Talk:Hungarian–Romanian War/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Prelude/Lead

Transylvania or Romanian Transylvanians

I've modified the introduction section as Romanians who have declared independence of Transylvania neither represented any official authority nor had any legal basis to do so in the name of whole Transylvania, and the National Assembly was not representative, as other ethnic groups (Hungarians, Germans, Jews, etc.) were not represented. Thus, it seems more fair to me for the sentence to be phrased like this. Everyonesequal (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

We have discussed - over the time since I've first put the article online - countless times about this introductory phrase. The compromise we've reached is very good and I don't think it should be changed. The phrase and the links within cover all POVs and offer the interested reader a well balanced introduction. Who voted for what is covered in detail in the article about the union of Transsylvania with Romania, which is linked in our introductory phrase. As for the legal basis it is included in Wilson's 14 points and is sealed by the capitulation of the Central Powers in WWI - I believe there is a reference to Wilson in the named article as well. If you have new insight pertaining this subject, pls. edit that article. Before changing this introductory phrase again, pls. consult this talk page and the history of the article.Octavian8 (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The Germans did actually agreed to the union with Romania, I don't know about the Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.137.105.45 (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone recently pointed me this article on the topic I studied. The Prelude clearly shows a POV, which needs to be corrected, if the article wants to be neutral and (fairly) balanced. As others have already highlighted, the Romanian-Hungarian conflict started at the moment when Romanian troops crossed the Eastern Carpathians in mid-November 1918. Therefore, breaking up the 1918/1919 Campaign into several pieces and presenting the 1919 events as a separate war (instead as an episode or a battle) is incorrect and historically unjustifiable. That's why the title should be changed to: The Hungarian–Romanian War of 1918/1919. The April 1919 Campaign, or similar. Also, Transylvania did not proclaim union with Rumania (it's nonesense, as there was no Government of Transylvania, or such, to proclaim something in the name of all Transylvanians). Instead, representatives of Transylvanian Rumanians did so. And so on. I will edit the Prelude to reflect these basic facts. Further edits to follow later on. Roman69 (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC))

I hope you find the article interesting and contribute in a constructive way to making it better. We have spent a great deal of time making it as unbalanced as possible and I believe we have succeeded (at least the fact that there were no more edits for something like more than an year shows it). If you intend to change anything pleas first discuss your intentions here and if agreed upon we will change the article, otherwise I will revert any changes.

To your previous post, I don't follow your logic. The article is named with reference to 1919 as then is when most fighting took place. The subdivision into phases and the text makes otherwise clear that the conflict started in 1918 as part of WWI and ended in 1920 when the Romanian Army left Hungary. Also, Hungary did not officially existed until a few days after the Romanian Army crossed the border. Furthermore, I don't understand what "April Campaign" are you referring to, the article covers the fighting in summer as well.

With respect to who declared union to what this is clear from the links and from an additional phrase (to which I have commented below - see Phase I). I would also want to point out that this is not the topic of the article. If you want to add something to who declared union to what please edit those articles that cover these topics. Regards.Octavian8 (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the editors (Everyonesequal, Roman69) who previously highlighted that it is misleading (and POV) to state that Transylvania proclaimed its union with Romania on December 1, 1918. A more neutral and balanced sentence is needed, like the ones that were already suggested. A more factual statement would be, for example, "representatives of Romanians from Transylvania proclaimed union with the Kingdom of Romania ...". Koertefa (talk) 06:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And I agree with all other editors who agreed that any info pertaining this subject should be mentioned in the respective article that is referenced here. Please read all the entries in this section of the Talk page and make new comments only if you have something new to say.Octavian8 (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Who do you agree with exactly? Your version of the sentence is vague, misleading and POV, while the version that I have suggested is more precise, neutral and, for example, reflects the contents of the article about the union of Transylvania and Romania. So unless you point out what is your problem with the sentence "representatives of Romanians from Transylvania proclaimed union with the Kingdom of Romania ...", please do not put back the inaccurate version. If you still do so, please also include a "neutrality of the article is disputed" template. Koertefa (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everybody who made meaningful contributions to this article and with all those that did not modify it in the last year or so and by doing so agreed with this form.

I believe I was pretty clear about the thing with representatives of Romania. Read trough this section again if you don't understand me. Furthermore did you read the article in full? Have you seen the comments in the section Phase I that again make clear who voted for what and are chronologically well placed in the main body of the article (i.e., NOT in the abstract!)?Octavian8 (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Look at the facts: it was an assembly of the delegates of ethnic Romanians who proclaimed the union of Transylvania and the Kingdom of Romania in Alba Iulia, December 1, 1918. It is hard to argue with that. There were other editors who found your version inaccurate and misleading, so why do you keep writing it back? The fact that it was not modified over a period of time, doesn't mean that your sentence is generally accepted. Do you have any problem with the alternative versions that were suggested? Especially, which part of the sentence "representatives of Romanians from Transylvania proclaimed union with the Kingdom of Romania" is not acceptable for you? Please, don't put back your disputed version unless identifying your problem with the alternative sentences which were proposed. Koertefa (talk) 07:33, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Look here, as a matter of courtesy, you don't edit an existing text before reaching agreement. So YOU should stop making edits to the original version. I hope you can see that the editors who posted here were those having a problem with the abstract, all the others that had no problems had no need to post. Assuming the article was on the average as accessed over the last year as it is now, there are a lot of readers that agreed with it and only a few that did not. However, in contrast to you the latter had the courtesy of discussing the matter here first. Furthermore, finding confirmation only by reading the posts of those that agree with you is a sort self inflicted satisfaction...

I have absolutely no problems with the phrase "representatives of Romanians from Transylvania proclaimed union with the Kingdom of Romania" if you had read the section named Phase I you would have seen that there it writes "On December 1st, 1918, the Romanian ethnics of Transylvania proclaimed the union with Romania, being supported by the Transylvanian Saxons and the Banat Swabians, but not by the Hungarian ethnics of Transylvania that wanted to be part of the newly emerging Hungarian state." which builds upon the former phrase completing it. My problem is with the place of this information. It shouldn't be placed in the Abstract. There is already a link to another article that debates this subject. And AGAIN, the information about who voted for what exists in this article as well placed in a proper chronological order in the section Phase I. Don't be afraid, no one thinks or wants to induce the thought that the Hungarians from Transylvania voted for union with Romania, or there were no Hungarians in Transylvania in 1918 (we had accepted them into our homes some 1000 years ago already ;-) ).Octavian8 (talk) 14:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The current version is not acceptable for me and for several other editors involved in this discussion. As I already pointed out, your version is misleading. Please, suggest another one that is more neutral. And I also would like to see exact, verifiable citations for the claims that the majority of Transylvanian Saxons and the Banat Swabians supported this union. I am quite skeptical about that. Please, provide an accessible English, German or French source with these claims, otherwise, they should be removed from the article. Koertefa (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No article will ever be acceptable for everybody, this is why we need a compromise. However in this case I fail to see your standpoint. My standpoint is that specifying who united with what does not belong in the prelude, but in section Phase I. Furthermore I don't see what is misleading in saying: "On December 1st, 1918, the Romanian ethnics of Transylvania proclaimed the union with Romania, being supported by the Transylvanian Saxons and the Banat Swabians, but not by the Hungarian ethnics of Transylvania that wanted to be part of the newly emerging Hungarian state." An assembly of representatives of Romanians and an assembly of representatives of Transylvanian Saxons and the Banat Swabians respectively supported union of Transylvania with Romania. An assembly of Hungarians was against. This is NO speculation this is FACT! Read whatever respectable history book you like and you will find this. Now you can ask only if the assemblies were representative, but if you want to discuss about this, write an independent article about it. Finally, what majority are you talking about? Give me please the exact citation from the article text you are referring to.Octavian8 (talk) 11:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not make a claim, I was just skeptical about some sentences of the article. You should provide some valid, verifiable references for those claims of the article if you want to keep them, otherwise they will be removed. Koertefa (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, and again, please specify what sentences you are talking about. You constantly make vague accusations and never get to facts. Secondly, place your comment here, only if it has something to do with the topic debated in this section.Octavian8 (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, read my comments before replying. I have precisely stated which claims need further references. Koertefa (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read my answers before posting!Octavian8 (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion continues here: Talk:Hungarian-Romanian_war_of_1919#What_should_the_prelude_include Koertefa (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Purpose and form (from Redundant edits)

In the section 'Prelude', there is a link to the article Romania in WWI, therefore I fail to see how a recap of the beginning of the Romanian involvement in WWI ads something to this article. Also, within the article there is detailed data about the strength of the Hungarian Red Army troops facing the Romanians, to say that was a small fighting force is misleading, even if it may be true for the first weeks after the reds took power.

"On August 27, 1916, Romania declared war on Austria-Hungary. Confident of victory, Romanian troops crossed into Transylvania. Their campaign stalled, however, and German and Austro-Hungarian forces counterattacked, drove the Romanian army and thousands of refugees back over the Carpathian passes, deep into Romania and conquered the south of the country (Wallachia) by the end of 1916 and in December occupied Bucharest." Readded.

"In 1918, after the communists took power in Russia and signed a separate peace in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Central Powers, Romania was left alone on the Entente's Eastern Front, a task that surpassed its possibilities by far. Therefore, it sued for peace, and reached an understanding with the Central Powers in May 1918 in the Treaty of Bucharest. Alexandru Marghiloman, signed the Treaty of Bucharest with the Central Powers on May 7, 1918. However, this treaty was never signed by King Ferdinand, and on 10 November 1918, taking advantage of the precarious situation of the Central Powers, Romania reentered the war on the side of the Entente with the same objectives as in 1916. King Ferdinand called for the mobilization of the Romanian army and ordered it to attack over the Carpathian mountains into Transylvania." If there is a link to the article Romania in WWIIs, why is this mentioned? Do we nedd this here? Yes, like the text what you removed. Baxter9 (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the Prelude is to give a snapshot of the situation in Romania and Hungary in 1918. The events you describe, that took place in the begining of the Romanian involvement in WWI, are per se not related to that. They are also incomplete, as you forget to mention the Bulgarians attacking Romania from the South and forcing the Romanians to take troops from the Transylvanian front to deal with them. To make the link to 1918, you would have then to mention also the later Romanian victories in Marasti, Marasesti and Oituz as well as the tensed realtions with the russian allies. Than to be consistent you would have to also make a short description of the events involving Austria-Hungary in WWI... This is NOT the place for such things. I'll revert this edit. Octavian8 (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

...There are several other POVs that we should also discuss, for example, the role of the Transylvanian Saxons or the lack of mentioning of the Romanian looting or the lack of mentioning the parallel fights/conflicts of post WWI Hungary in the lead, etc. Koertefa (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• It is meaningless to state in the Prelude/Lead who voted for what. In the Prelude, there is a link to an article called Union of Transylvania with Romania dedicated to this topic. If you want to discuss about the role of the Saxons, do it there.
• If by looting you mean the booty taken by the victorious Romanians and the harsh terms of the armistice the defeated Hungary had to accept, this is covered in two sections. The war booty in the sense of captured military equipment is discussed at the end of Phase III. The economical booty, is discussed in the section Aftermath. Again the Prelude is not the place to discuss booty/looting.
• What parallel fights are you talking about. There were parallel conflicts, yes, but the Hungarian red army never fought on two fronts at the same time. The lead is a short snapshot of the article, the conflict with Czechoslovakia is discussed - as much as needed in the context of the Hungarian-Romanian war - in the corresponding section. The pressure put by the Entente on both warring parties is mentioned several times throughout the article in the proper chronological order. (See also the section Serbian involvement on this Talk page)Octavian8 (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

...By the "looting" I do not meat the war bounty, I meant that the Romanian army looted civilians and this looting was excessive. It is a fact and very many (even short) descriptions of the conflict emphasize this, so it should be in the lead. Moreover, it is just one word, anyway, so I do not really see your problem with it, unless it hurts your pride. And the parallel conflicts are very relevant to judge the situation of Hungary in that time, so they should also be mentioned in the lead. Koertefa (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Even if looting really happened and you come with sources describing it (other than the one with the looting of Budapest, because the author refers there to the excessive booty actually and it is mentioned as such in the article), we can think about introducing it in the text but not in the lead. However, I know of no instance of Romanian soldiers looting Hungarian civilians, but I know of several instances of Hungarian soldiers harassing and murdering (a word that I consider to harsh and thus did not use in the text - even if the reference several atrocities are described) Romanian civilians behind the front line. I see murder worse than looting, but there is no mention of this in the lead. Why? Because it has nothing to do with the lead. I think I understand your purpose in modifying the lead (see my answer in the section pertaining to our discussion), should this be true, I hope you see why your modifications are inappropriate.

If these "murdering" of civilians were common, as the looting, and there are neutral verifiable references about them, then why should we hide it? And probably the red terror in Hungary should also be mentioned. Koertefa (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

For the last time READ THE ARTICLE!!! It is already mentioned!Octavian8 (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The situation in Hungary at that time has a whole subsection in the Introduction, this subsection is called Hungary! Did you've missed it? Again READ THE ARTICLE!Octavian8 (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I did read it, but that section does not cover the issues I was talking about. Koertefa (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well this is the section you should be editing, not the lead.Octavian8 (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What should the prelude include

The lead is there to give a short overview of the article, mentioning cause, course and result. It is not a section in itself, it is an abstract! It should be short and neutral.

• What it includes right now The reason for this war was the control of Transylvania. The control of Transylvania changed as a consequence of the majority ethnic group (with the latter support of the third most numerous ethnic group, thus making some 2/3 of the entire population of the region) deciding to unite with Romania - this is specified by means of a link to an article discussing this topic in detail. The conflict implied Hungary and Romania. In the end Romania prevailed and occupied Hungary. There were some 120000 troops involved. Romanian troops left Hungary in 1920.
• What some thinks it should include
  • Explicit mentioning of who (from the major ethnic groups from Transylvania) voted for what.
    • My comment: This information is contained in the article linked in the lead. This information is already available in explicit form in the Section Phase I. Why mentioning it again?
  • References to looting by Romanian troops
    • My comment: The lead should be short and neutral that can be also reached by making it balanced. Thus there are other infos more important than looting that are also not mentioned and issues that require balance are left to the article to be discussed in full. Furthermore, imposing reparations/looting Hungary is a consequence of Hungary loosing the war and being occupied by Romania. The latter info is already in the lead. (Also, there will be an entire subsection in the Aftermath dedicated to looting/booty/reparations.)
      • Examples of important information missing from the lead: Why mentioning looting and not the fact that Hungary had practically no army in the winter of 1918-1919 to defend itself? Why not mention that Romania had in December 1918 just some two divisions ready for combat? The answer is because, there is no place in the lead for this and because this is why we have an article to fill it with such information.
      • Examples of issues requiring balance: Why looting and not mentioning also the desperate situation of Romania in that winter, that had just payed reparations (that could also be called looting) to the Central Powers as a consequence of the Buftea armistice? Why looting and not mentioning the harassment of Romania population by Hungarian authorities in the areas still under their control? and so on... The answer is because, there is no place in the lead for this and because this is why we have an article to fill it with such information.
  • References to who else (besides Romania) did Hungary had a conflict with
    • My comment: Again, the lead should be short and neutral, thus exclude marginal information. The contents (i.e., the links to sections and subsections just under the lead) of the article show precisely who was also involved in the conflict (with an impact large enough to matter).
      • Examples of issues requiring balance: Why only list the enemies of Hungary and not mention the Soviet Union that supported Hungary and tried to drag Romania into a two-fronts conflict? The answer is because, there is no place in the lead for this and because this is why we have an article to fill it with such information. (The involvement of SU and the Czechoslovak involvement are missing from the lead, but are described in entire sections in the article.)
      • Examples of marginal information: Why mention France, that did just some diplomatic maneuvering and (against what some think) put pressure on Romania as well. The answer is because, there is no place in the lead for this and because this is why we have an article to fill it with such information. (Actually the involvement of the French/Entente diplomacy is mentioned at several places in the article.)

Octavian8 (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for writing down your ideas about the abstract of the article in detail, though I do not agree with you in some aspects. Expressing the reasons behind our edits is very important, so other editors can understand our motivations. I start with stating that I agree with you that the lead should be concise. However, it should also give a good bird eye view on the situation, so I think that we should add more details to make the lead more precise. Take a look at, for example, the article about the Seven Years' War. Its abstract is much longer than the lead of this article, so it is not a problem if the current lead will be extended with one or two additional sentences.Koertefa (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice to finally TALK to you. About the length of the lead: you forget that the article has an Introduction section as well and also other sections. No offense intended, but what the examples are concerned, if someone jumps of a rooftop, do you think you should follow? (this is no comment on the quality of the article on the Seven Years War) Take any scientific paper you want and look at how long an abstract is. Octavian8 (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

First sentence

Regarding the particular points:

• The first sentence is not acceptable as it is currently written. It is misleading. If you think that we should not give more details on this in the abstact, then we should put that sentence in a passive form: "...the union of Transylvania with the Kingdom of Romania was proclaimed...". My problem with the current form is that, as it was pointed out by other editors, as well, that those who have declared the independence of Transylvania neither represented any official authority nor had any legal basis to do so. The current sentence sounds like Transylvania had a parliament with elected members and these members would have proclaimed independence. It was clearly not the case. Moreover, it is at least questionable whether those Germans who supported the union represented the majority of Germans in the region. Additionally, as we all know, Romania did not only get Transylvania after WWI, but several other parts of Hungary that did not have Romanian majority in that time. That is why we should remain neutral and use the passive sentence in the abstract, while later we should give more details. Koertefa (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

About the legal basis for the majority of a population living in a territory to decide on the fate of that territory, my point of view (as already stated before) is that it is mentioned in Wilson's declaration, that led to the armistice that Hungary signed and then to the peace. Furthermore, as it can be seen from the link available in the lead, Transylvania was a political entity of its own before being incorporated (note that I don't use annexed) into Hungary in 1867. Yes, there were some territories and cities that did not have a Romanian majority, but from my point of view, considering the entire territory that Romania got, they were a minority. The alternative would have been some unfeasible Utopia like to let every village (and why not every family) decide where they and the land they called their own wanted to live. Finally about the Germans, I am sorry, but this is questionable just to you. I have already added English references to this, how many would be enough to convince you?

• Nevertheless, for the sake of agreement, I agree to the passive form you propose. However, the links should remain. As I pointed out before, they point to articles that explain in detail what is meant by the respective text in our lead. Octavian8 (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed arguments and for agreeing on the passive form. Then, we should modify the lead accordingly. I also agree with you that the link to the "Union of Transylvania with Romania" article should remain. Koertefa (talk) 07:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I will modify the text accordingly on the 23.10 if no further comments appear here.

Octavian8 (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Text modified today. Octavian8 (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Looting

• Looting: mentioning the looting does not make the lead longer (it is just one or two words) and, moreover, it is mentioned by very many neutral (Western) sources, even by those who only give a very brief description of the events. Thus, the excessive looting was a typical aspect of this war. Therefore, if the article wants to be fairly neutral, it should be mentioned in the lead together with the capturing of Budapest.

Please understand this: looting is a Hungarian point of view. For Romanians this were just war reparations not even enough to cover the sacrifices the Romanians did in WWI and during this war. So you can't mention looting in two words in the lead, as it would not be neutral. You should add the Romania point of view also. But, hey! this is done in the section Aftermath in enough detail, why the lead again? Because it was a characteristic of the war? The war was about controlling some territories, not about looting, looting is at most a consequence. I can argue this another way also. If you insist on looting, I could also start insisting on the murdering of Romanian civilians by the Hungarian authorities and I can give you names and places and details (please note that I have not mentioned this in the article, there is for the sake of completeness just a mention on harassment of Romanian civilians). So we could add that the characteristic of this war was besides the "excessive" looting by the Romanians the indiscriminate murdering and torturing by the Hungarians. Now here we have it, out of an article meant to clarify some of our more than 1000 year old common history and meant to make us understand each other better, we have another polemic fueling hate.

Now let me tell you something about the Western sources as well. Most sources in the Western world, if not all, give a very brief description of this war. But brief here means actually uninformed, as it proves the limited research effort put into the subject. The truth is that for the West this war was just a side note and for Romania and Hungary, well they had to go through some 45 years of communism. Between 1945 and 1989 the communist Romania wanted this subject of a Romanian army eliminating a communist neighbor eliminated from history. This is why there was no research on this topic then, after 1989, it seems that the topic remained dormant. I know of two Romanian more or less complete accounts of the war that stretch over a few hundred pages. They were published first before 1945, and are the main references for the article. Octavian8 (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I can agree on leaving out the word "looting" from the lead IF the section Aftermath contains it without extra discrediting words, such as "accusation" or "allegation". In this case, both the Romanian and the Hungarian perspectives ("war reparations" and "looting") would be equally represented in the article and the abstract would not take side in this question. Koertefa (talk) 07:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Happy to hear that! See my detailed answer in the corresponding section. Octavian8 (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Other countries

• Other countries involved: the Hungarian-Romanian war was not an independent event, Hungary had a war with Czechoslovakia in that time and Serbian troops occupied the south of Hungary. Moreover, France (and also Soviet Russia) was highly involved diplomatically. Mentioning these in one sentence in the lead is a must if we want to give a good general description of the region in that time. Otherwise, the abstract would give the false impression that this war was a separate event. This one sentence will not make the abstract overly lengthy, but give a much better view on the situation.Koertefa (talk) 09:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You have them now mentioned in the Introduction (which is just beneath the lead and is a section in its own) in enough detail. Why do you want to mention them in the abstract? This would just make it less concise and longer. Octavian8 (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course, this would make the lead a bit longer, but it would also give a much better general view on the situation. The two (conflicting) criteria of a good abstract are that it should be both concise and give a good general overview. In my opinion, we can move a bit towards giving a better overview, for example, by providing a sentence in the lead for both Romania and Hungary that describe the situation of these countries in that time. A reference that these events took place after WWI and Austria-Hungary just collapsed would also be helpful (though, I agree with you that it is difficult to decide what information are the most important).

The way I see it, this is why we have a Lead/Prelude/Abstract and an Introduction. In the Abstract there are just the most important facts like casus belli, other important facts being discussed in the Introduction. Just the way we have it now. Also, the info about AH and WWI is already in the Introduction. Octavian8 (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Another comment: the current Introduction states that "By the terms of the armistice, Serbian and French troops advanced from the South as far as Pecs, taking control of the entire Banat and Croatia, at the same time Czechoslovakia took control of Upper Hungary and of Carpathian Ruthenia and Romanian troops were allowed to advance to the Mures river.". I think that, for example, Pécs was outside the demarcation lines. There are sources which claim that the demarcation lines were violated [1][2]. Even if we leaved out these information from the lead (which, I think, would be a mistake), the Introduction should cover these data precisely. Koertefa (talk) 07:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

See my answer in the corresponding section. Octavian8 (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Phase I

German support for the unification of Transylvania with Romania

There are two dates for the declaration of support of unification with Romania from the Germans in the greater area of Transylvania. Most sources I could find on the Internet indicate December 15. There are also some references to January 8. I've reformulated the phrase to avoid naming dates. Octavian8 (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Serbian involvement

There are editors trying to introduce in the online article references to a Serbian involvement in the conflict. Please describe your intentions here first.Octavian8 (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a fact and it is a sourced claim (please stop removing it). The aim is to put the Hungarian-Romanian conflict in a precise historical context, this information is very relevant to judge the situation of Hungary in that time. Koertefa (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by Serbian involvement? Did they sent troops to fight against the Hungarian red army? When was this? How many troops were there? How many troops sent the Hungarians to meet them. Did this had an impact on the Hungarian-Romanian war or is just another conflict of bolshevik Hungary? Gather all this information, post it here with references and we can think about if and how to integrate it in the article.Octavian8 (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think, this was a military movement from the Serbian troops in 1919.(p. 13)[3]Fakirbakir (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well prove it with references, research its implications, post it here and we can take it over in the article.Octavian8 (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You disregard the references. It is not your page. This statement is proven by 2 sources.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If this is true, post them here, and post also what do you want to modify.Octavian8 (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Fakirbakir has already posted a reference in one of his messages of this section (but I also copy it here: [4]) and you can find another one among the references of the article (this one: [5]). But there are several other ones: [6][7][8]. Koertefa (talk) 06:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I will look over the sources. We could have a separated chapter covering the Serbian involvement, like those covering Soviet Union involvement and the relatinship to the Czechoslovak-Hungarian war. However, for this we would need to know the impact of this involvement on the Hungarian-Romanian war. For example the SU involvement lead to Romania taking one division from the Hungarian front and movig it to Bessarabia, also two newly formed divisions remained in Bessarabia rather than taking part in the fight against Hungary. What troops did the Hungarian reds took from the front facing Romania to respond to the Serbian involvement? or what other actions did they undertook in response and how did they influenced the hostilities with the Romanians? Octavian8 (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Serbian forces occupied Hungary up to Pécs [9]. It is very likely that there were Hungarian troops facing them, otherwise they would have moved forward (I will try to find some references). But even if there would not have been any Hungarian forces involved, the fact that a part of Hungary was occupied by another country is very relevant for this war, as well. It significantly weakened Hungary: for example, they did not get tax from that part, they could not use the factories in that part, they could not recruit soldiers from that part, they could not get food or other resources from that part, etc. Therefore, the involvement of Serbian troops is a very relevant information and should be mentioned in the lead (together with the fights against troops from Czechoslovakia and the diplomatic involvement of France). Koertefa (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I would be very interested to discover new facts on how the Serbian involvement influenced the Hungarian-Romanian war. However, if you don't have anything more than It is very likely that there were Hungarian troops facing them... or ...did not get tax from that part, they could not use the factories in that part... etc., then this is not enough for a section in the article. We could think about a phrase mentioning the fact that Hungary was occupied up to Pecs by the Serbians. This should NOT be placed in the lead, but in the section of the article where it fits chronologically. PS: For your obsession with the lead see also my comments on that section. Octavian8 (talk) 08:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with you, this is a very relevant information regarding the post WWI situation of Hungary and, hence, it should be given in the lead. And you are the one who is obsessed with the article, since you are against any modification that was not certified as "meaningful" by you. Koertefa (talk) 08:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Then it should be mentioned in the Introduction at best, but not in the lead (however, I still think that we should go chronologically). I have already answered you why not in the lead, but as I see you do not discuss, you state again and again your point of view, this is the last time I am answering you on this topic if you don't come with something new. For the second part of your post, as I have already told you, I stop answering your baseless accusations concerning my person and I am asking you to stop making them. Otherwise I'll stop talking to you. Octavian8 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Date of Serbian advancement past their demarcation line

It is clear that the Serbians moved beyond their demarcation line. This is already in the article in one of the maps. Please give me a date when this happened (with reference at best), so that we can mention this in the corresponding section of the article. Octavian8 (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a citation with a date from the book: József Breit - Hungarian Revolutionary Movements of 1918-19 and the History of the Red War. Vol. I: Main Events of the Károlyi Era (Budapest. 1929), pp. 115-16. (See also Leslie Charles Tihany, The Baranya Dispute. 1918-1921: Diplomacy in the Vortex of Ideologies (Boulder, 1978), p. 18.)

"The Serbian officers drove their troops with utmost haste toward the proposed demarcation line and by avoiding conflicts with the retreating Hungarian and German units and through bypassing major population centers, Serbian forces reached the line before November 13. On the day of the signing of the Belgrade military conventions, Zombor, Szabadka, and Baja were occupied; on the 14th Pécs; on the 20th Temesvár."

According to this, Serbian troops occupied Pécs on November 14, 1918. Koertefa (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the modified text on my Userpage. Octavian8 (talk) 14:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

New text of the introduction with reference to Serbian involvement

As no precise date of the Serbian advance to Pecs is available, I think we should mention the Serbian involvement in text in the Introduction (a Figure showing the extent of the Serbian involvement is already in the article). The new text is here User:Octavian8/Introduction. Added text is in italics. Octavian8 (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I will modify the text of the article as described, if there are no further comments until 15.10.2011. Octavian8 (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have modified the text accordingly. Octavian8 (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this entry, partially, because lately I was very busy, partially, because this Talk page is too long, so I did not realize that there was a new section and you suggested a new introduction. If I have problems, I am going to post my comments here. Koertefa (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Talk page is becoming too long, I will archive irrelevant parts one we finish this edit session. I have seen your comments about this in the lead section. I believe that we should make it clear that the lines of the armistice were broken. While this is clear from the text in the case of Romania, this is not the case neither for Czechoslovakia, nor for Serbia. Look at my homepage, to check the text I would propose. Octavian8 (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If you decide to archive some parts of the Talk page, then, please, only archive those threads that are long stalled (e.g., there were no comments in the last 6 months) and, if you decide the keep your "rules", then the criticism of these rules should also remain. I also think that the "Tags" section should not be archived. Otherwise, archiving some older threads would be indeed good, since this Talk page is overly lengthy... Koertefa (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Text modified accordingly today. Octavian8 (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

I'm confused by the infobox where one side says captured and the other side says total. I assume it's total captured but it's unclear. Also, the addition of a reference for these figures would be helpful. Daffydavid (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Strength

The manpower of the two belligerents varied strongly during the duration of the war. For example in the war's second phase the Hungarian army mustered some 80000 soldiers, while in the third phase it had some 55000 prepared for the attack. The same could be said for the Romanian army that had some 50000 soldiers in the second phase, 62000 soldiers at the beginning of the third phase, and peaked by 96000 before crossing the Tisza. The two sides had even less soldiers at the beginning of the conflict. So it is difficult to give some numbers for the entire war - and the infobox refers to the entire war.

In the end, I believe it is fair to say that the two armies were comparable in strength, considering numbers, weapons, esprit de corps, availability of communication lines, fortifications, etc. This is what the strength entry in the infobox should reflect in just a few numbers. Approximating the mean number of available soldiers during the entire war, one comes to numbers in an interval around 60000. This is what should stay in the infobox, if we decide to leave this entry at all.

We can discuss here if you want, if the advantage in share numbers the Romanian army enjoyed in the end phase of the war was or was not compensated by the superior firepower of the Hungarian army - considering the largest caliber of the guns in their artillery. But for now, I will just put in the ~65000 number for both belligerents, which is as good a number as any ranging from 55000 to 65000. Or we could even reduce this to 60000 to abide by the number given in the Abstract. Octavian8 (talk)

The infobox should reflect the total number of solders who took part in the war. Since, the article claims that in the third phase of the war the size of the Romanian army was 96.000, then the infobox should contain (at least) this number as the strength of the Romanian army. If there are sources which claim that at some point the Hungarian army had 80.000 soldiers fighting against Romanian troops, then this should be given in the infobox. By the way: where do these numbers come from? Some reliable sources should be found for these statements, so for now I add the "citation needed" superscript to the numbers. Koertefa (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The numbers come from the references mentioned in the References section. Do you want to have them all cited there? Read my text above. The manpower varied strongly during the conflict for both involved parties - as it usually happens in a a conflict, as opposed to a battle. Adding the strength entry in the infobox is not my doing, but I've accepted it for the reasons mentioned above. The sole alternative is to eliminate the entry.Octavian8 (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that "the sole alternative is to eliminate the entry", it is a relevant information. The strength should reflect the total number of soldiers who participated in the war, so I will put the 96.000 back. Please, give proper citations for the claims, do not just point to the reference list. A non-Romanian, for example, English, German or French, source is preferred that is accessible either from the internet or from public libraries (viz., verifiable). Koertefa (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Koertefa, I fail to see your logic, other than the one that wants to emphasize that the Hungarians took a beating because they had less numbers... Why are you so obsessed with the 96000 number, why not the 55000 the Romanians had amassed against the 80000 Hungarians in the Phase II. Or the 15000 that crossed The Carpathians in the Phase I? Why it is so hard to understand that you simply can't put an arbitrary number from a certain phase of the conflict in the strength entry?Octavian8 (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, assume good faith before making accusations. The number of soldiers involved in the war is an important information. If there is only one number for each side, then why should it be an arbitrary number during the war instead of the total number of solders who fought in the war. This is the most logical option. As a compromise, I suggest including three numbers for each side, one number for each phase of the war. Koertefa (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Pleas QUIT editing the article before reaching agreement here. The number of soldiers involved in a battle can be investigated precisely. In a war that includes several battles the number of soldiers vary! Why it is so difficult for you to understand this? What you can do is to name either the numbers in the beginning, or at the end or the available manpower counting all males between 18 and 45 years, or build some average over the available manpower during the entire conflict. The number named in the original version is not arbitrary, it approximates this average.

I could agree to naming a number for each phase, the problem is however that I don't have this information. I have only the information that I've put in the article. I could search again into my sources perhaps I can find some numbers. Assuming you have access to some sources as well, I would propose you do the same. We then compare our information and give one number for each phase. Until then however, please leave the average number, it represents a good way of saying that the two sides were sensibly equal in strength .Octavian8 (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, the references include besides Romanian, Hungarian and English sources as well (look at the Bibliography).Octavian8 (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, pinpoint the exact book with page numbers that discusses the strength of the armies and that is accessible/verifiable. Koertefa (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The source for the named average as well as for casualties and losses was Kiritescu's book and to a smaller extent Mardarescu's book. Mardarescu's book is accessible in shops. Kiritescu's book is to my knowledge in the prints. Considering my post from above, we could include references by the Strength entry in the infobox once we have gathered enough information with respect to numbers per phase. What I could do right now is to cite Kiritescu book there again.Octavian8 (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "accessible in shops". Was it translated? Koertefa (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It is accessible in shops in Romania. To my knowledge there is no translation of this book until now. Octavian8 (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Before trying to contest the Romanian-language sources of this article, read the section called Tags.Octavian8 (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I have looked also at other articles about wars on Wikipedia, there seems to be no unitary way to fill the Strength entry in the Infobox: WWII has none, conversely WWI has one, but I'm not sure which numbers are given there and the Irak war also has one divided among various periods.Octavian8 (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I will mention the minimal and maximal troop strength available for conducting military operations during the war for both parties. This will be for Hungary something between 10.000 (five understrength Divisions according to the terms of the Belgrade armistice) and 80.000 (top strength available during Phase II) and for Romania between 10.000 (two understrength Divisions that crossed the Carpathians in 1918) and 96.000(top strength available during Phase III, when forcing the Tisza). Octavian8 (talk) 08:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I will make this modification in a few days if no comment is placed here. Octavian8 (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

This suggestion is surely better than the currently given information, so I agree with this modification, but I will also try to find myself estimates for the armies. For example, where does the number 80.000 for the Hungarian army (Phase II) come from? Koertefa (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do so and look also for Hungarian casualties. All info concerning strength comes from the two books by Kiritescu and Mardarescu. Octavian8 (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox modified today. Octavian8 (talk) 09:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Looting by Romanian troops

Some editors would like to comment on the looting conducted by Romanian troops. Please state here, when was this looting conducted and where. Give also your references and we can see if and how should this information be added in the article.Octavian8 (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not wiki rule. It is only your personal rule. 1,contribution with sources, 2, discussion (dispute), 3, solution. You proposal is incorrect (?1, discussion, 2, contribution?).Fakirbakir (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal leads to revert wars. Also it may be that the research upon which the edit is based was faulty that is cause for further edits and reverts. Discussing first ensures that only high-quality edits agreed by most editors reach the article.Octavian8 (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If your sources and your research are sound, why are you afraid of discussing them here first? Octavian8 (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Octavian8, if your issues with the claims and the references which were recently added are sound, then why are you afraid of explaining them? How can we reach a consensus if you do not explain your problems? (For example, with respect to the very first sentence of the lead.) Koertefa (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You disregard the sources and always want to talk about it. You will never agree with these statements.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You accuse me ante factum. Why not start here a discussion and see if I am really the way you accuse me of being? Octavian8 (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not want to accuse you. Sorry. However, this Romanian intervention had a dark side (looting of Budapest). These events were not 'glorious' Romanian achievements.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I also don`t like this data to be found like this - especially in the lead section, but since it is referenced I guess it is all-right. It happened and it is documented, that`s it. Like this, it gives the impression that the looting was the cause of this war and not the unification with Romania. Adrian (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that the looting was not the cause of the war, it was simply a consequence. Koertefa (talk) 07:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If looting happened, then it did and it deserves mentioning. I strongly disagree that this should be done in the Prelude. If you have found sources describing the looting of Budapest by Romanian forces - separated from the war/economical booty - than we can add this with the corresponding references to either the section 'The Romanians occupy Budapest' or the 'Aftermath'. If you want to compse the text describing the looting, then please do so, but post it here first, together with the references.Octavian8 (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources were already given (see the article) which are neutral (not Hungarian or Romanian authors/publishers), with author/title/chapter/publisher information, even with page numbers and links to the appropriate pages of their google books versions. If you think that the word "looting" only refers to "war/economical booty" (I doubt that), then it is you who should prove this, otherwise we should leave the word "looting" in the text. Since this looting is mentioned by very many sources (even by those who only give a short, few sentence description of the event), it was a typical aspect of the war, thus it should be mentioned in the lead. Naturally, I agree with you that this should also be mentioned in the appropriate sections of the article. Koertefa (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

My problem was with editing the article before agreement, therefore, I have never looked to your sources, before reverting the changes you've made to the text. This is why I ask you to put them here as well. As you see I am not against adding the information about looting to the article in the proper place - and the prelude is not that place. To answer to your point about "looting - war/economical booty", some English (mainly US) authors use the term 'looting' to describe, or rather to emphasize the fact that the Romanians took a rather extensive economical booty from the defeated Hungary. By looting one usually understands maraudering troops at work or the indiscriminate taking of goods. I have until now not seen any reports about Romanian troops behaving like this. Conversely, what the Romanians took from Hungary was pretty discriminate.Octavian8 (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The Romanian army looted the country for nearly six months.[10]Fakirbakir (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Now look here, your "source" also mentions that the Romanians attacked in April apparently without provocation, while what happened is that the Hungarians attacked in April after discussions that took some two month. So much for this source. Octavian8 (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

These are the sources that were added to the article: [11][12][13]. The last one also talks about "blockading food and medical shipments". But there are many other references. This one [14] even mentions that the looting of the Romanian forces was so excessive that they "stripped even the telephones and typewriters from government offices". According the story of Bandholtz [15][16] they even tried to loot the National Museum. This source [17] claims: "In August 1919 Romania again got itself involved in a war, this time with Bela Kun's Hungary, and stood accused by the Allies of the loot and rape of thousands of innocent Hungarians.". However, it is not a history book and such statements are hard to prove, so - unless we find other sources - "rape" should not be mentioned. However, many sources use words like widespread looting, or looting the country meticulously, so the "looting" should be definitely mentioned in the lead. Koertefa (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way: I think that the picture: "Romanian soldiers feeding the civilian population in Hungary" should be removed from the article. I do not doubt that such a thing could have happened, but I strongly doubt that it was common in contrast to the looting. Since the Romanian troops were blockading food supplies [18], presenting this picture is totally misleading and provides a propaganda style to the article. Koertefa (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, eliminate this, the Romanians are incapable of humanitarian acts, they can only loot typewriters and telephones... (and this mention about the telephones is NO propaganda). Or perhaps, mention both and leave the reader to judge for himself. Check out my text proposition. Octavian8 (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Nobody said that we should definitely include the claims about stealing telephones and typewriters (so far only general sentences about these were added), I just mentioned that such things happened according to neutral sources. And yes, that picture of Romanian troops feeding civilians is a clear propaganda, especially, if you take into account that the same troops blockaded the food and medical supplies. Koertefa (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

There is an excellent study about the Romanian lootings by one of my teachers, János Majdán: Román fosztogatás a magyar vasutakon, 1919 [Romanian looting of the Hungarian Railways in 1919], Rubicon magazine. 2010/4-5. Unfortunately I don't have this publication yet, but I'll try to get it.--Norden1990 (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There is to much attention to this "looting". It was a war, there was a complicated political situation, people fought for their freedom,... like in every war, looting happened, crimes happened, no doubt about that, but elevating this like this whole war the Romanian army looted Hungary is ridiculous. User:Norden1990, I don`t suspect that there are books about that subject like there are about many other controversial things but exaggerating it like this is really strange and unbalanced to this subject and the article. Adrian (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My point also about the lack of balance. Octavian8 (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that the current article is strongly unbalanced, but in favor of your point of view. Koertefa (talk) 07:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

New text of the Aftermath

Please check my proposition for the text of the Aftermath, including references to looting: User:Octavian8/Aftermath. Feel free to leave your comments here.Octavian8 (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Your description of the aftermath is strongly not neutral, it is written only from the Romanian point of view. It also tries to hide/discredit the looting that was done, for example, by using words such as "looting allegations" or "some modern scholars describe this as looting". It was looting and this claim was supported by several neutral sources. I also don't think that the Jewish-Hungarian population was perceived by all Hungarians as communist. There were some who thought of them as communists (those who committed the white terror), but your sentence treats all Hungarians as antisemitic, which is clearly offensive. You also "forgot" to mention the blockading of food and medical supplies when you wrote that "the Romanian troops took also care of feeding the population of large Hungarian cities". You also "forgot" to include the references that were already added to the article about the looting. The bottom line is that the version that you have suggested is simply unacceptable. Koertefa (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You say the version is not acceptable, well let's work to make it acceptable. My description of the aftermath corresponds to historical facts and it presents both sides of the coin. The Romanians considered what they took as war reparations and took as much as they considered fit (i.e., a lot) because they were in turn "looted" by the Central Powers in 1917, they were denied access to other reparation payments and promises made to them upon entering the war in 1916 were not honored by major Entente members. The Hungarians see it as looting, because the Romanians took that much from them. Now the official version of the story is Romanian, because they won the war, this is why I call this war reparations, however, I also gave credit to the Hungarian side by placing looting allegations just besides war reparations in the title. Now references about this historical fact tend to differ depending on what historian you are listening to. As I've pointed it out, several writers concerned with this topic from former Entente members call this looting because Romania went over Entente's head with this.Octavian8 (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your statement that: "Now the official version of the story is Romanian, because they won the war". The official story should be neutral with respect to who won the war. Since several sources were provided that called the actions of the Romanian troops looting, it is not acceptable if you try to discredit them with putting the word "allegations" after "looting". The subtitle should be "War reparations and looting". Also, I think that it is at least controversial whether Admiral Horthy was "far-right"" or not. I think that this article should not take side in this question. While, naturally, I do not want to hide the white terror, it should be mentioned, but it is questionable whether Horthy was responsible for that. Koertefa (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

From my point of view, the direct equivalent to looting would be not "war reparations", but "taking (some of) our righteous retribution". As stated in my answer below I would propose "looting accusations" - as this is what they really are in the end - and everybody is happy. About Horthy, I said that the group around him was "far right" and this corresponds to the facts (as discussed in the source as well). Horthy used the white guards to consolidate his power. What we could say to be more precise is something like ...a group including far-right nationalistic elements.... Octavian8 (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that there are things like "righteous retributions" in a war: "righteous" according to what? One can ask for "war reparations", but only after the war. The goods taken during the war from the other state can be called "booty" in some circumstances (e.g., arms taken from the other army), but the goods taken from the civilians during (or after) the war can only be called "looting". Also see my comment below.

Elements

Regarding the sentence, I still don't like the word "element": what about: "...a group including far-right nationalists..."? Koertefa (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you have against "the elements" :-)? One person is an element of a group... The word is used according to its definition. I think elements sounds nice in a scientific contribution, also from a literary perspective. Octavian8 (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, if you think that it is encyclopedic, then "elements" is also fine with me. This question is not that crucial. Koertefa (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Protecting the Jewish-Hungarians

About the Jewish-Hungarian population, point taken, not the entire Hungarian population thought them as communists. We could modify the text to "some elements" of the Hungarian population and add some references to the white terror, is this OK?Octavian8 (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for refining that, this version of the sentence is clearly better. I still do not like the word "elements": I do not think that it is encyclopedic (unless we talk about chemistry). Perhaps we should call them the "white guards", since as I know, they called themselves that way.

I agree on the white guards. Take a look at the new text. Octavian8 (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is what element means. Chemical element is the second meaning. The white guards were elements of the Hungarian society of those times, were they not? However, for the sake of agreement I could agree to "white guards". Octavian8 (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The first meaning is "simplest or essential parts", which is also not suitable. Then, let's use the word "white guards", since they are the ones who are usually associated with the white terror. Koertefa (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources on various issues

Now about blockading of food. If is the same as requisitioning food as part of war reparations that is already mentioned (even a quantity of thousands of car loads is given). We can at most give the Hungarian point of view. Nevertheless, nobody died of hunger in Hungary under the Romanian occupation.

The source that was cited was not written or published by Hungarians, so it is not the "Hungarian point of view". But, of course, the Hungarian point of view is also important so I am going to bring Hungarian references, as well. Koertefa (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

So a source written by someone not involved in a conflict can by itself not reproduce the point of view of one of the warring parties? I disagree. Now coming back to the content of the post, the Hungarian point of view would be to call "requisitioning" "blockading". Octavian8 (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, point taken, these sources could also be non-neutral. Koertefa (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

About your source [19], it mentions the blockading of food and medicine by the enemies of Hungary (i.e., Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia). It is not clear how much food and medicine was blockaded by what country (it may be that Romania blockaded nothing) and what impact did it have on Hungary (did Hungary starve for this reason?, did the people start to die due to lack of this medical supplies?). Who sent the supplies? The Allies? Furthermore, it seems that this happened during the Karoly government that is at least strange, because this government lasted for four month after the end of WWI, which would imply that the Allies started to prepare shipments of medical supplies and food for one of their enemies (i.e. Hungary) since during the war Another question, if there was enough for the Romanians to take in 1919, it was not that much that got blockaded, is it? Finally, I would say that blockading the frontiers of your enemy is OK in times of war and if this happened in 1918, what does it have to do with the war reparations? Octavian8 (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

For the other sources, one mentions the looting of Budapest, and we had this already and the other one I have already commented in my answer to Fakirbakir, see above.Octavian8 (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

About the references, mention here please the references that I forgot and what are they saying. However, if they are again about some "examples" of looting, there is already the example about the telephones there. Octavian8 (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Subsection title

I will modify the text of the article as described, if there are no further comments until 15.10.2011. Octavian8 (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Though the current version is better, it is still not good enough (e.g., "looting allegations" instead of "looting"). Koertefa (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, how about "looting accusations"? An "accusation" is more than an "allegation". The Romanians imposed war reparations (that is normal for a victor in a war) and the Hungarians accuse them of looting. Octavian8 (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that we can only speak about "war reparations" after the war, but during the war it is called "booty" or "looting", depending on whether the goods were taken from the other state (e.g., the other army) or they were taken from the civilians. Anyway, I can agree on leaving out the word "looting" from the abstract (also see my comment above about the lead), if the section "Aftermath" presents both viewpoints ("war reparations" and "looting") equally, without discrediting one of them with other words, such as "accusation" or ""allegation". I think that this would be a good compromise, since in this way the perspectives of both sides would be represented equally (and the lead would not take side in this quenstion). Koertefa (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I thought we spoke always about what happened after the war and mainly in Budapest. All serious sources that you've posted and that I can remember of, spoke about this. There was no mention anywhere about taking something from civilians. Octavian8 (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I can understand that "allegation" seems to let looting sound more mildly, but not "accusation", almost on the contrary it emphasizes the word, it states the perceived reality by one of the parties (which does not necessarily make it the absolute truth -- as looting alone would do). Furthermore in the subtitle there is "war reparation", which, as already pointed out, is the usual thing a victor requires from a defeated in a conflict, therefore "war reparation" is not a Romanian equivalent to looting (this would by what I've said in the other post). Octavian8 (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

See my comment below which cites the diary of General Bandholtz. Koertefa (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

In the end I believe all boils down to two different points of view: the Hungarians consider the war reparations looting and the Romanians see them as compensation. Nevertheless, if we call the war reparations looting (suggesting this is a fact), we push the Hungarian point of view over the Romanian and the section title looses its balance. This is why in the title in my proposition there is "looting accusations", and not simply "looting". Another unbalanced title would be "War reparations: looting or compensations" or "Compensations and looting", etc., but this is awkward. A better solution would be to call the section simply "War reparations" as there is already text explaining the looting issue. This being said, my opinion is that the current title "War reparations and looting accusations" is a very good compromise and represents the best solution to date (even if the Romanian point of view is somewhat missing, one can still argue, the Romanians as victors were behind the "war reparations" and the looting is not a fact, but an accusation). Octavian8 (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

So what about propositions for a new subtitle if you don't like looting accusations that much? I will give it a try with "War reparations: compensation or looting?". Octavian8 (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Bandholtz story

I have read Octavian's editing about aftermath. I think it is an improvement. we should mention Harry_Hill_Bandholtz's story.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, as you put it is a story and it is already mentioned in the article you have linked - with the mention of the lack of sources supporting it. So I believe it should not be mentioned. In general, I doubt we should mention in such an article individual deeds. I think we should stick to the big picture. The big picture is the duality war reparations/looting that indeed was somewhat missing before, but we are about to correct this. Octavian8 (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the "lack of sources", it is in his diary: [20] Koertefa (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well the source actually supports my text proposition, see my detailed answer from below. Octavian8 (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Then, we read the source very differently... Koertefa (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Fakirbakir that there are improvements, but, for example, the "story of Bandholtz" [21] should be mentioned, especially, since, e.g., the "war reparations" asked by the Romanians are discussed in details (so we can give details about the looting, as well). This event at the National Museum is a good illustration of the fact that the looting of Budapest had several aspects. Koertefa (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

What is discussed in more detail is why the Romanians imposed war reparations in such a (call it disproportionate if you want) measure. Thus explaining why the Hungarians are entitled to accuse the Romanians of looting. So there is no bias there towards the Romanian point of view, just the explanation for having a different Romanian and Hungarian point of view. I even included the example with the telephones to make the account more detailed from a Hungarian perspective. I believe it to be detailed enough now.

About the story with the museum, I have in principle a problem with including individual accounts here. The reason is that they can lead very easy to polemics (see also my answer about including looting in the lead) and are rather difficult to confirm. However, if you like this story that much and have enough info on it, then write a stand-alone article on it. We could think about linking it here. Octavian8 (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that this story is not suitable for having an own Wikipedia article. Its best place would be here... Koertefa (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, you have my reasons above. Octavian8 (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

For me the Bandholtz story is about the museum. This story as such is mentioned in the article about Bandholtz already, for this and the above reasons I am against its mention here. The looting references in the general's diary need a new subchapter. Octavian8 (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The story about saving the National Museum from being looted by the Romanians is a well-known event of the war (ahttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hungarian-Romanian_war_of_1919&action=edit&section=44nd fully supported by his own statements), so it would be strange leaving this out. Since General Bandholtz was a representative of the Allied Military Mission in Hungary and he has a detailed diary about the events, the article should at least name him and link to his article. Koertefa (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This "event" is already described in the article about Bandholtz and for all the above reasons, I don't think it should be mentioned here.

• Look here, I don't say nothing happened there, I just say that we have just a personal view of Bandholtz on what happened there. I have already pointed out that the Allied military mission in Hungary was somewhat anti-Romanian and pro-Hungarian, so it is somewhat expected that his interpretation of this event would be biased.
• Another point is that his statements are supported only by his statements... From where I stay, the Romanian soldiers were there to protect the museum from thieves, and because they were no looting gang, they recognized the authority of an allied-army general and left peacefully, convinced there was nothing wrong.
• Just try to think a bit about what you are saying, should the Romanian soldiers in this story really be out for looting, do you think a single "allied" general would be enough to scary them off? Any looting gang in such a situation would have just eliminate the hindrance (as in kill him) and continue their looting.
• Finally, assuming that Bandholtz's account on the matter corresponds to the truth and is not his subjective view on an event he witnessed. Why shouldn't your (Koertefa) reasoning from our discussion on "the elements" (i.e., the Hungarians and the Hungarian-Jews) apply here as well? Why should the deeds of some soldiers (tenth?) have anything to say on the behavior of a Romanian army of many tenth of thousands. Octavian8 (talk) 08:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• You must be joking, right? Your wrote that "the Romanian soldiers were there to protect the museum from thieves". Can you provide any source that claims this? Several books and the Allied Military Mission (not just Bandholtz) claimed that the Romanian soldiers were the thieves, they tried to remove items from the National Museum. It is not only the personal view of Bandholtz, there were Hungarian eye-witnesses, as well, such as Gyula Pekár, but I did not even cite him, since you might say that he is biased towards the Hungarian point of view. You are questioning all of the sources that you don't like, while those that you cite are all fine, even if it is almost impossible for most readers of English Wikipedia to verify them (since they are in Romanian). And, of course, the Romanian authors that you cite are all unbiased. It is not our role to question the sources, our role is to present all sides of the story (even the Hungarian one). Koertefa (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't mix up things, it is just Bandholtz that holds this view and even he does not brag about. There are no other Western authors to do this, and if they refer to this in this context, they cite Bandholtz. So in the end what we have is just the interpretation of Bandholtz. What sources that I cite do you mean? Octavian8 (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• Regarding your hypothesis that a looting force would have killed Bandholtz, I think that the Romanian soldiers did not dare to kill an American Major General, since there would have been extremely serious consequences of such a murdering. Koertefa (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What consequences should there be, and why should they be more serious than for looting? Finally consider the fact that they don't have to kill him to go past him. Point is that a single human, general or not, would not be able to stop a many more humans if they don't let him stop them. The soldiers stopped precisely because they were no looting gang. Octavian8 (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with you regarding your last comment. It was the action of only some Romanian soldiers, and this does not mean that all of them committed or try to commit looting. We can write that "some elements" of the Romanian army try to loot the National Museum. Koertefa (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I would also agree to this, if this would have been a fact, as in the case with the white guards, the Bandholtz "story" is not a fact but an interpretation. If you care to elaborate on this interpretation this is not the place. Octavian8 (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Since there were many other eye-witnesses, e.g., Gyula Pekár, who described that the Romanian soldiers wanted to remove items from the National Museum without any previous agreement, but general Bandholtz did not let them, this "story" is not an "interpretation", it is a fact. The only thing that is open to interpretations is whether we call the actions of the soldiers "looting" or something else. Koertefa (talk) 08:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do think that it is you who decides where can this topic be elaborated? Koertefa (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Looting references in Bandholtz's diary

This is an addition to the "Bandholtz story" [22] and also explains why the word "looting" should be used without any addition, such as "accusation" or "allegation". The following diary part was written by Major General Harry Hill Bandholtz on August 18, 1919 [23]:

"The Roumanians on their part immediately began to loot Hungary, removing all automobiles, locomotives, cars and other rolling stock, took possession of and shipped to Roumania all the arms, munitions, and war material they could find, and then proceeded also to clean the country out of private automobiles, farm implements, cattle, horses, clothing, sugar, coal, salt, and in fact everything of value; and even after they were notified by the Supreme Council of the Peace Conference to cease such requisitioning, they continued and are still continuing their depredations. They have taken possession of all branches of the government, all railroad, telegraph, telephone and postal systems, and at this date have all Hungary completely terrorized and at their feet." (page 15 or 33 depending on the edition - I made the word "private" bold) Koertefa (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I interpret the quotes from his diary as a proof that the text I propose is the best solution. Even Bandholtz mixes looting with requisitioning and says that the Romanians went over the head of the Allies with this (all this is already in my text proposition). So what do we have here? I have always admitted that the Romanians took a lot, this is written in clear text in my proposition. Now the Hungarians use this as basis to accuse the Romanians of looting. However, the Romanians consider this as mere war reparations, in total, far from the amount required to compensate their sacrifices in this war. The title "War reparations and looting accusations" is already the best compromise and the text behind the title covers all issues in a balanced way. Octavian8 (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, we can only speak about "war reparations" after the war, after the Romanian army left Hungary. War reparations should be paid by a state to another state and not taken by soldiers. Taking the goods that Bandholtz mentions by the Romanian army should be considered requisitioning and looting, instead of "war reparations". Since there are several modern scholars and even a contemporary officer (the US representative of the Allied Military Mission) that call the actions of the Romanians looting, I do not agree on discrediting it with modalities (such as "accusations"). If we cannot agree on that then we should ask for mediation from neutral (e.g., not from Central or Eastern Europe) editors/administrators. Koertefa (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

To complete your statement: "...we can only speak about "war reparations" after the war and the Hungarians describe what happened after the war as looting". However, after the war means after the armistice, after the fighting ceased. When the Romanian army left Hungary, they have already extracted all imposed war reparations. Before the armistice there is just fighting. Octavian8 (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If the goods were taken by the Romanian army after an agreement to stop the fighting was reached, then it is requisitioning. Looting means that the soldiers took the goods for their own while the fights were still raging.Octavian8 (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

All credible sources speak about what happened after the armistice (even more, some of them refer only to Budapest!) and the text I propose reflects precisely this. The sole exception might be the Banbdholtz "story" as in Bandholtz personal view on some event he witnessed (see my comment form above on the Bandholtz story). Octavian8 (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

And which sources are "creditable"? Why, for example, Bandholtz, the officers of the Allied mission, Hungarian eye-witnesses and many modern Western scholars are not creditable? Koertefa (talk) 08:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Understand this, you have only the interpretation of Bandholtz, part of a mission that was biased against the Romanians. You don't have any other Western sources. Bandholtz is the primary source. What credible sources is concerned, these are the sources I have already taken in to the text, many of whom were provided by you. Octavian8 (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that all the other Western sources that I have cited are based on Bandholtz's statements. And, please, stop calling Bandholtz biased against the Romanians just because he treated the requisitioning of the Romanians looting, since there was no agreement about those at the Supreme Council of the Peace Conference. Koertefa (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You can find many more concrete examples in that diary [24]. Therefore, a primary source (he was there in that time, he is not a "modern scholar") talks about looting. Moreover, not only public goods were taken that belonged to the Hungarian state, but also many private goods, which belonged to civilians. This cannot be simply called "war reparations" and it is much more than an "accusation": he himself saw examples of looting, e.g.: [25]. Koertefa (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Now I don't know to what private refers to in the quote. However, automobiles, farm implements, cattle and horses have an economic value that makes them suitable to constitute war reparations. It may be that they were taken directly from the owners by the Romanian authorities or they were collected by the Hungarian authorities in collect centers and handed over to the Romanians (it is not mentioned how they were collected, neither her, nor in the books I've read until now on the subject). Nevertheless, this was the way things were done back then. The same thing happened when Romania had to obey the Buftea armistice. Please note that the text of the aftermath always included that the Romanians took trucks, farm implements, cattle and horses as war reparations, and I quote: "When the Romanian troops finally departed Hungary at the beginning of 1920, they took extensive booty, including food, trucks, locomotives and railroad cars" & "...(the Hungarians) had to hand over to the Romanians...30% of the livestock, 30% of all agricultural tools...". Octavian8 (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that private refers to goods taken from civilians. You can find more examples of goods taken from civilians in that diary. It is also clear from the diary that the automobiles, farm implements, cattle and horses, etc., were not collected by the Hungarian authorities, but directly by the Romanian army. His diary is absolutely unambiguous. And, of course, I have read your text about the aftermath, but calling these "booty" is not acceptable for me, since many goods were taken from simple citizens, instead of the Hungarian state/army. Koertefa (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As already said, if they were requisitioned by the Romanian army as part of the war reparations, after the armistice, then this is what they are, namely war reparations. Octavian8 (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

To make myself more clear, for example, if only 10% of the livestock was in public hands, then the difference of 20% must have been requisitioned from private households. It does not really matter if the requisitioning was done by the Hungarian authorities under Romanian pressure or directly by the Romanian soldiers. This is precisely what the Central Powers did in Romania the previous year, this is the way war reparations/looting (depending on what side you are) were handled back then.Octavian8 (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that this is the way that war reparations normally work. To make myself more clear, I do not think that normally the occupying soldiers take the war reparations from simple citizens. I think that "war reparations" are normally paid by one state to another state after the war, viz., after the soldiers left. But I am happy that you have agreed on that these actions can be considered "war reparations/looting (depending on what side you are)". The subtitle that was suggested, namely: "war reparations and looting", reflected both sides of the story. Koertefa (talk) 08:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The war reparation - looting "bivalence" was there from the very beginning, it is you who want looting introduced as fact (as in 'looting' without accusations), not as Hungarian point of view (as in 'looting accusations'). It may be that the Romanian soldiers collected the items for the war reparations themselves, but they did it on orders from their superiors, that acted following an agreement that ended the fighting, ergo they were not looting but following orders in a regular manner. Octavian8 (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any verifiable sources which claim that all requisitioning was done based on a previous agreement with the Hungarian authorities about war reparations? I can believe that the Romanians treated them as war reparations, but was there any agreement or just demands and arbitrary requisitioning? Koertefa (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

War reparations are collected after an agreement to end the fighting is reached. You (as occupying army) don't necessarily have to leave the country before collecting them. Octavian8 (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Bandholtz's anti-Romanian bias?

There is also the issue of bias from the part of this "primary source". As I've said, the Romanians ignored the Entente (and its representatives, i.e., Bandholtz and his colleagues) at least for a while after entering Budapest. I have accounts describing the Italian "colleague" col. Romanelli as shamelessly anti-Romanian (actually he was later replaced because of this). Nevertheless, the quote from Bandholtz's diary that you gave covers 100% my text proposition so I won't start to question Bandholtz's bias for now.Octavian8 (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Since Bandholtz was a representative of the US, this means that during the war he was an enemy of Austria-Hungary, so I do not think that he was biased. And the fact that there was an Italian officer who was accused of being anti-Romanian does not prove otherwise. I see citing books that are only accessible in Romanian a more serious issue than accepting the description of a witness, a major general of the US army, who was there and experienced / documented the events. Koertefa (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The whole Allied mission of which Bandholtz was part of was accused of being anti-Romanian. The Italians acknowledged that by replacing their representative. The fact that these books are available only in Romanian changes nothing. I have already told you several times why is this so (see on this Talk page, the Prelude's subsection on looting -- Section 4.3.2).

You again try to discredit the sources that you don't like, as you did with the scholars who wrote about "looting". Koertefa (talk) 08:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course I discredit this (Bandholtz) source, because it can be discredited. I did discredit o only those that could be discredited. As you can see in my text I agree to mentioning looting as a Hungarian point of view, and support this point of view with sources other than Hungarian as well. However, it is a Hungarian point of view, not a fact, and it refers to what happened after the fighting ceased. To this I have already agreed, I think my text is pretty clear in this respect. Octavian8 (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

He is only discredit by you, at least so far you did not provide any proper sources that question his claims. I think that his diary contains valuable information on the events (what happened and when) and since he was not only a witness, but as an American general he had access to a large amount information, we should seriously take his data into account (for example, about the size of requisitioning). Koertefa (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Other eye-witness accounts

I also have some examples: "... life (in Budapest after Kun's departure) regained its normality, unhindered under the protection of the Romanian soldier." -- the account covers the fact that the Romanian occupation authorities reinstated public gathering freedom, press freedom and the cultural life that came to a halt during the Bolsheviks. Octavian8 (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the connection of this with the looting? Koertefa (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

This is another eye-witness account on these times. This has to do with the fact that the Romanian soldiers were occupied with providing security and ensuring that life got back to normal in the Hungarian territories under Romanian occupation. That is, they were not occupied with looting. Octavian8 (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please tell us who is your reference (and where did he/she claims these). The fact that some Romanian soldiers replaced the Hungarian police does not contradict the fact of requisitioning and looting. This was not for the benefit of the Hungarian citizens, but for their own, e.g., so they could carry on with their activities without interruption. Bandholtz wrote: "Roumanian tactics in regard to reorganizing the Hungarian police and army have been constantly obstructive. They seem determined to force Hungary into a separate treaty and, if obliged to evacuate, to leave her ripe for anarchy and Bolshevism so that their return will be requested." Koertefa (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Requisitioning and looting are two different things. You requisition as part of war reparations, you loot for yourself. I believe this is the main point, you mix these two things. The Romanian soldiers took goods from Hungarian civilians, agreed, but they did it on order, not for them as individual soldiers. For the Hungarians it is all the same, but from a neutral point of view, this is not the same (look again at definition of the term looting), because they were collecting war reparations. This is what I am arguing here the whole time. The quote is from the Romanian commander in Budapest. Octavian8 (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, "requisitioning" is not the same as "looting", but some requisitioning can be interpreted as looting, if there is no proper agreement about war reparations, if the occupying army just takes what it wants. If the requisitioning is based on a mutual agreement, then it might be called "war reparations", but it still sounds strange, since war reparations are usually not taken by an invading force, but payed afterwards. Koertefa (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess, a Romanian commander is not completely neutral with respect to a Romanian-Hungarian conflict.Koertefa (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, this action of the Romanian army was also against the agreements. For example (from Bandholtz's diary): "It was expressly stated that the Hungarian police and civil administrations were to be continued. This agreement was violated." Koertefa (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What does looting mean

For me, as already pointed out looting means maraudering troops at work, i.e., soldiers robbing civilians for their own purposes. (i) It is a big difference between this and the requisitioning of goods from civilians for the purpose of adding to war reparations imposed by a victor in a conflict. (ii) It is an even larger difference between this and the "feeling" of a defeated country that the war reparations imposed by the victor were so large/extensive that it is right to call them looting (i.e., accuse the victor of looting). Octavian8 (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The scholars that I have cited and Bandholtz himself are not Hungarians, they have nothing to do with the feelings of Hungarians. Since, Bandholtz and the others use the word "looting", how do you know that the Romanian soldiers did not take goods (from civilians) for their own purposes, as well? Moreover, requisitioning by soldiers should not be called "war reparations", since some of these goods were taken from simple citizens. Koertefa (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The scholars you cite, describe what happened after the armistice. Some of them refer only to Budapest. As pointed out in my text, they interpret the war reparations as looting. Even Bandholtz does this in the text you've kindly cited above. Octavian8 (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

How does it work? We can cite and use Romanian authors' works indefinitely in the article but Hungarian (and English, American etc) persons, scholars are 'banned' because of their different opinions (József Breit is the only one who is Hungarian among the references)? The main problem is other viewpoints do not appear in the article.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Now I assume you have not read the References and Bibliography sections properly. Please do so before posting such things. Read also my post from section 4.3.2 (the Prelude's subsection on looting) about the main sources of this article. Finally, please note that the term booty was already in the text (and still is). Octavian8 (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Fakirbakir just hit the nail on the head: you simply try to ignore and discredit all of those sources which show that not all of the Romanian soldiers were magnanimous national heroes. For example, some of them committed looting. And even the requisitioning that was organized officially by the Romanian army is very questionable ethically, since they took many goods from citizens. Moreover, József Breit is indeed the only Hungarian among the References (while the Bibliography contains others) and it is only used to support a simple date (when the Serbian troops occupied Pécs). Koertefa (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong, I discredit nothing that is not worth discrediting. What I discredit indeed is your biased (and thus wrong) interpretation of what happened back then. From my point of view you simply don't want an agreement, you just want that your bias is stated here as fact (and I will never agree to this). I is either that you don't want an agreement or you don't know what looting means, although I gave you even a link. Anyway, read the new text. From my point of view this is the most we can do. Octavian8 (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If "looting" is just an interpretation then so is "war reparations". The fact is that there were "requisitionings", that is why I suggested a new subtitle (see below) that does not treat looting as a fact. Koertefa (talk) 09:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW: I did check the article about war loot and the actions of the Romanian army can perfectly fit into this category, for example: "These "spoils of war" differ from tributes or other payments extracted after the fact by a victorious nation in that their extraction is largely arbitrary and immediate, being administered by the armed forces themselves rather than by treaty or agreement between the parties involved.". Since the requisitioning was done and administered by the armed forces of Romania based on arbitrary demands, the actions of the Romanian army can be clearly called "looting". Koertefa (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please note that you are coming back to your original pattern of launching accusations against me. If you continue this I will stop talking to you. I would be sorry to do this, because I really hopped that we can achieve something here.Octavian8 (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You might not noticed, but you also launched accusations against me and the sources I provided, for example, you talked about "Hungarian speculation" and "anti-Romanian bias" of General Bandholtz (without any proof). You said that I just wanted to push my biased views and did not want an agreement, etc. Should I also stop talking to you, then? Koertefa (talk) 09:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Finally, I never said that "the Romanian soldiers were magnanimous national heroes" this is just you putting words into my mouth (or fingertips in this case ;-)). The Romanian soldiers were just soldiers and as such capable of looting. However, you have nothing to sustain your accusing them of looting other than some interpretation of a biased American general, and even there, no looting took place, as this Captain America singlehandedly fended off a gang of looting soldiers... (Captain America assumes that they were out for looting, even though it is obvious from his own account that they did not behaved as looting soldiers usually do, and even though they wanted from the whole museum just the Transylvanian collection, that happened to be related to a territory formally part of Austria-Hungary, that after the war was now part of Romania and on top of this it was something like a casus belli).

What may have taken place is that Romanian soldiers occasionally requisitioned themselves (on order from their superiors) part of the war reparations (that part uncovered by public enterprises) from privately owned enterprises and possibly households. Now I understand that these private persons feel looted, but ethically correct or not, this is the way reparations were collected back then, this was nothing out of the ordinary in those times (some 25 years later it still wasn't). Following the definition of the word looting, the Romanian soldiers did not loot, they stay however accused of looting and this is fully understandable. But an accusation is not a fact.Octavian8 (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Viewpoints

Again, what is your point precisely? and what do you want, what other viewpoints do you mean? I have already came a long way to meet your demands and agreed on including the looting issue. I really want to have an unbiased text with which both sides can live. But, you blindly insist on this looting issue, even if I demonstrated you time and again that this looting was not a fact, but a Hungarian point of view. If we have this your way, then we don't have a compromise but the statement of a Hungarian point of view and a perpetuation of an old feud. Octavian8 (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As I also demonstrated you time and again that this looting is a fact, there are several sources that claim this: Bandholtz, other officers of the Allied forces (see his diary), Hungarian eye-witnesses and modern scholars (not only from Hungary). It is not only a Hungarian point of view. And your "long" way to meet the "demands" was just to include "looting" as a discredited theory, as a synonym of "war reparations". It is not acceptable. And I also came a "long way to meet your demands", since I accepted to leave out the "looting" from the abstract (if it is properly described in the Aftermath section). I also only ask for presenting both sides of the story, since the version that you have suggested only shows the Romanian point of view. You have to accept the less glorious part of this war, not just the glorious one. Koertefa (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

You demonstrated nothing. You blindly insist that Bandholdz account is indeed of looting, as in soldiers robbing the museum for themselves. When I say that the soldiers were there on order to protect the museum and eventually take the Transylvanian collection, as in that collection that belonged to a part of Romania now. Again, your sources are about describing what happened after the armistice as looting, your sources are not about marauding Romanian soldiers. This sources have already been cited in my text proposition. Octavian8 (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what do you mean with the discredited theory. Looting is a Hungarian point of view, it is not the absolute truth. Looting is not the synonym of war reparations, war reparations is the neutral formulation. In this context looting is the synonym to righteous retribution. This is what I make clear. Octavian8 (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's talk about viewpoints the way I understand it until now:

• The current viewpoint (to which I agree mentioning and that is supported by references): The Romanians imposed punitive war reparations on Hungary. The Hungarians call this looting, and accuse the Romanians of looting. In the quantum of war reparations payed both the Hungarian state and the Hungarian public (i.e., private enterprises and possibly households).
• Other viewpoint (that is just Hungarian speculation and that it can be considered to be supported by a single account of an American general on some incident regarding a museum): The Romanian army was a disorganized looting gang, that had their way with the properties of the Hungarian population in the occupied territories.

From my point of view, we can discuss about the first viewpoint and give a neutral account on this. The second viewpoint is a Hungarian speculation, implying it means unbalancing the article towards Hungarian speculations.

Octavian8 (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice try, but these are not the only perspectives that can be taken. In fact, I never took your manipulative last point of view, I never claimed that "the Romanian army was a disorganized looting gang". On the contrary, the requisitioning (even from civilians) proceeded in an organized way. Koertefa (talk) 09:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you don't really understand what looting means. You consistently mix looting with requisitioning up. As I said, I can understand that for the Hungarians looting and requisitioning is the same, but not from a neutral point of view. You requisition for war reparations, you loot for yourself (as in individual soldiers taking part in the looting). The Romanian soldiers were not looting, they were requisitioning. The looting is a Hungarian accusation, not a fact. Octavian8 (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I could agree to making this more clear, as in pointing out why the Hungarians consider themselves looted. But it still remains that they accuse the Romanian soldiers of looting, this is no fact. Octavian8 (talk) 11:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Check out the new text. Now we only need one reference that describes what you call looting, meaning one reference describing the Romanian soldiers taking something from Hungarian private persons/enterprises. Octavian8 (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning looting: cooperation, neutrality, reasons

From Koertefa's post: "...I also came a "long way to meet your demands", since I accepted to leave out the "looting" from the abstract (if it is properly described in the Aftermath section). I also only ask for presenting both sides of the story, since the version that you have suggested only shows the Romanian point of view. You have to accept the less glorious part of this war, not just the glorious one." ]

OK, look here:

1) The article is neutral the way it is right now. Because it just states facts (how much did the Romanians took) with very little comments. Thus, a reader can think for himself if this was a just compensation or robbery.

2) You (as in Koertefa, Fakirbakir) came in and wanted comments and interpretations of the facts added to the article, because you've felt that the facts alone do not cover the Hungarian feelings about this. So it is you that tried to make the article "un-neutral" by adding the Hungarian point of view to the otherwise plain and neutral statement of what was taken.

3) I agreed to this and started to dig into the problem, to present the Romanian point of view on the war reparations issue as well, hoping for an account meant to ease the tensions between us (as Romanians and Hungarians).

This being said, I think that the fruits of our research are nice:

a) We didn't know that there was such a huge rift between the Allies and Romania on the issue of compensations from Hungary (and other issues as well).

b) We didn't know that the Allies were so angry at Romania -- because Romania followed its own interests on several occasions and went over their head -- as to threaten with Romania's exclusion from the alliance.

c) I find it interesting that from this quarrel it was Hungary that suffered in the end... Because the Allies gave Romania virtually nothing from the common compensations mass (another thing I didn't know) and as a consequence the Romanians took what they considered fit more or less for their entire war effort, (not just from the war with Hungary) from Hungary alone.

d) I can better understand why the Hungarians consider themselves looted (with reference to the war reparations issue). The Romanians collected at least part of the war reparations themselves and it is possible (or even probable) they did it from privately owned enterprises (and even households) as well.

d1) However, you should understand that Hungary got no worse treatment than other countries. Romania (let alone Serbia) suffered the same or even worse the years before at the hands of the Central Powers (Hungary included!) and while this is clearly no justification it is prove that such things were customary back then.

All these, in my opinion very interesting facts, should get into the text of the article, and I believe are covered in my text proposition. However, there are still some open points.

i) Romanian soldiers looting the Hungarian population, as in Romania troops taking something from Hungarians not for the war compensations mass, but for their own selfs, and doing this while holding the Hungarians, at the tip of a gun barrel. There is no evidence for this happening!

i1) All the references you have brought forth point to the fact that the Hungarians accuse the Romanian requisitioning of the self-imposed war reparations quotas from Hungary to be looting. There is no reference to looting, maraudering Romanian soldiers.

i2) You bring forth a story by an American General that by his own account stopped Romanian soldiers from robbing the Transylvanian collection of the Hungarian National Museum (like in taking the items to bring them back to their individual families back in Romania).

i21) I have pointed you that this story is likely a miss-interpretation. Why didn't the robbing soldiers just ignore the general, restrain him and go on with the robbing? Why did they recognized his authority and left? Why did they wanted only the Transylvanian collection?

i22) Furthermore, from your own quotes from the general's diary, he accuses the Romanians of "over-requisitioning" not of looting! my point being that he refers to the collecting of war reparations that he associates to depredation, not about maraudering soldiers.

i3) Granted, it may have been that on occasions Romanian soldiers took something from private Hungarian enterprises or even households (like in cattle for example) -- this still remains to be proven conclusively, otherwise what we have are just speculations. It is understandable that this is looting from a Hungarian perspective. However, not from a neutral perspective, as the soldiers were not robbing, they were requisitioning. They were doing this within the frame of an agreement that ended the fighting and to which the Hungarian authorities were forced by the circumstances of Hungary's military defeat to agree.

i4) I even had someone I know checking the Romanian archives (which was pretty complicated). What you have there on convictions by military tribunals during the occupation of Hungary are just some acts of insubordination.

ii) When should war reparations be collected? After the occupation troops have retreated or during the occupation?

ii1) In most cases known to history, reparations are collected while the victor's army occupies the defeated country. It is also sensible to do so, because for example otherwise it is only the perspective of a renewal in fighting to force the defeated to pay reparations. This means, that in case of noncompliance of the defeated with the the victor's demands, the latter has to amass his army again, and invade the defeated country eventually facing opposition. This is by all rules of warfare stupid, as you as a victor can collect the reparations just after the original fighting has ceased at far lesser costs for you as a victor and with certainty.

ii2) Germany in WWI was not occupied in the beginning by allied armies and when the French thought the Germans are stalling on the reparations issue, they invaded the Ruhr region.

iii) Should we give here an account of Bandholtz's story on the museum? The answer here is simply NO! Next are four reasons for this that immediately came to my mind:

iii1) Even if the story would be true the way you interpret it, what it describes are just looting intentions (because nothing was taken in the end) by soldiers from some unit (which?) of the Romanian army. So what should this story add to our article? You are not to blame for your intentions, but for your deeds.

iii2) I do not agree to mentioning in this context (in an article talking about an entire war) of individual deeds, whatever they are, whoever did them. I gave you my reasons above. Read the article again to see that this is consistent throughout it. Read other accounts on wars on Wikipedia to see that there is little to no mentioning of individual deeds.

iii3) This particular story, is from my point of view and for the reasons I have stated here several times, just bragging and malicious, biased interpretation of some event. So it is widely open to interpretations and reinterpretations, which means it will always be a reason for reverts and quarrel.

iii4) This story is already covered in Wikipedia, in the article about Bandholtz.

Octavian8 (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I will concentrate my answers here to keep the arguments focused. I do not agree with you that the current article is neutral and only states the facts. Just by emphasizing some facts while hiding or discrediting others you can have a very unbalanced article. For example, the section you suggested mainly considers the Romanian point of view: it mostly speaks about Romania, its connections with the Entente, from whom it received (or should have received) war reparations, what was promised to Romania and what did it get, etc. Though it mostly states "facts", it is still unbalanced. What about the situation of Hungary? Regarding your comments:

• I appreciate that you have suggested another subtitle, but it still states it as a fact that the requisitioned goods were "war reparations". If we want to speak about "war reparations", then both states should agree on them. If a state simply makes demands and decides to take what it wants (without agreement), then it can be hardly called "war reparations", it is more like "looting". Therefore, the subtitle that I suggest is: "Requisitioning: war reparations or looting?". Requisitioning is the fact, while "war reparations" and "looting" are interpretations of the two sides. Another quote from Bandholtz:

"Their requisitions and seizures, by which names they dignified their general looting, were about as systematic as the antics of a monkey in a cabinet of bric-a-brac. They took machinery and instruments that were ruined beyond repair the moment removed from their locations; they seized and removed practically all available food supplies, even to the last animal and the seed grain from many farms; and their general conduct and procedure were in violation of international law, the customs of war, and the requirements of decency and humanity."

• You wrote that "In most cases known to history, reparations are collected while the victor's army occupies the defeated country". Can you give any examples? Even your example of France invading the Ruhr region demonstrates the opposite, since they only did it after the Germans failed the pay the war reparations.

• I still have several problems with the text you suggested, for example:
  • You wrote "they would lead to the inclusion of large areas with a compact Hungarian population in Romania (between the current Romanian border and Tisza)". The addition "(between the current Romanian border and Tisza)" is not acceptable, since there were compact Hungarian populations even inside the new borders of Romania.
  • All the items that Bandholtz mentions that were requisitioned should be included. For example, automobiles, locomotives, cars and other rolling stock, arms, munitions, and war material, as well as private properties: automobiles, farm implements, cattle, horses, clothing, sugar, coal, salt, etc. I know that some of these are already mentioned, I ask for including the rest. According to Bandholtz's diary, e.g., the Romanians requisitioned at least 800 locomotives and 19,000 cars [26].
  • About looting (and not "requisitioning") Romanian soldiers (Bandholtz): "the Roumanians, on the verge the evacuation, were beginning to pillage and loot like a band of robbers."
  • Romanians did not only take from "privately owned enterprises", but from normal citizens, as well, e.g., from farms.
  • Your text: "Conversely, the Romanian troops took also care of feeding the population of large Hungarian cities, as their supply infrastructure collapsed because of the war", is also not acceptable in itself, since the Romanian army blockaded all food supplies (also see the citation above), therefore, stating only that they were feeding citizens is highly misleading. The current sentence gives the false impression that they magnanimously gave food from their own to save citizens, while the truth is that they took all the food and then gave some of them of back. For the same reason, the propaganda picture of "Romanian soldiers feeding citizens of Hungary" has to be removed, or the caption should also inform the reader that previously the food supplies were blockaded.
  • Your text says: "this pledged the relationships between the Hungarian population and the occupation army, that otherwise started rather well, the Hungarians being satisfied to get rid of the Bolshevik yoke". Altough, I admit that many (or most?) Hungarians were glad that the Bolsheviks were gone, I am quite skeptical that they welcomed (even initially) the invading Romanian army. Any references that they did?
  • I would like to see a (verifiable) reference which shows that the requisitioning also went through the Hungarian authorities.
  • About saving the National Museum from removing transylvanian treasures (without any agreement): I can agree on leaving the story out, BUT then this article must name general Bandholtz and contain a link to his article.
  • There are also some expressions/links that need adjusments and it would be too long to cite them all here. Would you mind if I edited the suggested section in your sandbox?

I am looking forward to read your ideas about these and I hope we will agree on a balanced version. Koertefa (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that all your arguments are based on the account of a single person, i.e., Bandholtz. This person is just a foreigner speaking from a Hungarian perspective, he is not neutral. The fact that he was in the allied committee charged with investigating and supervising the way the Romanians collected war reparations makes him even more biased.

• On war reparations:
  • About the subtitle, your proposition is not logical. War reparations are collected at the end of a war. Requisitioning/looting are modalities to collect them. The problem is that looting is in this case a bivalent word, it is another description for both the act of requisitioning and the idea of getting compensated as victor after the war. Now what is your main problem? The fact that the Romanians got compensated after the war or the way these compensations were collected? An alternative title would be: "War reparations by requisitioning or by looting?" Fact here are war reparations, (it is a neutral description for something that happens at the end of a war) while compensation and looting are interpretations of this fact.
  • Also on war reparations, they are not agreed with the defeated, they are agreed if at all among the victors. They are always imposed on the defeated.
  • About the moment when war reparations are collected: the example with Germany in WWI is meant as one of the few (I am not sure that there are others) counter examples to collecting war reparations while your army is in the defeated country. However, even this would not count, as Germany was not occupied in 1918 and furthermore, the French did occupy it (at least partially) to collect war reparations, when the Germans stalled, precisely because there was nothing to force the Germans to comply other than a menace.
  • About examples for war reparations, start with what we call today the sacking of Rome by the "barbarians" (which actually hits at the heart of our problem, because we know this as sacking only because the Romans wrote the history books and not the barbarians -- the Roman army did far worse at times, see the way they acted in Carthage.) and finish with the contracts Halliburton received in Irak.
• About the compact areas, this is an old story. Transylvania counts as an entity, this entity had a clear Romanian majority, even if in some places there were compact areas of Hungarians. The lands in discussion were not Transylvania, but precisely those meant in my text. There was never a problem with the unification of Transylvania and Romania, this was precisely according to Wilson's principles, the inclusion of the named lands (part of what you call Partium I believe) was the issue. Therefore the addition is not only acceptable but needed.
• On what was taken from Hungary:
  • All items you mention are already included in the current text (save fore ore, that I've just added). Also I believe that "50% of the rolling stock of the Hungarian railroad" more than covers 800 locomotives and 19,000 cars. However, if you insist, we could add what 50% meant.
  • I have already accepted the cattle for example could have been requisitioned from farms (read my post), so i don't understand your point. If you complain about this not being in the text, I have put it it now.
• On feeding the Hungarian population:
  • The Romanians did feed Budapest and other cities at least for some weeks after occupying them. This is a fact. The picture is a prove of this. The Romanians did not blockade food supplies, nobody suffered from hunger in Hungary under Romanian administration back then. What they did was to requisition food. We have already discussed this, I believe it was over. If we start everything from the beginning we will never end this.
  • You like this word "magnanimously"...:-) it is not me trying to describe the Romanian soldiers like this, but it is you trying to portrait them as beasts, for example by removing any hint to their humanitarian work of feeding the Hungarian population and leaving only the account of them entering the farms of Hungarians and requisitioning their horses and cattle (which actually would make them as much a beast as any contemporary Central Powers soldier, Hungarians included, that did the same thing in Romania the year before -- however this is nolonger mentioned in the text then...). The truth I believe is that they were human and obeyed some orders. Conversely I have accounts of Romanian soldiers feeding the population of Budapest from their own personal field rations directly.
• Nobody said the Hungarians were happy to see their country overrun by foreign troops. I just say they were happy to see the Bolsheviks gone. I have a more detailed account about the situation in Oradea I believe, where the Hungarian population was so happy to see the Bolsheviks go, that they took part in the manifestation the Romanians were holding to greet the Romanian troops. However, Oradea was not occupied by the Romanians, it was liberated :-). I also have a smaller account on Budapest. I believe I could cite that.
• Truth is I don't know if the Hungarian authorities did take part in the requisitioning. It just seemed not plausible to me that everything was done by Romanian troops, I don't think there were enough for this. However, even if the Hungarian authorities did take part, they did it forced by the Romanians. I made the text more clear in this respect.
• About Bandholtz, the only way to which I would agree to introduce him here by name would be by mentioning all members of the Allied commission. I just did this.
• If you intent to to correct wording and links, please do edit my sandbox. If you want to change the meaning, then we should discuss it here as until now. I would then like to ask you to complete as well the references to the generals diary from the text, with page number if possible.
• Could you also look for a list of Hungarian casualties in the war, I have nothing on this.

Please believe me, I also want a balanced story. I wouldn't have spent so much of my time on this if I wouldn't be convinced that we have here an opportunity to better understand each other and thus to contribute somehow to a sort of reconciliation. I want also an unbalance text, even more, I want something with which even the radicals on both sides can live. Finally, I am happy to discuss it like this with you, rather than the edit war we had in the beginning, where for a while I thought you are just as bad as Norden1990. I have a few Hungarian friends, but with very few exceptions, all Hungarians I meet on the internet (on historical forums) were just rude persons, which after two or so posts, when I tried to make them clear that every story has two sides, started to insult me (and most of them got accordingly banned for this). Octavian8 (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and I am also happy to discuss these issues with you. However, we should focus on the main questions. Decrying users based on their mistakes or deciding whether Oradea/Nagyvárad (which had strong Hungarian majority in that time) was liberated or conquered is not our problem here. Regarding the section:

• First of all, I want to mention that I appreciate your recent modifications on the Aftermath section. I think that we are making progress towards a consensual, more neutral text. However, there are still a few important issues that have to be settled.
• Note that my information is not only based on Bandholtz's diary, but several other (usually Western) books and articles. For example, I recently got the book: Margaret MacMillan: Paris 1919, Six Months that Changed the World, Random House, New York, 2002. The author is Canadian, she got PhD from Oxford (Trinity College), she is now a professor of history in Toronto. The book won several prizes, such as the Samuel Jonhson Prize, the PEN Hessell Tiltman Prize, the Duff Cooper Prize, etc. Therefore, the author is highly professional and the book is of excellent quality. This book also calls the Romanian actions looting:

"The Rumanians, who were now occupying most of Hungary, looted whatever Kun and his reqime had left. Telephones, prized stallions, fire engines, shoes, carpets, automobiles, grain, cattle, and even railway cars and locomotives vanished eastward." (page 268)

It seems to me that almost everybody classifies the requisitioning of the Romanian army looting, only Romanians insist that these were only "war reparations". And, please, also note that unilateral requisitioning fits perfectly into the category of looting. War looting is not always committed by "disorganized gangs". However, in the name of neutrality, I can agree on stating only the requisitioning as a fact, while treating "war reparations" and "looting" as possible interpretations.

• Therefore, the subtitle that I proposed is logical, neutral and plausible, in contrast to yours that tries to state the Romanian perspective as a fact. I will not agree on calling the requisitionings "war reparations", unless you support this claim by solid, verifiable references. References that talk about mutual agreements, not just plain demands.
• I strongly do not agree with you that war reparations "are not agreed with the defeated, they are agreed if at all among the victors. They are always imposed on the defeated". Although, they are indeed mostly imposed, both sides have to agree and sign them before they can be called "war reparations". Additionally, they are usually not collected by the occupying army. The Romanian procedures were in violation of the international law and the customs of war, as Bandholtz also pointed out [27].
• Regarding your examples of forced "war reparations". I think that "war reparation" is a modern term and it would be a mistake and anachronistic statement to classify some actions of the ancient Rome as such. Regarding Iraq: it had to pay war reparations to Kuwait (not to the USA), the representatives of the people of Iraq agreed to this, they signed it, and the war reparations were not collected by soldiers from Kuwait. The contracts of Halliburton are another story, they are controversial, but they are not "war reparations" in the strict sense of the word and, moreover, the contracts were signed and the oil was not requisitioned. I just want to point out that so far you could not provide any convincing examples where an occupying army requisitioned "war reparations", even from average citizens, without any agreement with the representatives of the other state. And I strongly doubt that you will be able to come up with good examples...
• I did not get your argument about Partium. It historically did not belonged to Transylvania and, furthermore, it did not have Romanian majority in that time. Your addition "(between the current Romanian border and Tisza)" makes to false impression that there was no compact Hungarian population inside the new borders of Romania, which is simply false. Even the version "between the borders of Transylvania and Tisza" would be misleading, because of the Székely Land (which is part of Transylvania and had/has significant Hungarian population). Hence, this addition must be removed.
• Regarding feeding Hungarian citizens: although several sources (even primary ones: Bandholtz) talk about blockading food supplies, I can agree on leaving this out, BUT the fact that the Romanian army requisitioned foods must be mentioned, preferably in the same sentence which talks about feeding civilians. For example:

"They took care of feeding the population of large Hungarian cities in the first month after the fighting ceased, as their supply infrastructure collapsed because of the war, and because many food reserves were requisitioned by the Romanian army."

Food requisitionings should also be mentioned in the caption of the picture that shows Romanian soldiers feeding citizens, in order to show the other side of the story, too.

• The section should also contain the fact that the Supreme Council of the Peace Conference notified Romania to cease the requisitioning.
• If we do not have any sources (books, reports or witnesses) which claim that the Hungarian authorities indeed took part in the requisitionings of the Romanian army, then it would be the best to leave this out, since then it is only a speculation (although, it might be possible, e.g., if they were forced to do so).
• Thanks for expanding the list of items that were requisitioned, but it still does not mention, e.g., private automobiles, though several sources (e.g., MacMillan, Bandholtz) speak about them, as well. I am also going to polish/refine the text/links in your sandbox in the near future, so I may add them.
• Finally, I will try to look for army estimates (for the infobox) and data about Hungarian casualties, as well.

Kind regards, Koertefa (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If we continue like this we will never end this. I'll give you here a general answer, and further down an answer concentrating on the issues of this article. We could gladly continue discussing any other topic concerning politics and history on my or your talk page if you want.

• It seems to you that everybody calls this looting, because you look only after such sources... I have no problem to add the book you have cited as additional reference to why the Hungarians call this looting. But look at its Bibliography section and see if it cites Bandholtz...
• On war reparations:
  • At the end of a war the victor imposes peace terms (including for example the payment of reparations) on the defeated. The defeated agrees because the alternative would be his utter destruction. The Hungarian representatives that signed the armistice in August 1919 agreed to the Romanian-imposed war reparations (i have also mentioned this in the text explicitely) not because they wanted, but because they were forced by the circumstances of their defeat. Now when the victor collects what he calls war reparations, the defeated by the nature of things will consider this unjust and call it looting. This is what happened, this is what it should come out of the article.
  • War reparations is the neutral formulation not a Romanian perspective. This term can be interpreted as compensation by the victor and as looting by the defeated. The Romanian perspective on the issue of war reparations is compensation, while the Hungarian is looting.
  • I am glad you introduced the link on what war reparations are. It is precisely the definition we should use here. I agree fully with it. I think you point in the same direction as I. I think it is clear to you that the Hungarians signed an armistice and then a peace with Romania, that included the issue of war reparations. Furthermore it also clears my examples, which are very good, but this is not the issue here.
  • "The Romanian procedures were in violation of the international law and the customs of war, as Bandholtz also pointed out." Please stop citing Bandholtz as a unbiased source. I have pointed out several times that Bandholtz represents the Hungarian side here, as it does most of the Allied committee -- I have added the story with Romanelli to make this more clear. This is just proof that the Allies were displeased with the Romanians acting on their own and proof that the Hungarians had sympathizers on the Allied side.
• On requisitioning:
  • This is a mean by which war reparations are collected from the point of view of the victor. The defeated names this again looting. The Romanian perspective here is requisitioning, while the Hungarian is again looting.
  • To make sense your proposition should be: War reparations: requisitioning or looting? but then you would concentrate on the way to collect the war reparations not on the issue of war reparations.
• On the issue of agreements:
  • I don't understand what "agreements" you mean, I can give you tons on references to the Hungarian agreeing to anything the Romanians wanted only to stop the Romanian army from destroying the entire country. These references talk about the armistice signed by Hungarian authorities to stop the fight they have lost.
  • The Hungarians in August 1919 were in no position to agree to anything, they were in the position of accepting demands almost unconditional. If it makes you feel better we can call this accepting "agreeing".
• Nobody said that what you call the lands of the Szekely is not inhabited compactly by a population that can be considered as part of the Hungarian people (although believe me, there are some Szekely not so please about calling them Hungarians). However, the lands in question there were those between the current Romanian border and the Tisza. The rest had a Romanian majority and posed no problem in this respect. In clear text the Allies would not agree to the Romanians getting also the territories between their current border and the Tisza, they had no problem with the rest (I have modified the text to make this more clear). The fact that the Romanians insisted on what was promised to them, led to a further deterioration of their relationship with the Allies.
• On the issue of starving Hungarian population: The Romanians fed the Hungarian population directly only in the few weeks after the fighting ceased. They had to do this because of the war, not because of the requisitioning of food, that come only afterwards and had no effect on the Hungrian population, i.e., they did not hunger because of the requisitioning, they hunger because in the heat of fighting no one thought to make commerce.

Solved issues:

• I agree that self-requisitioning can be interpreted as looting. When the Romanians entered Hungarian homes to requisition in the name of war reparations, the Hungarians accused them of looting. The text clearly states this: "On the occasions where the Romanian army acted directly, this sometimes led to looting accusations...". I think this issue is clear.
• The fact that the Romanian army requisitioned food is already mentioned both as such: "When the Romanian troops finally departed Hungary at the beginning of 1920, they took extensive booty [7], including food..." and with details: "...30% of the livestock...35000 wagons of cereals and fodder."
• On the issue of the Allies notifying Romania to cease requisitioning, this is already mentioned: "In response the Entante ... asked Romania to return some of the goods taken from Hungary". However I've extended this text. I've also added now the other requests to stop requisitioning and leave Hungary.
• On the issue of private automobiles, on the list of what was taken, there is 'means of transportation': "When the Romanian troops finally departed Hungary at the beginning of 1920, they took extensive booty [7], including ... means of transportation..." I think private automobiles fits under this description. Or do you want to emphasize that they took also private means of transportation as well? OK, for the sake of agreeing, I've included also private automobiles.
• On the issue of Hungarian authorities being forced to take part in the requisitioning, I think this is not only possible but probable. In the text I have it is written that the Romanian occupation authorities had difficulties in working with the Hungarian authorities. Do you want me to cite this? It is done.

Open issues:

• Subtitle chapter: From what I see, we both agree on the structure of the subtitle, i.e., 'neutral formulation: Romanian interpretation, Hungarian interpretation (or the other way around if you wish), question mark.' The open issue here is the English neutral term for what the victorious side gets from the defeated side at the end of a war in terms of reimbursement. I think this term is war reparations you seem to have a different opinion. I have also checked this with native English speakers, which confirmed this to me, please do as well if you do not believe me.
  • Therefore, I could agree to any formulation with this structure, like (i) the current title or (ii) "War reparations: requisitioning or plundering/looting?" Nevertheless, I think title (ii) does not hit at the core of our issue, as it concentrates on the way the war reparations were collected and not on the war reparations itself. Argumentation: Requisitioning is the modality by which war reparations are collected. This requisitioning can be (and in most cases is) considered looting or plundering or robbery by the defeated. The requisitioning can't be called war reparations, just check any dictionary on this. In the end: war reparations is a neutral description for what happens at the end of a war, not a Romanian perspective.
  • If you want to get down to formalities like "war reparations are collected following an agreement", my answer is that such an agreement existed in the form of the armistice document the Hungarian representatives signed with Romanian representatives.
• Specification of the territory constituting an issue between the Romanians and the Entente: the territory in question is that between the current Romanian border and Tisza. The argumentation of the Allies for not holding their original promises from 1916 were Wilson's principles, as the respective territory had entirely a Hungarian majority. Under the same principles, the Allied agreed to the current Romanian border.
  • In other words, this territory was a Hungarian see with some Romanian islands (there was a Romanian minority still living in Hungary after Trianon, and there still is today although its proportion has decreased significantly since then). Conversely, the other territory, between the current Romanian border and the old (before 1916) Romanian border was a Romanian see with some Hungarian islands -- that were nevertheless islands, even if one of them, there where the Szekely live, was and still is large. Nobody tries to deny this here, it is simply not the issue in this case.
• The Romanians feeding the Hungarian population: this is a fact that happened for a period of time directly after the fighting ceased. The reason for this was: bad administration by the communists and most of all the conditions of war. The reason for this was not the Romanian requisitioning of food (that is another fact) that happened afterwards and had no effects with respect to the starving of the Hungarian population.

I think this is all there still is. I hope we will finish this soon. Look forward to hearing from you on the issues of Hungarian loses and other estimates on troops strength per war phase. Best regards, Octavian8 (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I also want to finish the discussion and reach an agreement, as soon as possible, however, it does not mean that I will agree on something that is not neutral. As I said, just by putting emphasis on some facts, while treating others marginally, we can get to a very unbalanced article. This should be avoided.

• MacMillan's book indeed cites Bandholtz in the chapter on Hungary (it would be amateurish to leave out an excellent primary source), but it cites dozens of other sources, as well. Therefore, calling the requisitioning "looting" is clearly not only Bandholtz's influence.
• Naturally, I will not stop citing Bandholtz just because you do not like his statements. If you do not agree with some of his claims, then please provide sources that contradict/question them. He is a primary source who had access to a large amount of information, hence, his diary is highly relevant.
• The fact that Romanelli from Italy was replaced by Monbelli in the Allied committee is not very relevant. It is strange that you want to include this in the light that you did not want to include the statement about the Romanian soldiers who unsuccessfully tried to remove several items from the National Museum (without any previous agreement). You said that "If you care to elaborate on this interpretation this is not the place.", then why should we include the replacement of Romanelli?
• I don't think that it was true that the new borders of Romania were set in a way that it bordered a "Romanian sea with Hungarian islands". It might be true for Transylvania (if we treat Székely-land as a huge island), but it was certainly not true for areas immediately on the Romanian side of the new Hungarian-Romanian border, the new border cut off some territories (not islands) that had strong Hungarian majority and would compactly fit to the other areas with Hungarian majority. So the new border was not in agreement with Wilson's principles. Moreover, the size of the Romanian minority that remained in Hungary is not comparable to the size of the Hungarian population that found itself in Romania. There is an order of magnitude difference.
• If you want to put emphasis on the fact that Romanian soldiers fed the Hungarian population (by the way: a verifiable, e.g., English/German/French, reference would be much appreciated), then it is not good enough if the food requisitioning is only mentioned in a list. Exactly that is what I was talking about, when I said that just by playing with the "facts", you can get a very unbalanced, manipulative article. Since, for example, "taking some food as a booty" is not the same as requisitioning practically all available food supplies, even to the last animal and the seed grain from many farms. This issue is not solved, yet.
• I indeed agree with the sub-title structure: "neutral formulation: Romanian interpretation, Hungarian interpretation (or the other way around if you wish), question mark". The Hungarian interpretation is "looting", that is also clear. What I do not agree with is that the requisitioned goods were "war reparations".
• Regarding the requisitioning: an armistice is not the place where war reparations are agreed, it merely gives time to prepare a peace treaty, and that is the place for war reparations. And I agree with you that war reparations are mostly forced, but it does not mean they do not have to be accepted/signed by the representatives of the affected people. I will only agree on treating the requisitioning "war reparation", if you prove that the representatives of Hungary indeed signed a peace treaty with Romania (before the requisitioning took place) that explicitly mentioned the goods that were taken by the Romanian army. Since it is a very sensitive issue, I need verifiable references, viz., I will not accept sources that are only available in Romanian. Unless you can prove the existence of such a treaty, only "requisitioning" is a fact. The bottom line is: to settle this question, please, provide references that support your theory of "war reparations".

Finally, I thank you for the modifications that you have done so far, we have indeed settled some issues (minor modifications in the expressions/links may still be needed); and I also hope that eventually we will agree on the rest of this section. Koertefa (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

To agree on something you have to state your problems. Next is a list of the problems you seem to have from my perspective and my answers. In the end, I think we have come pretty far and the current text is a good compromise.

• Problems with war reparations:
  • The definition of the term: From what I understand you disagree that war reparations is the neutral term. I am sorry, but this is just a question of knowing English. Did you do what I've suggested you, talk to a native English speaker to see that war reparations is the neutral formulation. The Romanian interpretation of this is compensation or even retribution if this makes you more happy.
  • The justification: Regarding the armistice and the peace, what the Romanians took on the basis of the armistice was recognized as reparation during the peace, as Romania did not return anything and Hungary did not have to pay nothing more. If you want references on this look at the peace treaty signed at Trianon.
  • Requisitioning: I think you don't understand what requisitioning means in English. Requisitioning is the way to describe how compensation is transformed into fact. Requisitioning is a Romanian perspective, and here I cite your beloved source Bandholtz (from the text you have quoted on this very page): '"Their requisitions and seizures, by which names they dignified their general looting, were ..."' Bottom line, if you think requisitioning is what happened, then you can call all of this compensation and completely forget looting.
  • Proposal: How about forgetting the neutral formulation and calling the subsection: "Compensation or looting?"
• Problems with feeding the Hungarian population:
  • Confusions: You try to create confusion between the Romanian army feeding Hungarian civilians for a short period after the fighting ended and the requisitioning of food. If requisitioning food would had led to the need to feed the Hungarian population, the Romanians wouldn't have done this only for a few weeks at the end of the fighting, otherwise there would have been people starving to death and nobody talks about this in no account of what happened then, irrespective of its bias.
  • Consequences: You try to imply that the requisitioning of food led to starving. Again, this is nowhere referenced.
  • Facts: That the Romanian troops fed the Hungarian population for a while after the fighting ceased, this is a fact. This happens in many wars, for example the Soviets feed the population of Berlin for a while in 1945 after the fighting ceased. This is done precisely to avoid starving and bad publicity and is a direct consequence of fighting and destroying infrastructure in the process. This is what happened in our case as well. This was not a consequence of requisitioning. Your citations point to the fact that the requisitioning of food was thorough, OK it may be, but not that it led to starving and to the need of the Romanians constantly feed the Hungarians, in this case out of their own supplies.
  • Citations:' after a brief search on the net, I have found these citations: [28] and [29]. This points out that the food distribution broke down before the arrival of the Romanian troops in Budapest. This shows the need of the Romanians to feed the population (at least of Budapest and the large cities) immediately after occupying the respective territory. I have added them to the text.
• Problems with the territory promised to Romania by the Entente but not delivered in 1919.
  • Well I really don't understand your problem here. It is a fact that Romania was promised land up to Tisza. It is a fact that this promise was not halted with the justification that beyond a small strip of land around the line Satu Mare - Oradea - Arad and Tisza there was a clear Hungarian majority. The Romanians got also a small strip of land further west from this line where the population was 50%-50%, true, is this what bothers you? Would you be happy if I write 51%-49% for the Romanians? Also please note that now I have modified the text replacing "the current Romanian border" with "the line Satu Mare - Oradea - Arad", to meet your worries.
  • Nobody said that the size of the Hungarian minority in Romania was comparable to that of the Romanian minority in Hungary. I just want to underline that there was a Romanian minority in Hungary, and thus areas with a Hungarian majority and a Romanian minority past Romania's current border remained under Hungarian control, according to Wilson's principles.
• Problems with the mixed Allied commission:
  • In short the reference to Bandholtz makes the story about Romanelli relevant. In more detail, I've put the story of Romanelli there to emphasize the bias in this commission or at least the bias in one member of this commission. In the end in the article of Bandholtz, that is directly referenced, the looting story appears almost unhindered. The sole exception is the mentioning that this was by his own account. I have just balanced the account in our article. If you modify the Bandholtz article to make it more balanced, I will remove the story with Romanelli. To be more clear, if you add this information in the Bandholtz article and make clear that he stands accused, from a Romanian perspective, of bias, or at least he was member in a body where at least one of his colleagues was removed from office following accusations about his antiromanian bias (which is a documented fact), I would agree to not mention this information here. I am asking you to do this (i.e., modify the Bandholtz article), because if I were to do this, I would get accused of following a hidden Romanian agenda.
  • I have no problem whatsoever with citing Bandholtz and other historians writing on his account. I just want to point it out to you that if you inform yourself from only one perspective, you will get biased.

I believe we have now a very balanced text with which both sides can live. It is not perfect for any side, which makes it a perfect compromise. Both points of view come out of the account. If you disagree, please come with some propositions for new text next time, not only with criticism -- which I believe with respect to the current text to be pretty unfounded. Best regards. Octavian8 (talk) 09:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Octavian8, here are my arguments with respect to the open issues of the "Aftermath" section:

War reparations:

• You misunderstood what I wrote. The phrase "(war) reparations" is a "terminus technicus" of the international law (as well as "requisitions"). Of course, in that sense it is a neutral term. What I did not agree with was that the requisitions which were done by the Romanian army should be presented as an act of collecting "war reparations".
• Since the term "war reparations" has obvious, unambiguous translations to most languages, the opinion of an average native English speaker is no more relevant than the opinion of you or me, unless s/he is an expert of international law and/or history.
• I suggest that you should check some books on international law. I have checked, for example, the Encyclopedia of Public International Law; Volumes 3-4: Use of Force, War and Neutrality, Peace Treaties; North-Holland Publishing Company; Amsterdam - New York - Oxford, 1992. It was published under the auspices of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law. The articles about "reparations" and "requisitions" are in Volume 4 on pages 178 and 184, respectively.
• I think that it is you who do not understand the meaning of "requisitioning". If you read the article that I have referred to above, you will see that requisitioning is not "the way to describe how compensation is transformed into fact". The accepted method of requisitions was already settled in the international law in the time of the Hungarian-Romanian war, for example, take a look at Art. 52 of the Hague Regulations of 1907. Requisitions is not the usual way of collecting war reparations.
• The first paragraph of "requisitions" article from the Encyclopedia above: "The power to requisition denotes the right of an occupant State (-> Occupation, Belligerent), to use the resources of the occupied territory and the services of the persons subject to the occupation regime for the maintenance of its military forces, in return for cash compensation or against the issuance of a receipt." Later: "The very concept of requisitions is founded upon the rules governing the protection of private property during wartime." Since I do not know about any "cash compensations" or "receipts" promising further payments, it is even questionable whether the actions of the Romanian army can be called "requisitions" in the sense of the international law. Nevertheless, for the sake of compromise, I can agree on using the phrase "requisitions".
• The fact that Hungary did not have to pay anything more to Romania according to the Treaty of Trianon, does not make retrospectively the goods collected by the Romanian army "war reparations". It is simply not how reparations work. First, you need a peace treaty (not an armistice), then you can ask for the collection of reparations.
• I think that the neutral formulation is needed, otherwise it is not clear what "compensation" and "looting" refer to. But, calling the goods collected by the Romanian army "compensation" from the Romanian point of view is fine with me (as long as the Hungarian point of view, i.e. "looting", is also presented).

Feeding civilians and requisitioning food:

• I accept your argument and references: the food distribution broke down because of the war and it was not a consequence of requisitions. Therefore, I agree with leaving this in the article. This part of the question is solved.
• Requisitioning food from civilians is another issue and stating only that the Romanian troops also took food as booty does not indicate that the food was taken from civilians, too. Even though it might be true that nobody starved to death, this aspect of the occupation should also be presented in the "Aftermath" section.

Territories and populations:

• The current formulation of the sentence is acceptable for me. However, since in the time of the events (before the Treaty of Trianon was signed) these places were part of Hungary, we should also include their Hungarian names (Satu Mare / Szatmárnémeti, Oradea / Nagyvárad, Arad / Arad) as it is usual in this kind of historical articles.

Allied commission:

• If we include such details as the replacement of Romanelli, then it should also be mentioned explicitly that Bandholtz wrote a detailed diary about the events.
• If I have time in the near future, I will indeed refine Bandholtz's article, since, for example, it still states that the story of Bandholtz keeping some Romanian soldiers from removing items from the National Museum is a "popular legend", even though it can be clearly found in Bandholtz's diary and there are accounts given by eye-witnesses, as well, e.g., Gyula Pekár was there and he also described it. If I do so, I will include the replacement of Romanelli, as well.

The text is indeed getting better and more neutral. My main problem now is the question of "war reparations", the others are less critical. So far I did not have time to do some adjustments on the temporary section in your sandbox, I hope I will have time for that, soon. Koertefa (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I have made some refinements on the proposed version of the Aftermath, please, take a look at it. Koertefa (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

One more comment: according to Bandholtz's diary, Lieutenant-Colonel Romanelli was the secretary of General Mombelli. And I did not find any reference in that diary that he was replaced. Moreover, according to Bandholtz, "most of the Hungarians were sore on Romanelli", thus, he was not pro-Hungarian, either. Koertefa (talk) 07:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Koertefa! Well, I generally agree with your modifications, I have changed only a few words:

(i) from "more" back to "large", because by writing "more" you imply that the Entente had also a problem with other regions which is not true. Also, as I have already pointed out, the other areas inhabited by Hungarians were relatively small (irrespective of how large were they in absolute terms) with respect to the considered region that was inhabited by Romanians in a majority. Only for the region in case (between the line of the three cities and Tisza) is true that relative to the entire region, the areas inhabited by Hungarians were large. This the point of view of the Entante as well. However, as a compromise solution, I have added a link to the Hungarians in Romania article over the term of "large areas". If anyone is interested he can access the link and see the whole story about what other areas with Hungarian majority become part of Romania after 1920.

(i1) To make myself more clear, Romania united in 1918-1920 with several "large areas" or regions, like Bessarabia, Transylvania. In all these regions there were also other nationalities living by the Romanians, but with respect to the entire region, they were always minorities. Even more, often these minorities were compactly inhabiting only "islands" surrounded by territories with a clear Romania majority (like for example the so-called Szekelyland). This was however not the case for the region between the line of the three cities and Tisza, because there was just a relatively small Romanian minority living among compact masses of Hungarians which were bordering Hungary and therefore they were no "islands". This was the argumentation of the Entente to deny the Romanians this region that they've promised them back in 1916. In other words the Entente told us "Wilson's principles are the same for everybody!" and forced us to accept this. I would add that they also told us that these principles apply at the level of large regions, thus being able to generate viable states, and thus the Romanian argumentation that there were some territories with a Romanian majority (i.e., Romanian "islands") in this large region were ignored, and as a direct result, there you have the Romanian minority in Hungary. To be honest they (the Entente) have been consistent in their approach, and considered Transylvania as a large region as well. Also, following the same logic, Romania got only the eastern part of Banat, with a Romanian majority (and a supportive German minority). We should not create confusions here.

(i2) Another compromise, from my point of view would be to replace "...inclusion of large areas with a compact Hungarian population in Romania." with "... inclusion of a large region with a clear Hungarian majority in Romania.", considering that by comparison to this territory, the Szekelyland is rather small and is just a smaller part of the large region of Transylvania.

(ii) from "contemporary members" to "at least one contemporary member", as you are referring only to Bandholtz.

(iii) from "some members of the Allied committee" to "a member of the Allied committee", as again you are referring to Bandholtz alone. However, I find this problematic as you already said that Bandholtz considered this looting just a few propositions before, in the same paragraph (I've added the citation there as well) -- why the repetition in the same paragraph? I think we should delete at least one of the two mentions of Bandholtz's opinion. I would delete the second one, as the first one fits a lot better in the text.

(iv) from "seed grain" to "grain", as there is no mention of such a distinction, I believe they requisitioned both seed grain and bred grain.

• On war reparations: I don't think I understand you anymore in this respect. I have always said that war reparations were a neutral term, the Romanian interpretation being compensation and the Hungarian looting. I have never said that what the Romanians called war reparations was not looting for Hungarians. My original text read that the Romanian collected war reparations on their own. The same with requisitioning, the Romanian called requisitioning what the Hungarians called again looting. If you ask me, the original title was better: War reparations: compensation or looting? I have modified it only to reach some sort of understanding with you. I would agree to reinstating it.
• On food: the text reads that they requisitioned from farms, it is clear that this includes cattle as in food and grains as in food again. I have no reason to believe they went into the homes of Budapestans for example to take their food of the table. Requisitioning perishable food would be pointless. This would be the case only if the Romania troops would be maraudering and there is no indication for that. So there is no aspect to present anymore other than what is already presented.
• On the allied committee: according to my source, Romanelli was not the secretary of Mombelli but the Italian representative. It may be he was temporarily replacing Monbelli when the Romanians occupied Budapest? Nevertheless fact is that he was protested against for hostility towards the Romanian authorities and replaced and the Romanians considered him the Italian representative in the committee until the moment he was relapced. Now you say he was at odds with the Hungarians as well. I don't know what to say... although I never said he was pro Hungarian. I find this almost funny, it seems he was just looking for trouble everywhere. My point is that the allied committee was somewhat biased against the Romanians, and this should be stated, but no more than it is right now.
• On Bandholtz's story: fact is that Bandholtz did something. What he did from my point of view was to act as an uniformed cowboy and hinder the Romanian troops from securing treasures belonging to the Romanian people. Furthermore, there is no mention whatsoever about this other than his own account. This is in the article already and I would ask you to leave this part as it is. And finally, what he wrote in his diary is his personal opinion. If you edit the article, please try to make it neutral and balanced, along the lines we have so hard worked on here. So please introduce also the Romanian point of view to make it acceptable for all implied parties.

Well, I am happy to see that this is finally getting somewhere. If this is it, I will put the text online next week. Did you find something on the Hungarian casualties? Octavian8 (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

One more thing, I have found another citation with respect to the relationship between the Romanians and the Allied representatives in Budapest (i.e., the Inter-Allied Military Mission and its committee). According to it [30], the relations between the two sides were hostile from the moment Budapest fell. I have added this also in the text. You could use this in your new text on Bandholtz as well. I believe this proves that he was not necessarily fair in his account on the Romanians, even more it is evidence, (even though circumstantial) of his anti-Romanian bias or even hostility. Octavian8 (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This version is generally OK for me, but I have also made some further adjustments in the text. For example, since you included the claim that the relationship between the Inter-Allied Military Mission and the Romanian army was poor (even hostile) and they asked for returning even some weapons, I also added that the Hungarians did not have enough weapons to arm their policemen. I have also added that taking over police and administration duties were against the agreement with the Allied Supreme Council. The sentence about the original promises and Wilson's principles was also slightly updated, hope it will be a good compromise. Though, I do not agree with you regarding Bandholtz and the treasures of Transylvania, it is OK: even if we have different opinions on the events, we can still agree on something neutral (and, of course, the article on Bandholtz himself should also be neutral). Regarding "war reparations": it is indeed a neutral term, but it does not mean that it can be applied to the seizures requisitioned by the Romanian army. As "paying tax" is also a neutral term, but if a man (even a tax officer) points a gun at you and takes your wallet, then this act should not be described as "paying tax". That was my problem all along: war reparations should be secured in a peace treaty and not taken by an occupying army. Regarding looting: a telegraph was sent in the name of the whole Inter-Allied Military Mission which used the word "looting" (and nobody protested against it), thus it is not only Bandholtz's opinion (see the citation). I think we are getting close to agree on a more-or-less neutral, compromised version of this section. Koertefa (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

PS: So far I did not find anything on the Hungarian casualties (I have difficulty accessing Hungarian sources due to my location and the English ones usually do not treat this event in such detail), but I still hope that I can find some more data. Koertefa (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Koertefa, I did not know that the Romanians allowed even part of the Hungarian police to exist while they were occupying Hungary. I knew they reinstalled the Hungarian administration, and that they were arming only the new Hungarian army around Horthy. So this is very interesting information. I have kept your citation and the info about the number of policeman and weapons in Budapest, but repositioned them it in the introduction of the section, where they fit better in my opinion.

(i) I have also reinstated the text about the military gear captured on the field of battle. The Romanian army was upset because they were asked to give back precisely the weapons conquered during fighting from the Hungarian army, not that they were asked to give back weapons taken from the storage facilities of the Hungarian police.

(ii) Although I found your version OK, to avoid any possible misunderstanding, I have replaced the text about the region between the line of the cities and Tisza with something similar to my proposition from the last post. I have kept the reference to the Hungarians in Romania.

(iii) About war reparations, I did not want to apply the term in any biased way. I wanted to have it in the subtitle to make clear that the next subsection deals with the neutral issue of war reparations, an issue that admits two interpretations, a Romanian and a Hungarian one. So, do you agree to return to the old title "War reparations: compensation or looting?" or should we stay by the current one "Compensation or looting?".

• Of issue, I believe that war reparations can be both sanctioned and established in a peace treaty. I also believe it is naive from anyone to expect the victor of a war to retreat from the occupied land and wait for its defeated enemy to pay war reparations. In most other cases (i.e., all those I know of) the victor forced the defeated on the issue of war reparations while its armies were still occupying the defeated land. Germany in WWI was no real exception, because: 1) it was not occupied by the Entente forces at the moment the armistice was signed, 2) The French did occupy it later, when (as normal and expected I would say) the Germans stalled on the issue of paying the imposed war reparations.

(iv) Why do you want to keep the double mentioning that some members of the Allied Mission considered the whole story looting and all in the same paragraph? I think the first mention is enough, the references are repeating afterwards to support the same idea. I have eliminated the second mentioning and placed "...many Hungarians as well..." to emphasize the fact that they are not alone in judging the whole story like this.

(v) When looking at your citation about the taking over of police and administration duties, I found out that it refers to the armistice from November 1918, not to the Romanian occupation of 1919. Please clarify this.

I have also done some minor rewording like replacing "collecting the seizures" with "seizures", as you can't collect something you take by force. I think the text is OK now. I hope you agree to putting it online next week. Regards,Octavian8 (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

One more thing, while looking through Bandholtz's diary, I found out that at least at times, by his own admission, his tough stance against the Romanians was disputed by other members of the committee. I have added the corresponding citation in this respect. You could use this in your new text on Bandholtz as well. Octavian8 (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Last issues

Hi Octavian8, (1) you are right that the continuity of the Hungarian police and administration was guaranteed by the Allied Supreme Council in the armistice of 1918. I have clarified this. I made some wording changes, e.g., (2) the Hungarian police was not reinstalled by the Romanian army, they just merely let it happen, because of the pressure of the Inter-Allied Military Mission (IAMM). They were not happy about that, which was shown by not returning enough weapons. Thus, I changed the sentence to a passive form. (3) There were 2 links/references to the white terror, I have removed one of them; the one that associated them with the group around Horthy; that was a misleading sentence, since it is controversial whether Horthy was responsible for the white terror. (4) I also agree with removing one of the occurrences of the claim that members of the IAMM treated the requisitions of the Romanian army looting. (5) According to my sources, the IAMM asked for returning only a small number of weapons, in order to arm minimal Hungarian police and military forces. It was just a small fraction of the weapons that the Romanian army took. Talking about returning weapons "captured from the Hungarian army on the field of battle" is misleading (since it was not specified which weapons should be returned). (6) The IAMM was sent to monitor how the terms of the armistice of 1918 were carried out, they were not responsible for reparations. There was a Reparation Commission at the Peace Conference who was responsible for that. I have corrected this. (7) Using the conditional "would lead to the inclusion..." in the sentence about the originally promised borders is not suitable, since it suggests (misleadingly) that the actual borders after the Treaty of Trianon did not include territories with Hungarian majority. Since you also do not deny that they did, we should just state the fact that the original promises included territories with clear Hungarian majority without putting it into a conditional form. We might also search for a completely other formulation of that sentence, which is suitable for everybody, in case this version was not. (8) I do not agree with putting the word "war reparations" in the subtitle, as the seizures of the Romanian army cannot be called "war reparations" in the sense of the international law. In the strict sense, they should not even be called "requisitions", since according to the international law (see the encyclopedia cited above) if an army requisitions from citizens, it should give compensation to the citizens, which clearly did not happen. However, for the sake of a compromise, I can agree on calling (still somewhat wrongly) the actions of the Romanian army "requisitions" and hence using the subtitle: "Requisitions: compensation or looting?". (9) I moved the claim that for the Hungarians the requisitions were "looting" right after the claim that the Romanians regarded them as "war reparations". Hope we can settle the issues still open, soon. Koertefa (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Koertefa,

• On the issue of the 1918 armistice: the citaion you invoke was about the regions Hungary had to evacuate as an immediate consequence of the 1918 armistice. Concerning Romania, these were from the Carpathians to the Mures river. By extension the terms of the armistice may apply to the territories in the Vyx note, i.e., up to the line of the three cities. The terms of the armistice do not apply however to Hungary proper, as neither in the armistice, nor in the subsequent notes sent to Hungary by the allies was ever the talk about a Romanian occupation of Hungary proper. Here is the text from Bandholtz's diary including the citation in cause:As a result of the military convention concluded with Franchet d’Espérey without the specific sanction of the Allied Supreme Council, a line of demarcation was laid down foreshadowing the territorial provisions of the future peace. This convention transferred a large slice of Hungarian territory to the Serbs and Roumanians, who immediately began to occupy it. It was expressly stated that the Hungarian police and civil administrations were to be continued. This agreement was violated. The inhabitants of the occupied area were forced to take the oath of allegiance and were even pressed into military service. The Czechs, who had not been included in the military convention, were authorized by the Supreme Council to occupy Slovakia, and they not only carried out this mandate, but notified the Hungarians that they would proceed beyond the fixed line of demarcation. I think it is pretty clear that it does not refer to the Romanian occupation of Hungary proper, in general the 1918 armistice does not have anything to do with the Romanian occupation of Hunagry, which (see below) it was not sanctioned by the allies. In essence, it means that the promise to uphold Hungarian administration and police was made by the Entente towards Hungary with respect to the territories Hungary evacuated in 1918 (see above). This promises do not cover the occupation of Hungary by Romanian troops and on top of this, Romania considered itself loosely bound by any agreements the Entente made with Hungary without Romanian participation (this being the main reason the Entente was angry with Romania). Therefore we can't say that the Hungarians were promised that during the Romanian occupation their police and administration will continue to exist and this promise was broken, because this promise never existed. What happened was that the Entente pressured the Romanians to reinstate the Hungarian police and administration during the occupation, which the Romanians reluctantly did -- in a way, you can see this if you want as the Entente making good on their promise from the armistice, now extended to all Hungary. I have modified the text accordingly.
• On the issue of Horthy: no one says that Horthy was responsible for the White terror, however some persons associated with him were invoved in this. The text is prety clear about this, and the reference talks precisely about this. Here a citation from the linked white terror article that details this issue (with relation to the used reference) Among the officers who answered Horthy’s call were ultra-nationalist soldiers who mounted a campaign of atrocities to avenge the victims of the Red Terror; to suppress any lingering loyalty to Communist principles; and to frighten the population into obedience to the new order. If we leave this out we may stay accused of bias in favor of these elements, which I believe is very harmfull for our article. I believe Horthy used the white terror to establish his control and stopped it when it nolonger needed it. However, we should not mention this, just simply state the facts, as mentioned in the references. I have reinstated with small modifications the old version.
• On the issue of the role of the IAMM and of Romanelli. The IAMM was not sent to monitor the armistice from 1918, but to see that the Romanians withdraw. They were responsible to observe and report on the Romanian conduct in Hungary. This includes the way the Romanians were collecting war reparations. This is precisely what the IAMM did, and even more, as they sometimes intervened, not only observed. From Bandholtz's diary: Therefore the Supreme Council sent a message, signed by Clemenceau, to the Hungarians, through its military representative at Budapest, the Italian Lieuenant Colonel Romanelli: Hungary shall carry out the terms of the Armistice and respect the frontiers traced by the Supreme Council, and we will protect you from the Roumanians, who have no authority from us. We are sending forthwith an Inter-Allied Military Mission to superintend the disarmament and to see that the Roumanian troops withdraw. So it seems that Romanelli was the military representative in Hungary before the IAMM was sent to supervize the Romanian occupation of Hungary. I modified the text on Romanelli. I modified the text on the purpose of the IAMM, to make it more clear.
• On the issue of the weapons: the request from IAMM was to return everything, including those weapons captured as war trophies on the field of battle, which was taken as an affront by the Romanians. I have changed the text to make this even more clear. It is just about the weapons captured as war trophies.
• On the issue of territories with Hungarin majority in Romania: I say there were no large regions with Hungarian majority in Romania, not that there were no regions at all. I added the link with the Hungarian minority in RO to show that there were smaller regions with Hungarian majority At the scale of Transylvania, the so-called Szekelyland is small - please read my post from last time again for more details. The sole exception (where by exception I mean large region with Hungarian majority) would have been the region between the line of the cities and Tisza. I think my text is pretty clear in this respect and I don't see how this can be miselading people into thinking that there were no other regions with Hungarin majority in RO. The link about the Hungarians in RO shows the contrary. However, to meet your worries I have changed the text. Now it talks about a very large stand-alone region, which is in marked difference to the Szekelyland that is neither very large nor stand alone, being part of Transylvania. Furthermore there is again the link whcih clarifies everything.
• About the subtitle, how about leving it how it is or at most renaming it into "Reparations or looting?"

I agree to you moving the text about the Hungarian opinion, it really fits better there, I have just put it into a stand-alone sentence to emphasize it. I have also made the text on what the Romanians see as war reparations more clear and extended a bit the text on the realtion between the Entenete and Romania, with direct reference to the agreements between the Entente and Hungary, and the fact that the Romanians did not ocnsidered themselfs bound by it. I have also moved a few phrases around (without modifying their message) with the intention of keeping ideeas together instead of having them spred over the entire section. Check out the text. Octavian8 (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have done a bit or research and found out a few interesting things about what RO had to pay after the war to Austria and Hungary. I have added this info to the text.Octavian8 (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Octavian8, I have also made some adjustment on the text. Here are some comments:

• I agree with your suggestion of using the subtitle "Reparations or looting?"
• Regarding Horthy and the white guards: nobody wants hide the "white terror", but it was mentioned and linked twice, which put an undue weight to it. One of the mentions must be removed. I have suggested a denser variant which contains the same amount of information as before, but only states and links it once.
• The roles of the Inter-Allied Military Mission did not include anything with respect to war reparations. Reparations were to be settled in the Peace Conference. The IAMM was sent to superintend the disarmament of the Hungarian army and to see that the Roumanian troops withdraw. This is exactly what Bandholtz's diary states, so I have modified the text accordingly.
• In Bandholtz's diary there is the text of the telegram (page 25 in the 2000 edition) the IAMM sent to the Romanian Commander in Chief on August 16, 1919, right after the IAMM started to work. There is no mentioning in this that *all* captured weapons had to be returned. It talks about returning all private property, evacuating all schools, colleges, and buildings of like character, stopping the requisitions, etc. Some days later (September 12, 1919) they only talked about returning *some* pistols to arm the Hungarian police. I did not find any reference that the IAMM asked for returning *all* captured weapons. Please, provide a verifiable reference if you want to keep this in the Aftermath section, since it seems to contradict Bandholtz's diary, which only talks about a *list* of all war material that was taken, not the actual returning of them.
• Moreover, the addition "which was considered an affront by the Romanian army" must be deleted, since it is unencyclopedic. Otherwise, we could also add many more similar statements, e.g., about what was considered as affronts by whom, etc.
• I still do not like the sentence about the original territorial promises and Wilson's policies, I will try to come up with a better one. What about leaving the explanation out?
• Looting: "some modern scholars" sounds like a minority view, while I could cite many Western books and articles that talk about "looting" in this context. In my view, the majority of independent sources consider this as looting. Thus, I have changed the text to "many modern scholars", which is more precise.
• Your claim that "Romania had to pay a "liberation fee" of 230 millions gold francs towards Austria and Hungary respectively" is a bit strange. Why was that?
• Regarding guaranteeing the continuity of the Hungarian police and administration, I accept your argument that it was mainly promised for the territories that were outside the demarcation lines set for Hungary in the 1918 armistice.

Koertefa (talk) 09:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Koertefa,

• On the issue of the white guards: This is from Bandholtz's diary on the relation between the Hungarians and the Jews: Reports from western Hungary indicate all kinds of atrocities on the part of the Hungarians, who are torturing and butchering the Jews, and having their will on the population. These people down in eastern and central Europe would make Ananias look like George Washington. I don't know if we should insist on this or not. I'd rather not, however, it seems that not only the white guards were involved in this acts. The original text linked the white guards to Horthy and then said that it was mainly them that participated in violent acts against the Jewish population. It was no repetition, the problem was that the white guards appeared in two different positions in text, once by Horthy and once when the Romanians intervened. What you have done is to bring both references in the same place, which I completely agree and to blame exclusively the white guards, which is not what the references say. I have modified your text slightly to make the white guards the main perpetrators.
• On the role of the IAMM and the war reparation quotas: I think I see your point. You don't want to have any official body linked to war reparations in the Romanian interpretation. While I think that war reparations is a neutral formulation, we have already discussed this and even though I'm not happy with it for the sake of compromise I have agreed to it. So, I agree to your text on the IAMM and I have changed the text on the war reparation quotas to make it clear that this is what the Romanians imposed. Nevertheless, I want to have quotas in there, because, this is what happened: the Romanians imposed some quotas to be taken as war reparations on various components of the Hungarian economy and requisitioned within these quotas. This is also why I don't really agree to calling the Romanian "seizures" indiscriminate. Perhaps they appear indiscriminate to the Hungarians because were so complete and so large, but I would say they were rather methodical.
• On the affront: In Kiritescu's book it is clearly said that the Romanians received requests to hand over weapons captured on the field of battle. I don't know when this request was filed precisely (it just says that it was in the beginning of the Romanian occupation). It may be that it was in another communication than the one Bandholtz talks about, I also definitely don't think that if it is not mentioned in Bandholtz's diary it automatically does not exist. This being said, I believe any army would consider such a request as an affront. I don't see what is your problem with this. It underlines the difficult relation the Romanians had with the IAMM. I also don't understand what is "unencyclopedic". I have reverted the old text. I could also agree to leaving the thing with the affront out, but give me a valid reason why. Also, my revert has nothing to do with the communication (telegram) you reference, it is just that the communication I talk about is another one, i.e., one that Bandholtz seem not to mention in his diary.
• "Some" modern scholars: as long as most of this scholars write based on what Bandholtz says I believe that some is appropriate. Not the number of reports is important but the original source. The original source in most cases of Western historians is either Bandholtz directly or someone who wrote out of his account. Thus I believe that some is appropriate, or we should make clear that they all use Bandholtz, that was biased against the Romanians, but then we start another discussion. I also don't understand why you have all of a sudden a problem with "some", I thought this was already a settled text. If we start going back again over all the text we will never end this.
• The liberation fee: well, I believe it was meant to be some sort of reimbursement for what AH invested in the territories now belong to Romania, but I don't know precisely what this was. I cite word by word the available referenced text. This is why I've put "liberation fee" in quotation marks.
• On the text about the territory up to Tisza: I look forward to seeing your proposition, but I believe my text is very good, meaning it is a very good compromise, as I have explained before. So while thinking about new text, please consider my reasoning on this issue from my former post.

Octavian8 (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Octavian8, thanks for the prompt response,

• Regarding the "white terror": the IAMM investigated the report on violence that you were citing and found it exaggerated. Later Bandholtz called it unfriendly propaganda. Regarding the claim that Horthy's army arrested political opponents, e.g., bolsheviks, he wrote: "As a matter fact, the arrests that were made were practically insignificant, and none were made that were not perfectly justifiable". He also wrote that "Colonel [Nathan] Horowitz, who is a member of the Committee on Army Organization and who had visited western Hungary, turned in a report on the general conditions there, and in particular concerning the Jewish persecutions. He stated that in his opinion Admiral Horthy’s army had done everything within reason to prevent any such persecutions, and that he considered that no more atrocities had been committed than would ordinarily happen under the stress of such circumstances". Therefore, though I do not doubt that the persecutions included violence, they were not that widespread and Horthy's National Army also took steps toward protecting the Jews. I have added this latter information.
• You are right with respect to the reparation issue: in my view, we should only use the word "reparations" if we state that it is the Romanian point of view. With your modification (adding "Romanian-imposed"), I agree with leaving the "reparation quotas" part of the text.
• On the "affront" issue: (1) my problem with including feelings is that then we could also include many other things that were, e.g., affronts to somebody. For example, it surely was an affront to the Hungarians that the Romanians even disarmed their police, they took over the administration including the post and requisitioned even private properties, etc. The war and the casualties surely caused a lot of suffering and mourning on both sides, but it should not be explicitly stated. An encyclopedia should only include statements about feelings in very special circumstances. We should focus on the main events instead of the feelings these events caused. (2) Regarding the contradiction with Bandholtz's diary: although it might be possible that he forgot to include this, but it is dubious, since he recorded minor details, as well, and returning all captured weapons is not a minor detail for a soldier like him. In my opinion Kiriţescu misunderstood or misinterpreted something, since according to B's diary, there were negotiations about returning some pistols or carbines, but he never mentioned that at some (earlier) point they asked for returning everything. I modified the text stating that this statement is based on Kiriţescu's research. (3) Also, if we include the (alleged) weapon issue, then we should also include other things that the IAMM asked in the beginning from the Romanian army, e.g., that private properties should be returned and the schools, colleges must be evacuated, etc.
• Regarding the "many" vs "some" scholars question: in my opinion, if we have 1 or 2 references for a claim then we should use the phrase "some scholars", but if there are at least dozen scholars that claim the same, then using the term "some" is an underestimation. Also, it is not our role to decide whether their judgments are based solely on Bandholtz's diary. I believe that his diary is just one source for these researchers and good scientists take into account the potential bias of the witnesses, as well. But, for us, it is enough that there are many modern independent (not Hungarian or Romanian) scientist that call these issues looting. As a compromise, I suggest the word "several".
• I suggested a refinement for the sentence about the territories up to Tisza.
• Thanks for your explanation on the "liberation fee". Then, it makes sense. Shouldn't we include the explanation?

Koertefa (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Koertefa,

• On the white guards: just introduce the citation over the actions of the HU national army, I agree to the text.
• On the affront:
  • The evacuation of schools and so on does not need mentioning: the purpose of the example was to underline the tensions between IAMM and the Romanians. I have no mention of the Romanians considering the requests of the IAMM with respect to the evacuation of schools as displaced and fueling mutual distrust. I don't say it did not exist, just that it is irrelevant for what we want to tell in that phrase.
  • Mentioning the affront directly: If the request to evacuate schools did not lead to the Romanian officers distrusting the IAMM, the requests to stop the requisitioning is an all together other matter, and the request to hand back weapons captured as war trophies on the field of battle even more so. In particular this last request alienated (at least in the beginning of the occupation) a large portion of the Romanian officers core that took it as an affront to their military honor. This is one direct cause for their poor relationship to the IAMM. Therefore, for what this text is supposed to tell, it is important. I am confident that the Hungarians felt offended on lots of counts, it is normal, they were occupied. However, the matter here is that the Romanians and their allies that were supposed to be on the same side, had a problem with each other. This is the peculiarity that I try to clarify. It is no peculiarity that the Hungarians felt offended on lots of things related to the conduct of the occupants, this is normal, mentioning it again has no informative value. Explaining why the Romanians and their allies were fighting has a large informative value.
  • About what Kiritescu wrote, I trust his account (take for example the issue with Romanelli, where he was right). I don't say he is beyond error, as you implied with Bandholtz. However, in most cases his account overlaps with Bandholtz's but from another perspective. These two are our main sources for this article. Therefore, if you single him out like this, you should do this overall and you should do this with Bandholtz as well, then we have a text that constantly reads like: Kiritescu said... and Bandholtz said... which I think is pretty bad.

I hope I made myself more clear now. I have modified the text accordingly. I make reference now explicitly to the officer core such as to meet your worries about the inclusion of feelings.

• On the region up to Tisza, I agree to your text. I've just eliminated "for example" because it is not an example, but the core of the matter.
• On the issue of historian/sources I agree to several.
• On the "fee" I really don't know what to say. Kiritescu only mentions it being payed. The explanation is my speculation, do you really think it should be in the text?

We only have the affront issue left. Perhaps we finish it before Christmas :-). Cheers, Octavian8 (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Octavian8, we are almost ready. I added a citation to the part about the "white guards" and made a small refinement by changing the word "followers" to "supporters", since followers might indicate that they got their orders from Horthy (which I believe was not the case). However, they surely supported Horthy against the Bolsheviks. You are right that Kiritescu and Bandholtz are our two main sources and normally we should not state explicitly in the text that according to whom it is the case. But, in situations where our sources seem inconsistent with each other, it would be preferable. For the sake of compromise, I agree with leaving the "collage" and "school" part out and I do not insist on stating that the weapon issue was only according to Kiritescu, but I still think that the "affront" part is unencyclopedic and must be left out. Even without mentioning it explicitly, it is quite clear that the Romanian army did not take such a request well. I agree with leaving the "for example" out from the Tisza text and, since we do not have a source about the reasons of the "liberation fee", we should not elaborate more on that, even thought your explanation sounds very plausible. Thus, if you agree with the affront part, then we are good to go! Cheers, Koertefa (talk) 06:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Koertefa, OK, I agree to the text as it is now. I will put it online. I would say we did a nice job in the end. Cheers, Octavian8 (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Octavian8, thanks for your work and for putting the section on-line. I also think that we did a nice job with the Aftermath section. Koertefa (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)