The problem is/was that the only good borders for Hungary require absorbing large non-Magyar populations.
Sorry but this is silly. So majority Hungarian towns bordering Hungary can be part of Slovakia for it's part of Moravia but Hungary getting those lands means that 5-10% of it is Slovak (Southern Slovakia) thus it is absorbing too many non-Hungarians? This makes absolutely no sense.
The Treaty of Trianon was a complete screw over of Hungary. Mountainous territory, or Southern Slovakia, which was majority Magyar was taken away for security purposes IIRC (so that Hungary could not easily attempt controlling those lands again). Basically mobilization and defense mechanisms.
I agree with you that Hungarian nationalists who think having the whole territory of the Crown of St. Stephen becoming part of Hungary is
absolutely ridiculous. That would not only be impractical for the majority of the country would be non-Hungarian, but the state would probably evolve into an oppressive one ethnic group ruling over the others system. Which would be god awful. But don't try to justify the Treaty of Trianon, or in general the callousness of so many European leaders at the time. They thought they could just get away with screwing with the ones who lost. You know what happened because of that? WW2. This stupidity, foolishness and malice is what caused much of the counter culture movement in the 20th century. Because with such massive blunders and catastrophes under the traditional order, the youth especially lost faith in tradition.
There's a reason the EU makes sense. Europe's borders throughout are too ethnically divided and shared so the idea of a union of the different overlapping groups with a similar culture for the benefit of all makes sense. Because squabbling over borders which don't belong to one group (who which territory belongs to is the most frustrating argument ever. If it's sentimental to you both then maybe both of you have a strong claim and you ought to live with each other and cherish the land you hold so dear instead of turning it into a zone of conflict and ruining the precious Earth.)
Hungary was lucky to get away with what it got; Romania was initially promised a border to the Tizsa River, but the Allies refused to continue recognizing that claim when the Romanians were matching on Budapest in (1920?). The Serbians were dissuaded with much difficulty from taking more of Southern Hungary.
Sorry if I misread you but I'm a tiny bit troubled by this statement. How was Hungary "lucky"? The fact that overzealous Romanian and Serbian nationalists were not allowed to take more territory that was Hungarian majority is like saying you should be lucky that you only got your car stolen because the burglar tried to steal your bike but the mailman dissuaded him from taking the bike. Those borders that were are not the fair and proper borders but
ridiculous zealous hyper-nationalism that ruined Europe.
This same border argument could be the same explanation for German occupation of Poland. The German army had the capability to take over Poland, and certainly wanted it, so should Poland have been grateful if the Third Reich gave them a small patch of land as an independent place? This type of reasoning justifies some really messed up and evil incidents in history.
My general viewpoint was that the territory of the Hapsburg realms was ethnically diverse and very much shared, and thus the groups had to live with each other. Hyper homogenous nationalistic frenzy
ruined the region. Of course this would have been sadly ASB at the time but the best solution would have been an integrated multi-ethnic confederacy in which all groups are respected and live in peace and harmony.
Brussel's bureaucracy is not doing a good job and I am very critical of the way the EU is functioning, but the idea of an integrated Europe is a dream I hold so dear, and Versailles, Saint Germain-en-Laye and Trianon are all proofs of why.
If I was super harsh, I am very sorry. But this is not the first time I have heard justifications for land control based upon hyper-nationalistic claims, and so at this point I might be even over sensitive to such claims, if made. You both may not be making that claim and I am sorry if it sounded like I painted you both as bad or foolish, which I utterly do not mean to. But please understand that reason (I hear from every group about their border cravings. The worst is when they mock one ethnic dispute but then get in all of a tizzy about their own. Hypocrisy at its finest level.) for my long and passionate response.
P.S. I do not support any irredentist/expansionist/revisionist narrative, no matter the group. And I understand that there was horrible treatment of non Hungarians in the Kingdom of Hungary in Austria-Hungary. I also think that Hungary losing some of it's lands made total sense. It ruling Zagreb was not fair on a national claim basis for example (amongst others). If the Central Powers won and Hungary took advantage of Romania and Serbia I would have the same reaction.