Talk:Interwar Hungary

Unsubstantiated Biased Information

There is biased, unsubstantiated information in this article: "Horthy's authoritarianism and the violent anti-communist backlash resulted in interwar Hungary having one of the quietest political landscapes in Eastern Europe. Later on, when he wished to take out loans from the West, they pressured him into democratic reforms. Horthy only did as much as he absolutely had to, since the Western powers were geographically distant from Hungary and soon turned their attention to matters elsewhere."

The source should be provided or this statement removed, it is extremely misleading.

JNevil (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nkm291.jpg

Image:Nkm291.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Romanian intervention in Sovietic Hungary

The Romanian army was the one that actually freed Hungary from the Sovietic ruling, and in the article it's mentioned only for the unverified and undocumented looting (feel free to add quotes). The motive for the Romanian intervention was fulfilled and it was basically a free and democratic neighboring country. Romania wanted to avoid another communist neighbor at the time. Forgive me, but we might want to bias these things considering the Romanian and Hungarian history. All invading armies, for any reason also commit looting, and the same happened during the Hungarian occupation of Transilvania in WW2, but IMHO, that is not a milestone event.

Furthermore, the US Library of Congress case studies have a not in the bottom section that should be taken seriously:

“NOTE: The information regarding Hungary on this page is re-published from The Library of Congress Country Studies. No claims are made regarding the accuracy of Hungary Hungarian Soviet Republic information contained here. All suggestions for corrections of any errors about Hungary Hungarian Soviet Republic should be addressed to the Library of Congress.”

D3vi1 (talk) 13:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC) - Razvan Vilt

While I agree the current article seems to be POV (as is Hungarian Soviet Republic by the way), I wouldn't say the Romanian intervention is somehow totally pure and democratic. This article has no references, but neither does the only Romania-centred article on the topic (Union of Transylvania with Romania) which suggests the war was caused entirely by "anti-Romanian repression in the Romanian-inhabited areas still under Hungarian control." Probably, this conflict deserves its own article with quality references. This article (if you believe onwar.com) suggests there is certainly some truth to the "white terror." Before suggesting that liberating a country from a totalitarian government necessarily leads to a better government, one might pause to consider the Soviet "liberation" of Eastern Europe after WWII. Basically what I'm saying is, go ahead and fix this article, but make sure you don't just slant it the other way. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge between Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946) and Hungary between the World Wars

User:Dbachmann tagged the latter for merge on september 6, 2008: [1]. I have notified WikiProject Hungary and Former Countries. Please discuss here ^walk victor falk ^talk 23:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we all agree to discuss at Talk:Kingdom_of_Hungary_(1920–1946) so the conversation is all together? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 14 October 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Hungary between the World Wars → Interwar Hungary – It has been agreed not to use uppercase for "World Wars", so this topic needs some renaming (see Talk:Canada in the world wars and interwar period). However, it may be better to use "Interwar Hungary" for this title, for consistency with Interwar Britain, Interwar France and Hungarian interwar economy. The proposed title is also more concise. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support: World War I and World War II are proper nouns, but when referring to a set of world wars, it is not a proper noun. And, interwar period sounds better to me. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Mellk (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom - there is a reasonable argument for WP:CONSISTENT even if this is not formally documented. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

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