Better deal for Hungary

So after Trianon, Hungary was torn apart of its non-Hungarian lands.

What I want is to give a better deal for Hungary. So slighlty changed borders. Anything that can be seen as a victory.

Like Turkey got a better deal with Lausanne instead of going through Sevres.
 
The most I can see Hungary getting away with is Slovakia. The Serbs would want Vovjlidina (the war was obstensibly over Serbia, after all) and Romania would demand Transylvania for the hard knocks it took. There would still be revanchist sentiment in Hungary, but maybe a later acquisition of Northern Transylvania would be enough to keep Hungary out of the Second World War.
 
The most I can see Hungary getting away with is Slovakia. The Serbs would want Vovjlidina (the war was obstensibly over Serbia, after all) and Romania would demand Transylvania for the hard knocks it took. There would still be revanchist sentiment in Hungary, but maybe a later acquisition of Northern Transylvania would be enough to keep Hungary out of the Second World War.

I'm not sure about giving all of Slovakia but the Hungarian majority part is definitely is an option.
 
The most I can see Hungary getting away with is Slovakia. The Serbs would want Vovjlidina (the war was obstensibly over Serbia, after all) and Romania would demand Transylvania for the hard knocks it took. There would still be revanchist sentiment in Hungary, but maybe a later acquisition of Northern Transylvania would be enough to keep Hungary out of the Second World War.
If everything else goes as OTL I can’t even see Slovakia staying even if Budapest by late 1918 started to promise autonomy. But with slight changes I can see Slovak Hungarian borders to be more in favor of Hungarians - they keep areas with clear Hungarian majority.

Other area may be Ruthenia. Czechoslovakia wasn’t really so interested in it even if eventually it become important for strategic reasons - connection to allied Romania.

I am curious how would be Hungarian- Czechoslovak relation like if Slovak Hungarian borders would be something close to OTL after 1st Vienna award - but not exactly same as many Slovak areas were included.
 
So after Trianon, Hungary was torn apart of its non-Hungarian lands.

What I want is to give a better deal for Hungary. So slighlty changed borders. Anything that can be seen as a victory.

Like Turkey got a better deal with Lausanne instead of going through Sevres.

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.

An earlier end to the war with Hungary still splitting away may ultimately be your best bet.
 
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.

An earlier end to the war with Hungary still splitting away may ultimately be your best bet.
Romanian and Serbian ambitions don't matter all that much given their other gains.
 
Romanian and Serbian ambitions don't matter all that much given their other gains.

Given how close those claims came to being realized, it matters a great deal. That they were relatively minor in comparison to the other territorial concessions, at least to them not to Hungary, is beside the point.
 
Given how close those claims came to being realized, it matters a great deal. That they were relatively minor in comparison to the other territorial concessions, at least to them not to Hungary, is beside the point.
But it's not like Serbia or Romania are in any position to make demands of the Entente.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.)

Lots to unpack here.

Hungary being slightly larger with arms and strips of territory added to put all continuous Magyar-speaking areas into one state is not on the face of it particularly unreasonable. The problem is that those borders are a nightmare, especially if the Entente is committed to having a viable Slovak polity with borders that can be defended. The same is true for Hungary under these circumstances. War would likely result, especially given the imprecision in population measurement and ethnography in the Transleithanian portion of Austria-Hungary. You can give Hungary borders that are better than those of OTL in including Magyar populations, but they won't be good borders in the sense of being well-defended or particularly beneficial to the central government.

The treaties ending the First World War were pretty uniformly awful, but no POD that brings the U.S. into the war is going to have a better outcome for the defeated nations.

AS for the EU< its successes and failures share many of the same roots.
 
Lots to unpack here.

Hungary being slightly larger with arms and strips of territory added to put all continuous Magyar-speaking areas into one state is not on the face of it particularly unreasonable. The problem is that those borders are a nightmare, especially if the Entente is committed to having a viable Slovak polity with borders that can be defended. The same is true for Hungary under these circumstances. War would likely result, especially given the imprecision in population measurement and ethnography in the Transleithanian portion of Austria-Hungary. You can give Hungary borders that are better than those of OTL in including Magyar populations, but they won't be good borders in the sense of being well-defended or particularly beneficial to the central government.

The treaties ending the First World War were pretty uniformly awful, but no POD that brings the U.S. into the war is going to have a better outcome for the defeated nations.

AS for the EU< its successes and failures share many of the same roots.

OK I am happy with your response as it emphasizes analysis rather than some sort of biased motive. So thank you for your response. :)

I largely agree with your analysis.
 
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.

I am lucky to have been to Romania (Transylvania included) and Hungary, and Slovakia, and Czechia, and etc etc. The region is not exactly ruined. In fact, it's a lovely and reasonably functional region. It's flawed, then again, which part of the world isn't?.
(It's also nowhere near homogenous.)

Was the Treaty of Trianon unfair in certain ways? Maybe, but it's not like the state of affairs before Trianon was any less unfair.

And it's not like the so-called "multiethnic" states have a clean record either. Austria-Hungary was just as guilty of all the evils you ascribe to the "nationalistic frenzy" of nation-states, and more. What, exactly, is the meaningful difference between nationalism and nominally "multiethnic" imperialism and opression (as practiced by Austria-Hungary)? To the untrained eye, they looked very much alike. The latter also has a massive body count and a history of great repression.

Perhaps ethnic nationalism is becoming totally obsolete and the EU really is the future. Whatever, I couldn't say. But the end of the Habsburg regime and the establishment of free nation-states in central Europe was definitely a positive step. A milestone on the correct path, if not necessarily the end of that path.
 
he region is not exactly ruined.

Sorry, ruined was too harsh. But the disintegration of Austria-Hungary, ruining the industrial layout and forced subsidizing of industries once relied upon in other territories (now in rival nations), terminating the comparative advantage once enjoyed and thus setting the whole region further behind economically. That is what I was specifically referring to.
 
And it's not like the so-called "multiethnic" states have a clean record either. Austria-Hungary was just as guilty of all the evils you ascribe to the "nationalistic frenzy" of nation-states, and more. What, exactly, is the meaningful difference between nationalism and nominally "multiethnic" imperialism and opression (as practiced by Austria-Hungary)? To the untrained eye, they looked very much alike. The latter also has a massive body count and a history of great repression.

Agreed with the multiethnic imperialism part.

"Nationalistic frenzy" is one of the great evils, alongside Marxist/Communist frenzy, Imperial frenzy, and many others. I am not opposed to nationalism, in fact I am a great supporter of a positive and cooperative nationalism. I do not promote a borderless world for example.

The former also has a massive body count, also in a very short period of time mind you. I am merely arguing that Trianon reflected (alongside with the other treaties in WW1) that reckless and vengeful treaties absolutely do not work out in the end. I am not excusing Hapsburg oppression, mind you.
 
But the end of the Habsburg regime and the establishment of free nation-states in central Europe was definitely a positive step.

Sure, in the end, but it could have been done a lot better than it was done. Also, Russia needed to industrialize but I don't think that excuses what Stalin did.

Crazy, chaotic, and especially vengeful change is not the way to prosperity.

Also, not sayin this was the only reason for WW2, but the splitting up of Austria-Hungary was the way Hitler was able to take over Czechoslovakia and we all know how that turned out.

And not to be a Hapsburg apologist (and indeed they exist) but the Austro-Hungarian empire (discussing 1860's and beyond) was a force of great cultural and scientific achievement. Liberal reforms were being passed, and modernization was occurring. Czarist Russia was much more oppressive, and far more deserving removal than the Hapsburgs by that time, but I personally would have also wished that the Bolsheviks never came to power.

I might have some biases with my more conservative viewpoint, so if there are cracks in what I am saying, I am fully willing to listen and understand the other viewpoint.
 
Last edited:
(It's also nowhere near homogenous.)

What exactly are you responding to here? I never said that the Hapsburg realm was homogenous.

I think you may be misunderstanding my point about forcing homogenous demographics in your realm when you are in a region with diverse demographics all across. Many minorities everywhere. Groups living in varied counties, even towns.
 
Last edited:
What exactly are you responding to here? I never said that the Hapsburg realm was homogenous.

In a post above, you talked about "hyper homogenous nationalistic frenzy" ruining the region. I find that word strange, since
1. Ethnic nationalism (usually) did not take its most extreme form and attempt some kind of hyper homogenization.
2. The results of a century of nation-state rule in central Europe are actually still fairly heterogenous.

Crazy, chaotic, and especially vengeful change is not the way to prosperity.

Agreed, revolutions and radical breaks have many pitfalls and downsides; however, there isn't always a credible alternative.
Also, not sayin this was the only reason for WW2, but the splitting up of Austria-Hungary was the way Hitler was able to take over Czechoslovakia and we all know how that turned out.

That's a very distant leap. Many events and factors between the creation of Czechoslovakia and 1938 could have resulted in a totally different sequence of events.
And not to be a Hapsburg apologist (and indeed they exist) but the Austro-Hungarian empire (discussing 1860's and beyond) was a force of great cultural and scientific achievement. Liberal reforms were being passed, and modernization was occurring. Czarist Russia was much more oppressive, and far more deserving removal than the Hapsburgs by that time, but I personally would have also wished that the Bolsheviks never came to power.

I would say that liberal reforms were being passed at a snail's pace, and sometimes even rolled back. True with regards to modernization - but then again, Czarist Russia was also rapidly modernizing by several metrics. Many ugly things can hide behind the word "modernization". I would personally not call A-H a force of particular cultural achievement (a concept that's very hard to quantify) or scientific achievement.

But I can agree with most other points; so it seems we have a disagreement of nuance, rather than a fundamental disagreement.
 
Top