More lenient Treaty of Trianon?

There are plenty of threads about Versailles treaty on this board, but not many (as far as I have seen) about Hungary's treatment after WW1.

One of the principles of deciding treaties was the principle of self determination. I recently read that millions of Hungarians and as many as a third of Hungarian speakers found themselves outside the newly established Hungary.

Another interesting fact is the allies rejected plebiscites and assigned areas as a whole to neighboring countries. Which is how Romania ended up with all of Transylvania despite clear Hungarian majorities in certain areas.

Similar to how Germany sought to expand and include other German majority areas within the Reich, Hungarian politics also were geared towards similar goals.

So why did Hungary get so badly screwed by Treaty of Trianon?
 
There are plenty of threads about Versailles treaty on this board, but not many (as far as I have seen) about Hungary's treatment after WW1.

One of the principles of deciding treaties was the principle of self determination. I recently read that millions of Hungarians and as many as a third of Hungarian speakers found themselves outside the newly established Hungary.

Another interesting fact is the allies rejected plebiscites and assigned areas as a whole to neighboring countries. Which is how Romania ended up with all of Transylvania despite clear Hungarian majorities in certain areas.

Similar to how Germany sought to expand and include other German majority areas within the Reich, Hungarian politics also were geared towards similar goals.

So why did Hungary get so badly screwed by Treaty of Trianon?
To the victors go the spoils. Hungary was on the wrong side of WWI. Romania and Serbia were on the right side. (Right and wrong being determined by who won) You can argue Hungary was part of the A-H Empire and didn't have a choice, but from the Entente's POV that doesnt matter. The principle you state about self-determination only applies to those who won the war and was hardly ever used as a way for areas to rejoin one of the principle nations of the Central Powers (Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey)
 

Deleted member 94680

To the victors go the spoils. Hungary was on the wrong side of WWI. Romania and Serbia were on the right side. (Right and wrong being determined by who won) You can argue Hungary was part of the A-H Empire and didn't have a choice, but from the Entente's POV that doesnt matter. The principle you state about self-determination only applies to those who won the war and was hardly ever used as a way for areas to rejoin one of the principle nations of the Central Powers (Germany, Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey)

This.

Also the Hungarian areas you mention in Romania were impossible to make into a viable nation (or link to Hungary proper) without weakening Romania. When it came down to it, the self-determination of losing nations was less important than the self-determination of the victors.
 
Well I can imagine Hungarians got in Slovakia similar borders to 1938 - but not same - to many Slovaks ended up in Hungary. This would be interesting as which much smaller Hungarian minority in Slovakia but also Ruthenia. Position of Slovaks in Czechoslovakia could be actually stronger. Economically it would somehow weaken Slovakia as one of major railways would be lost. However I thing Bratislava/ Pressburg would be kept, very likely Kosice/ Kassa.
 
Which is how Romania ended up with all of Transylvania despite clear Hungarian majorities in certain areas.
The problem was that as shown on this map the main Hungarian area of Transylvania abutted the Romanian border and was surrounded by a solid band of ethnically Romanian land. The only real way to get around this would have been to start creating enclaves and enclaves which no-one wanted.


So why did Hungary get so badly screwed by Treaty of Trianon?
They were on the losing side. There's also the factor that the Hungarian government, dominated mostly by the Hungarian magnates, had a long history of treating their ethnic minorities fairly poorly so there wasn't much of a pool of loyalty or fondness - someone comes along offering the chance of their own country they're going to jump at it.
 

Deleted member 94680

Well I can imagine Hungarians got in Slovakia similar borders to 1938 - but not same - to many Slovaks ended up in Hungary. This would be interesting as which much smaller Hungarian minority in Slovakia but also Ruthenia. Position of Slovaks in Czechoslovakia could be actually stronger. Economically it would somehow weaken Slovakia as one of major railways would be lost. However I thing Bratislava/ Pressburg would be kept, very likely Kosice/ Kassa.

Hungro-Slovakia?

Maybe if there was a Hungarian Revolution that leads to an Austria-Hungary collapse? As in the Hungarians revolting is the clear cause of the Austrians dropping out of the War. Even then it’s a slight chance as others have said, those that ‘knew’ about the Dual Monarchy had a dim view of the Hungarians as a ruling caste.
 
I realize that the old medieval borders of Hungary would never really work for a full fledged nation (it would be another Yugoslavia or Iraq just waiting to happen), however I do get why some Hungarians are still salty about it today. They were on the losing side, true, however the Hungarians had no real choice in choosing sides, as they were under the Austrians. Them getting screwed so bad would kind of feel like a stab in the back after finally becoming independent again.
 
Hungro-Slovakia?

Maybe if there was a Hungarian Revolution that leads to an Austria-Hungary collapse? As in the Hungarians revolting is the clear cause of the Austrians dropping out of the War. Even then it’s a slight chance as others have said, those that ‘knew’ about the Dual Monarchy had a dim view of the Hungarians as a ruling caste.
Hah, no. Hungary's not going to revolt. The political class, despite their consistent extortions, were all too aware that they were nothing without Austria. Austria and Hungary splitting up at this time means Hungary completely and utterly collapses. Especially with the armies at the front.

Like everyone else said, Hungary was a defeated nation and there was no way the Entente were going to be lenient after 1917. The Entente empires (and the CPs, too, for that matter) were too deluded by their self-righteousness and, more importantly, had made too many promises to Austria-Hungary's enemies (at least hald they couldn't keep). Considering their maximist claims, it's actually comewhat surprising that Hungary didn't get a worse post-Versailles deal.

I realize that the old medieval borders of Hungary would never really work for a full fledged nation (it would be another Yugoslavia or Iraq just waiting to happen), however I do get why some Hungarians are still salty about it today. They were on the losing side, true, however the Hungarians had no real choice in choosing sides, as they were under the Austrians. Them getting screwed so bad would kind of feel like a stab in the back after finally becoming independent again.
Some Hungarians might believe this, but it's complete bullshit in reality. While Tisza, Hungary's Prime Minister, did a lot to temper his Austrian collegues and delay the war, the fact remains that Foreign Policy was shared by both Austria and Hungary. Hungary being 'forced' into the war by a belligerent Austria is a myth because they had a massive influence over shares KuK policy. Hungary being 'under' Austria is also a myth considering Hungarians worked very hard at the time to insist on their sovereignty, autonomy, and that the post-1867 system was a personal union of two equal countries. Ironically, this very much contributes to the Entente pushing war guilt unto the Hungarians. Unfairly, perhaps, but the assigning of war guilt was ridiculous in the first place. Or the Versailles treaties in the first place, but that's a different topic.
 
I side with those that argue A-H was not doomed, its break-up had more to do with the Entente then its own fractures, broken as it was there was more than spit and prayers holding it together. Anything more than the "vanquished" CP outcome likely results in a more coherent "break-up" of A-H to the extent it gets traction.

Self-determination had little to do with benevolence towards the subject peoples, the victors used it as cover for creating a string of new clients to the East. France in particular tried to ring Germany with enemies since Russia was no longer her opposite pole. The break-up of A-H let the victors rebalance Europe against Germany without dividing Germany since I think they realized that would both elevate France and leave the USSR as the true continental power. Sadly that sort of intrigue paves the way for the mess of WW2. And if that thought was at work then the best Hungary could have gotten was a partition of A-H into a separate Kingdom of Hungary and rump German Austria (maybe with or without some of the rest of "Austrian" lands). Here Hungary does not lose Transylvania or Slovakia potentially, it might hold more of its portions of Croatia to the Aegean coast too. The groundwork might be a messier Russia, a Romania that held neutral or went CP, less sympathy for Serbia or its aspirations, etc. One might spin this to shift the Hapsburgs to the Hungarian throne while Bohemia emerges as a separate Kingdom, the Slovenes get independence, Galicia is divided between Poland and Ukraine, and rump German Austria goes to Germany someday. A tortured path but plenty of arguments are on this site to get any of them.
 
Some Hungarians might believe this, but it's complete bullshit in reality. While Tisza, Hungary's Prime Minister, did a lot to temper his Austrian collegues and delay the war, the fact remains that Foreign Policy was shared by both Austria and Hungary. Hungary being 'forced' into the war by a belligerent Austria is a myth because they had a massive influence over shares KuK policy. Hungary being 'under' Austria is also a myth considering Hungarians worked very hard at the time to insist on their sovereignty, autonomy, and that the post-1867 system was a personal union of two equal countries. Ironically, this very much contributes to the Entente pushing war guilt unto the Hungarians. Unfairly, perhaps, but the assigning of war guilt was ridiculous in the first place. Or the Versailles treaties in the first place, but that's a different topic.
It is true that Hungary was autonomous to an extent after 1867, however I wouldn't really call Hungary anymore autonomus than Norway was under Sweden. Foreign policy was shared to an extent, but if the Austrian really wanted war, the most the Hungarians could do (if in theory they absolutely didn't want it) would be to delay the process with bueracracy or hope they would change their mind to avoid angering the Hungarian territories. It always seemed kind of unfair to me that they got screwed so badly for a war they had little choice in joining. Like I understand Austria, Germany and the Ottomans being punished territorially, but Hungary?

Although I guess we can agree that the assigning of war guilt on a single party was unfair in general.
 
It is true that Hungary was autonomous to an extent after 1867, however I wouldn't really call Hungary anymore autonomus than Norway was under Sweden. Foreign policy was shared to an extent, but if the Austrian really wanted war, the most the Hungarians could do (if in theory they absolutely didn't want it) would be to delay the process with bueracracy or hope they would change their mind to avoid angering the Hungarian territories. It always seemed kind of unfair to me that they got screwed so badly for a war they had little choice in joining. Like I understand Austria, Germany and the Ottomans being punished territorially, but Hungary?

Although I guess we can agree that the assigning of war guilt on a single party was unfair in general.
I can't comment on Sweden-Norway since I'm not knowledgeable on their Union, the fact was that Austria and Hungary were on equal footing as constituents of the Monarchy.

As for Hungary not having a choice, I still stand that it's a myth. Especially considering that the plurality of Austro-Hungarian foreign ministers were ethnic Magyars and that most of the embassies were headed by Magyars as well. In otger words, Hungarians held a disproportionately large number of offices in the Common Ministries. Tisza could very well have continued to block the war on Serbia and there was literally nothing even Franz Joseph could do about it. At least, not without triggering a constitutional crisis. Tisza simply gave in understanding that Serbia was also a threat to Hungary and something 'had' to be done, and with promises that the war would be limited, short (hah!) and, more importantly, that there would be no territorial annexations (whether the Austrians intended to follow through with that was debatable; Hötzendorf definitely didn't).

Hungary is an unfortunate victim of Entente promises to their minor allies and their lack of understanding of the Empire in general. They are, however, not blameless. Just like every other combattants, including the victors.
 
Hungary is an unfortunate victim of Entente promises to their minor allies and their lack of understanding of the Empire in general. They are, however, not blameless. Just like every other combattants, including the victors.
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't trying to imply that Hungary was blameless, I did pretty strongly imply they could have done more to atleast delay the war. I am just expressing my belief that they seem to have gotten carved up really bad for being a secondary, non-independent belligerent, atleast in my opinion. I can understand your viewpoint though, and I'll admit I could do a bit more reading on Hungary's role within the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
 
Last edited:

CaliGuy

Banned
The problem was that as shown on this map the main Hungarian area of Transylvania abutted the Romanian border and was surrounded by a solid band of ethnically Romanian land. The only real way to get around this would have been to start creating enclaves and enclaves which no-one wanted.
Theoretically speaking, though, you could have put Szekely Land into Hungary and then created a land corridor through Cluj and Oradea. Then, you could have built tunnels under this land corridor to make travel easier for Romanians.

However, no one wanted to weaken Romania's territorial integrity for a losing nation--especially a losing nation that was an absolute pipsqueak in comparison to the main losing nation (Germany).

This.

Also the Hungarian areas you mention in Romania were impossible to make into a viable nation (or link to Hungary proper) without weakening Romania. When it came down to it, the self-determination of losing nations was less important than the self-determination of the victors.
Technically, one could have tried gerrymandering a plebiscite in Northern Transylvania in favor of Hungary. However, as you said, the crucial question is this--Why do this? Indeed, why weaken a winning nation at the expense of a losing nation?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
There are plenty of threads about Versailles treaty on this board, but not many (as far as I have seen) about Hungary's treatment after WW1.

One of the principles of deciding treaties was the principle of self determination. I recently read that millions of Hungarians and as many as a third of Hungarian speakers found themselves outside the newly established Hungary.

Another interesting fact is the allies rejected plebiscites and assigned areas as a whole to neighboring countries. Which is how Romania ended up with all of Transylvania despite clear Hungarian majorities in certain areas.

Similar to how Germany sought to expand and include other German majority areas within the Reich, Hungarian politics also were geared towards similar goals.

So why did Hungary get so badly screwed by Treaty of Trianon?
Actually, the Treaty of Trianon wasn't particularly harsh towards Hungary; indeed, it simply (approximately) reduced Hungary to its ethnic borders:

Hungary-ethnic_groups.jpg


HungaryEuropeMap.png


Had Hungary not had so many non-Hungarian-majority areas within its territory in the first place, the Treaty of Trianon wouldn't have hurt Hungary very badly.
 
Had Hungary not had so many non-Hungarian-majority areas within its territory in the first place, the Treaty of Trianon wouldn't have hurt Hungary very badly.
In an ideal world the Hungarian revolt in 1848 would have been quickly crushed, or at least crushed sooner, without outside assistance and their being Trianon-ed earlier within the Austrian Empire, but that's a discussion for another thread.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
In an ideal world the Hungarian revolt in 1848 would have been quickly crushed, or at least crushed sooner, without outside assistance and their being Trianon-ed earlier within the Austrian Empire, but that's a discussion for another thread.
I'm not sure that the Legitimist-minded Habsburgs would have been willing to strip Hungary of territories which it has ruled over for almost 1,000 years--indeed, not even after a Hungarian secession attempt!
 
I'm not sure that the Legitimist-minded Habsburgs would have been willing to strip Hungary of territories which it has ruled over for almost 1,000 years--indeed, not even after a Hungarian secession attempt!
This. I would present a different solution related to 1848, but that would spoil my project TL. :biggrin:
 
Top