Talk:Ferenc Szálasi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is part of WikiProject Fascism, an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to the fascist ideology, its impact on history and present-day organizations closely linked to both of these (ideology and history). See project page, and discussion.

This article may be listed on an index of fascist movements or people. Such listing may be controversial; feel free to contribute to discussions there. The presence of this Talk page-only template only implies that the subject is of interest to the associated WikiProject.


Contents

[edit] Ferenc Szálasi

He was a hungarist. The hungarism is the hungarian national-socialism.

"Although an anti-Semite, Szálasi was against the mass extermination of Jews and refused to deport Hungary's Jews to Germany." Szálasi didn't want to export the free labourforce to Germany, he'd rather let Jews die in forced-labor camps.

Is it right to call the Arrow Cross a "neo-nazi" group when they existed during world war II alongside the nazi's? Or should they just be called an extreme right wing or fascist party? 66.25.162.17 14:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


Some notes:

[edit] Title of party

The complete name of Szálasi's party was Arrow Cross Party - Hungarist Movement.

This is duly noted in the Arrow Cross Party article. I don't think it's important here. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I completed it, becouse always the whole term was in use together. I wrote it here just to log the correction.--GergelyGergely (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National Socialist vs Fascist

Szálasi and his organisation wasn't Fascist, but National Socialist. Fascism is the Italian kind of National Socialism, not reverse. This false terminology was promoted by Georgi Dimitrov, a Bulgarian communist leader.

[edit] Ancestry

Szálasi had also Rusyn and Slovak anchestry.

[edit] Arrests/murders of neutrals and opposition

"He arrested and murdered anyone who advocated neutrality or opposed the already lost war." --Not more people then any other governments in a statarial period.

I don't know what you mean by statarial period. Western Allies involved in the war did not generally execute those opposed to the war. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Western Allies weren't in a situation, when for a relatively long term were fights in their territory, and they must fight against the inner and outer enemies, for example the communists and "partisans". For perfectly answer your question: statarium is an interim phase, when not the civilian, but a so-called statarial law is in scope.--GergelyGergely (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't recognize the word statarial or statarium, possibly because http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statarium?r=75 it's not in the dictionary.] Firstly, the sentence said that he killed those who advocated neutrality, which is different than partisans. Second, none of your argument negates the fact that he did arrest and murder those who advocated neutrality and opposed the lost war. Your judgement that it was not exceptional relative to other states is your point of view. TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, statarium is not an english expression, martial law is the right. "Often, under this system, the administration of justice is left to a military tribunal, called a court-martial." This means that with the same falult in this interim situation you will get sharper penalty than normal situation. "He arrested and murdered anyone who advocated neutrality or opposed the already lost war." -- It's a subjective, propagandistic sentence, from they're emeimies pen. Who is anyone? Yes, there were executed people, who were dangerous according to the martial law.--GergelyGergely (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
And Jews were considered dangerous according to the Nazis, but that doesn't mean we don't mention that they were killed. If you want to find a way to say it that you consider less POV, that's fine. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Puppet state

"As leader of a puppet government of Nazi Germany Szálasi renewed the persecution of the Jewish population" -- we can't told it a puppet state, becouse under the most of Szálasi's term the Reich can't gain real control on his system, more truly call it simply as ally. Beyond this, Szálasi was against the deportation of Jews, he organised the so-called International Ghetto, and admitted safe-conducts, which weren't effectual according to the Germans. [1] --GergelyGergely (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't invade your allies. Hungary had been invaded by the Nazis, and therefore was a puppet state. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The Germans invaded it, but later they can't rule the country or Szálasi, becouse they're military forces wasn't enough to gain the power, they managed just the fight against the Soviets, Szálasi's power was real, not theatrical.--GergelyGergely (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Please read Puppet state: "First, it refers to a state whose government depends on a foreign power for its existence and which closely follows the will of that foreign power in key policy issues; sometimes economic, sometimes strategic. Such a government is also known as a puppet régime. In this respect, "puppet state" is one of many terms that describe the subordination of one state to another in the international system. Second, the term refers to a state that has been created by the intervention of an external power in territory under the sovereignty of another state. In this respect, a puppet state is a secessionist state enabled and supported by an external power."
Both are accurate for Szalasi's government. Yes, he had power within Hungary, but he was entirely dependent on Germany and had little choice but to follow their foreign policy. And, he was installed by the intervention of an external power. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem with this expression is that perhaps some aspects of the aboves are accurate for this government, it doesn't give a correct view of that. The term "puppet state" absolutely not correct, becouse puppet state is a part of a country, presumes that along this there is another part of the state, which is sovereign. In this case, the another part was under Soviet occupation, not sovereign. If we consider this, the "puppet government" term remains, but it isn't true, becouse although Szálasi got power with the help of the Germans, as I said they can't gain control over him and his regime, he didn't depend on them, his system remain efective when all of the German troops stationed in Hungary dealaed with the fight. Summarized: the only aspect refers to a puppet government is the rize to power, but later it showed more properties of a sovereign system. So I correct it to "closely ally".--GergelyGergely (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Puppet state makes no assumption that there is another sovereign part of the country. Where did you get that? Find me a definition that even suggests that.
You're saying Szalasi was so independent, but the article specifically admits that he continued to send Jews to death camps, even though he didn't want to. He had very little independent power, no independent foreign policy, and was only kept in power through Nazi force. Ally gives him way too much credit - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

He didn't want to send the Jews in Germany, this is why he established the International Ghetto (definition below) and accepted the protective passports. He didn't confronted plainly with the Germans in this question, it's true. About his foreign policy: in that situation there were two options: peace talk with the Soviets or fight against them. He chose the last. "was only kept in power through Nazi force" -- it's absolutely wrong, read my prior paragraph. His movement was widely supported (see electional statistics) which means if he once gained power, he could keep it on his own.--GergelyGergely (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Final sentence

Otherwise who are you to clear all of my changes in that paragraph, even with the reference? That consisted some facts about my reason of changes.--GergelyGergely (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I removed the last sentence because it doesn't make sense: "He organised the so-called International Ghetto, and admitted safe-conducts for Jews, which weren't effectual according to the Germans.[2]" Explain what you're trying to say and I'd be happy to help you write it in clear English. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
International Ghetto: I think it's clear. In that time some diplomats like Raoul Wallenberg gave protective passports to the Jews, which protected them from deportation. According to the Germans they wasn't valid by the international law, but still this Szálasi's government accepted them.--GergelyGergely (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, international Ghetto is not clear. I don't know what that means. You could say "Szalasi accepted protective international passports issued for certain Jews which kept them from being deported, despite the fact that Germans denied their legality." - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

International Ghetto (proper name) a tetragonal region in Pest (Budapest) bounded by Pozsonyi út, Szent István park, Újpesti rakpart, Sziget út for diplomatically protected Jews. (But I think it needs a new article).--GergelyGergely (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)