Talk:Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories

Good article

Well written, with all main elements covered, factually accurate. --Gorran (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Hungarian placenames

Somehow, I just knew those would be reverted... But they ought to appear somewhere in the article, since they are (a) the forms actually in use by the governing authorities during the period under discussion and (b) they are sometimes used by English sources and a reader wanting to know more should know them as search terms. As an aside, the name Szabadka pre-dates Subotica, but I am not going to insist on a Hungarian name for every place, just the four territories. Srnec (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

They were reverted because they were inserted in places that gave an ahistorical impression (ie they did not match the context). I am not opposed to using Hungarian forms, but I am wary of using them except when directly relevant to the occupation because this article is talking about the occupation, during which the territories remained legally Yugoslav, not other periods in the history of these lands. It is my understanding that the four regions were integrated into four pre-existing Hungarian counties, and they were the administrative divisions used by the authorities, and that is what the article currently reflects. If you have reliable sources for what the four annexed regions (essentially parts of existing counties, as I understand it) were called by the governing authorities during the occupation, I am sure we can find an appropriate place and way to insert them. The district section with the Hungarian versions of the names seems the most obvious place at first glance. Perhaps you could provide the sources here and we could work out the best way to include the information? If in Hungarian, I might need translations, as my Hungarian is non-existent. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Macartney uses the Hungarian terms. Here is what he says in his "Note on the use of place-names":

Most places situated up to 1918 in Historic Hungary, but thereafter assigned to Successor States, and even some left inside Trianon Hungary, possess at least two names, and strong political and sentimental implications attach to the use of the respective alternatives. I began this book with the intention of preserving strict official correctness and impartiality, and of using only the official name of each place, changing my usage appropriately if the official name changed (as it did in the areas recovered by Hungary after 1938). But I found myself in difficulties. Even the official position which a Briton ought to adopt was not always clear. It was really rather absurd to describe, for instance, a Hungarian ministerial council as talking about places under names which none of the speakers had ever used in their lives, and where I was quoting verbatim from documents it would have been incorrect to do so. Besides this, much the greater part of this book is based on Hungarian sources, written or oral; and on reading through the proofs I found that I had very often, out of sheer human negligence, put down the name which I had read, or heard. I see nothing for it but to plead guilty to frequent violations of my own rule, begging my readers to read no political implications into these lapses.

I took it from this that the Hungarian names are the ones the Hungarians used. (I would be shocked if it were otherwise. After all, we don't say "Deutschland" in English much.) I am not claiming that the traditional regions had an official existence of their own: they were incorporated into/merged with the existing counties. Srnec (talk) 00:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate that is what Macartney did, and he was right to be careful how he handled it, given the scope of his work. However, the scope of this article is strictly limited to the occupation of these Yugoslav territories during 1941–45, not their earlier or later history as Hungarian, Croat, Slovene or Serbian territory, and there are political implications to including Hungarian terms in this article for that reason. There was a great deal of POV-revisionism across this and a large number of articles on towns and villages in Vojvodina while I was developing this article, and I am wary of adding more Hungarian names than necessary, as it tends to attract the revisionists. That is the underlying reason I want to see sources that show the governing authorities used those names for the territories during the occupation. At present, we know that Macartney used these names, but I don't see anything yet that explicitly shows the Hungarian authorities used them. If there aren't sources that explicitly show their usage, then I don't support their inclusion. We already have a section giving a significant sample of Hungarian place names used during the occupation as well as an explanation of the name reversions etc. I'm not sure what we would be adding to this article by the inclusion of the Hungarian terms for these territories unless they were called that by the governing authorities (ie the Hungarian government) during the occupation. It seems to me that the mention of Délvidék in the lead plus inclusion of the Hungarian counties that absorbed these territories already achieves the aim. It is not as if the article avoids the mention of the fact that these territories were Hungarian pre-Trianon. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

My rationale was as originally stated: "a reader wanting to know more should know them as search terms". A reader trying to verify the references to Macartney will have some difficulty finding, e.g., Prekmurje in the index (or the text). In any case, I disagree that "there are political implications to including Hungarian terms in this article". This is about a Hungarian occupation! I know its the Balkans and it brings out some of the worst kinds of nationalists, but I'm not sure I see what's controversial. Anyway, I don't know Hungarian so I won't be searching for records online about gov't usage. I think the Macartney passage I quoted strongly suggests it. He does have a note on p. 146 that reads:

Barczy has a note on a Ministerial Council held on 7th January 1943, which runs: "Kallay: 'the total population of the Muraköz is only 120,000. True, only 20,000 of these are Magyars, but the whole population prefers to be in Hungary.'"

Macartney's note on his own usage makes clear that "Muraköz" is the original term in the informal note. Srnec (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, let's get down to tin tacks. Assuming I agreed with inclusion, we'd need citations. On what pages does Macartney actually introduce these terms, and is his reference to the respective Yugoslav territories, either explicitly or by implication? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The kind of statement I think you're looking for is on p. 13: "Three days later [on 27 April], the allocation to Hungary of the Bácska, Baranya and Muravidék was announced in a communiqué which maintained discreet silence on the Bánát and the Muraköz. The Germans were keeping the former area provisionally in their own hands; as to the latter, although Bárdossy recognised the moral validity of the Ullein–Maček agreement, he did not dare brave his own public opinion by ordering the evacuation of the area, which remained under provisional military occupation until Hungary herself took the further step described below [on pp. 57–58]." While we're at it, the map at "Geography" would be better under "Districts", but it will probably mess with the tables there. Srnec (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

There was a Census in Hungary just after the occupation of Yugoslav territories. This is the official publication, and naturally, it used Hungarian name variants (Szabadka e.g., but you can check them all). Bácska, Muraköz, Muravidék etc. were so-called "historical regions" and not administrative units (like Baranya County). So Macartney and census are reliable sources in this case. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, that looks fine. What I propose is to insert the following sentence in the Districts section immediately after "Prekmurje had been part of the Drava Banovina." →"The Hungarian authorities referred to the occupied territories by the following names: Bácska for Bačka, Baranya for Baranja, Muraköz for Međimurje, and Muravidék for Prekmurje.{{sfn|Macartney|1957|p=13}}"← Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It reads a little awkwardly to me, but it's fine. Would the average reader take it to mean that the 1941 authorities invented those names? If you don't think so, then go ahead and implement it. Srnec (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that sentence is slightly misleading, because it suggests that Hungary created new names of those regions. However Hungarians always refers to those territories by Bácska, Muraköz etc. as they were part of Hungary until 1918 (officially 1920). Today, Hungarians still use those names. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, it says nothing of the sort. All it says is that they were the names used by the Hungarian authorities, which is obviously correct, and is consistent with the source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Names used by the Hungarian authorities?

If my understanding is correct, there are names which could not be described as Hungarian names, because they were only used by the Hungarian authorities, but not by the Hungarians. Which are these names? Borsoka (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears that I was incorrect about the reversion, none of the listed ones in the tables are ones that were created by the Hungarian authorities with no historical precedent. Apparently there was such naming, but as they are not listed, the tables can remain as changed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 02:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Needs Citation

Ive noticed in the first paragraph there are a large amount of un-sourced claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texas-Dude1914 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

In the lead we usually do not use citations, but summarize the core points of the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2020 (UTC))

Maps' sources

I'd like to add references on Commons for File:Magyarorszag 1920.png (several edits over the years changing the numbers...), File:TerritorialGainsHungary1920-41.jpg, and File:Hungarian Occupied Yugoslavia 1941 44.png but cannot find them. A455bcd9 (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Source found for File:Hungarian Occupied Yugoslavia 1941 44.png (see here). We still need the other two... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I’ll take a look at the history in the next few days. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

G'day A455bcd9. At least some (if not all) of the refs for the original map from which File:TerritorialGainsHungary1920-41.jpg is derived are at File:Hungary map 1941.png. Unfortunately PANNONIAN isn't actively editing anymore. The refs for File:Hungarian Occupied Yugoslavia 1941 44.png are at the parent File:Hungary 1941-44 Administrative Map.png (XrysD is still very active making maps, and is my go-to mapmaker). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Peacemaker67 and thanks for checking this point.

Yes for File:Hungarian Occupied Yugoslavia 1941 44.png I chatted with XrysD, we found the refs and I added them to the original file.

For File:TerritorialGainsHungary1920-41.jpg, I'm not sure we can use File:Hungary map 1941.png as it's not identical. I don't have access to the books to check their content, do you? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

No, and as I say, PANNONIAN is inactive. It seems likely that XrysD could find sources and do a replacement. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)