Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946)

message: This article is nonsense.
* Hungary was a kingdom until 1946. So are you going to create an article Kingdom of Hungary (1944–1946)?!?
* Hungary is a country with different official state names just like many others i.e. France. Are you going to create articles for RoF and KoF for each change of government form?!?
This article should not exist.
--peyerk 16:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: The map is captioned: Map of Hungary before after the Vienna Awards and the invasion of Yugoslavia in World War II. Can someone more knowledgable than me delete either "before" or "after" to correct it?
Ttenchantr 15:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map caption 

message: Could anybody give the source of the "Motto"?
--peyerk 06:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motto 

message: Did it exist between 1920 and 1946? The title says so right now. Or did it exist between 1919 and 1946? The text and the box say so right now? Can somebody please help here? Calle Widmann (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think we should keep 1920 as a start date for this specific regime. 1920 is when the monarchy was confirmed as a form of government, the Habsbourg barred from reclaiming the throne, and Horthy elected. Hence, it is the formal beginning of the post-World War I regime. Between the end of 1919 and the beginning of 1920, Hungary was in political uncertainty. Anyway, there is still the main article Kingdom of Hungary which may cover the period between the of 1919 and spring 1920. Any other opinion is welcome, though. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different years in the same article 

message: The current articles states that in late 1944, the Kingdom was abolished and replaced by Ferenc Szálasi's regime, which went by the name Hungarian State (Magyar Állam). While there is of course no doubt that Miklós Horthy's regime was overthrown and replaced by the nazi-controlled puppet regime of Ferenc Szálasi and his Arrow Cross party, I have been wondering about the validity of the current articles and succession boxes. This all started when I could find no decisive sources (outsides various wikipedias) that Ferenc Szálasi's regime actually went by the name "Hungarian State". My doubts increased when I found out that the Hungarian article is titled Szálasi-kormány ("Szálasi government") and not "Magyar Állam" (nor does it use the expression). Nor did Miklos Molnar's concise book on hungarian history make mention of a formal name change.
I made some searches and found this article at the archontology.org website, stating that the country, under Szálasi, was formally headed by a "Council of Regency" (Kormányzótanács) which Szálasi headed as "Leader of the Nation" (nemzetvezető, i.e. Head of State). The fact that the expression "Council of Regency" was used would mean that Hungary was still a "Kingdom", even under Szálasi.
I emailed archontology's webmaster and he answered me this : 
"Attached you will find two facsimile copies of the Official Gazette of
Hungary published by the Szálasi regime. The references to "magyar
királyi" [also abbreviated as "m. kir."] ("Hungarian royal") in the
styles of office holders prove that Hungary was still considered a
kingdom after 16 Oct 1944.
 
I have never heard of "Magyar Allam" or "Magyar Állam" in the context
of a polity style. As explained at
http://archontology/nations/hungary/01_polity.php, "Magyarország" was
used as official alternative to "Magyar Királyság" and the style of
Szálasi reflects it ("Magyarország nemzetvezetője")."
You can read the two facsimile he sent me here and here. Any Hungarian speakers would be highly welcome to take a look at this. I can't unfortunately read the language myself, but browsing through them, I could only find recurring mentions of "Magyar Állami", which is "Hungarian State" with "State" used as an adjective. What is obvious is that Szálasi liked the term "Hungarian State" and his regime used it a lot. But so far I could find no evidence that he abolished the Kingdom; only evidence of the contrary, actually. (BTW, you can see, in the facsimile the proof that the Arrow Cross regime did codify a different coat of arms, so the one shown in the Hungarian State article is correct).
So, if the Kingdom was never abolished, that would mean the current dates are incorrect, and we should use 1920-1946 with no interruption. Of course, the Szálasi regime deserves its own article, but it seems that "Hungarian State" is not the right title. Apparently, the closest thing to an official name for it was Nemzeti Összefogás Kormánya, which apparently means (please tell me if this is correct) "Government of National Unity". 
Actually, any evidence that the Szálasi regime did abolish the (fictional) "Kingdom" de facto or de jure and did use "Hungarian State" on an official basis would be highly welcome. So far, I tend to believe that the country's official name was still "Kingdom of Hungary", and remained so until 1946 without interruption.
So, that would also mean that the current succession infobox in the Szálasi regime's article would have to be removed. Would everyone agree on that ? We might also have to choose another title ? I tend to prefer formal titles, so  "Government of National Unity (Hungary)" could be an option (or would  "Government of National Union" be a better translation ?) with "Szálasi regime" and "Arrow Cross regime" redirecting to it. I'm open to suggestions, though. 
Any historical evidence and linguistic help would be very welcome. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Actually, could you take a look at the second document ? It's from 1945, and I believe it still mentions the "Kingdom" as a form of government. The 1946 date is definitely correct, since the Kingdom was formally abolished and gave way to the Second Republic of Hungary. The problem here is to know if there was another formal abolition before. It seems that Szalasi may have planned to abolish the so-called "Monarchy", but he probably didn't have the time to do so. Any insight about this would be most welcome. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been exchanging messages with PAStheLoD on his talk page and there is every indication that Hungary was still officially a Kingdom/Regency even under the Szalasi regime, as far as late January 1945 (no indication that Szalasi did abolish the Kingdom between late January and his downfall in late March 1945, though this might be possible). I'm going to wait a few days to see if we have other, dissenting, sources and opinions, and after that I think I'll make the appropriate corrections.Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I endorse the new name if this was an RFM. Hobartimus (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh... sorry, what does "RFM" means ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing. It's a process in which articles are moved. I mean I agree with the new name. Hobartimus (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the Kingdom actually abolished in 1944-45 ? 

message: The issue has already been raised above, but I think it's worth a discussion : which year do you think is more appropriate for a start date, 1919 or 1920 ? I would personally support keeping 1920 as a start date, since this is the year when Horthy was elected as a regent, and his regime established de jure. Then again, 1919 was the year when the Hungarian Soviet Republic fell : Horthy was not regent yet, but as minister of war he was one the country's most important politicians, so one could consider that the regime was already de facto in place. Between August 1919 (fall of the communist regime) and March 1920 (election of Horthy), Hungary was in some sort of political limbo. Yet again, it was still officially the Kingdom of Hungary, although it was not yet officially the regency period that this article adresses. I'd say 1919 and 1920 are both acceptable as start dates, although I would personally keep 1920. What do you think ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the start date 

message: *Opposed: The former is a "state" article which contains sections for economy and foreign policy, as well as an information box. It has a history, but it isn't a history. Conversely, Hungary between the World Wars is a chronological history article. The information overlaps, but they are rather different articles in terms of format/style. I realize this split isn't always clear with some articles, but it is in this case, and I think there is value in it. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: This article is reductive in that it basically collapses the Arrow Cross and Horthy's regime into one by saying that the government itself exported thousands of Jews.  It wasn't until the coup that most of Hungary's Jews were deported and Horthy fairly often defied orders from Hitler to deport Jews.  
I think due credit is deserved to Hungary for protecting its Jews in such a manor.  This needs to be fixed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamcgath (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a new article should be created called Hungary under the Arrow Cross, as the Arrow Cross regime was supported by the Nazis as a replacement of Horthy's government that was showing signs that it would surrender to the Allies.--R-41 (talk) 11:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: HOLOCAUST INFORMATION

message: What is the basis for the claim that this was a "de facto" country ?  It was a recognised country with recognised borders ( until it tried to take over Slovakia and Transylvania ),  and a mostly undisputed government.   So why "de facto" ?Eregli bob (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  de facto country ? 

message: On 3 January 2014, an IP editor introduced an information to the infobox that between 1932 and 1938 Kingdom of Hungary was a "client state of Italy". Later, on 25 January 2014, the same IP user added this information to the lead section. The information sounds very unbelievable. It was not yet discussed on this talk page. He cited two offline sourcesAnthony Tihamer Komjathy, Rebecca S. Stockwell. German Minorities and the Third Reich: Ethnic Germans of East Central Europe Between the Wars. Holmes and Meier Publ, 1980. P50.John Hiden. Germany and Europe, 1919-1939. Longman, 1993. P155.. Both of those books can be found online on Google Books. The first one mentions "Hungary being a client of Mussolini" without further elaboration. The other one mentions that after 1932, "Hungary was increasingly the client of Italy". I believe that the user who added the information to the article misinterpreted those books. According to the "Client state" article, "a client state is a state that is economically, politically or militarily subordinate to another more powerful state in international affairs". Nowhere in those books is claimed that Hungary was dependent on Italy. The books claim that Hungary was a client of Italy, but not a client state of Italy. I removed this information from the article, awaiting further discussion on the topic. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Bu the way, few years ago, similar information about being "a client state of Italy" was added to the First Austrian Republic article  and to the Federal State of Austria article  by User:R-41. That user was indefinitely blocked on 1 June 2013 on his own request . Maybe he is the same user who added the information to this article. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Client state of Italy?? 

message: I notice the infobox says it was broken up into other countries, including the Soviet Union. What lands did it have that were annexed into the USSR? 67.245.215.201 (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The Carpathian Ruthenia region. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Union 

message: Shouldn't "Fascist Hungary" serve as a redirect to this page? (97.90.153.18 (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No way, either the category of the article regarding such is questionable, as i.e. national socialism, fascism, authoritarian regency or hungarism are not the same categories. Hungary was not a classic fascist state or comparable such. We can only say, in 1944, after Szálasi and the Hungarists took power, that would be similar to such, but how to call properly, renmains to be discussed.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: Dear IP,
would you please stop the recurrent changes in the infobox, among other things to alter the map of the country without consensus? In the talk page you may express your aims, but until please stop tendentiously modifying the article - the nth time in the past months -.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP edit 

message: Much-needed chapter/paragraph. I would suggest some topics: territorial policy, economic, cultural, military policies, policies towards ethnic groups (not just antisemitism). The one sentence we have is far, far too little. A lot of nuanced opinions are needed, based on strictly academic sources, so "pro & con crusaders" of all sorts: please stay out. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical assessment 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: As the title says. I don't understand why he's listed as the king of Hungary and also why until 1955? I could be wrong, but isn't this an error? It shouldn't be Charles IV from 1920 to 1921 and none from 1921 to 1946 with the note explaining the situation? 84.221.32.222 (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert king of Hungary and from 1920 to 1955? 

message: The state included parts of Europe widely regarded as being within Eastern Europe. The user implies that modern divisions of Europe have no relevance to the Kingdom, but by that logic, why would it be placed in Central Europe? Ukraine is Eastern European, and Romania is seldom considered to be Centrak European. Hungary itself is often regarded as Eastern European, however that is not the basis for my argument. The point is that the state during this period extended to parts of Europe widely regarded as Eastern Europe, therefore it should be described as a state in Central and Eastern Europe. Szirtyu (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  “State in Central and Eastern Europe”