurautare2 4 months ago
@unurautare2 Hahaha,did you read fantasy demographics data? read the article "demographics of Hungary" in english wikipedia (wth tonns of citations of books about the topics) In 1880, Hungarians were around 7Million, Romanians (in all regions and countries) were only 4,4 M in 1880
stears555 4 months ago
@unurautare2 Read "demographics of Hungary" article of english wikipedia. There are all sources in the citations about the census in 1800s, and all linked census data confirm the 7M etchnic Hungarians, while Romanians were only 4,4Million in Europe at the same period. check mate
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 Hungary 1880 - 13,749,603 but just 46% of the pop. hungarians,that means ~7 mil. hungarians,this is in all of Hungary. According to the 1910 hungarian survey there were 2,831,222 Romanians in Transylvania(53.8%) of the pop,and Hungarians - 1,662,948 (31.6%) in Transylvania only. Romania 1866 — 4,424,961 (Wallachia and Moldavia without Bessarabia, Bucovina, and Transylvania) that means most of the Romanian pop was outside Romania,there weren't "only" 4.4 in Europe,half were outside Ro.
unurautare2 4 months ago
@unurautare2 and you said: there were 5X more romanian in Transylvania in 1910. :))
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 4-5 times more today,not in 1910. :< Total pop. of Transylvania in 2002 was 7 million and 1,4 mil. are hungarians. 1,4 x 5 = 7.
unurautare2 4 months ago
@unurautare2 :)) geniu mai esti... chiar? asa multi erau? si sasii? unde is? erau orasi ca de exemplu reghin care are o pop de peste 35000 de loc si ei is romani nu? nah hai ca te las le stii u prea bine:))
MegaGnova 2 months ago
@MegaGnova orasi? =)) Ce conteaza ce era la oras,majoritatea romanilor traiesc la sat,doar in timpul comunismului multi au fost fortati sa se mute la oras.
unurautare2 2 months ago
@unurautare2 si ungrii au fost trimisi in moldova...sau in restul tarii ....
MegaGnova 2 months ago
@MegaGnova Cu serviciul cel mai probabil.
unurautare2 2 months ago
@gogoasacenusie Other scholars, including the majority of Romanians, insist that a substantial Romanized population maintained itself continuously in old Dacia and that the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people occurred precisely there. (Encyclopedia Bitannica Romania article) All the two contrary viewpoints are represented in Britannica, similarly to library of congess books, and Encyclopedia Americana
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 , "Analysis of the genetic distance between Romanians and other Europeans who have been studied serologically are consistent with the hypothesis that Romanians descend from Roman ancestors who colonized Dacia."
U.S. National Library of Medicine
Source: ncbi(.)nlm(.)nih(.)gov/pubmed/1542880
Deny them too.
gogoasacenusie 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gogoasacenusie "Analysis of the genetic distance between Romanians and other Europeans who have been studied serologically are consistent with the hypothesis that Romanians descend from Roman ancestors who colonized Dacia." It is not true, because it was decades before the discovery of mt. DNA and Y DNA haplogroup markers. Plase give me a source for that after 2005. You can't.
stears555 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gogoasacenusie "Analysis of the genetic distance between Romanians and other Europeans who have been studied serologically are consistent with the hypothesis that Romanians descend from Roman ancestors who colonized Dacia." It is not true, because it was decades before the discovery of mt. DNA and Y DNA haplogroup markers. Plase give me a source for that after 2005. You can't.
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 if Stefano Tisza had a strong support and was informed that allied was putting a trap to A-H Empire, I think he fought to save his country against treaty with Austria
1007walker 4 months ago
@1007walker Tisza would have signed secret treaties before ww1, However nobody take seriously a country and its PM, which hadn't controll*rights over an army. The anti-war Tisza became supporter of the war only in 1916, when he saw Romania entered the war, and the so-called "czechoslovak legion" (90% czech deserted soldiers) joined to Russian armies. He knew that countries/armies entered the war to lacerate Hungary in the case of Entente victory.
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 I can't understand the reason why Hungary wasn't invited to sign the treaty.
1007walker 4 months ago
@1007walker "I can't understand the reason why Hungary wasn't invited to sign the treaty"Today that would be called as racism.I have sources that leading western politicians(I must notice that :most of them have only high-school graduate)considered Hungarians as"yelow mongoloid folk"Despite our average lighter pigmentation and taller stature than sorrounding countries (except Austria)After the genetic researches it sounds laughable:most of our neighbours have higher ratio of mongoloid markers
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 "I have sources that leading western politicians(I must notice that :most of them have only high-school graduate)considered Hungarians as"yelow mongoloid folk". But there was your allied too there! And didn't they defend you to sign Trianon? I had right: Tisza might go out from A-H empire before...
1007walker 4 months ago
@1007walker , Hungarians always used the "cultural low" argument to the other nations from the Hungarian kingdom in order to justify their rule over them. These nations were kept from having rights, schools and forced to become hungarian by name ( see magyarization process ) and catholic religion in order to have a better life. On their own lands where they lived since the beggining ! Hungarians deny even their own oldest chronicles who speak clearly about the native people! What is this?
gogoasacenusie 4 months ago
@gogoasacenusie The byzantine chronicles wrote: the ancestors of romanians the vlachs were in bulgaria and eastern serbia before the the 12th century. Polish chronicles speak about moldavian vlachs after the 14th century. According to archeological founds Vlachs (romanians) haven't any buildings (churches cemetries etc....) before the 13th century. You lived shepherd nomadic life. Do you think that every chronicles were "anti-romanian"? Polish Byzantine Kijevian Nistor chronicles?:))))))
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 , there is no such thing, officially as ANY historical chronicle saying Romanians originate anywhere in south Balkans. Meanwhile Gesta, Kezai, Nestor, Oguzname, the Strategikon of kekaumenos ( who by the is Byzantin ), Descriptio Europae Orientalis, etc all of them write about the Romanians North of Danube. Even more, there are tones of archeological sites all over Transylvania including Ortodox cemeteries even from the VI century of the early Romanians next to the Pagan slavs
gogoasacenusie 4 months ago
@gogoasacenusie medieval chronicles did'n speak about where were the Vlachs originated, they recorded only their contemporary accommodation areas. Byzantines also called themselves also romans. There weren't orthodox chiristian cemetries between 7th century until the 13th century in the territory Moldavia and Vallachia. The first orthodox archeological founds are from the 14th century in Transylvania.
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 , you're obviously a troll and i'll stop the conversation. Try to feel good knowing that nobody cares about the Hungarian fantasies in the entire Europe and beyond. Have fun.
gogoasacenusie 4 months ago
@stears555 , Jesus Christ! The Strategikon of Kekaumenos from the 11th century writes clearly how the branches of Romanians - aromanians, meglenoromanians etc formed. It is even written black on white that these Vlachs are "Dacians and Bessi" who fleed from Romans! Look at this French map and see the formation of Romanians and their branches:
upload(.)wikimedia(.)org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Valaques-Vlachs(.)jpg
I notice you're a veteran troll on this video! Congratulations!
gogoasacenusie 4 months ago
@gogoasacenusie Brances of Romanians? similar to spanish, he refered only to linguistic terms here. There weren't ethnic latin soldiers/ population in Dacia. You have to know that dacia was the shortest lived province in the history of Roman Empire , it lasted only 170 years, which isn't enough for romanization of the locals. That's why I siad Romanians came from the areas of balkan which was under 400 years long roman rule
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 in the short 170 years roman rule in Dacia, there weren't ethnic roman (latin) soldiers there, only some officers had roman latin roots in the army.(barbarisation of the army)
stears555 4 months ago
@gogoasacenusie the late nomadism in the eraly modern perod and late medieval period didn't mean a high culture in Europe....
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 , you have no basic clue what you are talking about! You speak about "nomadism" yet the Romanian farming vocabulary derives clearly from old Latin obviously because they were farmers during Roman times. Even the most basic and ancient word for "village" which is "sat" in Romanian derives from the latin "Fossatum"! Why do you lie? What's the point of denigrating others when nobody in Europe doesn't even care about these things? Do you feel good about yourself being a coward?
gogoasacenusie 4 months ago
@gogoasacenusie vast majority of the words of modern roman romanian vocabulary is based on modern french italian etc.. words, and only 20% descend from original latin and vulgar-latin words. The old original vlach language contained mostly 60% slavic words. That's why you chosed the pravoslavic language orthodox church instead of latin roman catholicism. There were a language reform in romania during the 18th-19th century,when you adopted modern french italian spanish words and purged the slavic
stears555 4 months ago
@stears555 , "vlach" is not an ethnicity it is an exonym! It was given to Latin speaking populations! Romanians formed from Latin speaking Thracians, Dacians and Roman settlers. Later the Slavs, Cumans and Magyars were also assimilated. Easily checkable in genetics, archeological evidences and historical chronicles and sources. What really makes me wonder why the armada of Hungarian and Turk protochronic propaganda on youtube? Fighting against WHO? Against yourself my friend!
gogoasacenusie 4 months ago
@gogoasacenusie Vlach, ethnonyms Aromani and Arman, also called Macedo-Romanian, Macedo-Vlach, Kutzo-Vlach, and Tsintsar, European ethnic group constituting a major element in the populations of Romania and Moldova and a smaller proportion of the population in the southern part of the Balkan Peninsula and south and west of the Danube River. ("Vlach" Encyclopedia Britannica online)
stears555 4 months ago