# Talk:Austro-Hungarian occupation of Serbia

/Archives 1

There were no such a thing as "Austria-Hungary" , (because it officially disintegrated) at the time, and there were no known so-called liberation battles with Austro-Hungarian troops either, WHEN Serbian-French army arrived to Serbia. Csataelőkészítő (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary existed in some form until Oct 31st 1918, when Hungary declared the Compromise dissolved. Armed forces of AH empire were still in control of Serbia during withdrawal from Serbia during month of October, and had to be chased away. Ђидо (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
There was no armed forces neither Austro-Hungarian army that time. There were not a single battle or simple meeting between Serbian army and Austro-Hungarian troops on the territory of Serbia in 1918. Serbian army (which only followed the shadow of the colonial French army) arrived to a military empty Serbia in the autumn of 1918.--Csataelőkészítő (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

If you have other sources, then replace paragraph with those facts, but do not blank out text randomly.
As a fact, general Kövess Hermann arrived to Belgrade on October 4th to take command, and Austro-Hungarian troops were in Serbia until late October:
New Austro-Hungarian and German troops redeployed to Serbia from Ukraine were unable to halt the northward advance of the Royal Serbian Army. By the third week of October, General Hermann von Kövess ordered a strategic retreat behind the Danube, Sava and Drina rivers. On 29 October, Governor-General von Rhemen and his staff left occupied Serbia.
Ђидо (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Similar to Emperor Charles of Austria-Hungary, Kövess Herman had no official authority neither army (soldiers) to command, neither had an existing state behind him. That ghost army soldiers simply went home to Austria Bohemia Croatia Hungary , Poland etc... months before that happened. Please name a single battle with date when Serbians could fight so-called liberation war on Serbian territory. Just name a single battle.  You have a statement that the so-called "liberation war" existed against Austria-Hungarian army on the Serbian territory. I simply denied it. Do you know what doies the burden of proof mean? A person who doubts does not need to prove anything to legitimately doubt or deny a claim/statement. The person who made the claim (you) must prove that his/her claim/statement is true.  I'm ask you to write about the name of the exact alleged great "liberation" battles, their date etc. And please do not use commuist era (often untrustable) books. For the history of former communist countries, this is a basic expectation on Wikipedia.--Csataelőkészítő (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

What is your point here? It seems that you are offended by the fact that Serbia calls events in October 2018 a "liberation"? It was a liberation -- reestablishing a government in place of occupation forces. The fact that there were no battles does not invalidate the claim of liberation. It is also a fact that parts of Austro-Hungarian forces remained in pre-war Serbia until the last day of October (as we can see, bulk of forces started withdrawing in third week of October), even when they were not engaging in battles.
And that you have trouble with sources from 1945-1990 is your problem, not with history science in general, which does indeed use those sources. If we are talking about post-WWII period, maybe we should put extra scrutiny on those books, but if some book is published in socialist Yugoslavia, covering WWI, which happened decades before communist rule, dismissing that source on that basis is ridiculous.
Ђидо (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Reading this source, linked in the article:
https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/occupation_during_and_after_the_war_south_east_europe
In September and October 1918 the occupation system of the Central Powers in the Balkans collapsed under the offensive of the Entente forces and its Balkan allies, almost three years after its formation. Serbian troops entered Skopje on 24 September and Niš on the 11 October. Belgrade was liberated on 1 November.
Ђидо (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Just like Ђидо says, there are no mentions of battles with Austro-Hungarian troops in 1918 but of their retreat from Serbia. Also please follow WP:CYCLE thank you.  Aeengath (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
No, The map is the situation about January 1919. The last stable (longes lasting) map of the first Hungarian Republic, when it was not under occupation yet, because after that, we can not make stable map, because of the Hungarian self-disarmament, the territory of Hungary changed from day to day. For example: When Hungary proclaimed the self-disarmament and the Republic, Romania was still under German occupation.--Csataelőkészítő (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I did not pasted any new map, I restored the existing version (which is incorrect to) 
As I told you, that map https://omniatlas-1598b.kxcdn.com/media/img/articles/complete/europe/europe19181025.png  would be the best solution, but I think it is not free.--Csataelőkészítő (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why are you talking about the whole time of the First Hungarian Republic (of course changing, but a map is not supposed to depict years in one image) when the map you deleted shows the status as of November 1918. De jure but not de facto territories are in light green. The map you inserted according to its description is the situation in 1919, and can't say it respectfully, I don't care what you think the map represents if its drawers say otherwise. Apart from that, its borders are inaccurate and the legend is in outdated language. (Rumania Romania, Szegszard Szekszárd, etc.). The map before your intervention is to be restored. Gyalu22 (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't see any existing and recorded battles (neither in your own sources) between the Astro-Hungarian fighting forces and Serbians after 1915 december, after Serbian army and government fled to Island of Corfu. There was no such recorded armed conflicts between A-H fighting unites and Serbian Army in the year of 1918 either. That "central powers" of 1918 on the Balkans consisted a very minor German army, because it was mostly a Bulgarian army. Again: zero Austro-Hungarian fighting units fought against serbs there.
You used the word "Liberation War" and in the context of Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary did not even exist as a state after 31  october 1918, when the Serbo-French forces were able to enter to Belgrade without a single shot on 1st of november, 1918. There was no such War against austro-Hungarian troops. The so-called Serbian War of Liberation was transformed into a purely imperialist war of territorial robbery when the laughable small Serbo-french armies crossed Serbia's original pre-war borders. The simple Serbian "liberation" aim became questionabe after the Serbian Army following the shadow of the French colonial Balkan army entered to Non Serbian territory namely what the Serbs called as Voivodine. The first Serbs migrated to so-called Voivodine during the early Ottoman wars, and later after the Ottomans were ousted from Kingdom of Hungary further Serbs migrated in masses to the north during their Great Migrations of the Serbs. In 1910, the ratio of Serbs were only 33,8% in Voivodina, therefore we can speak clearly about a Serb minority on that area. Moreover, Serbian government even claimed other Hungarian cities like Pécs and Szeged too. --Csataelőkészítő (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it was Austria-Hungary who occupied Serbia and Montenegro, conducted vast crimes against humanity (which they even documented), and Serbia and Montenegro were liberated  in October 1918. The fact that they didn't put up fight when faced with Allied forces does not mean there were no liberation. Do you think that A-H forces would just leave without pressure of forces coming from the south?
Now you are claiming that chasing out occupier constitutes "imperialist war of territorial robbery"!?
This article says practically nothing about what happened after November 1st, after A-H occupation of Serbia ended, which is how it should be. Take your concern and yearning for pre-Trianon Hungary elsewhere.
Ђидо (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
You can not prove that Austro-Hungarian soldiers were in Belgrade. You can not prove the existence of Austria-Hungary which ceased to exist after 31 of October 1918.
Crimes Against Humanity? Do you know that execution of partizan-like fighters and their supporters were common and still common in wars? Why did your governments motivated and send civilians (in civil clothes) to fight in parizan actions against an army? How can we know that the numbers are trustable, and not only the result of victimization to serve further territorial ambitions during peace negotiations? The numbers of alleged victims were varied greatly, often they were lumped together with the Serbian victims of the Balkan wars (where A-H was not even participant) or lumped together with the victims of the pro-ENTENTE Albanian fighters who shot down a lot of Serbian refugees when the Serbian army fled to island of Corfu.
There were Serbian Censuses in 1910 and in 1921. Lot of people missed, thus they often simply blamed the Autria-Hungary, and lumped together the victims of other wars, or the Serbian victims of the pro-ENTENTE Albanians.-- Did you really think that the Austro-Hungarian army officers would stand by and watch with a smile as Serbs in civilian clothes shoot their Austro-Hungarian soldiers in sneaky partisan actions? 
Are you aware, that partizans are not considered soldiers by the international law? Once captured, a combatant in civilian clothes could be shot on the spot at any time, even without trial, by summary execution. In contrast to real soldiers, partisans were not protected by international law.--Csataelőkészítő (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


### The alleged heroism VS. cold Reality
" Do you think that A-H forces would just leave without pressure of forces coming from the south?"
Austria-Hungary did not exist that time When  the first Serbo-French armies arrived to Belgrade in 1918. Neither the laughable small Serbo-French army (, French had only 6 divisions, Serbs had only 6 divisions), dare or were able to do anything until the Austria-Hungary did not disintegrated, since Austria-Hungary had more than 3 million soldiers in late September. Half of them was Royal Hungarian Honvéd soldiers. On the other hand, in this case, it was not (as you claimed) that the Serbs were just trying to put pressure on Austria-Hungary (which did not exist at the time) but that the Serbian diplomats had already made new BIG territorial claims in Vojvodina (where only 33% were Serbs), but also claimed the cities of Pécs and Szeged for themselves during the Paris peace talks.
During the war, Count Mihály Károlyi led a small but very active pacifist anti-war maverick faction in the Hungarian parliament. He even organized covert contacts with British and French diplomats in Switzerland. The Austro-Hungarian monarchy politically collapsed and disintegrated as a result of a defeat in the Italian front. On 31 October 1918, in the midst of armistice negotiations, the Aster Revolution in Budapest brought liberal Hungarian aristocrat Count Mihály Károlyi, a supporter of the Allies, to power. King Charles had no other option than the appointment of Károlyi as prime minister of Hungary. On 25 October 1918 Károlyi had formed the Hungarian National Council. The Hungarian Royal Honvéd army still had more than 1,400,000 soldiers when Károlyi was announced as prime minister. Károlyi yielded to President Wilson's demand for pacifism by ordering the unilateral self-disarmament of the Hungarian army. This happened under the direction of Minister of War Béla Linder on 2 November 1918 When Oszkár Jászi became the new Minister for National Minorities of Hungary, he immediately offered democratic referendums about the disputed borders for minorities; however, the political leaders of those minorities refused the very idea of democratic referendums regarding disputed territories at the Paris peace conference. Disarmament of its army meant that Hungary was to remain without a national defence at a time of particular vulnerability. The unilateral self-disarmament made the occupation of Hungary directly possible for the relatively small armies of Romania, the Franco-Serbian army, and the armed forces of the newly established Czechoslovakia.  After self-disarmament, Czech, Serbian, and Romanian political leaders chose to attack Hungary instead of holding democratic plebiscites concerning the disputed areas.
Military and political events changed rapidly and drastically after the Hungarian unilateral disarmament:

On 5 November 1918, the Serbian army, with the help of the French army, crossed the southern borders.
On 8 November, the Czechoslovak army crossed the northern borders.
On 10 November d'Espérey's army crossed the Danube River and was poised to enter the Hungarian heartland.
On 11 November Germany signed an armistice with Allies, under which they had to immediately withdraw all German troops in Romania and in the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Russian Empire back to German territory and Allies to have access to these countries.
On 13 November, the Romanian army crossed the eastern borders of the Kingdom of Hungary.
During the rule of Károlyi's pacifist cabinet, Hungary rapidly lost control over approximately 75% of its former pre-WWI territories (325,411 km2 (125,642 sq mi)) without a fight and was subject to foreign occupation. 

So how "heroic" were the Romanians Serbs and Czechs. They did not even dare to cross the Hungarian borders until the Hungarian unilateral self-disarmament of the pro-Entente Mihály Károlyi. They know it would be a suicide due to their laughable small tiny armies.
After that, they attacked a self-disarmed country, which also signed armistice.


### The so-called relative "morality"
My other problem of your double standadars, and you not stand on the basement of absolute moarlity (which is often the case in Eastern and Orthodox countries) but on relative morality.
On the basis of absolute morality: A crime committed by the other party after a crime has been committed does not automatically make the new crime admissible. 
An example of relative (i.e. Eastern) morality is the Soviet soldiers when they entered the Axis land, mass murdered, looted civilians and raped women for months after winning the war. The Stalinists felt that a "little fun" was what Soviet soldiers deserved after the war and much Soviet suffering.
For countries that are socially, economically and culturally backward, this is morally acceptable.
A perfect counter-example: a Western soldier: a French soldier, for example, did not start looting German houses in revenge, killing German civilians, or raping German women after taking part in the invasion of West-Germany. Because they knew it was morally unacceptable, i.e. a crime. This phenomenon is called civilized behavior.
________________________________________________________
--Csataelőkészítő (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The citations are full with communist era books, which are usually not so trustable. Please use book in the references, which were written after the fall of communism.--Csataelőkészítő (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

History books covering events decades before communist rule should not be dismissed summarily. Believe or not, academics in Yugoslavia had rather extensive freedom of research when dealing with non-communist history.
Ђидо (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
And what particular sources you are complaining about? To me, it seems that vast majority of sources cited are from western sources. Ђидо (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I think there is only one used substantially: Serbia's Great War, 1914-1918 by Andrej Mitrović [1] It is the first book in English about Serbia in the First World War. It is considered a classic by a highly respected historian, according to his wiki this book is also "being studied in western scholarship" so definitely WP:RELIABLE. Aeengath (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Durig the communist period, In soviet satellite countries like Hungary Poland CZ the historians must (forced) to stand on the basis of hard-core internationalist platform, where a historian even could lose job at the university or even worse go to jail if nationalist sentiment appeared in their publications until the 1980s. However the historians in countries like Romania and "Yugoslavia" (an euphemistic code name for greater Serbia) stand on the basis of biassed nationalist so-called patriotic history writing, in most cases it was the norm.
That's why I suggested post communist era books for references.--Csataelőkészítő (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, Yugoslavia was not a Hungary, and academic freedom was much, much wider. You are projecting your biases onto topics you do not know much about.
For example, mentioned Andrej Mitrović was praised by western historians as one of ultimate authorities on this subject, collaborated with them, even his books got published in the West.
Ђидо (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
"Well, Yugoslavia was not a Hungary, and academic freedom was much, much wider. " Do you mean more freedom for the typical nationalist "patriotic history writing"?--Csataelőkészítő (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Why there´s no article on the Serbian-Montenegrinian attack and occupation of Eastern Bosnia in late summer/autumn 1914? 31.176.248.128 (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome to add it.  Be bold!. —GoldRingChip 15:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)