If France doesn't fall in 1940 and the Western Allies win the war, is Hungary forced to give back its territorial gains?
If France doesn't fall in 1940 and the Western Allies win the war, is Hungary forced to give back its territorial gains?
This might seem like a sort of random question but I might as well ask it anyway: If France doesn't fall in 1940 and the Western Allies (meaning Britain and France, and excluding the U.S.--which doesn't enter the war in this scenario since there's no need for it) subsequently win the war, do they make Hungary give up the territories that it acquired at Czechoslovakia's expense in 1938-1939?
Here's a map for reference:
Since France never falls in this scenario, Hungary never gains any territories at either Romania's or Yugoslavia's expense. Its acquisition of southern Slovakia and Subcarpathian Ruthenia were made before World War II and thus don't change in this scenario, though.
As for my own thoughts on this, I think that Hungary is going to have to give up Subcarpathian Ruthenia in any case since it can't lay a claim on it based on ethnic grounds (the majority of the population there is Ukrainian, not Hungarian). As for what happens to southern Slovakia (the First Vienna Award territories on this map), I think that it's going to depend on what Britain and France decide to do in regards to the Sudetenland. If they let Germany keep it, they're probably going to let Hungary keep southern Slovakia. If not, though, then Hungary probably loses southern Slovakia as well.
Also, Yes, I know that Hungary remains neutral in World War II in this scenario. However, given that Hungary is such a military pipsqueak, I certainly don't think that Britain and France are going to have any problems giving Hungary an ultimatum after it looks like they will defeat Germany. After all, Hungary also benefited from the break-up of Czechoslovakia and if Britain and France are going to want to rectify this wrong, they are going to have to deal with Hungary as well.
Anyway, any thoughts on this?
Here's a map for reference:
Since France never falls in this scenario, Hungary never gains any territories at either Romania's or Yugoslavia's expense. Its acquisition of southern Slovakia and Subcarpathian Ruthenia were made before World War II and thus don't change in this scenario, though.
As for my own thoughts on this, I think that Hungary is going to have to give up Subcarpathian Ruthenia in any case since it can't lay a claim on it based on ethnic grounds (the majority of the population there is Ukrainian, not Hungarian). As for what happens to southern Slovakia (the First Vienna Award territories on this map), I think that it's going to depend on what Britain and France decide to do in regards to the Sudetenland. If they let Germany keep it, they're probably going to let Hungary keep southern Slovakia. If not, though, then Hungary probably loses southern Slovakia as well.
Also, Yes, I know that Hungary remains neutral in World War II in this scenario. However, given that Hungary is such a military pipsqueak, I certainly don't think that Britain and France are going to have any problems giving Hungary an ultimatum after it looks like they will defeat Germany. After all, Hungary also benefited from the break-up of Czechoslovakia and if Britain and France are going to want to rectify this wrong, they are going to have to deal with Hungary as well.
Anyway, any thoughts on this?
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: If France doesn't fall in 1940 and the Western Allies win the war, is Hungary forced to give back its territorial ga
Yes.
Allied victory would re-establish the Versailles order, which would almost certainly mean surrendering the territory Hungary had gained off pro-Allied states of the Little Entente like Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia. I would expect both Romania and Yugoslavia to attack Hungary as soon as it was clear the Anglo-French had Germany in trouble.
Cheers,
Sid.
Allied victory would re-establish the Versailles order, which would almost certainly mean surrendering the territory Hungary had gained off pro-Allied states of the Little Entente like Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia. I would expect both Romania and Yugoslavia to attack Hungary as soon as it was clear the Anglo-French had Germany in trouble.
Cheers,
Sid.
Re: If France doesn't fall in 1940 and the Western Allies win the war, is Hungary forced to give back its territorial ga
I don't think that Hungary would have made any territorial gains at either Romania's or Yugoslavia's expense if France doesn't fall in 1940. Indeed, I have said just this in my original post here. Thus, there would be no reason for either Romania or Yugoslavia to attack Hungary in this scenario.Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑17 Dec 2018, 19:16Yes.
Allied victory would re-establish the Versailles order, which would almost certainly mean surrendering the territory Hungary had gained off pro-Allied states of the Little Entente like Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia. I would expect both Romania and Yugoslavia to attack Hungary as soon as it was clear the Anglo-French had Germany in trouble.
Cheers,
Sid.
Your point about restoring the Versailles order is something that I agree with, however. As I wrote above, this is why I believe that Britain and France will at the very least force Hungary to give up Subcarpathian Ruthenia after the end of the war.
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: If France doesn't fall in 1940 and the Western Allies win the war, is Hungary forced to give back its territorial ga
Hi Futurist,
Clearly I did not read your original post carefully enough. Sorry!
I think that restoration of the Versailles order would necessitate that the Hungarians be made to give up Ruthenia, most of which wasn't Hungarian populated, and even southern Slovakia, which was.
The real question would be what punishment, additional to Versailles, would Germany be made to undergo because it had stated a second war? If the USSR could be made to give up eastern Poland, that country would presumably have to be compensated at Germany's expense.
Cheers,
Sid.
Clearly I did not read your original post carefully enough. Sorry!
I think that restoration of the Versailles order would necessitate that the Hungarians be made to give up Ruthenia, most of which wasn't Hungarian populated, and even southern Slovakia, which was.
The real question would be what punishment, additional to Versailles, would Germany be made to undergo because it had stated a second war? If the USSR could be made to give up eastern Poland, that country would presumably have to be compensated at Germany's expense.
Cheers,
Sid.
Re: If France doesn't fall in 1940 and the Western Allies win the war, is Hungary forced to give back its territorial ga
Don't worry about it!Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑18 Dec 2018, 12:09Hi Futurist,
Clearly I did not read your original post carefully enough. Sorry!
I think that restoration of the Versailles order would necessitate that the Hungarians be made to give up Ruthenia, most of which wasn't Hungarian populated, and even southern Slovakia, which was.
The real question would be what punishment, additional to Versailles, would Germany be made to undergo because it had stated a second war? If the USSR could be made to give up eastern Poland, that country would presumably have to be compensated at Germany's expense.
Cheers,
Sid.
Also, if Hungary is forced to give up not only Subcarpathian Ruthenia, but also southern Slovakia, then Germany would have to give up the Sudetenland. After all, I can't imagine the Western Allies allowing Germany to keep the Sudetenland if Hungary is forced to give up southern Slovakia.
As for the USSR giving up eastern Poland, why exactly would it do that? Also, what exactly can the Western Allies offer it in exchange for eastern Poland? East Prussia? Poland probably wants East Prussia for itself.
Re: If France doesn't fall in 1940 and the Western Allies win the war, is Hungary forced to give back its territorial ga
Hungarian gains were mostly (as the Munich Agreement) legal from the point of view of international law.
For that reason Britain repudiated the Munich Agreement as late as 1942, and even that after the Germans committed war crimes in Czechoslovakia.
For that reason Britain repudiated the Munich Agreement as late as 1942, and even that after the Germans committed war crimes in Czechoslovakia.
Re: If France doesn't fall in 1940 and the Western Allies win the war, is Hungary forced to give back its territorial ga
AFAIK, Subcarpathian Ruthenia was not part of the Munich Agreement.
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: If France doesn't fall in 1940 and the Western Allies win the war, is Hungary forced to give back its territorial ga
Hi wm,
You write that most Hungarian claims were legal from the point of view of international law.
Yup, but so were, and are, the territorial provisions of the Treaty of Trianon that established Hungary's borders in 1920 and still do so today.
Cheers,
Sid.
You write that most Hungarian claims were legal from the point of view of international law.
Yup, but so were, and are, the territorial provisions of the Treaty of Trianon that established Hungary's borders in 1920 and still do so today.
Cheers,
Sid.
Re: If France doesn't fall in 1940 and the Western Allies win the war, is Hungary forced to give back its territorial ga
Certainly but generally it is assumed the newer treaty supersedes/modifies the older one.
Re: If France doesn't fall in 1940 and the Western Allies win the war, is Hungary forced to give back its territorial ga
I don't think many Britons and especially Americans would support wanton wars.
I'm sure Mr. Churchill would agree, considering his landslide defeat in 1945.
I'm sure Mr. Churchill would agree, considering his landslide defeat in 1945.
Re: If France doesn't fall in 1940 and the Western Allies win the war, is Hungary forced to give back its territorial ga
Also, the US won't enter the war if France doesn't fall. As for France and the UK, after a long fight with the Nazis, they might be determined to undo all of Hitler's territorial revisions--even those made before the start of WWII.
Re: If France doesn't fall in 1940 and the Western Allies win the war, is Hungary forced to give back its territorial ga
They say the Hungarian Army was up to 1,000,000 soldiers in 1944 and larger than the British and French Armies combined.
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: If France doesn't fall in 1940 and the Western Allies win the war, is Hungary forced to give back its territorial ga
Hi wm,
You are right - not , ".....many Britons and especially Americans would support wanton wars". On the other hand they probably did support the staus quo ante bellum established by Versailles, Trianon, etc.
I am not sure what Churchill's election defeat in 1945 had to do with the matter. Churchill did not invade Poland, it wasn't him who declared war and the war against Nazi Germany certainly wasn't "wanton"! Besides, it wasn't his conduct of the war that cost him the 1945 election, but perceptions about whether he was the right man to win the peace that followed.
Who are the "They" who supposedly contend that in 1944 the Hungarian Army was ".....larger than the British and French armies combined"? The British Army peaked at over 4,500,000 men in 1944 and the French had 1,250,000 under arms by the end of the war.
You may be confusing this with the assertion that Romania, briefly in the autumn of 1944, had the fourth largest Allied army in Europe, until overtaken by the rearming Poles and French
Cheers,
Sid.
You are right - not , ".....many Britons and especially Americans would support wanton wars". On the other hand they probably did support the staus quo ante bellum established by Versailles, Trianon, etc.
I am not sure what Churchill's election defeat in 1945 had to do with the matter. Churchill did not invade Poland, it wasn't him who declared war and the war against Nazi Germany certainly wasn't "wanton"! Besides, it wasn't his conduct of the war that cost him the 1945 election, but perceptions about whether he was the right man to win the peace that followed.
Who are the "They" who supposedly contend that in 1944 the Hungarian Army was ".....larger than the British and French armies combined"? The British Army peaked at over 4,500,000 men in 1944 and the French had 1,250,000 under arms by the end of the war.
You may be confusing this with the assertion that Romania, briefly in the autumn of 1944, had the fourth largest Allied army in Europe, until overtaken by the rearming Poles and French
Cheers,
Sid.