Talk:First Vienna Award

Copy edit

I'm attempting a general copy edit. I can see that I may have quite a few questions, so I'll put them here. Juro, I take it this article is basically yours, so if you can answer that would be appreciated. -- Jmabel 00:43, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

• In the section "Before the negotiations", first paragraph: "Hungary, on the other hand..." The "other hand" compared to what? (JM)
  • This was an edit of a professor in the German encyclopedia and I just have translated it. You can delete it. I suppose it was supposed to mean "and now you will find out what Hungary wanted as opposed to Germany". (Juro)
    • So is this article mostly a translation from the German-language wikipedia? If so, then just like any other source on a non-trivial article we should state that. (JM)

• In that same paragraph: can I assume that "Subcarpathia" here refers to what in English is known as "Transcarpathia"? The geography seems right. (JM)

See Subcarpathia. The "province" was called Subcarpathia (Karpatalja) in Hungary till 1919/1920, then Subcarpathia(n Rus) (Podkarpatska Rus) in Czechoslovakia 1919-1938, then Carpathian Ukraine from November 1938 to March 1939 when the province was autonomous within Czechoslovakia, then,I suppose, again Subcarpathia when it was reconquered by Hungary 1939-1945, and since it is part of the Soviet Union/Ukraine it is called Transcarpathia. Obviously, Subcarpathia is the correct name if you are in Europe, Transcarpathia is the correct name if you are in the Ukraine.

Now, if you read the rest of the text, in one place it says that Subcarpathia was renamed Carpathian-Ukraine and from there, I have used (I hope at least) the names as they were used during the respective periods.

If you want to avoid this confusion of names, you could rename both Subcarpathia and Carpatho-Ukraine "Carpathian Ruthenia", which is a name that has never been used officially so that it is "always correct". Juro 01:46, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think that since we are writing in English, we should probably use mostly "Carpathian Ruthenia" or "Transcarpathia" except when specifically referring to what it was called at a particular time. Looks like Wikipedia's main article on the region is Carpathian Ruthenia. -- Jmabel 04:54, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Or maybe we word more carefully to make it clear we are using names relevant to the period... -- Jmabel 06:30, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

• "...presented a plan prepared by the Hungarian government in Poland (Warsaw)..." I guess that this means either to say (1) "... presented (in Warsaw, Poland) a plan prepared by the Hungarian government..." or (2) "...presented a plan prepared in Warsaw, Poland by the Hungarian government". As it is, it implies that there was a Hungarian government in Poland. Does it mean (1) or (2)? Or something else that I'm missing? -- Jmabel 06:39, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

• • (1) of course :) Juro 13:03, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Juro, thanks for your continuing help. More questions follow; sorry there are so many, but I'm trying to avoid accidentally changing rather than clarifying meanings: -- Jmabel 04:11, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

• "Based on the negotiations provisions of the Munich Agreement, Hungary required negotiations with Czechoslovakia as early as on 1 October." This is a little confusing. I'm guessing it means one of the following less ambiguous statements:
  • "Invoking the negotiations provisions of the Munich Agreement, Hungary demanded that Czechoslovakia begin negotiations by October 1."
  • "Invoking the negotiations provisions of the Munich Agreement, Hungary demanded as early as October 1 that Czechoslovakia begin negotiations." - (Juro:) this one
  • or does it mean something else?

• "The Hungarian delegation, on the other hand, consisted of experienced persons and the Hungarian government discussed the negotiations on 8 October." Is something intended here that I'm missing, or should this simply be "The Hungarian delegation, on the other hand, consisted of experienced persons. The Hungarian government discussed the negotiations on 8 October." - (Juro:) the point is that they were experienced and in addition their government had discussed the whole thing - as opposed to the Czechoslovak/Slovak government which did not manage to discuss anything prior to the negotiations.

• "In 1930, this territory (except in Subcarpathia) comprised 550,000 Magyars and 432,000 Slovaks, and 23% of the total population of Slovakia, on 12,124 km²." Am I correct in reading that the territory whose borders we've just described is partly in Slocakia, partly in Subcarpathia? Why do we then give a figure only for the part outside Subcarpathia? And how large a portion of the territory in question would be inside Subcarpathia? Without that for comparison, it's hard to tell whether the numbers here are for most of the territory in question, half of it, or what. - (Juro:) the problem here is that since Transcarpathia is now part of the Ukraine and Transcarpathia's proportion in the arbitration territories was rather small (15% I guess), the Ukrainians do not care much about this topis, so that I was only able to find these numbers. (I will try once again). The alternative is to leave out the sentence, but why not add these numbers at least?

• "However, since a common Polish-German frontier would mean a kind of encirclement of Germany..." I'm guessing this means to say "However, since a common Polish-Hungarian frontier would mean a kind of encirclement of Germany..." Right? - yes, of course

• "...Czechoslovakia offered to Hungary the cession of 11,300 (9606 km² in Slovakia) in southern Slovakia and Subcarpathia, except for Bratislava, Nitra and Košice, on October 22 (the so-called Third Territorial Offer)." Again I want to make sure I understand this correctly before I edit. Would it be accurate to say "...Czechoslovakia made the so-called Third Territorial Offer on October 22: they offered to cede Hungary a territory of 9,606 km² in southern Slovakia plus 1,694 km² in Subcarpathia; Czechoslovakia would retain Bratislava, Nitra and Košice." - (Juro:) yes, I am sorry for the rather complicated formulation, but it arose because when writing the article, I was constantly adding information to the original text, so that the result might be somewhat overloaded.

• "In the meantime, the U.K. and France had proclaimed their disinterest, but readiness to participate in a four-power conference if such would arise." Can you paraphrase what you mean here by "disinterest"? "Disinterest" means not having a stake in something -- e.g. "we submitted our dispute to a disinterested party" -- and I suspect that's not what you meant to convey, but "uninterest" doesn't make sense here, either. - (Juro:) all English dictionaries I have say that disinterest(edness) means either: (1) indifference, apathy, unconcern, uninterestedness (2)unselfishness, (3) impartiality. As (only) the Oxford-Hachette says for (1) " utiliser de préférence uninterested", maybe uniterestedness would be better.

• (I've already slightly edited this slightly for grammar, but there's an issue I'm less sure of.) "...Czechoslovakia and Hungary officially asked Germany and Italy for an arbitration award, and they declared in advance that they would submit to it." Is it important that this say "arbitration award" rather I'd like to reword it as "...Czechoslovakia and Hungary officially asked Germany and Italy to arbitrate, and they declared in advance that they would abide by the results of the arbitration." Is that in any way inaccurate? - (Juro:) no, it is accurate (but the second part of the sentence you have changed stems from an English text)

Jmabel 04:11, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC) / Juro 13:24, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks again. I've incorporated this, except for one where I'm still unclear on the intent: sentence with "...disinterested...": "In the meantime, the U.K. and France had proclaimed their disinterest, but readiness to participate in a four-power conference if such would arise." What were the U.K. and France disinterested / uninterested in? The result? The means of achieving it? I still don't get it, and I guess its not just the one word. -- Jmabel 19:51, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, now I got your problem. They were uninterested an the arbitration, but presumably would participate in a big Munich-like conference and agreement.

• "Eastern Slovakia and many towns in southern Slovakia lost a railway connection to the remaining world." What exactly did they lose a connection to? Obviously not literally the world. The rest of what remained legally Slovakia? -- Jmabel 02:03, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

(1) Eastern and southern Slovakia was connected to the rest of Slovakia only through lines (a line?) passing the annexed territories and the border was closed, so that it was literally cut off from the rest of the world in terms of transport. There were not as many railway tracks as there are today at that time. (2) Slovakia remained part of Czechoslovakia, but soon after, in March 1939, Slovakia became independent.

• "30,000 Czechs and Slovaks had to leave the town during the same month." I presume "...were forced to leave..." Any chance of more detail on this? e.g. was that the total Czwchand Slovak population of the town in question, if not who was chosen to leave, etc.

The details I could find: "As early as from 9 November 15000 Czechs and Slovaks left the town, and after 10 November approximately the same number."

and according to the last nationwide census of 1930, Kosice had 70232 inhabitants, out of which 60.2 % (that is 42 334) Slovaks and Czechs, implying that some 12000 Slovaks and Czechs remained thare (the number of the remaining Czechs being rather negligible, I assume).

• "...the Hungarian authorities increased compulsory education from 6 to 8 years at least." Trying to follow this: I take it that 6 years was the normal minimum in Hungary, but they agreed to require 8 in the annexed territories. What had been the previous law in the annexed territories, 8 years or something even more?

Hungary had 6 years, Czechoslovakia 8 years. After protests from the annexed territories Hungary increased at least the compulsory education from 6 to 8 years for whole Hungary (as I understood the source which I do not have here now). The other protests were rejected because the Hungarian finance minister said: "Since it is not Hungary that was annexed to Slovakia (Upper Hungary)... we will not adopt the principles of Czechoslovak law".

• the parenthetical remark "they were led by the military" is unclear. Does it simply mean that "the territories were ruled by the military"? - yes, directly by the military.

• is a Realschule like a British secondary modern? or is it a vocational school? or what?

it was a kind of secondary school (general education, around 3 years, age somehere between 10 and 15), the schools do not exist since 1948 anymore, so I do not know the details.

• "... and 862 out of 1119 Slovak teachers expelled." Does "expelled" here simply mean "fired" or were they actually banished from the territory?

one source says "fired" another source says "expelled", thus I assume that they were fired and some of them also expelled among those who were generally expelled.

• "...because the (sc. non-Magyar) nationalities have lost more lives." I'm guessing this should just be "...because the [non-Magyars] nationalities have lost more lives."

sc. stand for "scilicet" in Latin and means "namely", it is used in scientific quotes to show what was meant even though it was not said explicitely; at that time, Hungarians used the term nationalities in the sense Non-Magyar nation(anlitie)s

(JM:) We don't use it in English: I don't recall ever seeing it. The usual convention is just to put implied words in square brackets.

• "Rightlessness" isn't an English word. Do you mean "lawlessness", "deprivation of rights", or "injustice"? The second seems to make the most sense, but the first would be an English-German false cognate.

This sentence has no special meaning, it is supposed to mean lack of rule of law or something like that.

So I'm through it all. Really good article, hope I've been of assistance in making it clearer; I'll jump on these few remaining issues pretty much as soon as I get answers. -- Jmabel 03:17, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

This page is totally biased towards the Slovak side and talks only about atrocities committed by Hungarians, and does everything to conceal the fact that those territories ceded were predominantly Hungarian and still are nowadays. There is no telling about the Treaty of Trianon, or the Benes decrees, according to which the Hungarians are collectively treated as war criminals and this bill is still in effect! "in which 68,407 Magyars were resettled to Hungary in exchange for Slovaks resettled to Czechoslovakia" - so exactly how many Slovaks were "exchanged" for those 100 thousands Hungarians? and under what circumstances were the Hungarians driven out of the country? Gabor

(1) No, the page is biased towards the other side. A standard Slovak text does not look like this. Many things have been left out. (2) You have not read the article, because what you are critizing as "missing" actually IS in the article (although what happened after WWII is a consequence of the WWII and not directly of the award itself, nevertheless the article contains these things). (3) Are you suggesting that Slovakia, which lost 1/3 of its territory, commited attrocities? Where, on the Moon? Juro 18:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Leave it to them. Mr Juro, Slovak POV-pusher spreads his lies all over this miserable project. That's why people should read studies and encycopaedias written by experts, not chauvinist wannabe historians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.56.50.209 (talk • contribs) 21 Nov 2005.

Writing anonymously does not provide a free pass on Wikipedia:No personal attacks. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

- And the Trianon Treaty was of course whhat Hungarians deserved for their policy in 1790-1918- what is a problem? 84.16.37.74 (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

MAy I ask why can a "mud throwing" stay in the article if it has no ground? like the part->life after...? It needs citation all over! Please only include things if it has a ground! Military regime in the Upper Hungarian territories and so on...--Edipqe (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I just linked this to the German-language wikipedia article. I notice that article gives no indication of sources/references (nor is the topic taken up on its talk page). Juro, you were obviously majorly involved in the German-language article: can you give some indication what you've been using for reference? Given that there are things like precise percentages from censuses, obviously someone has been doing some serious research. -- Jmabel 01:50, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that it is relatively long ago that I have written the original version, furthermore I have used quite many sources, various encyclopedias etc. , some passages are simply from books in the library, and some passages are not from me. But I will add the most important sources, of course.

And thank you for help and patience.

Juro 02:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's been a pleasure. -- Jmabel 04:31, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

It appears to me that most of the information is taken from Ladislav Deáks works, which are considered problematic by Hungarian and Third-Party historians. I would suggest adding information from Gergely Sallai's "Az elso becsi dontes" to the wiki article. 128.97.244.23 (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)LW

Second Vienna Arbitration?

When and in what circumstances was the Second Vienna Arbitration? Would mention of it be helpful in this article? logologist 08:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you have overlooked the Vienna Award article...Juro 16:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Propose Featured-Article candidacy

Thank you for the opportunity of editing this interesting article without interruption. I suggest that it be retitled to the somewhat more familiar "First Vienna Award" and be proposed for Featured Article Candidacy. The article appears to be thoroughly researched, seems to have the ring of truth, reads well, is neutral, touches on an important but largely unfamiliar topic, and thus will add something substantial to readers' sum of knowledge. logologist 11:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

disputed neutrality

• It has no hungarian references, only from the other side(s).

• Benes decrees are not mentioned.

• Panslavism also not mentioned, just magyarization

• Many declared different ethnic identities after the border shifted, because belonging to the minority nation implied significant disadvantages: in particular, in terms of schooling and access to civil service positions in both states.

• There is no mention of a proposal of an autonomous Slovakia within Hungary during WWI, wich they denied.

• Subcarpatia was renamed to Carpatho-Ukraine on March 15, 1939.

• the Munich Agreement ignored Poland's requests

--VinceB 11:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't think there is any requirement—at all—that sources be of a particular nationality, just that they be accurate and (when taken together) reasonably impartial. But if you think that particular, relevant sources with a different perspective have been ignored, please bring them forward. I'll admit that I would prefer that they not be sources written only in Hungarian and never translated into any other language, because almost no non-Hungarian here can read Hungarian, but I'm sure that if you are intellectually honest in your use of those sources that should not be a problem.
2. The Beneš decrees should be linked, and there might even be reason for a paragraph about them, but since they entirely post-date the Vienna Awards, there would be more reason to mention the First Vienna Award in the article on the Beneš decrees than vice versa.
3. What about Panslavism do you think has bearing on the matter?
4. Not sure where you are going with your remark on ethnic identities. Yes, this tends to happen when borders shift, but mainly with people of mixed ancestry or culture (pretty hard to claim to be a Hungarian if all you speak is Czech and German).
5. With your remark on proposal of an autonomous Slovakia within Hungary during WWI: "w[h]ich they denied" is so ambiguous I can't even guess what you mean. The referent of "they" is unclear and "denied" can mean either "refused to agree to" or "refused to admit had occurred".
6. On minor factual issues (date of renaming Subcarpathia), please, just cite a reference and modify.
7. Poland's requests: no idea what you are referring to.

-- Jmabel | Talk 18:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

i wouldn't go as far as claiming disputed neutrality, i have read the article and i don't find it pro-slovak. but i find your comment about hungarian non-translated sources amusing in the light that the majority of both the referenced slovak and polish sources are in --- slovak and polish... hungarian references would simply add more credibility and would be a nice counterweight to the slavic sources, alas there are none. ps. reading hungarian is easy, understanding is harder :)

-- Minusf (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Lost infrastructure + removed POV statements

Slovakia lost 21% of its territory, 20% of its industry, over 30% of its arable land, 27% of its power stations, 28% of its extractable iron ore, over 50% of its vineyards, 35% of its swine and 930 km of railway tracks. Eastern Slovakia lost its central town (Košice). Eastern Slovakia and many towns in southern Slovakia lost their railway connections to the rest of the world, because their only railway lines ran through the annexed territories and the border was closed. Carpathian Ruthenia was deprived of its two principal towns, Uzhhorod and Munkachevo, and of all of its fertile lands.

This is strong POV, I would say that most (if not all) the infrastructure "lost" came from former Kingdom of Hungary, built by the taxes from the Kingdom, so emphasizing the losses here are dubious, especially about unconnected railways: everybody knows that the railway system (the most startegic at that time) were built in logic of the Kingdom, which was cut off from Hungary after Trianon, in order to make difficult any defence of Hungary.

We have to also emphasize, that this Award was widely accepted in Europe before WWII, as this was in line with Wilson's peace proposals. Any Slovak should admit that Trianon took too many territories from Hungary, so this award was quite in line with justice. Of course, Hungarian side was too greedy to stop at negotiations, -- but did the Czech-Slovak army stop at Trianon border in 1920 ??? I think it is quite "egal". So this is why I have modified the source article. Please revert with care :) Abdulka (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

MAP

A map is not correct- the Polish occupation of Javorina and parts of Orava is niot shown. 84.16.37.74 (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The First Vienna Award was indeed along the lines of self determination, much moreso than the joke of a border that was drawn after WWI. Indeed all of the border changes done to Hungary between 1938 and 1941 resulted in to date, the fairest frontiers yet seen. Although they were all over-reaches by Hungary, the results were still far better than the borders of 1920 which appear to have been drawn by the blind, deaf, dumb and mute, who unfortunately drew frontiers following WWII which were just as pathetic. That's not saying it was perfectly just, as there was as mentioned Hungarian over reaching with regard to Kosice as well as Levice and its adjunct territory, and that the borders were based on the 1910 Hungarian census which was as skewed as the 1930 Czechoslovak census, as opposed to the pre-Magyarization 1880 census.

Some may point to the 1930 Czechoslovak census to show how 'few' Hungarians there were, however the data is skewed. Between 1920/21 and 1930/31, the Hungarian population of Transylvania increased from 1,305,753 to 1,349,563 or by 3.36%, that of V from 363,450 to 376,176 or by 3.50% and that of Transcarpathia from 111,052 to 116,548 or by 4.95%. However that is in contrast to that of Slovakia which decreased from 650,597 to 585,434 or by 10.02%. Now between 1918 and 1924, 197,000 Hungarians fled Transylvania, 88,000 fled Slovakia, 45,000 fled Vojvodina and 19,000 fled Transcarpathia, which shows that there wasn't anything abnormal going on in Slovakia during the interwar years. Based on that and the average growth rate of 3.5% between 1920 and 1930, the actual number of Hungarians in Slovakia in 1930 was around 670,000, a figure to increase to about 710,000 by 1940. Now the post war population exchange of 75,000 Hungarians for 75,000 Slovaks as well as the 20,000 Hungarians deported to the ethnically cleansed Sudetenland who didn't return to Slovakia and 15,000 Hungarians who were deported as fugitives, would reduce the 710,000 to 600,000, assuming no population growth or loss as a result of WWII. This figure also doesn't take into account any Hungarian additional flight or deportation from Slovakia from 1944-1961 when the next reliable census was conducted.

Call my posting what you will, but it is neither pro Hungarian nor pro Slovak, but pro justice based on non-skewed statistics. Prussia1231 (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The First Vienna Award was NOT indeed along the lines of self-determination. In the broader context, the goal of the Hungarian government was elimination of Czechoslovakia and occupation of Slovakia. The partial goal was to take as much territory as possible and to make further existence of Slovakia after occupation of Bohemia potentially impossible. Of course, it was not internationally acceptable and Hungary had to hide real goals and territorial claims under the cover of "self-determination right". Hungary did not care about any self-determination, her goal was to restore multinational state (sic!). Also further actions of Germany and Hungary proven that "self-determination" is only cynic propaganda and tool used against self-determination of other nations. 95.105.162.54 (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

POV problems, no inline citations

I'm asking for inline citations as too many claims seem to be original research here, the article is written from a Slovak point of view. Please use English sources if possible as the topic is controversial and sensitive.
I also added a dubious tag for "because Germans did not want to live as a minority under Hungary". Saying two decades after the Treaty of Trianon that "Slovakia lost its railways, connections etc." is a bit POV, so a neutral reference is needed for that claim. Squash Racket (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

POV problems

This is funny, I am writing a sort of paper about this topic and while this text is mostly quite exact and I also use the sources cited here, but the sources do not seem to be used at many points in this article (maybe they were used originally, but someone has changed the text in the meantime). As a result, in its current form, this is actually a clearly pro-Hungarian (anti-Slovak) article. So I consider the article non-neutral, because of its pro-Hungarian tone. Some sentences would therefore require direct references. To elaborate on this, the article could be even called chauvinist and the Hunagrian opinions here in this article are even worse. I do not care about anybodies opinion, but I do not think that it is ok, when an article like this is edited by people with opinions like those above (Andulka, Squash Racket etc.), who seriously assert that parts of a neighbouring country somehow "naturally" belong to Hungary (I mean, note that they do not even hide their incredible bias). This way any Slovak, Croat, Romanian or Serb could start claiming that "the Hungarians took all their territories from them in the 10th century", so that Hungary is "naturally" theirs and put tags into any Hungary-related article with such an argument. Also, most importantly: legally, the award was - togeher with the Munich Agreement - a violation of international law and for good reasons (because it was the result of pressure etc.) and modern Hungary has accepted this, implying that anybody having problems with the fact that the Award has been declared void and with any results of the award propagates fascism, legally at least. Therefore I think care is necessary in reading parts of the text, in which Hungarian activities concerning this award are depicted as positive or "not so bad". 45rt (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"this is actually a clearly pro-Hungarian (anti-Slovak) article." The article has zero Hungarian references at this point, while several Slovak ones are listed.

The article was created by a Slovak editor.

So I don't understand your frustration. Squash Racket (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And since then it was changed quite a few times so I don´t see your point there. --89.173.16.241 (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The article still has zero Hungarian references, so my almost-year-old comment remains valid. Squash Racket (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Why are there so many paragraphs of "data" that have absolutely no citations? It would seem the entire entry should be scrapped and only rewritten if sources can be obtained because right now it looks biased and without basis. This Juro character has already been banned for anti-Hungarian bias on his entries so why do these remain available? (Stratfordbaby (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC))

Sich as German collaborational organization

The article states that Sich organization was created throughout Carpatho-Ukraine under "German tutelage". That claim is seemed to be written by someone with anti-Ukrainian sentiments. Sich organization was established long before the World War II to promote a Ukrainian national identity and it had nothing to do with Germans and Nazi Germany. Sich volunteers created paramilitary organization Carpathian Sich due to the speculated aggression as Czechoslovakia was dissolving. The claim of German tutelage is baseless and provocative. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Life in the annexed territory -> New article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this old discussion was to not split, though I might be wrong. It's an old proposal lasting 4 days, and then nothing happened. Only the proposer thinks it should be split. Since then the article has increase by 10K bytes, about a 1/6 increase or ~16.666% increase in size. The proposer also refers to WP:SPLIT as a rule, which it really is an informational page, not a policy or guideline. For opposition to splitting, they were POV and FORK. Proposer might have some civility issues that is contributing to the consensus of not to split. This was an old proposal, but it may be time for a bold s p l i t. {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 02:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

---

I propose to move section "Life in the annexed territory" to separate article "Occupation of Southern Slovakia" (or annexation or any other term you wish; name is secondary for now) .

Proposed content:

• Award (current article) - detailed information about arbitration, preparations, proceedings, etc
• Occupation - history of occupation, life in the annexed territory between 1938-1945, etc. It is broad topic with significant impact on Slovak-Hungarian and it is worthy it.

It will help us to stay focused and it will be very clear what is primary topic of each article. More, it will make also referencing cleaner, because frequently I need to reference events during the occupation and not the award itself.--Ditinili (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Beside this page (First Vienna Award) we already have quite a lot of articles (Slovakia during World War II, Slovak Republic (1939–45), Slovaks in Czechoslovakia (1918–38), Vienna Awards, Second Czechoslovak Republic etc. ) about the period. We should avoid FORK articles. Anyway, I think the name is quite important because of NPOV issues. There was no Slovakia in 1938. Hungary gained parts of "Czecho-Slovakia" (southern territories of Slovakia and Subcarpathian Rus). Moreover, the topic can be also discussed at Hungarian articles (e.g. Hungary in World War II) because those Czecho-Slovak lands became Hungarian territories.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Slovakia existed as a separate geographical unit and subject of law from the early beginning of Czechoslovakia. The border between the Czech lands and Slovakia was exactly historical border between the Czech lands and Kingdom of Hungary. Since December 10, 1918 (Law No. 64/1918) Slovakia had own representative in central government with full power for Slovakia, where obviously term Slovakia should exist and territory had to be defined. Naturally, long list of other laws reflected position of Slovakia as separate subject (e.g. § 4 of constitution act No. 122/1920 and plenty of others) even if Czechoslovakia was unitary state with central government in that time. When administrative division was reformed in 1927, it explicitly defined Slovakia in the Section II, § 1. On October 6, 1938, Slovakia declared political autonomy. It is clear also from records from negotiation in Komárno that Hungarian government was aware that it negotiates with representative of Slovak government (since the first day). So your theory about non existence of Slovakia is absolute nonsense and ignorance of elementary historical facts.

If you mean by "non existence" fact, that Slovakia was not subject of international law (I have already tried to explain the difference in other place without any answer or counter argument), it does not mean that Hungary annexed some general Czecho-Slovak territory, but it annexed particularly Southern Slovakia, what is absolutely correct and accurate term. Of course, Hungary illegally annexed also other territories. The question of international independence of superior territory (Czecho-slovakia, Slovakia) unit is absolute irrelevant, if we talk about concrete geographic unit.

There is not any real problem with name (annexation, occupation, whatever), because I agree with neutral term annexation.

I am not interested about relevance of other articles. If you believe that they do not meet criteria for separate article, discuss it on appropriate talk page and it does not prevent creation of other article with significant importance. Annexation of Southern Slovakia (1938-1945) is article with significant importance, because it had high impact on mutual relationship, goes far beyond question of the award and requires appropriate attention.

Summary: if you can document concrete wikipedia rule to be violated I am open for further discussion. Otherwise, I will split content appropriately, extend and improve it.--Ditinili (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

You should be interested in "the relevance of other articles" because of FORK issues. You can not just split an article If the topic is sensitive Wikipedia:Splitting. You should first ask other Wikipedia editors about it.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's look on rules Wikipedia:Splitting:

• size: topic of annexation covers period of 6 years (!) Your link recommends: "> 60 kB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". Current size of article is 69,352 bytes and we have proposals and plan for further extension.
• notability: notable without any doubts, high impact on mutual relationship until nowadays.
• potential neutrality issues: description of history of annexation will not be more or less neutral just because it is in one article with the arbitration. A half of spitted text is documented by Hungarian historian (Tilkovszky Loránt) and publication reviewed by another Hungarian historian (Ránki György). If Hungarian historians published any other complex work about annexation, it can be added as well.

Your arguments are not very strong, do you have any other?--Ditinili (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

"If unsure, or with high profile or sensitive articles, start a "Split" discussion on the article talk page, and consider informing any associated WikiProject(s). Additionally, adding one of the templates below will display a notice on the article and list it at Category:Articles to be split". Fakirbakir (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion was opened and I am waiting for counterarguments for 3 items above.--Ditinili (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

As of its current state I definitely oppose splitting the article. As it's been noted by three well-established users earlier, the title is clearly POV and inappropriate. A second thing is, in accordance with the First Vienna Award (FVA) both the southern part of what is today Slovakia and the south-eastern part of Subcarpathia (Subcarpathian Rus') have been ceded to Hungary and should be included if whatever fork would be created. Another thing that makes me stand against the splitting is that we really don't need another playground for POV pushers – first the solve the issues here. While there were heated actions recently, I can't really see in what way the article or parts of it has been improved. I also have to emphasize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that means it should be informative, short and focused and should be expanded (or shortened) to fulfill these criteria. I highly recommend to contact the Guild of Copy Editors and ask their help to optimize the article, improve its language, erase superfluous or redundant parts, combine/simplify sentences/paragraphs and make it more of a encyclopedia article than a.. whatever it is now.

I also can't leave without a word the fact that "half of spitted text is documented by Hungarian historian (Tilkovszky Loránt)", considering many of the views presented in his book (Južné Slovensko v rokoch 1938-1945) were criticized and proved totally wrong by Kálmán Janics in the Irodalmi Szemle.

In general, he characterizes the book as the following:

• "[Tilkovszky] selects the historical materials on the purpose to denounce the Hungarians"
• "Exaggerates the importance of local atrocities, giving dubious arms to the hands of the anti-Hungarian nationalism."
• "Perhaps no coincidence that the book is still a popular reference among the Slovak nationalist historians"

He also shows at certain inaccuracies, regarding

• the schools

a) Tilkovszky focuses on the purposeful breach of mother-tongue education of Slovaks, however, it remains silent about the fact that for example in Nyitra-Pozsony county there were 300 less students in Hungarian language schools than Hungarian nationals in the county and 405 more students in Hungarian-Slovak or Slovak schools than Slovak nationals.

b) the article states that there were mass expulsion of teachers, though, Janics argues that according to witnesses most of them left before the annexation

• and the "evacuation"

The article also states that "The Slovak government recommended to stay in the Southern Slovakia and promised "adequate help and protection" – However, Czechoslovak press told directly after the Munich Agreement, that border adjustments with Hungary is imminent, thus the Czechoslovak officials had five weeks to consider whether they stay or leave. Those officials and farmers who opted to move away (81,000 people) were given all the administrative, military and public safety support and they were provided road vehicles and railway wagons for the transport.

These were just a few obvious issues that came onto my mind after quickly reading through the article (there might be many more). It definitely needs more point of views. I have to say, that until the article is in this bad shape (I think it's very appropriate to borrow the expression from the Hungarian Wikipedia – "horror-state") I very much think talking about a split, under whatever conditions, is absolutely premature. — Thehoboclown (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• "Tilkovszky focuses on the purposeful breach of mother-tongue education of Slovaks, however, it remains silent about the fact that for example in Nyitra-Pozsony county there were 300 less students in Hungarian language schools than Hungarian nationals in the county and 405 more students in Hungarian-Slovak or Slovak schools than Slovak nationals."

I am not sure about relevance and severity of such information. Such territory had dozen thousands of Hungarians, while difference of 300 students is really very small. Hungarians had 800 elementary schools in 30's, so we are talking about statistical difference in range "one to something" per school in general. So he does not "remain silent", but he focus on statistically relevant facts. In comparison, after annexation Slovaks lost schools attended by 45,709 children and not by 300 or 400. Tilkovszky also documents that Hungarian government gave task to document situation of Hungarian schools in Czechoslovakia (archive document OL, ME, Nemzetiségi o., bal. 47, G 1785/1938. Situation of schools of Hungarian minority in Felvidék). The conclusion was that the results cannot be used for political purposes, because it is hard to complain on something based on collected data. Does Janics put into doubts existence and authenticity of such documents or does he only declare his subjective opinion about their selection? By the way, Tilkovszky also documents that in the same time, Slovaks in Hungary had none high school and situation of elementary schools was much more worse than in Czechoslovakia.

• "Exaggerates the importance of local atrocities, giving dubious arms to the hands of the anti-Hungarian nationalism."

It is very easy to compare this claim with the content of the book. He writes about systematic approach. More, also works of other authors prove that these atrocities had not local, but global and systematic character. These opinions are fully supported by archive materials, e.g. Ladislav Deak published collection of more than 200 archive documents from period November 2, 1938-Mach 14, 1939 proving that such atrocities were not random local events but global trend and in many cases they were executed, supported and tolerated by Hungarian army and police with participation of United Hungarian Party (led by war criminal Andor Jaross) and terrorist groups from Hungary (volume II of his collection).

They also prove that Tilkovszky did not "exaggerate". More, understatement of forced expulsion, torturing, etc, as "exaggeration" is innapropriate and cynic .

Opinion, that Tilkovszky "gives dubious arms to the hands of the anti-Hungarian nationalism" is pointless, because we can also say that works of Slovak historians about post-war persecutions of Hungarians (Šutaj, Olejník and others) ""give dubious arms to the hands of the anti-Slovak nationalism".

• "the article states that there were mass expulsion of teachers, though, Janics argues that according to witnesses most of them left before the annexation".

I am curious about statistic data proving his opinion. They are witnesses (teachers) proving right opposite (see collection of archive documents referenced above). Also communication between Slovak and Hungarian government indicates that this had continuous character. E.g. Slovak government threaten in January 1939 that if Hungary does not stop expulsion of Slovak teachers and elimination of Slovak schools, Slovakia realizes the same measures against local Hungarians.

• "Those officials and farmers who opted to move away (81,000 people) were given all the administrative, military and public safety support and they were provided road vehicles and railway wagons for the transport".

Czechoslovakia had serious diplomatic conflict with Hungary about her approach, so she did her homework and documented issues. It is fully supported by published archive materials that in many cases this "all the administrative, military and public safety support" can be interpreted as "my property was looted with passive observation of the Hungarian police, my wife was raped and we fled", so your description of situation is very optimistic. "They were provided road vehicles and railway wagons for the transport" can mean in some cases that they went by their own carriage which was confiscated on borders, or they went by foot and if they were too slow they were smashed and forced to leave luggage, they fled because of torturing, etc.

The expulsion was not restricted to people "who opted to move away", such opinion is dubious and abhorrent with current knowledge. Various Hungarian organizations (official or unofficial) arbitrarily forced to leave any non-Hungarian population they decided and (again) this is fully supported by archive materials.

• "Perhaps no coincidence that the book is still a popular reference among the Slovak nationalist historians".

This broad speculation completely ignores facts that the book is probably the only one complex monography about annexation since 70's what explains its frequent usage. Regardless to some "communist stuff" (mandatory in that time) it is rich on facts and checked by other historians. "Slovak nationalist historians" is inappropriate labeling. It is a little bit funny, because according to another "Slovak nationalist historians", Slovak mainstream historiography is still driven by Marxist and Czechoslovak views and not by "national". If somebody has weak arguments, he frequently starts with giving adjectives.--Ditinili (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Look, I did not came up with this to argue over the statements, just to show that there are others who have completely different point of view, thus to point out relying alone on Tilkovszky (or whoever else), even bringing him up as a someone who has some universal truth proved by this or that is plain stupid. I'm not here to declare who is right, or more right, or whatever, not to judge or misjudge any historian who deals with the topic and won't drawn into this. I was all about to say that as it current state it is pretty much one sided, do not present all point of views, is exuberant, wordy and not ready for a splitting. Thehoboclown (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok. You simply had to be more careful with radical statements like "proved totally wrong by Kálmán Janics", because it seems that these "proofs" are relative weak (or at last your quotes) and opponents have very serious counterarguments. There is huge difference between "proved to be totally wrong" (e.g. if somebody proves opposite based on new documents) and real state.--Ditinili (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Germany's position before the arbitration

Anybody able to fix the following chaos?

Although the Hungarian government demanded arbitration, it had not had have the prior approval of Germany, which insisted on its negative opinion, Hitler's disagreement, Ribbentrop's disappointment with previous negotiations with Darányi and the danger of military conflict if one country did not accept the results.|date=November 2015}} Dr. Martin Fleck (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

"Non-violent"

The recent edits done by OrionNimrod here and elsewhere make absolutely no sense and make me question his judgement. See: 1234. This was definitely not a "non-violent" move by Hungary, and the article says so itself further down in excruciating details. The section on its nullification even outright states that the award was deemed void and null because of all the military threats and actual violence and border skirmishes that happened before, during and even after it was signed. Czechoslovakia was literally strong-armed by Hungary and Germany. For OrionNimrod to try to re-frame this as Horthy seeking a "non-violent" path.... well he might as well claim that Hitler proved he sought non-violence when he forced the Munich agreement onto Czechoslovakia.

Ask yourself, if a mugger points a gun at you and demands you to hand over your wallet and you comply to avoid being hurt, does that mean the mugger was "non-violent"? Azure94 (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you talk about 1918 when Czecz troops attacked Hungary when it was disarmed to occupy huge full Hungarian populated lands? And after Hungarians were not allowed to participate in peace talk but Hungarian diplomats were accompanied by guards and forced to sign a dictate in 1920? How should we call this?

After this, the Hungarian state did not use military action to achieve the First Vienna Awards, by negotiations and it was reverted mostly Hungarian populated regions. Please provide academic sources that Hungarian state used violant way. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The following text are direct quotes from the article:

The first conflict occurred in the early morning of October 5, 1938, when troops of the Royal Hungarian Army crossed the border and attacked Czechoslovak positions near Jesenské with the goal of capturing Rimavská Sobota. Hungarian troops withdrew after the arrival of Czechoslovak reinforcements, which killed nine Hungarians and captured prisoners. Two days later, Hungarian troops again attempted to cross the Danube near Parkan (Párkány).

Such actions continued during the negotiations and after the First Vienna Award. During the second day of bilateral negotiations (October 10, 1938), Hungarian troops murdered a railway officer in Borozhava and damaged railway facilities.

This is what OrionNimrod considers to be "non-violent". Azure94 (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Azure94, it was no violance 18 years long during when Hungarian state sought constantly a way for negotiations for border revision, and negotiations were also not a violant thing. Those local conflicts after 18 years after and during the negotiations (not before when Hungary sought the way) are separate incidents by individual groups not military action by the Hungarian state. I do not know about Czecoslovak-Hungarian war before First Vienna Award, do you know? OrionNimrod (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Ive posted sourced text detailing how it was the Hungarian army that conducted border skirmishes, and you responded by ignoring it and continuing to peddle your fantasies about "individual groups". It is clear to me that you refuse to listen and are arguing in bad faith. I will now seek other editors to voice their opinion on the matter. Azure94 (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Before the negotiations it was no any military things, which means Hungary sought a non violant way 18 years long before the negotiations. Why do you ignore 18 years? The topic is talk about the past not the future in the context. That individual border actions were not official military deeds by Hungarian state. It was not Czech-Hungarian war. All these things are facts. The Hungarian state did not use any violant way before the First Vienna Award, but for example later these things were violent way by military action: Hungarian invasion of Carpatho-Ukraine, Slovak–Hungarian War OrionNimrod (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I started a conversation instead of make edit war game. Relatead talk pages regarding the edits of Azure94 who started to change several pages.

This was simple math: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carpathian_Ruthenia&diff=prev&oldid=1165060310

Talk:Hungarian invasion of Carpatho-Ukraine

Talk:Hungarians in Ukraine#Borders

Talk:Soviet annexation of Transcarpathia#Czecoslovakia OrionNimrod (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Hungary did not make any violent way any military action before 18 years long (from 1920) before the negotiation of the First Vienna Award, Hungary always seeked the opportunity of the peaceful revision, the existence of negotiations itself prove it, that making a negotiation means a non violent deed. Also the Hungarian military was very limited by the Treaty of Trianon to make it impotent.

From the article: Official Hungarian circles were aware that Hungary alone was too weak to enforce its territorial demands towards Czechoslovakia because they knew that any attack would encounter the resistance of the more modern Czechoslovak Army. Therefore, Hungary decided to fight Czechoslovakia in the diplomatic field instead and to push for territorial revision in the spirit of Munich Agreement.

Some days before the Vienna Award: Horthy declared to Polish Envoy Leon Orłowski in Budapest on October 16, 1938, "A Hungarian military intervention would be a disaster for Hungary at this moment, because the Czechoslovak army has currently the best arms in Europe and Budapest is only five minutes from the border for Czechoslovak aircraft. They would neutralize me before I could get up from my bed"

Local border conflicts by individuals were not organized by government level as military action, the violent way it would be if Hungary declare a war and the Hungarian army Czech forces, it was not Czech-Hungarian war.

This was the sentence what you changed, even here is "Germany and Italy sought a nonviolent way" in this case:

Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy had sought a nonviolent way to support the territorial claims of the Kingdom of Hungary, and revision of the 1920 Treaty of Trianon.

That is why the existence of the negotiations, Italy, Germany did not make military action for Hungary but by new treaty to achieve the First Vienna Award which is the topic. The future is violent, but the topic is about that time. The topic is talk about the past not the future in the context. The topic is about the background before the negotiation of the First Vienna Award.

This video made by a foreign guy about the situation: before the Munich agreeement Hitler asked military assistence from Hungary if needed offering upper Hungary back, but Hungary refused this and Hungary used negotiations. The guy say in the video Hungary got back territories whitout military action or barely (Carpatho-Ukraine, Slovak-Hungarian war) which was the future but not the time before the negotiation of the First Vienna Award. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkj_wq4qZMEOrionNimrod (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The fact that you've now devolved into posting a link to some random guy on youtube is incredibly damning. You are not here to build a well sourced encyclopedia, you're here to push historical revisionism. Azure94 (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Azure94, I provided many arguments, academic sources. It was no any violance until the negotiations of First Vienna Award... and the topic is about that, and this comment was about the background of this event. OrionNimrod (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

You know I can just keep linking this section? It completely disagrees with your fantasies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vienna_Award#Nullification Azure94 (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Azure94, and that section is what about the non violent way? Yes the decision of Vienna Awards were reverted in the future, but this thing cannot erase the history and the previous events. Btw we could say the same thing about the Treaty of Trianon: by military occupation, in the shadow of weapons, Hungary was not allowed to participate in peace talk, Hungarians diplomats were accompanied by guards and forced to sign. What is the difference? A thing: Hungary got only mostly Hungarian population lands, while Czechoslovakia got huge non Slovak and non Czech populated lands from Hungary. OrionNimrod (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, here to give a 3O. @Azure94, only one of the four diffs you posted is actually for this article, and I'm a little antsy about addressing the whole issue in the forum of this specific talk page. I do see that all of those diffs are to the same effect regarding the "nonviolence" of Hungary trying to revise the Treaty of Trianon and get back its territory, so I understand the point you're making, but as long as we're on this talk page, I think we ought to stick to the diff for just this article. I feel concerned that we may not be able to effectively resolve the difference of opinion between yourself and OrionNimrod just by settling the question of what to do here, and that in the end you may need to seek a more general forum. We can give a try and see, though—perhaps we'll be lucky and this discussion will end with us all in agreement, and then it will be obvious what to do with the other pages.

Fortunately, at least as far as this article goes, I think there is an easy way to settle this. The disputed language in question is simple: in the lead, OrionNimrod wants to change "Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy had supported the territorial claims of the Kingdom of Hungary…" to "Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy had sought a nonviolent way to support the territorial claims of the Kingdom of Hungary…", regarding what Hungary has lost in the Treaty of Trianon. To me, the first question to answer here is: @OrionNimrod, what source are you getting this "nonviolent" language from? On this particular article, the question is actually about the efforts of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, not the Kingdom of Hungary itself, and I'm not sure we've seen any well-respected historical support for that "nonviolent" framing yet here. Maybe I'm just missing something. Would you be willing to provide a quote or two from historians? 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 10:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mesocarp You are right, this talk page veered far away from the original issue, so I think it is fine if we narrow down the talk back to the one diff concerning the sentence in the lede. Azure94 (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Mesocarp, I see this info is a long time in the article, this is from 2008: [1] nobody had a problem with this until Azure94 started to make an edit war in the subject. The topic is about the First Vienna Award no about the future events. Treaty of Trianon was in 1920, and Hungary did not make any violance until the start of the negotiation of the First Vienna Award. Also German and Italy did not support any Hungarian violance until the First Vienna Award. It was negotiations. Do you know about any violance? I do not know, so saying non-violent way why would be incorrect?

It is itself in the article:

Hungarian representatives considered an overt attack on Czechoslovakia too dangerous and wanted to preserve that country's relations with France and Britain, whose support in the question of Hungarian minorities was conditional on Hungary's not joining with Germany in military actions. This outraged Hitler and led to a change in Germany's view of Hungarian territorial demands in eastern Czechoslovakia. Before the Munich Agreement, a Hungarian government emissary had officially asked the German and Italian delegations to resolve Hungarian demands together with the questions of Sudeten Germans. However, Hitler did not agree because he was not satisfied with the previous passivity of Hungary and because he had his own plans for Central Europe. Prime Minister Benito Mussolini, allowed Hungarian demands to be reflected in an appendix to the agreement. It requested Czechoslovakia to resolve the minority question with Hungary and Poland within three months by bilateral negotiations, or matters would be resolved by the four signatories of the agreement.

Official Hungarian circles were aware that Hungary alone was too weak to enforce its territorial demands towards Czechoslovakia because they knew that any attack would encounter the resistance of the more modern Czechoslovak Army. Horthy declared to Polish Envoy Leon Orłowski in Budapest on October 16, 1938, "A Hungarian military intervention would be a disaster for Hungary at this moment, because the Czechoslovak army has currently the best arms in Europe and Budapest is only five minutes from the border for Czechoslovak aircraft. They would neutralize me before I could get up from my bed" Therefore, Hungary decided to fight Czechoslovakia in the diplomatic field instead and to push for territorial revision in the spirit of Munich Agreement.

Bilateral negotiations, agreement, fight in the diplomatic field = non violent way

And refering to some border conflict by individuals during the negotiations this does not represent the Hungarian state, and did not overwrite the previous 18 years long seeking a nonviolent way until the negotiations, I think it is quite logically.

He changed other things in the same way, could you provide a third opinion in the other cases too? I also asked academic historical sources about his claim, but he did not provide any, just starting a personal insult.

1. [2]

2. Talk:Hungarians in Ukraine#Borders

3. Talk:Hungarian invasion of Carpatho-Ukraine,

Here he started to rewrote the article to fit his taste [3] to changing things what I used as evidence in the article. He also rewrote the days however Second Czechoslovak Republic is collapsed in 15 March. He also removed sources from the infobox. It is also strange, in the infobox he put the Czechoslovak-Ukrainian (Carpathian Sich) conflict/fight together with the Hungarian invasion of Transcarpathia, it should be a separate article, the topic is about the Hungarian invasion not about Czecoslovak-Ukrainian battle. He also emphasize "invading, defending" I do not see this things in any other military infobox, and the article itself suggest who was the invader, also in the article does not mention any Czechoslovak-Hungarian military event, so I do not know how Czechoslovakia defended it, morover it collapsed due to the German occupation. In other way he name me "ultranationalist/irredentist" if I wrote in the talk page that after WW1 Czech soldiers were the invaders of Hungary, but he has happy to write Hungary was the invader, which in this case is correct. (And we do not talk about the ethical aspect, that Transcarpathia was 1000 years long part of Hungary, it had Hungarian population, comparing this the region has no Slovak and Czech population, it was very far from the Czech lands with zero Czech history.)

4. Talk:Soviet annexation of Transcarpathia#Czecoslovakia

Here I offered a compromize not to mention Hungary or Czechoslovakia, but he is not willing to accept it. He also force his view there. The text was "Soviet union won land" which is true and the topic itself, but he force to rewrite "Czechoslovakia lost land"... I do not understant why it is a problem for him to write ""Soviet union won land" which is about the article. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

So, what I really want to see is a quote or two from widely-respected historians that frames the efforts of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy to support Hungary's territorial claims in the years before the First Vienna award as "nonviolent", preferably using that exact word. It may seem like common sense to you that "Bilateral negotiations, agreement, fight in the diplomatic field = non violent way" as you say, but the only thing that would convince me to take that position in this article would be a few strong sources that also took that precise position on this specific topic. Remember that this is a controversial issue, so we need to be extra-careful about synthesis. The current statement in the article, that Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy merely "supported" Hungary's claims without further qualification, seems to be beyond dispute; we need further sources if we're going to be more specific than that. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 13:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Mesocarp, thanks for the feedback! Well words in wiki articles does not follow exactly original words because it would be copyright, I saw the "nonviolent way" word in this article since 2008, nobody opposed 15 years long until this user. However Hungary used the "peaceful revision" term which means "nonviolent" as synonyme. Or should we use that term? Also if no violance happened why would be the problem saying nonviolent? Or do you know any violence before the negotiation of the First Vienna Award?

Some sources what I found fast, also I linked Hungarian prime ministers from that era, you can their deeds also in the main article:

1.

New York times article from 1934:

https://www.nytimes.com/1934/12/09/archives/britain-and-france-move-for-balkan-compromise-as-anger-rises-at.html

"Italy Supports Hungary Urges Peaceful Revision"

New York times article from 1938:

https://www.nytimes.com/1938/09/29/archives/rumania-feels-relieved-but-hungarian-agitation-for-peaceful.html

"Rumania Feels Relieved; But Hungarian Agitation for 'Peaceful Revision' Is Feared"

2.

Slovak historian, Ladislav Deák in the article: no joining military action and diplomatic field = it means nonviolent as synonyme

"Hungarian representatives considered an overt attack on Czechoslovakia too dangerous and wanted to preserve that country's relations with France and Britain, whose support in the question of Hungarian minorities was conditional on Hungary's not joining with Germany in military actions."

"Therefore, Hungary decided to fight Czechoslovakia in the diplomatic field instead and to push for territorial revision in the spirit of Munich Agreement."

3.

Hungarian academic source:

http://acta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/5876/1/chronica_009_010_224-227.pdf https://ojs.bibl.u-szeged.hu/index.php/chronica/article/view/10771

"This confused the Hungarian government led by Gyula Gömbös as far as the revision of the Trianon Peace Treaty was concerned, since - as it is clear from the documents - until 1935 a peaceful revision was their conception with Italy's diplomatic support."

"The dissertation argues that the Italo-Ethiopian conflict had a great impact on the Hungarian foreign policy, and as a direct consequence Hungary began to look to Germany as her primary ally, giving up the possibility of a peaceful revision."

4.

Polish source:

https://www.osw.waw.pl/sites/default/files/PV_EN_Trianon.pdf

"While some called for military action, Hungarian revisionism mainly sought to reclaim the lost territories through peaceful means."

5.

Title: Peaceful Revision: The Diplomatic Road to War

http://efolyoirat.oszk.hu/00000/00010/00008/pdf/HSR_1983_1_043-051.pdf

"Prime Minister Istvan Bethlen, the chief architect of the doctrine of peaceful revision and himself a Transylvanian, and Kalman Kanya, former foreign minister and the man responsible for Hungary's first successful revision"

"Both Great Britain and the Soviet Union responded generously to Hungary's diplomatic efforts. After July 2, when Rumania repudiated the British guarantee and moved over to the Axis camp, Great Britain no longer minded a "peaceful solution of territorial questions between Rumania and Hungary."

6.

Hungarian academic source:

https://hi-storylessons.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Hungary’s-territory-is-revised-after-the-First-Vienna-Award-November-2-1938.pdf

"An advocate of armed neutrality and a peaceful revision of borders, Prime Minister Pál Teleki had doubts concerning Germany’s final victory and felt that a world-wide, anti German coalition could bring Germany to its knees."

7.

Interview with a respected Hungarian historian:

https://magyarnemzet.hu/english/2021/04/getting-back-on-our-feet-after-trianon

"But on the other hand, the Hungarian public had to understand that while we cannot give up on the detached territories, we also cannot constantly propagate this issue; the revision must be achieved not through war, but peacefully." +" As a result of the referendum on December 1921, Sopron and eight settlements „remained” in Hungary. This was the first successful, peaceful revision of the Trianon borders." + "And we shouldn't forget the widespread consensus regarding the revision of the Trianon peace dictate – if possible, peacefully – but also the general public opinion promoted the idea that in Hungary there must be order, security, organic and continuous development."

8.

Official Visegrád Group website, brief history of Hungary

https://www.visegradgroup.eu/basic-facts-about/hungary/brief-history-of-hungary

No violance (military things) between Trianon and First Vienna Award.

"4 June 1920 The peace treaty of Trianon is signed, which reduces Hungary's territory from 288,000 square kilometres to 93,000 and its population from 18.2 million to 7.6 million. Millions of Hungarians find themselves in the successor states of the collapsed Monarchy, and the revision of the Treaty becomes the goal for Hungarian foreign policy." + "1932–1936 During the period when Gyula Gömbös is Prime Minister, foreign policy increasingly seeks support from the Fascist Germany and Italy, the Axis powers." "2 November 1938 The Italian-German court of arbitration returns from Czechoslovakia to Hungary the part of the Felvidék inhabited by Hungarians by the First Vienna Award, and in March 1939 the Sub-Carpathia is re-annexed. In August 1940 the Second Vienna Award gives back Northern Transylvania together with Székelyföld to Hungary."

https://www.visegradgroup.eu/roundtables-debates/the-trianon-trauma

9.

Hungarian source in Hungarian by Hungarian historian, please use google translator: "Békés úton" means "peacful way"

https://magyarnemzet.hu/belfold/2021/09/szakaly-sandor-bekes-uton-rendezte-volna-a-reviziot-bethlen-istvan

"István Bethlen would have arranged the revision in peaceful way" + "He formulated the Hungarian foreign policy - without renouncing the revision - in such a way that we did not immediately create enemies for ourselves - indicated the historian, who pointed out that this revision meant carrying out the revision in a peaceful way."

10.

Hungarian source in Hungarian "The text of the First Vienna Award" please use google translator for the page:

https://www.arcanum.com/hu/online-kiadvanyok/2vhSzakkonyv-magyarok-a-ii-vilaghaboruban-2/a-delvideki-hadmuvelet-1941-aprilis-874/tendenciak-a-ket-vilaghaboru-kozott-88B/az-elso-becsi-dontes-szovege-8AB/

"In the Hungarian revisionist politics, it became more and more noticeable that there is a serious contradiction between the civilian and the military leadership. Teleki was sure that the planned revision steps could be resolved peacefully, so he did not consider German support necessary either."

11.

On this Day, in 1940: Hungary signed the Tripartite Pact and joined the Axis

https://kafkadesk.org/2020/11/20/on-this-day-in-1940-hungary-signed-the-tripartite-pact-and-joined-the-axis/

"Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini sought to peacefully enforce the claims of Hungarians on territories the Kingdom had lost to Czechoslovakia and Romania in 1920."

12.

In German:

https://www.herder-institut.de/digitale-angebote/dokumente-und-materialien/themenmodule/modul/9/seite.html

"a peaceful revision was repeatedly emphasized"

[4] "Hungary reluctantly accepted the new reality, but the next twenty years of Hungarian foreign and domestic policy largely aimed at a peaceful revision of the Trianon Treaty."

After the Anschluss, it was clear to many in the Hungarian Foreign Ministry and the government in general that the key to peacefully enlarging Hungary’s borders was to utilize the idea of national self-determination as the Germans had.

the long-awaited miracle has come to pass: Hungary’s territory has peacefully been enlarged. –Béla Imrédy, Prime Minister

After being shown the frontier around the city of Munkács, Procter noted that “Hungary’s policy of peaceful revision will surely continue,”

[5] "Hungary’s role in international politics and the question of peaceful revision were the main topics for discussion."

"Revision in a peaceful and strictly diplomatic way was considered to be the only solution in the immediate aftermath of the treaty"

"Revision by peaceful and strictly diplomatic means was considered to be the only solution by the Hungarian government "

"The basic tenets of his revisionist concept, corresponding to those which most (semi-) official circles also represented, comprised the program of reconciliation in internal political and economic affairs and their wise administration in order to “command the respect and sympathy of the civilized world,” and, on this basis, to realize the revision of the treaty through peaceful means only"

"A certain “legal mechanism”95 seemed to provide a viable foundation for a peaceful and diplomatic solution, and founded belief in the future adjustment of the frontiers."

[6] "Even Gömbös made a habit of emphasising that he aimed at ‘revision by peaceful methods’"

"László Bárdossy, Chargé d’Affaires of the Hungarian Legation in London, made a point of reiterating Hungary’s peaceful ambitions"

"The British interest in Hungarian affairs was only to intensify in 1938, shortly before the idea of a ‘peaceful revision’ became a reality."

[7] "the Peace Treaty of Trianon by the assertion of our just rights and solely by peaceful means."

"and to influence popular feeling in the victorious countries in favour of a peaceful revision of the Treaty"

1936 journal [8]: "The only possible solution of the questions is therefore that to be obtained by political means. The Hungarian opinion on this point has been repeatedly defined. According to that opinion cooperation with the Succession States must be made subject to the following conditions, which are the minimum demands and are of a "real political" character: — first, the conditions of subsistence of the Hungarian (Magyar) minorities numbering 3.5— 4 million souls must be really ensured; then, guarantees must be given to ensure political development and to provide that the present intolerable conditions shall be changed by peaceful means — either by enforcing the provisions of Article 19 of the Covenant of the League of Nations or by means of other effectual international agreements. "

"For many years Hungary has lost no opportunity of declaring that she does not want to attain redress for the injustices done to Hungary — and through it the solution of the Danube problem so important for the whole of Europe — by war but by peaceful means."

"The purely Hungarian frontier territories must be restored to Hungary by way of a peaceful revision reached through negotiations conducted without mental reservations on either side."

[9] "Hungarian views on territorial revision seemed united to outsiders. In practice the closest that they came to consensus was in stating that the frontier changes had to be peaceful, as the military forces of Hungary’s neighbors were an order of magnitude stronger than Hungary’s."

"Hungarian views on territorial revision seemed united to outsiders. In practice the closest that they came to consensus was in stating that the frontier changes had to be peaceful, as the military forces of Hungary’s neighbors were an order of magnitude stronger than Hungary’s."

The situation prompted Hungary to press for Great-Power support for its territorial objectives, where possible seeking peaceful, diplomatic means of attaining them, although this was only successful for the predominantly Hungarian-inhabited parts of Czechoslovakia, recovered in the autumn of 1938.

[10]"Integral revision was taken off the agenda of the Hungarian government as a plan without any real chance to be realised. Peaceful revision became a slogan from 1928."

"They were afraid that their attack on Czechoslovakia would turn the Little Entente as well as England and France against them, and a military conflict like that could end only with the defeat of Hungary. They wanted to satisfy their territorial demands in a peaceful way. Hungarian politicians counted on a long preparatory period, and they were not prepared for a military action against Czechoslovakia"

[11]The Hungarian foreign office, however, continually emphasized that Hungary sought only peaceful revision.

This book was written by an American historian published in USA, many details about that era and if you search "peaceful" term you will find many related content in the book: [12][13] I think this book is itself a good evidence for the issue:

"Hungary’s demand of the peaceful return to her historic borders. Hungary lost two thirds of her territory at the end of the first world war; one out of every three Magyars became “ethnic minorities” in their own land of birth. "

"A yet more important outcome was that Hungary had shown her willingness to revise her frontiers by peaceful means."

Hitler wanted Hungary to attack Czechoslovakia from the south and wanted to provide weapons, but Hungary clearly refused the military action:

"He was fully resolved on war, and he tried to persuade me to pledge the Hungarians to march into Slovakia from the south as the Germans entered Czechoslovakia. He gave me to understand that as a reward we should be allowed to keep the territory we had invaded. This project was put in the form of a request, and I replied with all courtesy but with great firmness that there could be no possibility of Hungarian participation. Hungary had, of course, revisionist claims on Czechoslovakia, I added, but it was our wish and intention to press those claims by peaceful means. I pointed out that, in any case, our restricted forces were not strong enough to overrun the fortifications that had been erected along our borders. “We’ll provide you with the arms,” Hitler interrupted. But I adhered to my refusal and even warned him against the risk of a major war, as, in my opinion, the chances were that neither England nor France, nor even Soviet Russia, would passively watch a German entry into Czechoslovakia."

István Csáky, Minister of Foreign Affairs (1938-1941):

In the declaration which Csáky read on behalf of the Hungarian Government, this very idea was brought to the fore: “Germany, Italy and Japan have entered into an alliance to restrict the spread of war and to bring to the world as speedily as possible a lasting and just peace.” Csáky stressed the fact that Hungary had brought about the revision of the Treaty of Trianon “without shedding blood and in a peaceful way” and that she was filled with the desire “to maintain good relations with all her neighbours”

Horthy’s Proclamation in 1944: “Ever since the will of the nation put me at the country’s helm, the most important aim of Hungarian foreign policy has been, through peaceful revision, to repair, at least partly, the injustices of the Peace Treaty of Trianon. Our hopes in the League of Nations in this regard remained unfulfilled.”

OrionNimrod (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for making a sincere effort there with the sources. I can see from them, as you say, that there is good support for claiming that Hungary's efforts to revise the Treaty of Trianon started out peacefully, at least in terms of being purely diplomatic. For this particular article, though, I don't think that really changes much, because the claim under dispute is that "Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy had sought a nonviolent way to support the territorial claims of the Kingdom of Hungary". I didn't really see anything like that in your sources; I got that Hungary started out pursuing revisionism diplomatically, and that Germany and Italy gave them some political support in this, which this article already goes through. But, I didn't see any of your sources describe Germany and Italy as "seeking a nonviolent way" to support them, and I think it would be rather strange to considering the military aggression of both in the years leading up to the First Vienna Award. So, I don't think that really leaves us with anything to do on this article still.

We could just stop there, but just for the benefit of the larger situation, I'll give in to the temptation to say, I would not take "peaceful" and "nonviolent" as synonyms in this context, and I can say with confidence that you'll raise the hackles of many English speakers if you put it that way. "Nonviolent" puts people in the mind of figures like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.; you can see that in accordance with that, the article Nonviolence defines nonviolence as "the personal practice of not causing harm to others under any condition." Likewise, Merriam-Webster has "abstention from violence as a matter of principle." Clearly the Hungarian government was not practicing that kind of politics; your sources paint the picture to me that they proceeded along diplomatic lines at least in part because they were pessimistic on their military prospects at first, and of course they did turn to military means down the road. So, without some strong sources using the specific term "nonviolent," you'll have a rough time winning people over to that phrasing.

Given all this, why not just stick to "purely diplomatic" for Hungary's part, at least where it applies (Szèlinger says "until 1935")? That phrasing is more precise, easier to support, and far less likely to provoke argument or misunderstanding. With a heated topic area like this, I think we need all of that we can get. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 00:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Mesocarp, first I just suggested to use that which was used 15 years long on the page, and I did not agree that this thing was removed to pretend that Hungary used always aggression, because Hungarian politic before the First Vienna Award (the article) aimed to make a nonviolent (peaceful) revison to get back the Hungarian populated regions. But I see in the sources the correct term of "the peaceful revision" and in Hungarian sources also use the same term in Hungarian language. So this is a better term for the mainstream Hungarian politic/diplomacy of this period before the First Vienna Award (1920-1938), which is the background story and the way which led to the negotiations of the First Vienna Award. I also listed several historical things about Hungarian prime ministers who aimed the border revision on this way.

Btw, I found meantime: Slovak historian, Miroslav Michela (in Hungarian but original text was Slovak, use google translator):

https://epa.oszk.hu/00000/00033/00015/szemle_2003_4_michela.htm

"in his writing, he considered this situation dangerous from the point of view of European peace, and proposed a non-violent revision of the Trianon borders." OrionNimrod (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why you think Rothermere's hoping for a non-violent solution matters when he only speaks for himself, and not for Germany and Italy, which is what the issue is about. Also, I would like to ask OrionNimrod to refrain from quoting people working for Orban's VERITAS institute. That place is a propaganda department masquerading as a history research institute and thus inherently unreliable. I'm fine with the suggestion to use "diplomatically" instead of non-violent, thought I'm certain this will be a tough sell to OrionNimrod. BTW, since OrionNimrod has now resumed editing the article without first waiting for a response, I've also taken the liberty to edit it with my suggestion. Azure94 (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Azure94 as you can see the sentence the "peaceful" term talk about Hungary and not about Italy and Germany anymore. Many other sources say the same, also it is [[WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT]] when you remove modern Hungarian historian source regarding Hungarian history. Are you the censorship, based your POV assumption? Orban government govern Hungary since 13 years and before 1998-2002, do you say all Hungarian works by Hungarian people are do not permitted to use which was created under period?

Please stop personal harrasments, and aggressive edit war to exclusively push your POV. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The full quote from this source you used is: The revisionist idea was part of the state propaganda of the period and was ubiquitous in the public space (where it expressed itself through monuments, among other ways) and in popular culture.1 While some called for military action, Hungarian revisionism mainly sought to reclaim the lost territories through peaceful means. In the interwar period, Hungary was weaker economically and militarily than the neighbours against which it had territorial claims. As you can see, my edit was perfectly fine. It's you who seems to have problems inserting info from your own sources.

Also, I've noticed that another one of your sources is the Hungarian academician Eva S. Balogh. The same academician wrote an entire article about how VERITAS is soaked in propaganda and inherently unreliable. So if you trust Balogh enough to use her writings as a source, then you should also trust her when she tells you to never believe VERITAS. Unless you're a hypocrite, of course. Azure94 (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Mesocarp, as you can say I did compromize, I used sources, changed the text, using exactly the same term, but Azure agressively force his own POV, even falsifying text, and removing arbitrary Hungarian historian (who say exactly the same as other sources) based on his political assumption as a cenzorship with personal insults. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

You were supposed to wait for Mesocarp's response before you resumed editing the article. This was all started by your impatience. And stop projecting. You're the one pushing POV when you insert opinions from the director of Orban's VERITAS propaganda institute. Azure94 (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@ Azure94

Do you want copy-paste everything? Copyright? Why exactly everything from that source, there are many other added source.

"While some in the Hungarian government called for military action" this is not in the text. Also "peaceful" is there, cherry picking? You add extra words and changing words to fit your taste? Even other sources use exactly the same term. This is not your decison what you think is reliable or not, that is a Hungarian historian. Did you read the full text? What is wrong there? I bet every Hungarian sources is not reliable for you... You did not wait when you complete rewrote many similar articles and using the same agressive edit war tool. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_annexation_of_Transcarpathia&action=history, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_invasion_of_Carpatho-Ukraine&action=history OrionNimrod (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes it's in the text. Do you understand the concept of context? Or who do you think they meant if not the Hungarian government? Explain yourself.

Mesocarp suggested to use "diplomatically" instead of "peacefully". I'm fine with his suggestion. You, obviously, aren't. Nevertheless, you're still outvoted.

If you trust Eva Balogh enough to use her as a source, then you should read what she has to say about VERITAS. Or stay being a hypocrite. Nevertheless, there is plenty of academic source about how the people working for VERITAS lie about history. If you try to defend this propaganda institute, then expect to lose, since Wikipedia doesn't tolerate highly biased sources. Azure94 (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Azure94 Still "Hungarian government" is not in the text, it is funny for you important the text but you change the "peacful revison" word which used in all sources as key word.

Could you tell me what exactly the lie in that Hungarian historian source? But is not your duty to decide, wiki is not about your personal political agenda.

New york times in 1934, 1938 used the same "peacful revison" term, your linked content has no business with the article. Opposite parties and many people do not like Orban government, like in USA Repulicans critize everything what Democrats do and inverse Democrats critize everything Repulicans do. I can find journalist in every country who critize any person. You want to discredit an Hungarian historian and Hungarian academic institute with tens of historians. There are no wiki rules about that only historian works under Repulican government or only historian works under Democrat government are allowed to use. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

And who do you think they meant if not the Hungarian government. Explain yourself already. And stop ignoring the context of the article.

Yes, wiki is not about your personal political agenda, therefore you should not quote the director of the extremely political VERITAS institute as a source. It's that simple. Azure94 (talk) 13:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Azure94 "some" who? individual angry Hungarians is not the official government and the text clearly says like other linked sources: Hungarian revisionism mainly sought to reclaim the lost territories through peaceful means, please stop inventing things what is not in the historian work. Perhaps you can provide a list which academic Hungarian sources are allowed to use by your cenzorship? OrionNimrod (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Seeing as the sentence directly before "some" talked about state sanctioned revisionist propaganda, I think it's clear they meant "some in the the state" by "some" and not "individual angry hungarians" as you're claiming. Azure94 (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Azure94, you claimed that there are academic sources stating that the VERITAS institution is biased. And yet the only backup you linked was an article from the Hungarian Spectrum, a blog (!) that heavily opposes the Orbán government. And qualified historians working at the institution are untrustworthy...?

Anyways, it looks like nothing changes if it remains or gets removed. There are four other citations supporting the "peaceful" phrase, which doesn't really differ from "diplomatic", so I don't understand why it has to be changed. Also these citations except for Sadecki don't support the strength part you added so that has to be separated.

What about this version? (Sadecki's version's first sentence modified)

Though some called for military action, Hungarian revisionism primarily aimed to regain lost lands peacefully. In the interwar period, Hungary was weaker economically and militarily than the neighbours against which it had territorial claims.

https://www.osw.waw.pl/sites/default/files/PV_EN_Trianon.pdf Gyalu22 (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Azure94, Stop inventing texts which is not in the source, but you change deliberately the key word which is presented in all sources. It is clearly show us the bad faith of your edit to fit your taste. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

"a blog (!) that heavily opposes the Orbán government"

That blog is written by Eva Balogh. One of the academic sources you're yourself using on this page is also written by Eva Balogh. Are you blind or just trolling? Why are you suddenly claiming that Balogh's words are good if you're using them as a source, but bad if I'm using them as a source? When Balogh wrote the article on the Vienna Awards, you were OK with using her as a source, but when the same Balogh wrote that VERITAS is unreliable and a propaganda institute, you started ignoring her as "just a blog". You're a hypocrite.

The sentence "Though some called for military action" must specify who is meant by "some" if we want to use it on Wikipedia. It is clear from the context that Sadecki meant "some in the state". Azure94 (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Azure94 I used academic sources in the topic. Many historians have different opinions in many cases everywhere in the world, why it is so surprising? But in this case both historians use the same term "peaceful revision" what you want to deliberately remove. Because both use the same term this also validate it. At least I provided a lot of sources from many authors, ironically you are unable to provide any in same cases what are you want to force in other article.

Are Eva Balogh is good historian and the other not by you? I bet you do not know anything about them and you did not read the full historian text what you want to remove, you also did not answered which thing exactly is bad in the source. However I used just for the main context which declared every other sources not the details from that source. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you've mistaken me for OrionNimrod. Nevertheless you should read WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL and stop using this insulting way of communication on anyone! Gyalu22 (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did indeed mistake you for OrionNimrod. I apologize for that. Nevertheless, my point about Balogh stands. If OrionNimrod trusts Balogh's words when it comes to the Vienna Awards, then he should also trust her when it comes to VERITAS. Azure94 (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian has interviewed János Rainer, a biographer of Nagy and one of the founding members of the 1956 Institute, who confirms that “Veritas was established five years ago by the Orbán government with the clear duty to create, express, popularise a nationalist-populist view of contemporary history,” Source: [14]. Here's Atlatszo, a Hungarian investigative journalism nonprofit and a watchdog NGO, also saying that Veritas is in the business of historical revisionism. Here's the Brookings Institution calling Veritas "Orbán’s partisan Institute". Here's the Foreign Policy Research Institute saying that "Under the watchful eye of Orbán’s chief of staff, János Lázár, controversial historian Sándor Szakály was appointed in January to direct VERITAS as it crafts its revisionist history." And finally, here's a Financial Times article with the following text quoted: "Mr Orban signed a government decree to incorporate the 1956 Institute into the Veritas Historical Research Institute and Archive, created by the government five years ago and which critics say promotes a version of history that favours Mr Orban’s agenda. The Veritas institute is administered by the government, which has a big role in both appointing its leadership and setting its research priorities. The Hungarian government denies it is trying to shape the way that history is written. In a blog post, government spokesman Zoltan Kovacs characterised the 1956 Institute’s absorption by Veritas as “a minor administrative change to make research more efficient by integrating related fields into the same structure”. With just 10 employees, the institute had been part of the national library. All of the historians resigned before the handover, except one, who said he would “test” the new structure. After three weeks with Veritas, he also quit." Azure94 (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Azure94 watchdog NGO :D this goes very far from the topic...

you can list all sources in the world which critize Orban government. And? That Hungarian Spectrum financed by George Soros, and you can collect all sources in the world which critize Soros. And? Hungarian Spectrum: Eva S. Balogh clearly have a certain leftist political orientation as presented on the link. And? There are many historians with different political view, but in our case both use the same term: "peaceful revision" if you like or not, I do not know the political ideology of the other historian, but if they are different this thing more stronger validate the subject.

I used only the "peacful revision" term from that source what is exist in every other. Even contemporary USA New York Times use this term: [15][16] The topic is the First Vienna Award and the "peaceful revision" politic of Hungary not the political things of today. All of these things are off topic.

That source was by Hungarian historian, even not by Veritas publication, I see you start to blacklist Hungarian people. I see you blacklist people who are working in Hungarian institutes, do you have a job list what is not allowed by you to use for Hungarian history? Perhaps the sources of your country is allowed to use regarding Hungarian history (are you Slovak?), this would be a clear chauvinism. I did not see Wiki rules about your cenzorship. Also I do not see any rules that only those sources allowed to use on Wiki which was created under non-Orban government, however the mentioned sources does not say anything about Orban, and we do not know the political ideology of that historian, maybe he also do not like Orban, please ask him.

Should I check if you would use your own country' sources what would be the ideology behind them? And should I decide it is fit for me or not? OrionNimrod (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to remind everyone, that if you scroll up, you'll find OrionNimrod posting a link to Eva Balogh's Peaceful Revision: The Diplomatic Road to War. The exact same Eva Balogh that he's now accusing of being financed by George Soros. If this isn't hypocrisy, then what is it? Azure94 (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Azure94

I see you still engaged to countine personal insults instead of focusing the content. That Soros things is in the Hungarian Spectrum article not by me... and it is well know that Soros and Orban always critize each other, and? I do not know what is the bussines with the "peaceful revision" term.

I do not agree that you think that you want to be exclusively to the boss of article and what you add/delete everything in the article is OK, but you arrogantly ignore other editors. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I just think it's hypocritical of you to quote Eva Balogh only when it suits you (such as when you cited her work for the article). When Eva Balogh talks about the Vienna Award, you clap and agree with her, but when she starts to talk about Veritas, you accuse her of being paid by Soros. Azure94 (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Azure94

Actually the article is Magyar Nemzet journal (not Veritas) and the Hungarian historian make an individual interview, no Veritas publication. However Veritas is reliable academic source if you like or not. https://veritasintezet.hu/en Wiki is not about that you as a main censor blacklist every sentence of 100 Hungarian historians based on your political POV. Which means you accuse a Hungarian historian because he works on an history institute, which institute is critized by another Hungarian historians who has a different political view...

Boring that I need repeate myself: in our case "peaceful revision" both agreed = the content is more reliable.

Do you think you are who decide who is the bad and good guy? Please provide me a list which Hungarian historian is allowed by you! I am curious. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The "Hungarian historian" interviewed by Magyar Nemzet has a name, you know? His name is Sándor Szakály and he is the director of Veritas. The Foreign Policy Research Institute said that "Under the watchful eye of Orbán’s chief of staff, János Lázár, controversial historian Sándor Szakály was appointed in January to direct VERITAS as it crafts its revisionist history." Orban created the Veritas institute so that he could purge "disloyal" Hungarian historians, as explained in the Financial Times article which talks about the destruction of the 1956 Institute by Veritas. To quote: "Mr Orban signed a government decree to incorporate the 1956 Institute into the Veritas Historical Research Institute and Archive, created by the government five years ago and which critics say promotes a version of history that favours Mr Orban’s agenda. The Veritas institute is administered by the government, which has a big role in both appointing its leadership and setting its research priorities. The Hungarian government denies it is trying to shape the way that history is written. In a blog post, government spokesman Zoltan Kovacs characterised the 1956 Institute’s absorption by Veritas as “a minor administrative change to make research more efficient by integrating related fields into the same structure”. With just 10 employees, the institute had been part of the national library. All of the historians resigned before the handover, except one, who said he would “test” the new structure. After three weeks with Veritas, he also quit." Azure94 (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Azure94 It is a spamming is you copy paste all the time the same. So you say only Hungarian historians can used who are strongly anti Orban, but Hungarian historians who support the Hungarian government are not allowed at all in Wiki if you are the boss of the article? Please show any Wiki rules about this!

Btw as you see I deliberately used many kind of sources, to present many kind of opinion. I am not want be to decide how are the bad and good guy. All of the academic historians.

After several personal harrasment and naming me a "troll" I see you still countinue and naming me "schizophrenic"[17]. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed schizophrenic to cite Balogh only when it personally suits you, and dismissing her as "paid by Soros" when citing her doesn't suit you. Azure94 (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

@Azure94, please stop personal harrasments, I asked several times.

However [18] in other topic you are not willing to answer regarding your edit. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Azure94, OrionNimrod, and Mesocarp

I think we can keep the “peaceful revision” word, since this was the politic of the Kingdom of Hungary in that time, and that's how it's referred to in today's academic sources, and in the newspapers of the time. CriticKende (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@CriticKende I agree at this point; we're talking about this and the other issues in general over at WikiProject Hungary. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 03:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it. Good luck with that, I sensed that this discussion has gotten very heated. I hope it can be resolved peacefully. CriticKende (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

References