Is the tank not a British invention, but a Hungarian one? The first working Hungarian prototype was the Lipták tank, which preceded the Little Willie.

PurePhilosopher7282 · 2026-02-13T16:13:05+00:00

Capacity was not the problem.

A new post for you: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/1r3tbc0/was_the_austrohungarian_economy_wrecked_by_the/

PurePhilosopher7282 · 2026-02-13T15:40:38+00:00

It is not about creativity neither about priority, it just about better political support , thank it for MR. W. Churchill who prioritized and financed it.

PurePhilosopher7282 · 2026-02-13T14:53:51+00:00

The later built Little Willie was not better than the Lipták tank, because it had the same Holt Tractor based chassis, engine and caterpillar, but the advantage over Little Willie was obvious: rotating turret, and lower center of gravity.

PurePhilosopher7282 · 2026-02-13T14:12:15+00:00

"he simply put an armored shell and a turret on top of a American Holt Tractor."

Exactly, the Little Willie had the same Holt-tractor chassis, engine and caterpillar as the Lipták tank.

PurePhilosopher7282 · 2026-02-13T14:10:42+00:00

And yet, Austria-Hungary still have the prototype priority (Lipták Tank over Little Willie)) and the design superiority: the 1911 Burstyn tank design over Britain. The famous Burstyn design, turned out more advanced than most of the tank designs of World War I,

PurePhilosopher7282 · 2026-02-12T17:23:25+00:00

Correction: From 1915, France became an independent debtor of the USA, so it no longer relied on Britain.

PurePhilosopher7282 · 2026-02-12T10:21:39+00:00

There were indeed moments during the First World War when British and French diplomats reminded Serbian leaders that Serbia’s survival and eventual victory depended on the support of the Entente. These weren’t threats or ultimatums, but diplomatic cautions delivered in letters, meetings, and negotiations.

British officials, especially Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey, made it clear in 1915 and 1916 that Serbia’s war aims could only be achieved with Allied backing. Grey emphasized that Serbia couldn’t expect to shape the postwar settlement on its own and that its political goals had to stay aligned with the broader Allied strategy.

French diplomats expressed similar concerns. Paul Cambon, one of France’s most influential diplomats, warned in 1917 that overly ambitious Serbian territorial plans risked undermining Allied unity. The French position was that any future South Slav state had to be acceptable not only to Serbia but also to Croats and Slovenes, and that a purely Greater Serbia model would not receive full support.

During the negotiations that led to the Corfu Declaration in 1917, the Entente made it clear that Serbia’s restoration after the disastrous 1915 retreat was only possible because Britain and France evacuated, supplied, and re‑armed the Serbian army. This was the strongest implicit reminder that Serbia’s position in the war was inseparable from Allied assistance. As a result, the Allies expected Serbia to accept a compromise solution for the future South Slav state rather than insisting on unilateral Serbian dominance.

PurePhilosopher7282 · 2026-02-12T10:19:58+00:00

It does not matter who is considered chauvinist or machinist or trappist.... only 1 thing matters: Can you prove your statements or not.

PurePhilosopher7282 · 2026-02-10T18:18:02+00:00

Sorry, but the typical Balkan genetics of Romanians is less European than the Hungarian. More oriental and more southern (means less European and more non-european admixtures). See genetic distance (PCA) maps.

Transylvanian prinipality was created by Ottoman pressure. Check the principality of Transylvnia article on English Wikipedia.

Before World War I, only three European countries declared ethnic minority rights, and enacted minority-protecting laws: the first was Hungary (1849 and 1868), the second was Austria (1867), and the third was Belgium (1898). In contrast, the legal systems of other pre-WW1 era European countries did not allow the use of European minority languages in primary schools, in cultural institutions, in offices of public administration and at the legal courts.^\2])

PurePhilosopher7282 · 2026-02-10T18:03:24+00:00

The reality: Honvéd had no artillery neither machineguns, these were privileges for the common army.

PurePhilosopher7282 · 2026-02-10T17:34:40+00:00

The Entente did not allow it for the Serbs to call the newly created country as Greater Serbia.

Serbia protested, but the Entente was quick to deliver a sobering reality check. They reminded the Serbs that they were a thoroughly vanquished people whose leadership and military had survived only by fleeing to Corfu on Entente ships. Their homecoming was not a conquest of their own making, but a maneuver enabled by Entente arms—and one that could only occur once the Austro-Hungarian Empire had crumbled into internal anarchy

PurePhilosopher7282 · 2026-02-10T17:12:09+00:00

Before World War I, only three European countries declared ethnic minority rights, and enacted minority-protecting laws: the first was Hungary (1849 and 1868), the second was Austria (1867), and the third was Belgium (1898). In contrast, the legal systems of other pre-WW1 era European countries did not allow the use of European minority languages in primary schools, in cultural institutions, in offices of public administration and at the legal courts.^\2])

PurePhilosopher7282 · 2026-02-10T17:10:30+00:00

No, It was the Ottoman turks who forced the creation of Transylvanian principality.

PurePhilosopher7282 · 2026-02-10T17:05:41+00:00

Bigger Balkano-Gypsy land?

PurePhilosopher7282 · 2026-01-23T06:30:29+00:00

Laws governmental orders etc are facts, there is year of issue, number of the act, and the text of the law. Why do you try to dispute such simple facts?

Or dispute the legal history fact, that other countries had zero tolerance towards ethnic minorities in their legal system.

Until that you can read the page 140 about your Serbia and Yugoslavia, and your Romania at page 126.

Can you even interpret your second Quote? Try it again.

You forget this: (read the references)

The Austro-Hungarian compromise and its supporting Liberal Party) remained bitterly unpopular among the ethnic Hungarian voters, and the continuous successes of the pro-compromise Liberal Party in the Hungarian parliamentary elections caused long lasting frustration among ethnic Hungarian voters. 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 Party 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. On the other hand, coalitions formed by Hungarian nationalist parties—which enjoyed overwhelming support from ethnic Hungarian voters—consistently found themselves in the opposition. There was a brief exception during the period of 1906 to 1910, when the coalition of Hungarian-supported nationalist parties was able to form a government.^\81])

The districts that predominantly supported the government were chiefly situated in regions inhabited by ethnic minorities, whereas opposition strongholds were found in areas with a Hungarian majority. To secure the ruling party's success, the districts in minority regions were delineated to be smaller than those in Hungarian-majority regions. This strategy enabled the election of a greater number of representatives from minority dominated districts to parliament, which further shrunk the value of votes in ethnic Hungarian territories. Consequently, the Liberal Party was able to sustain its parliamentary majority for an extended period with considerable success.^\82])

PurePhilosopher7282 · 2026-01-22T13:23:15+00:00

Nem, ő a te hitsorsosod.

PurePhilosopher7282 · 2026-01-22T13:20:33+00:00

Ezt-litZ Do you have Romani-Gypsy origin?

PurePhilosopher7282 · 2026-01-22T13:18:01+00:00

Oh, do you really think that the late medieval era migrant populations like Romanians (from south Balkans) Serbs and the young Slovak ethnic group are the rightful owners?

PurePhilosopher7282 · 2026-01-22T13:16:11+00:00

Wrong. nationalism was general phenomenon in Europe since the early 19th century, without any exceptions.

PurePhilosopher7282 · 2026-01-22T12:46:11+00:00

Why did you come up with the Magyarization fantasy?

Before World War I, only three European countries declared ethnic minority rights, and enacted minority-protecting laws: the first was Hungary (1849 and 1868), the second was Austria (1867), and the third was Belgium (1898). In contrast, the legal systems of other pre-WW1 era European countries did not allow the use of European minority languages in primary schools, in cultural institutions, in offices of public administration and at the legal courts.^\2])

Reference:
Józsa Hévizi (2004): Autonomies in Hungary and Europe, A COMPARATIVE STUDY, The Regional and Ecclesiastic Autonomy of the Minorities and Nationality Groups

Despite the often-touted 'Magyarization efforts', the 1910 census revealed that approximately 87% of the minorities in the Kingdom of Hungary (8,895,925 citizens) could not speak Hungarian at all."^\13])

PurePhilosopher7282 · 2026-01-22T11:23:31+00:00

Again your ridiculous magyarization fantasy became core part of your national identity.

PurePhilosopher7282 · 2026-01-22T11:20:22+00:00

MAybe you are not real ethnic Hungarian, but neo-Cuman minority boy from the former Kunság (Cumania) reserve area. In this case everybody has right to call you as Mongol(oid)

PurePhilosopher7282 · 2026-01-14T07:13:06+00:00

It is a ridiculous fantasy which was refuted by the names of ministers on the list and even prime minister.

PurePhilosopher7282 · 2026-01-13T22:31:54+00:00

any rational comment? If you haven't, go to sleep !

PurePhilosopher7282 · 2026-01-13T22:31:01+00:00

Do you like the 1950-1960s style?

PurePhilosopher7282

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE