Hungary used to host one of the world’s most powerful empires—the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Now, it’s not even in the top 10 EU countries by GDP and is among the bottom countries in GDP per capita. What happened? Why are Hungarians so bitter about their present-day borders?
From a Hungarian’s perspective: well written piece with one correction: Hungarian language, while indeed unique, has a huge influence from Slavic languages, German (especially since the “language reform” of mid 1800s, many words translated directly from German), and some French influence blended into the Finno-Ugric language family. But we still benefit from nobody understanding us when abroad, except the 800k+ Hungarians who emigrated after 1956 and since the 2004 EU accession (who tend to show up in the most unexpected places:-).
Excellent article. Maybe some additional thoughts to understand the effect of past on present even better.
1, After November 1918, WW1 ended, the dissolution of Austria-Hungary happened from one day to the other. Ordinary people had enough fighting, and so pacifist social democrat government took over ruling. Republic was introduced instead of a monarchy. 2, But pacifist republic meant the army was demobilized and newly enlarged nationalist neighbors demanded more territories: Romania, Czechoslovakia, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Check the Vix and Clemenceau notes. The social democrats failed and were labelled as traitors of the 1000 year old nation.
3, Political sphere radicalized, instead of socialist republic came a short communist dictatorship in 1919. Army was reorganized, Czechs were fought back, land reclaimed. But domestic politics failed with many communistic purges of pacifist and defected soldiers and international pressure on the dictatorship led to a collapse again. Romanian army sacked Budapest and even more land was lost.
4, Then a WW1 admiral Horthy reorganized the army in the countryside in Szeged, just around the effective Serb-Romanian-Hungarian triple borders. Had a march around the country and started to unite people and land. Now a radical right wing purge followed. Last stop was Budapest, the guilty city with social democratic past.
5, Horthy established a conservative semi autocratic regime, legally the monarchy was restored but without a king, as Habsburgs would have been the symbol of repression. Independence needed someone else, Horthy was head of state as a governor and the effective power was lying with prime minister Bethlen. Pride of the nation was given back in the next 20 years with world class companies and science, sportspeople, education and schools for all and everywhere (Check the Martians.) Nationalist culture and ideology was the essenek of it, to work for regaining price after losing the 1000 year old land.
6. Now its our turn to draw the conclusions why after 100 years the countryside is still radically right, the capital is still heavily liberal and social democratic, communism is hated ever since, nationalism is super important so as conservativism, republic is less sought after, tough leaders are appreciated more than cooperative party politics, why Hungary always looks to Austria as a role model, why a painting of Bethlen hangs in Orbán office, what is the essence of Orbán and he coming after the unsuccessful transition where socialist governments privatized assets to themselves, and he coming again after the 2008-09 crisis completely destroying Hungary.
Coming at the end of a factual article presenting so much geography and history it was jarring to read the concluding sentences "feeling Hungarian is a bit too painful given the current size of the country. Feeling European corresponds better to its grandiose history of a big Central European power". What is the evidence for this? I can think of a number of psycho-social hypotheses are at least as "persuasive".
No thanks. I didn't mean to say that I have better psychological speculations to offer than you, only that such speculation in the absence of supporting evidence is easy to do and unconvincing. That's why I thought these sentences in your essay were so strikingly different in character from the rest.
One thing: despite not having good sea lanes the Central Powers could actually easily move forces between fronts like from France to East Prussia (it was done repeatedly) without any significant issues due to well developed railways. That was impossible for Entanta, which were mostly denied maneuver between theaters.
Regarding Budapest being most pro EU: Could this also be a sign of Hungarian political divide, with the capital seing the EU as a counterweight to Orban and Fidesz, identifying more with an entity that they align better politically?
Regarding WW1 logistics: The central powers had the inner lines due to a good railway system (especially Germany). But the lack of sea trade of course made it difficult and probably was decisive in the end.
Hungarian irredentism is probably one of the most persistent after WWI (which was also the birth of Italian irredentism, among others). Hungary, as the lesser partner in the Austria-Hungary relationship, took the heaviest toll of the post-WWI negotiations, handing over plenty of territory inhabited by Hungarians (not just ruled by Hungary). A similar thing happened with Germany after WWII, but in that case, all Germans living outside the new border were expelled to Germany (even if that new territory had nothing to do with them). A really questionable choice, but as a consequence, there is little German irredentism today.
Definitely nazism had a lot to do! Also the fact that Germany remaining territory was also split in half (originally in four), which lead to the goal of reuniting above any other historical claim.
It would be interesting for you to continue into the Soviet period. Out the former Soviet republics, Hungarians had the highest opinions of it. A majority preferred being a part of the USSR, but I'm not sure why that is.
1. We don't think of historical pre-WWI Hungary as an empire, rather as a state with multiple ethnicities. Hungary was not an expansionary state after the Middle Ages (when it even existed as a political unit), and Hungarians had limited political power in the Habsburg Empire until 1867.
The Austrian half of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy (as we call it in our terminology) was in fact an empire, the Hungarian half was not.
2. What made the Treaty of Trianon especially unjust was that if the borders of Hungary were drawn about 50 kilometers further out, the vast majority of ethnic Hungarians would have remained inside the Hungarian state - which would have made the treaty far less traumatic for Hungarian society. The only exception would have been Szekelyland in Transylvania, which is the currently the only region where the Hungarian minority is not facing an acute threat of assimilation. This shows that the treaty was not about justice for the mistreatment of minorities in pre-WWI Hungary, but rather about conceding to the greed of the neighboring countries, who wanted to take even more land at the time.
Greed?! Maybe well earned pieces. Not only fighting against the empire, but being subjugated and without any political power (nor economic one) for hundreds of years. The lands 50 km out, while would have contained hungarians, in those lands they were no longer a majority. So, going by democratic vote, they lost.
AFAIK there was no democratic vote in most of Hungary. The only one turened in favor of Hungary. Hungary in general would have preferred votes, but the other ethnicities didn’t want them.
I am not taking sides here, just noting what I read.
There was a National Assembly in Alba Iulia on Dec 1, 1918. All voted to join Romania, except Hungarian minority.
Also, the Austrian demographic maps were used at the Peace conference in Paris 1919 to decide on the borders, based on ethnic composition. And because people would have voted with their ethnical affinities, one could consider that the split would have been "democratic".
I can imagine how democratic the Romanian National Assembly must have been, with inclusive representation for all:) Also, if we look at the vote around Sopron, the only part where a referendum did take place, people did not vote according to ethnic lines. And the Austrian maps were not the real basis of the decision, e.g. Oradea/Nagyvárad also had a 90%+ Hungarian population, greater than that of Sopron, surely that should have warranted a vote.
Oradea at that time wasn't that big and the majority of population around it, peasants and villages were Romanians. That was not the case with Sopron.
Why do you think there was no level of democracy? Because Hungary lost? Representatives from all communities from Transylvania were sent to Alba Iulia to negotiate the next steps for the territory. Alba Iulia was historically capital of the area. Romanian, Saxons, Szekely, Magyars etc communities sent their representatives. Magyar reps voted no.
The Partium areas and Banat and Maramures and North Bukovina were treated differently.
Pannonia sounded so familiar, and it couldn't just have been your 2021 Twitter thread (which might have been the first thing I saw from you). And of course, it was Pannonica de Koenigswarter, the patron Rothschild baroness of modern jazz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannonica_de_Koenigswarter
She was named after a species of moth (Eublemma pannonica), which do appear to live in the Pannonian region, by her entomologist father.
Great article. It explains something I hadn't understood up to this point. Hungary has one of the least pro-EU leaders (Viktor Orbán), often clashing with the rest of the EU members. He's able to capture the dormant feelings in many Hungarians for a stronger and more powerful Hungary.
On a different point, I'm struck to how circumstance can shape strategy. The quirks of the Pannonian Basin had all of these ripple effects on language, beliefs, attitudes but it was not necessarily the kind of deliberate move we would think about.
Thank you for the article, I am going to share it on my FB page and groups! May I share it also on my self-hosted page as a guest post? www.hungarianottomanwars.com
From a Hungarian’s perspective: well written piece with one correction: Hungarian language, while indeed unique, has a huge influence from Slavic languages, German (especially since the “language reform” of mid 1800s, many words translated directly from German), and some French influence blended into the Finno-Ugric language family. But we still benefit from nobody understanding us when abroad, except the 800k+ Hungarians who emigrated after 1956 and since the 2004 EU accession (who tend to show up in the most unexpected places:-).
Thank you! Valuable additions.
Excellent article. Maybe some additional thoughts to understand the effect of past on present even better.
1, After November 1918, WW1 ended, the dissolution of Austria-Hungary happened from one day to the other. Ordinary people had enough fighting, and so pacifist social democrat government took over ruling. Republic was introduced instead of a monarchy. 2, But pacifist republic meant the army was demobilized and newly enlarged nationalist neighbors demanded more territories: Romania, Czechoslovakia, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Check the Vix and Clemenceau notes. The social democrats failed and were labelled as traitors of the 1000 year old nation.
3, Political sphere radicalized, instead of socialist republic came a short communist dictatorship in 1919. Army was reorganized, Czechs were fought back, land reclaimed. But domestic politics failed with many communistic purges of pacifist and defected soldiers and international pressure on the dictatorship led to a collapse again. Romanian army sacked Budapest and even more land was lost.
4, Then a WW1 admiral Horthy reorganized the army in the countryside in Szeged, just around the effective Serb-Romanian-Hungarian triple borders. Had a march around the country and started to unite people and land. Now a radical right wing purge followed. Last stop was Budapest, the guilty city with social democratic past.
5, Horthy established a conservative semi autocratic regime, legally the monarchy was restored but without a king, as Habsburgs would have been the symbol of repression. Independence needed someone else, Horthy was head of state as a governor and the effective power was lying with prime minister Bethlen. Pride of the nation was given back in the next 20 years with world class companies and science, sportspeople, education and schools for all and everywhere (Check the Martians.) Nationalist culture and ideology was the essenek of it, to work for regaining price after losing the 1000 year old land.
6. Now its our turn to draw the conclusions why after 100 years the countryside is still radically right, the capital is still heavily liberal and social democratic, communism is hated ever since, nationalism is super important so as conservativism, republic is less sought after, tough leaders are appreciated more than cooperative party politics, why Hungary always looks to Austria as a role model, why a painting of Bethlen hangs in Orbán office, what is the essence of Orbán and he coming after the unsuccessful transition where socialist governments privatized assets to themselves, and he coming again after the 2008-09 crisis completely destroying Hungary.
That context is super useful. Thank you for sharing!
What an incredible educational piece on geography history. Love the maps. Never seen anything like this before.
I’m so glad!
Coming at the end of a factual article presenting so much geography and history it was jarring to read the concluding sentences "feeling Hungarian is a bit too painful given the current size of the country. Feeling European corresponds better to its grandiose history of a big Central European power". What is the evidence for this? I can think of a number of psycho-social hypotheses are at least as "persuasive".
Thank you for your feedback. Please share your hypotheses!
No thanks. I didn't mean to say that I have better psychological speculations to offer than you, only that such speculation in the absence of supporting evidence is easy to do and unconvincing. That's why I thought these sentences in your essay were so strikingly different in character from the rest.
One thing: despite not having good sea lanes the Central Powers could actually easily move forces between fronts like from France to East Prussia (it was done repeatedly) without any significant issues due to well developed railways. That was impossible for Entanta, which were mostly denied maneuver between theaters.
Indeed! I didn’t want to get too much into WWs because that’s a quagmire. But yes you’re right. Thx for sharing!
Another great article!
Regarding Budapest being most pro EU: Could this also be a sign of Hungarian political divide, with the capital seing the EU as a counterweight to Orban and Fidesz, identifying more with an entity that they align better politically?
Regarding WW1 logistics: The central powers had the inner lines due to a good railway system (especially Germany). But the lack of sea trade of course made it difficult and probably was decisive in the end.
Yes and yes!
Re Budapest I think I say so, no?
Really good article!
Hungarian irredentism is probably one of the most persistent after WWI (which was also the birth of Italian irredentism, among others). Hungary, as the lesser partner in the Austria-Hungary relationship, took the heaviest toll of the post-WWI negotiations, handing over plenty of territory inhabited by Hungarians (not just ruled by Hungary). A similar thing happened with Germany after WWII, but in that case, all Germans living outside the new border were expelled to Germany (even if that new territory had nothing to do with them). A really questionable choice, but as a consequence, there is little German irredentism today.
Interesting! I didn’t know
Although the lack of German irredentism might have something to do with Nazism too…
Definitely nazism had a lot to do! Also the fact that Germany remaining territory was also split in half (originally in four), which lead to the goal of reuniting above any other historical claim.
Ah yes good point. And for that they had to relinquish their claim on any other territory. Turns out it was a good strategy after all!
It worked out way better than the WWI strategy with Germany :)
Because it hasn't eaten enough (It's hungry)
I heard Hungarians reaaaaally hate the joke
As a Hungarian, I confirm 😅
Ha ha ha. 😂
But did you eat well today?
It's because they're hangry
😂😂
It would be interesting for you to continue into the Soviet period. Out the former Soviet republics, Hungarians had the highest opinions of it. A majority preferred being a part of the USSR, but I'm not sure why that is.
Interesting. I wonder why.
Great article, two comments as a Hungarian:
1. We don't think of historical pre-WWI Hungary as an empire, rather as a state with multiple ethnicities. Hungary was not an expansionary state after the Middle Ages (when it even existed as a political unit), and Hungarians had limited political power in the Habsburg Empire until 1867.
The Austrian half of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy (as we call it in our terminology) was in fact an empire, the Hungarian half was not.
2. What made the Treaty of Trianon especially unjust was that if the borders of Hungary were drawn about 50 kilometers further out, the vast majority of ethnic Hungarians would have remained inside the Hungarian state - which would have made the treaty far less traumatic for Hungarian society. The only exception would have been Szekelyland in Transylvania, which is the currently the only region where the Hungarian minority is not facing an acute threat of assimilation. This shows that the treaty was not about justice for the mistreatment of minorities in pre-WWI Hungary, but rather about conceding to the greed of the neighboring countries, who wanted to take even more land at the time.
Thank you for sharing and adding color! That makes sense and fits with what I learned
Greed?! Maybe well earned pieces. Not only fighting against the empire, but being subjugated and without any political power (nor economic one) for hundreds of years. The lands 50 km out, while would have contained hungarians, in those lands they were no longer a majority. So, going by democratic vote, they lost.
AFAIK there was no democratic vote in most of Hungary. The only one turened in favor of Hungary. Hungary in general would have preferred votes, but the other ethnicities didn’t want them.
I am not taking sides here, just noting what I read.
There was a National Assembly in Alba Iulia on Dec 1, 1918. All voted to join Romania, except Hungarian minority.
Also, the Austrian demographic maps were used at the Peace conference in Paris 1919 to decide on the borders, based on ethnic composition. And because people would have voted with their ethnical affinities, one could consider that the split would have been "democratic".
I can imagine how democratic the Romanian National Assembly must have been, with inclusive representation for all:) Also, if we look at the vote around Sopron, the only part where a referendum did take place, people did not vote according to ethnic lines. And the Austrian maps were not the real basis of the decision, e.g. Oradea/Nagyvárad also had a 90%+ Hungarian population, greater than that of Sopron, surely that should have warranted a vote.
Oradea at that time wasn't that big and the majority of population around it, peasants and villages were Romanians. That was not the case with Sopron.
Why do you think there was no level of democracy? Because Hungary lost? Representatives from all communities from Transylvania were sent to Alba Iulia to negotiate the next steps for the territory. Alba Iulia was historically capital of the area. Romanian, Saxons, Szekely, Magyars etc communities sent their representatives. Magyar reps voted no.
The Partium areas and Banat and Maramures and North Bukovina were treated differently.
Pannonia sounded so familiar, and it couldn't just have been your 2021 Twitter thread (which might have been the first thing I saw from you). And of course, it was Pannonica de Koenigswarter, the patron Rothschild baroness of modern jazz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pannonica_de_Koenigswarter
She was named after a species of moth (Eublemma pannonica), which do appear to live in the Pannonian region, by her entomologist father.
Fun fact!
Great article. It explains something I hadn't understood up to this point. Hungary has one of the least pro-EU leaders (Viktor Orbán), often clashing with the rest of the EU members. He's able to capture the dormant feelings in many Hungarians for a stronger and more powerful Hungary.
On a different point, I'm struck to how circumstance can shape strategy. The quirks of the Pannonian Basin had all of these ripple effects on language, beliefs, attitudes but it was not necessarily the kind of deliberate move we would think about.
A big theme of uncharted territories is how the territory has influenced history so much
My (not formally educated) grandmother’s concise history of the region: Austria got Hung(a)ry and fried Turkey in Greece.
Thank you for the article, I am going to share it on my FB page and groups! May I share it also on my self-hosted page as a guest post? www.hungarianottomanwars.com
I’m glad to hear! Go for it, just link back to this article!
Always a pleasure to read your articles, thank you ! As Europeans we should have a lot more European history courses to understand each other.
Thanks! I agree!
As a Hungarian being born in Germany I really appreciate your article. Seems like I didn’t know shit, but my father’s stories.
I didn't know shit either, that makes 2 of us!