What if Hungary was BIG? And other European Irredentism Scenarios 

Poland hasn't moved after WW1.

@@Vitalis94 yes, it did. The eastern part became belarus and a part of Ukraine i think, and they got eastern Germany.

@@madcro8209 That's after WW2.

@The Nova renaissance With that logic, Czechoslovakia or Lithuania had also moved, because they didn't exist prior to their independance.

By the end of the World War 7 Poland will reach Normandy

Kosovo, Aegean Macedonia and Thrace will be liberated and returned to the Slavic homelands soon!

Cossack Historian Slavs came in VI century in the Balkans

@Filan Fisteku - before Albanian and Turks

@@filanfisteku8539 Turks came in 1066 and Albanians came in the 8th century

@@cossackhistorian7425 also western Huns came V century before slavs

Shit. I need to learn Hungarian.

Count me in

...they grant citizenship to Romanians as well, especially in the western counties of Bihor, Satu Mare and Salaj. You would ask why Romanians accept that? Well, because the Hungarian pension/retirement is bigger than from the Romanian government one.

@@vjflow749: Oh of course the Romanians are trying to steal our money on top of our lands.

Charles Anthony they’d probably be willing to be part of Hungary if they’d get better pensions than in Romania.

@@gwoopie u should try the mods

@@gwoopie dude chill tf out

@@gwoopie yea who tf plays that shit game when you have Vicky 2

I hate the move by paradox to change the Macedonia state tile. Now it is impossible to have decent Bulgarian irredentist borders.

@@gwoopie imperator:Rome Allow me ti introduce myself

Interestingly, Finland was a part of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (the predecessor of the USSR) for about one month before Lenin accepted our declaration of independence. But yeah, we never were a part of the USSR itself.

@@blueoceancorporations1019 Actually, when Finland declared independence, it was from the newly-formed Russian Republic since the revolution hadn't reached the Finish territories yet.

@@outerspace7391 That is correct, but if I remember correctly our declaration of independence was accepted by the soviets, who were the government seated in Petrograd at the time.

if historical Hungary does not fall apart, ... then there is no fascism ... communism in the Carpathian Basin..and now the standard of living in Austria would be 60 years ......

Vladimir Agatonović let’s just say the comments will be just like 90s Yougoslavia

@@theArab__ a clusterfuck

lets just say the Balkans should be split between Austria and Turkey. Hungary can have the Rest.

@@alexander1055 please explain why

Through one of those videos I learned that Romania used to be Serbian.

1/1 of the world

the sun never sets

Sips tea

I'd be really interested to see what would come up in that. Here in the UK we usually view irredentism and nationalism as childish, pathetic and pointless and if anything we want to make our country smaller via devolution. I suppose an obvious one would be Ireland? But we love Ireland here- they're our mates. I suppose another obvious one might be some countries in the Anglosphere, although tbh we really only see those lands as faraway lands that are good mates with us. Would be really interested to see this.

@@ECloudDog Ireland hates you though

Polak Wenger dwa bratanki, i do sabli, i do sklanki!

Oooh Man friendship lvl100

@@gyorgyurban576 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-TlL7WbXvaiQ.html

Dlaczego lubisz Węgrów bardziej niż Słowaków? Słowacy są naszymi prawdziwymi braćmi.

@mateusz w w 39 byli państwem marionetkowym III Rzeszy, tak jak PRL był marionetką ZSRR

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-TlL7WbXvaiQ.html

🇵🇱❤️🇭🇺

Köszönjük szépen 🇭🇺❤️🇵🇱

Szegény külföldiek, ők ezt nem értik

A nagyobb része értettem, atól írtál.

Nor really. Because of geopolitical as well as ethnical reasons it's pretty clear that while the Hungarians still have wet dreams about Transylvania, they're just dreams.

@Hermann the antisemetic DUCKY!!! you seem to know jackshit... it was the brits that actually wanted the romanians (and czechs) to go even further then they actually did. but then they got cold feed because of soviets. read some history books (western authors) if you want to get more info on the 1914 - 1921 years rather than spewing utter ignorant crap over the internet. as for what you believe, it reflects your knowledge about ww I. so jackshit. but hey, trolling the net and spewing provocative propaganda pays well.

@Hermann the antisemetic DUCKY!!! oh well, maybe I should be apologizing then for the aggressive tone. it was a mess... and on top of it, the diplomats (both brits and french) were saying one thing, while the generals (both brits and french) were saying the opposite (diplomats wanted the armies to stop, the generals were expressing their "frustration" that the entente armies were not going all the way). it's not that simple and as a lot of other events in history, there are a lot of PoV. I recommend you read some Martin Gilbert (and others similar) for the whole picture, and for the romanian front Glenn E. Torrey - The Romanian Battlefront as well as Michael B. Barret - Prelude to Blitzkrieg: The 1916 Austro-German Campaign in Romania.

@Hermann the antisemetic DUCKY!!! One last thing though... I have great respect for the British when it comes to both WW I and WW II. Of course, were I to be Polish, I'd probably still complain about being betrayed in WW II AND having my national treasure practically confiscated... On the other hand the Russians did the same with the Romanian treasure that was sent for safekeeping during WW I. Perspective is the keyword here... Anyway, your assessment that Romanins did "jackshit" in WW I is objectively inaccurate, to put it mildly. The same as for Romanians sucking entente's cock (which is quite the other way around). But the Eastern Front is not that well known (studied) as is the Western Front - so I guess at some level it is to be expected that people dismiss it out of hand. Let me explain: 1. The prime-minister of Romania drove a hard bargain, and ended up with the Entente practically accepting all the conditions that Romania asked for in return for the entry in the war on the Entente's side. Mainly it was supplying Romania with arms and ammo (especially heavy art), a southern offensive (from Greece - Salonika) and, most importantly, significant Russian support. Unfortunately none of those were done. Especially the Russian support (lackluster to say the least, except for the first part of 1917) and the Salonika debacle. As a side-note, the British considered the entry of Romania into the war more as a liability, as did the Russians. On the other hand, it was the British that, at the end of the war, contributed to fulfilling the obligations the Entente agreed on for Romania's entry into the war. On the other (other) hand, the French (who are still held to high esteem in Romania) had no intention whatsoever to upheld those pledges - they secretly had an understanding with Russia to put romania back to "its place" at the end of the war. Luckily for Romania, Russia was no more. The French were more inclined to getting reparations of war from Germany, and the British just wanted to get back to business. Oh, and there was also the Soviet menace, the Bavarian Soviet Republic (yep, that was a thing!). Messy, right? 2. The French were insisting on Romania entering the war because, to sum it up... Verdun was going on. And, as a result of (finally) Romania declaring war on AH, Falkenhayn was dismissed (which in retrospective was just a momentarily setback for the Germans since Hindenburg and Ludendorff took over...) but most importantly it meant not only the end of the Verdun nightmare but an immediate STOP of ALL offensive operations on the western front. So the "jackshit" that Romania did... it immediately meant saving tens if not hundreds of thousand of French and British lives (and German lives too...) on the Western front. 3. As the offensive operations on the western front were stopped, Romania had to face the combined armies of Germany, AH, Bulgaria and Turkey. The AH, Bulgarian and Turkish armies were under German command. The AH army was a mess - as it was throughout the whole war - but it benefited from (very) substantial German reinforcements (entire divisions), while the Bulgarian and Turkish armies had a more modest German contributions in terms of troops on the ground. Coupled with the poorly lead and poorly equipped soldiers and, more importantly, the inexperience that characterized the Romanian army in 1916, it lead to the disaster (almost annihilation) of Romania in that year. Nevertheless, as winter set in, it meant a that the Western Front took a most needed reprieve from the slaughter that was 1914, 1915 and half of 1916. 4. While the 1916 operations all but ended Romania as a fighting force, 1917 was a whole different story. I'll quote The Times: "The only point of light in the East" - referring to Romania, who was tying up ~1M Central Powers troops and was fighting on. Moreover, among historians, the general agreement was the only major successes in 1917, for the Entente, were the Carpathian Passes (Romania) battles that finally stopped the German plan of "quickly and decisively" dealing with the Romanian threat. The Romanian army in 1917 was a whole other beast than it was in 1916. 5. What the Central Powers could no achieve in 1917, the Bolshevik revolution did. The end came finally with Russia turning to utter chaos and the subsequent Brest-Litovsk peace treaty. Romania was, at that point, a practically landlocked country (remember the Gallipoli disaster? The Balck Sea was therefore useless...) surrounded by the Central Powers. Nevertheless, and even though signing an armistice/peace treaty (surrender) - the Bucharest treaty (though trying even to dodge that by having the King not signing the papers which, from the Romanian PoV, made them null :)) ) the Romanians kept in close contact with the Entente major powers. There were many preparations for the re-entry into the war, coordinated with the French and British operations (units demobilized on paper, caches of arms and munitions stored across the country in non-marked locations etc. - all against the Bucharest treaty...) and in 1918 Romania finally re-entered the war. But yes, 1917 was both a blessing and a curse. 6. The "price" for WW I was 250,000 military deaths + 430,000 civilian deaths - so a total of 680,000. Add to that ~150.000 Romanians fighting on the AH side. Romania lost (killed only) about 10% of the total population, second only to Serbia which fared much worse (16% of the total population), or if you count the Central Powers, third since the Ottoma Empire lost some 13% (Armenians are included though, and the Ottomans killed those themselves). To put that into perspective, UK (so not the whole British Empire) lost ~1M (military + civilian), or 2.2% of the total population. Russia - 2% of the total population. France - 4.3, Germany - 4. 7. There's a lot of talk about the Belgrade armistice, and that Romania (and Czechoslovak armies) broke the armistice. Well... the 3rd article (iirc) practically gave the Entente armies (Romanian anc Czechoslovak included) the right to practically requisition anything, and occupy any Hungarian territory as they saw fit. And they saw fit, for strategic and political reasons, to take Hungary out of the equation (as far west as west goes :) ). The British and French were well aware of that, and although diplomatically they were "condemning" the move, out of military necessities they supported and encouraged it. Reasons are many, but needless to say the situation at the end on 1918 was murky and chaotic to say the least, at least in Central and Eastern Europe. And again, there was the Soviets who were regarded as an even greater threat than Germany, especially for the British (bring down the monarch and all...). I think "jackshit" is a bit harsh to describe years of WW I participation, all the death and suffering, don't you? :) If you're interested to know more on this please read some of the sources I suggested. I've only scratched the surface here, there's tons and tons more interesting info. So yes, Romanians were dicks in WW I. They fought, they killed and were killed, they signed treaties which they later broke, they pillaged occupied areas and did horrible things and many other things. Not more, nor less than any other nation that fought that senseless carnage...

@George Rackham [actr] from the fact that romania betrayed the central powers in ww1 by joining the other side (the were the allies of the CP just like Italy) And from the fact that they switched sides in ww2 right when russia was at their doorstep Not saying ww2 wasnt justified Hungary tried to switch sides too (because the government wasnt nazi at all they just acted like german allies so they preserve their independence and so they can bail out of the war in time not destroying the country) But German influence was too great at the army so it failed But what romania did in ww1 is outright disgusting Attacked their former allies, were defeated signed a peace in 1918 bucharest and after the end of ww1 they attacked Hungary which was absolutely exhausted and broken by the war So thats where it comes from

Belarus will go nowhere, Lukašenko wants to rule his land everyday until death

@@lalchimiste6947 but what will happen when he dies

Belarus and Russia were going to be united before Putin came into office. Lukashenko wanted this because he thought that if Russia and Belarus united, he would win the Presidential Election and be President of the Russian Federation.

You forgot about: Armenia & Nagorno Karabakh(Artsakh) Serbia & Montengro + Serb Republic Croatia and Herzeg-Bosnia Greece & Cyprus Russia won't unite with Donbass, it has much larger ambitions regarding Ukraine.

@@Porkeater2610957 Moldavia is a part of Romania, stolen by Stalin.

give a poke at greece, comment on romania- but everything in between *do not touch. it will catch fire.*

Igen, emlékszem rád. Te vagy az a R*mán+Székely korcsivadék, ki békíteni akarja a két népet. Te leszel az első aki megy a bitóra.

No for the last time you guys are not huns! Lol.

@@nabu213 what did I do to you again?

@@hazzmati that came out of nowhere.

SKeleky I am tired of you hungarians(magyars) larping, pretending that you are the ancient huns while you are not. Very annoying stop it.

hell yeah!

Never in my life have i been so ofendet by something that i 100/agree with From a Romanian

@@gigachad-gx9vu God damnit, Mussolini, are you trying to rebuild the Roman Empire? Try and don't end up being annexed by Ethiopia... _again_

randomboi9000 what do you mean. Romania gave back old lands in 1989

randomboi9000 stop crying

🇭🇺👌🍸

Corsica, Istria e Dalmazia: are we a joke to you? XD

Watch your back! South Tyrol should go back to Austria and Trst should belong to Slovenia! LOL

@@mikeromadin8744 said no triestin ever

@@riccardorenda3396 Too late my macaronian phriend! We already sent gang of polite green men to establish People's Slovenian republic of Trst! Prepare to pay reparations for unlawful occupation of Slovenian littoral! Trst je nas! LOL

@@mikeromadin8744 with South Tyrol you have a point but Trieste is Italian

a map with all the irredentist movements would be something...

What if my d**k was big?

What if Sweden wasn't gay? What if Finland was big? What if Sweden wasn't big gay?

@@unitedstatesofeu7859 Finland really is everyone's favorite.

That's about how much it matters

@@dmihaesi lmao you still clicked on a video about it

If the Germans were not completely conquered and brainwashed after 1945 the most interesting issue would be Austria and Southern Tyrol. Because these countries are culturally bavarian and never felt as a separate Austrian Nation. After the World Wars they were two times denied self-determination. German Austria had to change its name to Austria in 1919 and after WW2 again had to agree to stay a separate and neutral state. If not, occupation would have continued until 1990. Quite a special treatment, a colonial situation for the German Nation until present.

wyoming nuff said

you're just two German kreis

Putin already decided that for them.

but pro russins and pro eu decided to accept EU money! and romanians money to

14th Russian Army decide between Europe and Russia. So, ask them.

@@antalpoti Question: Who are Russia's neighbors? Answer: Whoever Russia wants.

that's because they don't want to be ruled from shitty Bucharest. Same sentiment in Transylvania too. If we were a federation, like Germany, maybe.

@@petrzalkai you are not Hungarian, but a Bolshevik snowflake.

Why should Finland claim Hungary. Unless we create a 'Uralic Union'

@@petrzalkai Romaina: *hold my stolen beer*

Yeah, Buda was part non Hungarian but defenetly not slovak. Rather German and Jewish.

@@__greG You misunderstood, maybe that's my fault. I didn't say that it was Slovak - it was mostly non-Hungarian. Though the Slovak population that it did have also meant that it was the largest city in the world in terms of Slovak population.

@@__greG 2nd the most common surname in Hungary is Kovács, it has absolutely the same pronunciation as Slovak Kováč. And yes it has Slavic root. i.redd.it/utjaqfc40l311.png 3rd one is Tóth, meaning Slovak

@@SladkaPritomnost You are wrong. Most of the people whose name is Kovács have romani/Gypsy ancestry in Hungary.

The realistic scennario - we already sent polite green men troops to make plebescite and establish people's republics in Sud Tyrol and Trst. LOL

Change dalmazia with Istria and it's correct

The Krieg or both

@@thekrieg4251 no, no, extreme Italian Irredentism claims them both lol

@@virginioandrearusso4166 yeah i know, but dalmatia it's really difficult to defend, it's a shit border (and it's not ethically italian for hundred years)

let's correct ALL ROMAN EMPIRE

i would say that italian balls are not big enough for that. LOL

@@mikeromadin8744 oooof destruction 100

San Marino + Monaco naturally

Istria for the foibe and Fiume, Nice for Garibaldi, Savoy for the Savoia, Corsica to liberate the Corse from the damage that the french are doing to their culture, And Malta because their culture was polluted by the British

Man, again, I see you another channel..

That is actually funny.

Avery the Cuban-American do you fucking think you’re funny clown

Super Duper Badass Midget Probably

stfu

@Commenttube An actually French person.

Prussian SMN WGLT Je confirme :)

Ethnikally Corsicans are an italic group. Before french bought corsica, the leader of the corsican independentist party said clearly "we are firstly italians, then corsicans"

@IFFs 35th ahhahaha, he was for the corsican independence till 1793. Read: The ancestors of Napoleon descended from minor Italian nobility of Tuscan origin who had come to Corsica from Liguria in the 16th century.[5] Napoleon boasted of his Italian heritage saying "I am of the race that founds empires", and he referred to himself as "more Italian or Tuscan than Corsican".[6] His parents Carlo Maria di Buonaparte and Maria Letizia Ramolino maintained an ancestral home called "Casa Buonaparte" in Ajaccio. Napoleon was born there on 15 August 1769, their fourth child and third son. A boy and girl were born first but died in infancy. He had an elder brother, Joseph, and younger siblings Lucien, Elisa, Louis, Pauline, Caroline, and Jérôme. Napoleon was baptised as a Catholic.[7] Although he was born Napoleone di Buonaparte,[8] he changed his name to Napoléon Bonaparte when he was 27 in 1796 upon his first marriage.[b] Napoleon was born the same year the Republic of Genoa, a former commune of Italy,[12] transferred Corsica to France.[13] The state sold sovereign rights a year before his birth in 1768, and the island was conquered by France during the year of his birth and formally incorporated as a province in 1770, after 500 years under Genoese rule and 14 years of independence.[c] Napoleon's parents fought against the French to maintain independence even when Maria was pregnant with him. His father was an attorney who went on to be named Corsica's representative to the court of Louis XVI in 1777.[17] The dominant influence of Napoleon's childhood was his mother, whose firm discipline restrained a rambunctious child.[17] Later in life Napoleon stated, "The future destiny of the child is always the work of the mother."[18] Napoleon's maternal grandmother had married into the Swiss Fesch family in her second marriage, and Napoleon's uncle, the cardinal Joseph Fesch, would fulfill a role as protector of the Bonaparte family for some years. Napoleon's noble, moderately affluent background afforded him greater opportunities to study than were available to a typical Corsican of the time.[19] When he turned 9 years old,[20][21] he moved to the French mainland and enrolled at a religious school in Autun in January 1779. In May, he transferred with a scholarship to a military academy at Brienne-le-Château.[22] In his youth he was an outspoken Corsican nationalist and supported the state's independence from France.[20] Like many Corsicans, Napoleon spoke and read Corsican (as his mother tongue) and Italian (as the official language of Corsica).[23][24][25] He began learning French in school at around age 10.[26] Although he became fluent in French, he spoke with a distinctive Corsican accent and never learned how to spell French correctly.[27] He was, however, not an isolated case, as it was estimated in 1790 that fewer than 3 million people, out of France's population of 28 million, were able to speak standard French, and those who could write it were even fewer.[28] Napoleon was routinely bullied by his peers for his accent, birthplace, short stature, mannerisms and inability to speak French quickly.[24] Bonaparte became reserved and melancholy applying himself to reading. An examiner observed that Napoleon "has always been distinguished for his application in mathematics. He is fairly well acquainted with history and geography ... This boy would make an excellent sailor".[d][30] In early adulthood, he briefly intended to become a writer; he authored a history of Corsica and a romantic novella.[20] On completion of his studies at Brienne in 1784, Napoleon was admitted to the École Militaire in Paris. He trained to become an artillery officer and, when his father's death reduced his income, was forced to complete the two-year course in one year.[31] He was the first Corsican to graduate from the École Militaire.[31] He was examined by the famed scientist Pierre-Simon Laplace.[32] Early career Napoleon Bonaparte, aged 23, as lieutenant-colonel of a battalion of Corsican Republican volunteers. Portrait by Henri Félix Emmanuel Philippoteaux Upon graduating in September 1785, Bonaparte was commissioned a second lieutenant in La Fère artillery regiment.[e][22] He served in Valence and Auxonne until after the outbreak of the Revolution in 1789, and took nearly two years' leave in Corsica and Paris during this period. At this time, he was a fervent Corsican nationalist, and wrote to Corsican leader Pasquale Paoli in May 1789, "As the nation was perishing I was born. Thirty thousand Frenchmen were vomited on to our shores, drowning the throne of liberty in waves of blood. Such was the odious sight which was the first to strike me".[34] He spent the early years of the Revolution in Corsica, fighting in a complex three-way struggle among royalists, revolutionaries, and Corsican nationalists. He was a supporter of the republican Jacobin movement, organizing clubs in Corsica,[35] and was given command over a battalion of volunteers. He was promoted to captain in the regular army in July 1792, despite exceeding his leave of absence and leading a riot against French troops.[36] He came into conflict with Paoli, who had decided to split with France and sabotage the Corsican contribution to the Expédition de Sardaigne, by preventing a French assault on the Sardinian island of La Maddalena.[37] Bonaparte and his family fled to the French mainland in June 1793 because of the split with Paoli.[38]

@IFFs 35th he said himself he was italian, no matter what french say 🤣😂

​@Wallachian Knight Dacia isn't Romania. Dacians and Romanians are different people.

@Wallachian Knight Just because the Dacians lived there, as the Romanians do now, does not mean that the Romanians are Dacians. The Romanians came from around Albania and Macedonia.

@@adamus1342 There is genetic evidence that at least 80% of the genes of people living today in any European country (exclusions could be some islands such as Malta) identical to the genes of people who lived there on the very same land 10 thousand years ago! So the "big migrations" were not as big as people used to think. By the way there is no one single historical evidence or script that Romanians migrated from Albania. It was the language and the culture that migrated, not the people! Even the Avars had mainly Central-European genes and not Central-Asian ones!

@Wallachian Knight can you show me any online source for this 10%? It sounds to me too much. There are a few words, maybe hundred, but that's it. (As far as I know, althaugh I don't speak Romanian, I only have read about this language)

I knew it I freaking knew it!

for me its czechia that i found very estetic

Pre WW1 Germany was very aesthetically pleasing.

Isn't that what Leopold wanted?

@@mackermate8475 Our former King Leopold II had a lot of ambitions, and he even considered invading ALL of the Netherlands at one moment. As you know, Belgium cannot really make a claim to ALL of the Netherlands. But Dutch Limburg was a part of Belgium until 1839, and the population feels connected to Belgian Limburg, so I think claiming Limburg is not so far fetched. Maritime Flanders is Flemish and even has Flanders in its' name, so that claim is pretty solid too I believe.😁

@@robdevos8405 Yeah that's really interesting. Maybe the Dutch province of Northern Brabant too. Or the Flemish part of Zeeland?

I still dont get this, the only difference between Netherlands and Belgium is religion. They literally need to unify with their 1815 borders

@@EugeneAyindolmah Language (French and German are also spoken in Belgium), cultural identity (mainly food), infrastructure (the roads in Belgium are the worst), history (Belgium belonged to Spain way longer than the Netherlands), how would you merge two kingdoms? and way more

As a Romanian I don't think that would be the case. West Germany hat alot more economical power due to the Marshall plan than Romania has. And even today East Germany still lacks a bit to be on the level with the West. Romania barely keeps its head above watter as it is. With a dead weight like Moldova and Russian interests no chance.

@@alupigus9284 don't think so, they all are going to go all over Europe to work, 😂😂😂, no big deal

Duesen it would be Great Germany👍 Deutschland über alles!

as a french, i support the unification of german cultural region under a single gouvernment... and for alsace lorraine, lets create a common shared region, regulated by both country

Very well said!

Part 2 was face to face , in the park :)))

Egyszer sikerülni fog Felvidék

@@jademaiko527 : There was definitely more peace in the region before it was broken into a dozen tiny countries. France wanted Eastern Europe and the Balkans weak. That's why they broke up Hungary.

@@jademaiko527 because the situation in Transilvania is complicate and one wrong move = civil war.

Not with that attitude...

@@MrChaosAdam are you talking to me?

kinda a crusade based

Of course,with its less than 7 million people

See the languages spoken, there’s literally no Hungarian speakers

Yeah.. that's weird.. its been Hungary for 1000 years as Hungary is claiming, however never managed to be the majority in any of these areas... I wonder why ?!?!

@@ceapalata you do know that there were many wars where the lower class population of hungarians weren't on the lucky side, and after the ottoman wars and Habsburgs comeback to the throne, they forbid hungarians to repopulate areas like Vojvodina, instead the Austrians granted serbs, vlachs and germans many rights that the hungarians didn't got?

@@olibruh hmm.. no.. not a fan of Hungarian sci-fi

maybe that's why they refuse to grant rights to aromanians and magleno-romanians

@@andreialexandrunichiforel that has nothing to do with that. Did you even understand what I wrote? Oh also, all ethnicities have equal rights in Greece.

@@georgios_5342 equal rights as in everyone must be Greek. You are not fooling anyone, the years between the civil war and the military dictatorship in Greece have been nothing but cruel for ethnic minorities. Aromanians, or Vlachs are looked down upon in normal society. Children were beaten in school for speaking their language and to this day they have no schools in Aromanian. Many were/are shamed for their Vlach heritage. All ethnic groups are equal in Greece, ah yes, but some are more equal then others.

@@andreialexandrunichiforel that's just not true. Even I am part Vlach and have some family in Epirus that even speaks the language and it's completely the same for everyone. Maybe you're from another Balkan country. You might judge Greece from your own, but it's really not that way here. And it's not as if Greece ever harmed these people like for example Turkey does to its minorities (that weren't even minorities). If anything, those people get special treatment these days, like free healthcare even without the insurance.

If Frances takes Wallonia they will want Brussels too, being mostly a french speaking city

@@bogdan9939 Brussels should be an independent capital of Europe, preferably with a wall around it so its shithole population doesn't escape into our Flanders.

@@Roel93 and take Gravellines nuclear power plant as well!

Rejsel never was flemmish

Bruine zak

IRA 2: Electric Boogaloo

....and the Hungaryans coppy them one day later (not sarcastic comment)

@@adrianmatei2668 Great comeback, furry toes.

Yikes

Can't wait to see H*ngary get eating by Romania, making way for the new Fascist Romanian Empire.

Well i don't know if anyone else noticed this but i see Hungarians all over the place online its like the country should be 10x bigger than it is.

Actually those plans aren't really working. The population is still in declyne.

@@KB-uy3lv more like 20 years. This young generation hopeless, maybe the next will be strong.

@Ivan Ivanovich Ivanovosky Sure but what does that have anything to do with the unification? (Also ,not the only Latin group in Eastern Europe ,there are lots of very small Latin groups in Eastern Europe in the Western Balkans)

*due to historical tensions and cultural differences" You mean do to the process of russification imposed by Moscow of Moldova.

@@bogdan9939 Sure , let's have a talk about how Romania literally just gave up Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina in 1940? Moldovans ,even Romanian Moldovans ,tend to be very mistrustful of Romania and Romanians. There are lots of reasons why Moldovans are very resentful towards a unification.

@@Aetherius21 I think you are very ignorant on this subject. Romania gave up Basarabia and North Bucovina after the only big ally of Romania (France) was occupied by the Germans and after the USSR issued an ultimatum backed by the german (part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact). Its not like Romania had a choice. Also, do you even know how Romania was created? And what do you mean by: "Romanian Moldovans ,tend to be very mistrustful of Romania and Romanians."???? That's total bs! I'm moldavian myself and what you've said is nonsense. We see ourselves as romanians. I've never heard someone form Iasi, Suceava, Bacau, Botosani etc. talking about romanians as if they weren't romanians too. There is no seperate identity, like you see in the Republic of Moldova, where they actually believe there is such a thing as a "moldavian language" and so on.

@@bogdan9939 Again ,sure ,Poland lost their entire country fighting for their own land and people. It was a suicidal attempt to defend their own country and land ,but they did it. As a Moldovan (Romanian Moldovan) myself I see that there are lots of flaws on both sides of the argument. I wish that Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina could once reunite but I don't think of this as necessarily possible in the near future. I think that Romania should also get back the demographics it had in the 1930s ,it is truly unfortunate to see the slow death of the German and Ukrainian minorities and the rise in population of the Gypsies.

Sweet Angel isn’t that why Trans-Dniestria exists? It’s like the Russian Moldovan enclave or something.... I might’ve got that backwards..

Sweet Angel Because of the idiotic people who live in the past and still believe that we still have a chance to unite

@@EntryLevelLuxury Transnistria is inhabited a third by Romanians, a third by Russians, and a third by Ukrainians, but it was never a part of the medieval kingdom of Romania because it is beyond the strong and defensible boundary of the Dniester (nistru). It was taken from the Ukrainian SSR by the Soviets in order to become a Moldova SSR when Bessarabia (a true part of the medieval Kingdom of Romania, even though 2/3 of the medieval kingdom is in Romania even today) united with Greater Romania. Just like states build post offices in disputed areas, even if there are no people there, this branding exercise was a way to maintain a claim on Moldova. When they got Bessarabia back, they united it tio Transnistria, but gave the north and the south of Bessarabia to Ukraine in order for any invasion force towards Romania to bypass natural defences and the Moldovan SSR, which might rebel or might join Romania. This was the strategic thinking of the elites, which was on display in the Caucasus, in Central Asia etc.

@@Jorjgasm Geopolitics manifest. Thanks!

@Panter Panta medieval kingdoms which today maake up Romania - Moldova and Wallachia. Slip-up. My bad. Transnistria was never a part of those. The border was on the Dniester

Sebastian Nielsen I mean, the USSR was pretty much an empire.

@@sovetskysoyuzcommunistpart4512 Well yeah but not THE Russian Empire

@@skeeyee5477 soviet cockrings are always saying that they're russians, perhaps they have nothing common with russians except language

Pre-Trianon era Hungary was beautiful country.

Sorry, but there are no "Bulgarian territories" in Serbia and there never were any. We do have a Bulgarian minority (which has the same rights as other citizens in Serbia) and we hope to have better ties with Bulgaria. But we will not allow other countries (including Bulgaria) claiming our territory. Peace!

@@user-pk6jx5zc1p not at all in the Pomoravie there was a bulgarian majority and almost no serbs since 1800

@@vladislavnikovski2984 That is very wrong. One of the most prominent Serbian states was literally called Moravian Serbia. Serbs lived in Pomoravlje for centuries. Bulgarians were never majority there.

@@user-pk6jx5zc1p all the serbian land was bulgarian you should read some history books it was a part of Bulgaria for centruys iven Belgrad was a bulgarian city

@@vladislavnikovski2984 And at some point all people in the world were Africans. Keyword: WERE. No point in arguing with you. As I said, I like Bulgaria and respect Bulgarians, but no one has the right to claim our land. Have a good day.

you've got the money i gonna visit you! (c) Body Count LOL

Some of the political parties in Moldova which are pro-Russian rather have Moldova remain independent and leaning toward Russia. Economically, Moldova wants more contact with the EU. of which Romania is a member. Then there is the fact that Romania has also been issuing Romanian passports to Moldovans. According to the following article at least one million Moldovans have Romanian passports. That represents 25% of the Moldovan population - en.publika.md/around-1-million-moldovans-acquire-romanian-citizenship-in-past-years-_2647124.htmlgives Moldovans . Romania has also built and continues to build gas pipelines into Moldova which means Moldova can wean off Russian gas. Just give it time and a change in leadership which is pro-Romania/EU. Also, with Moldova losing population they might have no choice but to rejoin Romania.

@Eternal Fisherman - I think you shall find your answer in this following article from March 2019. - icds.ee/moldovas-long-road-to-joining-romania/

Dude....500.000 greeks were killed. And let's not even talk about what happened to the armenians or the assyrians

@@bogdan9939 The Greeks that enlisted to Greek army, ones become bandits and unfortunanly died from Turkish bandits for revenge of their burnt villages and killed families. I wont talk about Armenian topic because whenever ı talk, i become the "salty Turk" but i will say some thing about, so called genocide was a forced relocation. They died in roads, some succumbed to sickness, some died at the hand of unruly soldiers some killed by bandits. That was tragedy but not a whole fucking genocide.

WIKI: The Magyar tribes migrated to the modern territory of Hungary from their ancestral home (Magna Hungaria). In this regard, a large group of scientists are inclined to believe that in the IV-V centuries. a significant part of the Ugrians in the general flow of migration to the west moved from Western Siberia to the Urals and the Volga region. They included the ancestors of the Hungarians, the ancient Madiyars, who formed here into a confederation of tribes [5]. Finally, the concept of "Historic Bashkortostan" is related to the concept of "Great Hungary" (Major Hungaria, Magna Hungaria) - the hypothetical ancestral home of the Hungarians, mentioned by the 13th century Franciscan monk Giovanni da Plano Carpini in his travel report. Her searches were carried out in the 1230s by the Hungarian Dominicans, the most famous of whom is Julian. [6].

@George Rackham [actr] Yes I am replying to a 8 months old comment, but I just wanna say that YES as Slovak I agree we got more land (on south) than we deserved. Hungary lost a lot of land (especially because of the ethnicities that got their own state), but the hungarian treaty was very devastating to their state including losing lands that belonged to them (where the hungarian ethnicity was major).

@@k0rpy_689 You should not agree with that, because we got what we deserved. Don't forget that Hungarians actively oppressed Slovaks for hundreds of years and tried to vanish them as a nation. All that as a sign of thankfulness for all the (agriculture and other) knowledge they got from our ancestors when they came to Panonia. Same as now, when they are so thankful for not reclaiming Beneš's decretes in same way Czechs did on their land.

if historical Hungary does not fall apart, ... then there is no fascism ... communism in the Carpathian Basin..and now the standard of living in Austria would be 60 years ......

Poor Mongolia lost so much land

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-TlL7WbXvaiQ.html

You are right that irrendestism is not always limited to a people or territory inhabited by it in the present or past, but the concept can also be extrapolated in terms of geography, however, since the end of ww1, with the consolidation of the concept of self-determination, irrendestism has often become its synonym for legitimacy purposes. The only country that is currently attempting to enforce irrendentism partly based on natural borders is Israel, and Israel has its permanent questioned legitimacy.

@@Melnek1 and Turkey, they just want to reform the Osmanian empire, regardless of the balkans, syria and arabia never having been turkish. But they already live on conquered land, so of course, their claims arent legitimate.

@@MMadesen I don't think I was clear, said irredentism based primarily on geographical factors, not ethnic, cultural or historical factors. An example would be France wanting to expand its eastern border to the Rhine River up to the ocean in the low countries because this would be France's "natural border".

@@Melnek1 Yeah, ok. I havent read it thoroughly enough.

@@MMadesen No problem, English is not my first language, and sometimes I can be confused in what I'm writing.

@Flav C en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sz%C3%A9kely_Land en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarians_in_Slovakia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarians_in_Serbia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarians_in_Ukraine en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarians_in_Romania (The significant ones. See the maps. Willingly.)

The European leaders would never agree to that. The only democracy they care about is when they get to set the terms. European leaders also don't like the Hungarians. They never have, and they never will. In Europe's eyes, we are still the Huns of Attila. That's never going to change.

@@toddpartusu8914 Huns are not the same as Hungarians Hungarians are finno-ugric while Huns were Turkic.

The Hungarian delegation and the US president both wanted a referendum, and the French and the countries demanding the area were strongly opposed and committed.

@@Hungeryan Nem Dulo volt Árpád? És a Dulók Atillá utódjának hívták magukat. Úgy talán lehet.

Sunglass Shinpan #tinyvictoiries

nice is like savoy, they where what they call "franco provencal" peoples, so closer from actual france than italy, but for a long time ruled by italian family

nicen't

@@TheGirard62 savoy has always been french kinda speaking(they spoke Arpitan which is really close to french) nice instead spoke Ligurian nizzard which is Ligurian with some occitan (Not even french) loan words, nice was part of Genoa until 1815 and then it became piedmont.(Garibaldi was born in Nice) In 1860 the italian language was banned and italians were stripped of their names and given new ones more "french" sounding

It wasn't until the 19th century.

But was much more romanian people than maghiars

and thanks for European edition! =)