What went wrong?

absolutely nothing, it was justice

you have to go back

>Hungarian Jews supported Hungary
>the literal Jewish Bolshevik Bela Kun of 1919 actually tried to keep Great Hungary intact
>Hungarian Nationalists still hated them

Was it autism?

...

Does not prove a point, land claimed by Kurds, had been under Armenian rule for centuries.
Kurds are a spook.
Trianon is a spook.

Karl Marx, Bela Kun and Murray Rothbard were huge hungaryboos.

There is this completely idiotic notion that national borders should mirror ethnic borders. It's based on nothing but post-Napoleonic idealism.
Also, medieval and early modern Hungary was pretty much like America, a political nation not an ethnic one. All noblemen - Slavs, Germans, Romanians - were considered Hungarian, not just Magyars. Look up Natio Hungarica.

That's an idiotic myth. Actually jewish entrepreneurs lost a shit ton of money because of the new borders. Most of the jews were interested in keeping the Austria-Hungary intact not just because of the trade and larger market but because the Habsburgs were very jewish friendly.
Many of the jews were scared all across the region that after the fall of their royal protector pogroms will follow.

Hungarians weren't conservative since late 18th century, they were modernist to the core. Which is why the revolution of 1848 happened, it wasn't just an independence movement, it had progressive ideology.

niggers

>That's an idiotic myth
What are you referring to?
That comment was saying Hungarians supported the unity of Hungary which is similar to what you said.

Sorry, I replied to the wrong post. We have a Dolchstoss theory too and it's very popular unfortunately.

>There is this completely idiotic notion that national borders should mirror ethnic borders
Are you American?

Hungary experienced two major demographic collapses that made Hungarians but mere plurality in their country.

The first were the Mongol raids of 1241-42, although its now estimated that the Mongols did not kill off half the country as many sources later stated but still left behind a devastation that probably claimed a quarter of the country's inhabitants.

It is certain that with large immigration (largely German and todays-Benelux colonists) the demographic situation got relatively quickly fixed, plus permanently europianized a predominantly already european stock country. We don't quite know how fast these guys assimilated, we know that most urban settlements had German-Latin majority at times though assimilation was certainly proceeding. Later wars blur the records.

If that were the case we'd have thousands of insignificant nations forces to enter into unequal federations anyway. You don't have to be an American to see the nation state meme is retarded most of the time. In fact, Americans are more likely to support it out of historical ignorance.

The far by greatest devastation was caused by the 150 year period of Ottoman wars, when Central Hungary came under Ottoman domination and the bordering lands around became frequent targets of raids and military campaigns.

Imagine the 30 years war devastation on Germany, then magnify it fivefold. Of coruse this 150 years wasn't one constant era of genocide, rather there were periods of peace and even growth, cut up by shorter and longer wars, of which the two that had the most impact were the long turkish war of 1590-1605 and the Great Turkish war of 1683-1699.

Contemporary accounts and numerous enrgavings bear evidence to the huge calamity these wars brought about to Hungary. And this wasn't just the fault of Ottoman soldiers, Habsburg imperial troops were often no less gentle to the local population. For example, after Buda was taken back in 1689, a 3-day free plunder was permitted, by the end of it the remaining standing parts of the two were then burnt down. Or see this particular drawing of Esztergom, which was the religious centre of Hungary, being the seat of the archbishop, a town once called a metropolis became so desolated, even today the city does not reach its medieval extent.

To put in numbers, from a 1495 tax census we can estimate medieval Hungary to host 4-4,5 million people, which was twice of Englands.

The 1711 census recorded 3,5 million people, meaning for 200 years for other european nations generally doubled or even tripled their population, Hungary declined.

The reason Ottoman wars hit Hungarians more is a result of simple geography, Hungarians generally occupied low-lying areas, the plains and river basins, while the minorities (Slovaks, Ruthenians, Romanians) were confined to the mountainous borderlands for most part, with the notable exception of urbanized Germans and Latins (colonists from Wallonie and France).

Hence, the early XVI. century Hungarians share of about 80% declined to a bare 40% by the early XVIII. century.

European and a Hungarian restorationist. Some of you imbeciles would think history of Europe begins in 19th century.

>instead of one strong nation in the middle of Europe you now have a shithole Hungary, shithole Croatia, shithole Slovakia, shithole Romania
>all bitches of USA, Russia or Germany
Good job.

>instead of one state on verge of collapse in the middle of Europe you now have an okay Hungary, okay Croatia, okay Slovakia, okay Romania
ftfy

If these countries want to have any chance to survive the upcoming onslaught they need to unite once again. Unity is strentgth. You didn't see USA or Russia becoming powerful through balkanization.

They sided with the wrong guys

Austria-Hungary made one crucial mistake which was annexing Bosnia after the Berlin Congress, which forced Germany to abandon their ties to Russia and unroll WW1 the way it did. In hindsight it was one of the biggest blunders of 19th century.

Splitting up hungary for "ethic reasons" is stupid, they had that land for literally 1000+ years.

That's like the United States losing a war and giving Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and SoCal back to Mexico. It's fucking retarded.

>survive the upcoming onslaught
What exactly are you talking about?
>they need to unite once again
Dalmatia, Wallachia and Moldavia do not quite fit into this concept.
>Unity is strentgth.
I do not share your belief that unity can by attained by mere redrawing of map.
>You didn't see USA or Russia becoming powerful through balkanization.
minute point: Why are there more than 13 states in USA then?

major point: USA and Russia are both build around one, largely monolithic ethnicity, with heritage and geopolitical situation vastly differing from central european.

You just fell for GROBHungariums maymay

Approximately 9 centuries into that millenium, social change swept away all the pillars of old hungarian kingdom. It's heritage became only shell and shroud for magyar cultural supremacism.

>we got this land by conquest therefore it's ours
>our local population got outbred therefore it's theirs

Which one is it?

How long until the mexicans outbreed everybody in the south and we give it back to mexico because of muh "social change"

probably dissmantling the HRE and inventing nationalism was

Hungarians proposed a Swiss cantonal model for Hungary in 1918, needless to say it got rejected. It was the superior model to a bunch of irrelevant, bickering shitstates.

>USA
>one ethnicity
Do you mean Anglos? Because Anglos got outnumbered by ethnic Germans in America long time ago.

this
I NEVER said that Hungary's lands have always been ethnically Hungarian. All I'm saying is that the Kingdom of Hungary has had a lot of these territories since the middle ages. It was known for being a multiethnic kingdom back then (germans, armenians, szeklers, romanians, jews, tatars, greek traders, slovaks, croatians) and even during the early nineteenth hungarian leaders recognized the fact that so long as the kingdom existed that magyar speakers would be a minority within it (a role some accepted and others didn't). However, there were ideas of fostering Hungarian identity OUTSIDE of common language and foster some king of national culture to which all ethnicities could adhere. Of course, it didn't turn out this way, but these ideas did have a sway for a time and showed that were was potential for Hungary to avoid magyarization.

Actually, it's
>political nation that existed until then got dissolved in nationalism of all nationalities existing in hungary.

>Hungarians proposed a Swiss cantonal model for Hungary in 1918, needless to say it got rejected. It was the superior model to a bunch of irrelevant, bickering shitstates.

>trusting promises of loser

Romanians in transylvania sought unification with romania, slovaks with czechs and croatians with other sout slavs. Romania, KSHS and ČSR might have been irrelevant in grand scheme of things, but they did not bicker, and calling them shitstates is simply wrong.

>Do you mean Anglos? Because Anglos got outnumbered by ethnic Germans in America long time ago.
I formulated the argument badly, mea culpa. Culture is the word, not ethnicity (in case of USA).

except thats a meme. There's a large consensus that the Austro-Hungarian Empire would have survived if not for World War One. Even then the dissolution didn't have to turn out like it did.

>Slovaks
No. Literally nobody asked them what they wanted, there was no plebiscite even though Hungary demanded one. The Martin declaration was just a collection of a handful of Entente-aligned intellectuals that was used as a pretext for annexing Northern Hungary, similar to the way Stalin used the Terijoki government in Finland.

yea, Poland and Hungary suffered a similar fate. Poland had the Deluge (among other wars) and the Hungarians the Ottoman conquest. Either country would have been in a much better position economically and politically had it not been for these two calamities.

I was wrote about Hungary, not Austria-Hungary.
> The Martin declaration was just a collection of a handful of Entente-aligned intellectuals
Those handful intellectuals were closest thing to representatives slovaks had. As a slovak, i am glad no plebiscite was held, for historical experience with post-war plebisictes is not encouraging (mazuria, upper silesia).

>I was wrote
now it's all invalid

>post-war plebisictes is not encouraging (mazuria, upper silesia).
what happened here

>Slovaks wanted
>I am glad no plebiscite was held
>let's suppress every attempt to hold a national plebiscite, instead we'll handpick a bunch of unelected intellectuals centered around the main separatist hub (St. Martin) and call it the will of the nation
This is downright criminal.

Also fun fact: Frantisek Jehlicska who was an ethnic Slovak monarchist organized a trained insurrection of Slovaks and Rusyns based in Poland, who were supposed to organize an uprising in Slovakia in order to re-join the kingdom. It counted several thousand soldiers and then the government in Budapest betrayed him and pulled the funding, probably out of fear of Entente repercussions. After that, the Czechoslovak government cracked down hard on restorationists which culminated with the Tuka trial in the 1920s.

I am not against plebiscite itself, I am against the manner they were conducted at that time.

>fun fact
Could you share your sources on that uprising? I do not recall having any knowledge of it.

Many catholic priests were opposed to czechslovakia due to its secular nature.

Tuka was probably biggest piece of shit history of slovakia had ever seen.

>Could you share your sources on that uprising?
It's a well known thing in academic circler and it's been pretty well elaborated in some issues of Historický časopis, I forgot which as I don't have access to them right now. Of course they don't teach about it in high school the same way they don't teach about Viktor Dvorcsak's attempt to declare the independence of Saros county and rejoining Hungary.

>Many catholic priests were opposed to czechslovakia due to its secular nature.
Yes, they saw Hungary as apostolic Regnum Marianum that needed to be preserved.

>Tuka was probably biggest piece of shit
That would be Stefanik.