Hungary and neutrality in World War II

Discussions on all aspects of the smaller Axis nations in Europe and Asia. Hosted by G. Trifkovic.
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015 00:02
Location: SoCal

Re: Hungary and neutrality in World War II

Post by Futurist » 14 Sep 2020 20:58

steppewolf wrote:
14 Sep 2020 09:05
Futurist wrote:
14 Sep 2020 08:25
It's worth noting that this 1865 book about Transylvania by a British person discusses the greater fertility of the Romanians (Wallacks) there in comparison to the Germans there: ... 3F&f=false
Oh yes, abandoned people (my note: Romanians) entertained only by their priest "who daily practises with them the most abject superstition" . :lol: The remarks about South Africa are interesting as well

It's kind of odd to think to a greater birth rate increase and thus a greater population increase of the poorest people in Transylvania. Possible that birth rates were slightly better, but how was infant mortality, many made it to adulthood? These were issues for all peasant populations...
Re: infant mortality, one can look at the developed world versus the developing world right now. The developing world has higher infant mortality than the developed world has but their birth rates in comparison to the developed world are so high that they more than compensate for this higher infant mortality.

Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018 05:52
Location: Europe

Re: Hungary and neutrality in World War II

Post by Peter89 » 09 Dec 2020 18:30


A strange name for a people who have never been called themselves Hungarians since the age of national awekening.

The Slovak language makes a very good distinction between two states: Uhorsko and Madarsko, Hungary and Magyarland.

What many people keep saying that "Hungarians before (any year before 1815) gave the majority of Transsylvania", but: "the Romanians overbred them", is simply not correct. The medieval, multiethnic state founded by Saint Stephan I. was called "Hungaria", and its inhabitants as "Hungarians". The ethnic "Hungarians", or Magyars, were most likely never a majority in the realm of St. Stephan I. in any point of history.

Transsylvania is a funny term, too. What we refer now as Transsylvania is the part of Romania west and north of the Carpathian Mountains. In a historical and ethnographical sense, Transsylvania was much smaller. The Partium and the eastern Banat was not really the part of Transsylvania, and their history was and is different than the rest.

The historical Transsylvania most likely never had a Magyar / Székely majority. Whether it did have a Romanian majority "forever", I am not sure, mostly because there were no censii and also because medieval logic paid little attention to nationality. But what we know for sure, is that since the awekening of national sentiments, the historical Transsylvania had a continous Romanian majority.

The trick with the numbers was the Partium and the Banat. The Partium was continously and overwhelmingly inhabited by Hungarians. Banat was divided between Hungarians, Germans, Serbs and Romanians.

Without these "additions" and of course the ethnic isle of the Székelyföld, Transsylvania had a little Hungarian minority, and what actually happened before 1918 was state-enforced magyarization.

Somewhat the same goes for Slovakia, where, except the southern band of the country, rarely any Hungarians and Germans lived amongst the Slovak majority.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

Return to “Minor Axis Nations”