The Greater Hungary Atlas Stirs Irredentism Concerns Among NATO Allies

A recent diplomatic incident involving the Hungarian ambassador to NATO has reignited historical tensions in Central Europe. István Balogh, Hungary’s permanent representative to NATO, presented Croatian Foreign Minister Gordan Grlić Radman with a geographic atlas of Hungary as a Christmas gift.

Smatram potpuno neprikladnim da kao prigodni božićni dar svojim kolegama stalnim predstavnicima pri NATO-u, u Bruxellesu, stalni predstavnik Mađarske uručuje Nacionalni atlas Mađarske. Podrobnije analiziramo njegov sadržaj, no krajnje neuobičajeno je da se veleposlanike drugih…

— Gordan Grlić Radman (@grlicradman) December 27, 2024

I consider it completely inappropriate that the Hungarian Permanent Representative presents the National Atlas of Hungary to his colleagues at NATO in Brussels as a Christmas gift. We are analyzing its content in more detail, but it is extremely unusual that ambassadors of other countries to NATO are presented with a controversial atlas, in which, although Greater Hungary is not explicitly mentioned, the maps and accompanying texts are controversial. We are therefore discussing this unacceptable act with our colleagues from Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Because today’s geopolitically challenging times, full of security threats, require more dialogue and unity between European and transatlantic allies.

Gordan Grlić Radman

This atlas, which includes references to the historical concept of “Greater Hungary,” has drawn sharp criticism from Croatian officials and raised concerns among neighbouring countries, particularly Romania.

As it was later revealed, the Romanian official received the same gift but never made it public. The Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs formally protested the Hungarian Ministry on December 18. Still, it didn’t communicate it publicly until the Croatian minister chose to present the irredentist gesture of the Hungarian ambassador to NATO. This could mean that Romania considered the gesture a minor mistake from the Hungarian ambassador to NATO or that the Romanian officials didn’t want to upset their counterparts in Budapest.

One reason could be Hungary’s decisive help to Romania to enter the Schengen area in January 2025, a promise which Hungarians had made and kept to support Romania in its way to fully joining the free economic space.

On the other hand, the Hungarian minority party in Romania, UDMR, is now part of the ruling coalition in Romania. For the first time in history, the party’s representative entered the Supreme Council for National Defence – this could’ve influenced the Romanian officials’ decision to keep it away from the public’s eyes.

The Gift and Its Implications

The atlas, published in 2021 as part of the National Atlas of Hungary series, depicts the Carpathian Basin, extending beyond Hungary’s current borders. Grlić Radman expressed his discontent on social media, labelling the gift as “inappropriate” and noting that while the atlas does not explicitly mention “Greater Hungary,” it contains problematic maps and accompanying texts.

He emphasized that such gestures are unacceptable, especially in a contemporary European context where respect for internationally recognized borders is paramount.

In light of this incident, Grlić Radman said he would discuss the matter with his Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia counterparts. The Slovenian Foreign Ministry also weighed in, underscoring the importance of respecting agreed-upon borders and expressing concern over the historical narratives such gifts may evoke.

Romanian Disapproval

On December 18, 2024, the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a formal statement expressing disapproval of the atlas incident. The ministry condemned the gesture as undermining the spirit of cooperation essential within NATO and highlighted that actions perceived as promoting irredentism are unacceptable. This official response reflects Romania’s sensitivity to historical grievances related to territorial claims and its commitment to maintaining stable relations with its neighbours.

Still, the protest hadn’t been made public until the Slovenian minister published the irredentist gesture of a Hungarian official on X.

Historical Context and Reactions

The “Greater Hungary” concept refers to the territories that were part of Hungary before World War I, which now belong to several neighbouring countries, including Romania, Slovakia, and Ukraine. This historical grievance has often been a source of tension between Hungary and its neighbours.

The current incident echoes previous controversies, such as when Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was criticized for wearing a scarf depicting Greater Hungary at a football match.

Hungarian media outlets have reported on the incident with varying perspectives. Telex highlighted Grlić Radman’s remarks about the atlas being unusual as a diplomatic gift and noted discussions among regional politicians regarding its implications. Index.hu reported on the broader context of Hungarian nationalism and how such actions might affect regional diplomatic relations.

Broader Implications for Regional Relations

The atlas incident indicates ongoing sensitivities surrounding national identity and territorial claims in Central Europe.

As countries navigate their historical grievances while striving for cooperation within frameworks like NATO and the European Union, gestures like these can complicate diplomatic relations.

Slovenia’s Foreign Ministry emphasized the need for prudence in discussing historical borders and reiterated its commitment to building strong relations based on mutual respect with Hungary and neighbouring countries.

As discussions continue among Croatia, Romania, Slovenia, and Slovakia regarding this incident, the focus will likely remain on fostering dialogue while addressing underlying national identity and history tensions.

The controversy surrounding the Hungarian atlas serves as a reminder of the delicate balance in Central European politics, where historical narratives continue to shape contemporary diplomatic interactions. With Romania’s clear disapproval adding weight to regional concerns about irredentism, stakeholders must navigate these complexities carefully to maintain stability in their relationships.