I genuinely didn’t even know that Hungary was included in WW2, let alone that they were on the side of the axis. I guess that’s what a British education gets for you. Thanks for the history lesson, FinBol!
Exactly! It's something that's barely taught in western schools. With the exception of Czechoslovakia all the Soviet states were outright fascist and allied with Nazi Germany. Divorcing socialist countries from the conditions they emerged from and existed in is a common theme when anti-communists talk about socialist countries. It's easy to understand the USSR, Cuba, China, Vietnam, the DPRK etc... as progressive forces when they're compared to what was there before the revolutions, for all their flaws and imperfections.
@@lavenderandred_ Czechoslovakia gave up and gave Hitler all their industries. Slovakia became a fascist puppet state which took part in invading Poland and the USSR.
@mkeufish What world did we create? And why is it wrong? What about the world that non-'believers' have created? Did you know that atheistic Marxism murdered 150 million in the 20th century? And, to make matters worst, atheist lefties are now pushing the Western World toward Marxism with political correctness and 'woke' agendas. If it goes well for them, one day you will regret not becoming a 'believer'. That same day they take the option away from you and you are forced to believe in their totalitarian beliefs.
@mkeufish Which is not exactly true by the way. The only truth that we do have a very far right (neoloeral economically) government for quite some time. But for example, the anti-lgbtq+ laws passed in Hungary is not popular.
@mkeufish So ok, there is many things wrong here I must correct. Nope, the MSZP is not a revisionist party if you mean them, they are more akin of the right side of Labour party, especially in its prime time (closer to Tony Blair than Kadar). The Communist party is closer to Orban however, we have an active communist party. On the claim that people still voted him: this is more of an accelerationist thing at 2010. You had massive cuts and disillusionment at the time. But one has to go deeper of the history of Hungarian politics and the society, if you wish we can, I am up for it. So long I will only comment that the neoliberalism is quite omnipotent idea, in fact the sole thing Orban constant from his late 80s up to now. Since 2010 the electoral system massively changed, and the majority of FIDESZ are actually enabled by a minority of the voters. The problem is that there is no real alternative, due party funding systems, due that many of us can't even vote (there is a disproportional treatment of recent emigrants and dual citizens who born outside - the later can vote in mail, us can't -and the embassies not even prepared to handle us). You also have a system where in smaller towns it is your best interest keeping Orban in power, as Orban directly punishing cities that votes against his party (see Eszetrgom in early 2010s or now Budapest).
Fun fact: Bela Lugosi, the actor who played Dracula, fled Hungary for Germany because he had been active in the leftist movement. He left after the revolution failed and eventually ended up in America where he was cast as Dracula. The "vampire voice" is actually an imitation of his strong Hungarian accent which he was shamed into disliking when living in America.
My exact thoughts about this video. There are things which he didn't mention in this video (for instance Horty's crimes against other ethnicities) but if he were to talk about everything the video would last hundreds of hours. The video is full of densely packed information already.
There is some factual mistake, mostly about the industrialisation. So better if you explore other resources too though. But generally it is ok video. But also missed Kun Bela's government, which is super important if you want to understand the HPR later on.
I wish your channel could reach a wider audience somehow. I have learned so much and you explain things in an accessible, well crafted way in my opinion.
@Roz Rouge He was killed because in 1919 the working class took power in Hungary, and he was the prime minister. They hadn't managed well the defense of the new proletarian State, wich fell. Then, the "white terror" started and all communist and proletarian leaders were killed or jailed by the reactionaries, Bela Kun included. Excuse me for the bad english ahah
Uhm, why was the image of Hungary inside of the continent of Australia? This image comes up at 13:56 when discussing the treaty of Trianon. Is this just to signify the large land masses being split off of Hungary or maybe just a random image being used?
9:31 what has changed today I think nothing, we are poor again and we are source of cheap labour for Western Europe, oh and today the standard became so low that people are having less kids so we are demographically endangered now
Noam Chomsky predicted in 1993 that the future of East Europe look like one of exploitation by Western Europe as a source of cheap labor. Chomsky wrote: "According to US intelligence, the Soviet Union poured about $80 billion into Eastern Europe in the 1970s. The situation has been quite different in Latin America. Between 1982 and 1987, about $150 billion were transferred from Latin America to the West. The New York Times estimates that 'hidden transactions' (including drug money, etc.) might be in the $700 billion range."
More or less. There are some massive differences: Orban economically clearly a neo-liberal, and that is his only constant belief he seems to have from his beginning in politics since late 80s. There is also a difference that Orban did notion to the mass, but not very democratic way: he developed a survey-kind of way to establish, for example anti-migration policies (with manipulative questions). There is also way more inclusive electoral system than in Horthy era, however it is more problematic than prior 2010s.
Except Hungary is a republic, not a monarchy, there is no regent, aristocratic titles are not used, the counry is part of NATO and the EU, jews are not persecuted, left wing political parties are not banned, hungary has given up on getting the pre war territories back, the church doesn't own any land, other than that it's exactly the same...
@@kukurbuki Only communist party and the right wing arrow croww/fascist parties were banned in interwar period hungary. Hungary was ruled by parliamentary multi-party system, where the party which got the most votes had right to form a government. What is your problem with this?
Yeah alot of Hungarians Elites and government took advantage of nazi Germany dominating and abused the hell outta of their neighbors but thankfully after the war and even in 1943 alot of immigrants Hungarians in usa and intellectual denounced nazi regime control of Hungary and helped educate the masses and remove nazi ideology from the government
The nazis used Hungarians to police and "pacify" enemy villages where there were partisans. Usually this meant killing the entire village. The nazis actually complained about it because they needed the villagers to provide food for them.
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 Hey comrade,could you do a video debunking then claim that the USSR was gonna join the axis.I’ve seen the claim being repeated by “left wing” anti communist recently this Hungarian RU-vidr called Adam Something.Who posted in his community page that the USSR was evil dictatorship that wanted to join with Nazis and that Hungary was not liberated by the Soviets and that life was worse after they liberated Hungary(I am sure he hasn’t read a single book on Hungary before 1945 unless he likes the Arrow Cross lol), and he claims to be a leftist,he is a simpleton leftist the i want workers to own means of production and be free utopians who believe in coops magically solving everything type who always ends up being super anti communist.But anyways could you do a video on it,also there is a whole Wikipedia article repeating this claim from various historians who all seem to quote the same other anti communist “Soviet historian” Alexander Nekrich. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Axis_talks
I remember one anti communist claiming that I was a Jew because while arguing with him I defended partisans in WW2 (partisans vs chetniks is still a debate in Serbia). He claimed also that all partisan commanders were Jews, then I asked him to name 5 of them and he could only name one (Moša Pijade).
If you think that’s bad, I have seen some right wingers on the internet who think communism is a Islamic philosophy and all Communists are Muslim sympathizers and Anti-Nation lmao.
it shouldn't take too long. I've got the other episodes mostly planned and partly recorded. But I'm still gonna upload other stuff as usual in between.
At the Munich Agreement, Britain & France virtually handed Czechoslovakia to Hitler, which made Germany the strongest European nation (no help likely from Britain or France). European nations had to decide how to respond.
Overall it is relative ok video, however there are some very problematic claims about the industrialisation level of Hungary. It was anything but a "backward agrarian society". There had been a massive improvement in the later years of Austrian-Hungarian Empire, so much that it was Budapest where the third place where telephone centres had been placed, the first continental underground built here too. The rail-lines had been quite long as well as telegraph lines. It was agrarian insofar as most of the population still worked in agrarian, but with the presence of high industry, especially chemical (drugs and fertilisation). It was an agrarian-industrial society, with production compared to Austria and France of the time (prior to WWI). I also missed the mention of Kun Bela's government. You can't really talk of the development of socialism without at least introducing it. The Horthy era part is relatively well introduced though, there was a massive step back, especially societally during this time. However industrial production had been still relevant, in fact Hungarian factories, such as Weiss Factories had been used by Germans to skip restriction on producing technology to their war planes.
The problem with the industrialisation was that it is centred (this problem remained up today) into specific regions, while other areas generally had been ignored. Budapest for example had been heavily industrialised (see the technological and infrastructural developments I mentioned above), while Eastern Hungary mostly had been left out.
I am revisiting this series since I came across information that my grandmother came from Czechoslovakia in 1907. She is from a region that has a unique last name which also exists in a section of Hungary.
Can you recommend sources for learning about the history of transition to socialism in eastern europe? I don't know of any books with actual sources and I don't want to rely on wikipedia
Great video, thanks. Could you make the same thing with the history of the albanian people's republic? From what i know the social, economical and political of albania at the time had some interestings similarities with the current situation in the westerns contries so it could be interesting to studing it. Thank you again for your work and sorry for the quality of my english.
I think its meant to show how much territory Hungary lost but I probably should've used this instead dailynewshungary.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Trianon-map.jpg
A good effort. But about Hungarian Communist Party: was it stalinist? You did not investigate its history after the defeat of the revolution of 1918-19
In July 1849, the Hungarian Revolutionary Parliament proclaimed and enacted the WORLD's FIRST laws on ethnic and minority rights. It gave minorities the freedom to use their mothertongue at local administration, at tribunals, in schools, in community life and even within the national guard of non-Magyar councils. However these laws were overturned after the united Russian and Austrian armies crushed the Hungarian Revolution of 1848. After the Kingdom of Hungary reached the Compromise with the Habsburg Dynasty in 1867 (Ausgleich), one of the first acts of the restored Hungarian Parliament was to pass a Law on Nationalities (Minority rights law: the act number XLIV of 1868). The situation of minorities in Hungary was not even comparable to the contemporary pre WW1 Europe. Other highly multiethnic /multinational countries were: France Russia and UK. See the multi-national UK: The situation of Scottish Irish and Welsh people in "Britain" during the English hegemony is well known. They utmost forgot their original language,only English language cultural educational institutions existed. The only language was English in judiciary procedures and in offices and public administrations. In Wales Welsh children were beaten by their teachers if they spoke Welsh among each others. This was the infamous “Welsh Not” policy... See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_Not The contemporary Irish question and tensions are well documented. The situation of Ireland was even a more brutal and bloody story. It was not a real "United" Kingdom, it was rather a greater England. Let's don't forget: The English legal system did not know even basic the minority rights (neither linguistic rights) for aboriginal minorities (Scots, Welsh) until the post ww2 period. See the multiethnic France: In the era of the Great French revolution, only 25% of the population of Kingdom of France could speak the French language as mothertongue. But even in 1870, France was still similar-degree multi-ethnic state as Hungary, only 50% of the population of France spoke the French language as mothertongue. The other half of the population spoke Occitan, Breton, Provençal, Catalan, Corsican, Alsatian, West Flemish, Lorraine Franconian, Gallo, Picard or Ch’timi and Arpitan etc... Many minority languages were closer to Spanish languages or Italian language than French) French governments banned minority language schools, minority language newspapers minority theaters. They banned the usage of minority languages in offices , public administration, and judiciary procedures. The ratio of french mothertongue increased from 50% to 91% during the 1870-1910 period!!! The situation in German Empire was well known (Polish territories and Sorbs) Just look some Eastern countries in the oreintal so-called Eurasian (aka. Orthodox) civilization : The legal system of pre-WW1 Kingom of Serbia did not know minority rights. Also, the legal system of pre-WW1 Kingdom of Romania did not know minority rights, morover, Kingdom of Romania applied strong anti-Semitic disciminative laws against Jewish people, which was similar to Tzarist Russia. Read about it here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Romania#Treaty_of_Berlin_and_aftermath Slavery disappeared during the high medieval period on Western Christian European soil, however it existed in Romanian territories until the mid 19th century! The Gypsy slavery and slave markets were abolished only in 1852!!! (Gypsies of Romania had similar status like blacks in USA before the civil war) See: books.google.com/books?id=df2mIOnbrDoC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=gypsy+%22slave+markets%22+romania&source=bl&ots=5MY5_TxutD&sig=ACfU3U1E8Dvv2rkKhRSfOrnAbfwQgnlv3g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwith4_qqbntAhWSuIsKHZ37CpwQ6AEwAXoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=gypsy%20%22slave%20markets%22%20romania&f=false and see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Romania Just examine the high contrast between Kingdom of Hungary and contemporary pre WW1-era Europe: The so-called "Magyarization" fantasy was not so harsh as the contemporary western European situation, because the minorities were defended by minority rights and laws. Contemporary Western European legal systems did not know the minority rights, therefore their political leaders loudly and proudly covered up their minorities by the force of law. 1.Were there state sponsored minority schools in Western European countries? NO. 2. How many official languages existed in Western-European states? Only 1 official language! 3. Could minorities use their languages in the offices of public administration in self-governments , in tribunals in Western Europe? No, they couldn't. 4. Did the minorities have own fractions and political parties in the western European parliaments ? No, no they hadn't. 5. What about newspapers of ethnic minorities in Western Europe? They did not exist in the West.... We can continue these things to the infinity. The Austro-Hungarian compromise and its supporting liberal party remained bitterly unpopular among the ethnic Hungarian voters, and the continuous successes of these pro-compromise liberal parties in the Hungarian parliamentary elections caused long lasting frustration for Hungarians. The ethnic minorities had the key role in the political maintenance of the compromise in Hungary, because they were able to vote the pro-compromise liberal parties into the position of the majority/ruling parties of the Hungarian parliament. The pro-compromise liberal parties were the most popular among ethnic minority voters, however i.e. the Slovak, Serb and Romanian minority parties remained unpopular among their own ethnic minority voters. The coalitions of Hungarian nationalist parties - which were supported by the overwhelming majority of ethnic Hungarian voters - always remained in the opposition, with the exception of the 1906-1910 period, where the Hungarian-supported nationalist parties were able to form a government.
you mix up things...intentional misleading or lack of knowledge...for your info, the minorities were treated as slaves....they were not allowed to enter a city and you talk about voting rights?!?
Even though this video is making a nice historical examination of the evolution of bourgeios regime in hungary and the harbringer of its overthrow, it does not mention at all one of the most significant highlights of the class struggle in hungarian history, the Hungarian communist revolution of 1919. How comes this happened, while the main core of your analysis points to the class struggle and its evolution in Hungary?
Bro, that’s so based Wish I could have such effective videos against polish nationalists Although I don’t find your theory of revisionism fully truthful, still great But still, long live Suomi
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 I believe that situation in Warsaw pact wasn’t revisionist, more like situational, all leaders were trying to do experiments in their state building, this way they could improve living situation Like When Poland took credit debt from USA in order to improve situation. Khrushchev was more like bad leader than revisionist, I would say. He did crucial mistakes which later costed him his seat. We can remember his weird choices in military and agriculture. But I think he honestly believed he was doing right thing. That’s my opinion. Sadly to say I am still learning history so I think I can make mistakes
Before the Hungarian peasants had to present themselves in the morning at the local noble's mansion who told them which work to do this day on his fields. In communism the villagers had to present themselves in the morning at the local collective farm, which had it's administrative office in the confiscated former noble mansion, to be told which kind of work to do for the day at the fields of the collective. So for them nothing changed.
Cool story bro. In socialism the farmers controlled their own farm, but they also lived much better. They had access to culture and education, healthcare, electricity, insurance and they worked with modern tools and machines.
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 in the village I know best it was exactly like that. The communists didn't build anything new, they only administered the confiscated property of the former noble family Táncsics (who interestingly are of Croatian origin). It is true that the communists brought some Russian agricultural machinery, but that was not of very high quality. After communism the locals plundered the mansion an took everything from the collective farm and started farming on their own account. I think the Russian tractors were auctioned very cheaply. The mansion remained a complete ruin, devastated inside. Now, a few years ago, one of the grof Táncsics offspring got the mansion back in a legal case, brought in money from abroad and turned it into a rural hotel for hunting tourists. I have been inside since the renovation, it looks good now. The former communist machine-tractor-station (Gépállomás) in the neighboring village still exists. Since not every farmer has his own machinery it is still very usefull, they can rent tractors and harvesters there on a daily basis. I think it is still some kind of cooperative with cheaper prices for members. Part of the building is a private garage, I was once there with my car to get a repair. In the other neighboring village there is still one of the old village health stations from socialist times, that you mentioned. It is still operating. But it is very basic and small and looks like in the 1950ies. For any more modern medical service you have to go to the next big town. The locals in the village don't wish communism back, in fact most of them are in favour of Orbán. Some of the younger ones are even more right wing than Orbán and vote for Jobbik, or other splinter groups.
Horthy wasn't fascist, he was an anti-semite, but he was more like an old school feudal aristocrat. The national socialist party in Hungary was the Arrow Cross party, actually the Horthy regime made the Arrow cross illegal the same way they made the communist party illegal. The Horthy regime was a failed regime, but I think you have to be realistic about it and stick to the facts.
All history books call Horthy a fascist. I didn't invent it. There were many competing fascist parties in Hungary which tried to destroy each other. The Horthy regime also introduced laws copied from Mussolini especially when Gombos was prime minister, and later laws copied from Hitler.
Horthy was in power between 1920-44. During this period - most of the time - there have been multi-party competitive elections. If you contrast this with Hitler's or Mussolini's system it is very different. I know you did not invent this (Horthy being fascist), this is a well knoen marxist interpretation. In the video you mostly refer to the Sztojay government as proof for Horthy fascism. Sztojay was PM for a short period (1944), and at that time the red army was on the territory of Hungary already. It was a state of total war. The 'fascism' was due to the total war, an effort to maintain the regime. Not a preferred ideological choice of Horthy. It is good that the nazis ultimately lost the war, but I don't think this interpretation of the Horthy area is realistic. It is more like marxist agitprop.
Also Gömbös's role is interesting. He himself as a person was an Italian style fascist ideologue. I agree on that. But he could not build a system, he could not change the Hungarian 'constitution' into a fascist state, he was only a prime minister in the 30's before the war, with fascist/nazi sympathy.
@@jvizkeleti its not only a marxist interpretation. Almost all the history books I used were written by anti-marxists. Almost nobody denies Horthy's fascism. Horthy is seen as a fascist because he was a far-right nationalist militarist dictator. There were elections, but leftist parties were banned like in fascism always. The socdems had to become a fascist tool to be allowed to participate. Even so, only 30% of the people were allowed to vote. Elections were with open ballot. Those elections were a total scam. There are different kinds of fascism, not only Mussolini or Hitlerism. Szalasi was the Hungarian Hitler, while Gombos was the Mussolini. Horthy was his own kind of fascism. Finland was a semi-fascist country in 1918-44. We had elections but the left was banned and persecuted. In the 1930s practically all trade-unions were banned. Socdems started supporting fascism so some of them were allowed to be in government. They even worked with Hitler. Some people have called Horthy only a semi-fascist because Horthy had a parliamentary facade. But Horthy's Hungary was also a blatant dictatorship while semi-fascist Finland was not.
Their is a difference between "imperialism" and "trade partner", Cuba has overthrown the awful US backed dictatorship that was exporting sugar to the US for very low prices while importing other items that are not produced in Cuba (most items that are not agricultural) for higher prices. Cuba has the infrastructure to produce sugar, the USSR and other Soviet allied nations want sugar, Cuba needs to improve its citizens lives, so trading sugar for soviet goods at an equal exchange rate is what ends up happening.
@@Ilazie That's fine on day 1, but given the wide disparity in power between SU and Cuba, it would be incumbent on the more powerful partner in a truly internationalist relationship to immediately implement reforms to grow _less_ sugar as time goes on, thereby allowing Cuba to grow more food for domestic consumption. That's not what happened, though. SU had a material interest in getting sugar to keep (some) Soviet and WP workers happy, so they made Fidel an offer he couldn't refuse...
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 First: The Communiwt government had no intention to restore Hungary's former borders, but to establish independent communist states and spread the world revolution. It was easy for them to neglect the Hungarian national interest, because only Sándor Garbai had ethnic Hungarian origin in the Kun Government.Second You forget to mention that independent Slovak Soviet Republic was established, that was the goal of the Hungarian Soviet Republic. Third, you forget to mention that Mihály Károlyi disarmed a huge Hungarian army , consisted enormous 1.3 Million soldiers, wich made it possible for the Czech Romanian and Serb chauvinist to occupy Hungarian lands with their liliputhian armies. Fourt: Trianon was against Wilson's self-determination theory, because it was NOT based on democratic plebiscite (general equal&secret ballots). Let's don't forget: Without democratic plebiscites about the borders, there was no demonstrable popular legitimacy/acceptance behind any territorial changes, so it could lead only to arbitrary political decisions (aka. dictate). It was not a wonder that Czech, Romanian and Serbian politicians vehemently PROTESTED against the very idea of democratic referendums about the borders at the Paris Peace Conference. Czech politicians didn't trust in Slovaks, because only very few Slovaks joined to the so-called "Czechoslovak"army against the Hungarians in 1919 (and Slovaks represented only 53% ratio in Northern parts of Hungary). Romanian politicians didn't trust in Transylvanian Romanians, perhaps they didn't want to join to the traditionally seriously backward & poor Romania (the ratio of Romanians were only 53% in Transylvania). Serbs were small minority (22% !!!) in Voivodine. Similar to Romania, Serbia was also a very backward Orthodox country without serious urbanization or industrialization. Just imagine how "civilized" were these countries: overwhelming majority of the population of the Kingdom of Romania and Kingdom of Serbia could not read and write in the era of the first WW1. It was not wonder that the US Congress did not sign this anti-democratic dictate. There was only one democratic plebiscite about the borders between Hungary and Austria: The Sopron area plebiscite in Western Hungary in 1921, there were general equal and secret ballots with electoral registers (or poll books) of the LOCAL residents, and every local citizen could take part in the elections over 18year, regardless the ethnicity, social status or sex. The polling stations and polling districts were under the control and supervision of the Western (Italian, British and French) ENTENTE officers. Some villages and towns voted to be part of Austria, some villages and city of Sopron voted to remain part of Hungary. Read about it here and watch the video: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopron_plebiscite
@@chriswanger284 I never said Communists had any intention to return the Trianon borders, although in 1919 they did protect the country. Why do you bring it up? I didn't talk about the Kun government at all, its not the topic of this video. I never said Trianon was a justified treaty. Why do you bring up things that I never said or have nothing to do with the video? If you want my opinion then here it is: the treaty of Trianon was unjust and was forced upon Hungary. However, it would not have happened without the past imperialism of Austria-Hungary. Slovaks and other minorities inside Hungary deserved independence and it would've been correct to give it to them, but Trianon punished Hungary more harshly then was justified. In the video I only mentioned that Horthy wanted to restore all the lost territories by conquest. While the treaty of Trianon was overly harsh Hungary still didn't have the right to conquer foreign lands. The Hapsburgs had colonized Hungary but also all the minority nationalities inside Hungary. The minority nationalities deserved independence too. After WWII the communists defended the interests of Hungary. They negotiated with Czechoslovakia to stop oppression of Hungarians in Slovakia etc. They also negotiated with Romania so that an autonomous Hungarian region was created in Transylvania. That was the correct way to solve the issue.
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 And I forget to add this: Why doo you call Hungary as feudal? Than all Western European kingdom was feudal that time. Just a bit legal history: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Laws April laws practically finished feudalism in Hungary. And 1848 Revolution. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1848 After France (1791) and Belgium (1831), Hungary became the third country of Continental Europe to hold democratic elections (June, 1848), and thereafter, set up a representative type of parliament which replaced the feudal estates based parliamentary system. Why do you call Hungary as backward country? Backwardness is relative. It was backward in a comparison with English parts of UK, or Germany, but surelly more developed than Southern Europe Eastern Europe and Balkans. Let's don't forget, that Hungary was not semi-asiatic Orthodox country, but part of Western Christian West. You can read about the differences between Western (Catholic Protestant) civilization and Orthodox Eurasian civilization here, in one of my BLOGS. Pay attention for the 16 points for better understanding.
@@chriswanger284 Most people lived as small peasants, practically serfs, ruled by aristocratic estates. Only 27% of the people could vote and the schools were controlled by the church. You are correct that backwardness is relative, but Eastern Europe as a whole was still semi-feudal until the mid 1940s. Hungary was not as backward as Albania or Romania, but it was backward. I'm not criticizing the Hungarian people, they have a very fascinating culture and the country became quite advanced very quickly in the late 40s. Hungary has always been on the border between "East" and "West". Their music and culture has so many Eastern influences (for example documented by Bela Bartok). Their language is Finno-Ugric, which is not Western. There's nothing superior about the West anyway, so I wouldn't worry about it.
Ugye vágod hogy a vörös Hadseregben nemcsak oroszok voltak hanem ukránok is? Az utolsó Szovjet katona aki elhagyta Magyarországot az nem orosz volt hanem ukrán. Plusz a legtöbb Szovjet vezető nem is volt orosz, Sztálin grúz volt, Kaganovics ukrán, Brezsnev ukrán stb. Le kéne állni ezzel a "Ruszkik Haza" hülyeséggel már
