Who are the east Europeans?

[ESay]

For the borders of the new Kiev Rus, probably a good starting point would be to start with the borders that it's first king declared and held, because it is the legal reference to its foundation. After reestablishing that, we could take the second legal step, and evaluate how many of all the other lands within the largest expanse of the Kiev Rus were later reassigned by the communist. Those lands will then need to be evaluated whether they want to join the new Kiev Rus or reestablish themselves as any of the other principalities. The goal is to systematically undo everything that the communist ever did, including what they did through their banking and ww1 land "deals".

Actually, it is very strange to talk about the KR (Kievan Rus) and the communists in common context. Are you talking seriously?
In fact, I assume that almost everyone understands that it is impossible to establish the borders of the KR, because many years have passed, many events have happened since then and all of that makes the re-establishment of the KR irrelevant.

I think you have a point, that shifting borders make it difficult to establish people's properties. From our American point of view, the number one goal is though to show that you can't gain a future by becoming a communist and using that to steal and loot your neighbor. And the Ukrainians are not even the most entrapped in communist sentiment. The Romanians and the Czechs are.

What do you mean? You think these nations after adopting communist sentiment began to steal and loot their neighbors?

 

[anotherlife]

For the borders of the new Kiev Rus, probably a good starting point would be to start with the borders that it's first king declared and held, because it is the legal reference to its foundation. After reestablishing that, we could take the second legal step, and evaluate how many of all the other lands within the largest expanse of the Kiev Rus were later reassigned by the communist. Those lands will then need to be evaluated whether they want to join the new Kiev Rus or reestablish themselves as any of the other principalities. The goal is to systematically undo everything that the communist ever did, including what they did through their banking and ww1 land "deals".

Actually, it is very strange to talk about the KR (Kievan Rus) and the communists in common context. Are you talking seriously?
In fact, I assume that almost everyone understands that it is impossible to establish the borders of the KR, because many years have passed, many events have happened since then and all of that makes the re-establishment of the KR irrelevant.

I think you have a point, that shifting borders make it difficult to establish people's properties. From our American point of view, the number one goal is though to show that you can't gain a future by becoming a communist and using that to steal and loot your neighbor. And the Ukrainians are not even the most entrapped in communist sentiment. The Romanians and the Czechs are.

What do you mean? You think these nations after adopting communist sentiment began to steal and loot their neighbors?

This is very easy to answer. First, making something feel irrelevant is a powerful and standard tool in the methods of communist domination. A form of mind control. But people do need their identity back. Second, simply counting the number of country borders in Europe before and after ww1 is a good evidence of the stealing and looting, ongoing to this day.

 

[ESay]

This is very easy to answer. First, making something feel irrelevant is a powerful and standard tool in the methods of communist domination. A form of mind control. But people do need their identity back.

Thinking that the borders of a medieval state are irrelevant in our time is a sign of communist domination?

Second, simply counting the number of country borders in Europe before and after ww1 is a good evidence of the stealing and looting, ongoing to this day.

And who steals and loots in this case?

And what should the map of Europe look like according to your theory?

 

[anotherlife]

This is very easy to answer. First, making something feel irrelevant is a powerful and standard tool in the methods of communist domination. A form of mind control. But people do need their identity back.

Thinking that the borders of a medieval state are irrelevant in our time is a sign of communist domination?

Second, simply counting the number of country borders in Europe before and after ww1 is a good evidence of the stealing and looting, ongoing to this day.

And who steals and loots in this case?

And what should the map of Europe look like according to your theory?

It happens to be the case in Europe, that current ethnic and linguistic identities are rooted in the medieval ages. For this reason, and for the lack of non-manipulated modern data, our best choice is the medieval borders. For example in the Kiev Rus case, the lands that are labeled "Land of Kiev". As for what the map of Europe SHOULD look like, we should get rid of as many borders as possible. The fewest number of borders existed in the 19th century. But this is utopia now, and we need to work with fragmented state formations, which is still a whole lot better than nation states, in my humble opinion.

 

[ESay]

As for what the map of Europe SHOULD look like, we should get rid of as many borders as possible. The fewest number of borders existed in the 19th century. But this is utopia now, and we need to work with fragmented state formations, which is still a whole lot better than nation states, in my humble opinion.

I can assume that the EU with its Schengen area doesn’t fit for these purposes. Right?

 

[anotherlife]

As for what the map of Europe SHOULD look like, we should get rid of as many borders as possible. The fewest number of borders existed in the 19th century. But this is utopia now, and we need to work with fragmented state formations, which is still a whole lot better than nation states, in my humble opinion.

I can assume that the EU with its Schengen area doesn’t fit for these purposes. Right?

It doesn't fit indeed. One major reason for this is the breakdown of the Lisbon (?) preparations, which was to address the problem of recreating borders with national administration laws, such as language laws and so on. So, Schengen is little more than a visa cooperation, and in practice, all national borders within the European Union stand unchanged, and they serve the same purpose as they served in ww1-2.

Also, now that I looked at the two maps again, the yellow central zone of the modern map is a good approximate fit for the 11th century Land of Kiev, so there is no big difficulty with the border shifts in time.

 

[ESay]

Also, now that I looked at the two maps again, the yellow central zone of the modern map is a good approximate fit for the 11th century Land of Kiev, so there is no big difficulty with the border shifts in time.

Actually, the Cossack Getmanat that existed in the 17-18th centuries is better approximate of the yellow zone. Here is a map of the Getmanat before signing a treaty with the Tsardom of Russia in 1654.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Location_of_Cossack_Hetmanate.png

As I can understand, you don’t agree with my reasoning above about border shifting. That’s okay. The future will show us who was right.

 

[anotherlife]

Also, now that I looked at the two maps again, the yellow central zone of the modern map is a good approximate fit for the 11th century Land of Kiev, so there is no big difficulty with the border shifts in time.

Actually, the Cossack Getmanat that existed in the 17-18th centuries is better approximate of the yellow zone. Here is a map of the Getmanat before signing a treaty with the Tsardom of Russia in 1654.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Location_of_Cossack_Hetmanate.png

As I can understand, you don’t agree with my reasoning above about border shifting. That’s okay. The future will show us who was right.

Okay, very interesting map too, and to my understanding, your major point was about the economic viability of such a new country. I think that the big lakes/rivers in this territory are a ready made tourism paradise, plus if they can restore the flatland forests, then top ranking guests with top dollars would arrive for hunting, like they do in Siberia today. Apart from this, the whole of Europe is useless as per energy and mineral resources, so no comparative disadvantage there. Although the Kiev region, similarly to Donietsk, is rich in coal, which is still the leading electricity source in the 21st century. I realize that this map represents a somewhat eastward shift from the 11th century Land of Kiev, but probably more practical, because now Kiev is more geometrically central, in addition to be the base identity. Once I asked a Russian whether the Cossacks were Ukrainians or Russians, and he said Russians. Then I asked an Ukrainian and he said they were Ukrainians. So maybe if there can be a new Kiev Rus, they can be just Kiev Rus Cossacks.

 

[ESay]

I think that the big lakes/rivers in this territory are a ready made tourism paradise, plus if they can restore the flatland forests, then top ranking guests with top dollars would arrive for hunting, like they do in Siberia today.

Yeah, right. Frankly, I have some doubts that this project will be able to make the yellow part economically viable.


The Kiev region is rich of coal? Where did you get it from? As far as I know, apart from Donetsk-Lugansk coal basin there is Lvov-Volyn coal basin. But the latter is far less productive than the former.

No, the economical viability isn’t the major point. All three points are equal. For example, I don’t see any reason why the EU will be happy to see the Western Ukraine joining Poland. Why is that I explained in the post 47. You have some other views about it?

 

[anotherlife]

I think that the big lakes/rivers in this territory are a ready made tourism paradise, plus if they can restore the flatland forests, then top ranking guests with top dollars would arrive for hunting, like they do in Siberia today.

Yeah, right. Frankly, I have some doubts that this project will be able to make the yellow part economically viable.


The Kiev region is rich of coal? Where did you get it from? As far as I know, apart from Donetsk-Lugansk coal basin there is Lvov-Volyn coal basin. But the latter is far less productive than the former.

No, the economical viability isn’t the major point. All three points are equal. For example, I don’t see any reason why the EU will be happy to see the Western Ukraine joining Poland. Why is that I explained in the post 47. You have some other views about it?

The 3 points that you made in #47, I think ultranationalist is the core of. Europe invented ultranationalism. But I think that Balkanization is not the same and not necessarily that negative. Balkanization is more like cantonization. In regions, where there are no ethnic boundaries, only cantonization can work. Cantonization allows the creation of small "sovereign" countries, without some central power of a national majority overlord. Much worse is when a national overlord prides itself in democratic majority rule. So, it is the cantonization that is the only solution against tyranny. In theory, the ideas of the European Union would be ideal for this. But in practice, the European Union, like the Soviet Union, practices the opposite of its ideology.

 

[Militants]

Hungary people actually have stomach feelings ....

 

[ESay]

I think that the big lakes/rivers in this territory are a ready made tourism paradise, plus if they can restore the flatland forests, then top ranking guests with top dollars would arrive for hunting, like they do in Siberia today.

Yeah, right. Frankly, I have some doubts that this project will be able to make the yellow part economically viable.


The Kiev region is rich of coal? Where did you get it from? As far as I know, apart from Donetsk-Lugansk coal basin there is Lvov-Volyn coal basin. But the latter is far less productive than the former.

No, the economical viability isn’t the major point. All three points are equal. For example, I don’t see any reason why the EU will be happy to see the Western Ukraine joining Poland. Why is that I explained in the post 47. You have some other views about it?

The 3 points that you made in #47, I think ultranationalist is the core of. Europe invented ultranationalism. But I think that Balkanization is not the same and not necessarily that negative. Balkanization is more like cantonization. In regions, where there are no ethnic boundaries, only cantonization can work. Cantonization allows the creation of small "sovereign" countries, without some central power of a national majority overlord. Much worse is when a national overlord prides itself in democratic majority rule. So, it is the cantonization that is the only solution against tyranny. In theory, the ideas of the European Union would be ideal for this. But in practice, the European Union, like the Soviet Union, practices the opposite of its ideology.

Balkanization isn’t a peaceful process, to put it mildly.

I think you contradict yourself. You want as few borders in Europe as possible, but now are talking about cantonization. I think that these things are incompatible with each other.

 

[anotherlife]

I think that the big lakes/rivers in this territory are a ready made tourism paradise, plus if they can restore the flatland forests, then top ranking guests with top dollars would arrive for hunting, like they do in Siberia today.

Yeah, right. Frankly, I have some doubts that this project will be able to make the yellow part economically viable.


The Kiev region is rich of coal? Where did you get it from? As far as I know, apart from Donetsk-Lugansk coal basin there is Lvov-Volyn coal basin. But the latter is far less productive than the former.

No, the economical viability isn’t the major point. All three points are equal. For example, I don’t see any reason why the EU will be happy to see the Western Ukraine joining Poland. Why is that I explained in the post 47. You have some other views about it?

The 3 points that you made in #47, I think ultranationalist is the core of. Europe invented ultranationalism. But I think that Balkanization is not the same and not necessarily that negative. Balkanization is more like cantonization. In regions, where there are no ethnic boundaries, only cantonization can work. Cantonization allows the creation of small "sovereign" countries, without some central power of a national majority overlord. Much worse is when a national overlord prides itself in democratic majority rule. So, it is the cantonization that is the only solution against tyranny. In theory, the ideas of the European Union would be ideal for this. But in practice, the European Union, like the Soviet Union, practices the opposite of its ideology.

Balkanization isn’t a peaceful process, to put it mildly.

I think you contradict yourself. You want as few borders in Europe as possible, but now are talking about cantonization. I think that these things are incompatible with each other.

I am not sure if they are contradictory. Cantonization ensures that they retain rights to assets. Very different from democracy. Only once you have rights, can you begin integration. The other similar model is the US electoral college. That too is design to protect people's rights, and infuriates pushers of democracy. Without it, the USA would not exist. And by extended logic, the long term future of the European Union too is preconditioned by cantonization, europewide. So, it is a prerequisite to east European future too. ... Utopistic, because power is never brokered that way.

 

[Maggdy]

I think that the big lakes/rivers in this territory are a ready made tourism paradise, plus if they can restore the flatland forests, then top ranking guests with top dollars would arrive for hunting, like they do in Siberia today.

Yeah, right. Frankly, I have some doubts that this project will be able to make the yellow part economically viable.


The Kiev region is rich of coal? Where did you get it from? As far as I know, apart from Donetsk-Lugansk coal basin there is Lvov-Volyn coal basin. But the latter is far less productive than the former.

No, the economical viability isn’t the major point. All three points are equal. For example, I don’t see any reason why the EU will be happy to see the Western Ukraine joining Poland. Why is that I explained in the post 47. You have some other views about it?

The 3 points that you made in #47, I think ultranationalist is the core of. Europe invented ultranationalism. But I think that Balkanization is not the same and not necessarily that negative. Balkanization is more like cantonization. In regions, where there are no ethnic boundaries, only cantonization can work. Cantonization allows the creation of small "sovereign" countries, without some central power of a national majority overlord. Much worse is when a national overlord prides itself in democratic majority rule. So, it is the cantonization that is the only solution against tyranny. In theory, the ideas of the European Union would be ideal for this. But in practice, the European Union, like the Soviet Union, practices the opposite of its ideology.

Balkanization isn’t a peaceful process, to put it mildly.

I think you contradict yourself. You want as few borders in Europe as possible, but now are talking about cantonization. I think that these things are incompatible with each other.

Team Hungarian also has a radical who struggle for Borders. In each year, they protesting in France and England, etc. for the cancellation of the Treaty of Trianon.

"A thousand years of nation building successfully delineated groups based on culture, religion, geography, and other attributes to create the countries with which we are so familiar. While some Western European nations would continue power struggles and princely battles and civil wars, Hungary, founded in 896, was a peaceful multi-ethnic state for over 1100 years and her borders were virtually unchanged.... Until 1920.



"The greatest catastrophe to have befallen Hungary since the battle of Mohacs in 1526," the Treaty of Trianon in 1920, was extremely harsh on Hungary and unjustifiably one-sided. The resulting "treaty" cost Hungary an unprecedented 2/3 of her territory, and 1/2 of her total population or 1/3 of her ethnic-Hungarian population. Add to this the loss of all her seaports, up to 90% of her vast natural resources, industry, railways, and other infrastructure. Millions of Hungarians saw borders arbitrarily redrawn around them, without plebiscites, ignoring President Wilson's lofty goal of national self-determination. The absurd treaty ignored a millenia of nation building and age-old cultural affiliations, created arbitrary borders and new countries, and created millions of new minorities who today struggle for survival of the ethnic identity. Western powers, primarily Britain and France, refused to re-visit the disaster they created at Versailles and led us into another great war. Two of the three newly created countries carved out of Hungarian territory no longer exist. The "Slovakia" (formerly Upper Hungary) part of Czechoslovakia split with the Czech Republic while "Yugoslavia" suffered from tragic civil war and the ravages of ethnic cleansing." More: The Treaty of Trianon: A Hungarian Tragedy: American Hungarian Federation - Founded 1906

 

[anotherlife]

I think that the big lakes/rivers in this territory are a ready made tourism paradise, plus if they can restore the flatland forests, then top ranking guests with top dollars would arrive for hunting, like they do in Siberia today.

Yeah, right. Frankly, I have some doubts that this project will be able to make the yellow part economically viable.


The Kiev region is rich of coal? Where did you get it from? As far as I know, apart from Donetsk-Lugansk coal basin there is Lvov-Volyn coal basin. But the latter is far less productive than the former.

No, the economical viability isn’t the major point. All three points are equal. For example, I don’t see any reason why the EU will be happy to see the Western Ukraine joining Poland. Why is that I explained in the post 47. You have some other views about it?

The 3 points that you made in #47, I think ultranationalist is the core of. Europe invented ultranationalism. But I think that Balkanization is not the same and not necessarily that negative. Balkanization is more like cantonization. In regions, where there are no ethnic boundaries, only cantonization can work. Cantonization allows the creation of small "sovereign" countries, without some central power of a national majority overlord. Much worse is when a national overlord prides itself in democratic majority rule. So, it is the cantonization that is the only solution against tyranny. In theory, the ideas of the European Union would be ideal for this. But in practice, the European Union, like the Soviet Union, practices the opposite of its ideology.

Balkanization isn’t a peaceful process, to put it mildly.

I think you contradict yourself. You want as few borders in Europe as possible, but now are talking about cantonization. I think that these things are incompatible with each other.

Team Hungarian also has a radical who struggle for Borders. In each year, they protesting in France and England, etc. for the cancellation of the Treaty of Trianon.

"A thousand years of nation building successfully delineated groups based on culture, religion, geography, and other attributes to create the countries with which we are so familiar. While some Western European nations would continue power struggles and princely battles and civil wars, Hungary, founded in 896, was a peaceful multi-ethnic state for over 1100 years and her borders were virtually unchanged.... Until 1920.



"The greatest catastrophe to have befallen Hungary since the battle of Mohacs in 1526," the Treaty of Trianon in 1920, was extremely harsh on Hungary and unjustifiably one-sided. The resulting "treaty" cost Hungary an unprecedented 2/3 of her territory, and 1/2 of her total population or 1/3 of her ethnic-Hungarian population. Add to this the loss of all her seaports, up to 90% of her vast natural resources, industry, railways, and other infrastructure. Millions of Hungarians saw borders arbitrarily redrawn around them, without plebiscites, ignoring President Wilson's lofty goal of national self-determination. The absurd treaty ignored a millenia of nation building and age-old cultural affiliations, created arbitrary borders and new countries, and created millions of new minorities who today struggle for survival of the ethnic identity. Western powers, primarily Britain and France, refused to re-visit the disaster they created at Versailles and led us into another great war. Two of the three newly created countries carved out of Hungarian territory no longer exist. The "Slovakia" (formerly Upper Hungary) part of Czechoslovakia split with the Czech Republic while "Yugoslavia" suffered from tragic civil war and the ravages of ethnic cleansing." More: The Treaty of Trianon: A Hungarian Tragedy: American Hungarian Federation - Founded 1906

But the western powers did revisit their disaster, when Hitler forced them to in the two Vienna treaties. They even said at that time, that Hungary's 1944 borders were more correct than Trianon. But then came the communist from Moscow, and it was their common interest with the French to prevent Central European unification, so they restored Trianon quickly. This interest has not changed to this day, neither in Paris, nor in Moscow.

So, how do you stop Trianon, when the super powers pour unlimited money into keeping it every year?

Yes, there are several solutions to stop trianon, and very quickly and effectively too. But none of these solutions can be carried out with the Hungarian state of mind. Hungarians are so strictly programmed in their thinking both by Moscow and Paris, that they cannot imagine the solution to stop Trianon, even when obvious.

For example, and this will surprise every Hungarian, it was the Romanian dictator ceaucescu, that made the latest attempt to stop Trianon, in the 1970's and the Hungarians didn't even realize it.

 

[Maggdy]

I think that the big lakes/rivers in this territory are a ready made tourism paradise, plus if they can restore the flatland forests, then top ranking guests with top dollars would arrive for hunting, like they do in Siberia today.

Yeah, right. Frankly, I have some doubts that this project will be able to make the yellow part economically viable.


The Kiev region is rich of coal? Where did you get it from? As far as I know, apart from Donetsk-Lugansk coal basin there is Lvov-Volyn coal basin. But the latter is far less productive than the former.

No, the economical viability isn’t the major point. All three points are equal. For example, I don’t see any reason why the EU will be happy to see the Western Ukraine joining Poland. Why is that I explained in the post 47. You have some other views about it?

The 3 points that you made in #47, I think ultranationalist is the core of. Europe invented ultranationalism. But I think that Balkanization is not the same and not necessarily that negative. Balkanization is more like cantonization. In regions, where there are no ethnic boundaries, only cantonization can work. Cantonization allows the creation of small "sovereign" countries, without some central power of a national majority overlord. Much worse is when a national overlord prides itself in democratic majority rule. So, it is the cantonization that is the only solution against tyranny. In theory, the ideas of the European Union would be ideal for this. But in practice, the European Union, like the Soviet Union, practices the opposite of its ideology.

Balkanization isn’t a peaceful process, to put it mildly.

I think you contradict yourself. You want as few borders in Europe as possible, but now are talking about cantonization. I think that these things are incompatible with each other.

Team Hungarian also has a radical who struggle for Borders. In each year, they protesting in France and England, etc. for the cancellation of the Treaty of Trianon.

"A thousand years of nation building successfully delineated groups based on culture, religion, geography, and other attributes to create the countries with which we are so familiar. While some Western European nations would continue power struggles and princely battles and civil wars, Hungary, founded in 896, was a peaceful multi-ethnic state for over 1100 years and her borders were virtually unchanged.... Until 1920.



"The greatest catastrophe to have befallen Hungary since the battle of Mohacs in 1526," the Treaty of Trianon in 1920, was extremely harsh on Hungary and unjustifiably one-sided. The resulting "treaty" cost Hungary an unprecedented 2/3 of her territory, and 1/2 of her total population or 1/3 of her ethnic-Hungarian population. Add to this the loss of all her seaports, up to 90% of her vast natural resources, industry, railways, and other infrastructure. Millions of Hungarians saw borders arbitrarily redrawn around them, without plebiscites, ignoring President Wilson's lofty goal of national self-determination. The absurd treaty ignored a millenia of nation building and age-old cultural affiliations, created arbitrary borders and new countries, and created millions of new minorities who today struggle for survival of the ethnic identity. Western powers, primarily Britain and France, refused to re-visit the disaster they created at Versailles and led us into another great war. Two of the three newly created countries carved out of Hungarian territory no longer exist. The "Slovakia" (formerly Upper Hungary) part of Czechoslovakia split with the Czech Republic while "Yugoslavia" suffered from tragic civil war and the ravages of ethnic cleansing." More: The Treaty of Trianon: A Hungarian Tragedy: American Hungarian Federation - Founded 1906

But the western powers did revisit their disaster, when Hitler forced them to in the two Vienna treaties. They even said at that time, that Hungary's 1944 borders were more correct than Trianon. But then came the communist from Moscow, and it was their common interest with the French to prevent Central European unification, so they restored Trianon quickly. This interest has not changed to this day, neither in Paris, nor in Moscow.

So, how do you stop Trianon, when the super powers pour unlimited money into keeping it every year?

Yes, there are several solutions to stop trianon, and very quickly and effectively too. But none of these solutions can be carried out with the Hungarian state of mind. Hungarians are so strictly programmed in their thinking both by Moscow and Paris, that they cannot imagine the solution to stop Trianon, even when obvious.

For example, and this will surprise every Hungarian, it was the Romanian dictator ceaucescu, that made the latest attempt to stop Trianon, in the 1970's and the Hungarians didn't even realize it.

Hungary is democracy. Here is freedom of speech. Here are some fanatics who shout stupid things on the street. This does not mean that representing all Hungarians.

 

[anotherlife]

Yeah, right. Frankly, I have some doubts that this project will be able to make the yellow part economically viable.


The Kiev region is rich of coal? Where did you get it from? As far as I know, apart from Donetsk-Lugansk coal basin there is Lvov-Volyn coal basin. But the latter is far less productive than the former.

No, the economical viability isn’t the major point. All three points are equal. For example, I don’t see any reason why the EU will be happy to see the Western Ukraine joining Poland. Why is that I explained in the post 47. You have some other views about it?

The 3 points that you made in #47, I think ultranationalist is the core of. Europe invented ultranationalism. But I think that Balkanization is not the same and not necessarily that negative. Balkanization is more like cantonization. In regions, where there are no ethnic boundaries, only cantonization can work. Cantonization allows the creation of small "sovereign" countries, without some central power of a national majority overlord. Much worse is when a national overlord prides itself in democratic majority rule. So, it is the cantonization that is the only solution against tyranny. In theory, the ideas of the European Union would be ideal for this. But in practice, the European Union, like the Soviet Union, practices the opposite of its ideology.

Balkanization isn’t a peaceful process, to put it mildly.

I think you contradict yourself. You want as few borders in Europe as possible, but now are talking about cantonization. I think that these things are incompatible with each other.

Team Hungarian also has a radical who struggle for Borders. In each year, they protesting in France and England, etc. for the cancellation of the Treaty of Trianon.

"A thousand years of nation building successfully delineated groups based on culture, religion, geography, and other attributes to create the countries with which we are so familiar. While some Western European nations would continue power struggles and princely battles and civil wars, Hungary, founded in 896, was a peaceful multi-ethnic state for over 1100 years and her borders were virtually unchanged.... Until 1920.



"The greatest catastrophe to have befallen Hungary since the battle of Mohacs in 1526," the Treaty of Trianon in 1920, was extremely harsh on Hungary and unjustifiably one-sided. The resulting "treaty" cost Hungary an unprecedented 2/3 of her territory, and 1/2 of her total population or 1/3 of her ethnic-Hungarian population. Add to this the loss of all her seaports, up to 90% of her vast natural resources, industry, railways, and other infrastructure. Millions of Hungarians saw borders arbitrarily redrawn around them, without plebiscites, ignoring President Wilson's lofty goal of national self-determination. The absurd treaty ignored a millenia of nation building and age-old cultural affiliations, created arbitrary borders and new countries, and created millions of new minorities who today struggle for survival of the ethnic identity. Western powers, primarily Britain and France, refused to re-visit the disaster they created at Versailles and led us into another great war. Two of the three newly created countries carved out of Hungarian territory no longer exist. The "Slovakia" (formerly Upper Hungary) part of Czechoslovakia split with the Czech Republic while "Yugoslavia" suffered from tragic civil war and the ravages of ethnic cleansing." More: The Treaty of Trianon: A Hungarian Tragedy: American Hungarian Federation - Founded 1906

But the western powers did revisit their disaster, when Hitler forced them to in the two Vienna treaties. They even said at that time, that Hungary's 1944 borders were more correct than Trianon. But then came the communist from Moscow, and it was their common interest with the French to prevent Central European unification, so they restored Trianon quickly. This interest has not changed to this day, neither in Paris, nor in Moscow.

So, how do you stop Trianon, when the super powers pour unlimited money into keeping it every year?

Yes, there are several solutions to stop trianon, and very quickly and effectively too. But none of these solutions can be carried out with the Hungarian state of mind. Hungarians are so strictly programmed in their thinking both by Moscow and Paris, that they cannot imagine the solution to stop Trianon, even when obvious.

For example, and this will surprise every Hungarian, it was the Romanian dictator ceaucescu, that made the latest attempt to stop Trianon, in the 1970's and the Hungarians didn't even realize it.

Hungary is democracy. Here is freedom of speech. Here are some fanatics who shout stupid things on the street. This does not mean that representing all Hungarians.

Hey Maggdy, I think you may not have interpreted my post there. What I was trying to say was, that what matters is the thinking of the people, not free speech. I am lucky, I know a Hungarian girl, and she can explain a lot to me about Hungary, as well as east Europe in general.

From what she say, I gather, that if Hungarians wanted to stop Trianon, then they would have to reform their thinking in the following way:
1. A Hungarian should know who another Hungarian is;
2. A Hungarian should know who the non-Hungarian is who talks like a Hungarian but isn't a Hungarian;
3. And a Hungarian should know who isn't a Hungarian and never will be.

Without this, free speech and democracy are only a fraud.

By the way, she also explained to me, that it took a genocide of killing 60 % of all Hungarians in 1711, to destroy Hungarian thinking.

But Hungarian thinking is rooted deeper, in ancient times, even before Europe existed. Hungarians therefore should not need the fraudulent western form of democracy and any of that western manipulated free speech to rebuild their country.

Western society, and as it is imported to the entire east Europe region, is based on popular machinations, through voting power and crowding out working people with useless democratic majority freeloaders.

In contrast, the original Hungarian democracy, 4000 years old, worked per distributed power, which not only held together hungary's founding tribes, but was so popular, that many other tribes joined in too, most notably 3 Kabar tribes from Central Asia.

But when the 1st European style King was crowned, St Steven, Hungarian democracy stopped, and the tribes that wanted to join after that, namely the Pechengs and the Cumans, could not any more. This is illustrated in the 11th century map in this thread.

So, in short, if Hungarians want an end to Trianon, they need to find themselves first, and that is not in the "democracy" that Hungarians import from Western Europe.

This entire argument about Hungary, could be applied with very minor modification to the Ukraine and Russia too, in the 21st century. Interestingly, only the Russians know this.

 

[Maggdy]

The 3 points that you made in #47, I think ultranationalist is the core of. Europe invented ultranationalism. But I think that Balkanization is not the same and not necessarily that negative. Balkanization is more like cantonization. In regions, where there are no ethnic boundaries, only cantonization can work. Cantonization allows the creation of small "sovereign" countries, without some central power of a national majority overlord. Much worse is when a national overlord prides itself in democratic majority rule. So, it is the cantonization that is the only solution against tyranny. In theory, the ideas of the European Union would be ideal for this. But in practice, the European Union, like the Soviet Union, practices the opposite of its ideology.

Balkanization isn’t a peaceful process, to put it mildly.

I think you contradict yourself. You want as few borders in Europe as possible, but now are talking about cantonization. I think that these things are incompatible with each other.

Team Hungarian also has a radical who struggle for Borders. In each year, they protesting in France and England, etc. for the cancellation of the Treaty of Trianon.

"A thousand years of nation building successfully delineated groups based on culture, religion, geography, and other attributes to create the countries with which we are so familiar. While some Western European nations would continue power struggles and princely battles and civil wars, Hungary, founded in 896, was a peaceful multi-ethnic state for over 1100 years and her borders were virtually unchanged.... Until 1920.



"The greatest catastrophe to have befallen Hungary since the battle of Mohacs in 1526," the Treaty of Trianon in 1920, was extremely harsh on Hungary and unjustifiably one-sided. The resulting "treaty" cost Hungary an unprecedented 2/3 of her territory, and 1/2 of her total population or 1/3 of her ethnic-Hungarian population. Add to this the loss of all her seaports, up to 90% of her vast natural resources, industry, railways, and other infrastructure. Millions of Hungarians saw borders arbitrarily redrawn around them, without plebiscites, ignoring President Wilson's lofty goal of national self-determination. The absurd treaty ignored a millenia of nation building and age-old cultural affiliations, created arbitrary borders and new countries, and created millions of new minorities who today struggle for survival of the ethnic identity. Western powers, primarily Britain and France, refused to re-visit the disaster they created at Versailles and led us into another great war. Two of the three newly created countries carved out of Hungarian territory no longer exist. The "Slovakia" (formerly Upper Hungary) part of Czechoslovakia split with the Czech Republic while "Yugoslavia" suffered from tragic civil war and the ravages of ethnic cleansing." More: The Treaty of Trianon: A Hungarian Tragedy: American Hungarian Federation - Founded 1906

But the western powers did revisit their disaster, when Hitler forced them to in the two Vienna treaties. They even said at that time, that Hungary's 1944 borders were more correct than Trianon. But then came the communist from Moscow, and it was their common interest with the French to prevent Central European unification, so they restored Trianon quickly. This interest has not changed to this day, neither in Paris, nor in Moscow.

So, how do you stop Trianon, when the super powers pour unlimited money into keeping it every year?

Yes, there are several solutions to stop trianon, and very quickly and effectively too. But none of these solutions can be carried out with the Hungarian state of mind. Hungarians are so strictly programmed in their thinking both by Moscow and Paris, that they cannot imagine the solution to stop Trianon, even when obvious.

For example, and this will surprise every Hungarian, it was the Romanian dictator ceaucescu, that made the latest attempt to stop Trianon, in the 1970's and the Hungarians didn't even realize it.

Hungary is democracy. Here is freedom of speech. Here are some fanatics who shout stupid things on the street. This does not mean that representing all Hungarians.

Hey Maggdy, I think you may not have interpreted my post there. What I was trying to say was, that what matters is the thinking of the people, not free speech. I am lucky, I know a Hungarian girl, and she can explain a lot to me about Hungary, as well as east Europe in general.

From what she say, I gather, that if Hungarians wanted to stop Trianon, then they would have to reform their thinking in the following way:
1. A Hungarian should know who another Hungarian is;
2. A Hungarian should know who the non-Hungarian is who talks like a Hungarian but isn't a Hungarian;
3. And a Hungarian should know who isn't a Hungarian and never will be.

Without this, free speech and democracy are only a fraud.

By the way, she also explained to me, that it took a genocide of killing 60 % of all Hungarians in 1711, to destroy Hungarian thinking.

But Hungarian thinking is rooted deeper, in ancient times, even before Europe existed. Hungarians therefore should not need the fraudulent western form of democracy and any of that western manipulated free speech to rebuild their country.

Western society, and as it is imported to the entire east Europe region, is based on popular machinations, through voting power and crowding out working people with useless democratic majority freeloaders.

In contrast, the original Hungarian democracy, 4000 years old, worked per distributed power, which not only held together hungary's founding tribes, but was so popular, that many other tribes joined in too, most notably 3 Kabar tribes from Central Asia.

But when the 1st European style King was crowned, St Steven, Hungarian democracy stopped, and the tribes that wanted to join after that, namely the Pechengs and the Cumans, could not any more. This is illustrated in the 11th century map in this thread.

So, in short, if Hungarians want an end to Trianon, they need to find themselves first, and that is not in the "democracy" that Hungarians import from Western Europe.

This entire argument about Hungary, could be applied with very minor modification to the Ukraine and Russia too, in the 21st century. Interestingly, only the Russians know this.

Apology! You are right. Yet always I have a bad English?

Earnestly, In my opinion: I have a few the ambiguous sentence there .

I do try to fix my mistake.
An incorrect(?) sentence in #74: "Team Hungarian also has a radical who struggle for Borders."

What I was trying to say? " team", only a few people. They name this: "The World Federation of Hungarians". Theirs the official Web page is in Hungarian language only, makes an exception for one page.
(Connection: H – 1052 Bp., Semmelweis u. 1-3. - TEL.: [00-36-1 / 06-1] 267-4510
FAX / TEL.: [00-36-1/06-1] 485-4060
e-mail: [email protected] - [email protected] )

I am also not a member of this "society". I just wanted to say: "Freedom of speech" means that they can say these words, although we, who many people do not agree with them.

They did written in the English language this: "Justice for Europe!" http://www.egipatrona.hu/mvsz/index.php/82-esemenyek/2051-justice-for-europe

Furthermore, there is a small group of extreme right too. They flippantly radical. But I am not a member of the faction, even though I am Hungarian.
One example, they "to threaten" on this way, (in pictures)

or

"End of Trianon 2020"


There's also the national consciousness of Hungarian government, but I do not write about it now.

 

[I amso IR]

all wars? Doubt about it.
Eastern europeans are mostly slavic people.Some of them are of the same culture as westerners are, some are not, like Russians. The difference between Catholic and Orthodox cultures is huge, that is why wars are possible.

I begin to think that this difference is militarized by Western Europeans. Eastern Europeans by themselves would not have a problem with it.

western europeans are trying to have their own history and culture apart from russian influence. That is why they have extra hatred towards eastern neighbor.

Western Europe does have it's own history. They do not have to construct one. The difference between classical music styles of Vienna and Moscow are huge.

 

[Igrok_]

all wars? Doubt about it.
Eastern europeans are mostly slavic people.Some of them are of the same culture as westerners are, some are not, like Russians. The difference between Catholic and Orthodox cultures is huge, that is why wars are possible.

I begin to think that this difference is militarized by Western Europeans. Eastern Europeans by themselves would not have a problem with it.

western europeans are trying to have their own history and culture apart from russian influence. That is why they have extra hatred towards eastern neighbor.

Western Europe does have it's own history. They do not have to construct one. The difference between classical music styles of Vienna and Moscow are huge.

i have mistaken. I meant eastern europeans, which were for centures under russian influence.