Talk:Hungarian–Romanian War/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

NPOV?

It was an anticommunist coalition. At that time, the future borders were already decided at the Paris Peace Conference and the Lord Commission had begun to trace them on the ground. The works I quoted and the note Vix are clear. The Romanian offensive is not an isolated act. If it does not begin until Béla Kun seizes power, it is not by chance. To defend in this article the modern nationalist point of view and to read the sources in this sense, will not go back to Hungary the territories lost at Trianon.--Claude Zygiel (talk) 08:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

No way, future borders were not decided then, if you cited in the Treaty of Trianon, you should know when it happened. I did not say that all of your additions would be false (some were already mentioned in the article in an appropriate section), but this form is not ok. This is an article about the Hungarian-Romanian war, so affairs with other countries are out of the scope of this article in this context. I did not say it would be an "isolated act". I have you refuse your false supposition regarding "modern nationalist point of view" or I would not know the appropriate sources on this subject. Btw, I was referring to Romania's policy who had secondary goals to be achieved under their "anti-communist intervention", that are clear and openly known, if you check the diplomatic papers or the memoirs of Alexandru Vaida-Voevod - including Bratianu - or Antant reaction when they did not wanted to leave or finish the occupation in time, etc., it is a complex subject with many distractions, to say nothing of the territorial debate between SHS and Romania about the Banat. Please also note that Oszkár Jászi left the country until 1 May, 1919.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC))

Florian Bichir

A lot of Romanian materials looted by Hungarian troops were found in Budapest including historic bells of churches — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.118.213 (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Explanation

Hi Turgidson,

the Hungarian-Romanian war as you may see as well in the infobox location, did not touch Romania, the events happened in Hungary, hence the removal.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC))

• Hi KIENGIR, I disagree with your interpretation of what Category:Aftermath of World War I in Romania entails, for two reasons:

1. The way I see it, this type of category is not strictly confined to events that happened on the territory of a given country that participated in WWI. For instance, Category:Aftermath of World War I in France has a whole sub-category on the Franco-Turkish War, which, believe it or not, did not happen on the territory of France, but rather, in faraway Cilicia and Upper Mesopotamia. Also, a multitude of pages in this type of categories involve events that happened outside the countries they refer to, for instance, all sorts of treaties that were signed elsewhere.
2. The Hungarian–Romanian War occurred between November 13, 1918 and August 3, 1919. By December 24th, Brașov, Sibiu, and Cluj were under control of the Romanian Army, and that control was not relinquished throughout the war; to the contrary, it was extended within a few months to the present-day border between the two countries. Now, I guess you may have in mind that that control was only de facto in 1918–1919, and not formalized de jure until the Treaty of Trianon of 1920. But that would be a very, very narrow, extremely legalistic interpretation of what this category involves. By this token, why would, for instance, the Republic of Heinzenland be listed under Category:Aftermath of World War I in Hungary? Was the Burgenland de jure part of Hungary in early December 1918? And I hope you will agree that the Hungarian–Romanian War of 1918–1919 was a much more consequential event in the history of both countries than that "Two-day Republic" was in the history of either Austria or Hungary. Turgidson (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

1. I see your point, but since there has been not any category description (nor the French counterpart has), I could on assume the meaning of the name of the category itself (i.e. Category:Aftermath of World War I in Hungary has a definiton)

2. a, Burgenland did not exist in 1918; b, If you refer to the territory it covers, it was part of Hungary,(KIENGIR (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC))

I still maintain this is a very narrow interpretation of the category description; a bit like that famous quote, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is," only here we are arguing about the definition of the word "in". And definitely the territory on which the Hungarian–Romanian War was fought (let's focus on the period Dec 1918–March 1919 for now) was under the administration of the Kingdom of Romania, as I argued above, and you did not dispute in your response. So let me try once again, staying for now on that very narrow ground of what the word "in" means in this context (certainly Transylvania was much closer to Romania than Mesopotamia was to France in the aftermath of WWI, or at any other time in history, but let's leave that aside for now): were for instance Brașov, Sibiu, and Cluj in Romania by the end of 1918 and throughout 1919, as a direct result of the war covered by this article? I am interested in hearing more about this, since it may help clarify the overall structure of the article, not just as it pertains to the category in question. Turgidson (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I think the word in in this context is very clear. Any comparison with the French category is not necessarily binding, since as I said, if there is not a category definiton, on the title we may assume anything, so this may be another issue. No, the cities you listed were not in Romania, imposed military administration in occupied territories is not changing country's sovereingty, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC))

That's your opinion, but what is the concrete historical evidence you base it on? The fact of the matter is that the Treaty of Versailles, formally signed on June 28, 1919, recognized the sovereignty of Romania over Transylvania, see e.g. History of Transylvania#After World War I. And that was before August 3–4, 1919, when Romanian troops occupied Budapest, thereby putting an end to the Hungarian–Romanian War. Yes, there were follow-up treaties, at Saint-Germain (signed on September 10, 1919) and Trianon (signed on June 4, 1920), but as the aforementioned article mentions, those treaties only "further defined the status of Transylvania and the new border between the states of Hungary and Romania."

So, to recap: by the end of 1918 the most important cities in Transylvania were already under Romanian administration, and by mid-1919 the sovereignty of Romania over Transylvania had been formally recognized at Versailles, while the war described in this article was still going on (by then, at the Tisza). Thus, I contend, this event, which undoubtedly happened in the direct aftermath of WWI, happened in a substantial way in Romania. Turgidson (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it is a fact (by knowing appropriately and consecutively the historical evidence and events on the time, etc.). The Treaty of Versailles had no connection of what you say, and in the History of Transylvania page it must be a junk sentence by mistake (anyway followed by a pharagraph with contradictive content, referring the same etc.). The Treaty of Versailles was concerning Germany and the Allied Powers. The Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye was concerning Austria and the Allied Powers, while the Treaty of Trianon Hungary and the Allied Powers. Thus your deduction is not accurate. Sovereingty transfer has been established by signing the Treaty of Trianon on 4 June 1920, which came into effect internationally on 26 July 1921.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC))

Recent edits

Azure94,

some names you remove or alter, or changing the ordering in an inappropriate way, etc. Please avoid this, thank you.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC))

That's what I was to tell to you. Your order is entirely inappropriate and follows irredentist POV, thank you. Azure94 (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, this is nonsense, I warn you finally to drop baseless accusations, what you do is against status quo.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC))

I warn you to stop rewriting history. You are not who decides the "status quo". Azure94 (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this unserious discussion in such form it useless to to continue. Contrary, to your misleading edit log, the Vix note set demarcation lines and were not even identical with the borders the Trianon Treaty set. Sure, not me, but the Trianon treaty set the status quo, in this you are right.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC))

Czechoslovakia was founded in 1918, not 1920. These lands were de facto part of it since 1918. The borders set by the Vix note were not that much different from the final borders at Trianon, in fact both the Vix note and the Trianon treaty put the relevant towns outside of Hungary. Your unserious discussion and editing reveals your irredentist POV. Azure94 (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion was not about when Czechoslovakia was founded, and not all lands were even de facto that were later bordered. Again, the Vix note set demarcation lines, not borders, at least you have acknowledged your mistake that even they were different with the borders set later. Final warning to drop personal attacks.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC))

I don't think the problem in this discussion has been dealt with correctly. For example, I don't think it's appropriate to continue referring to modern-day Slovakia as "Upper Hungary" while a literal war was happening between (Czecho-) Slovaks and Hungarians. I also see several Romanian cities today that only have a Hungarian name displayed (like Satu Mare). Some changes should indeed be done. Super Ψ Dro 17:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you tell me where in the text "modern-day Slovakia as "Upper Hungary" referred? I found one instance of solely "Szatmárnémeti", I have no problem to add the Romanian names as well of course.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC))

"Czechoslovakia took control of Upper Hungary and Carpathian Ruthenia.", "In June, the Hungarian Red Army invaded the eastern part of the newly-forming Czechoslovakia, approximately the former Upper Hungary." "Many former Austro-Hungarian officers re-enlisted for patriotic reasons. The Hungarian Red Army moved its 1st and 5th artillery divisions (40 battalions) to Upper Hungary." "Kun withdrew his remaining military units that had remained loyal after the political fiasco in Upper Hungary.". I consider that "Slovakia" or "modern-day Slovakia" should be added somewhere, specially on the last mentions. Super Ψ Dro 11:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I did in the introductory occasion.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC))

Thank you. I replaced the second mention of Upper Hungary cited in my first message with "modern Slovakia", which I consider better. If that's kept, I don't have more complains. Super Ψ Dro 14:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I read you now, I fixed it, see the edit logs, hope will be fine with you.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC))

Deborah S. Cornelius - Bias

@Turgidson: - I'm pinging because I see you have an interest on the subject.

I've noticed some reliance on this source (Hungary in World War II: Caught in the Cauldron). This source is widely considered as biased, to say the least. You can find a good article here: https://ahea.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/ahea/article/viewFile/82/71

Now, the sourced content might be ok, but in this case we need to find a better source. Can you help with this?

Of course, any other editor is welcomed to contribute.Cealicuca (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Norden1990: - Pinged you too, since you seem to again after many years (and KIENGIR's departure) have a renewed interest in this.Cealicuca (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Spare me the comments from such. This page has been on my watchlist for at least eleven years and I edit it at intervals whenever I want. I have only made a few typographical corrections now, unfortunately I do not know the subject better, although it is a fact that, afte reading, this article is quite one-sided, but from the very beginning, when it was created in 2008. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Any valuable contribution is welcomed. I am pretty sure that soon enough there will be a renewed interest for other editors.Cealicuca (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:OR / WP:SYNTH

I'd like to reserve this section since there seem to be multiple non-sourced (so possible issues) with the content. Will try to keep track of things fixed.

Czech, Serbian and Romanian political leaders chose to attack Hungary

I have checked the source (indicated page) and there is no reference supporting the statement below at the indicated location, at the very least not in the from it is mentioned. Just to be clear, I've searched the whole chapter (5.4), p. 40 - 42.

After the Hungarian unilateral disarmament, Czech, Serbian and Romanian political leaders chose to attack Hungary, instead of holding democratic plebiscites concerning the disputed areas.

Source: Bardo Fassbender; Anne Peters; Simone Peter; Daniel Högger (2012). The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law. Oxford University Press. p. 41. ISBN 9780199599752.

Please check for yourself and correct me if I am wrong. Otherwise I'll remove the statement from the page.Cealicuca (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Mystery solved. This was added by Litender, a sock of Stubes99 (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian%E2%80%93Romanian_War&diff=next&oldid=836685743&diffmode=visual). Initially added without any reference, obviously. I'll do the cleanup and check other sources as well. Anyone else cares to join? :) Cealicuca (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Solved, as per Norden1990's edit.Cealicuca (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It has been re-added. I will not remove it for now as I am not a registered editor but someone should. ~~

Hungarian self-disarmament

The following "conclusion" is on this page and several other pages. Neither on this page, nor on other pages where I've seen it, is this sourced in any way. Moreover, around this particular statement, several others "conclusions" are insinuated or flat out added to the page.

"The unilateral disarmament of its army made Hungary remain without a national defense while it was particularly vulnerable."

Can anyone find a WP:RS attesting to this?

Moreover:

1: Linder's declaration seems to be taken out of context. "Next day the press reported in headlines that Minister of War Linder ‘does not want to see a soldier,’ whereas the meaning of his appeal was that there was a need for an army more aware of its élan and discipline” (Menczer 1995, 51). Indeed discipline was a major concern of the Károlyi government in November 1918, as undisciplined troops returned from the Italian front with weapons and looted and terrorized the countryside."

2: "In an essay written on the fifth anniversary of the 1918 revolution, the reporter László Fényes, who in 1918 was government commissioner of the “armed citizenry,” the National Guard that that was set up to keep internal order, wrote that upon their return to Hungary the troops “Could not be used for further service, they had to be disarmed because of their bitter spirit. How many a notary, district administrator, steward, renter, and grocer, can thank his life for this decision. Naturally they now make the loudest noise….We have attempted the impossible, with little result, to stem destruction by the revolution” (Fényes 1923, 133)."

So this disarmament was (1) meant as a reform of the army and to prevent mutiny, looting - overall having a disorganized and armed ex-military threatening to add to the instability in the aftermath of the war (2) a necessity due to the low morale of the soldiers.Cealicuca (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Interesting find. I did look at Robert Pastor's review article of Deborah S. Cornelius's book, and indeed it sheds new light (at least for me) on some of these events.Turgidson (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't dismiss sources out of hand. Even biased sources are OK if we understand their bias and the relationship with the content. In this particular matter though, the bias is reflected in the way the situation is presented. It's arguable that it was NOT a self-disarmament in the first place (not by choice per say, but rather by necessity), and moreover, it's clear that it was not because of some "pacifist" reasons.Cealicuca (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Turgidson: by the way, if you're interested in shedding light on WW2 history, try to get your hands on Halder's diary, especially since much of the Western narrative is heavily influence by post-war German generals biographies/books. Enough to say that a lot of them made sure they would paint themselves in a good light. :) Cealicuca (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)