• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

grandsteed

Les catholiques de la contre-réforme
Aug 15, 2019
58
45
67
It seems unlikely to me, but I wonder if an earlier turn to the Allies could've kept their gains from the first Vienna Award. They would've most likely been invaded and brutalized, but they would've gained the sympathies of the Allies for doing this. Hungary wasn't even punished that harshly after the war, other than falling into Soviet influence. The biggest block to me is just the idea of the award being arbitrated by Germany and Italy, if it was conducted entirely between Slovakia and Hungary I feel it would've been easy. In the end, the majority of the territory was ethnic Hungarian, so they certainly had a claim to it.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
It seems unlikely to me, but I wonder if an earlier turn to the Allies could've kept their gains from the first Vienna Award. They would've most likely been invaded and brutalized, but they would've gained the sympathies of the Allies for doing this. Hungary wasn't even punished that harshly after the war, other than falling into Soviet influence. The biggest block to me is just the idea of the award being arbitrated by Germany and Italy, if it was conducted entirely between Slovakia and Hungary I feel it would've been easy. In the end, the majority of the territory was ethnic Hungarian, so they certainly had a claim to it.
I won't get into the controversial comment about whether the territory is majority ethnic Hungarian.

I don't think the Hungarian had a chance to keep it from the moment the Romanians behaved like they did historically. First, the Romanian communists had way more contacts at the Kremlin (eg Ana Pauker) than the Hungarians ever had. In addition or maybe due to that, Stalin was very relatively "Romanophile", with his famous sentence "Romania had a reason to declare war on us, Hungary had not". Finally, Stalin wanted part of Bessarabia and wanted to compensate Romania somehow, just like he compensated Poland with parts of Germany.

What would have been needed for Hungary to keep Transylvania would have been Romania having a way more "pro-Axis" policy to the very end, pushing Stalin to "overpunish" the Romanians, but that was not in the hands of Budapest.

But even before we get to those post-war settlements, I don't see how Hungary could have done an earlier "turn" to the allies without a German coup and a pro-German puppet at the head of Hungary, fighting nominally alongside the axis. If the Hungarians could not break the German yoke in 1944, I don't see how they could have done it in 1942 or 1943.
 
At the expense of Czechoslovakia? Not a chance.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I won't get into the controversial comment about whether the territory is majority ethnic Hungarian.

I don't think the Hungarian had a chance to keep it from the moment the Romanians behaved like they did historically. First, the Romanian communists had way more contacts at the Kremlin (eg Ana Pauker) than the Hungarians ever had. In addition or maybe due to that, Stalin was very relatively "Romanophile", with his famous sentence "Romania had a reason to declare war on us, Hungary had not". Finally, Stalin wanted part of Bessarabia and wanted to compensate Romania somehow, just like he compensated Poland with parts of Germany.

What would have been needed for Hungary to keep Transylvania would have been Romania having a way more "pro-Axis" policy to the very end, pushing Stalin to "overpunish" the Romanians, but that was not in the hands of Budapest.

But even before we get to those post-war settlements, I don't see how Hungary could have done an earlier "turn" to the allies without a German coup and a pro-German puppet at the head of Hungary, fighting nominally alongside the axis. If the Hungarians could not break the German yoke in 1944, I don't see how they could have done it in 1942 or 1943.
By any ethnic measurement standards, most of the land ceded to Hungary by Slovakia in 1938 has a Hungarian majority. This is true even today. As for Romanian territories, this is not the case. This thread was pertaining to Slovak cessions. It is highly unlikely that Hungary could've kept Northern Transylvania without Axis victory.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
By any ethnic measurement standards, most of the land ceded to Hungary by Slovakia in 1938 has a Hungarian majority. This is true even today. As for Romanian territories, this is not the case. This thread was pertaining to Slovak cessions. It is highly unlikely that Hungary could've kept Northern Transylvania without Axis victory.
Ah my misunderstanding. I did not realize it was about the Slovakian part here. I don't know anything about that, neither the ethnic composition nor the chance to keep it.
 
At the expense of Czechoslovakia? Not a chance.
This.

Czechoslovakia was the big fish, not Hungary. The allies, east and west, regarded the Czechoslovakian exile government as the legitimate one, not the Slovakian axis puppet government. Any deals between Bratislava and Budapest were illegitimate. Furthermore, given the greater political, economic and strategic importance of Czechoslovakia in the immediate post war, no one was in a mood to give Hungary favors at the expense of Czechoslovakia.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Czechoslovakkia already ended up losing Carphatian Ruthenia to USSR, reducing its pre-war territory even further doesn't seem politically realistic at all.
 
Hungary TRIED to switch to the Allies in 1943, sending several representatives undercover to the UK to discuss the issue. The idea was rejected immediately, and the meeting publicized, leading to the arrest of the representatives by Germany upon their return to the mainland. Germany occupied Hungary a few months later to forestall any further attempts, so a change in 1944-45 was not possible with the country effectively reduced to puppet status and physically occupied by German troops. After the war, Hungary had no representation in the process, either on the Soviet or Allied side, so the matter was totally out of their hands.

Majorities in the disputed areas are a highly debatable issue, because many things were done by virtually all parties to cloud the waters. In many of the regions in question, there was no "majority", but numerous individual communities primarily of one ethnicity or another in a patchwork that made any simple dividing line "wrong". In other words, on the Czechoslovakian border there were Magyar (ethnic Hungarian) towns, Slovak towns, German towns, and so on. On the Romanian side, in most areas there again was no "majority", but Romanians had a plurality in many, with individual villages and cities being primarily Romanian, Magyar, German, Serbian, or other. I recall one breakdown showing over 12 different ethnic groups in one county on the Yugoslavian border, none comprising over 20% of the total population. The relocation of families and changing of family names in a couple of countries, to confuse the issue and break up the ethnic solidity of several of those communities, only muddied things further.

Note that during my visit to Hungary in 2002, we passed one small town which was ethnically practically 100% Italian, settled by hired Italian artisans during the late 1800s. The community used Italian as its primary language (Hungarian was taught as a second language), had Italian customs, and was effectively a piece of Italy stuck inside of Hungary, with the main exception being that all correspondence with the national government was required to be in Hungarian. People tended to settle in cultural enclaves, and when the Magyars, Germans, Romanians, Serbs, and other groups settled areas such as Transylvania, they did so in villages primarily or entirely of their own ethnic groups. You can't draw a nice straight line to separate the black and white squares on a chessboard, yet that is what the victors of the World Wars attempted to do, for various expedient reasons, and the entire Balkan region has paid the consequences.

As said in another post, there was no "motivation" for the Soviets or the Allies to allow Hungary to retain the border areas it regained with the First Vienna Awards.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Note that during my visit to Hungary in 2002, we passed one small town which was ethnically practically 100% Italian, settled by hired Italian artisans during the late 1800s. The community used Italian as its primary language (Hungarian was taught as a second language), had Italian customs, and was effectively a piece of Italy stuck inside of Hungary, with the main exception being that all correspondence with the national government was required to be in Hungarian.

Do you remember the name of the town or the general proximity? I'd be curious to know. In exchange, I offer the village of Beloiannisz, settled by Greek civil war refugees.
 
Do you remember the name of the town or the general proximity? I'd be curious to know. In exchange, I offer the village of Beloiannisz, settled by Greek civil war refugees.
Sorry, but I can't pick the details out of memory any more. It was just too much new information at the time, making a driving tour of the entire country over the course of about a week, followed by about a week in Budapest, and afterwards I couldn't recall what was where, with a few notable exceptions.
 
Sorry, but I can't pick the details out of memory any more. It was just too much new information at the time, making a driving tour of the entire country over the course of about a week, followed by about a week in Budapest, and afterwards I couldn't recall what was where, with a few notable exceptions.

Are you sure you did not confuse something? When was this?

Italians are such a tiny, tiny minority that they don't even hit 1k on the most recent census. I'd be halfway inclined to say you confused them with slovenes or just plain onl Beloiannisz
 
It's another of those unsolvable problems when it comes to territory, no matter what you do someone will always feel slighted or wronged there, so many enclaves of different speaking people and cultures.
 
There is long tradition to exchange populations to make things easier ;)
There's also a long tradition of easing the population pressure, one way or another, to make things go smoother. We don't talk about that here.

The individual communities are often primarily or almost entirely of one ethnic group, but those communities of the various ethnic groups are so heavily intermingled that you can't draw any rational dividing line to separate one group from the others. No matter how you draw a line to divide a chessboard into two separate areas, it's inevitably going to leave a LOT of squares on the wrong side of the line. The borders as drawn don't work from an ethnic standpoint, aren't economically sound, and have no historical basis. Essentially, in most places, they're only where they are because it served some outsiders' interests at the time, and the pawns in the great game (whose interests the dividing lines were claimed to serve) generally had little or no say in the matter.
 
There is long tradition to exchange populations to make things easier ;)

exchange population sounds really nice, much better then "force innocent individuals out of their ancestral home at gunpoint and actually shoot them if they don't want to leave"
 
exchange population sounds really nice, much better then "force innocent individuals out of their ancestral home at gunpoint and actually shoot them if they don't want to leave"
Nah it's not about shooting them. Only they'll have to renounce their nationality, change their names, stop speaking their own language, or face discriminating and jail
 
Nah it's not about shooting them. Only they'll have to renounce their nationality, change their names, stop speaking their own language, or face discriminating and jail

But before that they should provide a proof of their new allegiance by gifting their excess wealth (like house, furniture, etc) to fellow citizen of their new nationality.
 
But before that they should provide a proof of their new allegiance by gifting their excess wealth (like house, furniture, etc) to fellow citizen of their new nationality.
That's not how population exchanges work

What you describe is ethnic cleansing, which admittedly was and still is a popular pastime in many parts of the world.

Population exchange is the slightly less barbaric method by which two parties agree to both expel parts of the population but they sign an agreement over it and the red cross gets to watch the proceedings. Depending on the situation it may not be that barbaric if there is an option for the people who don't want to be exchanged, to remain where they are under some rules. Those rules usually include that they have to give up citizenship, and rights to citizenship, of the nation to which they would otherwise be expelled, i.e. staying is only allowed if they opt to no longer be counted as having a connection to that nation. I think this is how it worked when the south tyroleans in 1940 were given the choice of whether to leave for Germany, or stay in Tyrol but then accept Italian fascist assimilation policy and renounce the German identity. Also, with alsatians after 1918. If you were an Alsatian who identified as ethnically German you had to either leave Alsace, or stay but renounce your German identity i.e. give up your German citizenship and agree to become a good Frenchman who doesn't speak German any more outside his home, and doesn't ask the German state to intercede with the French authorities on his cultural behalf.
 
There are a few other tricks, like making it a crime to purchase materials to fix or maintain an ethnic building or a church that's not of the nationally approved culture or religion. The churches were generally centers of cultural life for small communities, so having those fall into disrepair and eventual abandonment served the government's purposes without affecting peoples' homes directly.
 
  • 1
Reactions: