Talk:Hungarian Soviet Republic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hungarian Soviet Republic article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).Add comments

Well, now, let's see, what exactly is "re-born Hungary" supposed to mean and why is it better than "newly independent Hungary"? Or how about "spiritual father"? What is that metaphor doing in the article? And why do you insist on phrases like "instilled in many Hungarians a hatred" instead of the much more neutral "led to a deep feeling of antipathy"? Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:38, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1) re-born Hungary means the new Hungarian state created after the Empire dissolution. 2) In the proper sense, Lenin was the spiritual father of Kun and this is not a metaphor. However, the wikipedia policy doesn't exclude the use of metaphor, that is a sign of good style. 3) The hate feeling exsists and is different than that (more neutral ?) of antipathy. --Vasile 19:52, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If you have any other questions, please try to read my answers and use the discussion page. --Vasile 14:05, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Here's a question: Can you point to anything actually wrong with my edits or do you just keep reverting out of some sort of personal dislike? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1) I think the article should clearly state the relation of subordination Lenin-Kun. 2) Kun didn't took himself the power; he was in prison at that time. 3) Considering the reprisals after the June as a "mistake" is not objective. 4) Kun didn't care about popular support because he believed the revolution began already. Like Lenin, Kun thought the terror is necessarily. Kun was able to show his full terror capabilities in Russia of years '20. 5) About "newly independent" expression, you can't ignore the simple fact that an independent Hungarian kingdom existed before. --Vasile 14:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Good, now we're getting somewhere! 1) Lenin and Kun did not see their relationship as one of subordination, and in any case Lenin was quite incapable of giving any orders to Kun, because the Red Army couldn't reach Hungary. 2) I didn't say Kun took power himself... but I suppose a reader might get that impression, so I'll make the necessary changes in my wording. 3) I meant "made the mistake of.." in the sense that the reprisals turned much of the people against them and contributed to their fall from power. As in "He made the mistake of stirring a bee hive". 4) Actually, any talk of what Kun supposedly thought or cared about is POV, since we can't possibly know what actually went through his mind. I'll change my edits accordingly. Oh, and keep in mind that "terror" is ridiculously POV, not to mention clearly inaccurate in some (but not all) cases. 5) "Newly independent country" means "a country that won its independence recently". But I'll pick a different phrase if you wish. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:04, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1. It doesn't matter that in reality the Red Army wasn't able to reach Hungary. Kun reported to Lenin and Lenin acted as a teacher with his pupil. Maybe the things are different now, but at that time, this kind of relationship included subordination.
3. I don't think a judgement like "made a mistake" is neutral.
4. If we consider that Kun was a pupil (or a "soldier" in a greater army), my point of view is not POV. And what's the sense used by Lenin for the word "terror"?
A new one, 6) I disagree with "former countries" category. Kun didn't create a new country. --Vasile 16:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
First of all, sorry for the delay. I've been busy elsewhere lately. Now let us resume this conversation. I assume points 2 and 5 have been resolved, correct?
1. That is your opinion, not established fact. Let's look at it this way: There are two possibilities: (a) Kun was Lenin's subordinate. (b) Kun was not Lenin's subordinate. The verb "informed" is good in both situations. The verb "reported to" is only good in situation a. Since this is a controversial issue, we should use the most neutral and inclusive of the two verbs - which is "informed".
3. I agree. My latest edit has removed the phrase "made a mistake".
4. What does Kun's position or rank have to do with the fact that you claim to know what he was thinking? And Lenin had no special definition of "terror". In fact, I'm not even sure he ever used the word, except to describe the kind of thing he was opposed to.
6. I agree. Category removed. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:35, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1. Subordination: Americans intercepted the communication between Lenin and Kun. I think there are some books presenting this aspect. However, counting the possiblities, there is also possible that Lenin was Kun's subordinate. The Kun subordination is not just logical, but it could be found credible material evidences of this subordination. 2. Terror: Maybe Lenin hated the "terror" but produced the "terrorists". Lenin was not opposed to arbitrary violence and summary executions. Who incited and learned the people these things? Or maybe this kind of things didn't happen. --Vasile 15:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1. Of course Lenin and Kun communicated. But you'll have to produce the actual documents if you want to prove that Kun actually took orders from Lenin. At any rate, the verb "informed" is accurate for all situations, so I don't see the problem.
Maybe, Kun was not a primary school pupil, but a student for Lenin, and so communicated could be better. I hope that somebody else will find the subject interesting enough to read more about their communication.
I agree. So, can we declare this issue settled?
2. When there's a war going on, people tend to die. Go figure. Of course there was arbitrary violence (from the Reds as well as the Whites) in Russia during the Civil War. That's what made it a Civil War in the first place. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 15:59, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
With all respect this is a very cinical point of view. Before the civil war, the Bolshevik revolution started the fire. Their adversaries (armed or not) had to be exterminated. All of these revolutionars, including those that became "reformers" later, enjoyed to make revolutions - to exterminate a part of their own people. I see no difference with the extermination of Jews (that considered themselves part of the German nation) by Nazi.
Actually, the Bolshevik revolution was almost bloodless. The provisional government was so universally hated that the Bolsheviks were able to simply walk into the Winter Palace practically unopposed. The Civil War didn't start until over 6 months later - and the only reason why the anti-communist Whites were able to muster enough popular support to oppose the Bolsheviks was because the Bolsheviks had angered many people by signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. They had to sign that treaty, because they had promised to their people that they would end the war. So I don't really see what the Bolsheviks could have done to avoid the Civil War. Option 1: Don't sign the treaty, thus breaking your promise of peace, and causing some people to rise against you. Option 2: Sign the treaty, thus making concessions to the Germans, and causing some people to rise against you. Not much of a choice...
As for revolutions, you seem to have misunderstood what "making revolutions" is all about. No communist wants bloodshed. A revolution means overthrowing the government, with the support of the people. This doesn't have to be violent. History records many examples of peaceful revolutions, when the government saw the people in the streets and gave up power voluntarily. For a communist, that would be the best possible scenario. However, if the government gets violent and starts shooting people, then we have a bloody revolution. This is something that most communists would want to avoid, but if it must happen, then so be it.
-- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:28, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The terror is arbitrary violence against the civil population. Kun used the terror against his own Hungarian people. --Vasile 01:41, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There was violence, of course, but was it arbitrary? That is the question. Kun certainly would argue that he only directed violence against the people who had organized the assasination attempt. To say whether it was arbitrary or not implies taking a certain POV. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:28, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi I've made a minor change in substituting communist for bolshevik where that word is used. The reason being that use of the word Bolshevik in this context is improper and slighly perjorative. I've also added a mention of Lukacs.

Jock Haston

This article gives a specific figure on the amount of people executed by the Soviet republic. It should also provide any available estimates on the number of Communists, their supporters real or alleged, etc., killed by the counter-revolution.

Why should it? That would be the part of other articles (Mikós Horthy , History of Hungary, Counter-revolution etc. In the article Soviet Republic I think we must speak about victims of Soviet Republic). But If you ask me, I can give you some data: Vilmos Böhm ex-war-office comissar valued number of victims to 5-6000. Because communists took control on Hungary for about 40 years, this estimate was committed to accept in these old days, but it is obviously extreme and falsifiing. It was accepted by western historians for long (cause naturally detached probing was impossible in Hungary during cold war), it is foundable in some american history book, as I heard astonished (this fact shows the power of communist's propaganda). Bot nowadays noone hold rhis estimate real (only old communists, naturally).

Up-to-date estimates are so different. Leftist and rigtist hungarian historians generally agree in that upper limit of upper limits of victims is about 2000. It is hard to count, because it's a question for example we must count that people who were lawfully executed by "consolidated" counter-revolutionary courts, after a legal cause. Some resources say number of victims was under 1000 (e.g. 3-500). Some say 1500. The truth is out there, I think :-)) Gubbubu 10:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Dear User:Max rspct

You always revert my edits, but don't give me what is wrong. I edited in a npov template, but if you won't give me those sentences what are not correct in your oppinion, I'm afraid I must revert in a day. Tell me please if this time would not enough for you to do this work I beg for. Gubbubu 22:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

u have taken it out now so POV not so bad; look at what was there =

As a matter of fact, a Red Terror began backed up by Tibor Szamuely, and lead by József Cserny and Ernő Gerő. Communist detachments, called „The Boys of Lenin” started to terrify, to robb and to execute Rightists and other maverick people. By this terror commando of 200 people; and by others, as different resources says; about 3-600 people have been killed in these two months. Maverick and resistant movements were barbarously put down. The government was divised: in general, communists acclaimed red terror, but socialdemocrats not, and finally they managed to formally dissmiss detachments. As communists said, „Comittees on Liquiditation of Ecclesiastical Matters” have been set, lead by Oszkár Fáber (an ateist ex-piarist friar) and György Apáti, and they started to regulate religious life in Hungary. They commanded to „arrest patrimony”, what in practice meant robbing (despite Fáber and the Commities really prohibited causeless atrocities, naturally nobody thought this is serious, anyhow this was impossible because of resistance the of local population).

These are facts. Boys of Lenin existed. 300-600 people killed (we don't know exactly, as we don't know exactly the number of victims of white terror, because there were war, interregnum, no "legitim" authorities and so), too. As I know, that is true the communist Kun Béla opposited (or was not involved) in these atrocities, but other communists, like Szamuely were. But at the end of these two months socialdemocrats successfully stopped these semi-regular detachments. Unfortunately, I don't know so much english resources about the topic (because there are not much english resources about hungarian history on the web), but I will consult with historians and give you some, if they can find, and I will ask hungarian editors with more competent English to complete the article, because it's quite short. But please watch to that these resources in the article (except Borsanyi's) written before the (political) System Change (1989-90) in hungary. I don't know them, but they can be dated.
comment. I must remark, I'm so stricken - confused and wondering - because of these reverts - not only yours, but of two other editors', too. In Hungary these "pov" facts I've written in the article, are so known. I think editing hungarian-related articles is mainly (but not exclusively) the task and business of hungarian editors. :-) Gubbubu 13:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

keep template on till i re-read my books on the subject , And i will help with spelling-max rspct 23:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thx very much. Gubbubu 12:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two remarks

  • Károlyi did not resign in favour of the communists. In fact, they conducted a coup d'état with the help of some Socialist Democrats. Károlyi wanted to appoint a clearly social democrat government, but some of the leading socialists meanwhile agreed to unite their party with the Communist Party - without informing the president about this. Károlyi appointed the government (21st March) and he was told about the union only in the evening. The new government declared Károlyi's abdication without telling him about it... The president accepted the situation.
  • Too bad, that the Red Terror is not mentioned... Poor peasants of the Hungarian countryside, who suffered the brutality of Szamuely Tibor's Lenin Boys and other paramilitary units.

--Mathae 09:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for remarks. I hope Alensha would do some remarks now, because this topic is on the Hungarian Village Pump yet. Gubbubu 10:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not really an expert on 20th century history but maybe the other Hungarian editors are. We could discuss these things on the talk page of the Hungarian article and when everyone thinks that article is good, I'll help translating it. Alensha 28 June 2005 13:01 (UTC)

This should happen with the Horthy-article too, shouldn't it?--Mathae 28 June 2005 18:36 (UTC)

The Horthy article is a different matter, it sems that there we already have some agreement and we need the opinions of non-Hungarians (Serbian massacre, etc.) Alensha 2 July 2005 13:22 (UTC)

[edit] IMHO

Max rspct, you have been removing perfectly valid (though sometimes grammatically weird) statements from the article with comments like "not encylopedic please reword it" or "reword that bit better and it can go back in". Maybe I missed something and now some people have the authority to decide what is "encyclopedic" enough for Wikipedia and what "can go" where, or what?

My understanding is, if someone thinks that an article needs grammatical improvement, there's template:cleanup to use (apart from doing the cleanup yourself as the easiest way, of course). Reverting other people's edits for such a reason, with comments in this tone, does make it difficult to assume good faith.

On the other hand, the POV template should not be removed until a consensus about the neutrality is reached. (This is not the case now.)

KissL 6 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)

I agree, thanks. We are on translating the - consensual - hungarian article. Gubbubu 6 July 2005 20:02 (UTC)

[edit] shoot on sight

  • In addition, Soviet Hungary faced external threats. [...] At the same time, the Romanians invaded from the East - masterpiece of manipulation. From the east, like "barbarians and communism came from the east", and invasion, like "Romania attacked Hungary", and threats, like "Romanians are some kind of pest". Why isnt it mentioned that Hungary attacked Romania on 15/16/ april 1919 ? And what is supposed to mean "invaded" , like if somebody attacks people with a gun from inside his house and the police has to burst in to get him does CNN report "Police violated a man's sacred property threatening him from the exterior and invading from the east (the window through which the man was shooting people was facing east)" ? ... get outta here -- Criztu 10:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me, but we are on the East of Hungary, are we not? What do you expect the article to say, "Romanians invaded from a direction that is the opposite of West"? The term "invasion" is a perfectly correct term - see, for example, the Normandy invasion - and refers to a situation when the armies of one country cross into the territory of another country. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Romania is exactly South East of Hungary. I expect the article to specify the cause of the invasion. Bolshevik Hungary attacked Kgdom of ROmania in at least two major offensives, repulsed by the ROmanian army.
WHat is an invasion more precisely ? When you are engaged in battle on your own territory and repulse the enemy and follow him to capture its command center is this an invasion ? No. an invasion is a sudden massive attack into a territory. A counteroffensive is the repulsing of an offensive until capturing the enemy command. This is why the Invasion of Normandy is reffered to as an invasion, while all the military actions of USSR in Europe are not reffered to as invasions, cuz they were stages of a continuous battle. I wait for an article entitled "Invasion of Europe by the Soviet Army in the WW2" :)
I'll be honest with you: I never knew about any offensives on 15-16 april 1919. Can you give me a link to a source talking about them? Thanks. (I suppose they were trying to recapture Transylvania? According to them, that was their territory, so they probably didn't consider it an attack on Romanian territory) Btw, I changed "invaded from the East" to "attacked from the South-East". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
well then, perhaps you know when did Romania attacked Hungary from the south-east :D .. surely you know who attacked who, Hungarian army attacked Romanian army or viceversa ? and provide the date of the beginning off the war then -- Criztu 11:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Guys, check out the definitions of "invade". In most dictionaries, it says something like "to enter by force in order to conquer or pillage". Now, while I wouldn't say conquest was the primary goal of the Romanian army, pillaging definitely was an important one among its goals, which was carried out in such an efficient way that later, Hungary didn't have to pay war redemption to Romania.
Listen, if ROmanian did any pillaging of Hungary, Hungary surely would have asked compensations in the Treaties that followed. If you cant present a statement from Hungary that Romania pillaged Hungary during the 1919 war, then this is only your opinnion. Equal to my opinnion that Romania didnt do any pillaging. But the wikiarticle is not a place to express our opinnions but bring evidence. pls provide evidence that "Romania attacked/invaded/pillaged Hungary" -- Criztu 11:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Claiming that the Romanian army did not pillage Hungary is ridiculous, though I'm not surprised to find you think otherwise. Here you go – the diary of General Harry Hill Bandholtz. Search for "pillage". If you want to learn stuff they don't tell you at school, feel encouraged to read the entire document. KissL 12:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
If Romania did any pillaging in HU then you can surely show me a document of any Tribunal demanding RO pay compensations for such pillaging. -- Criztu 13:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
You asked me for evidence that the pillaging did take place. I provided such evidence, so from this point onwards I don't feel the burden of proof with me. However the answer to the allegation inherent in your reply is this: it is absolutely pointless for a country that has just lost a war to ask for compensation of this kind, because it is the general nature of peace treaties that the losing sides are forced to "make amends". This is why the fact that Hungary was not forced to pay redemption is already a strong indication, though not itself a proof, that the Romanian forces had already "helped themselves". KissL 15:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Listen, stating "Romanian army pillaged Hungary" carries a big responsability. If you want to accuse the Romanian army for pillaging Hungary then youll have to provide a declaration of a legal body (Hungarian or Int'l). If you can demnonstrate there was a single army in history that didn't "pillaged" the territory on its path then will i accept that "Romanian army pillaged". If there is no decision from a tribunal of war that ROmania to pay compensations for such pillaging, then statement "ROmania pillaged Hungary" could be regarded as provocation. Tell me that the Hungarian army didn't take anything while on enemy territory. If i can prove you a single hungarian soldier stole a single chicken's egg from a romanian farmhouse, should I write "Hungarian army pillaged ROmanian historical lands" ? :D -- Criztu 18:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Listen, I have provided evidence, so from this point onwards the burden of proof is not with me. Nothing more to add. Even if pillaging were the normal course of events in a war (which it is not, and certainly not if Romanian troops came to "liberate" and "keep order" under "mandate of the Entente", pfff), this pillaging was most outrageously extensive. If you continue to try getting that fact out of the article, you might drive me into collecting the sources on the exact quantities of goods and equipment taken, number of people executed without trial, number of Entente orders disregarded, etc. If that's what you want... KissL 08:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Here comes a first go, based on just the 'net:
I repeated to the Mission the gist of the conversation I had held yesterday with various cabinet officials, and then read them the report from Major Borrow, the British officer, who is watching the bridge across the Theiss River. He reports that up to date the following as been sent across that river: 684 locomotives, 231 saloon and private cars, 946 passenger coaches, 2,900 empty box and flat cars, 1,300 mixed carloads of grain, cattle, etc., 1,300 carloads of munitions, 298 cannon, 3 autos, 56 aeroplanes, 1,400 oil tanks, 2,000 carloads of railway material and agricultural machinery, 1,435 of war material, 4,350 contents not visible; also many miscellaneous cars, making a total of 17,319 locomotives and cars. Diary of American general Harry Hill Bandholtz, on 16 September 1919
All this was of course necessary to enable the Romanians to "liberate" Hungary, under "mandate of the Entente". Come on, this is just ridiculous. KissL 08:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
There is another point. Speaking about 1919, Transylvania was in a strange legal state. It had been part of Austria-Hungary (and therein the Kingdom of Hungary part), but it had also been occupied by the Romanian army for a reasonable amount of time, which (together with the general circumstances of war) put its legal status as being part of Hungary to question. However, despite the occupation and the fact that a (Romanian) assembly had proclaimed union of Transylvania with the Kingdom of Romania, Transylvania was not internationally recognized to be part of Romania until the Treaty of Trianon in 1920. Which means that the Hungarian army was in no position to attack Romania, it being out of its reach :) KissL 10:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
ROmanian army entered Transylvania in agreement with the forces of Versailles on ground of protecting Transylvania which declared union with Romania (romanian and schwab and saxon councils proclaimed that). IF you consider the Entente as an Evil during and after WWI, then "Romania occupied illegaly Transylvania". But since all consecutive legal treaties recognised sovereignty of RO in Transylvania, sentence "Romania occupied illegaly Transylvania which had uncertain status" is a mess -- Criztu 11:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Let me ask just one single question before we start talking about nonsense – where did I say "Romania occupied Transylvania illegally"? I said Transylvania was not internationally recognized as being part of Romania. That's a fact, and you can't deny it. Period. (I don't give a damn what the Romanians and the Saxons proclaimed, because if there had been a Hungarian army there, you bet other people would have been proclaiming other things. Legally, this has no weight.) KissL 12:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
the only meaning of such wording: "occupation of Transylvania by the Romanian army", is "illegal/illegitimate". The legality/legitimacy of Romanian army entering Transylvania is supported by the acceptance of the Powers of Versailles for such action. and the consequent Treaty of Triannon and Paris. When these Treaties will be declared void, then will I accept using the wording "occupation of Transylvania by Romania" (i guess this article doesn't has such sentence anyway).
"The only meaning of such wording: "occupation of Transylvania by the Romanian army", is "illegal/illegitimate"." That's your personal opinion, for which I can find no support whatsoever in any available dictionary. Let me quote you: the wikiarticle is not a place to express our opinions but bring evidence :) But I'll explain what it really means: that the occupation of Transylvania by the Romanians was an act of war, which is by nature something totally independent from peacetime legal relations. No one except the Romanians officially considered Transylvania to be part of Romania at that time, and therefore calling a campaign in Transylvania "an attack on Romania" is improper. KissL 15:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
well then what's your opinnion on "the Hungarian army is occupying the territory of Hungary since 1956". does this look like a sane sentence ? -- Criztu 18:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
No, it looks like a false analogy. KissL 08:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
In short, I think the original wording was entirely correct, except maybe the East / South-East distinction, which I don't care for too much (the actual direction of the offensive was between the two anyway). KissL 10:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
well, the formulation "Romanian counter-offensive achieved the liberation of Budapest from the Bolshevik dictatorship and the restoration of democracy in Hungary" is also entirely correct -- Criztu 11:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh yes, except that it was not a "liberation" by any means (the good Romanians marched into Budapest to save us from the Communists - LOL, you can't be serious), not the single factor leading to Kun's flight, and did not "restore democracy" to Hungary either (because it hadn't quite been, and didn't quite follow). KissL 12:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm serious. Romanian counter-offensive achieved the liberation of Budapest from the Bolshevik dictatorship and the restoration of democracy in Hungary. That Horthy (who was supported by Romanians) turned into another aggresor of Romania in the 40's and democracy in HU eroded into Horthy's dictatorship (similar thing hapened in RO) is another thing -- Criztu 13:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
That's what I was hinting at when I asked whether, while keeping vigil to "crush" Hungarian "propaganda", you are equally eager to uncover the propaganda they feed you in your country. In light of the above... no comment. KissL 15:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
the "crush" thing i picked it from Dacia article, i guess it was written by a hungarian contributor, who probably edited many articles related to ROmania, very good at propaganda that contributor, he wrote "To put an end to this disgraceful arrangement, Trajan resolved to crush the Dacians once and for all." (this way Transylvania would have been dacian clean :D )... sorry, i use it cuz its funny, but i guess people dont know what i mean :| -- Criztu 18:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the word but propaganda itself; I have no problem with you (or anyone else) removing Hungarian (or any other kind of) propaganda, but this time you are removing facts, on grounds of Romanian propaganda, which you fail to recognise. KissL 08:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Horthy, supported by Romanians? That's a good one, I've never heard it yet! Well, if he - as the Minister of War of the countergovernment was helped, why did the Romanian authorities made the countergovernment flee from Arad to Szeged? (Even if Horthy only joined the government in Szeged.) That would mean that Romanians were inconsequental!

well read more -- Criztu 18:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
I have heard it; that's one of the favourite lies of the official Romanian interpretation of things. KissL 08:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I admit I haven't read enough, as I'm young, but I know that the poor Romanians, "who saved us from Bolshevism" did NOT help Horthy. I'll act like you do: prove it with documents!--Mathae 22:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

On the 16th of April, Romanians attacked Hungary. On the 20th of July, the Soviet Republic launched a counterattack against their lines by the river Tisza (what were they doing there?), but they failed as the Hungarian army was smaller and weaker. On the 1st of August, the Hungarian Soviet Republic came to an end, its leaders fled. On the 4th, Romanian troops occupied Budapest until November, when the Entente ordered them to leave Hungary.

And while Romanians had been staying there, Budapest was pillaged, sacked, robbed - no matter how you call it, the fact is a fact.--Mathae 17:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
well then show evidence for a decision of an international court that ROmania pillaged Budapest. Until providing such evidence i'll quarantine this sentence on grounds of grave unsubstantiated accusation against Romanian state on an encyclopedia -- Criztu 18:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Evidence has been shown, and it is irrelevant whether it is an "international court" or not (was there one at that time at all?) It is you who are trying to change the status quo, so you provide evidence; until this happens, you have no grounds to "quarantine" anything. KissL 08:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Hungary, unlike Romania, was on the loser side after both World Wars. The Romanians were tricky enough to change sides when they needed to, we weren't. This resulted in the treaty of Trianon, accordintg to which Hungary lost 2/3 of its territories and a great proportion of its inhabitants. They tried to prevent this during the negotiations, but they couldn't. They didn't have any word in Paris. That's why millions of Hungarians became citizens of Czechoslovakia, Romania and Jugoslavia. What do you think, if the Entente did this, would there have been any reason for them to decide that Romanian troops pillaged Budapest? I think millions of people and square kilometres are a bit more important. And they decided against Hungary.

Some links for you (only non-Hungarian ones):

  • [1]: "When the Romanian troops finally departed Budapest at the beginning of 1920, they took extensive booty, including food, trucks, locomotives and railroad cars, and factory equipment, in revenge for the Central Powers' plundering of Romania during the war."
  • [2] Same
  • [3] "Budapest was occupied and looted by Romanian forces"
  • [4] Same
  • [5] "As a result the Romanians occupied Budapest for a time, looting and plundering until they left in November 1919."

Enough? Or have Hungarians decieved them?--Mathae 17:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bolshevik Revolution - you bet

I'm definitely going to revert much of what has been changed recently. In the meantime, please be informed that there was no such thing in Hungary in March 1919 as a Bolshevik (or any other kind of) Revolution. Sources please (non-Communist ones). KissL 15:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Arthur Koestler's autobiography. He was anti-Communist at the time he wrote it.--MacRusgail 18:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem is with the term Revolution. It was a simple coup d'état without crowds in the street.--Mathae 20:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Provocative article unsubstantiated accusations towards Romania, unacceptable

Any statement that accuses Romania of any damage done to any country has to be substantiated by evidence. These are inter-state matters, so they are widely known. I can provide you link to the text of Treaty of Triannon that recognises the sovereignty of Romania over Transylvania and Hungary as an aggressor state in the WW 1. so anyone intending on designing a formulation like "Romania attacked Hungary, ROmania external threat to Hungary, Romanians eliminated party in Hungary, Romanians occupied Budapest" should first provide evidence for a legal decision(meaning that it is recognised today as legal, eg. Vienna Diktat recognised Hungary's sovereignty over N Transylvania, but since 1947 it is void/not legal) stating that Romania attacked Hungary in 1919 or Romanian army occupied Budapest as an aggressor state. If you want to state Romanian army occupied Budapest then it has to be mentained that it did so as a defending state and under mandate of the Entente. I have nothing against stating "Hungary faced external threats" but if it is suggested that ROmania was an external threat to Hungary, than provide evidence that Romania acted as an aggressor against Hungary, the only way it can be acceptable in an encyclopedia (IMO). otherwise the statement would be just a personal opinnion, source for unending revert wars -- Criztu 18:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] the Romanians attacked from the South-East

  • "At the same time, the Romanians attacked from the South-East" - this is grave accusation against Romania. until you'll prove that Romania was the aggressor in the war of 1919 such sentence will be reomoved by me. -- Criztu 08:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
This sentence doesn't say that Romania was the agressor (which is otherwise, talking about the area of post-Trianon Hungary, f***ing true). definitions of "attack" Therefore your removal is not justified. KissL 08:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
if there is no mention that Hungary attacked ROmania and that Hungary was the aggressor, then "Romania attacked Hungary from the south-east" induces the ideea that Romania was the aggressor state. unless specified that Hungary was the aggressor in the 1919 war with ROmania, i will specify it time and again "Hungarian offensive was repulsed by ROmanian counteroffensive" -- Criztu 08:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
If you formulate it in a way which shows that the Hungarian "offensive" was a feeble attempt (lasting at most a few days) at taking back lands which today belong to Hungary – a very little east of the Tisza – and in retaliation to help Hungary get rid of the Communists (or was it to keep order?;o))) lol) the Romanian troops occupied entered happened to wander into over half of present-day Hungary, then you may be correct, though overly sensitive. If, however, you formulate it in a way which suggests a persistent Hungarian agression against the Romanian army, which there was not, you are putting an outright lie into the article. This was meanwhile your 4th revert in the last 24 hours. Have you ever heard about WP:3RR? KissL 08:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

situation is simple:

  • who was considered the aggressor in the war between HU and RO in 1919 ?

If Hungary was the aggressor, then Romanians didn't attack, but defend themselves. Not "invaded HU" but "put and end to the Hungarian Bolshevik military aggression by capturing its command". Why dont you put info on who started the war betwen HU and RO, what were the main stages of this war, and how came ROmania to "invade and occupy" territory of Hungary ? I only ask for providing info on this war -- Criztu 09:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

  • [6] " Earlier, to stop a possible Hungarian reconquest of Transylvania (under Rumanian control), a Rumanian army had invaded Hungary in April 1919"--Mathae 09:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This article is about the time after 20 March 1919, during which the only attack on the Romanian army carried out by Hungarians took place inside present-day Hungary (what the **** did the "non-agressive" Romanians do there, yours to explain), far inside then-official Hungary, and lasted about 2 days, while the Romanian army was stationed within even the Hungarian capital for months. (Then-official Romania had been attacked, far before the matters discussed in this article, by the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which had one single military administration based in Vienna. This also makes Budapest-centred Hungary the agressor of 1919, now does it?) KissL 09:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice if you decided whether the unfortunate wandering of Romanian soldiers into Hungary (cynical bullshit intended) had the goal of capturing the enemy command center (which had btw left Budapest by the time the RO army got there), or of "liberating" under Entente mandate. (Neither is true, but they even contradict each other, which doesn't prevent you from using both as an argument.) KissL 09:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

i read the following: Hungarian offensive in Transylvania begun on 15/16 april 1919. Romanian counteroffensive reached Tisza on 1st of may 1919. On 20 july hungarian offensive trying to break the romanian lines on Tisa. 25 july romanian counterofensive reaches Budapest 4 august. -- Criztu 12:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
asking with bold : who was considered the aggressor in the war between HU and RO in 1919 ? -- Criztu 12:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I never heard of any Hungarian offensive 15/16 April 1919, I'm waiting for your sources. But if there was one, it couldn't be in Transylvania, because the Romanian army already held a position west of Transylvania on 20 March, when there was no Soviet Hungary yet. KissL 13:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
you never heard of any Hungarian offensive 15/16 april 1919 ? I never heard of any attack of Romania against Hungary in 1919. so what shall we do, remove the current formulation "ROmania attacked Hungary in 1919" until i will hear of such thing or until you provide primary sources attesting Romania attacked Hungary in 1919 ? -- Criztu 20:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
If we consider the text of the Treaty of Trianon, of course it called Hungary an agressor. If, however, we consider who attacked who, it is as plain as plain that Romania attacked Hungary, and not vice versa. KissL 13:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
so according to the Treaties which are now in power, Hungary was considered the aggressor of Romania. Don't bother to convince me of the opposite, your opinnion is equal to my opinnion, your opinnion is "RO attacked HU", my opinnion is "HU attacked RO". fighting over our personal opinnions is not leading anywhere -- Criztu 20:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
By that logic, should the article on World War One place all responsibility on Germany, because the Treaty of Versailles says so? Right now, this article is neutral and merely states the facts - without assigning any blame. Why do you have a problem with that? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
As a Romanian firmly opposed to absurd nationalist revisionism, let me re-affirm the point that has already been demonstrated with proper sources: Romania was the aggressor. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] unacceptable

  • "In addition, Soviet Hungary faced external threats. [...] the Romanians attacked from the South-East " - this is countrary to the consequent Treaty of Trianon that stated Hungary was the aggressor in the war with Romania. until the Treaty of Trianon will be declaired illegal, Romania cant be designated as a threat and aggressor of Hungary in 1919. i'll have to revert until you realise the immensity of such affirmations (Romania threatened Hungary, Romania attacked Hungary). -- Criztu 13:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Criztu, the truth of these statements and the biased nature of treaties have been explained in detail, thus your arguments for reverting have already been refuted. If you continue to revert the article without even trying to raise a single valid point in explanation, you confirm that you have no reason to do so other than your POV (which you are entitled to, provided you don't want to force it into the article). KissL 13:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
hehe, prepare to revert until the Treaty of Trianon which designated Bolshevik Hungary the aggressor in the war with Kgdom of Romania and Czechoslovakia in 1919 will cease to be legal. -- Criztu 15:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

More like until an admin bans you. Kissl, I suggest you start a Request for Comment on Criztu. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 09:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] next step would be voting, then arbitration

the way i formulated the paragraph regarding the war between Hungary and ROmania in 1919 i think is "neutral". HUngary was defeated in the war agains Romania, there is no lie in this. Also, ROmania advanced across Hungary to Budapest, there is no lie in this. If you keep reverting to "ROmania was an external threat" and "Romania attacked Hungary" you'll have to demonstrate you are familiar with the situation of 1919 war, and as such you should provide info on:

  • what was the nature of the threat that ROmania represented for Hungary
  • when did ROmania attacked Hungary and in what conditions
  • why isnt there a legal document (dont show me anonymous internet pages, make reference to Treaties like Trianon, Paris, a statement of the Parliament of Hungary, a statement of American Congress, etc.) designating ROmania as the aggressor of Hungary in 1919 -- Criztu 15:30, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
You have failed to produce any kind of proof (documents or anything else) that Hungary launched any attacks against Romania in 1919. If Hungary did not attack, then obviously Romania did. Kissl has provided you with ample sources showing that to be the case. I'd be more than happy to take this issue to voting and arbitration, since you have no ground to stand on. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I have failed to etc. etc. ? I tell you I will revert to my NPOV formulation until the end of Wikipedia. You Mihnea Tudoreanu are ignorant on the war betwen RO and HU (unable to provide information in the article about the points i made above), you revert my edit with no regard for the content (you claim we should aim for a NPOV formulation, yet you dont find the formulation "Hungary faced external threats [...] ROmania attacked Hungary" as POV), you show no understanding of the problems about the formulation "Hungary faced external threats [...] ROmania attacked Hungary" i have signaled, you display a fantastic perception of the legal matters by affirming that ROmania was the aggressor in the war with Hungary in 1919 (completely opposite to what legal treaties that are recognised even by Hungary) and yet you say it is me who failed ? just lol -- Criztu 21:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
actualy, i guess i have to start yet another survey about this "hungarian tooth against romanians" hmm... pretty ennoying -- Criztu 21:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Criztu, for one more time, here are a few points:
  • "Hungary faced external threats" refers to the military threats, not uniquely that of Romania but also of Czechoslovakia and newly formed Yugoslavia, in a concise and NPOV way. Had it conveyed the meaning (which it does not) that Romania was threatening Hungary, it would still be absolutely correct, because the Romanian army went on to occupy almost all of Hungary, entirely out of their own will, and this is very clearly shown by the fact that you have not provided any source whatsoever that would state the opposite. Even if there had been an attack against Romanians (which to my knowledge was only a vague plan, never actually laid out, and even less carried out), the occupation of Hungary by the Romanian army was not necessary in a military sense, which justifies the use of the expression "the Romanians attacked" a thousand times over.
  • The 1919 actions of the Romanian army do in no way shed a bad light on present-day Romania or the Romanians (except maybe a very few Romanians who are over 100 years old and held an important office in the army at that time). They certainly do not shed a bad light upon you. (Not that this matters in an encyclopedia, though.) So your reference to "this Hungarian tooth against Romanians" is entirely out of place.
  • Treaties are not NPOV, and therefore their mention as an argument to this point are invalid. This is at least the fifth time you are told about this, and I hope the first time that you will at last choose not to ignore this.
  • Wikipedia policies require you to cite sources, as I have done. What I cited was not an anonymous internet page (and I consider your use of this expression a sign of bad faith on your part) but rather a primary source written by a United States General, Harry Hill Bandholtz, who was, at the time of Romanian occupation, one of the representatives of the Allied Powers stationed in Budapest. (If you don't believe that it is identical to the original text, that's pure paranoia, but then you can go and buy it from Amazon, I sure don't care.)
  • I'm not going to vote about this one, I'm fed up with spending too much time voting on stuff that are not contested by any facts but rather by (personal) sensitivity only. I'm not eager to start a RfC on you, and you know that very well; but I sure am going to start one, if you force your personal ideas into the articles against both policy and common sense.
KissL 12:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute

Let's resolve this dispute then. For me, the article is fairly NPOV now (though not detailed enough in quite a few parts, but that's another story). Gubbubu, which part do you think is still biased? KissL 08:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The new government decreed the abolition of aristocratic titles and privileges, the separation of church and state, and guaranteed the freedom of speech and assembly, free education, language and cultural rights to minorities.
I thik we should write that it was a liar, they haven't been managed to realise cultural rights to minorities, the freedom of speech (lol :-) etc. Gubbubu 09:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Soviet Russia was willing, but unable to lend a helping hand to the fledgling Hungarian republic
I'm not sure the soviets was willing to help.
The Communist government nationalized industrial and commercial enterprises, and socialized housing, transport, banking, medicine, cultural institutions, and all landholdings of more than 40 hectares.
"nationalized", "socialized" these are communist jargon. not npov. for example, "socializing" means "abstraction" (i.e. robbing). These words must be taken betveen "..." signs, and we must give their meaning.
Kun attempted to spread communist revolution
In English translation, Kun wanted to lead agression against to the neighbourhood countries.

And I can't find the expression "Red Terror" (Vörösterror) in this article, what can be found in the hungarian version [7]. This fact only in itself makes the article POV. Gubbubu 09:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Summary: eufemistic, communist jargon, absent facts make this article being pov. Gubbubu 09:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm getting the point - though it would definitely help if you could fix some of these problems yourself, instead of just keeping the NPOV tag on. About the Soviets, I think they really were willing to help (it was in their best interest anyway, since the Hungarian Communists were their friends), though we'll never know because by the time the peace conference was put together, there was no more Soviet Hungary... KissL 13:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've tried but my edits have been deleted (4-5 times). I'm bored a little, ill a bit and and have no time for revert war. I'm satisfied with the article with npov template until I will have time and english resources to neutralize it. Gubbubu 14:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
No offense, Gubbubu, but you're a troll. You have no grasp of the concept of NPOV ("I thik we should write that it was a liar"), you have little grasp of the meaning of English terms (such as nationalization - it is most certainly not any kind of "communist jargon"), and you don't seem to understand that it is not our place to tell the reader what various historical personalities were supposedly thinking. If you don't know enough English to argue your case properly, that's not my problem. I am not satisfied with this ridiculous NPOV tag, and I will remove it unless you come up with an objection that doesn't boil down to "the article does not conform to my POV" (as your current objection does). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
P.S. That might seem excessively harsh and unfriendly, but I've dealt with Gubbubu before and I have no patience left. Sorry. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Your statements have no coincidences with reality. Since 2004 I'm an editor in the Hungarian wikipedia with 19344 edits (10192 edits in article namespace) [8]. I write articles like these [9] (16 kbyte). We haven't met before. What you have written that is really very harsh and unfriendly, please avoid personal attacks and concentrate on the articles. And please in the future look that editor's works before you call him a troll. I came to here and I'm shocked on looking how some articles, like the recent, are pov here. Please stay civilised and don't remove NPOV tag, if you don't want to be called a troll - with a serious empirical basis. Thx. Gubbubu 20:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
We have met before on this same Talk page, and I was harsh now because you seemed to be blatantly pushing for your own POV (insisting that the article should have an anti-communist slant). I apologize for my tone. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Red terror

The hungarian (npov) article contains this paragraph. I will translate it, you will correct its style and english and then npov tag could be deleted. But this is the last compromise I can offer. Gubbubu 21:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

That paragraph is by no means NPOV. If I knew Hungarian, I would edit it on the Hungarian Wikipedia. But since I don't know Hungarian, all I can do is help to improve the English version. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
A rendőrséget és a csendőrséget a Vörös Őrség váltotta fel (vezetője: Rákosi Mátyás), mely részben felfegyverzett munkásokból, részben a korábbi hivatásos állomány – utóbb a proletárdiktatúra szempontjából megbízhatatlannak minősült – tagjaiból állt. Szamuely Tibor – egyébként közoktatási népbiztos – volt a vörösterror legfőbb támogatója. Cserny József vezetésével 200 fős terrorkommandót állítottak fel, akiket csak „Lenin-fiúkként” emlegettek. A különítmény hírhedt páncélvonatán járta az országot és mindenütt fellépett, ahol a forradalmat veszélyeztető megmozdulásokat sejtettek. Ezen kívül, főleg Budapesten több kommandót állítottak fel, melyek eszközeikben nem sokat válogattak. Preventív célból túszokat szedtek a polgári lakosság köréből. A különítményesek nemegyszer a támadó alakulatok hátában helyezkedtek el, és géppuskával kényszerítették a visszavonuló katonákat az ellenséggel való újabb szembefordulásra. A vidéki lakosságot különösen érzékenyen érintette a proletárdiktatúra harcos egyházellenessége. A Budapestről érkező agitátorok nemegyszer provokatívan léptek fel, kilátásba helyezték, hogy a templomokból mozikat csinálnak, valamint hogy a nőket „kollektivizálják”. A Vörösterrornak, a kommunisták által „forradalmi terrornak” is nevezett mozgalom halálos áldozatainak számát 300-600 közé teszik különféle források.

I'll help Gubb and the others with translating it.

  • "The police and the gendarmarie were replaced by the Red Guard (led by Rákosi Mátyás), which consisted of armed workers and partly the former official forces - who were later declared unreliable by the proletar-dictatorship. Szamuely Tibor - the comissar of education - was the main supporter of Red Terror. A terrorcommando of 200 men - called the Lenin-boys - was estabilished, lead by Cserny József. The detachment roamed the country on their infamous armoured train, and acted everywhere, where counter-revoulutionary movements were suspected to appear. Aside of this, mainly in Budapest, several commandos were estabilished, whose methods were quite similar to the Lenin-boys'. They collected several hostages from the citizens for preventive goals. These detachments often stationed behind offensive formations, and they forced with machine guns the retreating soldiers to get back into battle. The people of the countryside suffered the most because of the militant atheism of the communists. Agitators coming from Budapest often acted in a provocative way, they said that churches would be turned into cinemas, and even that women would be "collectivised".

Different sources estimate the death-toll of the Red Terror (or the "revolutionary terror" as the communists said) between 300-600 people of different age and sex."

Gubb, a "nationalize" a kapitalizmusban is létezik, még drága britjeink és amerikaink is értik. Államosítás nem csak a kommunizmusban volt. Nem kell oda idézőjel. A hazugság meg erős kifejezés - azzal mindenesetre egyetértek, hogy az ígéreteket messze nem tartották be (diktatúrában különben sem szokásos a szólásszabadság...)

Mihnea, please don't be harsh with Gubb - he is one of the most useful and important editors of the Hungarian Wikipédia. In this case he's got some points, which should be considered. Thanks.--Mathae 12:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've only met Gubbubu on this Talk page before, and I suspected him of trolling. Again, I apologize for that. However, my assertion that he is POV-pushing still stands. The paragraph above, for example, is POV and contains many weasel terms:
  • "A terrorcommando of 200 men..." - "Terrorcommando"? I'd like to know what their actual attributions.
  • "The detachment roamed the country on their infamous armoured train, and acted everywhere, where counter-revoulutionary movements were suspected to appear." - "Infamous" armoured train? Acted "everywhere"?
  • "They collected several hostages from the citizens for preventive goals." - When and where?
  • "The people of the countryside suffered the most because of the militant atheism of the communists." - As it stands, this makes absolutely no sense.
  • "Different sources estimate the death-toll of the Red Terror [...] between 300-600 people" - By wartime standards - especially by 1919 wartime standards - that is not much of a death toll. Hundreds of people (if not more) were executed for treason or other similar charges by every government involved in WW1. So what makes the communists special? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I ask you twice please leave me alone and don't call me anyone (troll, POV-pusher or else). If you have problems, please concentrate on them and not on me, personally. See Wikipedia:Avoid personal attacks. Gubbubu 11:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I already apologized twice above; and now I apologize yet again, because I really want us to collaborate on this article and get an end result that is both informative and NPOV. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • You don't know Hungarian history. Some facts for you:
The detachment, called the Lenin-boys came to life in a spontanious way. It was subordinated to the Department of Political Investigation of the Comissary (? sorry, I don't know the exact phrase in English. Something like Ministry, only in communist version) of the Interior, but the Department couldn't really influence their actions. Only two leaders could do so: Szamuely and Korvin Ottó, but only if their plans fitted into those of the Lenin-boys. Their appearance was legendary: leather trousers, leather jacket, leather shin-guards, carabine, Steyre-pistol, bayonet and egg-grenade. They were quite independent. For example: they were officially dismissed on the 19th May, but on the 23rd of May they committed an unsuccessful assassination-attempt against Böhm Vilmos, the comissar, who dismissed them.
Terror-commando is a widely accepted NPOV term for Lenin-boys among Hungarian historians. Even leftists. It's not regarded POV, only by communists.
Militant atheism: bothering the religious people, blasphemy in churches etc.
The death-toll is quite high, as the communists weren't fighting in WW1. That came to an end in November, 1918.

I don't know Romanian history in detail, so I wouldn't criticize anything related to it (except for things that are absurd i. e. Romania is bigger than China, or something like that.) But I wouldn't start debating the role of Iliescu in the rampage of miners from the Zil Valley in Bucarest, as I don't know the topic. It wouldn't make any sense. --Mathae 21:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

You are right that there are many things I don't know about Hungarian history. That's why I'm asking you for various clarifications. Notice also that I am not criticizing any of the facts you present - I am only criticizing the way you present them. Let me also remind you that "wide acceptance among historians" in a certain country does not mean a term is NPOV. Would you say that terms that were widely accepted among historians in the Soviet Union were NPOV? No? I didn't think so. Then please don't hold a double standard. I know what militant atheism is, but you haven't explained how it made people in the countryside "suffer". What exactly does "bothering" mean? Finally, keep in mind that Hungary was still at war in 1919. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • You are right, I wouldn't accept the opinion of Soviet historians. But Hungary is a democratic country - as far as I'm concerned - and present day we have a socialist-liberal government. And the Red Terror is taught in schools, it has to be mentioned in every student's book. Of course, it's role shouldn't be exaggerated.
    • See, you hold a double standard. The opinion of Soviet historians is no less valid than the opinion of historians from present day Hungary. You may argue that Soviet historians were biased in favour of communism, but I could just as easily argue that present day historians are biased against communism. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. The opinion of the communists is just as valid as your opinion. Remember, you sometimes have to write for the enemy. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It's true that Hungary was in war in 1919, but the reason of these mass-murders and other incidents was not treason. I will translate a proclamation of Tibor Szamuely, from the official newspaper of the Hungarian Soviet Republic:

"The counter-revolutionaries are roaming and agitating everywhere, beat them! Beat them, where you find them! If the counter-revolutionaries manage to succeed only for an hour, they won't have mercy for any proletars! Before they could drown the revolution into blood, drown them into their own! (Red Paper, 11th February, 1919.)"

    • So it was taken as a pre-emptive measure. The communists argued that it was "necessary" to prevent a counter-revolution that would have far worse consequences. Given the actions of Miklós Horthy after he took power, you can't say they were just lying. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I would debate Horthy's role in the White Terror, but it's not our topic. It's true that the counter-revolutionary forces - after the communists fled from the Romanian offensive - started to revenge, but they weren't powerful enough to destroy the Soviet Republic. Anyway, killing and terrorizing innocent people is called terror, isn't it? And even the communists named their actions revolutionary terror. "Pre-emtive measures" is a too mild expression. Everyone calles the Red Terror Red Terror.--Mathae 09:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, I used the term "Red Terror", not "pre-emptive measures", in the article. So I guess we have no dispute over that. But this reminds me that the article doesn't actually say anything about what happened after the end of the Soviet Republic (Romanian occupation, White Terror, etc.) We should write a paragraph that at least mentions the events after August 6. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • There was no treason mentioned, being a suspected counter-revolutionary was enough to get hanged. Some of their actions: 1 May - Szolnok, 2 May - Hatvan, 7 May Devecser, beginning of June - Dunaföldvár, 21 June - Dömsöd, 22 - Szekszárd 24 - Budapest. In the middle of the summer, they helped the Red Army in suppressing a "peasant-revolution" around Kalocsa. Szamuely had at least 50 people hanged. If you look for these settlements, you'll see that - except for Budapest and Szolnok - they are smaller towns, which basically make their livings from agriculture even today. In 1919 they were even smaller, and religious peasants lived there. They weren't counter-revoultionary forces at all, they only resisted the anticlerical agitators, who threathened their beliefs and blasphemed openly, or the people didn't want to cooperate with the dictatorial government, who wanted to nationalize their lands.--Mathae 11:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Conflicts between the traditionally religious population and the secular Communist government escalated into violence that resulted in the execution of 50 peasants. Duly noted. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't say secular. The previous goverments were secular too, but this didn't result in conflcits with the religious people. I'd rather write anticlerical. It's true, and not a synonyme for secular.--Mathae 09:46, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Good point. I didn't think of that term before, but now that you mentioned it, "anti-clerical" is indeed the best way to describe the character of the soviet government. However, I didn't include the above sentence in that exact form in the article. Right now, the article doesn't use the phrase "secular Communist government". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, I have explained much concrete things in the article, but someone deleted them as "inomprehensible and inprobably statements". Sorry these are facts. The name "terror" (and "terrorcommando" etc.) is rightly widely acceped among historians, in hungary and in abroad, wikipedians use this term too [10], [11]. And I think it is not POV , because not only moderate leftists, but communists themself - e.g. Szamuely - said that there was terror (the only difference is that they not used the expression "red", but "revolutional terror" ). Gubbubu 11:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I'll rewrite your paragraph to improve the English as well as make it more NPOV. I'll post another comment here and ask for your opinions once I'm finished. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Done. The article now talks about the Lenin Boys and the Red Terror. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 02:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I read your changes. Well, it's very nice, and marxists would accept it too, but unfortunately it's not entirely true.

  • In addition, a mobile detachment of 200 men - informally called the Lenin Boys - was estabilished, under the leadership of Cserny József. - Well, they estabilished themselves, and they didn't have a formal name.
    • I've replaced that sentence with: 'In addition, a group of 200 armed men - known as the "Lenin Boys" - formed a mobile detachment under the leadership of Cserny József.' -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
  • The Lenin Boys refused to follow traditional religious customs (for example, they blasphemed openly), even when they traveled to areas of the countryside that were traditionally conservative and highly religious. This caused a number of conflicts with the local population, some of which turned violent. - Er... yeah, they did so, and just like the rest of the communists. The system employed several agitators, who officially "bothered" the religious people. The conflicts weren't isolated actions, but parts of the official Red Terror conducted by the government. The Lenin Boys were not alone - they were only the most "famous" among the different detachments with their armoured train, leather clothings and exceptional violence.--Mathae 09:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, how about saying "The Lenin Boys, as well as other similar groups and agitators, refused to follow..."? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Better, but "the whole system refused to follow..." would be the best :)--Mathae 12:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
        • That might be confusing, since "the system" is an abstract concept (e.g. the system can't blaspheme; only people can blaspheme). I was thinking of saying "members of government", but the Lenin Boys weren't members of government... -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

"Refused to follow"? Ridicuolus euphemism. In fact, they outraged non-communists. The article contains more similar astounding phrasings and it should be improved with facts to approximate the reality. ♥♥♥: Gubb  ✍    2007. May 4 12:23 (CEST) 12:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signs of constensus

Thanks to Mihnea, the article is getting better and better. I think we'll be able to achieve an agreement, and finish the debates.--Mathae 12:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) I hope to achieve consensus very soon. I've made a few edits to the text you recently added; I'll also try to add a sentence or two about what happened after August 6. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Gush, I feel like as if I was a pupil studying English and making a lot of mistakes... I guess I should start refreshing my English --Mathae 21:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I completely endorse the article as it stands now. Do we have consensus? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 23:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It's getting better and better. I would accept it, though I don't know whether Gubb wants to change anything else. That's why I didn't respond for a long time: I saw that you two were editing it several times.--Mathae 15:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm more or less satisfied with the recent version, don't want to make serious changes, if there will be no serious changes by anyone. Gubbubu 15:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Good - it seems we do have consensus. It was great working with you! :) And I hope we'll collaborate in the future. I will go remove the pov warning from the article now. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Good work, folks. Gubbubu 07:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV dispute

Are you kidding? The "Birth of the Soviet Republic"? "Re-born Hungary"? This article reads like a law of the Supreme Soviet. The adjective "hostile" is used throughout the article for things and nations that Hungary was hostile towards. It makes Hungary seem to be a poor defenceless sheep being led to slaughter by her West Imperialist neighbours (I never thought I'd see Romania described in such an evil-capitalist light). The Foreign Policy section is also really confusing, it doesn't even state that CS and Hungary were at war, merely details Hungary's glorious conquest of "significant parts of Czechoslovakia" (this made me laugh, this article should be migrated :) ). As for the "worldwide workers' revolution"... Later, even the slightly more neutral section on Downfall talks about the baby-eating Czechoslovak forces occupying poor Soviet Slovakia, and then it talks about a Romanian backstabbing of defenceless Hungary and the "Romanian occupation zone". Wrong article, mate. I am not after demonising Hungary, merely some neutrality. +Hexagon1 (t) 06:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see there's been some trouble in the past regarding this. So, for now I have reinstated the POV tag independently of any previous disputes because when I got here I found the article a little lacking in NPOV. So, leave the old disputes and start arguing afresh. :) +Hexagon1 (t) 06:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I've slightly rewritten the article so it presents something closer to reality but we could use a (neutral) expert in the matter for the factual details. Thoughs/ideas? +Hexagon1 (t) 07:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You're right it was definitely POV, and your edits were improvements. I think it's a pretty controversial topic, what with Red Terror and White Terror, Trianon, Romania vs. Hungary, etc. What the article needs is proper referencing, and neutral language. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Is there a History noticeboard or something of the sort? I think we might also need some help from someone more familiar with the topic, too often in POV writing some facts are obscured to make way for others, and there are still some confused sections in the article. I've tried looking up and reading about this on the Internet but most of the material is either in books, Wiki mirrors or these kinds of websites, which address you as a "Dear comrade". +Hexagon1 (t) 23:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
PS: Hello, what's this? It seems to be the source for much of the article's info yet contains some interesting facts that were.. omitted from the article's POV version. :) I've rewritten the article slightly with the Library of Congress source. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)