This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. 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)
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.
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)
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)
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).
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)
-- 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)
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)
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!
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.
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):
Enough? Or have Hungarians decieved them?-- Mathae 17:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
The Treaty of Trianon was in several ways drastic and brutal. There were territories with Hungarian majority, whichs were lost. For example, the southern part of Slowakia (which was given back to Hungary in 1938 in the first Vienna award) was only disannexed because there was a big railway, and the Antant said: ,,For a good railway we can expend a few Hungarian. And most of the the territories with foreign majority were soon 1000 years part of Hungary. The Slowakians or Romanians never captured them, they just came throught the border one by one, and then said: ,,This is our motherland since hundreds of years". I think, it is not a correct thing. The other folks, if they wanted a land, captured it with wars, but they captured these Hungarian territories quietly and infamous (it is a little bit strong word, because that, that they came in, wasn't a problem, the problem was, what they did after it). So, you can understand, that the Treaty of Trianon is simply irrealistic. The thought, that somebody will make truth, and if they defend their borders (not the Trianon-borders, but the old ones), they can come out better from these situation. It was truly a counter-attack of an unfinished war (don't forget, where were the antant-troops, when the war was ended: outside Hungary, so the didn't lost these territories in war), in which they wanted to recapture the lost parts of their land. And if the Romanians wanted to defend their land, why did they have to capture almost all of Hungary? And what they in Hungary made (systematical plundering the economic and cultural goods of the contry) is a little bit too much for a self-defending war. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
89.133.74.13 (
talk) 18:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
situation is simple:
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)
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?) Kiss L 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.) Kiss L 09:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Romania attacked Austria-Hungary in 1916. And attacked Transylvania before the Paris peace conference started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.1.182 ( talk) 19:04, 4 January 2010 (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)
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:
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? Kiss L 08:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
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)
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... Kiss L 13:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
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)
I'll help Gubb and the others with translating it.
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 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 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)
"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.)"
I read your changes. Well, it's very nice, and marxists would accept it too, but unfortunately it's not entirely true.
"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)
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)
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)
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)
Hey guys, I see you are very up for disputes, mostly on ideological (white and red) stances than fact. Maybe you should just use more sources than personal opinions. Here I just want to provide you a free on-line library, where several good sources can be find to improve this article: http://www.hungarian-history.hu. It's in English, and it would be a good idea to replace the references aviable only in Hungarian (how many people can actually read it?!) or not online with equivalents, for example from here. Finally, please replace the "see sources of red terror" with appropriate, in-line, precise references, because it is not really transparent as it is. Good work. Desyman44 ( talk) 18:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The members of early communist party in 1919 were multiethnic. It is important in the article, without this the reader can't understand their motivations. When the first communist party formed in the multi-ethnic Budapest, they refused to use the name "Hungarin Communist party", due to the fact: the vast majority (80%) of the party didn't considered themselves as Hungarians. They used the name: "Kommunisták Magyarországi Pártja" (Party of Communist >>>FROM<<< Hungary) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.6.251 ( talk) 11:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The symbol / coat of arms of the Hungarian Republic of Councils (HRC) was the red star, without the hammer and sickle. Take a look at, for example, the contemporary posters of the HRC: [12]. Several of them feature red stars, but none shows the hammer and sickle inside the red star. Koertefa ( talk) 01:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Hungarian Soviet Republic. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Battle of Vámospércs. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 5#Battle of Vámospércs until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
There's an ongoing 'revision war' on the article. On 24 January I undid revisions by 199.119.233.162 on 22 January 2022 claiming that the Hungarian Soviet Republic lasted to 1947, introducing Russian as a common language, Soviet as demonym and Soviet Ruble as currency. Later the same day the claim were repeated by 199.7.157.65. Rather than just undoing it again, I leave it to you registered users. The short lived socialist republic were succeeded by the short lived Hungarian Republic (1919–1920), in turn succeeded by the Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946), the Second Hungarian Republic (1946–1949) and the Hungarian People's Republic. 37.200.47.25 ( talk) 07:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Page should be protected. There is constant vandalism. Tankpiggy18 ( talk) 00:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
So @ Charles Essie what are you talking about when you say this? There's literally nothing anywhere to indicate the flag was anything but a normal socialist red flag NorthTension ( talk) 12:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I can't find any other sources aside from Wikipedia and sources derived from this article that refer to the state officially as a "... Republic of Councils in Hungary", nor can I find any sources, again, aside from Wikipedia, that translates Szövetséges as "federative".
Again; does anybody have any sources on the official name as translated into English? TheodoresTomfooleries ( talk) 21:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. 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)
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.
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)
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)
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).
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)
-- 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)
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)
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!
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.
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):
Enough? Or have Hungarians decieved them?-- Mathae 17:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
The Treaty of Trianon was in several ways drastic and brutal. There were territories with Hungarian majority, whichs were lost. For example, the southern part of Slowakia (which was given back to Hungary in 1938 in the first Vienna award) was only disannexed because there was a big railway, and the Antant said: ,,For a good railway we can expend a few Hungarian. And most of the the territories with foreign majority were soon 1000 years part of Hungary. The Slowakians or Romanians never captured them, they just came throught the border one by one, and then said: ,,This is our motherland since hundreds of years". I think, it is not a correct thing. The other folks, if they wanted a land, captured it with wars, but they captured these Hungarian territories quietly and infamous (it is a little bit strong word, because that, that they came in, wasn't a problem, the problem was, what they did after it). So, you can understand, that the Treaty of Trianon is simply irrealistic. The thought, that somebody will make truth, and if they defend their borders (not the Trianon-borders, but the old ones), they can come out better from these situation. It was truly a counter-attack of an unfinished war (don't forget, where were the antant-troops, when the war was ended: outside Hungary, so the didn't lost these territories in war), in which they wanted to recapture the lost parts of their land. And if the Romanians wanted to defend their land, why did they have to capture almost all of Hungary? And what they in Hungary made (systematical plundering the economic and cultural goods of the contry) is a little bit too much for a self-defending war. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
89.133.74.13 (
talk) 18:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
situation is simple:
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)
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?) Kiss L 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.) Kiss L 09:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Romania attacked Austria-Hungary in 1916. And attacked Transylvania before the Paris peace conference started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.1.182 ( talk) 19:04, 4 January 2010 (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)
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:
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? Kiss L 08:22, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
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)
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... Kiss L 13:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
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)
I'll help Gubb and the others with translating it.
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 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 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)
"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.)"
I read your changes. Well, it's very nice, and marxists would accept it too, but unfortunately it's not entirely true.
"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)
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)
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)
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)
Hey guys, I see you are very up for disputes, mostly on ideological (white and red) stances than fact. Maybe you should just use more sources than personal opinions. Here I just want to provide you a free on-line library, where several good sources can be find to improve this article: http://www.hungarian-history.hu. It's in English, and it would be a good idea to replace the references aviable only in Hungarian (how many people can actually read it?!) or not online with equivalents, for example from here. Finally, please replace the "see sources of red terror" with appropriate, in-line, precise references, because it is not really transparent as it is. Good work. Desyman44 ( talk) 18:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The members of early communist party in 1919 were multiethnic. It is important in the article, without this the reader can't understand their motivations. When the first communist party formed in the multi-ethnic Budapest, they refused to use the name "Hungarin Communist party", due to the fact: the vast majority (80%) of the party didn't considered themselves as Hungarians. They used the name: "Kommunisták Magyarországi Pártja" (Party of Communist >>>FROM<<< Hungary) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.6.251 ( talk) 11:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The symbol / coat of arms of the Hungarian Republic of Councils (HRC) was the red star, without the hammer and sickle. Take a look at, for example, the contemporary posters of the HRC: [12]. Several of them feature red stars, but none shows the hammer and sickle inside the red star. Koertefa ( talk) 01:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Hungarian Soviet Republic. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Battle of Vámospércs. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 5#Battle of Vámospércs until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
There's an ongoing 'revision war' on the article. On 24 January I undid revisions by 199.119.233.162 on 22 January 2022 claiming that the Hungarian Soviet Republic lasted to 1947, introducing Russian as a common language, Soviet as demonym and Soviet Ruble as currency. Later the same day the claim were repeated by 199.7.157.65. Rather than just undoing it again, I leave it to you registered users. The short lived socialist republic were succeeded by the short lived Hungarian Republic (1919–1920), in turn succeeded by the Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946), the Second Hungarian Republic (1946–1949) and the Hungarian People's Republic. 37.200.47.25 ( talk) 07:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Page should be protected. There is constant vandalism. Tankpiggy18 ( talk) 00:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
So @ Charles Essie what are you talking about when you say this? There's literally nothing anywhere to indicate the flag was anything but a normal socialist red flag NorthTension ( talk) 12:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I can't find any other sources aside from Wikipedia and sources derived from this article that refer to the state officially as a "... Republic of Councils in Hungary", nor can I find any sources, again, aside from Wikipedia, that translates Szövetséges as "federative".
Again; does anybody have any sources on the official name as translated into English? TheodoresTomfooleries ( talk) 21:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)