Talk:Miklós Horthy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] 80.95.82.69 wrote this at the end of the article:

    • remarks: the above text bears very anti historian tendency. It states Hungary was in the wave of Axis in early 3Os but even Hitler was not in power then. Otherwise after Hitler got to power, there were years of cooperation among Mussolini's Italy, republic Austria and Hungary counter ballancing Hitler's 3rd Reich in gaining all German speaking territory under his rule.
    • It is a low profile humor to make pun on monarchy without a king, the landlocked country with no fleet and under a ruling admiral. Poor jokes especially over a nation of 1000 years who was always such receptive for new ideas and people as no other places for many including possibly the joke makers and 31/32 of my ancestors. Even WW1 was defeted in the stalemate 'cause Charles I. was defeated not on the batllefield but for his love for peace and for his gentleman like honesty. My grand fathers were not defeated, even one of them was in Bucurest when Romania was defeated and somehow this Balcanic small kingdom turned out to be a victorious power from a defeated small territory. That shows how unable people were the ones preprogramming WW2 in Paris peace acts.
    • To talk about Horthy's - who for his luck was cought by US and not Russians - hand over as a war criminal to killer Joe Tito is good to hear from ones who agrees with Milosevic involvemenst in Bosnia of 1990s with genocide. Horthy's blame on Novi Sad early 1940s events should be placed in new prospective of th 1990s since Serbian backed local terrorists never turned up face to face but from behind roofs. (I know it from my father who finished secondary schools that year there...) On the other hand killer Joe Tito's partisan terror brigades - who in contrary to movies never turned up against regulary military troops - run such a murdering mashine killing 200 times in number the truly innocents when taking over at the end of war. Even Russian army - the rolling robber, raper and killer gang of millions (even 2 years old were killed while raped the mother in my village) - stopped Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia newly regaining army from further Balcan rooting attrocities. Comparing Horthy to them is no wonder US left Hungarian governor to free.

I think you are a little too defensive. I wrote the article, and 90 percent or more of what is here is still my work. I actually respect Horthy in many respects, in particular his passionate hatred of Communism, but it's a fact that he did come to sympathize with Fascism and supported the Axis in World War II. I think he did a lot of that because he had little choice, being a small nation caught between Stalin and Hitler, but the fact is, he did. I think he can best be summed up by saying that he did the best he could under very difficult circumstances.

One of my best friends is a descendant of Miklos Kozma, who was a high-ranking official of the Horthy government, and she had no disagreement with what's here.

The comments about Hungary being a landlocked country and Horthy being an admiral without a fleet are just to point out the irony of his situation after the war. No disrespect to the nation of Hungary is implied or intended.

Stalin, by the way, played a major role in Horthy not being tried as a war criminal. When the issue was discussed, his words were "leave the old man alone." user:Jsc1973


[edit] Question marks in the data box

I wanted to fill in the data box based on the article Ferenc Szálasi, but I don't know some data. That box says Szálasi was preceded by Horthy as a "Leader of the Hungarian Nation", but I don't find the exact years and Horthy's predecessor at this post.

Thanks for your help.

Preceded by:
?		 Leader of the Hungarian Nation
?–?		 Succeeded by:
Ferenc Szálasi

Adam78 23:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hope this is just a bad joke. This title (Leader of the Hungarian Nation / "Nemzetvezető") was created for Szálasi, no one else had ever claimed it before him.

If you really think you must use a succession box in this article, i would recommend this:

Preceded by:
Károly Huszár		 Head of State of Hungary
(as regent)
1920–1944		 Succeeded by:
Ferenc Szálasi

--Adolar von Csobánka (Talk) 18:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vitéz

How come his Hungarian name has an extra word, Vitéz? I don't think it correspond to de... does it? --Menchi 01:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

It means approx. "valiant", and to my knowledge it is similar to knighthood, but I'm not sure... Adam78 08:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The Vitézi Rend has been an internationally acclaimed order since 1962 (full name: The Knightly Order of Vitéz), when the 6th International Congress of Genealogic and Heraldic Sciences recognised it in Edinburgh. Horthy founded it after having been elected governor of Hungary, to honour his supporters and heros of WW1. He did not have the right to grant nobility, so he "invented" this order, which was dismissed in 1945, but emigrant vitéz-s reorganized it in 1956. --Mathae 18:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vitéz, Order of (Vitéz Rend in Hungarian) was a Hungarian Order founded by Minister-Presidential Order #6650 (1921). Initially the order was awarded to men who served with special distinction in World War One. Subsequently it was awarded to supporters of the Horthy Regime. The order was open to military personnel as well as civilians. It was a hereditary title, passing to the eldest son. The award of the order was in the gift of the Regent, Admiral Horthy, who himself was a recipient of the Order and the Order's Commander in Chief (Főkapitány). The award was accompanied by a land grant, 40 cadastral holds to an officer, 8 cadastral holds to other ranks or civilians. (1 cadastral hold = c. 1.43 acres). Jews were excluded from the order. Bardwell 20:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nazi leader

Ok, I will not fight revert war here about the question was Miklos Horthy Nazi leader or not, but I will elaborate here some facts about him: he was ally of Adolph Hitler, he created Greater Hungary (compare this with Greater Germany of Adolf Hitler), and he is responsible for Southern Backa genocide in 1942, where numerous Serb and Jewish civilians were killed with the purpose of changing ethnic structure of the region (modern term for this is ethnic cleansing). So, my question is: what man should to do more to be labelled as Nazi leader? User:PANONIAN

There are some things to add and to correct.

  • Horthy never said that he had created "Greater Hungary" - which had been divided among a "Smaller Hungary", Romania, the newly founded Serbian-Croatian-Slovenian Kingdom and Czechoslovakia. He just got some of the lost regions (Southern Slovakia, parts of Transsylvania), or occupied them (Ruthenia, Vajdaság), but he never came to restore Hungary entirely.
  • He is not responsible for any genocide, as he never gave orders for that. In Újvidék (Novi Sad) treacherous officers cut all ways of communication so that Budapest could not have been informed of the massacre they did. Horthy personally ordered to stop it, and he wanted to condemn the responsible officers, but they fled - where? - to the Nazi Germany, and they returned after the Wehrmacht occupied Hungary. So the genocide was not an ethnic cleansing conducted by the Hungarian government, but a terrible sin committed by disloyal officers.
  • In 1939 he refused to let German troops through Hungary for Poland even after he had been given some territories in Felvidék (Southern Slovakia) in 1938 by Germans and Italians.
  • In 1942 he ordered to start negotiations with the British - the hope was cut by the slow Italian campaign and the Nazi occupation. By the way, before the occupation Horthy was invited to Klessheim on a conference, where he was virtually imprisoned for a few days, and he couldn't order resistance.
  • After the occupation the Hungarian administration - the police and the gendarmerie - served the Nazis helpfully in deporting the Jews of the Hungarian countryside without any governorial orders. Horthy couldn't do anything, but by gathering loyal forces to the capital, he saved the Jews of Budapest. No other allies of Hitler dared ever to do so.
  • Horthy never supported the Hungarian Nazi parties - on the contrary, he had their leader, Ferenc Szálasi imprisoned several times.

What else should a politician do so that he won't be labelled as a Nazi leader?--Mathae 19:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Fascists...

Have you ever heard about fascism? It's something that Horthy suppressed and banned several times... But perhaps I don't know Hungarian history well enough. Anyway it's very interesting that noone ever tried to label Ferenc Szálasi as a Fascist. Perhaps he deserves it a little bit more than Horthy, who had him imprisoned several times, who prevented the deportation of Jews from Budapest, who tried to start fighting against the Nazis. Perhaps.--Mathae 5 July 2005 12:20 (UTC)

I agree with everything Mathae said. Horthy even wanted to make Hungary change sides in the war. I hope he won't be put back into the Fascists category. (However, Szálasi should be put in the category.) Alensha 7 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)

Who was this absurdity committed by? Horthy was as fascist as the ("counter")revolution in 1956 was - not at all. This is a typic example of communist and panslavic propaganda. Gubbubu 13:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

„Horthy nem volt fasiszta diktátor.”

John Lukács: Állam, nemzet, nép. Előadás a Mindentudás Egyetemén, 2005. október 24. Gubbubu 08:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

("Horthy was not a fascist dictator". John Lukács: State, nation, folk. Lecture on politology at The University of Omniscience, 24. oct. 2005.)

[edit] Date and circumstances of "entering" Budapest

The Romanian army entered Budapest on August 6, not August 4. At this time, the Entente had issued a telegraph requesting the Romanian army to keep its current positions, which was shown to Mardarescu, but he objected by saying that he can only accept orders from his own government. Those orders arrived after his troops had "entered" Budapest (whether this happened intentionally or not I'll leave for you to decide), but anyway, saying that the occupation of Budapest was an act "under the mandate of the Entente" is at least disputed, and can only be stated, if necessary, with mention to this. KissL 07:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

a word carries different messages depending on context. wording "Romania occupied Budapest" would be justified if Romania would have been an aggresssor state, set on annexing Hungary. eg. "Nazi army invaded France and occupied Paris annexing France looting/robbing the country vs. "American army defeated the Nazi army in France and entered Paris liberating France and captured massive quantities of nazi military equipment". you can easily discern that "American army invaded France and occupied Paris looting/robbing the nazi army of equipment" would be wrong formulation. -- Criztu 08:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Which is again a false analogy, because Paris was not the homeland of the Nazis, whereas Budapest is (and was) the capital of Hungary. KissL 09:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
well Paris certainly isnt the homeland of the Americans does it ? -- Criztu 11:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Who said it is? KissL 11:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
well then what did you mean by "Paris was not the homeland of the Nazis, whereas Budapest is the capital of HUngary" ? :)))) -- Criztu 12:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
When the army of one country (USA) drives the army of another country (Germany) out of the capital of a third country (France), it may or may not be a "liberation", depending on the circumstances (it is a heated controversy in Hungary, for example, whether the Soviet Red Army, by driving out the Germans, "liberated" or "occupied" Budapest at the end of WWII). However when the army of one country (Romania) drives the army of another country (Hungary) out of the capital of that same country (Hungary), it is an occupation regardless of circumstances. I can't make that any clearer. KissL 12:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
well, Americans also fought the french Vichy gov in WW II isnt it ? they sure did attack France, invaded lands of the pre-Vichy France and occupied Paris if looking at things from this perspective. while at the same time the Americans suported DeGaul. similarly Romanian army didn't "occupy" Budapest no more when Horthy came, and also when Horthy's gov was able to secure authority in HU, Romanian army retreated, not attacking a single Hungarian Horthist soldier. What did RO do ? attacked Bolshevik HU army and allowed Horthist HU army to take control of HU ? RO army occupied Budapest and in the same time Horthist units acted in Budapest without RO army engaging them ? which one is the Hungary you refer to ? Horthist Hungary or Bolshevic Hungary ? -- Criztu 13:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
The Romanian army left Hungary after 4 (four) ultimatums from the Entente, the last one even containing the following paragraph:

Should [the Romanian government's] reply not be satisfactory to the Supreme Council of the Allies the latter has decided to notify Roumania that she has separated herself from them. They shall invite her to recall immediately her delegates to the Peace Conference, and they will also withdraw their diplomatic missions at Bucharest. As the questions concerning the settlement of boundaries are still to be made, Roumania will thus by her own action deprive herself of all title to the support of the Powers as well as to the recognition of her rights by the Conference. It would be with the profoundest regret that the Supreme Council of the Allies should see itself forced to severe relations with Roumania, but it is confident that it has been patient to the very last degree. [1]

It was clearly this ultimatum which made the Romanian army finally leave Hungary. It is also true that by this time, the country had been so thoroughly pillaged that any military retaliation was impossible for years to come – for instance, 75% of the railway carriages had been transferred to what afterwards became Romania. The Romanian army had no interest in hindering the initial activity of Horthy, because he, unintentionally, served the same political cause as the Romanians – the prosecution of the Communists, the only political power that had been capable of gathering any military power at all during the last year. When the Romanian army left, the country was already ruined, so the Romanians, as long as they weren't allowed to stay anymore, had again no interest to interfere. To infer that the Romanians supported Horthy is a later twist with the sole intent of whitewashing the injustice done by the Romanian army. KissL 14:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
wording "Romania's invasion of Hungary" or "Romania's occupation of Budapest" are correct if info on circumstances of such actions are provided. Without clear statement on which circumstances Romania invaded and occupied, the message is "Romania aggressed Hungary". If clearly discernable info on circumstances in which Romania "attacked, invaded and occupied Hungary" are provided, i have no objection for using these words. otherwise it would be manipulation of reader -- Criztu 13:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Provide those circumstances then, instead of removing valid content. But you won't be able to do that, because there are no serious sources that would accept the theory of any kind of (non-negligible) Hungarian offensive or agression. KissL 14:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

- - - - -

As the head of the newly organised National Army, he decided to spare his forces and avoided all combat. I have removed this sentence (Interwar Period, 1919–1939), because it is both hypothetical and over-simplistic and it is a misleading interpretation. The invading Romanian forces were a de facto proxy force of the Allies, who were concerned about the spread of communism into central Europe and the Balkans. After Kun’s flight to Vienna, and in the face of the extensive Romanian occupation of Hungary, there was in the country a political vacuum, food shortages and civil disorder were on a vast scale. The invading Romanians had France’s tacit support. For Horthy to fight the Romanians would have been tantamount to fighting the Allies – a madness, a naïve and pointless gesture on a Quixotic scale. Only the Allies themselves could force or order the Romanians out of the country. And this is, in fact, precisely what had happened. And as soon as it had come about, Horthy and the National Army took control.

Bardwell 17:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Bloody repression" (1920-1944)

The following statement is simply false:

  • "As regent (1920-1944) was well infamous due his bloody repression."
  • First of all, Horthy decided not to participate in everyday politics after having been elected regent, so he couldn't have started a terroristic rule.
  • Bloody repression? Well, perhaps around 1920, when his troops (officers, mainly) made several actions against communists and other leftists, Jews and their supporters. But he did not order any murders and crimes personally. After that there was nothing to be repressed bloodily. Except for communists, but I think imprisoning them was not bloody - anyway, most of them were exchanged with the Soviet Union. In 1932 two of their leaders were executed, but that wasn't ordered by the regent, but Károlyi Gyula's government decided to do so, to prevent their convulsive activities induced by the effects of the Great Depression.
  • About the massacre in Újvidék (Novi Sad) it is well known that treacherous and disloyal officers conducted it without informing Budapest or Horthy personally. That's why they fled to Germany after starting an investigation in the case of the shameful events.

So this is Horthy's dictatorial, personal, sadist, bloody repression. None of the victims were murdered on his orders, and I'd like to remind everyone that it was Horthy, who decided to stop deportations in 1944, while none of the Axis-allies ever dared to do so.--Mathae 22:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Technical note

Why do things have to be linked thrice on this article? Don't you trust the memory skills of your readers? Dahn 04:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Museum of Terror in Budapest says Horthy was a Fascist

Their is a museum in Budapest[2], called the House of Terror, Terror Haza, about the terror of Fascism and Communism. At this Musuem Horthy is called a Facsist. And that is what he was! Bronks 10:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Horthy not decided to destroy any nations (not Jews, too!) - no, he saved 200,000 Jews! (This is not a legend, a fact with documentation (can be found in his memoirs attachment). There's a difference between nationalism and patriotism. In this case, weren't American leaders were Nazis? (Story with American Indians...)? Weren't Spanish leaders (another story with in Indians, full of brutality, somewhere in South America)? Weren't English leaders? (Story in India...) Weren't French leaders (yes, another story in Africa...)? The thing that these things happened much before the Holocaust won't free them from their crimes! How many people died just because they were different? And after the Holocaust? The "story" of Milosevic in Serbia? Buried in the honour of him? When we'll learn things?
And there comes Horthy, the educated, the trusty, the officer, the noble, from a great family. He was not the same as Hitler.. not a nobody. He didn't become the regent to destroy something. Well, the revisions. Official policy of Hungary, with the agreement of Horthy. But it wasn't his job. He was only the frontage man on the back of a white horse. And the massacre in Vojvodina? Made by disloyals. Horthy ordered the investigation. If I decide to kill as many Jews as I can, would László Sólyom, the President become a Nazi? I don't think so... The conclusion: Horthy was a conservative at a bad place, at a bad time. Furthermore, he was famous, and remained famous after the war (unlike Hitler)! (Don't believe communist sources, these marks him as the hated Nazi.) The real criminals were Döme Sztójay, Ferenc Szálasi, many parliamentary delegates who voted anti-Jewish laws, some members of the general staff, and that soldiers who executed these horrible commands! There's no Horthy.
He was not a war criminal, only a witness, even in the after-war trials after WW2, with the agreement of Americans and Soviets. His memoir is not full with nationalism, fascism. Simply tells his life. Unlike Hitler. If indepedent judges decided not to mark him as a Nazi, we could belive him and try to memorize the names of the real criminals. Not the name of a frontage man...
Of course it's my opinion, and I don't agree neither Fascism nor communism. I really loathe them, but I'd like to find out who was who. And after reading several sources, seeing many photos about this man, reading about the grateful Jew who visited Horthy in Estoril, reading through indepedent, right-winger and communist history books, after having a scout around the Internet, I found out a single sentence: "Horthy was not a fascist." User:Cserlajos
P.S.: Now many of you will say that i'm not right, while feeling angry. Investigate your own soul, not mine!
Actually, while I tend to agree with the notion of Horthy not being Fascist and rather Conservative, I think that mention of the Museum's judgment should be made. Cserlajos, none of your points make sense: despite your willingness to sanctify Horthy (investigate your soul, not mine), there is nothing inherent to fascism that would indicate "prone to genocide". Clicky on Fascism and tell me where you see that being stated. In fact, Fascism in Italy was a very inclusive and even non-Volkisch ideology - its criminal faults lie elsewhere. What you do is highly sophistical: if some to most of leaders who embraced fascism were genocidal, it should not be understood that Fascism itself is. Your statements about various genocides somehow not being included in the analysis of Fascism is absurd on all levels: everybody agrees that Stalin was a genocidal criminal, but is there a person you have met to support the theory that this made Stalin "a fascist"? No? Then, your point is missing... Dahn 22:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I haven't got a willingness to sanctify Horthy. I admit besides that he was not a genocidal criminal, his concepts had some faults. When he arrived to Budapest, his soldiers did the White Terror. Under Horthy's regime, the freedom of voting was limited. When it was clearly visible for everybody - even for Horthy - that Germany is going to lost the war, he hesitated to ally Hungary with the Soviets (being a conversative, he loathed communism, like many others) as fast as possible. A good definition of Fascism, from the Fascism article: "Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." According to this Horthy was not a Fascist. He never talked about the "community decline", about the "pure Hungarian blood", never did humiliation, etc. Horthy was an old man, and he came from the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Horthy was a seaman, a captain, not a politician. Later, he became the regent. Last evening I wanted to describe that Horthy didn't do anything which made him a Fascist. He was a staunch right-winger, but not in this way. I suppose Horthy's notion was anti-communist, patriotist - and in some points nationalist, but not as rough as a Fascist's. Futhermore, the "men of the definition" or the leaders who embraced Fascism as their ideology were Fascists? Horthy was ethical all the time, and never made really Fascist decrees. I know that Fascism is not the word for genocides, but all Fascist regimes caused genocides (Germany, Hungary, Latin America...). It was a long progress to turn Hungary to a Fascist country for a while, and the last barrier was Horthy. Genocides can't be enclosed to any political ideology. The dictators of the world (Hitler, Stalin, etc.) only lapped the real reasons behind an ideology, like Fascism, or Communism. Nowadays, we like to point on each other, and can't recognize that everybody is right. Conservatives, Liberalists, Democrats, Republicans. Hungarians, Romanians, Slovaks. Since I'm only on the border of En-3 and En-4, it's a bit tiring for me to discuss in English. I'm a stalwart Democrat, and I could tell you more in Hungarian, the whole of my opinion, what "makes more sense", what is more correct. I hope now I wrote enough to give you a survey on my notion about Horthy. I suppose the future will turn out a adequate decision on Horthy. While the communist regimes existed in Europe, Horthy was a Fascist. After the democratic turn, many historians reviewed Horthy's life, and said "Horthy was not a Fascist". Furthermore, your argumentation was outstanding. Thanks for giving a great opponent (?). And could you help me to get information on Horthy's religion? It would be important. User:Cserlajos
  • Just becouse he didn't want to kill all the jews, dosen't mean he wasn't a fascist. Mussolini didn't want to kill jews either, (and he was the "inventor" of fascism). Horthy was a fascist becuse he was in favour of a bourgoise dictatorship, he crushed the workers movements, banned all the unions and killed all communist and socialists. That is what makes him a fasicst!!! Bronks 18:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, he should have been an authoritarian corporatist to be included in "fascists". His regime was not corporatist, and he was not especially authoritarian (stricto sensu). Dahn 18:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Forget about Horthy being a fascist. That's simply false. Only communists and other quite primitive marxists regard him fascist, but I guess the communist point of view is not a neutral point of view.

  1. In Hungary only Ferenc Szálasi estabilished dictatorship, before that the political system was somewhere between conservative-monarchist authoritarian and limited parlamentarian.
  2. The communist movement was banned, but the social democrats were permitted to exist (with limited rights). Anyway the communist party worked illegally with very few members (2 of them were executed in 1932).
  3. Only unions of the railway workers and the post were "crushed" (banned).

Bronks, if you are extreme-leftist, do not be a POV-pusher. If not, think this fascist-stuff over. And I can hardly believe that the Terror Háza regards Horthy a fascist, please provide reliable information. Until then: revert...--Mathae 12:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bronks, somehow I can't believe that you're blind. I had a look on your user page, (click) and well... I can see what are your interests. The only thing what I can say (write): see above. We discussed that Horthy was a conservative. In the future, please don't try to change this. Don't add him to the Fascists category. Wikipedia is not a place to tell your own opinion, it's the place of the "neutral" opinions. And don't forget: the most of the world doesn't support Marxism, or I should say: hate it. My grandfather felt fine in Siberia, that 10 years in his life was so so so good. And you're about to tell me: Horthy was the bad man, not those, who sent him to that cold place? (Before you describe him as a criminal, I tell you: he was caught to work for Our Gracious Stalin Comrade, to build the railroad, work in the forest - in spite of he was an intelligentsia.) User:Cserlajos

Cserlajos, your comment has no relevance whatsoever. Let's stick to the topic at hand. I have attested my belief that he was not a fascist (and I believe it is shared by many historians: I know Nagy-Talavera refuses to include him in that category, and centers on Horthy's aristocratic paternalism), but I also believe that, if the Holocaust Memorial does say it, mention should be made of this on the article page. I would also like to beg Hungarian contributors to stop shoving high praise and revanchisme into every problematic article. Dahn 14:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This was especially to Bronks.

Problem is, nobody proved that the Terror House says that, and I don't remember having seen/heard this there either... But I'm also fed up with people simplifying Hungary's recent history to (1) Nazis (bad) and non-Nazis (good), or (2) Communists (bad) and non-Communists (good). Life is just not black and white. KissL 14:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

  • A presentation in the House of Terror what indicates Horthy wasn't a fascist.
  • A presentation what tells: "Állampolgárai életét a II. világháborús viszonyokat az ország geopolitikai adottságait és katonai erejét figyelembe véve egészen az ország náci megszállásáig igyekezett megóvni" ~ "He tried to protect the lives his citizens - considering the relationships of WW2, the geopolitical state of the country, and the manpower of it - until the Nazi occupation", but criticizes: "Horthy államfőként passzívan tűrte, jóváhagyta a vidéki zsidóság deportálását" ~ "Horthy as the regent passively stood, approved the deportation of the Jews in the countryside" (He cared only about the Jews of Budapest)
  • The House of Terror is not the Holocaust Memorial. There is it.
  • The Holocaust in Hungary's "Who is who?" sais: "1920 és 1944 között a Magyar Királyság kormányzója. 1918-ban az Osztrák-Magyar Monarchia hadiflottájának utolsó parancsnoka. Az 1918-as magyarországi polgári forradalom és az 1919-es kommunista Tanácsköztársaság bukása után lett a király nélküli királyság kormányzója. A két világháború közötti Magyarország államfője. 1938-tól a szélsőjobboldaltól tartva engedélyezte a zsidótörvények megalkotását, de 1944-ig a német nyomás ellenére sem volt hajlandó deportáltatni a zsidókat. A német megszállás után kinevezte a kollaboráns kormányt, visszavonult az államügyektől, de nem mondott le, ezzel mintegy legitimálta a megszállást és a deportálásokat. 1944. júliusában leállította a zsidók kiszállítását és ezzel megmentette a budapesti zsidóságot. A háborúból való kiugrást tétován és következetlenül készítette elő, 1944 októberében a németek a nyilas Szálasi Ferenc javára lemondatták. A háború után nem állították bíróság elé, de Magyarországra nem térhetett vissza. " ~content: "Horthy feared from extreme-rightists, so accepted the Jewish laws, but until 1944 -in spite of the German pressure- he not allowed the deportation of the Jews. In the July of 1944, he stopped the deportation of the Jews from Budapest. The Germans deposed him in the favour of Ferenc Szálasi".

The upper articles don't say that Horthy was a Fascist. So I don't think (and remember) that the House of Terror sais he was a Fascist. I hope it helps: User:Cserlajos

[edit] Catholic?

Somewhere I read:
"His resistance was partly inspired by the appeals made to Horthy, a Catholic by birth, by Roman Catholic clergy to have mercy on the Jews."

I think Horthy was a Protestant, and only took part on Catholic events due to he was the regent. Somebody who is unregistered made this change. Would somebody check up that it's true, or not?

User:Cserlajos, 28 May 2006.

No, he wasn't Catholic. That's why PM Béla Imrédy played the chief role in 1938 during the Saint Stephen Year and the 34th International Eucharistic Congress.--Mathae 12:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Since this article has been several times moved into the category of fascists, and then removed form there, I think it would be useful to prevent further unnecessary work by placing a well-marked box on the top of the Talk page, that would incorporate all the arguments why Horthy wasn't a fascist or a nazi. I think the majority of the editors would accept it, and thus we wouldn't need to start the debate over and over again. (I can't create boxes but I could help in collecting arguments and sources.)--Mathae 14:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea; go ahead and do it. – Alensha 寫 词 17:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Postcard

I think the postcard is fine - it is a perfectly acceptable illustration to the life of Horthy, and in itself does not constitute an assertion that he himself was a Nazi. (Quite the contrary: if the Nazis had to distribute propaganda postcards to make people believe so, it must have been with a reason.) I think it should remain. KissL 09:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Dahn 11:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] About romanian wikipedia

The problem is there only the mentality of people also i am romanian, but i should like to change it if it was posible. the behaviour of two administrators is like ceausescu's dictature they do not support any kind of criticism like example administrator Vlad, i received an order to write about Miklós Horthy that he was fascist and criminal of war, unfortunetaly i did not find any kind source then i ask them to do it by themselfs but they did not do it and after they find reasons to banned me, is it right ? I will apply to the highest rank of wikipedia, becouse they discrimined me.


User talk:Ovidiu. please read this ! I feel a shamed to be romanian.

--Ovidiu. 10:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If that is indeed the case, Ovidiu, I suggest you move your business over on English Wiki and report the abuse. I don't contribute on Ro Wiki precisely because it is controlled by a green-shirted POV. (Don't know if that is the case here, but my eyes have seen enough from browsing through that version of wikipedia.)
Note: I also agree with the fact that Horthy was not a fascist. I know that war crimes have been carried out under his administration, but I know that it is an open controversy about whether he was responsible for them. Dahn 14:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dahn, thank you for your kindly answeer, but how can i get to green-shirted POV, and what does that mean ? Becouse i should like to report the abuse directly to green-shirted POV.

Thank you again.

--Ovidiu. 15:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Miklós Horthy and the holocaust

In light of the worsening military situation and facing threats (from Allied leaders) of war crimes trials, Horthy ordered a halt to the deportations on July 7, 1944. In August, he dismissed the Sztojay government and resumed efforts to reach an armistice, this time with the Soviet Union whose army was on Hungary's borders. Horthy had begun final negotiations with Soviet army commanders by mid-October, when the Germans sponsored a coup d'etat. They arrested Horthy and installed a new Hungarian government under Ferenc Szalasi, the leader of the fascist and radically antisemitic Arrow Cross party United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, D.C


--Ovidiu. 16:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Chorin Ferenc - [...] Zsidó származású, 1919-ben megkeresztelkedett üzletember, nagyiparos, felsőházi tag, [...] A háború után amerikai emigrációban élt és anyagilag támogatta a szintén számkivetett Horthyt.

in literal translation: "Ferenc Chorin - [...] jewish descendant, baptized in 1919, businessman and industry mogul, member of the upper chamber[...] After the war he lived in emigration in the US, and supported (by money) the also fugitive Horthy"

(this Horthy, who this article describes) ! - the page links to the "Holocaust in Hungary" page.

[edit] Explanation

I have reverted some recent edits by an anonymous editor. Your information may be perfectly correct, but as long as you don't present verifiable sources to back them up, your edits are violating policy. Also, I fail to see how Wallenberg's heroic efforts to save the Jews of Budapest constitute a proof that Horthy didn't work for the same cause, or that "his efforts were negligible in comparison"; I think this is in violation of another policy, since it promotes an opinion rather than just listing the facts and letting the reader evaluate them. KissL 13:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

We need some good sources for this paragraph. Also, who is Mrs. Anne O'Hare McCormick of The New York Times? Was this a letter to the editor or something? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Horthy certainly did as much as any Western leader to protect and save the Hungarian Jews, [citation needed] and under the circumstances did a great deal more than the non-axis leaders, or the western media. [citation needed] The survival of 200,000 Jews in Budapest until the arrival of the Soviets could not have been possible without Horthy’s active resistance to the German orders, [citation needed] nor without the Hungarian Roman Catholic Church, which handed out false baptism certificates and false IDs in an effort to save the nation's Jews from being deported. [citation needed] At the time the New York Times itself admitted the fair treatment Jews received in Hungary from the regent. [citation needed] After saving the Jews of Budapest the first time [citation needed] and after returning the trainload of Jews to Kistarcsa,[1] on July 15, 1944 the Times had an article praising Hungary as the last refuge of Jews in Europe, and that “Hungarians tried to protect the Jews.” [citation needed] [2]

Who is Don Mabry of the Historical Text Archive who is used as a source? We must use mainstream academic historians for these kinds of claims. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not keep removing the fact templates. We must have sources for this paragraph, or it will have to go. And we need another source in place on Don Mabry. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Answers:
About Don Marby and HTA (+their awards - seems "mainstream"); Anne O'Hare McCormick (also have a look at The New York Times article's "Pulitzer prizes" section: "1937 Anne O'Hare McCormick, for distinguished foreign correspondence: dispatches and special articles from Europe."). Cserlajos 15:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The HTA book was written by John Flournoy Montgomery, not by D. Marby. He was an ambadassor of the US to Hungary at the time. Cserlajos 15:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Call on carcase"

The original speech says "tetemre hívom a magyar fővárost". This is a reference to the practice, common in the Middle Ages, that suspects were forced to touch the body of a murdered person one after another; it was believed that when the murderer touched the body, the wound would start to bleed. (In the speech, this is a metaphor applied to the nation as the victim, and the capital as the murderer.) I don't know whether it is possible to translate this into English exactly, but the fact that the title of "Tetemre hívás" (a poem by János Arany) was translated "Call to the Ordeal" in 1881 (see here) suggests not. The literal translation quoted in the heading is most certainly incorrect, so I'll change it. KissL 08:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely right. I hadn't got a clue how to translate "tetemre hívás" (this is why I translated it literally), so I agree with you. Cserlajos (talk) (contribs) 13:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/k/Talk%7EMikl%C3%B3s_Horthy_0d44.html"