Ungaria Mare nu a existat!
Publicat de Ion Coja in Doctrină naţionalistă pe 01.12.2013 | 24 comentarii
Am primit textul ce mai jos de la dl LIVIU POENARU. Mă bucur să constat că circulă pe internet și, din când în când, mai dă și pe acasă… Cu ușoare modificări, inerente intrării în folclorul internaut!
Îl mai publicăm și noi încă o dată, în forma originală…
|
Da, ca realitate istorică aşa este: Ungaria așa zis Mare nu a existat decât în minţile înfierbântate care confundă realitatea cu visurile deşarte de mărire! Ungaria aşa zis Mare a fost un artificiu administrativ, o găselniţă birocratică, a unui funcţionar oarecare, numit Buest, decizie luată în 1867, de azi pe mâine, într-un birou, în urma unor intrigi şi aranjamente de culise. Ungaria aşa zis Mare nu a fost o realitate istorică, împlinită printr-un eveniment de anvergură. Nici vorbă să se compare cu procesul prin care s-a ajuns la constituirea României Mari, proces care are la temelia sa jertfa a zeci, sute de mii de români!
Prin jertfă se consolidează tot ce este trainic în istorie.
Unde este jertfa ungurească la 1867?!
Unde a fost jertfa ungurească atunci când, după un veac şi jumătate de ocupaţie turcească totală, Budapesta este eliberată de armatele imperiale austriece?
Să le aducem aminte celor care calomniază România cu atâta pasiune, faptul ruşinos, penibil, jenant, de care ne-am ferit să facem caz, că în armata care i-a alungat pe otomani din Budapesta şi din Ungaria, nu a existat niciun combatant ungur!
Repet: când turcii, care transformaseră Ungaria în paşalâc, au fost alungaţi de armatele unei puteri europene, creştine, în acea armată nu a fost niciun ungur care să fi ridicat sabia pentru gloria, liberatea sau demnitatea maghiară! Nici unul!
La fel cum, în cele aproape două secole de ocupaţie turcească, nu s-a înregistrat niciun moment de rezistenţă, de opoziţie ungurească la ocupaţia musulmană.
Nota bene: principatul medieval ungar, creaţie a Bisericii Catolice, nu a avut o omogenitate etnică comparabilă cu a principatelor româneşti, între care includ şi Transilvania. Nu întâmplător regii Ungariei de origine maghiară îi numeri pe degete, într-o jumătate de mileniu! Asta până la Mohaci, în 1527, când statul ungar dispare. Dispare Ungaria, dar nu şi Transilvania, care continuă să existe! De ce nu dispare şi principatul Transilvania odată cu Ungaria, la 1527?
Simplu: pentru toată lumea, pentru toate cancelariile din acea vreme, Ungaria şi Transilvania erau lucruri diferite, entităţi complet separate, care nu puteau fi gândite împreună!
Dimpotrivă, în linii mari, Transilvania se afla în aceeaşi situaţie cu Moldova şi Ţara Românească, fiind toate trei părtaşe în mod firesc la aceeaşi istorie, la acelaşi model de organizare politică.
Insistenţa cu care ne atacă detractorii maghiari ne obligă la gestul cel mai firesc: comparaţia între cel calomniat şi calomniator!
Foarte uşor şi la îndemâna oricui este să constate că oportunismul şi lipsa de demnitate este mult mai prezentă la liderii maghiari, decât la cei care ne-au condus şi reprezentat pe noi!
S-o spunem pe şleau şi pe înţelesul omului de rând: momentele în care să-ţi fie ruşine de tine că eşti maghiar sunt mult mai numeroase şi mai jenante decât cele care i-ar îndreptăţi cât de cât pe români să trăiască acest sentiment dureros.
Nu mai intrăm acum în detalii, dar aceste detalii de urgenţă trebuie adunate de istoricii specialişti şi puse pe tapet, căci numai aşa vom închide gura celor care şi-au făcut o meserie din a calomnia tot ce este românesc!
Ţinem totuşi să punem o întrebare pentru bravii noştri detractori maghiari, mai activi ca de obicei în preajma zilei de 1 Decembrie:
Câţi sunt românii care au făcut istorie pentru Budapesta, şi câţi sunt maghiarii care au marcat istoria pentru români?
Câţi sunt românii al căror nume a fost maghiarizat şi se fălesc azi cu ei toţi maghiarii, şi câţi sunt maghiarii cu
nume românizat?
Să mi se ierte simplicitatea, aproape penibilă, a demersului pe care îl propun!
Dar nu avem încotro şi trebuie să ne coborâm la nivelul cerebral al celor care ne agresează, agasanţi şi insistenţi cu orice ocazie!
Să vorbim aşadar pe înţelesul minţii lor, împuţinată de ură şi năluciri deşarte!
Avem nevoie, zic, de aceste două liste, riguros alcătuite, ca să le facem publice şi să tranşăm o dată şi pentru totdeauna disputa artificială, nefirească, la care suntem obligaţi să participăm, oricât de neserioasă ni se pare nouă, românilor. Pentru cei ce vor face această operaţiune, de listare a românilor care împodobesc Pantheonul unguresc, le recomandăm să verifice situaţia din satul Buia, unde s-au născut cei doi mari matematicieni Farkas şi Janos Bolyai. Am prieten un istoric din Sibiu, care mi-a demonstrat că tatăl, Farkas din Buia, scris Bolyai, era român, că tot satul Buia era românesc pe la 1800, iar numele de botez Farkas, adică Lupu, este un binecunoscut nume de botez tipic românesc, larg răspândit la românii din Ardeal, din Maramureş! Din păcate acel coleg se teme pentru persoana lui şi pentru familie să-şi susţină ipoteza, adevărul!. Să-l ajutăm noi, dacă nu pe domnul istoric, atunci măcar pe domnul Adevăr să iasă în lume teafăr, întreg, nemăsluit!
Acelaşi exerciţiu nu ar strica să-l facem şi cu ceilalţi vecini, întrebându-ne câţi ucrainieni, ruşi, bulgari, sârbi sau greci au scris pagini de istorie românească, şi câţi români i-au fericit pe vecinii noştri şi ar binemerita nu numai un cuvânt de recunoştinţă din partea acestora!. Dar ar merita ca în toate aceste ţări, în Grecia, în Bulgaria, în Serbia, în Ucraina, în Ungaria, să înceteze prigoana împotriva celor ce simt româneşte şi se consideră români!
Oare cât vom mai tolera persecutarea şi marginalizarea românilor fără a face auzit măcar protestul nostru, al românilor din România, care nu riscăm nimic demascând neruşinarea guvernanţilor vecini, a guvernanţilor noştri, complet surzi la suferinţa românilor din ţările vecine?!
Pentru acei unguri care nu mai ostenesc blamându-i pe români în toate felurile, să le reamintim: la Trianon, în 1920, s-a decis crearea statului Ungaria!
Budapesta nu mai fusese capitala unui stat adevărat, suveran, încă din 1527, după dezastrul de la Mohaci. Abia după 400 de ani, la Trianon, a apărut din nou un stat ungar.
De data asta, pentru prima oară în istoria lor, ungurii erau majoritari în propria ţară. Iar statul ungar era, pentru prima oară, un stat naţional!
Comunitatea internaţională le-a făcut ungurilor acest dar, iar ei, maghiarii, consideră că atunci, la Trianon, s-a produs cel mai mare dezastru din istoria lor!
Care e logica acestor resentimente?
Cum puteţi deplânge la nesfârşit dispariţia graniţelor care aparţineau altora, adică habsburgilor?! Nicidecum maghiarimii! Nu vă deranjează ridicolul situaţiei?!
Până la Trianon, vreme de 400 de ani, ungurii au trăit sub guvernarea şi administrarea altora, ba a turcilor, ba a austriecilor.
Abia după Trianon, ungurii s-au trezit fără stăpân, liberi să se guverneze cum vor!
Şi ştiţi dumneavoastră, fraţi maghiari, care a fost prima iniţiativă a politicienilor dumneavoastră de atunci, a liderilor de la Budapesta?
Care a fost primul lor gând de autoguvernare maghiară, suverană şi independentă pentru prima oară după 400 de ani?
Nu ştiţi, căci este tare jenant ce a decis, de capul ei, clasa politică din Ungaria!
Au decis, amărîții, să trimită şi au şi trimis la Bucureşti o delegaţie, de trei conţi maghiari, care i-au propus regelui Ferdinand şi lui Ionel Brătianu ca Ungaria să se lipească la România, într-un stat dualist, după modelul dualismului austro-ungar instituit în 1867!. Nici mai mult, nici mai puţin!
Aşadar instituirea unui dualism româno-ungar a fost proiectul politic cel mai dorit, speranţa cea mare a politicienilor maghiari!
Lipsiţi de exerciţiul guvernării, al libertăţii, fruntaşilor unguri le-a fost teamă de riscurile şi provocările la care te supune suveranitatea.
S-au simţit singuri şi neajutoraţi, neasistaţi! Nu ştiau încotro s-o apuce!
Cam la fel cum au reacţionat ţiganii noştri când au fost eliberaţi din aşa zisa robie: s-au trezit şi ei dintr-odată neasistaţi şi s-au întors pe capul boierului român să afle cu ce l-au supărat şi să ceară să rămână mai departe sub pulpana sa!
Unde era dispreţul ciocoiesc al politicienilor maghiari faţă de tot ce este românesc atunci când au venit la Bucureşti cu căciula în mână cerşindu-ne întovărăşirea?!
Unde era dorul de libertate şi neatârnare care animă, se zice, întreaga istorie a cavalerilor maghiari?!.
Prin ce impuneau românii în faţa vecinilor maghiari ?
Prin faptul evident că în această parte a Europei, a lumii, statul cel mai vechi şi mai stabil, cu o continuitate neîntreruptă de peste 600 de ani, era statul român.
Nici în toată Europa nu găseşti multe popoare care s-au învrednicit de o asemena performanţă politică!
Semn de cuminţenie şi de înţelepciune atât la nivelul domnilor, cât şi la nivelul omului de rând de la talpa Ţării!
Nu întâmplător românii se numără şi printre cele numai câteva popoare din Europa care au fost în stare să elaboreze un cod juridic propriu, vestitul Jus Valachicum.
Da, oameni buni, aşa s-au petrecut lucrurile după Trianon!
A fost un moment jenant pentru bieţii conți veniți din pusta ungară, iar guvernanţii şi mai apoi istoricii români, ca nişte veritabili domni, ca nişte adevăraţi boieri, ca nişte buni vecini, ca nişte oameni adevăraţi, ne-am abţinut să-l popularizăm, să-l mediatizăm şi să-l comentăm!
Să facem caz, ori, ferit-a Sfântul, să facem haz! Căci comentariul, oricare ar fi fost, nu putea fi decât unul complet defavorabil ne-prietenilor noştri! Şi poate că aşa ar trebui să procedăm şi în continuare!
Să facem uitate asemenea momente de slăbiciune ale Celuilalt!
Din păcate, abnegaţia ungurească sistematică, instituţionalizată, de a lovi şi calomnia tot ce este românesc, ne obligă să părăsim îndătinata noastră atitudine de a-i lăsa pe neprieteni în plata Domnului. Bunătatea noastră şi bunul nostru simţ sunt considerate slăbiciune, prostie chiar!
E timpul ca această impertinenţă să capete răspunsul cuvenit, iar cei fără ruşine să fie obrăzniciţi şi puşi cu nasul la perete, să nu şi-l mai ridice aşa de sus fără niciun temei! Dacă nu se găsesc maghiarii de bun simţ care să-i tragă de mânecă pe connaţionalii lor mai zănateci sau nu îndrăznesc, să ne ocupăm noi, românii, de această trebuşoară!
Şi s-o facem de data asta temeinic, cu sistemă!
Avem nevoie, aşadar, de o strategie bine pusă la punct prin care să contracarăm eforturile sistematice ale celor care, cu fel şi fel de minciuni, ne calomniază şi ne sabotează cu orice ocazie! Noi nu avem nevoie de minciuni, de alte calomnii ca să le răspundem, ci avem de partea noastră adevărul şi nu mai putem întârzia cu punerea în funcţiune a acestei arme teribile: ADEVĂRUL!
Şi adevărul este de partea noastră în cele mai multe cazuri!
Numai detractorii noştri au motive să se teamă de adevăr! Ceea ce înseamnă că îl avem de partea noastră şi pe bunul Dumnezeu, care este, în fapt, alt nume al adevărului.
Numai că trebuie să avem grijă mare: Dumnezeu, oricât ne-ar iubi, nu ne bagă şi în traistă!
Ne-a iubit Dumnezeu atunci, la Alba Iulia, şi a vegheat Sfântul Duh la opera care se finaliza în acea zi de neuitat.
Dar acel final fericit se împlinea prin fapte de vitejie şi de dăruire apostolică a cărturarilor noştri, şi datorită jertfei româneşti din acei ani teribili ai Marelui Război.
1 Decembrie s-a împlinit prin voia Domnului, dar nu ne-a picat din cer!
Tuturor românilor aşadar, pentru fiecare român în parte şi pentru întreg Neamul nostru cel românesc, inima şi fruntea sus! Avem de ce!
La Mulţi Ani Frumoşi!
ION COJA
Post scriptum 2014:
Publicăm din nou acest text, uitat, cu ocazia marii sărbători naționale a poporului frate ungar: 4 August 1919, ziua eliberării Budapestei și a Ungariei de sub cizma bolșevismului descreierat. 95 de ani de când ungurii au gustat din binefacerile opincii valahe, oltenești!
|
Dear Mr. Coja,
let’s see the real truth behind your article and let’s reveal the horrible confusions, slips and distortions in this summary! Unfortunately, we can speak only about confusion in your head and the confusion of dreams is totally true for you and some Romanians!
First of all, „Greater Hungary” is an unofficial reference to the original Hungary and yes it has been existed with territorrial extent referred between 1000-1526, 1848-1849, 1867-1920. Of course it cannot be compared with „Greater Romania”, since the territorrial gains after WW1 cannot be compared ot a foundation of a country almost to a near millenia before. About this „Austrian redemption” we have to make clear they only helped in the very last time when Vienna was also endangered and before despite namely they were opposing the Turks, they did not make any sacrifice but the Hungarians to perish, even when the Hungarian Army won a battle the King despite made some treaties and gave up more territories to the enemy. This served the two-face policy of the Habsburgs to enweaken Hungary so they can conquer it easier later (finally they never managed). The rest is a typical Ion Coja type delusioning, although it is well-known Hungarians are the savior and defender of the European culture and opposingly your lunatic statements, Hungary was the only one who any time confronted the Turks and never compromised and managed to stop them. The rest of the „Christian” Europe only acted when they could not hide they cowardice and lack of interest and they were directly endangeoured. Shame on you Mr. Coja that you try to cheat history in such an awful way!
Transylvania was never a Romanain principality, after 1526 the Eastern side of Hungary transformed to the Eastern-Hungarian Kingdom and later Principality of Transylvania, that was a Hungarian state later on vassalage by the Habsburgs and partially on Turkish suzerainty. Formerly Principality of Wallachian and Moldavia was also not homogenous, including, Ruthenians, Bulgarians, and many Slavic nations, nevertheless, the Kings were also a long period of no Romanian origin, but they had Cuman or Turkic offspring.
Again, the Hungarian state did NOT disappear, just only were torn to three parts were two new Hungarian state emerged: Royal Hungary and Eastern Hungarian Kingdom, and your stupid conclusion is again a big lie, since before the two entities were not separate and of course Transylvania did not have the same history or model or political organization like the two Romanian principalities. Defamation is a thing that you are making without any serious historical knowledge! We have nothing to be ashamed of as much as you!
About „Magyarization” that is the favourite accusation of our deary neighbors we have to remember them is was only an option, it was not compulsory and mostly Jews lived with the opportunity, the heavy and forced Romanization of the Romanian state why you silenece where there was not even an option? Your level cannot be lowered comparing to us. You try to even to corrupt the Bolyai family, althoug in their correspondent time Hungarians were also living in the village that anyway was founded and named by Hungarians. So your call for the truth had come, Mr. History is here to correct your blatant mistakes!
In Hungary, Romanians are not persecuted, unless in Romania there are many unsolved problems. What you wrote about 1920 is again a bullshit. The Hungarian state was created in 1000. A. D., and it was a national state and also Hungarians were the majority. The ethnic composition changed after Hungarian Kings settled Saxons, Romanians and later after the wars that made a depopulation of the country they invited almost 14 natinalities to settle here, to say nothing of many refugees were accepted who fled to the safe Hungary against foreign threat. Anyway, before Trianon was still Hungarian the largest ethnic group.
Again you started delusioning. Hungary was always a sovereign country, entitiy with it’s own citizenship, Diet and legistlation also after 1526, having a Habsburg King did not mean any incopororation to the Austrian lands, since Hungary remained a separate country with all it’s institutions and borders, also before Hungary had many Kings of different houses, so missed again heavily, the conclusion is you don’t have an ivory-tower-scholar-knowledge of history. The idea of the Hungarian-Austrian-Romanian „Monarchy” was just one of the scenarios, but in reality Alexandru Vaida-Voeovod would better like „this Hungarian-Jewish state to coluntarily join to Romania”. Any comparison to Gypsies from Romania is heavily ridicoulus.
I cannot stop laughing on your next lines…uninterrupted continuity? Oldest? Romanian state? 600 years? You mixed heavily the pages and concepts, Mr…Romania was born in 1866, you have exactly now 150 years…if we count also the predecessor states (Wallachia, Moldavia) still you are not the oldest…so your contemplations about the historical truths, proper answer and other cries are totally trash, since you are the one who does not have even the minimal and necessary objectivity towards the facts, moreover, becoming more lunatic will not serve any good reason!
„The truth is most of the cases are in our side” :))) Yes we saw in this article „most of the cases” :) Your Orthodox type of mentioning the God does not erase the heavy mistakes you committed. In 1918, in Gyulafehérvár/Alba Iulia you were coward and did not invite the representants of the other ethnics, and your promises did not kept. There is nothing really to celebrate because of this!
Interesting point of view. I have to say I do not agree with some of your statements but the same I can say about Mr. Coja, that he is a bit off in his statements.
There are a few things I know (but unfortunately I am not allowed to speak of) regarding Romanian and Hungarian history that I have been „showed” in Rome and Barcelona attending academic meetings (history colloquiums). From my point of view you are both, to some extent, mistaken…
I would only like to ask you, if you permit me sir, what is your nationality, or where are you living?
Since you wrote in English I can only assume that you are not Romanian…
Awaiting you response!
Good day to you!
Hi,
tell me with exactly what you disagree, I just listed some facts in a harsher tone, jugding Mr. Coja as „bit off” is a very nice and solid summary, his lack of objectivity and lunacy is so much disgusting that any wise person with a good faith could scream…
What do you mean you are „not allowed” to speak, who is censoring you?
Let’s have a deal, first we discuss you tell me on what you disagree or in your consideration what I have mistaken, After I will answer your questions and as well you also reply to those questions you asked, just for curiosity.
We should exclude in advance any kind of influence or prejudication regarding personal information, here it does not matter.
I hope you’d agree.
Dupa dualismul austro- ungar din 1867 imparatul Francisc Iosif era imparat constitutional al Austriei si Rege constitutional al Ungariei cu mentiunea ca era vorba de Constitutia Ungariei de la 1848 care nu recunostea drepturile minoritatilor.Ca urmare a dualismului s- a creat Ungaria Mare prin alipirea Transilvaniei, Slovaciei, Croatiei si Voievodinei sub administrarea guvernului de la Budapesta.
Dupa cum se stie Revolutia maghiara de la 1848 -1849 a fost infranta,o contributie majora avand Avram Iancu si motii,prin interventia Rusiei,dar pe fondul infrangerilor Austriei cu Franta,Prusia si Italia austriecii indrumati si de Bismark au facut aceste concesii maghiarilor.
Regatul maghiar din evul mediu avea ca vasale Transilvania si Croatia in timp ce in perioada dualismului acestea au fost alipite fortat.
Administrarea maghiara in Transilvania nu a fost ” doar pe hartie”,ea a fost TOTALA,fara nicio interventie de la Viena si Transilvania isi pierde autonomia si statutul de Principat,imparatul nu mai este rege al Ungariei si principe al Transilvaniei ci numai rege.
Trebuie subliniat ca Transilvania si-a pastrat statutul de voievodat sau principat pana in 1867 .
You should have gotten some necessary information before writing so many bullshits at once! In 1848, the Hungarian constitution and laws were the first of Europe that recognized minority rights, and this was abolished by the Austrian agression and the fall of the revolution. In 1867 the Hungarian Parliament again enacted the minority rights that had not any example in Europe, making Hungary the most liberal country of Europe! Not any „Greater-Hungary” was created, just the original Hungary was restored, and Transylvania rejoined with Hungary, „Slovakia” did not exist that time, „Vojvodina” was just an artifical Austrian created entity from the original territory of Hungary that returned, Croatia had the same relation with Hungary like before: personal union. Transylvania reunited with Hungary already in 1848, and Croatia was never the vassal of Hungary, and the relation was settled by the Hungarian-Croatian Settlement and Transylvania with vote chose to reunite with Hungary, not any forced event happened. It has to be emphasized that your attempt to corrupt history with so many lies are just a useless trial against professionals!
Banuiesc ca esti un maghiar care nu stapaneste limba romana,dar din respect pentru tara in care traiesti merita sa comentezi in limba romana. Nu asta e problema!
Problema este ca esti prost informat! Daca Constitutia revolutionarilor maghiari era atat de buna pentru minoritati atunci de se au luat arma in mana romanii transilvaneni? De ce crezi tu ca romanii au preferat sa lupte pentru recunoasterea lor ca nationalitate impotriva maghiarilor daca li se „recunostea drepturile”?
Trec si pe langa aiureala cu „the Hungarian constitution and laws were the first of Europe” pentru ca acesta „gogoasa” nu este recunoscut azi de istoricii maghiari respectabili, nu ma refer la tine care „inghiti” toate gogosile, ma refer la istorici din Ungaria. Dar, sa revin la teritoriul de azi al Romaniei (Tarile Romane pe atunci) unde avem scoli armenesti de la 1800, scoali bulgaresti de la 1824 (primul abecedar bulgaresc este tiparit la Brasov), scoli albaneze de la 1844 cand se tipareste si primul abecedar albanez aici . Despre sarbi nu are rost sa vorbesc pentru ca bazele organizatiei nationale sarbesti Matita Srpska a fost pusa aici la noi!
Dupa cum vezi „draga” Onogur (asa isi spuneau ungurii pe limba lor turcica) noi romanii nu am avut nevoie de „constitutie” si de „revolutii” pentru a acorda minoritatilor de aici drepturi si libertati.
Sa nu uit….”and Transylvania rejoined with Hungary” este numai in mintea ta! Niciodata Transilvania nu a fost parte integranta a Ungariei Medievale, Transilvania a fost un voievodat vasal Ungariei si dupa ce Ungaria a disparut de pe harta evului mediu (Mohacs ) Transilvania a fost principat independent. Din aceasta cauza Imparatul habsburgi era si Principe al Transilvaniei.
Cred ca stii ca „Sacra Corona Hungariae” cuprinde o corona graeca si o corona latina ? De ce oare? Nu cumva pentru ca initial maghiarii au trecut la ortodoxie si pe urma pe considerente politice ati renuntat !
Tu fiind un netot , nu ma refer la dex ci la ne- thaut (asa isi spuneau gepizii pe limba lor), adica venetic pe limba gepida, nu prea stii cum sta treaba cu toleranta pe la noi, tu ai convingerea ca la 1848 maghiarii (ungurii au fost asimilati demult) au descoperit gaura de la roata.
P.S Bozgore (vine de la maghiarul bazd meg , devenit bozmeg, boz gur si adaptat de noi romanii la boz gor si care nu are nicio treaba cu om fara tara) pune mana pe carte si pe urma informat, documentat poti sa-mi dai raspunsuri. Nu uita! Limba engleza nu te face Schmecker, erai rafinat daca utilizai limba romana
Your suggestions are as wrong as your ignorance of history. I don’t live in Romania. I am not misinformed, some Romanians took a gun because of the Austrian agitation and promises that was never kept, the situation of Romanians became worse after 1849, to say nothing of how Iancu was honorated for his „services”. You speak about something that is your imagination. Hungary was the first country in Europe introducing minority rights, of course Hungarian-haters does not like this, as also other Western nation who try us to teach about human rights, etc. Your examples does not annihilate what I’ve said, anyway Hungary gave earlier schools to Romanians and anyway, also first the freedom of all religions was introduced in a Hungarian state, moreover the situation fo Romanians were the best in Hungary comparing to all other territories / countries where Romanians lived.
Again you say bullshit, that is existing only in brainwashed Romanian heads. Transylvania was part of the medieval Hungary, and it has been never a „vassal” – how funny to consider a countriy’s own territory a vassal that is inhabited by Hungarians :) – unlike Wallachia or Moldavia, that was really a time vassal state of Hungary. Hungary did not disapperad from the map, but it’s territorial integrity was harmed, Royal Hungary and the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom countinued to exist as two Hungarian states – from the later one emerged later Principality of Transylvania, that became later the vassal of the Habsburgs and some time a Turkish suzerainty. The Habsburg could have/claimed the right on Transylvania only through the Hungarian Crown, since it was a predecessor state of Hungary and the King of Hungary thus is also the leader of Transylvania – the same goes to Royal Hungary. The Habsburg dominion lead to loose the indepence and and the creation of a Habsburg controlled crownland.
The fact both the Western and Eastern world recognized Hungary before the schism does not change anything of our Roman Catholic faith, even if there were some clashes not to accept it or better not give up old Hungarian traditions, but the fact to create full Orthodox before the Hungarians is just a well-known silly Romanian imagination when the history corruption war machine is acting.
It’s funny that person tries to call me stupid that fully accepted the article’s ridicoulus fallacies and the second time are proven wrong by not knowing elemental historical facts – not surprised, it is an average discrepancy in Romania, poor Marius Diaconescu also complained of the very poor knowledge and fantasy imagination of common people even strictly from the Romanian history.
Not any forced assimilation took place in Hungary, we accepted many refugees, we settled many nations to the depopulate areas in the country – mostly after the wars but the Habsburg King also did that many times. In 1848 Hungary – along with all ethnics – rised up againt the Habsburg controlled dominion and after the Habsburg used the pan-Slav agitations and also tried to turn against us other ethnics by promising everything they wanted to hear. Finally, Slovaks, Romanians, etc. had less rights than before or that the Hungarians established in 1848, so you again tell the false propaganda.
Don’t try to act as someone who are able to teach, „grabbing the book” and other things are your task since you don’t have the necessary proper information of neither Hungarian or Romanian history!
Nu ma intereseaza daca traiesti in Romania ori aiurea, realitatea este ca esti un maghiar din Romania, cetatean roman de nationalitate maghiara. Corect ori ba?
Esti prost informat pentru ca majoritatea romanilor transilvaneni au pus mana pe arme si vrei, nu vrei realitatea este ca victoriile lui Avram Iancu v-au erodat Ungaria Revolutionara.
Vorbesti de mine onogur ca am imaginatie, afla ca tu nu ai!
In afara ca repeti ca o moara stricata de binefacerile Revolutiei maghiare si esti penibil cand ocolesti realitatea Pasalacului de la Buda si de marea moscheiea din Buda (ce exemplu mai vrei?).
Desprea includerea Transilvaniei in Regatul Ungariei se pare ca habar nu ai de Woyuoda Transsiluanus – Vajda Erdély si de faptul ca Iancu de Hunedoara voievodul ajunge dupa moartea regelui Vladislav la Varna guvernator al Ungariei. Ce origine are cel mai mare rege al Ungariei, Mathias ?
Ma tem ca n-ai inteles nimic despre coroana maghiara (cele doua coroane intr-una) si asta dovedeste ca esti limitat la minte. Coroana bizantina este data de Imparatul Constantin Porfirogenetul lui …..(aici sa-mi spui tu onogur ) Sa nu uit! Printesa Saraolt se chema in limba ungara turcica Sar Oldu, asta ca sa intelegi diferenta dintre maghiari si unguri.
Am inteles ca istoria romanilor nu-ti place, dar vad ca te irita si istoria oficiala a Ungariei -you don’t have the necessary proper information of neither Hungarian or Romanian history!
Poate imi indici alta istorie alternativa ca sa nu mai fabulez ori imi indici o carte, un site.
O seara buna onogur si nu uita! Chestia cu aparatorii Europei o intalnesti de la albanezi, la sarbi, bulgari, maghiari si romani. De ce oare?
Of course it is not correct, this is what I told, I am not Hungarian from Romania and I am not a Romanian citizen!
I am not misinformed – how funny is to hear from someone that uses the term „Slovakia” in the 19th century :) – generally Romanians was not on the oppostie side than Hungarians, since they also suffered because of the Hasburg King, but after the Hungarians rised up Vienna already was afraid and immediately searched to involve the Hungary’s minorities for reinforcements – by some it worked, by some did not. Iancu and his wing was promised with everything they wanted to hear and it was enough!
Hungary was too weak to just stand against the Ottomans, it cost of the integrity of the country and horribble loss of manpower by loosing classic independence also, anyway today we are still the almost the only one who really stand for the protection of Europe, how properly is it appreciated!
Don’t struggle to much, just because a Transyvlanian voivode was appointed it does not mean the country was separated, it was an internal affair of Hungary like also Tulcea and Botosani are also not vassals of Romania. Anyway Hunyadi as governor of Hungary also governed obviously all parts of Hungary, including Transylvania, so you can really spare play „guess who” regarding evidential things. So this is what you like to hear, that Matthias Corvinus’ father originated from Wallachia? So what? It has not any direct connection to the topic.
It’s funny to hear again the accusation of „limited mind” from such a person that tells such bullshits like „Slovakia in the 19th century” or „Transylvania was never part of Hungary” :) so you better don’t make yourself more ridicoulus :)
Of course I understood what you have written but the topic has more aspects and I also know the notes of Constantinos Phorphyrogenetos. To say frankly, he was also appointed the Hungarians earlier called themselfes Sabartoe-Asphaloi that he could not understood, but if we remove the Greek suffixes the most probable meaning is „Lower-Sabiria”. Anyway the seven Hungarian tribes consisted the most propable of four Sabir tribes and three Onogur tribes – this latter one had really Turkic roots – but what you want to state is not true, not the latter dominated, anyway both of the languages are agglutinative and have the same roots dating back the very ancient tames. Hungarian is just only an exnomym, we called ourselves Magyars all after.
It is false again that I would not like Romanian history, and anyway, the version of the official Hungarian history I do not even agree, but there are some factual things that cannot be debated. About fabolus websites I could mention a few Romanian one, the problem is the average people does not have a clear vision or knowledge of history, their mostly indoctrinated with never prooven myths etc.
Your last question this time I’ll let you to answer on your own.
Onogur nu ma intereseaza cine esti, ti-am mai spus, se poate sa fie asa cum spui tu si atunci am tras o concluzie pripita cu toate ca de vad prea infocat. E asa cum spui tu…esti cine vrei sa fii ….
Nu o sa pierd vremea cu explicatiile privind vasalitatea in Evul Mediu pentru ca e o cauza pierduta cu tine, ce stii tu de Normandia ori Burgundia care se razboiau cu Franta ? Intalnim asemenea situatii intre Ungaria si Transilvania? Da ori ba? Spune onogur ?
De ce crezi ca am facut referire la Iancu de Hunedoara si la Regele Mathias? Pentru ca in perioada celor doi valahi Regatul Ungar- Maghiar, cum vrei tu sa-i spui, a facut fata pericolului otoman, in rest nu prea ati contat in luptele cu otomanii.
Deci, are legatura cu subiectul pentru ca TU AI SPUS ca ati fost salvatorii Europei ! Nu poti proba ce ai spus pentru ca nu va ajuta istoria (aici e normal sa nu fii de acord nici cu cea maghiara si nici cu cea romana) .
Nu mi-ai raspuns la intrebarea si o dai cotita tipic ungureste, o reiau „De ce albanezii, sarbii, bulgarii, maghiarii si romanii se considera aparatorii Europei ? ”
Am inteles ca nu esti de acord cu istoria oficiala, dar nu aduci nimic nou sub soare. Daca erai istet veneai ca citate din Constitutia maghiara din 1848 in sprijinul ipotezelor tale…Daca citeai de Anton Bernolak nu-mi vorbeai cu atata aroganta prosteasca de eroarea cu Slovacia in sec XIX, daca Nermplak a standardizat limba slovaca pe la sfarsitul sec XVIII si a pus bazele Slovenske ucene tovarisstvo nu crezi ca putem vorbi de o renastere a natiunii slovace? Sau numai bozgorii (ti-am explicat de unde vine si nu are sens peiorativ la mine) au dreptul la natiune in sec XIX ?
Gresesti cand spui ca ” Hungarian is just only an exnomym, we called ourselves Magyars all after” pentru ca istoria veche a Ungariei ne spune altceva si avem numeroase exemple cu populatii care au fost asimilate dar si-au impus denumirea asupra poporului. Ungurii turcici- on ogur (zece triburi) au fost asimilati de maghiari, asa cum au fost asimilati si khabarii si secuii, dar v-au dat numele de Ungaria asa cum si bulgarii (turcici) au fost asimilati de slavi dar le-au dat numele sau, Bulgaria. Francii (germanici) au fost asimilati de galo-romani dar si-au impus numele, respectiv Francia-Franta. La fel s-a intamplat si cu rusii (varegi) care au fost asimilati de slavi dar viitoarea tara avea sa se numeasca Rusia. Faptul ca te chinuesti sa-mi explice ca cele trei triburi onogur (in realitate on inseamna 10-zece) erau de fapt unul turcic este exact ca in gluma cu cei 4 apostoli care erau de fapt trei : Luca si Matei. Limba oghur se mai intalneste si astazi in Daghestan si in Ciuvasia din Federatia Rusa si poti sa faci o verificare sa vezi cate cuvinte le mai intalnesti in limba maghiara, deci un singur trib nu putea sa lase o asemenea amprenta. Despre secui ca erau turcici cea mai buna dovada este steagul lor care se gaseste pe stema Romaniei ( vezi de ce e bine sa fii mandru ca esti cetatean roman chiar de alta etnie?) si in celebra alianta cu Mihai Viteazul.
P.S.S Daca ai vorbi romaneste, indiferent cum o faci pentru ca nu suntem la ora de limba romana, si ai mentiona celebrele situri romanesti nu sub forma „fabolus websites I could mention a few Romanian one” am avea o discutie mai interesanta in care, cine stie, putem afla multe lucruri interesante. „Cine tine toate minte si ar sta sa le asculte?”
O seara buna onogur si nu uita de intrebare. Sanatate !
I am who I am, we are who we are, your quote is much more true to you. Vassalage is a lost case for you because such never existed between Transylvania and Hungary. What I know France and it’s nation is a mixture between Franks, Gauls, Normanns, Basques, etc. and the situation was soon all people were colonized and melted, however I am not a detailed specialist in the early French history, no resemblence to Hungary.
Romanians always like to refer to the Hunyadi’s, but they are not „two Vlachs”, one is Hungarian originating from Wallachia, and the other is a Hungarian who’s father is the famous Hungarian governor who is originating from Wallachia. You so much easily corrupt Matthias Corvinus, although regardless where his father is originating from this nationality and allegiance was still undoubtedly Hungarian, we also not enquestion the Romanian being of many rulers in Wallachia and Moldavia who were of Turkic, Cuman or Greek origin, anyway the Hunyadi family has a very possible Cuman origin thus they could just live in Wallachia, anyway if they were fully Romanians also would not contradict anything what I said. Hungary were always against the Ottomans, also with or without the Hunyadis.
It is not a typical Hungarian elbow, I don not certainly know what you refer of and/or I do not agree, that’s why you should extract your POW first. Anyway, I don’t have to quote or support any „assumptions”, since they are facts, I won’t work instead of you, you are the accuser you have to prove the opposite if you can but you can’t.
The term „Slovakia” in the 19th century is an unknown, anachronistic annotation, since this entity was born in 14 March 1939, moreover the term „Slovak” also was also competing with „sloven”, „sloveni”, „slovenska” and about the language – that is still today not existing in a unified way – Bernolák’s struggle was also not really successfull and for the official Slovak literary language the „middle-Slovak-dialect” was chosen but also then and know it is existing in reality on paper and we cannot speak about a unified, unequivocal Slovak language. So the real arrogance is to speak Slovakia in those centuries when this term did not even existed. Of course the term Slovak you can use a while back, but not any case „Slovakia”, as we also don’t use Iraq instead of Sumer.
Anyway what you wrote about assimilation is just your point of view, if the majority would be a Turkic tribe than their langauge should be dominated, anyway the all Finno-Ugrian theory is just an artificial invention of the 18th new Indo-European nationalistic era. What symbol you refer Szeklers would take from Romanians? I think you are mistaken, they don’t have such symbols, but it resembles much the Hunyadi’s symbols that are traditional Hungarian symbols as well the coat of arms of Transylvania that is also lacking by any Romanian symbol. Anyway, the half-moon symbol can be found among many Turkic symbols, it is true. The famous alliance that the Romanians praise so much was a temporary option against a certain Hungarian landlord based on a disagreement, but after Michael The Brave did not kept his promises to the Szeklers, they did not supported him anymore.
I don’t speak Romanian but I analyze every history or Hungary related matters, and your question you should answer first since I do not know what you exactly refer of.
Singurul adevar in tot ce ai spus pana acum este cel referitor la stema Transilvaniei aflata pe stema Romaniei. Este evident ca stii si motivul pentru care romanii nu apar si cine a creat stema, dar prezenta ori absenta romanilor de pe stema Transilvaniei nu este importanta pentru ca noi avem Transilvania in suflet si in minte.
Cat de maghiar era regele Mathias? Cred ca te uiti prea mult la desenele animate „Povesti din foclorul maghiar” sunt frumoase, dar realitatea Regatului maghiar din timpul lui Mathias nu era de poveste. In realitate, conform cronicarilor maghiari, Craiul Mathias era un renascentist, un european avant la letttre si pentru care Ungaria era mult prea mica, acesta a fost si motivul pentru care a incercat sa o mareasca si a transformat-o intr-o putere regionala si a pricopsit-o si cu taxe si impozite conform proverbului „obrazul subtire, cu cheltuiala sa tine”. Bineinteles, acest lucru a fost posibil ca urmare a victoriei de la Belgrad a lui Iancu de Hunedoara ori la aceasta victorie CSFERE ca vrei, ca nu vrei au contribuit si romanii asa cum au contribuit si la alte momente importante din istoria maghiara: eliberarea Budapestei de regimul bolsevic a lui Bela Kun in 1919 si eliberarea Budapestei de sub nazisti. Recunostinta in istorie este o pasare rara . Ca Mathias a fost mai mult maghiar decat roman asta e o realitate, tot cum o realitate este si mandria regelui ca este un descendent al Romei la insultele rivalului sau Frederic al Austriei care ii amintea de originea lui valaha. Trist este ca imediat dupa moartea marelui rege, maghiarii recunoscatori au preferat inlaturarea mostenitorului legitim Ioan Corvinus si l-au preferat pe Vladislav al Boemiei. Poate ma lamuresti tu cu aceasta alegere, adica ceva in plus fata de istografia oficiala maghiara ori romana.
Esti hazliu cu explicatia slovacilor si aparitia lor ca natiune dupa rationamentul tau natiunea italiana ar fi aparut doar cu aparitia statului italian. Cand a aparut natiunea ungara/maghiara ? La 1848 cu Revolutia? M-ai linistit! Vad ca pe slovaci ii detesti mai mult decat pe romani.
Imi pare rau ca nu ai inteles la ce m-am referit atunci cand am vorbit despre secui,repet secuii adevarati (nu astia de astazi declarati fara a avea nicio treaba cu secuii) sunt de neam turcic.
Nu trebuie sa-ti dovedesc tie nimic! Eu intotdeauna am facut referire la surse si ce-am spus se poate verifica. Ce vrei sa-ti reproduc textul Constitutiei maghiare de la 1848 sa-ti demonstrez ca nu ai dreptata? Tu in schimb, in afara de ob-la-di, ob-la-da si patriotism maghiar ieftin (culmea este ca maghiarii din Ungaria va detesta – http://www.kishiniov.eu/ro/cand-ungurii-nu-suporta-pe-unguri-cateva-cifre-despre-toleranta/) si niste sfortari de toata jena pe care tu le consideri „fapte” care nu mai trebuie demonstrate nu ai adus nimic dialogului nostru. Pierdem vremea onogur! Astept in schimb lamuriri referitoare la succesiunea dupa moartea lui Mathias
P.S Raspunsul la intrebare era foarte simplu natiunile mici precum sarbii, bulgarii, albanezii, maghiarii si romanii si- au facut o istorie a superioritatii in care fiecare isi revendica meritul de a fi salvatorii Europei, in ultimul timp au intrat in hora si polonezii si rusii care si-au revendicat meritul de a fi salvat Europa nu numai de turci, dar si de tataro-mongolii lui Batu Han. Crezi ca mai intereseaza astazi pe cineva asemenea lucruri? Crezi ca Ungaria ne-a multumit vreodata pentru cele doua eliberari?
It is funny to hear again about such phrases like „the only truth you said” since almost all of your manifestations and allegations are not true or improper :)
You can emphasize how some Romanians or they official history writing is „mythologizing” Transylvania, but it does not change the facts, we should not mix them with forged myths.
Obviously we know Romanians in the early times were in a very little amount present Transylvania and the Coat of Arms represented the official state and historical symbols.
I think you do not understand what nationality /ethnicity / citizenship really means, neither reflected to medieval times or modern times. It has no doubt Matthias Corvinus was a Hungarian, moreover the King of Hungary who was born in Hungary, who had a Hungarian nationality and mother tongue and also allegiance to Hungary, who’s mother was a Hungarian also from Hungary, who’s father was the Hungarian Governor who’s ancestors are originating from Wallachia. With all of these, you cannot say Matthias was not Hungarian, but your joy is to emphasize the little Wallachian line…be happy with it, from now on I will say also the Turkic and the Cuman people contributed very much to the Moldavian and Wallachian history since the first rulers had a Cuman / Turkic origin….(despite, we never enquestion their „Romanian” nationality).
The rest what you said is the well-known disgusting trash of the Romanian propaganda where you cannot expect any gratitude, just heavy rage!! Romanian did not „liberated” Budapest or „freed” us from Béla Kun since he already resigned before the Romanian Army would be nearby and this is a well-known trick to identify the illegal and shameful occupation of the country that had not any benevolent goal, just to force Hungary to gave up from it’s territory and moreover to crush any future of the Hungarian state. Moreover, the Romanian Army robbed out Budapest and they left only after the Allies threated them they won’tbe anymore regarded as „Allies” and they can say bye-bye to Bessarabia if they continue like so!
Romania also did not liberate anything in 1944 but shamefully betrayed it’s allies – like almost always – and joined the horror-bloody-communist Soviet Union and made a horrible massacre in their way and occupied Hungary and atthe same assisted the Communist takeover of the Central-Eastern takeover of Europe with a result after more than 50 years we still could not recover! Moreover, Romania’s aim was to take away again territories from other countries, as usual! No gratitude, but a big shame! You say you are against the Communists, after you join them, and both you identify as a liberation, bloody Byzantyne Romanian way of thinking, we get used to it!
Returning back to Matthias, but dynsatic ruler familes it is normal they have a multiethnic background, since most the ruling class is marrying with an other ruling class, however this descendancy from Rome was better a legend than a proven fact….why you miss from the list the he stated Mehmet II, the Turkish sultan also his blood-relative?
Not I am funny, but you are disturbingly ignorant and the Slovak and Italian case is totally incomparable, if it’s not clear for you, it is again a big shame…The so called Hungarian-Magyar nation emerged (in the Carpathian Basin) around 896 A.D., you you have to shut up, novice :)
You should not reflect your mistaken imaginations to me, you failed already so many times…I don’t hate Slovaks or Romanians, I hate LIES, CHEATING, TWISTING, DISTORTING facts, that’s all, that’s why we are talking because also you stated such things that are not true, don’t overcomplicate too much!
Just a source is not enough, it has to have a proven and valid content, you were unable to prove anything that I was stating they are not true, and yes, take time time a read the constitution made in the revolution, anyway, you can easily find also secondary sources, but I won’t work instead of you, since the greatest problem of Romanians they believe and advertize everything that was never proven and they think if they repeat more times maybe once it will be true :) You are a perfect specimen for this :)
About the Onogur-case there are dozens of theories, myths, you presented one, I presented an other, we don’t have a final proof for it…
Finally, I see what you want to refer on your last sentence. You have right, many nations are introducing some propaganda for more reasons:
– they want to emphasize their importance and merits and like so develop their national idea
– and also with other disputed interventions they want themselves to wash out and find a casus belli why did they why and of course they are always innocent
What I can tell Hungary and Hungarians undoubtedly stood up for Christianity and Europe against the Mongols, Ottoman Empire and the Soviet Union that brought the greatest devastation to Europe and the European Christian culture, but we did not claim any special superiority! Serbs supported the Soviet Union, I know Russians what reason they wanted to enter in Wallachia and Moldavia, later Kingdom of Romania, it’s a funny explanation that just because of the Turks, they had multiple interests in the region anyway, so it is stinky a little bit…
As I told above, we don’t have to „thank” (Jesus, what an insanity…!!!) anything to Romania, they never liberated us, they occupied us illegally with bloody interests and commited horrible crimes againt Hungary and Hungarian nation and it is a big shame – and the proof of a seroius inobjectivity and intolerance – they wan’t to identify as „liberation”. So better don’t play this way and don’t make yourself a propaganda agent!
E amuzant ca nu stii nimic, esti slab pregatit iar istoria e prea grea pentru tine.
Asta ai inteles tu ca ma bucura faptul ca regele Mathias are origini romane? Mathias a fost in primul rand un rege al Ungariei care a fost infrant la Baia de Stefan cel Mare si l-a tinut prizonier pe Vlad Tepes. Ti-am explicat cum a raspuns rivalului sau austriac cu demnitate si mandrie , asta e o realitate istorica consemnata de cronicari si cred ca am fost suficient de clar Cluj Csefere ca alta realitate istorica este faptul ca Regele Mathias a fost mai mult maghiar decat roman. Unde vezi tu bucurie? Am crezut ca port un dialog cu o persoana inteligenta, chiar daca este slab pregatita si indoctrinata la greu. Cand a demisionat Bela Kun ? Nu dupa ce armata maghiara a fost umilita si pulverizata de armata romana? Despre ce ocupatie vorbesti bozgorele? Cand toti istoricii maghiari recunosc ca in 1919 armata romana s-a comportat mai mult decat onorabil la Budapesta si in teritoriile ocupate iar administratia maghiara nu a fost obstructionata. Romania a eliberat Ungaria de bolsevici asta e o realitate care te doare, va doare si va va durea . Revenind la a doua eliberare a Budapestei poate ca tu ai uitat ca armata romana nu a fost armata sovietica si va dat mancare din ratia soldatilor romani. Ti-am mai spus recunostinta este o pasare rara in istorie iar pentru maghiari recunostinta lipseste din vocabular. Nu o sa comentez nici ineptiile privind 1944 ca oricum esti pe langa subiect si nu uita Romania nu a fost aliata Ungariei! Nu poti sa fii aliat cu niste criminali barbari care au luat cu japca teritorii din Romania. Ce aliata era Germania ? Germania care dadu-se URSS mana libera la Basarabia, N Bucovinei si Tinutului Hertei , Bulgariei la Cadrilater si Ungariei la N. Transilvaniei. Germania era aliata Romaniei asa cum a fost si aliata Finlandei, armata romana, ca si cea finlandeza, a luptat sub comana proprie.
Despre prestanta armatei maghiare in Al Doilea Razboi Mondial in afara de „vitejia” in masacrarea populatiei civile si neinarmate mai aveti vreo alta realizare? Despre prestanta trupelor maghiare in Primul Razboi Mondial sta marturie „Ispravile soldatului Svejk” si modul lamentabil cum fugeti precum iepurii in fata armatei romane. Aveti o scuza?! Era vorba de „armata rosie maghiara” .
Despre aiureala ca romanii erau putini in Transilvania nu are rost sa comentez esti de rasul -plansul si ii faci de rusine pe onoguri care le-au trebui mai bine de 100 de ani sa aduca in subordine „putinii” romani din Transilvania. Auzi la tine Mathias s-a nascut in Ungaria, Cluj Napoca e in Ungaria si daca Iancu de Hunedoara a ajuns Guvernator al Ungariei era… ungur. Nu bozgorele a ajuns Guvernator pentru ca in acel moment maghiarii nu aveau persoane capabile sa gestioneze situatia dupa dezastrul de la Varna. E adevarat au ba? Cat despre legende legate de Mathias ti-am spus sa lasi „Povestile din folclorul maghiar” si sa te apuci sa studiezi serios inclusiv daca regele Mathias a fost sau nu asasinat.
Spre deosebire de istoricii maghiari, istografia romaneasca a recunoscut intotdeauna prezenta pecenega, cumana aici. Cat despre originea cumana / pecenega a domnitorilor cred ca te referi la Neagu Djuvara si la ipoteza lui care este singulara in istografia romaneasca.
Spui ca urasti minciuna, dar esti nesincer Cluj Csefere sau Kolozsvar Csefere si uiti ca esti si vei fi, pentru maghiarii din Ungaria, un maghiar de mana a doua, un maghiar din Romania corcit si marginalizat in loc sa te bucuri ca esti un cetatean roman de nationalitate maghiara care are posibilitatea sa-si exercite drepturile si libertatile pe care in Ungaria, Franta, Slovacia, Ucraina minoritatile nu le au.
Mi-a facut placere sa discut cu tine onogur chiar daca ai repulsie de limba romana, interpretezi istoria si natiunea (cand apare natiunea ?), pastrezi tacerea vizavi de evenimente nu tocmai placute despre istoria maghiara (revolutia bolsevica a lui Bela Kun), nu ai fost in stare sa prezinti dovezi, respectiv articole din Constitutia maghiara de la 1848 care era atat de binefacatoare pentru celelalte natiuni , vorbesti fara argumente si utilizezi doar clisee, dar cred ca este timpul sa ne oprim aici pentru ca „te-ai aprins” si ai devenit prea patimas .
Esta clar ca in domeniul istoriei romano-ungare sau ungaro-romane nu gasim puncte de convergenta , dar poate gasim alte lucruri in care sa fim pe aceeasi lungime de unda .
Sanatate Csefere si nu uita ca „istoria nu-i decat o poveste despre frică”!( Octavian Paler)
Surena, you are proving again and again the typical average brainwashed and communist-type counter-accusation agent that prmitively thinks if repeating lies or untruthful hurts will make history to change. So again: the one who is poorly prepared in history is you, since all of your comments you stated such bullshits that can be disproved in any second moreover you are that lunatic type that you ignore you were caught on lies and you continue and behave like nothing happened. An average showcase of the schizophrenic Romanian behavior, when they realize they artificially created and propagated history has not any match of the reality. You have no chance to compete with my perfect and factual knowledge!
Poorly trained/indoctrinated = Surena, since you are really discussing with an intelligent person, you have no chance to fool, cheat on me or on historical reality! What I have told about Matthias Corvinus is a fact, it has no contradiction with anything.
The resignation of Kun has multiple roots, anyway he would have resigned and anyway the reign of this Communists would be abolished shortly, the Romanain history writing just uses this as a causus belli to make white their illegal occupation that was tobe heavily punished by the Allies with the same possible consequences as I told, moreover – for yor deep unluck – Dr. Alexandru Vaida-Voevod also recognizes the truth about this that is not in your side.
I don’t why you use the term „bozgor”, it is just an indicator of your primitivity, however we get used to such manifestations when an indoctrinated Romanian is meeting the facts that are totally different like their fairly tales / fantastic reinterpretation of history. So again: FACT, the the Romanian Army’s entrance that time was an ILLEGAL OCCUPATION and it has been also recognized by the Allies Powers. Point.
„All Hungarian historians recognize…”??? Are you drunken, or just the average desinformation? It is not the case, moreover, we have detailed statistics and information of the illegal requration, robberies, moreover, even residential Allies Force Generals are commemorating these acts that are also mentioned and verified in the diplomatic papers, moreover, Dr. Alexandru Vaida-Voevod also admits many things in his memoirs, so you are totally lost!
The short Bolshevik reign was made by a coup-d’état by Communist Jews, and it hurst of course, but it much more hurts that Romanians again after 1916 attacked illegally with a clear robbing attempt and requiration attempt without any benevolent goal, do not even dare to whisper the word „liberation”, it is just a silly product of some lunatic minds, as well never any „second liberation” existed.
You may twist as usually Romanians do, Romania betrayed it’s allies (again, as that time almost always) and allied the most horrible dictatorship with the most low-level culture and supported the Bolshevik extermination of Europe (it’s serious as you praise any anti-Bolshevik action, on the other hand you support and a much more Bolshevik action, a proof of your ill mind without any moralty). Live with it, you will NEVER get any gratitude for one of the most horrible crimes commited against Europe and the European culture and against Hungarians!
You have to deal with the fact history back in time is not a wish and poetrical phrases or personal opinions/considerations does not change back in time historical facts. The „criminal barbarians” wordage is again an ad hoc, primitive manifestation of yours, it is not true for Hungary or Hungarians, moreover again you make a big lie, since Hungary did not take by force territories from Romania, a mutually rendered and accepted arbitration resulted in returning to Hungary some former Hungarian territories.
Germany, Hungary, Romania, etc. became allies, you like or not, this is the historical fact. Point.
You have the same inferiority complex like many Romanians and you are the same way one-sided also. You don not speak / recognize about the crimes that were commited between 1918-1920, how many people were killed or illegally expelled, etc., but you generate a national legend of 1940, forgetting NOT HUNGARIANS STARTED THE CONFLICT, but in one case Romanians started to shoot the peaceful entering Hungarian Army, on the other cause a grenade exploded inside the Hungarian troops in unclear conditions. Like everywhere thos times or any part of the world, partisan-type attacks agains the military were heavily reparated as it was a common action to make a message to the criminals that with such attacks they cannot achieve anything good. Of course I am personally very sorry for every innocent victim, but again, the Romanian history writing should not be one-sided, they silence about the Romanian crimes committed by the retreating Romanian Army, etc.
In WW1 all the Axis Powers were successful and victorius, but in the end the Communist-Jews organized a putch and with fake news and demoralizing propaganda they crushed the belief of the people and made the Axis to retreat in arguing the era of the Royalism is over and new „democratic” revolutions should trial in the scope of „internationalism” and peace, although it was the secret plan of the freemason lodges to crush on the Christian, traditional Europe and to make a weak Europe where they can lead and take over in secret way all the countries. After the voluntary retreat, there „democratic” revoulitons turn to Bolshevik coup attempts, like in Germany, Hungary, etc. almost all the Axis countries, with more or less success, unfortunately Hungary had a bad fate in this, reagarding Hungary had a very large Jewish population. Mihály Károlyi, who after the so-called „revolution” = (rat-revolt) took over the country imemdiately demobilized the army so in a shameful way only the Germans where still protecting our borders and later the Bolsheviks even shoot the demobilized Hungarian soldiers. After, as they recgonized that the current insane territorrial division plans would totally disable the country, they changed politics and started to recruit an army, where also non-Communist patriots joined since they saw the last chance to avoid the total disintegration of Hungary, but it was too late, the army was weak and had less manpower. This is the story, it was part of the freemason-Jewish conspiracy.
You like or not, primarily Hungarian Kings settled Vlachs to Hungary in the early 13th century. Also what you list is all true, you hear from me or not, however, again mentioning „Cluj-Napoca” is such a ridicoulus shame like „Slovakia”, since „Cluj-Napoca” is an artificial creation of Ceausescu in the 20th’s century, and you like or not, Kolozsvár was then in Hungary, the rest is you average bullshit. In Hungary, everyonehad to be a chance to be a Governor or a King, if he was talented and brave, that’s all. The assassination Matthias was a result of a foreign conspiracy – possibly lead by it’s new wife – because he became to powerful and the West felt it as a threat….the early Hungarians Kings never died in a natural manner, foreign rendered conspiracies made almost all the Kings died in uncertain conditions.
What you stat is again a big hoax, since Hungarians always recognized the Cumans, not just in Wallachia or Moldavia, but also in Hungary they are part of our natural history. Neagu Djuvara is one of the most intelligent and talented original thinker of Romania, he would be ashamed if he’d hear your stupitities all along, do not think if you refer to him it would nullify your shameful ignorance!
Again, your indoctrination and poor level of mind…I am not a mongrel, I am not a Hungarian from Romania, I am not a Romanian citizen, I am not a second-level citizen, such does not exist in Hungary, every citizen is equal. Just because some other countries are in a shameful level regarding minority rights and just because Romania superseeds them in a few matters, it still does not mean Romania fulfilled it’s all duty to the Hungarian minority, the promises of 1918 are still haunting, Romanians has to keep their word (at least once :) )
As I told, I don’t speak Romanian, but since I have a talent of languages and google-translator is my friend, I am managing somehow. You repeat and ask again questions? Read back if you are unaware of things I already answered, remember, you cannot spare the work. I never denied the unpleasant reign on the Bolsheviks, I presented all the facts opposing your unproved and fake propaganda, and the fact I want to make you to work – it would be good since you could make a clear distinction between fake legends and historical factuality – it does not mean you have true. My argumentations are clear and fair. You could gain information about 1848-49 less then one minute, but you better shamefully want ot quit from the conversation as usually Romanians do when they are beaten.
A little help to remember:
Godju Manel (1802-1885): ,,…the world history does not show us a more beautiful sacrifice when the Hungarian orders sacrificed their lives and wealth in order to protect those laws in which all their privileges were shared with all the nations of the motherland…”
Rosetti (1816-1885): „The glory of liberating the serfdom goes to the Hungarians, Romania achieved it it much more later on the cost of blood, the Hungarian nobility could do it without any force, just purely acted by the enthusiasm of the holy principles of humanity and freedom.”
Sir Donald, Times, 10. 10. 1908: ,,By freeing the serfdom the Hungarian nobility resigned on 1615000 cataster acre of land, that was let to the Romanian peasantry.”
Are you really so crappy that you cannot access directly or in a secondary source the 1849 minority laws, that was the first minority laws of Europe? :)
Rusine :)
Never forget also:
,,Patriotism as it is conceived today in Rumania will impede the progress of Rumanian philology for a long time to come, hindering the investigators from seeking and telling the truth. The true patriot is not he who seeks to denature the facts and to deceive himself, and the scientist forgets his duty if he does not tell the truth no matter how painful it may be”. (O. Densusianu; Histoire de la langue roumaine, 1901; in the 1975 edition, p.26).
Sanatate, liberatte, egalitate,
niciodata minciuni!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_dSC2cQP0I
Iata si un alt fel de raspuns dat ungurilor…
We know this video, it is made by a Romanian we know with splitted personality and anyway he is a coat-turner and he puts his point of view in a very one-sided way and silences the one side of some information with also blatant mistakes, as this article does. So it’s not a real response, it’s a miserable something.
Sergentului oltean care a pus opinca – daca ar fi avut saracul de sergent cizme, o cizma ar fi pus – pe cel mai inalt catarg al Parlamentului budapestan ar trebui sa i se ridice cate o statuie in fiecare oras si comnuna din Transilvania. Ungurii, ca sa realizeze luarea aminte a tuturor despre ce inseamna sa se puna cu stapanirea i-au taiat in bucati pe Horea, pe Closca si pe Crisan si le-au spanzurat maruntaiele la intersectii de drumuri spre temeinica infricosare a romanilor. Sergentul oltean a realizat infricosarea peste veacuri a ungurilor sacrificandu-si propria opinca. Cu atat mai mult vajnicul si viteazul oltenas ar merita statuile fara drept de tagada a nimanui. Cred sincer ca pentru ca nu exista statuile ungurii au uitat intre timp faza respectiva si ca daca ar vedea des statuia si si-ar aminti ce si cum si de ce a ajuns opinca acolo ar gandi de doua ori inainte de a se lasa amagiti de dansul sirenelor care ii incita si care ii fac sa delireze despre Ardeal prostii pe care, in sinea lor, ei nu le cred posibile. Eu, uneori ii si inteleg, gulasul, dar mai ales palinka, pica greu la lingurica ungureasca si au efecte secundare.
You are delusiojning too much. The uprise of the peasants was not a Hungarian-Romanian conflict, but the conflict of between the King, nobles and peasants, anyway the initiator was the orders that the Habsburgs made.