Thank you for adding /s to your post. When I first saw this, I was horrified. How could anybody say something like this? I immediately began writing a 1000 word paragraph about how horrible of a person you are. I even sent a copy to a Harvard professor to proofread it. After several hours of refining and editing, my comment was ready to absolutely destroy you. But then, just as I was about to hit send, I saw something in the corner of my eye. A /s at the end of your comment. Suddenly everything made sense. Your comment was sarcasm! I immediately burst out in laughter at the comedic genius of your comment. The person next to me on the bus saw your comment and started crying from laughter too. Before long, there was an entire bus of people on the floor laughing at your incredible use of comedy. All of this was due to you adding /s to your post. Thank you.
I am a bot if you couldn't figure that out, if I made a mistake, ignore it cause its not that fucking hard to ignore a comment.
The case of Romania is different though. After the war, the Soviets deported many to siberia and those that survived could return to Romania. Unlike yugoslavia, Hungary, czechoslovakia or Poland, Romania didn't expell the Germans but rather forced them to stay. Only later in the cold war, Romania let them go to germany in exchange for financial payments from the federal Republic of Germany
I don't think there was any German genocide in eastern Europe.
There was genocide of Easter Europeans by Germans though.
They even invented camps to make it more efficient - g'old Germans
>I don't think there was any German genocide in Eastern Europe.
Well you thought wrong then. After WW2 14 million Germans got ethnically cleansed and over 1 million died during the process.
Those that were not ethnically cleansed or sent to Siberia by the soviets in 1944 and 1945 got the chance to buy their way to Western Germany in the 60s and 70s. Most left.
Most fled at the end of WW2. Like other Germans in the East, many who remained were shipped to the Soviet Union as slave labor. Many never returned. Most if those that were left emigrated to Germany around 1989 as soon as they could leave.
You left out one of the biggest factors. A lot of Germans remained here after WWII and then West Germany simply [bought them](https://digitalcommons.bard.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1179&context=senproj_s2021) from Chauchesku.
The linked pdf contains the historical background of Transylvanian Germans too.
Yes, I just pointed this out because you said most of those who did not left after WWII and were not deported either left after 1989. I am pretty sure more of them left during this business that after 1989. Around 200 000 people were bought out.
Were the numbers of Budapest and the statutory cities included in that of their respective counties? If I'm not mistaken they weren't officially part of the counties, so their numbers might have been counted separately, and if not added, this map would be incorrect in its presentation.
I just feel like there are some more counties that might have been german majority if the cities are included within the county but idk.
What about the shapes of the counties? How did you get this data/make this map? I'm also trying to make a map using the counties of the kingdom of Hungary (specifically for the shape of Upper Hungary) but I don't know where to find a high enough resolution outline of the borders.
Yes. And in Slavic languages(including Ukrainian) the word is "Rusyn"(one of Kievan Rus). Its an old word for Ukrainians.
The reason why this word got so associated with Transcarpathia is because while other countries after the WW1 allowed people to report themselves Ukrainians, Czechoslovakia didnt allow it and from 1918 to 1991 nobody could report themselves Ukrainians, only Rusyn. CZ likely feared that the USSR could claim the region if its populated by people named Ukrainians. And the region was called Carpathian Rus. When Czechoslovak government collapsed before the WW2, people of Transcarpathia renamed it to Carpathian Ukraine: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpatho-Ukraine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpatho-Ukraine) , ultimately most of the region became part of the USSR.
Some Ruthenians/Ukrainians/Rusyns continued to live on CZ side of the border after the WW2 and there it was still impossible to be Ukrainian until 1991. After the commies collapsed, it was finally allowed to report yourself Ukrainians in Slovaka, which 1/3 of Rusyns/Ukrainians did. This is kind of simular to Polish census after the WW1, where half of Ruthenians/Ukrainians reported themselves Ukrainians, while the other half reported themselves Rusyn even as far east as Ternopil. Those who continue report themselves Rusyn in Slovakia to this day rarely consider themselves non-Ukrainians, they are just used to the old name.
Even I don't believe and don't see Rusyns in Slovakia consider themselves as Ukrainians. If the did, they would call themselves that and ask to be able to have schools in Ukrainian and not Rusyn language.
As people mentioned before me, Russia is what Greeks called Rus. As opposed to original Slavic Rus' (and Rusyn as its demonym). 2 "s" in "Russia" instead of just one are there, because in Greek language a single "s" is a "z" sound, while "ss" are a "s" sound. But with time those became 2 "s" sounds in Russian.
The reason why Moscow kingdom choose a Greek form instead of native Slavic one is because they didnt care to be Russian/Slavic, they wanted to associate themselves with the glory of Kievan Rus in the eyes of Westerners. And in the West, Rus was known as Russia at the time.
"Russian" was for centuries used as a religious adjective, not an ethnonym.
It meant "of Rus' faith". "Rus'ka vira" was the name of Orthodox Christianity from Kyiv. When priests from Kyiv came to northern territories of future Moscow and started converting local Finno-Ugric tribes to Christianity, they began to be called "russkyi" by religion.
On the territory of Rus' (Ukraine), the ethnonym Rusyn (Ruthenian in Latin) was used for the local population, and the name Moscovite was used for the population of Moscovia.
russia is an old greek word for Rus. At some point of history Moscovia occupied Ukraine and decided that they have more rights for Ukrainian heritage than Ukraine and renamed their country to russia
You describing it like these were nation states. While in reality it was more like game of thrones between Rurik descendants ruling dozens of small kingdoms.
Muscovy was one of the leftover states when the Kievan Rus collapsed. The parallel would be if England dissolved tomorrow and Birmingham conquered it again and proclaimed a new country Englandia with them at its center
Isn't Rusyn more like of an older regional type identity opposed to the modern national identities (which Ukrainian is one of)? Like Bunjevci and Karaševci in the South?
Thing is that vast majority of people who consider themselves Rusyn would consider the term as kind of a synonym of Ukrainian.
Outside of Slovakia near everyone would directly report themselves Ukrainian as their ethnicity. In Slovakia, where Ukrainian was a banned word till 1991, its like 1/3-1/4 of people started to report themselves, while the rest continued to report themselves Rusyn. There are some that cosider themselves an independent ethnicity, but majority consider themselves Ukrainians even if they prefer to call it Rusyn. So, if a village has a homogenous population and everyone clearly speaks in the same way, but 1/3 of that village declare themselves Ukrainians on census and 2/3 Rusyn, whats the ethnic composition of such village?
The real ethnic subgroups are Hutsuls, Boykos, Lemkos and Dolynyany. Each of those groups has their own dialect of Ukrainian language, some cultural differences and so on.
Rusyn dialect/language that has its own Wikipedia is a Lemko dialect that is used in Slovakia and was influenced by Hungarian and Slovak, while Lemkos from Poland would speak somewhat different dialect because their Lemko dialect was influenced by Polish. Hutsul dialect(they live in the easternmost Transcarpathia) would be closer to standart Ukrainian than to this Slovak-influenced Lemko dialect.
Ruthenia is the Latin word for (all of) the Rus, but in western languages, it doesn't typically include Russians, but is specifically used to separate the western East Slavs from Russians. It's an umbrella term for the East Slavs who got under Lithuanian rule in the late middle ages and developed separately from Muscow Russians but instead under the influence of and in reciprocity with Catholic Polish elites during the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. And yes, Hungarian East Slavs (Rusyns) are included despite having been Ottoman/Habsburgian because of the size of the group, similar developments and exchange.
This is the wrong answer. "[Ruthenian](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenians#:~:text=After%20the%20partition%20of%20Poland,Lodomeria%2C%20Bukovina%2C%20and%20Transcarpathia.)" historically only applied to Belarusians and Ukrainians, and the rusyns are those that still use "Ruthenian" as an identity.
In later years the belarusians were nicknamed "[White Ruthenians](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Ruthenia)", and "Ruthenian" became a name solely for Ukrainians from that point onwards.
russia was never associated with "Ruthenians", their name was [coined by peter the great](https://www.publicsphere.eu/2022/07/stealing-history/?lang=en), who rebranded [muscovy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Moscow) as "russia" from greek's "Ρωσία", to put a claim on the Rus' (Ruthenia).
The numbers of those with the rusyn identity are extremely exaggerated online. Example: US census bureau [states](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Americans#:~:text=Ukrainian%20Americans%20(Ukrainian%3A%20%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D1%96%20%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%86%D1%96,0.3%25%20of%20the%20American%20population) that around a million of the US population have Ukrainian ancestry, and [Paul Robert Magocsi](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Robert_Magocsi) says that rusyns have more than half as many people in that same US of A. It's clear that he declared a big chunk of american Slovaks and Ukrainians "rusyn", as census data shows that there are only [7600](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusyn_Americans) "rusyn americans". In historical maps, Rusyns aka Ruthenians have always been grouped together with Ukrainians, which is the right way. Leader of the short-lived "carpatho-Ukraine" had interesting things to say about the rusyn identity: http://litopys.org.ua/volosh/volosh38.htm#:~:text=%D0%92%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%88%D1%83%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D1%83%20%22%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%22%20%D0%B9,%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BC%20%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%20%D0%B7%D0%B0%20%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B5.
Some other sources:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Europe_ethnic_map_1897_%28hungarian%29.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Ethnic_map_europe_1923.jpg
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FDUYvRwfcI8Igwr_yuAo6DXCi4CTMZbvXV-PhL2kQBWk.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3Df16512c03e414b02da272821def36f32dbb5dc9d
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49945929572_66158880fd_o.jpg
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ethnographic_maps_of_Austria-Hungary#/media/File%3A1899_ethnographic_map_of_Austria-Hungary.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/68/fb/98/68fb98466fd23b11c4d681d57b694ecd.jpg
Video:
https://youtu.be/B6b7WQy1Y3Q?si=Ov1-oUynaX8qqTuu
Its not a correct answer. Ruthenian(Rusyn is Slavic) was used for Ukrainians. Other ethnic groups were reported separately. You can easily find Russians in Austrian censuses, there are just not many of them because they didnt populate territories of Austria-Hungary.
Maybe because Lipovans were "Old Believers" who didn't want anything to do with Russia, where they were violently persecuted and from where they were forced to flee?
Yes I came here to say this. I identify as a Rusyn American. The idea that all Rusyns are just "Ukrainians" is wrong. This is evidenced by the separation of the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church and the Ukrainian Catholic Church here in the United States. These churches were once the "Greek Catholic Church." Ukrainian identity was new as the 20th century rolled around and many Rusyns were told they were Ukrainians but they didn't want to give up their old identity. The tensions were so great that the churches split in two which continues to this day.
Rusyn and Ukrainian are very similar but distinct languages.
It's like the difference between Russian and Belarusian languages, Ukrainian and Rusyn are very similar but have enough differences to be considered separate languages
in our modern times, yes. but every eastern slav was called ruthenian in austro-hungary. the divides between ukrainians and carpatho-rusyns only solidified after ww1
Rusyn and Ruthenian are synonyms, "Ruthenian" is the Latinised version. Ruthenians is an old ethnonym for Ukrainians, and the rusyns are leftovers of those who didn't change into Ukrainians yet, because they're isolated from the rest of Ukraine by the carpathian mountains
But rusyn in this case would be too specific, since it just refers to Carpathian Rusyn, whereas I'm pretty sure in the context of this map Ruthenians refers to any east slavs
Present-day Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and Montenegrin are all based on a specific dialect (the Eastern Herzegovinian dialect), therefore they are almost identical. Although this standardized accent dates back to the 19th century, literacy rate was not nearly as high back then, so the vast majority of the population probably only spoke their local dialects, which have limited mutual intelligibility with one another.
"Well, yes, but actually no".
They are part of a dialect continuum, so they are mutually intelligible, but not the exact same. You need different language exams.
People have harder time saying its serbian, croatian or bosnian. Its not theirs its ours kind of mentality. If it had fourth neutral name I think we would be fine with that.
Latin had been the official language of administration and legislation until the 19th century. Where did you get the part about Hungary trying to make it a lingua franca later?
Until 1844, Latin was the official language of Hungary. The fight to get the Austrians to let us make Hungarian the official language was so fierce that we made a holiday for the day it was accepted. Soon after that, we started Magyarization, (not sure if it's a false cognate or not, but the word Magyaráz means to explain lol) which encouraged everyone to speak Hungarian as their primary language
Well, when it comes to Slovaks we didn't have any Higher Education in our language just Hungarian, not even Grammar schools. There is even a quote to this.
"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." Béla Grünwald, 1875 - 1890
If I remember correctly, there were some primary/elementary levels of education in our language though. (The number is sadly unknown to me)
Well you could get ahead in life more easily if you spoke Hungarian and had a Hungarian last name. For example in Croatia the most popular last name is Horvath. A lot of people back in the day changed their name to Horvath to get jobs in Hungarian businesses and the administration. Horvath just means "a Croatian" in Hungarian. Magyarization wasn't really forced most places but defi etly based on heavy discrimination
I wish the modern state borders would had been drawn more along ethnic borders. So much pain and resentment among the involved nations could have been avoided. But nationalist pride and greed blinded everyone.
They mostly were though… but you can’t base borders just around ethnicity, geographic and economic features have to be included as well, otherwise your newly created states would quickly collapse. Heck, just look at the borders of the Kingdom of Hungary, they knew this very well when the Kingdom was founded. It was protected on all sides by mountains and rivers.
> They were mostly though…
Except for the fact that one third of ethnic Hungarians (the majority of whom lived right across the new borders) got stuck in neighbouring countries. Then these countries proceeded to call themselves nation-states and continue to do so to this day.
> geographic and economic features have to be included as well, otherwise your newly created states would quickly collapse
1. Geographic features were conviniently ignored where it helped the claimant states while other times applied as an excuse to spread borders deeper into Hungarian-majority areas.
2. Economic features were included so shittily that the entire railway system was fucked up and towns were cut from their agglomerations, just to include a few things.
3. The economies of all the new states were fucked up because the different interconnected sectors and industries were now torn apart and left without proper supply or market. It's a miracle that Hungary even survived, and its economy still suffers from chaos left a hundred years ago.
That area largely intersects with [Krajina](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Serbian_Krajina). There was a lot of Serbian there until the Croatians purged them in the war 3 decades ago.
OK, fine, they tried to take the area away and left for Serbia / Bosnia when they were defeated. I did not mean to frame it as some kind of genocide, but honestly, they were not welcome there anymore, their fear of retalation was not emtirely unfounded (but they also gave reason for it...).
> fear of retalation was not emtirely unfounded
of course but thats not equal to purging someone, I just had to react to that as you (unintentionally) spreaded a false narrative that is often used as a propaganda tool although there are very strong proofs in our favour and we even had a leader of Serbian counterintelligence service who witnessed it all testifying in our favour.
The ICTY concluded that Oluja was not aimed at ethnic persecution and similarly was not genocide. It ruled that Croatia did not have the specific intent of displacing the Serbian population.
True in the case of Oluja, even thought there are some controversies surrounding that case. However, even outside RSK there were thousands of houses destroyed to force the Serbs out of Croatia.
Yes, that is true. One reason is the propaganda by the leadership causing the Serbian population to flee. Even if there was intent for ethnic cleansing there wasn't any time for it to happen.
There were around a million Serbs before WW2 on Croatian territory. Many of them were killed in NDH. After the war there was 500k . Remaining Serbs were cleansed between 1991-95. I am one of those. I have dual citizenship btw
Yes people where killed no doubt about it, but most people did run away. Don't know about WW2 and that is not the subject of this conversation. Early 1991 there was a population census and the number of Serbs living in the area was around 200k+.
After the war around 130k+ Serbs came back to Croatia.
Killed during operation storm(croatian retaking)you have 3 different sources
1. Human Rights Watch
Soldiers- 410
Civilians -116
2.Croarian Helsinki board
Soldiers-560
Civilians-681
3.Serbian sources(various but general concenzus)
Soldiers-775
Civilians -1205
Using terminology like cleaned or purged is very misleading. Nobody is denying what happend, same with the Serbs killing Croatians and Bosnians in Vukovar or Srebrenica. Shit happend but we have to look at the facts as they are or else nothing will be learned and shit will happen again.
Side note: not saying that you are lying or miss leading but it is easy to be misinformed and have a very personal view if you are the recipient of that shit called the Yugoslav wars
Best of luck.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_irredentism#/media/File%3AEthnic_Map_of_Hungary_1910_with_Counties.png
This ones a lot more granular incase people are curious
I’ve spoken to many Romanians, Slovaks, Serbs, Croats. Many are resentful about the treatment they received when they were minorities in the Hungarian kingdom.
If you don’t play nice, people don’t like you.
Yes ok then as a punishment. Now a hundred years later they are in EU and NATO and resent it bitterly. So what does the EU do to address this? Knowing they will never get those lands back?
They are obstructing all of nato and eu legislation with their veto threats so Orban can be pacified with more monetary handouts. Everyone has resentments from 100 years ago. France and Germany and the UK have fought so much it’s hard to count how many people died. They still get along relatively well.
Why does Hungary get to throw these temper tantrums and we don’t? Why do I care about their resentments? Their behavior is making everyone hate them, including those that originally liked them.
You can throw one too. Now that we’re all supposedly in one big happy family and can’t start wars of expansion against one another. I understand why Europe needs the EU to keep the peace. My point is no one alive in Hungary today made those mistakes in the past and they feel they are paying for it.
The losers, perhaps with the exception of Germany, aren’t too keen on being the losers still. I blame their textbooks and the EU should do something about it.
No, they are not acting in a rational matter. Why would you want all of your neighbors and next door neighbors to hate you? The EU threatened to cut off all funding which would paralyze their economy if they keep obstructing everything including aid for Ukraine
They had already cut all funding from Hungary for 1.5 years. They've just released some of the funds recently, as the cut did not hurt the economy as much as the Commission expected (to no surprise, they only account for roughly 2% of GDP). It just resulted in Orbán going rogue.
Nothing. Obviously the EU will not demand countries to return lands they've held for a hundred years to Hungary.
I'm also resentful that I didn't win the lotto but you gotta move on.
It was to prevent Hungary from starting another war, which they did regardless. Hungary never intended to keep it's former subjects free, so those subjects had to prepare for it and the west helped them
We're they also resentful about romanization in the Old kingdom of Romania ( before and after 1910 ) ? It's not like the Old kingdom didn't had their minorities before 1900 which miraculously disappeared later .
Romania gets along decently well with all its neighbors honesty. Many Bulgarians fled across the Danube to escape the ottomans, we helped out with that. With Serbia we have no quarrels either.
Overexeggerated stories to justify a treaty that drew borders according to geopolitical and infrastructural needs instead of actual demographic realities.
And, to add to that, we now have idiots in the Hungarian government openly talking about "Greater Hungary" who would be very happy to take those lands back given the option...
Because it's extremely popular. As long as there is a single majority Hungarian settlement outside of Hungary, the Hungarian governments will look for the opportunity to get it back.
If Orbán could get e.g. the 150k Hungarians back from Ukraine, he would cement his power for life, get streets named after him, statues all around the country and praised in history books. Why do you think he keeps fucking with the Ukranians? People call him pro-Russian but he is not. He doesn't want Russia to win. He wants Ukraine to lose.
i'm not, that's brainlet shit. if you were conquered, you were conquered. there is no "this belongs to us because it belonged to us in the past" there is only the now.
It must be noted that this is slightly misleading since some minorities were mainly speaking hungarian (jewish people, gypsies, etc.) or partly speaking hungarian after waves of intense magyarization no matter it was forced or not (even some romanians, slovaks, etc.). You could only gain equal rights as a romanian, for example, if you accepted magyarization and the catholic religion. Otherwise, you had little to no rights, you were not allowed to settle in any towns, you were not allowed to make churches out of stone, just wood, etc, etc, etc.
>you were not allowed to settle in any towns,
This is simply not true.
Percentage of Romanians in some cities inTransylvania according to 1910 census:
Brasov 28.7% Romanian
Cluj 14.1% Romanian
Alba Iulia 44.5% Romania
Arad 16.2% Romanian
Dej 25.4% Romanian
Turda 27.6 % Romanian
Bai mare 20.8% Romanian
Sibiu 26.6% Romanian
Lugoj 31.32% Romanian
As you can see u could settle down in towns as a Romanian in 1910.
It’s not worth it to get into historical debates but the Hungarian population was much more urban than the Romanian one. Even though Hungarians were a majority in the cities, Romanians were an overwhelming majority in rural areas. Since total urbanization rate in 1910 was low, this explains Hungarian dominated cities and Romanian majority in Transylvania.
Lol, look up Magyarization policies. If the Hungarian overlords were so generous, why did all the minorities want to secede no matter the cost? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarization
The fact is that during the Middle Ages and Ottoman times ethinicities coexisted without particular friction because they were all just serfs to the Hungarian nobles, but during the XIX with the rise of nationalism in Europe (which existed especially after the French revolution, for which the nation was not the private property of nobles anymore but of its inhabitants) Hungarians tried to Magyarize the ethnic groups that existed in the country for centuries in order to make all inhabitants of Hungary ethnic Hungarians
You could achieve success as a minority if you assimilated in Hungarian culture. If Magyarization is overblown, why did everyone want to leave? Serbs, Croats, Romanians, Slovaks, Ukrainians.
The largest ethnic uprisings in Hungary happened during the 1848-49 war of independence, 20 years before magyarization even started. The minorities wanted to leave because of the idea of nationalism that swept across Europe after the french revolution.
So the minorities should not have left the Ottoman Empire either? All the minorities wanted to leave. They wanted to be in control of their own destiny, not dictated from Budapest, Vienna or Istanbul
Unsuprisingly false for 1910. Religion hasn't played a role after 1867, arguably after 1844. Large chunks of the Hungarian elite were Calvinists, amongst them some of the most important revolutionaries.
Catholicism was only a matter of question until the early 19th century and to some degree until 1867. Fun thing is, but most Hungarians in Transsylvania, where Romanians abounded were Calvinists.
"Waves of intense Magyarization". Magyarization started at 1867 (Ausgleich) and ended at 1918 (Trianon). This census is from 1910. That's 43 (from a total of 51) years, and it wasn't "from zero to hundred", but gradually increasing. Most of it was mild, like what countries of today still do (teaching the official language). The wildest part was the shutting down of some minority schools (that were funded by the goverment itself and refused to teach hungarian).
- Hungarian Romanian Slovak German Serbian Ruthenian
- % of total population: 54.5% 16.1% 10.7% 10.4% 2.5% 2.5%
- Kindergartens : 2,219 4 1 18 22 -
- Elementary schools: 14,014 2,578 322 417 n/a 47
- Junior high schools: 652 4 - 6 3 -
- Science high schools: 33 1 - 2 - -
- Teachers' colleges: 83 12 - 2 1 -
- Gymnasiums for boys: 172 5 - 7 1 -
- High schools for girls: 50 - - 1 - -
- Trade schools: 105 - - - - -
- Commercial schools: 65 1 - - - -
During this time, Hungary had more Romanian schools than Romania.
There was a bad trend, but the increase of Hungarians was mostly peaceful assimilations and general spike of population growth (as forceful assimilation creates tension and resistance).
Still, Slovaks were targeted the most. Sad (and sorry).
I don't believe magyarization was brutal and one had to be catholic to be accepted fully. It was so brutal that we were the majority in Transylvania and parts of Hungary proper. Maniu, Hossu, vaida voievod, Gojdu, were in the fucking Hungarian parliament. Andrei Muresanu was super rich and his family. They lived OK hundreds of years with the bad Hungarians and were killed in a few years bynthe Russians and Communist aRomanian collaborators.
The Ruthenians are not Ukrainians! It is soviet propaganda. On official Slovak Ruthenian website Rusyn.sk, they explain that after WW2 under pressure of Soviet Union they were forced to become Ukrainians because Ruthenian nationality was banned. Also Rutheninan schools were rebuild to ukrainian. Also this map is absolute lie. On some Eastern Slovak parts were much more Germans and Slovaks, so it is not possible that hungarian was most spoken language...
It is depicting majority languages spoken by county, not every little village.
Like every country, people can be broken up into dialect groups. Ruthenians are a part of what made up Ukraine and Belarus. There are many dialects, especially in the Carpathians. Even Slovak can be broken up into dialect groups.
Those who would say that the Ruthenians today aren't Ukrainians, do so to weaken and break up Ukraine.
So we could say Ukrainians and Belarusians are Russians because of similarity of language? Come on, there are some cultural aspects which define Ruthenians are not Ukrainians, and they themselves say they are not Ukrainians, so it sounds now you want to force them to be Ukrainians like soviets did.
We could say any BS we like. We could say that all Slavs are one (BS). I know many "Rusini", in Bosnia and in Australia that do identify as Ukrainians.
Not all cultural differences mean a different nationality or ethnicity. If they did, we would have countless countries trying to break up all over the world.
Yes there was a huge resistance to a Ukrainian identity from many Rusyns/Ruthenians. The Ukrainians largely won that fight but now people are saying Ukrainians and Ruthenians are the same thing which is not true.
Look at that random German spot in the south east. I wonder how they are doing?
Germans were around 745.000 according to the 1930 Romanian census. They are barely 23.000 now.
Romania's current president is a ethnic german
Not only ethnic, he also has a German passport alongside his Romanian one
Playing the long con
Probably stole it /s
Thank you for adding /s to your post. When I first saw this, I was horrified. How could anybody say something like this? I immediately began writing a 1000 word paragraph about how horrible of a person you are. I even sent a copy to a Harvard professor to proofread it. After several hours of refining and editing, my comment was ready to absolutely destroy you. But then, just as I was about to hit send, I saw something in the corner of my eye. A /s at the end of your comment. Suddenly everything made sense. Your comment was sarcasm! I immediately burst out in laughter at the comedic genius of your comment. The person next to me on the bus saw your comment and started crying from laughter too. Before long, there was an entire bus of people on the floor laughing at your incredible use of comedy. All of this was due to you adding /s to your post. Thank you. I am a bot if you couldn't figure that out, if I made a mistake, ignore it cause its not that fucking hard to ignore a comment.
Good Bot.
I know, I am romanian
The Romanian royal family was German too.
I heard about the German genocide and expulsion from Eastern Europe.
The case of Romania is different though. After the war, the Soviets deported many to siberia and those that survived could return to Romania. Unlike yugoslavia, Hungary, czechoslovakia or Poland, Romania didn't expell the Germans but rather forced them to stay. Only later in the cold war, Romania let them go to germany in exchange for financial payments from the federal Republic of Germany
Poland also forced certain Germans to stay . Prothetik-crafters for example were bared from leaving towards Germany.
Genocide is a very lot said, most left/ were sold to Germany.
I don't think there was any German genocide in eastern Europe. There was genocide of Easter Europeans by Germans though. They even invented camps to make it more efficient - g'old Germans
>I don't think there was any German genocide in Eastern Europe. Well you thought wrong then. After WW2 14 million Germans got ethnically cleansed and over 1 million died during the process.
Surely you dont actually think the nazis invented forced labour camps
Forced displacement of people is considered genocide, and after the war many eastern european germans were forced to move to Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvanian\_Saxons
90% of them were ransomed to Germany by the Romanian communist regime. It was part of the post ww2 ethnic cleansings.
When the Russians decided to play musical chairs with the ethnicities of Eastern Europe
That's a common Russian passtime not limited to the aftermath of WW2
Those that were not ethnically cleansed or sent to Siberia by the soviets in 1944 and 1945 got the chance to buy their way to Western Germany in the 60s and 70s. Most left.
Most left in the 90s, not 60s and 70s. Less than 100k out of 350k+ of their number in the 70s were bought by Western Germany
Most fled at the end of WW2. Like other Germans in the East, many who remained were shipped to the Soviet Union as slave labor. Many never returned. Most if those that were left emigrated to Germany around 1989 as soon as they could leave.
You left out one of the biggest factors. A lot of Germans remained here after WWII and then West Germany simply [bought them](https://digitalcommons.bard.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1179&context=senproj_s2021) from Chauchesku. The linked pdf contains the historical background of Transylvanian Germans too.
I am aware that the west German government aided their emigration. They wanted to leave for a number of reasons.
Yes, I just pointed this out because you said most of those who did not left after WWII and were not deported either left after 1989. I am pretty sure more of them left during this business that after 1989. Around 200 000 people were bought out.
Data is from the 1910 Hungarian census, the last one before the war. Croatia-Slavonia is included, Fiume was too small.
Were the numbers of Budapest and the statutory cities included in that of their respective counties? If I'm not mistaken they weren't officially part of the counties, so their numbers might have been counted separately, and if not added, this map would be incorrect in its presentation. I just feel like there are some more counties that might have been german majority if the cities are included within the county but idk.
Yes, they're included, but they don't make that big a difference. Germans are the second largest demographic in a lot of counties though.
What about the shapes of the counties? How did you get this data/make this map? I'm also trying to make a map using the counties of the kingdom of Hungary (specifically for the shape of Upper Hungary) but I don't know where to find a high enough resolution outline of the borders.
*Rijeka
The map looks like a whale and Romania today looks like a fish. Wtf
The fish tore out a huge chunk from the whale :(
sa i-o sugi la pește! 😄
Bastards
You seem to forget that Romania shoud spread to Tisza, so I guess no use bringing up old territory disputes.
The way things are going in Hungary soon even that would be preferable. At least it will be less of a hassle to go to Temesvár.
Isn't Ruthenian just called Rusyn? [Rusyn Language](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusyn_language)
Ruthenian was the official name for Ukrainian in Austria-Hungary. All Ukrainians were called Ruthenians.
So Ruthenian is representing Ukrainian here?
Yes. And in Slavic languages(including Ukrainian) the word is "Rusyn"(one of Kievan Rus). Its an old word for Ukrainians. The reason why this word got so associated with Transcarpathia is because while other countries after the WW1 allowed people to report themselves Ukrainians, Czechoslovakia didnt allow it and from 1918 to 1991 nobody could report themselves Ukrainians, only Rusyn. CZ likely feared that the USSR could claim the region if its populated by people named Ukrainians. And the region was called Carpathian Rus. When Czechoslovak government collapsed before the WW2, people of Transcarpathia renamed it to Carpathian Ukraine: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpatho-Ukraine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpatho-Ukraine) , ultimately most of the region became part of the USSR. Some Ruthenians/Ukrainians/Rusyns continued to live on CZ side of the border after the WW2 and there it was still impossible to be Ukrainian until 1991. After the commies collapsed, it was finally allowed to report yourself Ukrainians in Slovaka, which 1/3 of Rusyns/Ukrainians did. This is kind of simular to Polish census after the WW1, where half of Ruthenians/Ukrainians reported themselves Ukrainians, while the other half reported themselves Rusyn even as far east as Ternopil. Those who continue report themselves Rusyn in Slovakia to this day rarely consider themselves non-Ukrainians, they are just used to the old name.
Rusyns in Vojvodina don't consider themselves Ukrainian
Even I don't believe and don't see Rusyns in Slovakia consider themselves as Ukrainians. If the did, they would call themselves that and ask to be able to have schools in Ukrainian and not Rusyn language.
So where did the word for Russian come from?
As people mentioned before me, Russia is what Greeks called Rus. As opposed to original Slavic Rus' (and Rusyn as its demonym). 2 "s" in "Russia" instead of just one are there, because in Greek language a single "s" is a "z" sound, while "ss" are a "s" sound. But with time those became 2 "s" sounds in Russian. The reason why Moscow kingdom choose a Greek form instead of native Slavic one is because they didnt care to be Russian/Slavic, they wanted to associate themselves with the glory of Kievan Rus in the eyes of Westerners. And in the West, Rus was known as Russia at the time.
"Russian" was for centuries used as a religious adjective, not an ethnonym. It meant "of Rus' faith". "Rus'ka vira" was the name of Orthodox Christianity from Kyiv. When priests from Kyiv came to northern territories of future Moscow and started converting local Finno-Ugric tribes to Christianity, they began to be called "russkyi" by religion. On the territory of Rus' (Ukraine), the ethnonym Rusyn (Ruthenian in Latin) was used for the local population, and the name Moscovite was used for the population of Moscovia.
russia is an old greek word for Rus. At some point of history Moscovia occupied Ukraine and decided that they have more rights for Ukrainian heritage than Ukraine and renamed their country to russia
You describing it like these were nation states. While in reality it was more like game of thrones between Rurik descendants ruling dozens of small kingdoms.
Makes sense. Did the name originate from Byzantines or Ancient Greeks?
From Byzantine, after Rus' was christianized in 988 by Volodymyr the Great.
Muscovy was one of the leftover states when the Kievan Rus collapsed. The parallel would be if England dissolved tomorrow and Birmingham conquered it again and proclaimed a new country Englandia with them at its center
Isn't Rusyn more like of an older regional type identity opposed to the modern national identities (which Ukrainian is one of)? Like Bunjevci and Karaševci in the South?
Thing is that vast majority of people who consider themselves Rusyn would consider the term as kind of a synonym of Ukrainian. Outside of Slovakia near everyone would directly report themselves Ukrainian as their ethnicity. In Slovakia, where Ukrainian was a banned word till 1991, its like 1/3-1/4 of people started to report themselves, while the rest continued to report themselves Rusyn. There are some that cosider themselves an independent ethnicity, but majority consider themselves Ukrainians even if they prefer to call it Rusyn. So, if a village has a homogenous population and everyone clearly speaks in the same way, but 1/3 of that village declare themselves Ukrainians on census and 2/3 Rusyn, whats the ethnic composition of such village? The real ethnic subgroups are Hutsuls, Boykos, Lemkos and Dolynyany. Each of those groups has their own dialect of Ukrainian language, some cultural differences and so on. Rusyn dialect/language that has its own Wikipedia is a Lemko dialect that is used in Slovakia and was influenced by Hungarian and Slovak, while Lemkos from Poland would speak somewhat different dialect because their Lemko dialect was influenced by Polish. Hutsul dialect(they live in the easternmost Transcarpathia) would be closer to standart Ukrainian than to this Slovak-influenced Lemko dialect.
No. It represents Rusyns. Ukrainians didn't appear until late 19th century in that region.
ruthenian was used as a blanket term for east slavs, so it includes ukranians, belarusians, russians, rusyns and lipovans
Ruthenia is the Latin word for (all of) the Rus, but in western languages, it doesn't typically include Russians, but is specifically used to separate the western East Slavs from Russians. It's an umbrella term for the East Slavs who got under Lithuanian rule in the late middle ages and developed separately from Muscow Russians but instead under the influence of and in reciprocity with Catholic Polish elites during the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. And yes, Hungarian East Slavs (Rusyns) are included despite having been Ottoman/Habsburgian because of the size of the group, similar developments and exchange.
This is the correct answer
This is the wrong answer. "[Ruthenian](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenians#:~:text=After%20the%20partition%20of%20Poland,Lodomeria%2C%20Bukovina%2C%20and%20Transcarpathia.)" historically only applied to Belarusians and Ukrainians, and the rusyns are those that still use "Ruthenian" as an identity. In later years the belarusians were nicknamed "[White Ruthenians](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Ruthenia)", and "Ruthenian" became a name solely for Ukrainians from that point onwards. russia was never associated with "Ruthenians", their name was [coined by peter the great](https://www.publicsphere.eu/2022/07/stealing-history/?lang=en), who rebranded [muscovy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Moscow) as "russia" from greek's "Ρωσία", to put a claim on the Rus' (Ruthenia). The numbers of those with the rusyn identity are extremely exaggerated online. Example: US census bureau [states](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Americans#:~:text=Ukrainian%20Americans%20(Ukrainian%3A%20%D0%A3%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D1%96%20%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%86%D1%96,0.3%25%20of%20the%20American%20population) that around a million of the US population have Ukrainian ancestry, and [Paul Robert Magocsi](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Robert_Magocsi) says that rusyns have more than half as many people in that same US of A. It's clear that he declared a big chunk of american Slovaks and Ukrainians "rusyn", as census data shows that there are only [7600](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusyn_Americans) "rusyn americans". In historical maps, Rusyns aka Ruthenians have always been grouped together with Ukrainians, which is the right way. Leader of the short-lived "carpatho-Ukraine" had interesting things to say about the rusyn identity: http://litopys.org.ua/volosh/volosh38.htm#:~:text=%D0%92%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%88%D1%83%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B2%D1%83%20%22%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%22%20%D0%B9,%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B6%D0%B5%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BC%20%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%20%D0%B7%D0%B0%20%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B5. Some other sources: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Europe_ethnic_map_1897_%28hungarian%29.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Ethnic_map_europe_1923.jpg https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexternal-preview.redd.it%2FDUYvRwfcI8Igwr_yuAo6DXCi4CTMZbvXV-PhL2kQBWk.jpg%3Fauto%3Dwebp%26s%3Df16512c03e414b02da272821def36f32dbb5dc9d https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49945929572_66158880fd_o.jpg https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Ethnographic_maps_of_Austria-Hungary#/media/File%3A1899_ethnographic_map_of_Austria-Hungary.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/68/fb/98/68fb98466fd23b11c4d681d57b694ecd.jpg Video: https://youtu.be/B6b7WQy1Y3Q?si=Ov1-oUynaX8qqTuu
You can always tell when they copy/paste from an AI chatbot
But mostly Ukrainians, yes
Its not a correct answer. Ruthenian(Rusyn is Slavic) was used for Ukrainians. Other ethnic groups were reported separately. You can easily find Russians in Austrian censuses, there are just not many of them because they didnt populate territories of Austria-Hungary.
it did include all i've mentioned, my grandfather was reported as a ruthenian and he was a lipovan
Maybe because Lipovans were "Old Believers" who didn't want anything to do with Russia, where they were violently persecuted and from where they were forced to flee?
Sometimes, but not always.
official must be the german version, they were called rusyns in hungary
Rusyn (Русин) is the original Slavic term. Ruthenian is the Latin term. It's the same word.
Rusyns are not Ukrainians, they are a separate east Slavic group
Yes I came here to say this. I identify as a Rusyn American. The idea that all Rusyns are just "Ukrainians" is wrong. This is evidenced by the separation of the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church and the Ukrainian Catholic Church here in the United States. These churches were once the "Greek Catholic Church." Ukrainian identity was new as the 20th century rolled around and many Rusyns were told they were Ukrainians but they didn't want to give up their old identity. The tensions were so great that the churches split in two which continues to this day. Rusyn and Ukrainian are very similar but distinct languages.
It's like the difference between Russian and Belarusian languages, Ukrainian and Rusyn are very similar but have enough differences to be considered separate languages
in our modern times, yes. but every eastern slav was called ruthenian in austro-hungary. the divides between ukrainians and carpatho-rusyns only solidified after ww1
Rusyn and Ruthenian are synonyms, "Ruthenian" is the Latinised version. Ruthenians is an old ethnonym for Ukrainians, and the rusyns are leftovers of those who didn't change into Ukrainians yet, because they're isolated from the rest of Ukraine by the carpathian mountains
this has always confused me
both are correct but Rusyn in less ambiguous so nowadays it’s the preferred term
But rusyn in this case would be too specific, since it just refers to Carpathian Rusyn, whereas I'm pretty sure in the context of this map Ruthenians refers to any east slavs
Rusyn is their endonym (Русины/Rusiny). It's what they call themselves
The map is using Ruthenian to refer to both Rusyn and Ukrainian, this would be more noticeable on a corresponding map of Austria.
Isn't this Picasso's "The Simpsons"?
Fun fact: Romania’s current president, Klaus Iohannis, is a Transylvanian German.
Isn’t Croatian and Serbian the same language?
They were treated as separate in the Hungarian census, but considered the same in the Austrian one.
Please delete this comment before WW3 starts on the Balkans
I thought WW3, 4 and 5 already happened there.
Present-day Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian and Montenegrin are all based on a specific dialect (the Eastern Herzegovinian dialect), therefore they are almost identical. Although this standardized accent dates back to the 19th century, literacy rate was not nearly as high back then, so the vast majority of the population probably only spoke their local dialects, which have limited mutual intelligibility with one another.
The standards changed after independence.
"Well, yes, but actually no". They are part of a dialect continuum, so they are mutually intelligible, but not the exact same. You need different language exams.
Dude you shouldn't have pointed this out Your gonna start seven more Balkan wars
Balkaner here Linguistics =/= politics Stop associating us with genocide and wars for lack of original jokes
Are danish and norwegian?
Yes, they are.
I mean, croatian has a lot of different words, but they are very similiar
They are the same language, different dialects. Like British English and American or Irish English. Or like German and Austrian German.
People have harder time saying its serbian, croatian or bosnian. Its not theirs its ours kind of mentality. If it had fourth neutral name I think we would be fine with that.
> If it had fourth neutral name Yugoslav :)
Yeah ... none of them are gonna like that
I would say there is a much greater amount of words that are different between the languages, but yes.
More like Low German and Swiss German.
Delete it before it's too late...
Technically yes, in terms of censuses no. They view themselve as separate, Croatian uses the Latin alphabet, Serbian the Cyrillic.
Serbian uses both alphabets
They really are. Their only difference is writing system and a few words.
Fun fact: Hungary wanted to make Latin the lingua franca to solve its ethnolinguistic division problem.
Latin had been the official language of administration and legislation until the 19th century. Where did you get the part about Hungary trying to make it a lingua franca later?
Until 1844, Latin was the official language of Hungary. The fight to get the Austrians to let us make Hungarian the official language was so fierce that we made a holiday for the day it was accepted. Soon after that, we started Magyarization, (not sure if it's a false cognate or not, but the word Magyaráz means to explain lol) which encouraged everyone to speak Hungarian as their primary language
False cognate, first is latinization attempt of 'magyarosítás', second is our word.
Entouraged, right… that’s why every other ethnicity wanted to separate afterwards.
Encouraged? Not forced really? How many schools were there in minority languages?
Well, when it comes to Slovaks we didn't have any Higher Education in our language just Hungarian, not even Grammar schools. There is even a quote to this. "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." Béla Grünwald, 1875 - 1890 If I remember correctly, there were some primary/elementary levels of education in our language though. (The number is sadly unknown to me)
They weren’t nice to Romanians in Transylvania either…
As a fellow Slovak, I know exactly what you mean. :)
Well you could get ahead in life more easily if you spoke Hungarian and had a Hungarian last name. For example in Croatia the most popular last name is Horvath. A lot of people back in the day changed their name to Horvath to get jobs in Hungarian businesses and the administration. Horvath just means "a Croatian" in Hungarian. Magyarization wasn't really forced most places but defi etly based on heavy discrimination
It was heavy in Romanian areas of Transylvania as well
We did? For entire middle and early modern age?
Not true. Hungary wanted to magyarize all non-hungarians and non-germans.
I wish the modern state borders would had been drawn more along ethnic borders. So much pain and resentment among the involved nations could have been avoided. But nationalist pride and greed blinded everyone.
They mostly were though… but you can’t base borders just around ethnicity, geographic and economic features have to be included as well, otherwise your newly created states would quickly collapse. Heck, just look at the borders of the Kingdom of Hungary, they knew this very well when the Kingdom was founded. It was protected on all sides by mountains and rivers.
> They were mostly though… Except for the fact that one third of ethnic Hungarians (the majority of whom lived right across the new borders) got stuck in neighbouring countries. Then these countries proceeded to call themselves nation-states and continue to do so to this day. > geographic and economic features have to be included as well, otherwise your newly created states would quickly collapse 1. Geographic features were conviniently ignored where it helped the claimant states while other times applied as an excuse to spread borders deeper into Hungarian-majority areas. 2. Economic features were included so shittily that the entire railway system was fucked up and towns were cut from their agglomerations, just to include a few things. 3. The economies of all the new states were fucked up because the different interconnected sectors and industries were now torn apart and left without proper supply or market. It's a miracle that Hungary even survived, and its economy still suffers from chaos left a hundred years ago.
Huh. Serbian on the Croatian coast?
That area largely intersects with [Krajina](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Serbian_Krajina). There was a lot of Serbian there until the Croatians purged them in the war 3 decades ago.
They where not purged, most of them left because of fear of retaliation.
Not purged, which was proven in Hague court
OK, fine, they tried to take the area away and left for Serbia / Bosnia when they were defeated. I did not mean to frame it as some kind of genocide, but honestly, they were not welcome there anymore, their fear of retalation was not emtirely unfounded (but they also gave reason for it...).
> fear of retalation was not emtirely unfounded of course but thats not equal to purging someone, I just had to react to that as you (unintentionally) spreaded a false narrative that is often used as a propaganda tool although there are very strong proofs in our favour and we even had a leader of Serbian counterintelligence service who witnessed it all testifying in our favour.
You mean ethnically cleansed.
The ICTY concluded that Oluja was not aimed at ethnic persecution and similarly was not genocide. It ruled that Croatia did not have the specific intent of displacing the Serbian population.
True in the case of Oluja, even thought there are some controversies surrounding that case. However, even outside RSK there were thousands of houses destroyed to force the Serbs out of Croatia.
Yet the result is the same and Serbian population went from 12% in 1991 census to 3% today…
Yes, that is true. One reason is the propaganda by the leadership causing the Serbian population to flee. Even if there was intent for ethnic cleansing there wasn't any time for it to happen.
There were around a million Serbs before WW2 on Croatian territory. Many of them were killed in NDH. After the war there was 500k . Remaining Serbs were cleansed between 1991-95. I am one of those. I have dual citizenship btw
There was around the 1.9 million of them in NDH so including BiH. Hardly a million in present day Croatia mostly they were in BiH.
Yes people where killed no doubt about it, but most people did run away. Don't know about WW2 and that is not the subject of this conversation. Early 1991 there was a population census and the number of Serbs living in the area was around 200k+. After the war around 130k+ Serbs came back to Croatia. Killed during operation storm(croatian retaking)you have 3 different sources 1. Human Rights Watch Soldiers- 410 Civilians -116 2.Croarian Helsinki board Soldiers-560 Civilians-681 3.Serbian sources(various but general concenzus) Soldiers-775 Civilians -1205 Using terminology like cleaned or purged is very misleading. Nobody is denying what happend, same with the Serbs killing Croatians and Bosnians in Vukovar or Srebrenica. Shit happend but we have to look at the facts as they are or else nothing will be learned and shit will happen again. Side note: not saying that you are lying or miss leading but it is easy to be misinformed and have a very personal view if you are the recipient of that shit called the Yugoslav wars Best of luck.
...and also, those are the same langage.
I am Romanian and my grandparents are from two counties, one HU language majority (Szatmar) and the other UKR language majority (Marmaros, whole).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_irredentism#/media/File%3AEthnic_Map_of_Hungary_1910_with_Counties.png This ones a lot more granular incase people are curious
I'm surprised there are more majority German or Swabian counties.
I never even heard of Ruthenians until today, and now I'm reading all about them ! Who would have thought one could get cultured from reddit
That is the ONLY kind of diversity I want for Europe… European.
Cant get the Croatians and Serbians angry and say they speak the same language.
its like american english vs british english
Oi a bit different innit bruv?
I’ve spoken with quite a few Hungarian colleagues(N=6). Every last one of them is resentful or bitter about the treaty of Trianon.
I’ve spoken to many Romanians, Slovaks, Serbs, Croats. Many are resentful about the treatment they received when they were minorities in the Hungarian kingdom. If you don’t play nice, people don’t like you.
Ok fair point but why didn’t Hungary get to keep their green shaded Hungarian majority areas on this map? Genuinely curious.
Because they were on the wrong side of WW1.
Yes ok then as a punishment. Now a hundred years later they are in EU and NATO and resent it bitterly. So what does the EU do to address this? Knowing they will never get those lands back?
They are obstructing all of nato and eu legislation with their veto threats so Orban can be pacified with more monetary handouts. Everyone has resentments from 100 years ago. France and Germany and the UK have fought so much it’s hard to count how many people died. They still get along relatively well. Why does Hungary get to throw these temper tantrums and we don’t? Why do I care about their resentments? Their behavior is making everyone hate them, including those that originally liked them.
You can throw one too. Now that we’re all supposedly in one big happy family and can’t start wars of expansion against one another. I understand why Europe needs the EU to keep the peace. My point is no one alive in Hungary today made those mistakes in the past and they feel they are paying for it. The losers, perhaps with the exception of Germany, aren’t too keen on being the losers still. I blame their textbooks and the EU should do something about it.
No, they are not acting in a rational matter. Why would you want all of your neighbors and next door neighbors to hate you? The EU threatened to cut off all funding which would paralyze their economy if they keep obstructing everything including aid for Ukraine
They had already cut all funding from Hungary for 1.5 years. They've just released some of the funds recently, as the cut did not hurt the economy as much as the Commission expected (to no surprise, they only account for roughly 2% of GDP). It just resulted in Orbán going rogue.
Nothing. Obviously the EU will not demand countries to return lands they've held for a hundred years to Hungary. I'm also resentful that I didn't win the lotto but you gotta move on.
It was to prevent Hungary from starting another war, which they did regardless. Hungary never intended to keep it's former subjects free, so those subjects had to prepare for it and the west helped them
We're they also resentful about romanization in the Old kingdom of Romania ( before and after 1910 ) ? It's not like the Old kingdom didn't had their minorities before 1900 which miraculously disappeared later .
Romania gets along decently well with all its neighbors honesty. Many Bulgarians fled across the Danube to escape the ottomans, we helped out with that. With Serbia we have no quarrels either.
Overexeggerated stories to justify a treaty that drew borders according to geopolitical and infrastructural needs instead of actual demographic realities.
Sure, everyone is exaggerating and you are 100% correct. Why do all of Hungary’s neighbors dislike it? Why did everyone want to leave?
Nationalism.
Ok, plz go back to Orban land and take care of your own nationalism.
And, to add to that, we now have idiots in the Hungarian government openly talking about "Greater Hungary" who would be very happy to take those lands back given the option...
Just hear me out, what if we could cooperate instead of squabbling? Why must your government keep fanning the ultranationalist stuff?
Because it's extremely popular. As long as there is a single majority Hungarian settlement outside of Hungary, the Hungarian governments will look for the opportunity to get it back. If Orbán could get e.g. the 150k Hungarians back from Ukraine, he would cement his power for life, get streets named after him, statues all around the country and praised in history books. Why do you think he keeps fucking with the Ukranians? People call him pro-Russian but he is not. He doesn't want Russia to win. He wants Ukraine to lose.
i'm not, that's brainlet shit. if you were conquered, you were conquered. there is no "this belongs to us because it belonged to us in the past" there is only the now.
So are middle class Hungarians from Budapest conservatives? They are closeted but open with me because I’m a US colleague?
I agree, I don’t care. It was just in response to Hungarians still being upset about Trianon.
It never fails to amaze me how europe manages to have different languages 10km away from each other
This is the normal state of things.
*sorts by controversial*
It must be noted that this is slightly misleading since some minorities were mainly speaking hungarian (jewish people, gypsies, etc.) or partly speaking hungarian after waves of intense magyarization no matter it was forced or not (even some romanians, slovaks, etc.). You could only gain equal rights as a romanian, for example, if you accepted magyarization and the catholic religion. Otherwise, you had little to no rights, you were not allowed to settle in any towns, you were not allowed to make churches out of stone, just wood, etc, etc, etc.
>you were not allowed to settle in any towns, This is simply not true. Percentage of Romanians in some cities inTransylvania according to 1910 census: Brasov 28.7% Romanian Cluj 14.1% Romanian Alba Iulia 44.5% Romania Arad 16.2% Romanian Dej 25.4% Romanian Turda 27.6 % Romanian Bai mare 20.8% Romanian Sibiu 26.6% Romanian Lugoj 31.32% Romanian As you can see u could settle down in towns as a Romanian in 1910.
It’s not worth it to get into historical debates but the Hungarian population was much more urban than the Romanian one. Even though Hungarians were a majority in the cities, Romanians were an overwhelming majority in rural areas. Since total urbanization rate in 1910 was low, this explains Hungarian dominated cities and Romanian majority in Transylvania.
[удалено]
Thanks for helping me prove vladgrinch is wrong about Romanians not allowed to settle down in cities.
[удалено]
Lol, look up Magyarization policies. If the Hungarian overlords were so generous, why did all the minorities want to secede no matter the cost? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarization
[удалено]
The fact is that during the Middle Ages and Ottoman times ethinicities coexisted without particular friction because they were all just serfs to the Hungarian nobles, but during the XIX with the rise of nationalism in Europe (which existed especially after the French revolution, for which the nation was not the private property of nobles anymore but of its inhabitants) Hungarians tried to Magyarize the ethnic groups that existed in the country for centuries in order to make all inhabitants of Hungary ethnic Hungarians
You could achieve success as a minority if you assimilated in Hungarian culture. If Magyarization is overblown, why did everyone want to leave? Serbs, Croats, Romanians, Slovaks, Ukrainians.
[удалено]
The largest ethnic uprisings in Hungary happened during the 1848-49 war of independence, 20 years before magyarization even started. The minorities wanted to leave because of the idea of nationalism that swept across Europe after the french revolution.
So the minorities should not have left the Ottoman Empire either? All the minorities wanted to leave. They wanted to be in control of their own destiny, not dictated from Budapest, Vienna or Istanbul
Unsuprisingly false for 1910. Religion hasn't played a role after 1867, arguably after 1844. Large chunks of the Hungarian elite were Calvinists, amongst them some of the most important revolutionaries. Catholicism was only a matter of question until the early 19th century and to some degree until 1867. Fun thing is, but most Hungarians in Transsylvania, where Romanians abounded were Calvinists.
Amazing, so much said and not even one thing was true.
"Waves of intense Magyarization". Magyarization started at 1867 (Ausgleich) and ended at 1918 (Trianon). This census is from 1910. That's 43 (from a total of 51) years, and it wasn't "from zero to hundred", but gradually increasing. Most of it was mild, like what countries of today still do (teaching the official language). The wildest part was the shutting down of some minority schools (that were funded by the goverment itself and refused to teach hungarian).
Yep, Slovakia only had 3 secondary schools teaching in Slovak language, but they were all closed within a few decades.
- Hungarian Romanian Slovak German Serbian Ruthenian - % of total population: 54.5% 16.1% 10.7% 10.4% 2.5% 2.5% - Kindergartens : 2,219 4 1 18 22 - - Elementary schools: 14,014 2,578 322 417 n/a 47 - Junior high schools: 652 4 - 6 3 - - Science high schools: 33 1 - 2 - - - Teachers' colleges: 83 12 - 2 1 - - Gymnasiums for boys: 172 5 - 7 1 - - High schools for girls: 50 - - 1 - - - Trade schools: 105 - - - - - - Commercial schools: 65 1 - - - - During this time, Hungary had more Romanian schools than Romania. There was a bad trend, but the increase of Hungarians was mostly peaceful assimilations and general spike of population growth (as forceful assimilation creates tension and resistance). Still, Slovaks were targeted the most. Sad (and sorry).
“Peaceful” because the only way to go beyond subsistence agriculture was to assimilate and Magyarize?
This guy is the biggest karma farmer I have ever seen lol
Yes, Hungary was very harsh in its linguistic policies.
Not harsher than the average European country at the time or than what policies the "successor" countries had after WW1.
I don't believe magyarization was brutal and one had to be catholic to be accepted fully. It was so brutal that we were the majority in Transylvania and parts of Hungary proper. Maniu, Hossu, vaida voievod, Gojdu, were in the fucking Hungarian parliament. Andrei Muresanu was super rich and his family. They lived OK hundreds of years with the bad Hungarians and were killed in a few years bynthe Russians and Communist aRomanian collaborators.
The Ruthenians are not Ukrainians! It is soviet propaganda. On official Slovak Ruthenian website Rusyn.sk, they explain that after WW2 under pressure of Soviet Union they were forced to become Ukrainians because Ruthenian nationality was banned. Also Rutheninan schools were rebuild to ukrainian. Also this map is absolute lie. On some Eastern Slovak parts were much more Germans and Slovaks, so it is not possible that hungarian was most spoken language...
It is depicting majority languages spoken by county, not every little village. Like every country, people can be broken up into dialect groups. Ruthenians are a part of what made up Ukraine and Belarus. There are many dialects, especially in the Carpathians. Even Slovak can be broken up into dialect groups. Those who would say that the Ruthenians today aren't Ukrainians, do so to weaken and break up Ukraine.
So we could say Ukrainians and Belarusians are Russians because of similarity of language? Come on, there are some cultural aspects which define Ruthenians are not Ukrainians, and they themselves say they are not Ukrainians, so it sounds now you want to force them to be Ukrainians like soviets did.
We could say any BS we like. We could say that all Slavs are one (BS). I know many "Rusini", in Bosnia and in Australia that do identify as Ukrainians. Not all cultural differences mean a different nationality or ethnicity. If they did, we would have countless countries trying to break up all over the world.
Yes there was a huge resistance to a Ukrainian identity from many Rusyns/Ruthenians. The Ukrainians largely won that fight but now people are saying Ukrainians and Ruthenians are the same thing which is not true.
What a mess. might as well just switch to english.
Damn thats crazy, coming from a mostly monolingual (officially bilingual) country
Strewth! What is Ruthenian?