HOME | DD
zalezsky — Central Europe: 1941
Published: 2016-11-22 23:00:47 +0000 UTC; Views: 13487; Favourites: 143; Downloads: 183
Redirect to original
Description
Second Vienna Award signed on the 30th of August 1940 yielded northern Transylvania to Hungary from Romania.6th of April 1941 Axis powers invaded and divided up Yugoslavia amongst themselves leading to further Hungarian expansion, German expansion, the establishment of Independent state of Croatia, and Serbia.
Continuation of Central Europe: First Vienna Award
Edit: Fixed Romanian Border to post 1940 border
Related content
Comments: 59
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The most aesthetically pleasing borders by my opinion.
👍: 1 ⏩: 2
Oh come on 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And that would've only added more angry Hungarians on your side of the Wall even if you fuckers with your Little Entente managed to erase Hungary from the map which was your objective all along and please spare me your hypocrisy would that solved your problems and the response is a definitely a No you would all end up like Yugoslavia did in the 90's Balkanized and with eternal vengeful Hungary on your borders perhaps with even larger borders than this.
As a side-note i don't think that Hungary needed Carpathian-Ruthenia as well that region was always poor as fuck even in the old Austro-Hunagarian Empire's time as well and they are poor even to this day a century later.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I think No that would've been only a detriment and burden not an advantage.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nice map! I would only advise two things you could improve if you have time:
1. The coordinates grid should be centered in the middle of the map, meaning, the middle longitude line should be completely vertical. If you need advice on this, you can write me.
2. Urban toponym system is too detailed compared to other toponyms. For better looking cartographic base, you might consider including river names, region names (maybe borders too), some more bigger lakes. Or the less important cities should be deleted, then the whole look would become simplier.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
thanks for the input! I'll take it into account for the next set of maps I make
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Very nice. It is a sad comment on the Western Allies that this was the fairest agreement for the nations of Central Europe, and it was done by Nazis and Italian Fascists. So what does that tell you about Britain and America's love of justice? I find that very sad.
👍: 1 ⏩: 2
I don't agree that it was the "fairest agreement" for the nations involved, however they are aesthetically pleasing
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What would have been fairer?
Of course, what would have been ideal is if the Entente had allowed people to vote. But this was the one thing they absolutely refused -- in the name of democracy, you understand.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
I'm not sure what a more fair agreement would have been but blindly annexing regions and granting them without the peoples consent is also not a solution (1941). The Entene did allow people to vote in plebiscites that took place from Karinten, to Silesia, to Sopron. The issue was that Austria-Hungary was deemed to be punished for starting the war; and at the time the entire region was in a state of Chaos. For instance Romania and Hungary had a war in the 20s over where their border was to be, the Hungarian communist revolution of the 1920s was subsequently put down. It was difficult for Entente powers to gain control of the situation as they were recovering from war, intervening in the Russian Revolution, and having to deal with larger issues such as the rise of extremism.
It's quite easy to criticize them for their actions today because we can simply say "well they could have just done this!" but at the time they were truly trying their best in the interests of their own nations. Small things such as the Hungarian-Slovak border wasn't exactly at the top of the agenda. For the most part they supported nationalists from both sides and had them come to conferences to decide the borders. Of course Trianon was meant to break the Austrian Empire so it could not reform again; which they had accomplished. The Entente powers were not a single entity as is believed, each nation had it's own interests and difference of opinions. I know that the USA and Britain had more interests in Eastern European stability than France, or Serbia who wanted reparations and land from their former opponents.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, I agree with you that the key issue was annexing regions without the consent of the governed. But surely, if someone holds you up at gunpoint and takes a piece of your house, you will work to get it back? As for the plebiscites, they should have been held everywhere and I am sure the map would have been different. Note that people voted differently to what the nationalists and especially the Entente (who were hyper-nationalists) expected. In Sopron, Croats and German-speakers voted to return to Hungary. So to mention tiny little plebiscites is all very well, but they were not important in determining great swathes of terrritory.
There is also a very ugly subtext of racism here. The Entente were at this time Imperialists and looked at the Hungarians as one put it as "hardly human". On the other, the Czechoslovaks, Romanians and South Slavs were Indo-Germans, i.e., "civilised".
I realise the Entente were not a single entity, but what ruined any possible lasting peace and harmony between peoples including until today was the secret agreements that Britain and France signed with Serbia and Romania, which America didn't know about.
Trianon and the other treaties were a dark spot in European history and whitewashing that, in my opinion, is simply morally wrong. I know that Germans are expected to constantly apologise for the Holocaust, but that doesn't mean the British and the French should be allowed to get away with the equivalent of the "Scramble for Africa" in C. Europe. When you read the correspondence you will see that certainly the British considered the "Balkan" people to be barbarian savages without history and culture and with whom they could do what they liked. So I believe they richly deserve criticism, not because of what you mentioned, but because of the unbelievable hubris that they had a right to decide the futures of peoples of whom they knew nothing and cared less.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The people in Southern Slovakia are slowly coming to terms with Trianon, many even identifying as Slovaks. I personally know Slovaks with Hungarian as their native language, who speak exclusively Slovak at home and teach their children only Slovak - the ethnic tensions that once existed are largely gone and Hungarians are voluntarily "converting" their language. Especially the cities, Komárno is nearly half Slovak now, Galanta, Senec, Košice, etc. all already have a Slovak majority.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not so. The reason Hungarians are pretending to be Slovak is state-sponsored threats. You are, for example, not allowed to even write your name on your gravestone in the Hungarian form, it must also be there in Slovak and the Slovak version must be bigger. This is a form of Apartheid.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I can't tell if you are being serious or if you are an actual retard...
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Trust me, dude, this guy is the epitome of a stupid nationalist and a bigot, you'll be wasting your time arguing with him. He's the definition of a dishonest actor.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
If you'd showed some respect, I'd have answered that. Clearly, you don't know what you're talking about.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Very nice work, can you do the same for Italy after the Operation Anton? I love your work
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
thank you! Perhaps sometime in the future
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I see your diacritics (and some spelling) on Romanian names are all over the place. I can't tell where you sourced the names since the problems seem multiple, but here is the list of names that are off for later reference: Timișoara, Reșița, Târgu Jiu, Petroșani, Hațeg, Hunedoara, Orăștie, Beiuș, Diciosânmartin (become Târnava-Sân-Martin on May 3rd '41, even later Târnăveni), Mediaș, Sighisoara, Sebeș, Făgăraș, Brașov, Vâlcea, Curtea de Argeș, Câmpulung, Câmpina, Slănic, Vâlenii de Munte, Ploești (later Ploiești, but after WWII), Urlați, Târgul Ocna, Piatra Neamț, Târgul Neamț, Vatra Dornei, Pașcani, Suceava, Rădăuți, Hârlău, Fălticeni, Botoșani.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The font which I used didn't allow for a lot of the diacritics of the Romanian Language unfortunately. I had to compromise between being able to use Romanian ones or Hungarian ones
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, right, though you could use s and t cedilla which are more supported than s and t comma if needed. Still, the circumflex is universally available and differences in spelling were just as common as diacritic issues within that set of names.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The Slovak lands Hungary "ate" are majority ethnic Hungarian except for most of Trans-Carpathia which is majority Rusyn(Which is not Russian, Ukrainian, or Slovak BTW.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
But why was southern Slovakia majority Hungarian by the end of the millennium? Komárno, Senec, Galanta, Košice, even north Hungarian cities like Miškovec, Budapešt (Budín and Pešť), Vyšehrad, Ostrihom have Slavic names. The genetics of Slovaks and Hungarians, especially North Hungarians, are nearly identical (with nearly nothing coming from the original Asiatic Hungarians).
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yes, the "Second Vienna Awards"
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You clearly haven't seen what Tajikistan looks like, or Northeastern India... *shiver*
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'll give you that one but those monstrosities don't change the fact that Hungary's WW2 borders were a bloody disaster
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Everything about WW2 borders is disgusting
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
They accommodate all ethnic Hungarians into a single nation and it attempts to not take too much land of other ethnicities. You can even see where they didn't give Hungary too much land while giving Hungarian's easy passage to mainland Hungary.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>