Romanian Foreign Affairs Ministry condemns Hungarian PM’s ‘Greater Hungary’ scarf

The Romanian Foreign Affairs Ministry released a statement expressing its disapproval after Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban wore a scarf featuring a map of "Greater Hungary" during a match between Hungary and Greece. The map included a piece of Transylvania within Hungarian borders.

The Foreign Affairs Ministry conveyed its “firm disapproval” of Orban’s gesture to the Hungarian ambassador in Bucharest, noting that the PM’s “attitude is in contrast with the atmosphere of openness that defined the relaunching of bilateral dialogue” between Romania and Hungary.

“Any revisionist manifestation, regardless of the form it takes, is unacceptable, contrary to the current realities and the commitments undertaken jointly by Romania and Hungary to build a bilateral relationship within the defining parameters of the basic instrument that governs the bilateral relationship, namely the Treaty on the understanding, cooperation and good neighborliness between Romania and the Republic of Hungary, signed in Timișoara on September 16, 1996,” the ministry added in a press release cited by G4Media.

Hungarian government officials have been using the map of “Greater Hungary” consistently for several years. In June 2019, Romania and Slovenia condemned the publication of a map representing "Greater Hungary" from which the neighboring states each "tear off" a piece, Romania being represented as taking Transylvania. The map was published on the website abouthungary.hu, managed by prime minister Viktor Orban's office.

In December of the same year, Orban chaired a FIDESZ meeting with the map of Greater Hungary in the background. The map showed Hungary as including pieces of present-day Croatia. In reply, Croatian PM Andrej Plenković said that the map was “a challenge.” At the end of April 2020, a Hungarian minister gave an interview with the BBC with the same map in the background, according to G4Media.

It’s easy enough to see if you had read some history.

The Ruthenians were part of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. That wasn’t “Poland” as some Polish nationalists try to incorrectly project backwards.

Then you see the Cossack states - and they are incorrectly grouped into Russia from 1600 when they were only nominally under the Tsar because the dopes went to the Tsar of Muscowy and didn’t read the small print of the treaty they signed.

you don’t find Muscowy becoming Russia until 1700 - the Tsardom of Muscowy was ruled by the Tsar of “all the Russias” - even the ones he didn’t yet rule

Note that you clubbed a lot in a sentence - not all correct

‘the idiots who created yugoslavia’ — this was a popular movement among the Southern Slavs. It worked until Serbians tried to impose themselves upon the other nationalities.

The 3 million ethnic Germans in Czechia was a difficult case - yes, it was incorrect to put them there demographically, but the thing is that the Germans inhabited all the mountain areas. That would give a Czech only state as basically defenseless.

The Germans in Poland were actually pretty patriotic Poles - read about the Germans in Łódź and in Warsaw who refused to be marked as “VolksDeutsch” - and even today I know quite a few Poles with the surnames Schulz, Merklejn, Putz etc. who are pretty patriotic Poles. The Germans in Danzig/Gdańsk — yes, they felt more connected to Germany.

The Germans in France — Alsace and Lorraine — now that was a historical tragedy dating to Charlemagne/Karolus Magnus/Karl de GroB/ Karol Wielki — and he split his empire among his sons, with the eldest Lothair taking the middle area.

Lothair-land got squeezed between East and West Francia (Germany and France) until all that was left was Lorraine/Lotharingia.

Alsace and Lorraine are both unique culturally - at least in the 1800s they were not French, but not Bavarian leave alone Prussian/Saxon either.

I really dislike the French centralization how they have obliterated all the local cultures like Picardy, Gascon and of course Brittany, Langue d’Oc and Alsace and Lorraine.

The current German way or the Swiss way of multiple nations running themselves in subsidiarity but clubbing together for monetary union and against invaders is a good way imho

this was a popular movement among the Southern Slavs. It worked until Serbians tried to impose themselves upon the other nationalities.

This was a reward to the Serbs for starting WWI. Nobody ever asked the Croats, Slovenes, etc etc.

It may be inconvenient but government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. Nobody every asked the 3 million Sudeten Germans if they wished to be an oppressed minority in a newly created state.

Again, they simply carved a swath through Germany paying no attention to the wishes of the locals and not ever consulting them in order to give Poland access to the sea. There were LOTS of ethnic Germans in those territories who did not want to be part of Poland - thus all the ethnic cleansing after the war.

Elsass and Lothringen were part of the Holy Roman Empire (of the German nation). They did not even become part of France until the Treaty of Vienna after the Napoleonic wars allowed France to keep some of the land they stole during their wars of aggression against their neighbors. (Corsica is another example).

The current German way or the Swiss way of multiple nations running themselves in subsidiarity but clubbing together for monetary union and against invaders is a good way imho

Federalism and decentralized power - particularly for historically decentralized nations - is a good way to go. Of course the Germans didn't figure this out for themselves. It was imposed on them mostly by the Americans after the war. It has worked quite well though. Given Germany's much more decentralized history as compared to say, Britain or France, it was easy to make historical kingdoms/duchies, etc into federal states ie Bundeslaender.

The Entente Powers created a LOT of problems at Versailles and this had a huge hand in causing another World War. They talked about no subject nationalities or secret treaties and the right of people to self determination and democracy....and then shat on every principle they claimed to hold dear in their vindictive desire to harm the Germans, Austrians and Hungarians at all costs. Its no wonder the Germans had no affection for Democracy after that....nor that the Austrians welcomed the Anschluss they voted for democratically in 1919 but were not allowed to have.

“Mexico controlled the territories of California and Texas just as much as Hungary controlled the Romanian lands in 1880.”

Utter bull$hit. The Mexican military and/or settlers had zero presence in 80% of your fantasy map.

By 1821, Mexico City was strong enough to overthrow the even more decrepit and ineffectual Spanish colonial rule. However, the distant provinces of the current U.S. Southwest were far beyond the reach of the authority of the independent but strife-torn and financially insolvent newborn government in Mexico City. These distant northern provinces received neither military protection nor needed levels of trade from the nascent Mexican government. Under Spanish colonial rule, trade with the USA was forbidden, but at least Spain provided trade and Army protection from hostile Indian attacks. Under Mexican abandonment and neglect, the Southwest received neither trade nor protection from Mexico City.

For example, Comanches and Apaches ran rampant in the 1830s in the power vacuum created by Mexican neglect, burning scores of major ranches that had been active for hundreds of years and massacring their inhabitants. Mexico City could neither defend nor keep the allegiance of its nominal subjects in these regions. Nor did it provide needed levels of trade to sustain the prior Spanish colonial era standard of living. Mexican governmental influence atrophied, withered and died at the same time that American pathfinders were opening up new routes into the region.

Increasingly, a growing United States of America was making inroads into the Southwest, via ships into California, and via wagon trains of trade goods over the Santa Fe Trail from St. Louis. The standard of living of the Spanish inhabitants of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas subsequently increased enormously, which is why they did not support Mexico City in the 1846-48 war. In fact, the Spanish-speaking inhabitants of the Southwest never considered themselves “Mexicans” at all, ever. They went, in their own eyes, from Spanish directly to American. To this very day, if you want a punch in the nose, just call a Hispanic native of New Mexico a “Mexican.”

So how long did these self-proclaimed (but newborn), free and independent Mexican governments have even nominal jurisdiction over the American Southwest? For only 25 years, during which time they had no effective control, and the area slipped backwards by every measure until the arrival of the Americans. The Spanish inhabitants of the Southwest never transferred their loyalty from Madrid to Mexico City, because all they received from the chaotic Mexican governments was misrule, neglect, and unchecked Indian raids.

Since then, how long has the area been under firm American control? For over 160 continuous years, during which time the former Spanish inhabitants of the region, (all the while full American citizens), have prospered beyond the wildest dreams of the Mexicans still stuck in Mexico. To compare the infrastructure, roads, schools, hospitals etc. of the two regions is to understand the truth. The Mexican government has been mired in endemic graft, corruption, nepotism and chaos from the very start until today. The ordinary Mexican peons have been trampled and abused, while only the super-rich elites have thrived. This is why millions of Mexicans want to escape from Mexico today, to enjoy the benefits of living in America that they can never hope to obtain in Mexico.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.