Talk:László Bárdossy

message: Hi User:Peacemaker67,
I want to ask a few questions about this edit:
"This allowed the Hungarian government to maintain the fiction that Yugoslavia had ceased to exist, and therefore Hungary was not invading it"
I checked the Kingdom of Yugoslavia article where
-a: it is written: "The Kingdom of Yugoslavia was soon divided by the Axis into several entities."
-b: After I checked the corresponding map on the page: "Occupation and partition of Yugoslavia, 1941–43."
--> Could you tell me on the map where Yugoslavia still exist? / Or if I am not misunderstanding you, you want to refer to that that the Allied Powers did not recognize the partition thus they regaraded Kingdom of Yugoslavia still existent on it's full former size?
(I have to ask this after the discussion with Mr rnddude)
Thank You  (KIENGIR (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source for your contention (BTW, WP isn't one)? It is a settled principle of international law that an invaded country continues to exist in its original form until the conflict is concluded and a treaty (like the Treaty of Trianon) is entered into that changes its borders, and that annexing, or creating new countries out of occupied countries during a conflict isn't lawful. Yugoslavia continued to exist in a legal sense throughout WWII, and had a government-in-exile which was located in Cairo then London which represented it. So did the Netherlands, Poland and Belgium. The "fiction" I am referring to is well known, which Hungary carried through by avoiding even signing the armistice at the conclusion of the invasion of Yugoslavia, as it claimed it was not a belligerent and had not attacked Yugoslavia (despite the treaty of friendship and non-aggression it had signed with Yugoslavia in 1940). Then there is the fact that the parts of Yugoslavia that were invaded by Hungary weren't even included in the NDH. But I digress. I will be making substantial reliably cited additions to this article, which has no inline citations (and desperately needs them). You will see what those reliable sources say about this matter once I have made those additions. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 04:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, maybe you misunderstood a little bit, since Mr rnddude gave also a different approach, I just wanted to be sure exactly about your station before asking more, my only aim was to more clarify the things. Well, sometimes WP is reliable, sometimes it needs more contruction, by the way this is our goal isn't it? The rest you wrote I know, since I am well-trained in the question. In my opnion, it has to be noted, that regarding de facto and regarding the Axis viewpoint Yugoslavia was abolished, of course with the not that the Allies did not recognize this and still recognized Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Only to pinpoint this neutral viewpoint was only my aim. (KIENGIR (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: But what is missing is citation of this opinion to reliable secondary sources. Currently it is impossible to distinguish your personal opinion from what the reliable sources might say. The only way to do that is to cite your contentions to reliable secondary sources, so they are verifiable and can be contrasted with other reliable sources that may have a different take on the situation. So, please do that. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 11:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fiction" edit 

message: The article says: "On 12 December 1940, at the initiative of Prime Minister Count Pál Teleki, Hungary concluded a Treaty of Eternal Friendship and Non-Aggression with Yugoslavia. Although the concept of the Treaty had received support from both Germany and Italy, the actual signing of the treaty did not, as Germany's planned invasion of Greece would be simplified if Yugoslavia could be neutralised." The statements in the two sentences are quite contradictory: (1) Hungary and Yugoslavia conclude a treaty which neautralize Yugoslavia; (2) which makes Germany and Italy happy, but (3) Germany and Italy are unhappy, because they wanted to neutralize Yugoslavia. I would be grateful if somebody could clarify who wanted what and why. Borsoka (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing in that passage says that Germany and Italy were happy with the treaty. It says that they were happy with a rapprochement between Hungary and Yugoslavia, but weren't happy about it being formalised in a treaty, because they still needed to neutralise Yugoslavia (by getting it to join the Pact) and the treaty may have got in the way of that. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I do still not understand: (1) Germany and Italy would have been happy if a treaty was concluded between Hungary and Yugoslavia; (2) Hungary and Yugoslavia concluded the treaty; and (3) Germany and Italy were unhappy because of the treaty. Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with your edit, I think it provides the needed context and is pretty neutral. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 23:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification is needed