@harrisonlee9585
"Everyone died" Clinically accurate.
@kevincronk7981
So basically the French wanted to be friends with everyone but Hungary
@zoltanperei4789
The Allies after WW1: Give 2/3 of Hungary's land to the enemy The Allies after WW2: "Why did Hungary chose the Axis?"
@edwinhuang9244
"World War I was a war of losers. Even the winners lost." That feels like a understatement. Edit: I'm American.
@noahs8931
After every episode I feel like playing EU4 or Total War
@taherbertolinirodrigues9104
Imagine giving territory from Hungary to Austria and going “Yes, we sure showed the responsible guys not to do bad things”
@kopeinokai5370
As part of the AustroHungarin Empire, Hungary's Dual Monarchy role was administrative with no standing to negotiate at the international level, which was retained in Vienna . Austria disolved their half of the monarchy and in the face of secessionist movements backed by the victors failed to represent for the territories administered by Hungary at the Treaty negotiations but insisted on retaining title to the Hungarian crown after the country was cut up. .
@TheTrydy
Hungary, the only country surrounded by its own previous border
@AFGuidesHD
NOO YOU CAN'T JUST VIOLATE THE TOTALLY LEGAL TREATY OF WE'RE NOT ASKING
@grims2947
“Treaty of we’re not asking” I can’t 🤣
@-RunninNGunnin-
> Be Hungarian > Wake up in the morning and go to Youtube > Type "Transylvania belongs to Hungary" in many Romania related videos > Go to work
@BCrane-ej4iq
History Matters: "Why did th--" All of Europe: "The French were involved."
@antlbvc5445
big joke is that even austria got territory out of the peace in a war that they started and lost.
@acutalgrove
Regent Horthy: “We live in a society.”
@csbanki
"I hope you enjoyed this video..." As a Hungarian... yes, I enjoyed it a lot... Still short and informative video, nicely done!
@peffiSC2source
The time period immediately after WWI is so underrated. There was so much stuff going on, that is often glossed over in schools.
@KonigGustavAdolph
That time the Magyars tried to pull a Turkey, but couldn't.
@mrDjuroman
As a Croat, it's important to make the distinction between lands controlled by Hungary, and lands actually inhabited by Hungarians. The vast majority of our part was never particularly populated by Hungarians, though we shared a king for about 800 years
@stelubadea1661
For those who would like to know more about the etno-national context of Hungary before 1920, in which Trianon happened, down here are some quotes from Oszkar Jászi (1875-1957), The Dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy (The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 1929 [1964]). Jászi was a Hungarian social scientist, historian, and politician, active promoter and supporter of the social, political and national reform in Hungary, before WW1. In the October Revolution of 1918, he joined the Károlyi government as Minister of Nationalities. His plan was "to induce the leaders of the various peoples, mainly the Romanians, Slovaks, and Ruthenians, to keep their people within the borders of Hungary by offering them maximum autonomy," but the attempt failed. Oszkar Jászi was a friend of the great Magyar poet Endre Ady, and one of the few Hungarian politicians that was respected among the elites of minorities living in Austria-Hungary, especially among the Romanians. <<Since the compromise of 1867 there had been no Habsburg administration in Hungary. The whole bureaucracy, both that of state and of the local administration, stood exclusively in the service of the so-called Hungarian state idea, as this idea was interpreted by the leading class in the state, by the great landed interest and the financial powers attached to it. This state idea had (...) two fundamental dogmas. The one was that it did not recognize a connection with the Austrian half of the monarchy other that based on ad hoc contracts, and it denounced as treason to the country any effort which tried to build up a common state organization above the two halves of the monarchy. The other was a rigid clinging to the Magyar national character of the state, repudiating as high treason all endeavors which aimed at the bringing into a confederational relation the non-Magyar nations of Hungary with the Magyar nation and the nations of Austria. Instead of such a policy, the Magyarization and assimilation of the non-Magyar nations of Hungary remained the fundamental effort of the Magyar policy of an almost sacramental character which was hidden from foreign public opinion but which was followed constantly with the most passionate perseverance. The Hungarian bureaucracy, all the leading positions of which were occupied by Magyar higher and middle nobility, the so-called gentry, and by some entirely assimilated elements of the other nationalities, became the chief supporter of this state idea.>> (pages 168-169) <<The leading circles [of Austria-Hungary] neglected terribly all the national problems of the monarchy; they misunderstood them completely, treated them in a narrow and frivolous way. It would not be too much to assert that the national question appeared with the force of mass psychosis, the real nature of which was rarely understood, either by its leaders or by its antagonists. The struggle was carried on often for slogans and sentimental symbols which belonged more to the sphere of a religious creed than to the normal party and class struggle. (...) The reigning nations regarded only themselves as true nations, whereas those under their rule were only second-rate nations. The so-called "state-sustaining nations" [Germans and Magyars] were so imbued by the consciousness of their leading role that they felt the national awakening of their former bondsmen masses as almost a social impossibility. (...) Generally speaking, the reigning classes were entirely incapable of a sympathetic understanding with the national aspirations of the oppressed people. Whereas the national minorities lived in an almost ghetto-like seclusion, isolated in language, in customs, and very often in religion from the ruling society.>> (page 216) <<In the pre-war [WW I] Hungarian parliament (…) there were only 8 Rumanians and Slovaks, out of a total membership of 413, in a country in which only 54 percent of the inhabitants spoke Magyar as their mother-tongue. We can omit in this respect the Saxon deputies of Transylvania because they belonged always to the inventory stock of the government.) But even these few representatives of the nationalities did not have a fair opportunity to express the aspirations of their peoples. It was a custom in the Hungarian parliament to shout down these men whenever they dared to denounce their national offenses. They were simply treated as traitors to the country. In this manner there was no opportunity for the nationalities to express their grievances; not even in the press, because the crime called “instigation to national hatred” gave sufficient opportunity to the juries, recruited exclusively from the Magyar speaking population, to send to prison the writers of the nationalities who attacked the policy of Magyarization.>> (pp. 334-335) <<The Magyars (...) who struggled for centuries against the Austrian policy of assimilation, when they "got into the saddle" had no scruples against the application of the same methods not only toward the nationalities of the country which they regarded as inferior but also against the Croats, the national distinctness of whom was at least theoretically acknowledged.>> (page 293) <<In 1787, only 29 percent of the population was of Magyar stock, and even in 1842, according to the calculation of a very conservative author, of a total population of about 13 million, less than 5 million (4,812.000) were Magyars. They were opposed by 1,600,000 Slovaks, 1,270,000 Germans, 2,200,000 Rumanians, 900,000 Croats, 1,200,000 Serbs, 440,000 Ruthenians, 240,000 Jews, and several other small minorities. Under such circumstances it is difficult to understand how the leaders of the Magyars and among them many eminent scholars and statesmen, equipped with the best culture of the epoch, could imagine that against the will of all these nationalities, forming the vast majority of the country, they would be capable of accomplishing the miracle of rebuilding and reorganizing their state as a unified Magyar nation-state.>> (page 305) <<[From the 1880s] it became a political axiom that either the Magyars would assimilate the nationalities or the nationalities would destroy the Hungarian state; that only united nation states have a future whereas the polyglot Austria is a disgusting example of a nationality state; that all those who refuse to learn the Magyar language are traitors and conspirators; that the establishment of a nation state of "thirty million Magyars" (...) is a possibility of the near future if we would only discard the naive and sentimental law of old Deák and Eötvös [the Nationalities Law of 1868]; that there is only one possible culture in the country, the Magyar one, whereas all the endeavors for fostering the cultures of the other nationalities were only the work of certain intellectuals wishing to fish in troubled waters; that the nationalities abuse ignominiously the unheard of magnanimity of the Magyars, who gave them a home in spite of their right of conquest when they try to establish their own culture and autonomy in Hungary. This new doctrine accompanied by a more and more intolerant school policy and a demagogically vociferous daily press had become, since the nineties of the last [XIX] century, the ruling theorem of the Magyar public life, accepted by all the parties and politicians (...) asserting that the wicked nationalities were the chief abettors of Vienna in the breaking down of the struggle for independence of 1849, and that only a completely Magyarized Hungary would be capable of carrying on the decisive fight against Austria.>> (page 320) <<After the Dualistic Compromise [of 1868], a comparatively strong economic uprising took place and the natural assimilation of the non-Magyars masses proceeded very rapidly in the economically more advanced regions of the country; the cities and the towns, formerly with a preponderant German and Jewish element, adopted the Magyar language and culture with a spontaneous eagerness; Magyar officials, judges, industrialists, and educators became the leading elements in all the parts of the country. (...) the Magyar cultural institutions enjoyed exclusively the protection of the state whereas those of the nationalities were intentionally repressed; the whole administration of the country was entirely dominated by the Magyar ruling class or elements thoroughly assimilated by them; the leading banks of the country, mostly in Jewish hands, were obedient instruments of the government in every effort of Magyarization; (...) the whole system of education became more and more an instrument of Magyarization and the great majority of the middle nationality classes wrote and spoke the Magyar language perfectly; the Magyar daily press, the unique beneficiary of financial and state subventions, gained an almost inconceivable ascendancy and under an scrupulous capitalistic management did not care much for the principles but regarded nationalistic demagogy as the best business enterprise; the so-called Magyar cultural associations grew like mushrooms and their haughty nationalistic declamations filled the air with an atmosphere of chauvinistic megalomania.>> (pages 321 - 322)
@Pucukax