Talk:Treaty of Trianon/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

A lot of incorrect info added

A lot of incorrect info added by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheLastOfTheGiants By the way I am unable to read your sources, also if you have sources with a lot of incorrect info, it is not right to flood the page with them. "The 1918-1920 period however, was marked by multiple general assemblies of minorities in Austria-Hungary where their elected representatives would express the aims of their people, such as the National Assembly of Romanians of Transylvania and Hungary on 1st of December 1918 who decreed by unanimous vote "the unification of those Romanians and of all the territories inhabited by them with Romania" "the National Assembly of Germans of Transylvania and Banat in 1919 who passed a declaration to support the decision to unite with the Kingdom of Romania"

Romania attacked Hungary again (first 1916) when the WW1 was over when Hungarian army was disarmed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian–Romanian_War It was not at all referendum, so the people of Transylvania did not vote. Nobody asked the residents one by one. In Transylvania lived 5 million people in 1920. I do not understand why the Romanians are talking about voting, because it was no plebiscite, nobody asked 5 million people one by one about this or with a democratic referendum. Only some people from 5 million and many other Romanians from outside of Transylvania voted in not a secret vote to join Romania in wartime and of course, at the presence of the Romanian army behind this one-sided Romanian assembly. Moreover, the Hungarian partner was not invited at all, so hard to talk about any voting. Perhaps the full Hungarian populated cities, especially next to the today Hungarian border voted to join Romania? I do not believe this. Romania claimed the Hungarian territory until the Tisza river. Perhaps the full Hungarian populated Tisza region voted to join Romania? I do not think so. The borders were decided in Paris, not in the Romanian assembly.

Also you did not mention this: Contra reaction for the Romanian National Assembly: December 22, 1918 - In response, a Hungarian General Assembly in Cluj (Kolozsvár), central Transylvania, and the most important Hungarian town in Transylvania reaffirms the loyalty of Hungarians from Transylvania to Hungary.

If only some Saxon politician voted for Romania, only because by fear, do not forget the Romanian army (and behind the Entente) was in the background. Some people do not represent the full Saxon community, 550 000 people, who mostly during the history had a very good relationship with Transylvanian Hungarians. But these things do not matter at all, the Entente decided about the new borders in Paris by Treaty of Trianon and not these rallies.

"Hungary had hoped to maintain Greater Hungary, they hoped that all the regions of old Hungary would remain part of Hungary, but were not taking into account what the nationalities who lived inside Greater Hungary wanted. In Transylvania, where 54% of the population was Romanian, trying to maintain this region as part of Hungary was an utopia, for the president of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, came with his 14 points about the right of nationalities for self-determination, and the Romanians in Transylvania who were a majority, didn't want to be part of Hungary. Essentially, the Hungarian politicians hoped to keep the status quo but the historical reality, the debates during the peace conference and the arguments of the nationalities who wished to break free from Hungary, were the ones that mattered and eventually weighted decisively in favor of creating the eventual borders of Trianon."

This is not ture, Wilson points were total ignored for the Hungarians, the nationalities for self-determination for Hungarians was total ignored, that is why 3,5 million Hungarians moved to new countries, many border regions had full Hungarian population and moved to new countries. Please do not say that these full Hungarian settlements did not want remain in Hungary. "and the Romanians in Transylvania who were a majority" It should provide exact details and numbers, because Romania got bigger part from Hungary, not only Transylvania, but Partium, Banat... Romanians had 53,8% in that region which was moved from Hungary, so it was almost 50-50, but we can see the Hungarians were total ignored from the self-determination. "the debates during the peace conference and the arguments of the nationalities who wished to break free from Hungary" For example Nagyvárad (Oradea), only 10km from today's border had only 5% Romanian population and 95% non Romanian, 91% Hungarian population. Do you say the Hungarians wanted to break free from Hungary in that city? Please do not write incorrect data. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradea Hungary offered democratic referendums about the disputed borders for minorities, however the political leaders of those minorities refused the idea of democratic referendums regarding disputed territories at the Paris peace conference, because they knew the majority of the settlements and many peoples (even many minorities) would vote to stay in Hungary. Nobody asked the residents, there were no referendums. Nobody listened Hungary in the peace treaty, when the negotiation was ended just the disarmed Hungarian country forced to sign the dictate behind the military presence of the Entente. The Hungarian diplomats were accompanied by guards. Is this the self-determination? And arguments, if the Hungarian member was not invited?

"The basic problem in Hungary was that less than half of the population were ethnically Hungarian. After the Ausgleich the Hungarians made at least one attempt to solve the cultural problem involved in the situation with the nationality law of 1868. The intent of this law was to arrange for a compromise between the non-Magyar nationalities and the Hungarians. The fact was, however, that the nationalities demanded more than cultural nationalism. They were in the process of establishing ties with their co-nationals — the Rumanians, Serbians, Czechs — living outside the monarchy or in the Austrian half, and were working for political independence. Moreover, the nationality law was seldom observed in Hungary; the rights of the nationalities were violated continuously by the Hungarian government. Their schools were closed and confiscated; their protests were suppressed by the police; their leaders were jailed for long periods of time. Hungarian propagandists spoke of a country of thirty million Hungarians, and of the sacred right of Hungary to “Magyarize” its nationalities."

The page clearly show the population data, it is incorrect that Hungarians had less than half of the population. Do not count Kingdom of Croatia, Croatia was personal union with Hungary, also you did not mention the Croatians in your text among the nationalities, but you calculate them to decrease the number of Hungarians. 30 million Hungarians? Source? Who say this? Total irrevelant topic. Schools closed? It was many thousand schools for minorities, even Hungarian Kingdom had more Romanian schools where Romanians thaught everything in Romanian than Romanian Kingdom itself. Hungary asked the knowledge of the state language as basic level, this is not violate any human right, today in Romania the Hungarians can speak Romanian and this is expected also, in England the immigrant people can speak English, this is quite normal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarization

"Faced with the danger of national competition, the Magyar gentry dared not fulfil the provisions of the Nationalities Law of 1868; on the other hand, to make their work easier, they demanded a knowledge of Magyar from all the inhabitants of Hungary. No state school, elementary or secondary, was ever provided for any national minority; the secondary schools which the Slovaks had set up for themselves were closed in 1874; Magyar was made compulsory in all schools in 1883. The highest expression of this policy was the Education Law promoted by [Prime minister, Count] Apponyi in 1907, which imposed a special oath of loyalty on all teachers and made them liable to dismissal if their pupils did not know Magyar. Similarly, the Magyar gentry attacked any political display by the nationalities -drove their few members from parliament and condemned their organisations. By these means, the Magyar gentry gained and kept a monopoly of state employment and of the liberal professions. At the beginning of the twentieth century, 95 per cent of the state officials, 92 per cent of the county officials, 89 per cent of the doctors, and 90 per cent of the judges were Magyar. Eighty per cent of the newspapers were in Magyar, and the remainder mostly German: three million Roumanians had 2,5 per cent of the newspapers, two million Slovaks had 0,64 per cent." Again, it is incorrect, it was many thousand schools for minorities, even Hungarian Kingdom had more Romanian schools where Romanians thaught everything in Romanian than Romanian Kingdom itself. Hungary asked the knowledge of the state language as basic level, this is not violate any human right, today in Romania the Hungarians can speak Romanian and this is expected also, in England the immigrant people can speak English, this is quite normal. Check out how many thousand school were for the minorites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarization — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionNimrod (talk • contribs) 12:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to only addess the essential parts;

1. "Romania attacked Hungary again (first 1916) when the WW1 was over when Hungarian army was disarmed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian–Romanian_War" Romania attacked Hungary in 1916, then you link to an article about 1919? Romania attacked Austria-Hungary in 1916. They are different events.

2. "It was not at all referendum, so the people of Transylvania did not vote. Nobody asked the residents one by one. In Transylvania lived 5 million people in 1920. I do not understand why the Romanians are talking about voting, because it was no plebiscite, nobody asked 5 million people one by one about this or with a democratic referendum." I see this more of a list of personal grievances than anything having to do with the source in question.

Please read the paragraph right above this one, a lot of your greviances are explained there.

"The borders were decided in Paris, not in the Romanian assembly." This is correct, what is also correct is that the national assemblies of 1918-1920 influenced the decision made at Paris.

"Also you did not mention this: Contra reaction for the Romanian National Assembly: December 22, 1918 - In response, a Hungarian General Assembly in Cluj (Kolozsvár), central Transylvania, and the most important Hungarian town in Transylvania reaffirms the loyalty of Hungarians from Transylvania to Hungary." Indeed, I did mention it in the paragraph right above this one, where I addressed your original notes.

"If only some Saxon politician voted for Romania, only because by fear, do not forget the Romanian army (and behind the Entente) was in the background. Some people do not represent the full Saxon community, 550 000 people, who mostly during the history had a very good relationship with Transylvanian Hungarians. But these things do not matter at all, the Entente decided about the new borders in Paris by Treaty of Trianon and not these rallies." The Romanian army did not occupy all of Transylvania at that point. And I am not making a case of what this does/doesn't represent. I merely listed what happened. Actually, after 1867 they became subjects of magyarization as well and started to have bad relationship with the Hungarians.

"This is not ture, Wilson points were total ignored for the Hungarians, the nationalities for self-determination for Hungarians was total ignored, that is why 3,5 million Hungarians moved to new countries, many border regions had full Hungarian population and moved to new countries. Please do not say that these full Hungarian settlements did not want remain in Hungary" Is this the self-determination? And arguments, if the Hungarian member was not invited?" This is not true. Point 10 of the 14 points was specifically about Austria-Hungary.

"and the Romanians in Transylvania who were a majority, It should provide exact details and numbers, because Romania got bigger part from Hungary, not only Transylvania, but Partium, Banat... Romanians had 53,8% in that region which was moved from Hungary, so it was almost 50-50, but we can see the Hungarians were total ignored from the self-determination" I don't understand, you yourself say that the Romanians were 53,8% in Transylvania and then, also say that it was 50-50? The real number of Hungarians was 31.8%

"the debates during the peace conference and the arguments of the nationalities who wished to break free from Hungary. For example Nagyvárad (Oradea), only 10km from today's border had only 5% Romanian population and 95% non Romanian, 91% Hungarian population. Do you say the Hungarians wanted to break free from Hungary in that city? Please do not write incorrect data. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradea Hungary offered democratic referendums about the disputed borders for minorities, however the political leaders of those minorities refused the idea of democratic referendums regarding disputed territories at the Paris peace conference, because they knew the majority of the settlements and many peoples (even many minorities) would vote to stay in Hungary. Nobody asked the residents, there were no referendums. Nobody listened Hungary in the peace treaty, when the negotiation was ended just the disarmed Hungarian country forced to sign the dictate behind the military presence of the Entente. The Hungarian diplomats were accompanied by guards." You are heavily conflicted because there was no refferendum. Yes, there was no refferendum, only national assemblies. But that doesn't make the sources incorrect, because none of the sources say there was a refferendum.

I'm sorry, but I can only conclude that your reason for arguing this is "incorrect data" is poor historical knowledge from your part.

A lot of your arguments are more like a personal list of greviances about Hungary's loss at Trianon rather than actual examples of what is wrong with the sources and where. And for the few cases where you did actually attempt to provide a reasoning, such as the population being 50-50, it is completely wrong. Please read the very Wikipedias you are trying to quote for accurate historical information.

If you can find a source that can support any of your claims, that would be great, but Wikipedia as it is right now does not allow OR, specifically because original research could be wrong, as it is in your case with the 50-50 population or Romania attacking first in the Hungarian-Romanian War. What you are saying is simply not true. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

To read the sources, hoover the mouse over the blue number. For example here hoover the mouse over the number and you will see the source. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 12:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

"Please read the paragraph right above this one, a lot of your greviances are explained there."

It is not grievances the fact that is was no referendum, but you talk always "voting" and still "65% wanted to join Romania", simply this is incorrect, because if nobody asked the people how we do know it? Perhaps did you ask 5 million people one by one in 1920? And incorrect to add to the page morover in the first section to pretend this one sided "vote" (like a communist-style when the verdict is already written) caused the Treaty of Trianon. Romania claimed the Hungarian territory until the Tisza river. Perhaps the full Hungarian populated Tisza region voted to join Romania? Perhaps the full and almost full Hungarian cities, especially next to the today's Hungarian border voted to join Romania? Did they vote? Almost full Hungarian Oradea did vote to join Romania? Or this Romanian rally decided that full Hungarian cities like Oradea should join Romania? What do you think? If not why these full Hungarian populated citied moved to Romania? It means this rally did not decide anything.

"This is correct, what is also correct is that the national assemblies of 1918-1920 influenced the decision made at Paris."

I can ask again. Do you say the Romanian rally decided that full Hungarian cities like Oradea, Satu Mare etc should join Romania? I do not think so. By the way these cities are not in Transylvania, but in the Partium. Because it was a Hungarian contra assembly, where Hungarians did the same what the Romanians did, but we can see the Entente total ignored this rally, so again it is not true that these rallies influenced anything. Even Romania joined to Entente and attacked Hungary in 1916 to occupy all Hungarian land until the Tisza river, the Entente promised this land to Romania to ask his help against the Central Powers. It means not these rallies influenced the decision, because it was already earlier decided whitout the ask of the residents.

Romania’s entry into World War 1, 27 August 1916. Detail from Proclamation of King Ferdinand of Romania:

“In our moral energy and our valour lie the means of giving him back his birthright of a great and free Romania from the Tisza to the Black Sea, and to prosper in peace in accordance with our customs and our hopes and dreams.”

https://royalromania.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/romanias-entry-into-the-great-war-27-august-1916-king-ferdinands-proclamation/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionNimrod (talk • contribs) 14:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

"Actually, after 1867 they became subjects of magyarization as well and started to have bad relationship with the Hungarians."

Source about the magyarization of Germans? In Austria-Hungary? In a German oriented empire?

In 1920, in Transylvania lived about 5 million people, among this 560 000 Saxons. The Saxons were invited by Hungarian kings 800 years ago to settle in Transylvania around 1150. There were many nice Saxon cities, they lived a good relationship with the Hungarians. We can see nice Transylvanian cities, all of them built by Hungarians and Saxons, not by Romanians. Hungary was a German-influenced country and belongs to the western culture, while Romania is a Balcanian country and belongs to the eastern culture, to the orthodox Christianity, and at that time Romania was a more backward country compared with Hungary. Today after 100 years the number of Transylvanian Saxons is only 13 000. Where are 500 000 Saxons? Perhaps are they romanianized or expelled? Voted to join Romania? The numbers show what does mean live in Romania and what does mean live in Hungary 800 years long. Of course the Romanians are talking always about "magyarization" but never about the "romanianization" which is more recently and more longer, more stronger according to the population data than the magyarization, check out previous Hungarian settlements, population change: Oradea.

In the Hungarian Kingdom, the Romanians had more Romanian schools than in the Romanian Kingdom where they could learn in Romanian. The Hungarian state asked the minorities to learn the language of the state at a basic level like everybody learns English today. For example, many peoples from different ethnic backgrounds live in the UK, they are using their native language but they can speak in English because English is the language of the state. Today many Hungarians live in Romania, I think those Hungarians learn and could speak in Romanian too. This is a normal thing.

For example, I cannot read this source: Joseph Held HUNGARY IN REVOLUTION. 1918-19. Nine Essays OrionNimrod (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

"It is not grievances the fact that is was no referendum", there was no referendum, and the information you want to remove doesn't say there was a referendum. So why do you want to remove it?

You wrote "unanimous vote the unification of those Romanians and of all the territories inhabited by them with Romania", but it was not a referendum, nobody knew the will of the locals, your text pretend that Treaty of Trianon happened because some Romanians from 5 million locals voted to join Romania, however the Treaty was decided in Paris by the Great Powers not by this rally, also you ignored the Hungarians made contra rally to vote remain in Hungary. And? Does not matter, because the Treaty made in Paris. Also the rally was mentioned in the text already, so you duplicated the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionNimrod (talk • contribs) 17:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

"Do you say the Romanian rally decided that full Hungarian cities like Oradea, Satu Mare etc should join Romania? I do not think so" again, how is this relevant to this discussion about the sources? I don't want to take part in a Hungarian-Romanian debate but simply identify whether the sources are accurate or not.

Your argument is that "The site was flooded with a lot of anti-Hungarian propaganda from communist times, whitout readable sources, also these sentences had a lot of incorrect info (Talk page explained). I provided a source with a readable link from a famous contemporary politician who participated in the Treaty of Trianon, the user talks about "different opinions", but he wrote only anti-Hungarian opinions, and ironically he removed the different opinion of the contemporary politican", please, stick only to information related to that. Show us how. As for the removed one, it's because it was part of your edit and I undoed the edit wholly. You can read it in my origina reply to you "2. Quote from Francesco Saverio Nitti, I'm not opposed to that." TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

And you can read our short discussion for yourself:

- Unsupervised Discriminative single-ethnicity assemblies and their proclamations without international supervise can not supersede democratic full-scale plebiscites/referendums (with minimal voter turnout , secret ballots of local regardless ethnicity) about disputed borders.

- The national assemblies of 1918-1920 were not meant to upersede democratic full-scale plebiscites/referendums, they were meant to express the will of the minorities of Austria-Hungary to the Entente. It is already mentioned previously that the only plebiscite was held in Sopron.

And that was it. He didn't further object. The first section is a summary of the rest of the article. 20-1 = 10 days?

If I want to remove content on Wikipedia, I can't wake up one day and remove content added by someone to which there was no objection at the time saying that "well, I object to it now".

Either way, I am still waiting for your arguments on those sources why are incorrect as you claim. And will completely disregard anything else but talking about those sources since I have no interest in making this wall of text larger than it is. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, his issue was that the National Assembly of Romanians, National Assembly of Germans and Slovak National Council could be falsely intepreted as a plebiscite. I told him it wasn't the case because previously it was mentioned that the only plebiscite was held in Sopron. And that was the end of our discussion. You on the other hand are claiming far greater things. That everything you wanted to remove is false.

Let us be orderly and take them 1 by 1 and have you indentify with sources which parts are false and how.

1. The 1918-1920 period however, was marked by multiple general assemblies of minorities in Austria-Hungary where their elected representatives would express the aims of their people, such as the National Assembly of Romanians of Transylvania and Hungary on 1st of December 1918 who decreed by unanimous vote "the unification of those Romanians and of all the territories inhabited by them with Romania", the National Assembly of Germans of Transylvania and Banat in 1919 who passed a declaration to support the decision to unite with the Kingdom of Romania, or the Slovak National Council's issue of the Martin Declaration in 1918, in effect declaring Slovakia's independence and presaging Slovakia's unification with the Czech lands as part of a new state.

Sources for 1 - Grecu, Florin (2018). "Elitele politice din Transilvania în realizarea Marii Uniri de la 1 decembrie 1918". Revista Polis (in Romanian). 6 (2): 207–217; Lucy Mallows, Rudolf Abraham, Transylvania p. 212; Fráter, Olivér (2000). "The Romanian Occupation of Transsylvania in 1918-1919". epa.oszk.hu. Kisebbségkutatás - 9. évf. 2000. 2. szám; Miller, Daniel (15 July 1999). Forging Political Compromise: Antonín Svehla and the Czechoslovak Republican Party, 1918–1933. University of Pittsburgh Pre. p. 66. ISBN 978-0-8229-7728-5.

2 According to historian Dorin Stanescu, Hungarian bitterness following Trianon was bound to happen given Hungary's unrealistic expectation of keeping the status quo after losing a war. Hungary had hoped to maintain Greater Hungary, they hoped that all the regions of old Hungary would remain part of Hungary, but were not taking into account what the nationalities who lived inside Greater Hungary wanted. In Transylvania, where 54% of the population was Romanian, trying to maintain this region as part of Hungary was an utopia, for the president of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, came with his 14 points about the right of nationalities for self-determination, and the Romanians in Transylvania who were a majority, didn't want to be part of Hungary. Essentially, the Hungarian politicians hoped to keep the status quo but the historical reality, the debates during the peace conference and the arguments of the nationalities who wished to break free from Hungary, were the ones that mattered and eventually weighted decisively in favor of creating the eventual borders of Trianon.

Sources for 2 - Florin Critescu, Dorin Stanescu, Oral History Archive, The Treaty of Trianon, 2021

3 Historian Joseph Held further emphasizes the desire for self-determination of nationalities inside Hungary as one of the main reasons for the gravity of Trianon. "The basic problem in Hungary was that less than half of the population were ethnically Hungarian. After the Ausgleich the Hungarians made at least one attempt to solve the cultural problem involved in the situation with the nationality law of 1868. The intent of this law was to arrange for a compromise between the non-Magyar nationalities and the Hungarians. The fact was, however, that the nationalities demanded more than cultural nationalism. They were in the process of establishing ties with their co-nationals — the Rumanians, Serbians, Czechs — living outside the monarchy or in the Austrian half, and were working for political independence. Moreover, the nationality law was seldom observed in Hungary; the rights of the nationalities were violated continuously by the Hungarian government. Their schools were closed and confiscated; their protests were suppressed by the police; their leaders were jailed for long periods of time. Hungarian propagandists spoke of a country of thirty million Hungarians, and of the sacred right of Hungary to “Magyarize” its nationalities."

Sources for 3 - Joseph Held, "The Heritage of the Past: Hungary before World War I", in Ivan Volgyes (editor), "HUNGARY IN REVOLUTION. 1918-19. Nine Essays", University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1971, pages 6-7.

4 The treatment of minorities under the Kingdom of Hungary was one of the main causes for their desire to be separated from Hungary. Faced with the danger of national competition, the Magyar gentry dared not fulfil the provisions of the Nationalities Law of 1868; on the other hand, to make their work easier, they demanded a knowledge of Magyar from all the inhabitants of Hungary. No state school, elementary or secondary, was ever provided for any national minority; the secondary schools which the Slovaks had set up for themselves were closed in 1874; Magyar was made compulsory in all schools in 1883. The highest expression of this policy was the Education Law promoted by [Prime minister, Count] Apponyi in 1907, which imposed a special oath of loyalty on all teachers and made them liable to dismissal if their pupils did not know Magyar. Similarly, the Magyar gentry attacked any political display by the nationalities -drove their few members from parliament and condemned their organisations. By these means, the Magyar gentry gained and kept a monopoly of state employment and of the liberal professions. At the beginning of the twentieth century, 95 per cent of the state officials, 92 per cent of the county officials, 89 per cent of the doctors, and 90 per cent of the judges were Magyar. Eighty per cent of the newspapers were in Magyar, and the remainder mostly German: three million Roumanians had 2,5 per cent of the newspapers, two million Slovaks had 0,64 per cent.

4 Sources for 4 - A. J. P. Taylor, "The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809-1918 : A History of the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary", Hamish Hamilton, London, 1948, page 186.

5 Historian Gabor Vermes argues that although national sentiments have been sparked by the treatment of minorities by the Austrians and Hungarians, it was the political atmosphere that caused the partitions of Austria and Hungary. The Austro-Hungarian monarchy had been a conglomerate of various nations. From any logical and pragmatic point of view, some form of federalism should have been accomplished. However, the two ruling nations, the Germans in Austria and the Magyars in Hungary, clung stubbornly to the maintenance of “dualism” which was based on a joint rule of Germans and Magyars. The resentment of the other nations was boiling beneath the surface, and the monarchy’s defeat in World War I brought to the fore their bitterness, and by 1918, their wish to secede. Croats, Serbians, Slovaks, and Rumanians harbored a long list of grievances against the Magyars, and the chaotic conditions of 1918—disintegrating armies, fluctuating demarcation lines, ambiguous armistice terms—only intensified them. Above all, active Entente support played into their hands. It would be futile to argue the issues from a legal viewpoint, or even from an ideological viewpoint, because in 1918, the military and political atmosphere was charged with emotions, and conflict between the onetime rulers and onetime subjects was not to be solved in a rational and sensible way.

Sources for 5 - Gabor Vermes, "The October Revolution in Hungary: from Karolyi to Kun", in Ivan Volgyes (editor), "Hungary in Revolution. 1918-19. Nine Essays", Univ. of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, 1971, page 47.

As you can see, none of these sources are from the communist era and most of them are written by non-Romanians.

Please, identify what is wrong in this sources, using sources of your own. As personally, I believe most of the information you came up with such as "If only some Saxon politician voted for Romania, only because by fear, do not forget the Romanian army (and behind the Entente) was in the background" is incorrect.

Please, no outside the subject mentionings or personal speculations. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I already provided detalied answer above why your info is incorrect. Also I quoted your text by you copy paste and spam the site with the same thing ignoring my arguments.

Your text was reverted by an another user and you added again, so again it is not true that you say "nobody objected", by the way, Romanian assembly already was mentioned in that page, just not in the first section. So you added a duplicate info. You changed already "the status quo of the page", your text added recently, and if somebody has own life and do not supervise every Wikipedia page 24/7 it does not mean that your content is correct what you added 10 days ago.

"The first section is a summary of the rest of the article. 20-1 = 10 days?"

So you admit it is not true when you stated that "nobody objected". You added a lot of info 9th of June, if somebody does not watch a website 24/7, it does not mean the recently added info is correct. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I did not ignore your arguments. As I said, I believe that 90% of what you're saying is wrong. But this is not about what I or you believe. You provided unsourced content, original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. You can't just go and say "I think the Mongols were Spanish!" and expect people to believe you. I asked you to offer me sources and previously told you that "A lot of the content you removed was sourced content. A case could be made that this is not 'incorrect statement' but simply historians having different opinions over the same event". I am offering the opinion of historians, you are offering your own personal opinion.

Why you repeat again the same thing that I already gave you a response for? As I said "you can read our short discussion for yourself (...) And that was it. He didn't further object". Again, as I said "The first section is a summary of the rest of the article". Again, as I said, "If I want to remove content on Wikipedia, I can't wake up one day and remove content added by someone to which there was no objection at the time saying that "well, I object to it now".

You can check it yourself, the content was first added on 1st of June, and the discussion with that persion was on 3rd of June. That's 19 days.

I made an exception this time but still noticed you haven't said anything about the sources, instead, everything you said was about me. So, as I said "Either way, I am still waiting for your arguments on those sources why are incorrect as you claim. And will completely disregard anything else but talking about those sources since I have no interest in making this wall of text larger than it is."

This time, I mean it, I will only address statements related to the subject at hand. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

90% wrong of my arguments? For example? So you did not talk them one by one, just name all of them wrong. I linked a lot of other Wikipedia sites and refered to the current site, not personal research. For example when I posted the quote from Nitti, it was sourced, I provided the readable link to the book, that everybody can check what I posted, while you did not provide readable links from your quotes. You posted only anti-Hungarian opinions, whit lot of incorrect states inside these quotes, " the rights of the nationalities were violated continuously by the Hungarian government. Their schools were closed and confiscated;", etc, and I provided the wikipedia links whichs showed how many thousand ethnic schools was in Hungary. I was talking about the content.

You added those quotes on 9th of June.

Above I already provided detailed explanation why these quotes are incorrect, this is not my strategy to write down 100 times the same. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I did address them in "Concerning OrionNimrod's edits", the first post. Take for example this one:

You were saying that "This is total incorrect. Hungary had more Romanian schools than Romania itself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarization). The page shows the population data, so it is incorrect to state that Hungarian population was less than half". And my reply to you was this one.

Looking at the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarization, it doesn't seem to confirm what you are saying: "For a long time, the number of non-Hungarians that lived in the Kingdom of Hungary was much larger than the number of ethnic Hungarians. According to the 1787 data, the population of the Kingdom of Hungary numbered 2,322,000 Hungarians (29%) and 5,681,000 non-Hungarians (71%). In 1809, the population numbered 3,000,000 Hungarians (30%) and 7,000,000 non-Hungarians (70%). An increasingly intense Magyarization policy was implemented after 1867." "Overall, between 1880 and 1910, the percentage of the total population that spoke Hungarian as its first language rose from 46.6% to 54.5%" But looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Hungary it seems this 54.5% is excluding Croatia for some reason, which was part of the Kingdom of Hungary. "According to the census of 1910, the largest ethnic group in the Kingdom of Hungary were Hungarians, who were 54.5% of the population of Kingdom of Hungary, excluding Croatia-Slavonia. Although the territories of the former Kingdom of Hungary that were assigned by the treaty to neighbouring states in total had a majority of non-Hungarian population, they also included areas of Hungarian majority and significant Hungarian minorities, numbering 3,318,000 in total."

This sentence, already existing on the Trianon page: "In the last census before the Treaty of Trianon held in 1910, which recorded population by language and religion, but not by ethnicity, speakers of the Hungarian language included approximately 48% of the entire population of the Kingdom of Hungary.[2]" Is more correct because it includes Croatia as well, that was part of the Kingdom of Hungary. As such, I find the assertion of the source you tried to remove correct, and am against removing it.

Simply put, the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarization only confirmed what Joseph Held said (which you wanted to remove) and your claim that "The page shows the population data, so it is incorrect to state that Hungarian population was less than half" is again false. Not only it does not show that, but it shows the opposite.

I have a hard time seeing how you got to those conclusions using those Wikipedia links you provided given that they contradict you.

But for the vast majority of the things you said, I don't need to give an answer because (a) they are not relevant, (b) you did not offer a source for them. And I'm not here to discuss OR.

For example, and this is the 3rd time I say the same thing, you said that "If only some Saxon politician voted for Romania, only because by fear, do not forget the Romanian army (and behind the Entente) was in the background" which I believe it is incorrect, but the important thing is that you did not offer any source for that, its merely personal opinion and frankly not relevant to the subject at hand. So I can dismiss it without addressing it.

Likewise, it's not my strategy to write down 100 times the same. I even made a list of the things you wanted to remove to make it easier for you to explain which information from there is wrong and why, but you didn't do any of that. And seeing how this discussion goes, you're not likely to do it. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Hungarian population was around 40% in these sites (and not 29%) around 1780-90: Demographics of Hungary, Magyarization. But why are you talking about 1790??? Off topic again.

According to the census of 1910, the largest ethnic group in the Kingdom of Hungary were Hungarians, who were 54.5% of the population of Kingdom of Hungary, excluding Croatia-Slavonia. Croatia was personal union with Hungary, not Hungarian land!

Even the red map showed only Hungarian land and not Croatia which was provided to Entente.

Treaty of Trianon#/media/File:Ethnographic map of hungary 1910 by teleki carte rouge.jpg

So it is not true to say it was less than half. So you admit this info was on the page already, why do you want to duplicate info on the page?

The page has already the Romanian assembly with a picture, but you duplicated this info. You mentioned more assembly, but only you ignored the Hungarian one. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Please offer the exact quotes from the link where it says the Hungarian population was around 40% in these sites.

I am not talking about 1790?! you are the first one to bring 1790 up and I'm not even sure why.

"According to the census of 1910, the largest ethnic group in the Kingdom of Hungary were Hungarians, who were 54.5% of the population of Kingdom of Hungary, excluding Croatia-Slavonia. Croatia was personal union with Hungary, not Hungarian land!" According to the same census, but including Croatia, the Hungarians were 48% of the population of Kingdom of Hungary.

I believe the author did not consider the fact that Croatia was in a personal union or not with Hungary relevant. And I don't consider it either, given that as far as the Austrian state aparatus was concerned, Croatia was part of Hungary. It was administrated by Hungary rather than Austria, taxes went to Hungary, the leaders were appointed by Hungary, etc.

If we include Croatia in the census, it is true that less than half of the population was Hungarian, if we don't 54.5% is still not a significantly higher number from 48% to drastically alter the meaning of the whole sentence.

Please, tell me what you understand by "The first section is a summary of the rest of the article" ? For example, this "The principal beneficiaries were the Kingdom of Romania, the Czechoslovak Republic, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia), and the First Austrian Republic." is also present in the article, and for good reason. The first section is a summary of the rest of the article, therefore, everything else that is present in the summary should also be present in the article but in a more expanded upon form. Ok, so we can add the Hungarian assembly as well, no problem with that. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Please offer the exact quotes from the link where it says the Hungarian population was around 40% in these sites.

Demographics of Hungary,

1790

• 40%
• 39%
• 35%

It is not problem if you do not see the numbers in the charts.

Anyway talking about 1787 or 1790 is total off topic, even nothing about this in your quotes, but you who are many times copy paste this.

Croatia was under the Holy Crown of Hungary but it was not Hungarian land, even the Hungarian red map did not include Croatia. Croatia was administered own: Croatian–Hungarian Settlement

"if we don't 54.5% is still not a significantly higher number from 48% to drastically alter the meaning of the whole sentence."

Treaty of Trianon: "2,831,222 Romanians (53.8%)."

Romanians had only 53.8% in Hungary, You say it is not a problem to say 54% is less than half, but Romanians always ephasize "Romanian majority" Thanks for showing us your double standard! Even you said many times this majority "voted" to join Romania. Which is incorrect.

As I said the page has already the Romanian assembly and you duplicated the info that suggest these "votes" caused the Treaty of Trianon, however not. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so that particular link says 35-40% Hungarians in 1790. While https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarization says 29% Hungarians in 1787. I agree that is irrelevant for the subject at hand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Croatia_(Habsburg)#Dual_Monarchy_Period "In 1868 the Croatian–Hungarian Settlement was negotiated, which combined Croatia and Slavonia into the autonomous Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. With this agreement, the Kingdom of Croatia received autonomy in administrative, educational, religious and judicial affairs. However, the governor (ban) was still appointed by Hungary, 55% percent of all tax money went to Budapest, and Hungary had authority over the biggest sea port of Rijeka (something that was reportedly not part of the Settlement actually agreed upon)".

Isn't 53.8% still a Romanian majority? Even without the rounding up to 54% it's still a Romanian majority. Actually, it is correct, the national assembly of Romania was made up by elected representatives of Transylvanian Romanians, they voted for them. And they voted for union with Romania. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Transylvania_with_Romania

As I said the first section is a summary of the rest of the article, and they did not cause the Treaty of Trianon by themselves, but they influenced the Great Powers, so the national assemblies of Romanians, Germans and Slovaks did have an influence over the Treaty of Trianon. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not understand why do you talk about always off topics like seaports in Croatia, taxation, 1787, etc...

53,8% is a slightly majority, which is emphasised by your quotes as "huge majority" while you have no problem that your sources say Hungarians had less than half of the population however Hungarian population was in 54% in Hungarian land. Of course Hungarian population was much less if we calculate together the full population of Austria-Hungary, but the topic is only Hungary, and Croatia belonged under the crown of Hungary as personal union same as Austria and Hungary was in personal union (but nobody calculate the proportions of Hungarians in full Austria-Hungary regarding this treaty) so Croatia was not Hungarian land, but a partner country. Hungarian diplomats provided to the Entente the Teleki map what was based on real census, we can see this map in the Wiki page because this map is relating to the topic. We can clearly see Hungarians at that time did not consider Croatia as Hungarian land regarding the Treaty.

Treaty of Trianon#/media/File:Ethnographic map of hungary 1910 by teleki carte rouge.jpg

Also Hungarians made a rally, but of course you forget to mention it. Romania joined to Entente because Hungarian lands was promised much earlier than these rallies. Hungarians were not invited to the one-sided "peace" talk. The Entente gave lands to neighboars, not the rallies, that is why the topic is "treaty of Trianon".

Territorial evolution of Romania

You wrote "unanimous vote "the unification of those Romanians and of all the territories inhabited by them with Romania"

The topic already mentioned the national asemmblis with a picture, why do you want to duplicate this? If some Romanians from 2,8 million vote for Romania in a not secrect vote, what is this? A theater. Romania got many full Hungarian populated regions, which cleary proves not these national rallies decided anything. As I mentioned it was already on that page with a picture. Treaty of Trianon#/media/File:AsambleaDeAlbaIulia19181201.jpg OrionNimrod (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Because it shows that Croatia was under the administration of Hungary. Therefore it makes sense to include Croatia in the Hungarian census.

54% in Hungarian land excluding Croatia, who was administred by Hungary. You're not arguing against me here, you're arguing against historian Joseph Held, between your original research and Joseph Held I tend to side with Joseph Held.

Obviously Hungarian diplomats would not want to consider Croatia as part of Hungary after the war ended. Because it was clear they were going to lose some land and wanted Hungary to be as Hungarian as possible (like you right now, with 54% > 48%), but that doesn't change the fact that Croatia was under the administration of Hungary. Historian Joseph Held considered this more relevant so he counted Hungary's population to 48% Hungarians. That you have a different opinion, it's your opinion vs a certified historian.

"Also Hungarians made (...)" half of what you say here is wrong, but the real question is, how is this relevant to the subject at hand? because it doesn't seem relevant at all.

You wrote "unanimous vote" "the unification of those Romanians and of all the territories inhabited by them with Romania", yes, because that was it. Unanimous vote of the National Assembly of Romanians.

I already answered the same question you 4 times, do you think the 5th time is the charm and I'm going to give you a different answer?

"If some Romanians from 2,8 million vote for (...)", do you seriously want me to explain all the history of the region to you? I'm sorry, but you are very ill-informed, I made some concessions in the past and went out of my way to explain you what/how it actually happened despite being off-topic, but at this point you keep bombarding me with new wrong information after new wrong information that's not relevant for the edits in question and I'm not willing to provide for unfounded assertions anymore. You want to make a serious case? provide sources, for example "If some Romanians from 2,8 million vote for Romania in a not secrect vote, what is this? A theater", do you have any source for that? if not, my automatic response is "I don't believe you". TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

And Hungary was administred by Austria, money and military was under Austrian control and nobody calculate the population rate of Hungarians by full Austria-Hungary. This is not my opinion. Already on the page:

"of the entire population of the kingdom, and 54% of the population of the territory referred to as "Hungary proper", i.e. excluding Croatia-Slavonia." "Hungary proper" = original Hungarian land

You argue againts contemporary real events which is on the page, the Teleki map was provided by officially by Hungary to the Entente to show the Hungarian population. Croatia had almost no Hungarian population and was a partner country.

"Unanimous vote" This is already on the Wiki page with a picture below! How many times do you want to post it? Not the "Unanimous vote" of some Romanians decided the Treaty in Paris but the leaders of the Great Power. Definitely not 2,8 million Romanians "voted", also you did not know what do they want one by one each person, because nobody asked them, it was no referendum. Unnecessary to duplicate this one-sided thing. OrionNimrod (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

"And Hungary was administred by Austria, money and military was under Austrian control", this doesn't exclude the fact that Croatia was under the administration of Hungary.

"nobody calculate the population rate of Hungarians by full Austria-Hungary", actually they did. But what is relevant here is that people also calculated the population rate of Hungary by including Croatia.

"Hungary proper = original Hungarian land" still doesn't exclude what was said above.

"You argue againts contemporary real events which is on the page, the Teleki map was provided by officially by Hungary to the Entente to show the Hungarian population. Croatia had almost no Hungarian population and was a partner country" I'm argue in favor of what actual historians say. We already talked about the map, my response is the same as above.

"This is already on the Wiki page with a picture below! How many times do you want to post it?" remember when I said this "I already answered the same question you 4 times, do you think the 5th time is the charm and I'm going to give you a different answer?", yeah, it's still true. I already gave you an answer, that you don't want to accept the answer and keep repeating the same thing that was already answered again and again in not my issue.

"Not the "Unanimous vote" of some Romanians decided the Treaty in Paris but the leaders of the Great Power", why do you keep saying things that I already answered above? Do you think my answer will change? At least, if you want to make a proper reply, address my answer, don't repeat back what you just said. I might as well copy-paste my answers at this point. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The Romanian assembly is already on the page with picture, but I see for you it is not a problem to duplicate it and beside ignore the Hungarian assembly.

Croatia had its own adiminstration and Hungary had its own administration. Croatians and Hungarians did the same compromise like Austrians did with the Hungarians. As you can see in the Wiki page nobody calculate the proportion of Hungarians regarding full Austria-Hungary regarding the Treaty of Trianon, because Hungary had own land, and Croatia had own land. And Hungarian and Croatian land was under the rule of the Hungarian crown, and the Hungarian crown was under the rule of the Austrian emperor.

I see nobody calculated the proportion of Austrians together in the empire, and we can see the listing the regions which lost Austria, these regions was a separate regions which was under the Austrian Crown: Land of the Bohemian Crown, Kingdom of Galicia, etc

Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919)

Kingdom of Hungary = Hungary + Croatia

Croatian–Hungarian Settlement

On the page: "The Settlement confirmed the existing territorial distinction between Croatia-Slavonia, number 17, and the remainder of the Kingdom of Hungary. Dalmatia, number 5, was the other Croatian kingdom within Austria-Hungary."

Croatian–Hungarian Settlement#/media/File:Austria-Hungary map new.svg

Do you deny the existing of Kingdom of Croatia? Do you want talk to Croatian users?

Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia: 1868–1918

Hungarian politicians provided the ethnic map which showed the Hungarians lands only, and Croatia was not considered Hungarian land. Do you want to know this better than the contemporary politicians who lived there and participated in the Treaty? Do you deny these maps what I provided which cleary show that Hungary and Croatia is a separate land?

Treaty of Trianon#/media/File:Ethnographic map of hungary 1910 by teleki carte rouge.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Austria-Hungary_map.svg

• Empire of Austria (Cisleithania): 1. Bohemia, 2. Bukovina, 3. Carinthia, 4. Carniola, 5. Dalmatia, 6. Galicia, 7. Küstenland, 8. Lower Austria, 9. Moravia, 10. Salzburg, 11. Silesia, 12. Styria, 13. Tyrol, 14. Upper Austria, 15. Vorarlberg;
• Kingdom of Hungary (Transleithania): 16. Hungary 17. Croatia-Slavonia;
• Austrian Condominium: 18. Bosnia and Herzegovin

OrionNimrod (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I see you are simply ignoring what I said previously and simply repeat the same things I already gave you an answer from. Unless you are willing to actually address my answer rather than repeat what you previously said, there is nothing I can do. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I see you are who ignore that Croatia was a separate state and you are who ignore the contemporary map and the thinking of contemporary politicans. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

You made a claim. I gave you an answer. You ignored my answer and simply reinforced your claim. So who is ignoring who? You have yet to address any of the reasons I had for objection. And yes, I'm long aware of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, doesn't change anything. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

If you are aware Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, then you should know Hungarian mainland was a different land as the maps shows above, and it is incorrect to calculate the proportion of Hungarians together. And talking about "30 millio Hungarians by a noname people" total irrevelant info. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Plenty of historians did just that, that's how we got the 48% number, and I tend to believe the opinion of a certified historian over your own personal opinion. And, as said above but 100% ignored by you, in Croatia, "the governor (ban) was still appointed by Hungary, 55% percent of all tax money went to Budapest, and Hungary had authority over the biggest sea port of Rijeka" (from Wikipedia). Croatia was under the administration of Hungary. Therefore it makes sense to include Croatia in the Hungarian census. I believe this is the reason why plenty of historians did count Croatia as part of Hungary. It was at the end of the day, still a territory ruled by Hungary.

Also, you are wrong that "I see nobody calculated the proportion of Austrians together in the empire" it's just not relevant for the Treaty of Trianon (since the treaty was made only with Hungary, not with Austria-Hungary) so it wasn't included here. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_and_religious_composition_of_Austria-Hungary see? Somebody calculated the proportion of Austrians together in the empire. 23% German, 19% Hungarian, 12% Czech, 10% Serbo-Croatian, 9% Polish, 7% Ruthenian, 6% Romanian, 3% Slovak, 2% Slovene, 1% Italian, 2% Other.

And the page says, quote:

"In the Austrian Empire (Cisleithania), the census of 1911 recorded Umgangssprache, everyday language. Jews and those using German in offices often stated German as their Umgangssprache, even when having a different Muttersprache. The Istro-Romanians were counted as Romanians.

In the Kingdom of Hungary (Transleithania), the census was based primarily on mother tongue, 48.1% of the total population spoke Hungarian as their native language. Not counting autonomous Croatia-Slavonia, more than 54.4% of the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Hungary were native speakers of Hungarian. This included also the Jews (around 5% of the population), as mostly they were Hungarian-speaking (the Yiddish speakers were recorded as German)."

So, as you can see, the 48% of the total population of Hungary is also mentioned by other sources. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the original authors and people who participated in this Treaty know better than historians who lived later. Also if historians provide population data, it should be correct to mention "together with Croatia" and the "proportion of Hungarians in the Hungarian part". Historians should provide precise numbers.

I see the calculation of this page is correct, Hungary and Croatia are in separate. 54% Hungarian on Hungarian land, which means "saying less than half" is incorrect, 20% also less than half. And the page mention 48% together with Croatia, but your historians did not povide any precise info. Sorry I forget: your "important" source mention "30 millio Hungarians" :) which is nonsense and total irrevelant. Probably this is not the best quote from this historian.

Ethnic and religious composition of Austria-Hungary

On the "Hungarian irredentism" page you are worring about the accurate numbers, you worte "I simply do not find it accurate to use the 1941 census to represent the state of Northern Transylvania in 1940.", I see in this case you have not a problem to calculate 2 countries together to decrease the proportion of Hungarians, however Croatia and Hungary was a separate country, but in personal union, like Hungary was personal union with Austria.

Do you deny the text of the Treaty of Trianon?

The text mention only few times Croatia, and as a separte country, and no more mention. Because the Treaty of Trianon was applied on the Hungarian land and not together Croatia+Hungary.

The text of the Treaty of Trianon said that Croatia and Hungary was a separate country:

"the old administrative boundary between Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia"

"then to its junction with the old boundary between Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia"

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon/Part_II

"and which formerly belonged to the Kingdom of Bohemia, the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Republic of Ragusa, the Venetian Republic,"

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon/Part_IX OrionNimrod (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

"I think the original authors and people who participated in this Treaty know better than historians who lived later" Wikipedia doesn't work like that. The word of modern historians take precedence over the word of contemporaries, because they can put them into the proper context.

Fair point, proper numbers should be listed, perhaps we can put an anecdote saying "48.1% with the Kingdom of Croatia, 54.4% without the Kingdom of Croatia" would that be okay for you?

Given that Croatia was actually an autonomus region of Hungary (as far as Austria-Hungary was concerned, Croatia was in the Hungarian half), I would argue saying "less than half" is correct.

It is not non-sense, it is what Hungarian propagandist aimed for. Just like Nazi Germany wanted a Europe full of Germans, Hungarians wanted a Hungary full of Hungarians (rather than 48.1/54.4% of the population) with a population of 30 million people. I have seen this claim from other sources as well.

In effect, Croatia was an autonomus region of Hungary, rather than in a personal union with Hungary. On paper it was a personal union, but it not behave like a country in a personal union. Rather like a country subordonate to Hungary.

And on the "Hungarian irredentism" page, I kept your 1941 census, despite not making any sense since we already have the Romanian estimations of 1940 (37% Hungarians) and Hungarian estimations of 1940 (38% Hungarians), and the reason it got from 37-38% Hungarians in 1941 to 53% Hungarians in 1941 is simple: 100.000 Hungarians came in from South Transylvania. 100.000 (officially) but 140.000 - 150.000 (unofficially) Romanians were kicked out of North Transylvania + the deportation of Jews meant the percentage would increase + In Máramaros and Szatmár Counties, dozens of settlements had many people who had declared themselves as Romanian but now identified themselves as Hungarian although they had not spoken any Hungarian even in 1910. So your listing of Hungarian numbers in 1941 for the 1940 annexation makes no sense, but I allowed it just to humor you, as long as the relevant numbers are also displayed. So you're welcome.

I don't deny the text of the Treaty of Trianon. But this is a perfect example why "Wikipedia doesn't work like that. The word of modern historians take precedence over the word of contemporaries, because they can put them into the proper context". Croatia already had its own thing by the time of the Treaty of Trianon, that was indepednent of Hungary and not caused by the Hungarians. At the point of the treaty of Trianon, Croatia and Hungary was a separate country, but shortly before that, it wasn't. The reason minorities wanted out of Hungary, is related to the time when it wasn't.

"the old administrative boundary between Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia" ; "then to its junction with the old boundary between Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia" -> In free translation "Hungary won't get to own Croatia anymore" aka "Hungary lost Croatia". So Croatia was already understood as part of Hungary previously. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

If modern historians write something, this does not mean automatically that info is correct. Morover your "important" quote is OLDER THAN 50 YEARS (the book is from 1971 where there is a collection from many authors, so your source probably is more older than 1971), this is CLEARLY NOT A MODERN historian work. Please consider this fact, if you emphasized how works Wikipedia. The authors says " in Hungary was that less than half of the population were ethnically Hungarian" and he did not say together with Croatia or "Kingdom of Hungary" but just Hungary, and Croatia and Hungary was a separate state (but under one crown) as we can see clearly itselft in the original treaty. And the page is about the Treaty of Trianon. Your author says "the rights of the nationalities were violated continuously by the Hungarian government. Their schools were closed and confiscated; their protests were suppressed by the police; their leaders wereary", if Croatia had a separate administration, Croatia has own leaders, and Croatian schools were closed by a different administration? How? How many Croatian schools were closed by Hungarians? Your text cleary do not talk about Croatia, if your text do not talk about Croatia it is incorrect to calculate the population of Hungarians together with the population of Croatia.

"It is not non-sense, it is what Hungarian propagandist aimed for. Just like Nazi Germany wanted a Europe full of Germans, " Total off topic talking about WW2 and Nazis, we can also mention the Romanian living space planes and the reality how Romania romanianized and suppressed their ethnic groups after Romania became super big from a small state, but this is also off topic. Nobody know who is your "Hungarian propagandists", Hungary had around 10 million people and talking about 30 million is total nonsense, morover total irrevelant what a noname people said, what is the bussiness with this with the page of the Treaty of Trianon? Like a spam.

"In effect, Croatia was an autonomus region of Hungary, rather than in a personal union with Hungary. On paper it was a personal union, but it not behave like a country in a personal union." This is your personal opinion. You can consult Croatians, why you deny the existence of their country.

Following your personal opinion, I see you deny those Wiki pages too:

Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia

Croatia in personal union with Hungary

Croatian–Hungarian Settlement

This map from 1880: we can cleary see the separate border between Hungary and Croatia: (By the way, you mentioned you do not accept these contemporary sources, because today, in 2022 you know better this, than the contemporary Croatians and Hungarians, and the makers of the Treaty of Trianon)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Literacy_in_Austria-Hungary_%281880%29.JPG

https://www.mapsandantiqueprints.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Austro-Hungarian-Empire-antique-map.jpg

map 1895:

https://www.amazon.com/MAPS-PAST-Austria-Hungary-McNally/dp/B0728MBJD9?th=1

You wrote an off topic again: "100.000 Hungarians came in from South Transylvania. 100.000 (officially) but 140.000 - 150.000 (unofficially) Romanians were kicked out of North Transylvania + the deportation of Jews meant the percentage would increase" If Romanians were "kicked out" by your standard, the Hungarians also were "kicked out" who came from south Transylvania which was under Romanian control. Also you can mention that 200 000 Hungarians fled to Hungary after the Treaty of Trianon from the Romanians.

(Off topic again) Jews was deported only after 1944 when the Germans took control on Hungary and not in 1940:

History of the Jews in Hungary

While Romania already massacred Jews in 1941 whitout German help:

Iași pogrom OrionNimrod (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

"If modern historians write something, this does not mean automatically that info is correct", true, but given how Wikipedia works. If historians write something, it can be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Our function is editors, not researchers to tell what is right and wrong.

"The authors says in Hungary was that less than half of the population were ethnically Hungarian and he did not say together with Croatia or Kingdom of Hungary but just Hungary", which is technically correct given that Croatia was de facto an autonomus region of Hungary.

"Croatia had a separate administration, Croatia has own leaders, and Croatian schools were closed by a different administration? How? How many Croatian schools were closed by Hungarians?" Croatia was an autonomus region within Hungary.

"Total off topic talking about WW2 and Nazis" it's called comparison.

"Hungary had around 10 million people and talking about 30 million is total nonsense, morover total irrevelant what a noname people said, what is the bussiness with this with the page of the Treaty of Trianon? Like a spam" 1. This is wrong. 2. I already answered that before. I've done this before but I won't repeat myself anymore just because you can't read. From now on, if you repeat a question I've already answered, I'll simply tell you that I already answered that before. It's much more efficient than having you spam the same question again and again and again expecting a different answer.

"This is your personal opinion. You can consult Croatians, why you deny the existence of their country." My god, do you not see the double standards? All your "arguments" were personal opinion, all of them, and the vast majority of your personal opinion is wrong. But when I make a case that Croatians were de facto an autonomus part of Hungary because "the governor (ban) was still appointed by Hungary, 55% percent of all tax money went to Budapest, and Hungary had authority over the biggest sea port of Rijeka", you're all like, "this is your personal opinion. The double standards are off the roof.

It's not about consulting Croatians, it's about consulting historians. For that, look at the quote above with the governor (ban).

The very problem with your claim that a certified historian is wrong, is that this is your personal opinion. The reason we have this discussion in the first place is because of your personal opinion.

I don't deny the existence of their country but nice fallacy.

"This map from 1880: we can cleary see the separate border between Hungary and Croatia" nice fallcy, that doesn't prove anything.

"you mentioned you do not accept these contemporary sources" I didn't, nice fallacy again.

"You wrote an off topic again" how is that off-topic?

"(Off topic again) Jews was deported only after 1944 when the Germans took control on Hungary and not in 1940" false. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I see in other page you know very well which numbers can be correct if this info is pro-Romanian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_irredentism&diff=next&oldid=1094422779

Your quoted historian is clearly not a modern historian, more than 50 years old source.

"Croatia was de facto an autonomus region of Hungary" Again you deny the facts. They were in personal union. And no Croatian schools were closen by Hungary and no Croatian politicians were suppressed by Hungarian police, because Croatia has own police. So your author cleary do not talk about the Croatian part of the Kingdom. It means calculating the population together is total incorrect.

You can consult the authors of these pages, tell them you know it better and request the delete of these pages:

Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia

Croatia in personal union with Hungary

Croatian–Hungarian Settlement

This is not my problem if you deny the contemporary old maps, which clearly show Croatia and Hungary had border as a separate country.

I see for you is ok to put to the page with 50+ years non modern sources with off topic.

I do not know from where do you get the tax info. Hungary had Fiume (Rijeka), it was part of Hungary not part of Croatia. The Treaty text itself deal with this city, because this city was part of Hungary not part of Croatia, and it had significant Hungarian population. By order of Empress Maria Theresa in 1779, the city was annexed to the Kingdom of Hungary and governed as corpus separatum directly from Budapest by an appointed governor, as Hungary's only international port. You know 1 city is not full Croatia.

Rijeka OrionNimrod (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not my fault you don't understand that the word of modern historians take precedence over the word of contemporaries, because they can put them into the proper context.

We already had this conversation, not going to give you the same answer for the 7th time.

I get the tax info from Wikipedia, even gave you the link for it. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Good to know that 50+ years quote is "modern" for you... "proper text" he calculates together Hungary+Croatia, then he talked about only Hungary, this is incorrect. I do not know the other works of that historian, but you choose not the best quotes from him. You did not provide me any tax info, no tax info even in your quote, this is also off topic. Your strategy to spam the conversation with off topics and deny the contemporary reality. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Yes, he does. No, that is correct. That is your personal opinion. Yes I did provide, more than once, this only confirms the fact that you often plainly ignored what I said and simply repeated yourself. My strategy was to be nice to you and explain it to you despite your apparent lack of knowledge, but your strategy was to not even listen and ask the same question/make the same statements continously despite already receiving an answer on them. You won't even discuss the answer, you just repeat yourself. You're the last person who should be talking about off-topic. Your wrong personal opinion is not reality. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I provided facts, links, maps, other Wiki pages, while you are who ignore them, and just forcing personal opinions. Croatia and Hungary was in personal union, this is fact, this is not my personal opinion, this is the knowledge of Croatians and Hungarians as you can see this fact on other Wiki pages, but even if you say it was "autonomous region", it means Croatia has own parliament, own police, the Hungarian police has no authority there, while your "modern" quote says "Hungarian police harrased the ethnic politicians", but this is impossibe in Croatia in the "autonomous region" (by your standard), so this statement is not true, despite your quote calculates the population together Hungary+Croatia. That is why this calculation is incorrect and not at all modern work (50+years), but you ignore this fact also. OrionNimrod (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

No, you did not, you provided links to Wikipedia pages that don't even agree with you. That's as vague and misleading as you can get. Talking about forcing personal opinions, you should look in the mirror. I did not ignore any of your facts, I simply disagree. Either because I find them wrong or irrelevant. "Hungarian police harrased the ethnic politicians" meaning Slovaks, Romanians, Serbs. He didn't say "Croatians" so your statement that "this is impossibe in Croatia" is outright misleading and made in bad faith. That was the reason why this calculation is incorrect? misleading and bad faith argument made by you? That can be easily dismissed. As I told you since day 1, the word of modern historians take precedence over the word of contemporaries and your personal opinion. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Your historian is not MODERN. Your historian calculate the Hungarians+Croatians together. Then he write stories about the ethnics in Hungary, and in these stories Croatia and Croatians is not involved due to the different administration, so it is incorrect to calculate together relating these stories. And still there were many thousand ethnic school in Hungary, your quote pretent that all was closed. Wiki pages clearly writes the personal union, so these pages agree with me. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

1971 is considered modern. And you can't blame it on "Romanian communism" since Joseph Held wasn't Romanian nor was he living in communist Romania. Yes, he did the Hungarians+Croatians together, and the reasons for this are explained above. That you would have prefered Joseph Held not doing that is personal opinion. If you wouldn't haven't ignored the part where I explained it to you, you would have realised the administrations of Hungary and Croatia weren't entirely different. The Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was subordonated to the Kingdom of Hungary, not merely a personal union but administrated by Hungary with a degree of personal autonomy, so his statement is not incorrect since Croatia was de facto part of Hungary.

"Wiki pages clearly writes the personal union, so these pages agree with me", what? I never said it wasn't a personal union, I said it was a personal union and more than that. It's that part with and more than that (which I explained how that more than that worked in practice with a quote from Wikipedia that you ignored) that makes his writing accurate. As for the schools, remember the 3 quotes you failed to provide a direct response on from the Magyarization Wikipedia page? Here I'll refresh your memory: "The Hungarian secondary school is like a huge machine, at one end of which the Slovak youths are thrown in by the hundreds, and at the other end of which they come out as Magyars", "In practice, the majority of students in commune-funded schools who were native speakers of minority languages were instructed exclusively in Hungarian", "Beginning with the 1879 Primary Education Act and the 1883 Secondary Education Act, the Hungarian state made more efforts to reduce the use of non-Magyar languages, in strong violation of the 1868 Nationalities Law". Until you stop repating yourself and start addressing what are the actual issues with your assertions, there's no way this conversation can go forward. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

1971 is not modern, 50+ years how can be modern??? Do you know which cars and computers were that time? Are they modern for you? So do you say the Hungarian police harrased Croatian politicians and Croatian people in Croatia? And Hungary closed Croatian schools in Croatia? In a different administered region? These things are not true. That is why it is incorrect to calculate the populations together if the next part of the text not the events which was in Croatia. "The Hungarian secondary school is like a huge machine, at one end of which the Slovak youths are thrown in by the hundreds, and at the other end of which they come out as Magyars" This is typical propaganda, if you quote from other wiki page, it does not mean that page is correct. If a Slovak people has a Slovak mother language, speak Slovak at home, speak Slovak in the basic school, then how can be Magyar if he do not want be Magyar? If a Hungarian young people go to an English secondary school where the teaching is English, then he will be English man? I do not think so. We are talking English, so we became English? Nonsense. Your text pretended that all ethnic school were closed, but this is not true, it was thousand of ethnic schools. Even in Hungary it was more Romanian school than in Romania itself, we can mention this info also to be fair. And also the ethnic situation in Romania was much worst at that time than in Hungary. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not how modern works. No, I don't say that. But I do say that the point you are trying to make is completely off the grid. Whether or not Hungarian police harrased Croatian politicians and Croatian people in Croatia is irrelevant, whether that happened or not it doesn't contradict what I said above, so your point si simply off-topic and irrelevant. It is a quote from the adviser of the Hungarian prime minister between 1875 - 1890. Ok, so you doubt the vaidity of that quote as well now. And proper reasons why? Slovak mother language and Slovak at home is not something Hungarians could control (but they would have if they could), the Slovak in the basic school is incorrect if you look at the 2nd quote (you didn't address at all the 2nd and 3rd quotes). TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

What the quote you disagree with because "incorrect information" and the Wikipedia Magyarization page both are saying is that minorities made schools for themselves in their own langauges (so they did exist) but the Hungarian government tried to stop them, either by making learning in Hungarian mandatory in all of these schools (breaking the whole point of a minoritiy school) or by simply closing these schools, violating the Nationalities Law of 1868 (so they did have laws, but didn't respect them). At this point, we have a quote that you disagree with because "incorrect information" that is confirmed by 2 other Wikipedia pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarization and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_and_religious_composition_of_Austria-Hungary. So the issue is not that this is "incorrect information", the issue is that you have a personal opinion that is simply wrong. And please, don't try to strawman me again with things like "So do you say the Hungarian police harrased Croatian politicians and Croatian people in Croatia?", at this point, I offered you multiple sources for the same thing, while you offered no sources, all you have is personal opinion, OR, so I'm not even obligated to answer you anymore, but I'm still doing it because I want to help you understand it. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

You can try to force this, but 1971 is not modern (but you say it is modern history work). Soon it will be 2023, then 2024... Magyarization in this page is almost nothing about Croatia, and your source say "Hungarian police harrased ethnic politicians, their shcools were closed"... your text do not talk about Croatia, of course not because it was under different administration. And if you text do not talk about Croatia, it is incorrect to calculate the Croatian population together with other ethnics in the previous sentence to pretend that Crotians got the same "treatment" (which was much better than in Romania, and other countries at that time), however it is not true. I already showed many sources here above, please do not deny it! Scroll up. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

You can try to force this, but 1971 is modern. I literally quoted you which part about the Magyarization page and Ethnic and Religious Compositions of Austria-Hungary are relevant. This is correct to calculate the Croatian population for the reasons mentioned above. There is nothing to deny, you showed many sources..... that contradict you. You brought attention on the Magyarization page, only to find out that it actually contradicts you after reading it. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

References