A short history lesson about 1918-1919 in Hungary

I’ve written several times about András Nyerges’s excellent column, “Color Separation,” that compares today’s right wing to their interwar counterparts. His articles–originally published in Magyar Hírlap when it was a liberal paper and, after Gábor Széles made it a mouthpiece of the far right, in Élet és Irodalom–were reprinted in a two-volume collection. Inspired by some recent topics of discussion, I went back to these books. Today I’ll focus on two articles that are especially on target. One deals with the Romanian occupation of Budapest in August 1919 and even mentions Cécile Tormay by name. The other, published in 2002, is about Fidesz’s “reinterpretation” of Mihály Károlyi and the First Republic.

First to Tormay and the Romanians. I took a look at the last few pages of Cécile Tormay’s second volume in which she discusses the events between August 1 and August 8, 1919. During this time Tormay was hiding from the Budapest terrorists in a border town between Slovakia and Hungary, Balassagyarmat. It turned out to be a bad choice: Balassagyarmat was swarming with local terrorists who planned to kill practically all the better-off people in town even after the fall of Béla Kun. At least according to Tormay.

It is here that Tormay learned that the Romanians had occupied Budapest. She immediately came up with a conspiracy theory. That’s why the Entente representative refused to negotiate with “us, Hungarians” and instead turned to “William Böhm, Kunfi and with Károlyi’s henchman, Garami.” I guess it doesn’t come as a surprise to anyone that all three happened to be of Jewish origin. The Entente didn’t allow the Hungarian troops stationed in French-occupied Szeged to liberate Hungary because “the occupation of Budapest was reserved by the Great Powers for the Rumanians so that the city might become their prey and they might still act the role of deliverers.”

Well, it seems from Nyerges’s article that there were alternative theories about the arrival of the Romanian troops. One of the very few liberal members of parliament in 1922 inquired from István Bethlen, by then prime minister, whether he was planning to set up a committee to investigate “who those traitors were who, against the expressed wishes of the Entente, asked the Romanians to occupy the capital city.”  The committee was indeed set up and those members of parliament who in one way or the other were involved in the coup d’état against the social democratic government that took over after the fall of Béla Kun loudly protested, although no one accused them of anything. They all denied complicity. As usual with investigative committees in Hungary then or now, no one became any the wiser as a result of the hearings.

Outside the House, however, rumors didn’t die down. A Romanian politician, Ioan Erdeli (in Hungarian sources he is referred to as Erdélyi János) who was involved in the secret Hungarian-Romanian negotiations during September-October 1919, gave an interview in a Cluj (Kolozsvár) paper in 1922 in which he said that there were indeed several delegations to the Romanian army asking for the occupation of Budapest. He was not at liberty to disclose names, “but they were mostly aristocrats and important representatives of industry.” But a journalist close to government circles had already mentioned in late 1919 two important people who were allegedly involved: István Friedrich, prime minister in 1919, and General Ferenc Schnetzer, his minister of defense. There is no real proof of their complicity, but what we can say for sure is that the fall of Béla Kun and the arrival of the Romanians was greeted with relief. In fact, the Romanians’ reception in Budapest was more than cordial; the disillusioned Hungarians welcomed the soldiers with a shower of late summer flowers. Tormay was “longingly waiting for the arrival of the occupiers” because communism meant the death of the nation. Foreign occupation was only humiliating.

And since we were just talking about the White Terror, mostly conducted by Miklós Horthy’s officers stationed in Siófok at Lake Balaton, here is Tormay’s account. “In Western Hungary the peasants are arresting the hiding butchers of the dictatorship and delivering them up to the justice of the crowd. They are executed by those whose father, mother, husband or child they have murdered.” This is how people rewrite history according to their own political views. Surely, true Hungarian officers couldn’t possibly murder the Jews and riff-raff whom Tormay loathed; this task had to fall to the aggrieved peasant masses.

Róbert Berényi's famous poster for recruiting volunteers for the Red Army

Róbert Berény’s famous poster to recruit volunteers for the Red Army

Nyerges’s second article deals with the reevaluation of the 1918-1919 period. Nyerges wrote it in 2002 after reading a work by a historian of decidedly right-wing views. This work as well as many other studies of the period try to portray the period in black and white. All the good men were on the right; those who supported Mihály Károlyi, and especially the Hungarian Soviet Republic, were “the garbage of Hungarian society.” This is still the case, says the unnamed historian, “even if some well known intellectuals enthusiastically spoke of the communist system and the arrival of the Red God and for a while served the regime. That was only their error or rather their shame.”

But life is never that simple. Combing through the contemporary conservative press Nyerges found plenty from the other side who enthusiastically supported the Károlyi regime. Here is an editorial (December 24, 1918) from Alkotmány (Constitution), the official paper of the Katolikus Néppárt (Catholic People’s Party). “We can take it for granted, based on Mihály Károlyi’s political past, and he himself certainly has the right to claim that every word of his comes from inner conviction. We don’t believe that the ship of state would be heading in better direction than in his hands.” The militantly conservative Budapesti Hírlap on February 25, 1919 wrote in connection with the land reform that “regardless of how it will end, it is leading toward true democratization. …  As the Romans said: Quod bonum, faustum, felix fortunatumque sit (May the outcome be good, propitious, lucky and successful.)” But this very same newspaper on October 7, 1919 wrote: “Károlyi and his conniving accomplices killed Hungary!”  A few weeks later the Budapesti Hírlap thought that the stupefied people didn’t realize that the October 1918 revolution  “was not national but a Bolshevik revolution. Every thinking man in the very first week, at the time Barna Buza announced the land reform, should have seen that.”  But if that was the case, why did the same newspaper say on February 22, 1919 that Buza “clearly stated that the land reform means not only a right but a responsibility.” The conservative Élet (Life), a literary magazine, wrote: “Károlyi is a martyr. A well meaning man who is ready to negotiate with the enemy and who received real promises.” In another article, the literary weekly admitted that under the circumstances the socialists became the backbone of society. Moreover, they are real patriots because “the socialists fought for the integrity of Greater Hungary” at the meeting of the Bern International in February 1919.”We were reading their speeches with great excitement at home. We applauded and cheered.” And the very last example, which is really telling: the Alkotmány (Catholic People’s Party) wrote on March 23, two days after the declaration of the Hungarian Soviet Republic, that “when pacifism and the pro-Entente politics failed, the hand of the proletariat was raised. The Hungarian Soviet Republic was born in order to save the integrity of Hungary.”  “During the war years the enemy called the Hungarian soldier ‘the red devil.’ The enemy will certainly hear in the future about the Red Army.” So, not only duped, ill-informed, naive people were enthusiastic about the revolutionary events of 1918-1919.

After the arrival of the counterrevolutionaries the history of these years was rewritten.  And today the rewriting of history is again proceeding apace. Black (or red) and white, evil and good, non-Christian and Christian, international (and by implication treasonous) and national. But a binary history is a false history, whichever side writes it.

146 comments

  1. Is this Trianon day or Troll day now ?

    Copying the same crap several times under different names – without giving the source …

    Must have been a multiple orgasm …

    Eva, please throw them out – they have H ambience and kuruc and whatever to tell their stories to !

  2. Joe Simon :
    Hungary and all Hungarians everywhere remember Trianon today. So should the Hungarian Spectrum! But such an event falls outside the purview of Eva. Rather sad.

    No it should not.

    You are dead wrong if you think that “all Hungarians” remember it. Before this loony extra-right government only skinheads and old farts with Szekler flags remembered it. The majority of the Hungarians don’t give a rats ass about this Trianon whining.

    This is the 21th century Europe. Get used to it.

  3. wolfi :
    Is this Trianon day or Troll day now ?
    Copying the same crap several times under different names – without giving the source …
    Must have been a multiple orgasm …
    Eva, please throw them out – they have H ambience and kuruc and whatever to tell their stories to !

    Wolfi, you don’t know the Hungarian History. It is not your fault, you are a German.

  4. Walkstone, you wrote: “The situation of minorities in Hungary were much more better than in contemporary Western Europe. Other highly multinational countries were: France Russia and UK.”

    So by saying this are you arguing that those areas which were mostly populated by a single non-Hungarian ethnic group (say, most of Slovakia and Croatia and a major part of Romania) should not have been allowed independence simply because they were better off then the minorities in other countries of Europe? Of course, you can see what happened in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990’s, and what has been happening in the UK and Spain for decades, which is dissatisfaction, strife, and bloodshed stemming from aggrieved minority groups in those countries, and the possible independence of Catalan and Scotland, right?

    Why do you recidivist right-wingers always justify your illogical claims by pointing out similar wrongs in other countries? A reasonable person would look at those other countries and be thankful that such things were impossible in his or her country.

    I agree that Trianon was badly done, and I sympathize with those who want to bring majority Hungarian areas of neighboring countries back into Hungary, but that would still leave most of Trianon’s work untouched, and rightly so. I don’t see the Austrians claiming that Hungary belongs to them because it was taken from their empire by Trianon! You can call it what you like, but Austria ran the foreign and military affairs of Hungary, so it was the imperial master, and Hungary was part of the empire (which is part of the reason why Hungary was fighting on the side of Germany). Undo Trianon, and you cede Hungary’s foreign policy and control of its military to the Viennese (not that such an outcome wouldn’t be better than the current situation).

  5. Csaba K. Zoltani :
    To keep the record straight, Hungary did NOT invade Romania during WWII. Hungary and Romania, allies of Germany, signed an agreement that returned parts of Transylvania where Hungarians were in majority, to Hungary. If one can talk of invasion, it was the Romanian army that invaded Hungary, after Romania switched sides from being an ally of Nazi Germany, after it was obvious that the war did not go as they anticipated.

    Right. Romania decided not to fight the Nazi Germany. These Romanians just loved to lose land. Bessarabia, Bukovina, Dobrudja – they can’t get enough of it.

    Also for the records, the Hungarians were not in majority. They became a majority, fifty something % only, when they were counted by the Hungarians in 1941. Before that they were barely 40%.

  6. Walkstone about the French situation in 1870 and Hungary’s nationalities. I don’t think that you can compare the two countries. First, language groups in France were many but relatively small. You yourself listed about a dozen. This was not the situation in Hungary: Just a few percentages from 1900 in “Magyarbirodalom” as Greater Hungary was called officially. 45.4% Hungarians, 11.2% Germans, 10,5% Slovaks, 14.5% Romanians, 2.,2% Ruthenians, 8.7 Croatians, 5.5% Serbians, 2.1% others. These were large groups living in big blocs.

    Second, Many of the languages you mention are so closely related to French that they can be considered dialects. In any case, they all belong to the same language family. Naturally, this wasn’t the case in Hungary.

    Third and this is also an important aspect. Hungary was “underdeveloped” in comparison to France. Poor infrastructure, high rate of illiteracy, lack of industrialization and slow urbanization, etc. etc. All these retarded assimilation. If a Slovak speaker from some village in the north decided to find work in a larger city or in Budapest, his and his families Magyarization was pretty much assured without any government pressure because by that time these cities were inhabited mostly by Hungarian speakers. But as long as in a purely Romanian or Slovak village the inhabitants were cut off from the rest of the country it was unlikely that they would learn more than two words of Hungarian.

    In the nineteenth century the French government embarked on a very ambitious plan to obliterate illiteracy and since some of the minority languages didn’t even have written literary traditions it was easy to switch them to French. In some way this practice could be compared to the Swiss German situation where the children learn standard German in school. But of course, there Swiss German didn’t die out as a spoken language given to the high number of speakers and their preponderance in the German regions of Switzerland. Although I understand there are regional differences even within the spoken language.

  7. googly :
    Walkstone, you wrote: “The situation of minorities in Hungary were much more better than in contemporary Western Europe. Other highly multinational countries were: France Russia and UK.”
    So by saying this are you arguing that those areas which were mostly populated by a single non-Hungarian ethnic group (say, most of Slovakia and Croatia and a major part of Romania) should not have been allowed independence simply because they were better off then the minorities in other countries of Europe? Of course, you can see what happened in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990′s, and what has been happening in the UK and Spain for decades, which is dissatisfaction, strife, and bloodshed stemming from aggrieved minority groups in those countries, and the possible independence of Catalan and Scotland, right?
    Why do you recidivist right-wingers always justify your illogical claims by pointing out similar wrongs in other countries? A reasonable person would look at those other countries and be thankful that such things were impossible in his or her country.
    I agree that Trianon was badly done, and I sympathize with those who want to bring majority Hungarian areas of neighboring countries back into Hungary, but that would still leave most of Trianon’s work untouched, and rightly so. I don’t see the Austrians claiming that Hungary belongs to them because it was taken from their empire by Trianon! You can call it what you like, but Austria ran the foreign and military affairs of Hungary, so it was the imperial master, and Hungary was part of the empire (which is part of the reason why Hungary was fighting on the side of Germany). Undo Trianon, and you cede Hungary’s foreign policy and control of its military to the Viennese (not that such an outcome wouldn’t be better than the current situation).

    Googly, I think you are not Hungarian as Wolfi. Hungary have never been part of Austrian Empire (except 1849-1867)

    Read about it:
    “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Austria”

    Kingdom of Hungary was regnum independens, a separate Monarchy as Article X of 1790 stipulated.[6] According to the Constitutional law and public law, the Empire of Austria has never lawfully included the Kingdom of Hungary.[7] After the cessation of the Holy Roman Empire (Kingdom of Hungary was not part of it) the new title of the Habsburg rulers (Emperor of Austria) did not in any sense affect the laws and the constitution of Hungary according to the Hungarian Diet and the proclamation of Francis I in a rescript,[8] thus the country was part of the other Lands of the empire largely through the common monarch.[6]

    The Empire of Austria and Kingdom of Hungary have always maintained separate parliaments. (See: Imperial Council (Austria) and Diet of Hungary.) Legally, except for the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713, common laws have never existed in the Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary.

    The division was so marked between Austria and Hungary that there was no common citizenship: a person was either an Austrian or a Hungarian citizen, and no one was allowed to hold dual citizenship.[9][10] The difference in citizenship also meant that there were always separate Austrian and Hungarian passports, never a common one.[11][12]

    From 1527 (the creation of the monarchic personal union) to 1851 the Kingdom of Hungary maintained its own customs borders which separated her from the other parts of the Habsburg-ruled territories.[13]

  8. “Googly, I think you are not Hungarian as Wolfi. Hungary have never been part of Austrian Empire (except 1849-1867)”

    So, in your mind, “never” and “1849-1867” are the same thing. By that logic, anybody who is under 18 years of age never existed.

    You must not have read my entire post. In it I stated, “You can call it what you like, but Austria ran the foreign and military affairs of Hungary, so it was the imperial master, and Hungary was part of the empire”. Thanks for the history lesson, but that was not my point at all. Is Wales not part of the United Kingdom, even though it has its own legislature? What about Bavaria? It has its own legislature and laws (and even its own conservative party, the CSU), so is it not part of Germany? Hungary was controlled by Austria, and the Habsburg emperor who was the King of Hungary lived in and ruled from Vienna. What passport did he hold?

    Just like you right-wing zealots to try to change the subject and pretend that you are experts when someone points out the silliness of your arguments. Wikipedia is not usually cited by experts. Meanwhile, you ignored my questions about your stance on Trianon.

  9. @Walkstone :

    Of all the idiotic trolls here you are by far the worst!

    Quoting long texts (from wiki ?) without giving the source is a sure sign of stupidity and arrogance!

    Whether Hungary was a separate kingdom or not might have been relevant 100 years ago – the fact is that the monarch was the same and please tell me:

    Did Hungary declare the war against Serbia on its own or not at all ? Did Hungarians just blindly follow their Austrian emperor/leader/king, whatever ?

    It’s probably better however if you pack your things and look for another site to put forth your idiocies!

  10. wolfi :
    Did Hungary declare the war against Serbia on its own or not at all ? Did Hungarians just blindly follow their Austrian emperor/leader/king, whatever ?

    I understand your frustration at the trolls, but you know just as well that it’s not that simple. Everybody wanted war (the Serbian nationalists in particular) in Europe as everybody thought it would be over in a few months. There are no clear good and bad sides in WWII only a side that ended up victorious and the side that lost the war. I’d also advise against using the vae victis argument as it would justify way too much horror as well.

    Also, blindly following your ruler is how things used to be. Criticism on that front is anachronistic. The American troops also went to Europe in WWI because they were told to. They still go to war today because they are told to. Thank god in democracies you actually need some voter approval every now and then so mass loss of support can have an effect.

  11. Wolfi: “Did Hungary declare the war against Serbia on its own or not at all ? Did Hungarians just blindly follow their Austrian emperor/leader/king, whatever ?”

    Without the Hungarian prime minister’s OK no would could be declared by Austria-Hungary. Although István Tisza hesitated but at the end he agreed.

  12. Eva S. Balogh :
    Walkstone about the French situation in 1870 and Hungary’s nationalities. I don’t think that you can compare the two countries. First, language groups in France were many but relatively small. You yourself listed about a dozen. This was not the situation in Hungary: Just a few percentages from 1900 in “Magyarbirodalom” as Greater Hungary was called officially. 45.4% Hungarians, 11.2% Germans, 10,5% Slovaks, 14.5% Romanians, 2.,2% Ruthenians, 8.7 Croatians, 5.5% Serbians, 2.1% others. These were large groups living in big blocs.

    Second, Many of the languages you mention are so closely related to French that they can be considered dialects. In any case, they all belong to the same language family. Naturally, this wasn’t the case in Hungary.

    I am terribly sorry but there is a clear Eurocentric-approach, or should I say racist approach here. France has an Empire, and according to the concept of “assimilation” the habitants of the Empire were also treated as French, had to learn French, French was the language of the administration etc. even though they had their own culture (arabic, vietnamese etc) – they were treated like animals…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assimilation_%28French_colonial%29

    Please take this into consideration as well, especially because France and Britain won the war – apart from the US military and financial aid – due to their Empires. French Senegalese troops were delpoyed in the bloodiest trench fights and in the Ruhr-occupation in 1923.

    Democracies can and could mass murder/ can do nasty things as we, without any further consequences:

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

    No moral superiority on their side. Blaming only the losers for wars leads nowhere – it is a kind of moralisation

  13. I don’t quite see what French behavior in South-East Asia or in Africa has to do with the spread of the French language in France proper.

  14. Eva S. Balogh :
    Wolfi: “Did Hungary declare the war against Serbia on its own or not at all ? Did Hungarians just blindly follow their Austrian emperor/leader/king, whatever ?”
    Without the Hungarian prime minister’s OK no would could be declared by Austria-Hungary. Although István Tisza hesitated but at the end he agreed.

    After the Assassination in Sarajevo the Hungarian Prime Minister, István Tisza and his cabinet tried to avoid the breaking out of a war in Europe, but his diplomatic attempts remained unsuccessful. He didn’t want to annex Bosnia, because he said: “there are too many slavs in the moarchy.
    Look the two war-starters:
    Germany lost 10% of its total territory. Austria lost only 9% of its national territory (where people with austrian identity lived) after the war.
    Hungary lost 72% of its former territory.

  15. The world’s first race-based identity and ideology was the panslavism. Slavic nations believed that they are descendants of common forefathers, they believed that they are racialy clears. Thus the race-based identities and societies were exclusionary. See: Genocides Ethnic cleanisings and forced deportations against Hungarian and German speaking populations after ww1 and ww2. However the romantic naive panslav beliefs and myths collapsed in scientific levels (remember : population genetics of 1990s and 2000s). However these false nationalist beliefs survived in lesser educated common people.

    The Black Hand society was a state-supported terror organization of the Serbian government. Panslavism and slavic nationalism had a key-role in the extension of a local conflict to a real World War. The supporter of panslavism, Tzar of Russia Nicholas II would had been the first Hitler, he started progroms genocides against Jews before ww1. It’s awfull to imagine what would happend with non-slavic nations if he had won the war. However Tzarism couldn’t survive the ww1. The new Soviet regime was strongly internationalist. After the WW1, the collapse and lack of a great slavic nationalist Empire (Russian Empire) prevented a large-scale new tragedy in the European continent.

  16. googly :
    “Googly, I think you are not Hungarian as Wolfi. Hungary have never been part of Austrian Empire (except 1849-1867)”

    So, in your mind, “never” and “1849-1867″ are the same thing. By that logic, anybody who is under 18 years of age never existed.
    You must not have read my entire post. In it I stated, “You can call it what you like, but Austria ran the foreign and military affairs of Hungary, so it was the imperial master, and Hungary was part of the empire”. Thanks for the history lesson, but that was not my point at all. Is Wales not part of the United Kingdom, even though it has its own legislature? What about Bavaria? It has its own legislature and laws (and even its own conservative party, the CSU), so is it not part of Germany? Hungary was controlled by Austria, and the Habsburg emperor who was the King of Hungary lived in and ruled from Vienna. What passport did he hold?
    Just like you right-wing zealots to try to change the subject and pretend that you are experts when someone points out the silliness of your arguments. Wikipedia is not usually cited by experts. Meanwhile, you ignored my questions about your stance on Trianon.

    Bavaria & Scotland? They had no real parliaments, they operated as a stronger (state wide) local government. They were under the iurisdiction of the parliaments of Berlin/London. The lagal norms acts/laws of Imperial German or UK. Government of London parliaments created higher rank of laws. They were autonomies in German Empire / United Kingdom. The status of Bavaria Scotland were similar to the parliament of Croatian autonom region in Kindom of Hungary and the government of Polish -Galician autonomy.
    We had own legal system (which not based on Roman law) own parliament government (helytartótanács) own police forces, we had an own Hungarian army army since the beginnings: 1 we have own customs borders which separated our territory from other Habsburg lands, we had own judicature systems, we have own separate citizenship (we have never been Austrian citizens) and Hungary have own separate budget, and we have separate public debt from the Austrian Empire

    You must read the article of PERSONAL UNION: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_union

    Scottish parliament is relatively new in the history of United Kingdom. Please read about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Scottish_devolution

  17. Eva S. Balogh :
    I don’t quite see what French behavior in South-East Asia or in Africa has to do with the spread of the French language in France proper.

    Eva, the Franconization was aggressive in France proper. Minority pupils were punished when they started to speak their own languages. The same was true in Scotland and Ireland. Public primary schools and teachers accelerated these processes violently.

  18. Eva S. Balogh :
    I don’t quite see what French behavior in South-East Asia or in Africa has to do with the spread of the French language in France proper.

    One of the reasons why the Austro-Hungarian Empire was cut into pieces was that the Hungarians treated the minorities badly. So did democracies too, which developed racism as well…
    What is the difference between the lex Apponyi, and the French administrative practice in Algeria? Why can’t we compare the Austro-Hungarian Empire to the “Plus grande France”?

  19. Walkstone: “István Tisza and his cabinet tried to avoid the breaking out of a war in Europe, but his diplomatic attempts remained unsuccessful.”

    Tisza was the prime minister of Hungary and therefore he couldn’t possibly conduct diplomatic negotiation about avoiding war in Europe.You are mistaken about this.

  20. leaveyourcommenthere :

    Eva S. Balogh :
    I don’t quite see what French behavior in South-East Asia or in Africa has to do with the spread of the French language in France proper.

    One of the reasons why the Austro-Hungarian Empire was cut into pieces was that the Hungarians treated the minorities badly. So did democracies too, which developed racism as well…
    What is the difference between the lex Apponyi, and the French administrative practice in Algeria? Why can’t we compare the Austro-Hungarian Empire to the “Plus grande France”?

    You forget the fact that Hungarians invented the minority rights, we created and enacted it in July 1849: It gave minorities the freedom to use their mothertongue at local administration, at tribunals, in schools, in local self-governments, in local governments, in community life and even within the national guard of non-Magyar councils.

    But this were overturned after the Russian and Austrian armies crushed the Hungarian Revolution. After the Kingdom of Hungary reached the Compromise with the Habsburg Dynasty in 1867, one of the first acts of its restored Parliament was to pass a Law on Nationalities (Act Number XLIV of 1868).

    The existence of minority rights were unique in pre WW1 Europe.

  21. “What is the difference between the lex Apponyi, and the French administrative practice in Algeria? Why can’t we compare the Austro-Hungarian Empire to the “Plus grande France”?”

    Because France was a colonial power in the Algiers why Hungary constituted one half of the Dual Monarchy with very wide rights for home rule. The Hungarian political class wasn’t ruling over by some foreign group in Africa but over their own fellow citizens.

  22. @Walkstone :

    Copying pages of text again without naming the source – idiot! Don’t you think people could follow a link ?

    Maybe you should look up the archives of HS – most of the things you’re bringing up have been discussed already – but copying seems easier for you than reading …

    @All:

    Is it really necessary to engage or rather to try a discussion with these trolls ?

    Comparing the Hungarian situation to the French colonies ???

    Anyway I remember somehow that France also lost its colonies – and the French have inherited a lot of problems with their Algerian, Moroccan, Tunisian and other African immigrants …

    Totally OT:

    Just saw a report on M1 news on the flood – even that had to be turned into a campaign for Orbán, Pinter etc – they looked so stupid …

    And when they started on WW1 and Trianon again my wife got really angry and immediately switched channels – “kutya fasza” is the only expletive that I could understand …

  23. wolfi :
    @Walkstone :
    Copying pages of text again without naming the source – idiot! Don’t you think people could follow a link ?
    Maybe you should look up the archives of HS – most of the things you’re bringing up have been discussed already – but copying seems easier for you than reading …
    @All:
    Is it really necessary to engage or rather to try a discussion with these trolls ?
    Comparing the Hungarian situation to the French colonies ???
    Anyway I remember somehow that France also lost its colonies – and the French have inherited a lot of problems with their Algerian, Moroccan, Tunisian and other African immigrants …
    Totally OT:
    Just saw a report on M1 news on the flood – even that had to be turned into a campaign for Orbán, Pinter etc – they looked so stupid …
    And when they started on WW1 and Trianon again my wife got really angry and immediately switched channels – “kutya fasza” is the only expletive that I could understand …

    Personal attacks and primitive insults. My friend! Try to be a gentleman. Use arguments in the debate (instead of verbal aggression)

    Thank you!

  24. @Walkstone:

    You are not my friend and I’m not trying to discuss anything with you, – because you are a troll and a liar too …

    All these topics that you bring up in your rantings have been discussed before – here and elsewhere and your attempts at falsifying history are nothing new: It’s always someone else’s fault …

    Just consider what you wrote (or rather copied – again without giving the source, very unprofessional!) here:

    “Germany lost 10% of its total territory. Austria lost only 9% of its national territory (where people with austrian identity lived) after the war.
    Hungary lost 72% of its former territory.”

    Well maybe that was because Hungarians were just a minority in most of their “former territories” ?

    And why those two totally different wordings:

    Austria – – where people with austrian identity lived
    Hungary – former territory

    Don’t you see that these are not comparable ?

    You just are a troll!

  25. Something funny – or sad from the “Trianon thread” on pol.hu:
    http://www.politics.hu/20130603/extremists-in-hungary-protested-against-trianon-outside-slovak-embassy-in-budapest/

    Laszlo @wolfi

    “It was Kingdom, and the St Stephens crown is based on New Testament Teachings. The only genuine Holy crown which brought the Carpathian basin closer to Heaven then any other country. The crown is a Godsend.. This is why the powers to be wanted to destroy the History and power of the Hungarian Apostolic Kingdom. Turul dynasty which goes back a long way..”

    followed by

    “They are undeniable, history and the religion has to be studied together to be able to understand how the Hungarian Apolitical Kingdom existed, God Bless..”

    and somewhere else

    “Avar empire was here, and the interesting part is after the Arpad homecoming, the names of the cities and towns Hungary which lied outside the Arpad settlers had Hungarian names, which is proof that the Avar people are related to the Arpad Hungarians.. Again this is not mainstream because modern history has been tampered with.. Wikipedia etc is all a joke..””

    My wife would probably burst into uncontrollable laughter reading this – I didn’t even try to translate it for her …

  26. wolfi :
    @Walkstone:
    You are not my friend and I’m not trying to discuss anything with you, – because you are a troll and a liar too …
    All these topics that you bring up in your rantings have been discussed before – here and elsewhere and your attempts at falsifying history are nothing new: It’s always someone else’s fault …
    Just consider what you wrote (or rather copied – again without giving the source, very unprofessional!) here:
    “Germany lost 10% of its total territory. Austria lost only 9% of its national territory (where people with austrian identity lived) after the war.
    Hungary lost 72% of its former territory.”
    Well maybe that was because Hungarians were just a minority in most of their “former territories” ?
    And why those two totally different wordings:
    Austria – – where people with austrian identity lived
    Hungary – former territory
    Don’t you see that these are not comparable ?
    You just are a troll!

    My angry fellow creature! Can you prove that I falsified the history? Try to be exact. Which statement was not true?

  27. Wolfi: “Austria – – where people with austrian identity lived
    Hungary – former territory

    Of course, it is a false comparison. In fact, the Austrian half of the Dual Monarchy lost more territory than Hungary did. They also lost about 3.5 million German speakers to Czechoslovakia. Moreover, the Austrians thought that self-determination of nations means that the German speaking population of the Austrian half will be able to join Germany. It was a rational expectation but I don’t think that Wilson and his team fully comprehended the complexities of the linguistic composition of certain parts of Eastern Europe or that after a lost war Germany cannot be “rewarded” with the German portions of Austria.

  28. Louis Kovach :
    some1: “Kovach, did you read every single book that came out about the subject? I doubt. I believe what Ms. Balogh is saying that she is being selective about what she spends her time with. Extreme organizations, like World Federation of Hungarians became a joke, so why would anyone want to waste their time to read anything they publish?”
    So I should not read anythong that was published in Hungary between 1919 and 1945 and between 1947 and 1990? To arrive at a finding one reads both the pro and con. If you don’t read anything that may disagree with you, then you nwill end up with a closed mind.
    “Don’ confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.” may not be the best methodology even for historians.
    Naturally, one looks at the writer and his or her known prejudices also, everybody is a victim of his or her experiences. However some suffer with the victimhood all of their life.

    Sorry, I gave a chance to Magyar Hirlap and Magyar Nemzet many times before. No support from me. As the English idiom goes: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Well, you are welcome to take the world of those and similar resources as many times you wish,

  29. If you want to have a good laugh. Reporters are asking youngsters and politicians what they know about this new song for June 4th about the peach tree. Most of the kids know nothing about it. Never heard of it. June 4th didn’t ring the bell either and an MSZP MP who is an expert on agriculture points out that the lyricist most likely never saw a peach tree because it is normally no taller than 1.5 meters! Rather difficult to dance under it especially for many people at once. Two guys try to dance while trying to touch the sole of their shoes.

    http://www.noltv.hu/video/4987.html

  30. Eva S. Balogh :
    Wolfi: “Austria – – where people with austrian identity lived
    Hungary – former territory
    Of course, it is a false comparison. In fact, the Austrian half of the Dual Monarchy lost more territory than Hungary did. They also lost about 3.5 million German speakers to Czechoslovakia. Moreover, the Austrians thought that self-determination of nations means that the German speaking population of the Austrian half will be able to join Germany. It was a rational expectation but I don’t think that Wilson and his team fully comprehended the complexities of the linguistic composition of certain parts of Eastern Europe or that after a lost war Germany cannot be “rewarded” with the German portions of Austria.

    Most of “Austrian” Bohemia and Poland were parts of Austria as India or British Caribbeans were parts of British Empire. You always cited the Bohemian Germans, but you forgot the fact, that Austria inherited the right over Bohemia after the death Louis II of Hungary after battle of Mohács.

    Poland was in political/military anarchy, when the “brave” powers Prussia Russia and Austria attacked them, and partitioned Kingdom of Poland.

  31. I don’t hate germans, but I don’t like their strange agressive behaviour. They are very strange people by European eyes. It is not wonder, that the Holocaust was controlled and directed by them.

  32. Walkerstone: ”
    Most of “Austrian” Bohemia and Poland were parts of Austria as India or British Caribbeans were parts of British Empire.”

    I will stop having a conversation with you very soon because I’m getting bored. I would like to remind you that the Polish, Italian, Czech politicians were actively participated in Austrian political life after 1906 when male universal suffrage was introduced in the the Austrian part of the monarchy.

  33. Walkerstone :

    I don’t hate germans, but I don’t like their strange agressive behaviour. They are very strange people by European eyes. It is not wonder, that the Holocaust was controlled and directed by them.

    You stop that because otherwise I will bar from participation. Shame on you and your “European eyes.”

  34. Eva S. Balogh :
    “What is the difference between the lex Apponyi, and the French administrative practice in Algeria? Why can’t we compare the Austro-Hungarian Empire to the “Plus grande France”?”
    Because France was a colonial power in the Algiers why Hungary constituted one half of the Dual Monarchy with very wide rights for home rule. The Hungarian political class wasn’t ruling over by some foreign group in Africa but over their own fellow citizens.

    So, this means, that the winners of the WWI. were immoral, cold blooded mass murderer who restricted the human rights of African/Vietnamese people- who were seen fellow citizen too, by the officials in Paris BTW.

    When measuring the sins of the Austro-Hungarian Empire towards the minorities, why don’t we take into account the sins of the French Empire towards the indigenous people? Human being is a human being, regardless the color, race or anything. Just because we say that it was colonialism? Is this an excuse?

  35. Eva S. Balogh :
    Walkstone: “István Tisza and his cabinet tried to avoid the breaking out of a war in Europe, but his diplomatic attempts remained unsuccessful.”
    Tisza was the prime minister of Hungary and therefore he couldn’t possibly conduct diplomatic negotiation about avoiding war in Europe.You are mistaken about this.

    I think he/she means that Tisza first objected to the war, had meetings with Conrad and Hötzendorf, and he was not sure about the support from Wilhelm II. so he tried to postpone the decision. He made contact with the Germans via letter or someone, after receiving their support he wanted a less rigid ultimatum etc. I think Your friend, Gábor Vermes can give You more detail about it. In the first time, he really did not want a war. A week later he supported it.
    To declare the war, the Austrian, and the Hungarian govmnt had to agree. Tisza’s role can be seen as positive in this matter. At least, for a week…

  36. Louis Kovach :
    gardonista writes: “Hey, Lajos, there are some more respectable publishers than others. I don’t know either you or Eva, but I find her preferences quite convincing. She has earned my respect. But I love reading your posts to see how weak the pro-Horthy crowd is. Thanks for adding a bit of humor to this site!”
    So where are the facts you use? Sole diatribe does not add to the discussion.

    Here is a fact: I was speaking in the first person, and was clear that I was talking about my personal judgement of her arguments versus yours as they stand on this site. That is was the fact that I was using.

    Your response was to ask where my facts are, so it’s clear from my perspective that you are not really listening to me. This is another fact. Or to paraphrase what I wrote before, I find your arguments quite unconvincing.

    Please note that I am using the word “I.”

    You could characterize my statements as a “diatribe.” In fact, I really would like to get a convincing argument in favor of Horthy and his friends. I have heard these, and I think it really adds to my understanding of Hungarian history.

    You seem committed to trying defend a minority perspective among posters to this site. I wish you could do a better job.

    Instead of convincing me, you have said characterized my post as a “diatribe.” That does not win you any converts here. Why do you post so often if all you are doing is alienating readers from from the pro-Horthy crowd?

  37. google,

    if you `agree that Trianon was badly done´, and if you `sympathize with those who want to bring majority Hungarian areas of neighboring countries back into Hungary´, then you are in a group of totally desorientated people, belonging more to the 19th than 21st century. Do you think that this could be a base for good relations with neighbours in today´s Europe?

  38. London Calling!

    Great Britain (and the US) did not ‘win’ the war.

    We just defended our lands against an aggressor – the Nazis and yes, Hungary et al.

    There are no ‘winners’ – Great Britain lost a great deal and only finished paying off war debt relatively recently.

    Hungary has yet to recognize its part and fess up like Germany…and more importantly like its youth, have done.

    Stop bleating about ‘losses’ which are debatable based on ‘first language’ preferences in the census’

    June 4 is just ‘I Rant On’ day for irredentists who don’t have a leg to stand on and who are, or would like to be, Magyar Guarda singing under an apricot tree drinking too many palinkas.

    (See what I did there? – ‘I Rant On’ is an anagram of er, er, er…….)

    And it will soon be June 5.

    Regards

    Charlie

  39. Szomszéd is quite right. These people are really out of touch and this Hungarian government’s sin is that instead of trying to curb nationalist passions it stokes it. It is an unforgivable sin. Orbán and Co. has been doing this ever since Orbán decided that he is a Christian Democrat. In 1990 when he was a radical liberal he and his fellow Fidesz MPs walked out the chamber when the MDF speaker of the house, the nationalist György Szabad, a history professor in civilian life, asked the assembly to stand up for a minute of silence in commemoration of the signing of the Treaty of Trianon. Well, that was a long time ago.

    Unforgivable sin, I repeat. Moreover, the so-called unification of the nation could be achieved exactly by the very European Union that Orbán fights tooth and nail.

  40. Walkstone,

    “The world’s first race-based identity and ideology was the panslavism.” – Is this your own discovery? – How much of barack palinka have you drunk out before?

  41. szomszéd :
    google,
    if you `agree that Trianon was badly done´, and if you `sympathize with those who want to bring majority Hungarian areas of neighboring countries back into Hungary´, then you are in a group of totally desorientated people, belonging more to the 19th than 21st century. Do you think that this could be a base for good relations with neighbours in today´s Europe?

    I said I sympathize, not that it’s something that should be the policy of the Hungarian government. If Kosovo can gain its independence, and if Slovakia and the Czech Republic can split apart (not to mention Scotland and Catalan), then why couldn’t southern Slovakia or Seklerland be able to determine their own fate? Slovakia is extremely hypocritical in this regard, but the reality of the situation is that ethnic Hungarians in Romania and Slovakia should be left alone to fight their own fights, since most of the things that Hungary could do would just make the situation worse (as has been the case for the past few years). I am glad that Hungarians can provide moral support to their ethnic kin, but until the populations of those countries become less hypocritical, any interference by Hungary just angers the majorities in those countries and makes the lives of the minority Hungarians harder. This interference is actually for the benefit of the Hungarian politicians, not the ethnic Hungarians they pretend to care about.

    If you don’t think that Trianon was badly done, then you are the disoriented one, in my opinion. People should be allowed to determine which country they belong in, then and now, and the borders were drawn not to be fair, but to punish Hungary. How else can you explain the huge areas along the border that were almost totally Hungarian, ethnically? Seklerland is still almost entirely Hungarian, and could have remained so. There are countries that are separated into two parts like that (Russia has Kaliningrad, Azerbaijan has Nakhchivan.

  42. Googly’s ideas about the Szeklerland belonging to Hungary. I can’t see that as a possibility. The border between Romania and Hungary could have been drawn a bit more to the East and that would have left relatively few Romanians on the Hungarian side and many more Hungarians would have remained in Hungary. But we are talking about 200,000 Hungarians in this case.

    As for the Slovak-Hungarian border Benes insisted on a Danube border for security reasons. I think it was a mistake but it got through with French and Italian help. The United States opposed it from the beginning and eventually even Britain tried to convince Czechoslovakia against the incorporation of some of these purely Hungarian territories. But it was too late by that time it was pretty well all decided.

    But it is all under the bridge now. The demographics of these territories changed and given the existence of the European Union makes all that history. Slovaks move to Hungary near Bratislava because of lower real estate prices and the villages they move into are very close to the city while Slovaks work in Győr to work in one of the auto plants. They drive over the Danube in the morning and return home in the afternoon.

    So, what are we taking about?

  43. Walkstone: I’m quite familiar with “personal union” and the Scottish parliament, as well as the fact that there are federal laws in Germany that supersede Bavarian laws, but the point is not the nature or extent of the autonomy, but the fact that Hungary was not independent. Just because a Hungarian Diet existed does not mean that it was not at all under the control of the Habsburgs. Scotland had a similar experience, and only gave up its local autonomy in 1707, going beyond mere personal union.

    You also wrote that “The status of Bavaria Scotland were similar to the parliament of Croatian autonom region in Kindom of Hungary and the government of Polish -Galician autonomy.” That just reinforces my point. You feel that Croatia should still be part of Hungary, yet it was an autonomous region that wanted to break away in 1920, and would probably have fought a war to do so, if necessary. Scotland is now considering breaking away from England, and would be allowed to do so if it chose to. Every region should be given that choice, but you don’t like it, because of your greedy, selfish, irrational nationalism. You are a hypocrite, though, because you believe that Austria shouldn’t be given the same consideration that you want for Hungary, and you base your argument on the fact that Hungary had its own border controls in 1920. That ignores the fact that Hungary was part of an empire that was based in Vienna and controlled by Austrians. Your hair-splitting doesn’t change that fact, and you never bothered to answer any of my questions. What does that say about you?

  44. Terrible experience.
    The chauvinist rightist hungarians hate the hungarians who oppose their views, more than any other people.
    The right is inciting and acting like being in an instant civil war with the other hungary.
    This division has been ruining hungarian life, and the future remains bleak.
    Under the umbrella of the Deak Ferenc principles, there is a chance to end this war.
    Who wants to join?

Comments are closed.