Talk:Revolutions and interventions in Hungary (1918–1920)

Factual accuracy

There was no alliance intervening in Hungary in 1919 ergo no reason to call what happened then an "Allied intervention". This entire discussion page demonstrates this. There is no respectable source calling what happened then an allied intervention (and until now even no unrespectable ones). Calling this article like this is just an attempt to mystify history.Octavian8 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The article includes France in the belligerents section (even if this absurdity is later somewhat revised in the text)! It cites troops-strength that are widely inaccurate, only to copy then in the body of the article some text from the The Hungarian-Romanian war of 1919. This article has just one merit, it is makes one lough at it, other than this it is a disgrace.Octavian8 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The topic addressed here - i.e., the conflicts and struggles surrounding the dissolution of the Kingdom of Hungary at the end of WWI - however is highly interesting and it deserves attention. (That's why I agree to removing the delete template) However, the topic needs a more serious handling than this! Octavian8 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

This is pretty much the same exact subject as Hungarian-Romanian War of 1919. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian-Romanian War of 1919 is part of this conflict. It would be more logical if that article was here. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Against: The Hungarian-Romanian war is a stand-alone subject, therefore it should be merged with nothing. It can be considered as one of the conflicts involving bolshevik Hungary, the other one deserving an own article is that with Czechoslovakia.Octavian8 (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment We do have one theme (Allied intervention in Hungary). Hungarian-Romanian, Hungarian-Czechoslovak conflicts are coherent subjects.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an allied intervention in Hungary. There is a Hungarian-Romanian conflict and a Hungarian-Czechoslovakian conflict. Romania and Czechoslovakia were not allies. Or do you consider that just because Romania was a member of the Entente, this amounts to an Entente intervention in Hungary?!Octavian8 (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian-Romanian, Hungarian-Czechoslovak conflicts are coherent subjects indeed, but only because they involve Hungary. By way of consequence the one theme is 'Bolshevik Hungary at war.'Octavian8 (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, check the sources before you judge existence of expression.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I can't access your sources, why don't you cite them here. I'm interested to see how do they declare Romania and Czechoslovakia allies (which would be the sole sensible justification for this title).Octavian8 (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

They were part of the Entente powers. It is pretty straightforward. (Czechoslovak legions officially from 1918). Cited: "Czechoslovak legions as an official part of the Triple Entente"[1]Fakirbakir (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

See my answer from below. In short here: The fact that some units made out of Czechoslovakians -- that is not clear that they fought against the Hungarians reds, let alone coordinate with Romanian forces -- were declared as part of the Triple Entente forces does not make the Czechoslovak state whose armed formations fought against bolshevik Hungary in 1919 part of the Entente.Octavian8 (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Stop your POV, The Czechoslovak government existed before 1920 and they were part of the Entente powers.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You should stop yours... The Czechoslovak government existed before 1919 even, but it was not part of the Entente. Even by your debatable source, the Czechoslovak legions were considered by the British as part of the Triple Entente forces. The logic by which this amounts to a recognition of Czecoslovakia as part of the Entente looks more like speculation for the sake of argument. P.S. We should agree on commenting in just one place :-).

• Against: There are 2 separate conflicts (Hu-Ro, Hu-Cz). There was also a Ro-Cz (diplomatic) territorial dispute over Northern Maramures(SamiraJ (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

If a country had parallel conflicts with 4 other countries, then why do you think that one of these conflicts can be separated from the others and treated as if that country had no other struggles in that time? The separation of these conflicts would be clearly misleading... Koertefa (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The military conflicts were separated because there was no coordination among bolshevik Hungary's enemies. Furthermore, when the Hungarians attacked the Czechoslovaks in summer 1919, there was no fighting on the Romanian front and conversely, later, when they attacked the Romanians, there was no fighting on the Czechoslovak front. The Hungarians never had to fight two enemies at the same time in the summer of 1919, but only one at a time. Romania and Czechoslovakia were no allies at that time. Now you can talk only about the economic-social burden on Hungary having to fight incessantly at that time, which is another matter. Octavian8 (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The question whether there were or were not cooperation between, for example, Romania and Czechoslovakia is only a detail that should be discussed in the article. Even if it was true, the economic-social-political burden of Hungary justifies that these conflicts should be treated in one article. Koertefa (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• I oppose a merging as well. I don't mind if this article is an overview of the war fought by the Hungarian Soviet Republic on the multiple fronts on which it fought, but I see no sense in merging the whole article on the H-R front into this stub that was created recently by undoing a redirect. The sources used in the H-R article are specific to that front, and the article is quite long. Editors' time would be better spent writing article for the other fronts (with Czechoslovakia and with the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs/France respectively). Also Romania was not exactly carrying out Entente orders, if you read the H-R article carefully; more like they got grudging approval for their campaign, and later the Western powers had to pressure the Romanians to stop/withdraw. So the title of this article is a bit misleading with "Allied" in it. Wars of the Hungarian Soviet Republic would be more appropriate. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete/Rename article

This article should be deleted or renamed. The term "Allied intervention" is misleading. There was no alliance between Romania and Czechoslovakia. Romania Serbia and France could be considered allies, as members of the Entente. However, there was no French military intervention neither in the conflict between bolshevik Hungary and Romania nor in the conflict between bolshevik Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The Serbian military intervention in Hungary was at best insignificant. This can be seen also from the number of Hungarian troops facing the Serbian army compared against the number of troops fighting first the Czechoslovakians and then the Romanians... It should also be noted that the Hungarian reds never fought at the same time the Romanians and the Czechoslovakians and neither the Romanians nor the Czechoslovakians really helped each other during their conflict with bolshevik Hungary. At that time there was no alliance between Czechoslovakia and Romania neither on paper nor on the ground.Octavian8 (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

From my point of view, we should either have some integrating article about the conflicts of bolshevik Hungary (for example this one, but renamed to something like 'Conflicts of bolshevik Hungary' or some dedicated english term - if such a thing really exists), where to cross reference the Hungarian-Romanian war and the Hungarian-Czechoslovakian confrontation or we should simply include such references in the Hungarian Soviet Republic article (and completely delete this one).Octavian8 (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The title is proven by reliable sources.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean? Do you want to say that this title is used in some other sources? Which sources are those? On what are they based? Was there any alliance treaty between Romania and Czechoslovakia in 1919? And finally they are reliable by what standards?Octavian8 (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please check the sources.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Check for what? I'm pretty sure I'll not find any alliance between Czechoslovakia and Romania in 1919. Octavian8 (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read this article about Entente allies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_I, and if you missed the Czechoslovaks, please read this as well.[2]Fakirbakir (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The book can't be accessed and Czechoslovakia was not part of the Entente. To say that the Entente intervened in Hungary only because Romania did so (at certain times against the will of the Allies) is absurd. France did not intervened militarily and I am not convinced that what Serbia did amounts to an intervention. Just compare the Serbian 'intervention' against the Romanian intervention...Octavian8 (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You did not read my link. Please read it. Czechs were part of the Entente.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Because the link was not accessible then. However I read the link you've posted below. See my answer there.

I oppose the deletion or the renaming of the article. The parallel conflicts of post WWI Hungary should not be separated. The Hungarian army not only fought against troops from Romania, but against troops from Czechoslovakia, as well, and Serbian forces also violated the demarcation line [3]. The strong diplomatic involvement of France is very important, too [4]. All of these issues are very strongly related, so treating them separately is not preferable, there should be a unified article about them. The article on the Hungarian-Romanian part of the war should be merged into this article, since treating it separately is misleading. Koertefa (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Be so nice as to read all the posts here and then respond. Fakirbakir and I invested quite some time in our discussion so I will not have it with you again. In short: there was no allied intervention in Hungary, but only a set of conflicts involving bolshevik Hungary.Octavian8 (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It is only your opinion, and I did read the discussion and the cited sources. Koertefa (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The same thing goes for merging the Hungarian-Romanian War of 1919 with this article. The Hungarian-Romanian conflict was only one of those involving bolshevik Hungary. I fail to see what is misleading in having an integrating article about the wars of bolshevik Hungary and separated articles detailing them. Didactically it is a lot better to have some structure rather than a mammoth article on everything. Furthermore, please discuss the merging in the appropriate thread. Octavian8 (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Article Tag

Please don't remove the article tag. If you feel offended by the deletion Tag, remember it is just a Tag to alert editors on this discussion. I would also sustain a renaming of the article to something like the 'Wars of bolshevik Hungary', together with a re write, to make this a sort of integrator for the Hungarian-Romania and Hungarian-Czechoslovak wars (each with stand-alone articles). Octavian8 (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Why can't we use Hungarian Soviet Republic as an integrator? (SamiraJ (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC))

Because this page is about Allied powers against Hungary.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

And please do not question existence of Allied powers (Entente). Romania, Czechoslovaks, Serbia etc.....Fakirbakir (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure Serbia/Yugoslavia took part at this conflict? I can't find any other source except this... (19:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamiraJ (talk • contribs)

Take a look at, for example, the first map of the "1919 Hungarian–Romanian War" article... Koertefa (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia was not part of the Entente. From the other named Entente powers, only Romania did fight against Hungary.Octavian8 (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

False reasoning. Please read that link:[5] Czechoslovak legions were officially part of the Entente in 1918.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The Czechoslovak Legions were not the Czechoslovak state and part of them were at the time of the bolshevik Hungary wars in Russia. Furthermore, the source sustains that by this Balfour declaration (that I can't find in original text -- actually there seem to be a lot of Balfour declarations see Balfour Declaration of 1917) the legions were recognized as 'an official part of the Triple Entente (military) forces'. So, even this source does not sustain that Czechoslovakia was part of the Entente. It is also not clear which soldiers from those legions declared as part of Entente's military forces were involved in the fighting against bolshevik Hungary. So sorry, but to say that the Entente intervened in Hungary only because some Czechoslovak units (of which strength) that is not clear that were involved into the fighting against Hungary were considered by the British in some 'Balfour Declaration' as 'official part of the Triple Entente forces' - whatever this should be meaning - is still preposterous.Octavian8 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Stop your POV. It is obvious. The Czechoslovak government existed before 1920 and they were part of the Entente Powers.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You should stop yours... The Czechoslovak government existed before 1919 even, but it was not part of the Entente. Even by your debatable source, the Czechoslovak legions were considered by the British as part of the Triple Entente forces. The logic by which this amounts to a recognition of Czecoslovakia as part of the Entente looks more like speculation for the sake of argument.Octavian8 (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

New name

I would suggest to rename this article to "Military Conflicts of the Hungarian Soviet Republic" and rewrite it along this lines... which actually amounts to deleting this article and coming up with a new one.Octavian8 (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. This name would be clearly wrong, since the HSR was a very short lived state, it was only an episode of the post WWI struggles of Hungary, but even the (Phase I of the) Hungarian-Romanian part of the conflicts started earlier than the HSR was established and, for example, there was no HSR any more when the Romanian troops withdrew in 1920. Moreover, we are not just talking about "military conflicts", for example, France was highly involved diplomatically. Koertefa (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Between the end of WWI and the period of the HSR, Hungary had no army. After the period of the HSR and until 1920 it was under foreign occupation. It is only in the period of the HSR when the conflicts turned to open warfare. Granted, the Phase I of the Hungarian-Romanian war starts before HSR, but only because for Romania WWI just continued into the Hungarian-Romanian war. However although the Romanian army advanced into Transylvania to support the unification wishes of the Romanian (and German) ethnics of Transylvania (together almost a two thirds majority of the inhabitants of Transylvania), there was little to no fighting at that time. Open warfare erupted only after HSR appeared. But how would you name that period? (please don't say the Allied intervention in Hungary, because as I've pointed out repeatedly in this Talk page there was no Alliance of any sort intervening in Hungary at that time).Octavian8 (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving the article

I will rename this article to "Military conflicts of the Hungarian Soviet Republic" if no objections are mentioned here within a week.Octavian8 (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• You can see the arguments with sources, but I know you do not accept them. So if you add a new title in the article I'll change back. I think you are a very prejudiced in this topic as a Romanian (lootings, Entente participation, Romanian-Czech coordinated attack etc.). --Norden1990 (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
• I support the move request as well. Several sources cited in this article are clearly abused. See the new section for an example. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• I oppose the move request based on the arguments above, namely, that the HSR was a very short lived state and the conflicts started earlier than it was founded and when they ended there was no HSR any more. This article should not only cover the fights, but the whole situation of the region in that time. Moreover, there were diplomatic involvements, too (e.g., France and Soviet Russia), so emphasizing "military" in the title is also not suitable. However, I agree that the current name is not the best one, so we should look for alternative names that are preferably widely used in the scientific literature. Any suggestions? Koertefa (talk) 07:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
• "Interventions in Hungary (1918-20)" would be better title of this page in my opinion.Fakirbakir (talk) 07:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I found a book about this theme. What do you think about it: " Revolutions and interventions in Hungary and its neighbor states" [6] It could be the new name of the page. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks good, though it might be a bit too long for an article title. We may drop the part "and its neighbor states", to reach a more concise version. We may also want to include a time reference, e.g., (1918-1920), as you previously suggested. Koertefa (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to see reason coming back here. I believe this is a good title and I support it. Now we can work on the article. Octavian8 (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that you support the new name, I see it as a good sign. I fail to see, however, what did you mean by "reason coming back". The previous arguments were reasonable. The fact that previously there was a disagreement, but now we found a solution, does not mean that previously we were unreasonable. But let's work on the article. Koertefa (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Czechoslovaks part of the Entente

And please do not question existence of Allied powers (Entente). Romania, Czechoslovaks, Serbia etc.....Fakirbakir (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia was not part of the Entente. From the other named Entente powers, only Romania did fight against Hungary.Octavian8 (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

False reasoning. Please read that link:[7] Czechoslovak legions were officially part of the Entente in 1918.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The Czechoslovak Legions were not the Czechoslovak state and part of them were at the time of the bolshevik Hungary wars in Russia. Furthermore, the source sustains that by this Balfour declaration (that I can't find in original text -- actually there seem to be a lot of Balfour declarations see Balfour Declaration of 1917) the legions were recognized as 'an official part of the Triple Entente (military) forces'. So, even this source does not sustain that Czechoslovakia was part of the Entente. It is also not clear which soldiers from those legions declared as part of Entente's military forces were involved in the fighting against bolshevik Hungary. So sorry, but to say that the Entente intervened in Hungary only because some Czechoslovak units (of which strength) that is not clear that were involved into the fighting against Hungary were considered by the British in some 'Balfour Declaration' as 'official part of the Triple Entente forces' - whatever this should be meaning - is still preposterous.Octavian8 (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Stop your POV. It is obvious. The Czechoslovak government existed before 1920 and they were part of the Entente Powers.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You should stop yours... The Czechoslovak government existed before 1919 even, but it was not part of the Entente. Even by your debatable source, the Czechoslovak legions were considered by the British as part of the Triple Entente forces. The logic by which this amounts to a recognition of Czecoslovakia as part of the Entente looks more like speculation for the sake of argument.Octavian8 (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Before 1918 October (but officially 1920), the 'virtual' Czechoslovak government was on the side of the Allied powers. There was no state. Nobody talked about Czechoslovakia except you.Fakirbakir (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought that we both talk about Czechoslovakia, becuase without a Czechoslovak membership of the Entente in 1919, you have no case for naming the bolshevik Hungary wars an 'Allied intervention'. Furthermore, even if this wold have been the case - which is not -, there was no cooperation at the miltary-decision level between none of the sides fighting the Hungarian reds in 1919.Octavian8 (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• About Entente and the Czechoslovaks:
• " The Czechoslovaks were part of the Allied forces"[8]

We had this, some Czechoslovak formations were considered part of the Entente military forces. This does not make Czechoslovakia part of the Entente (see also my coment about the Soviet Union part of the Axis further below).Octavian8 (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• "In April 1919 Czechoslovak troops took part in the Entente- organized armed intervention against the Hungarian Soviet Republic"[9]

The intervention was mainly organized by Romania a member of the Entente. This is the sole reason for naming the wars of bolshevik Hungary and Entente intervention. The Czechoslovak troops fought against the Hungarian bolsheviks. This does not make Czechoslovakia part of the Entente. There was no coordination between Czechoslovak and Romaniab forces. The best example for this is that Romania did not come to the aid of Czechoslovakia when the Hungarian bolsheviks attacked it in 1919. Octavian8 (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Supported by the Entente, Romanian, Czech, and southern Slav troops occupied the border areas"[10]

The Entente support was never an issue, even if it meant as little as some diplomatic manuevering, limited arms sales and insturctor missions. This does not make Czechoslovakia part of the Entente.Octavian8 (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Czechoslovak and allied armies occupied Slovakia in January 1919"[11]

And this makes Czechoslovakia part of the Entente?!Octavian8 (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Benes announced on October 14 that the Czechoslovak National Council in Paris had become the provisional government of Czechoslovakia, a proclamation that prompted formal declarations of support from the Allies."[12]

Entente support for any manuever aimed at disabling/breaking one of their main enemies, i.e., Austria-Hungary for good, is selfunderstood. This however does not make Czechoslovakia part of the Entente.Octavian8 (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• "Moreover, notwithstanding the Entente's recognition of the Czecho-Slovak "army" as a part of the Entente army" [13]

Yes some Czechoslovak formations were recognized as part of Entente's miltary forces... (see my answer from above and that from below with the example regarding Vlasov's army)Octavian8 (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• "The fact that Czechs and Slovaks had their own armed formations lighting on the side of the Entente against Austria-Hungary"[14]
• "Czechoslovak bands as an allied war-making power"[15]
• "Czecho-Slovak legions fighting on the side of the entente on various fronts"[16]Fakirbakir (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

So what if some Czechslovaks fought on the side of the Entente - some even from 1915 on. This does not make Czechoslovakia part of the Entente. It is not even sure that such troops were involved in any way in fighting against the Hungarian reds.Octavian8 (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment1: This is becoming hilarious. Look here, by your argument, the Soviet Union was a member of the Axis in 1944/1945 only because Vlasov's army was part of the Axis armed forces.Octavian8 (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment2: Why is so difficult to accept that there was no Allied intervention in Hungary in 1919? It is selfevident that in that difficult times for her Hungary stayed alone against several enemies - why did Hungary gathered so much enemies in the first place is another question. But there is nothing to sustain naming what happened then as an Allied intervention. Believe me at times the Entente did a lot to hold the hawks in the Romanian political and military leadership of that time at bay and thus to a certain extent helped/protected Hungary. Octavian8 (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It is ridiculous. So, Did Czechoslovaks hang in the air? Or they came into existence after 1920? Or they had an own 'super power' to create their country alone? Or they belonged nowhere?
There were 2 possibilities. Belonging to 1, Central Powers 2, Entente.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Czechoslovaks did not hang in the air. They were, let's say in the Entente's sphere of influence that supported their quest for independence, but they were not part of the Entente and there was no coordination between them and any Entente member while fighting bolshevik Hungary. In the end the Entente did little to help them when the Hungarian reds attacked in Upper Hungary.

• What it can be said is that all countries in a state of conflict with Hungary in 1919 were in the Entente's sphere of influence. But, this does not amount to an Allied (as in Entente) intervention in Hungary.
• Furthermore, there was no military coordination between Romania and Czechoslovakia while they both were fighting Hungary and no alliance treaty between the two of them in 1919. So, again one can't talk about an Allied (as in Romania allied with Czechoslovakia) intervention in Hungary.
• Another question is if among the Czechoslovak troops fighting bolshevik Hungary were members of the Czech Legions that were formally part of the Entente military forces (and if their numbers were large enough to matter). Even if this were the case, they did not fight under Entente military command, but under their own and did not coordinate with Romanian troops, so there was no Allied (as in Entente militarily coordinated and conducted with Entente troops fight against bolshevik Hungary - and on top of all, this would be a very 'free' and far-fetched interpretation of what 'allied' means) intervention in Hungary.

One can talk only about a military conflict between Hungary and Romania and another one between Hungary and Czechoslovakia taking place at virtually the same time.Octavian8 (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Copy/paste

I have no problem if you copy text and data from the article about the Hungarian-Romanian war of 1919, but while doing so have at least the decency to cite the corresponding sources. Octavian8 (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that copy and paste from another Wikipedia article without a link to that article, eg in the edit summary, is considered to be a copyright violation. I have seen at least one editor blocked for refusing to do this. Dougweller (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I saved my deleted editing from that page. It is not copyvio. Moreover I wrote this in the edit summary:"deleted statements from page of 1919 Hungarian-Romanian War".Fakirbakir (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I almost forgot, I did it two times, the first one was user Koertefa's deleted text from the same page (because User Octavian8 deliberately deleted those)and the second one was mine because of the same reason.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

"All plans for an Allied intervention in Hungry came to naught, and Bela Kun's regime collapsed largely as a result of a unilateral action by Rumania." [17] This is actually used as citation to support the claim that there was an Allied intervention. Clearly POV pushing. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

It was not deliberate. I did not read the source properly.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Another case of personal interpretation is citing [18], which says "outside intervention" not "Allied intervention" in Hungary. The source does goes on to say that the Big Four supported Romania's and Czechoslovakia's military action at the Peace Conference, but that's not quite the same thing as Allied intervention. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What do you suggest? What would be the proper name of the page?Fakirbakir (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Working towards a new article

I would be glad to contribute here, as long as this is done in an atmosphere of cooperation and consideration, the target being a balanced and neutral article. In my opinion, the way to edit an article is to discuss on the Talk page and if substantial edits are envisaged, new text propositions can be made on the personal page of one of the editors. Once we agree we edit the online version. Alternatively (that I don't support) everybody edits and reedits the online version, while taking into consideration as much as possible the edits of others, and explaining his edits on the Talk page. Even though I don't support the latter alternative, I could try to work this way, considering that this is not an established article, but rather something it is being written right now. Also, I would suggest to structure the talk page according to the sections of the article, to focus the discussion. Octavian8 (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected some plain errors like the date of the HU attack in Czechoslovakia, the issue of what the Entente promised, the HU intentions and justifications for attacking over the Tisza river, the number of troops involved and casualties lists. I have also tried to bring some balance on the looting issue, according to the discussion on the talk page of the HU-RO war article. I hope this is OK for everybody. There is still a lot to be done here. Octavian8 (talk) 10:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)