Talk:Revolutions and interventions in Hungary (1918–1920)

message: There was no alliance intervening in Hungary in 1919 ergo no reason to call what happened then an "Allied intervention". This entire discussion page demonstrates this. There is no respectable source calling what happened then an allied intervention (and until now even no unrespectable ones). Calling this article like this is just an attempt to mystify history.Octavian8 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article includes France in the belligerents section (even if this absurdity is later somewhat revised in the text)! It cites troops-strength that are widely inaccurate, only to copy then in the body of the article some text from the The Hungarian-Romanian war of 1919. This article has just one merit, it is makes one lough at it, other than this it is a disgrace.Octavian8 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The topic addressed here - i.e., the conflicts and struggles surrounding the dissolution of the Kingdom of Hungary at the end of WWI - however is highly interesting and it deserves attention. (That's why I agree to removing the delete template) However, the topic needs a more serious handling than this! Octavian8 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual accuracy

message: This is pretty much the same exact subject as Hungarian-Romanian War of 1919. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hungarian-Romanian War of 1919 is part of this conflict. It would be more logical if that article was here. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment We do have one theme (Allied intervention in Hungary). Hungarian-Romanian, Hungarian-Czechoslovak conflicts are coherent subjects.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such thing as an allied intervention in Hungary. There is a Hungarian-Romanian conflict and a Hungarian-Czechoslovakian conflict. Romania and Czechoslovakia were not allies. Or do you consider that just because Romania was a member of the Entente, this amounts to an Entente intervention in Hungary?!Octavian8 (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

text:  Hungarian-Romanian, Hungarian-Czechoslovak conflicts are coherent subjects indeed, but only because they involve Hungary. By way of consequence the one theme is 'Bolshevik Hungary at war.'Octavian8 (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, check the sources before you judge existence of expression.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Well I can't access your sources, why don't you cite them here. I'm interested to see how do they declare Romania and Czechoslovakia allies (which would be the sole sensible justification for this title).Octavian8 (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: They were part of the Entente powers. It is pretty straightforward. (Czechoslovak legions officially from 1918). Cited: "Czechoslovak legions as an official part of the Triple Entente"Fakirbakir (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See my answer from below. In short here: The fact that some units made out of Czechoslovakians -- that is not clear that they fought against the Hungarians reds, let alone coordinate with Romanian forces -- were declared as part of the Triple Entente forces does not make the Czechoslovak state whose armed formations fought against bolshevik Hungary in 1919 part of the Entente.Octavian8 (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Stop your POV, The Czechoslovak government existed before 1920 and they were part of the Entente powers.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You should stop yours... The Czechoslovak government existed before 1919 even, but it was not part of the Entente. Even by your debatable source, the Czechoslovak legions were considered by the British as part of the Triple Entente forces. The logic by which this amounts to a recognition of Czecoslovakia as part of the Entente looks more like speculation for the sake of argument. P.S. We should agree on commenting in just one place :-).
*Against: There are 2 separate conflicts (Hu-Ro, Hu-Cz). There was also a Ro-Cz (diplomatic) territorial dispute over Northern Maramures(SamiraJ (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

text: If a country had parallel conflicts with 4 other countries, then why do you think that one of these conflicts can be separated from the others and treated as if that country had no other struggles in that time? The separation of these conflicts would be clearly misleading... Koertefa (talk) 09:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

text: The military conflicts were separated because there was no coordination among bolshevik Hungary's enemies. Furthermore, when the Hungarians attacked the Czechoslovaks in summer 1919, there was no fighting on the Romanian front and conversely, later, when they attacked the Romanians, there was no fighting on the Czechoslovak front. The Hungarians never had to fight two enemies at the same time in the summer of 1919, but only one at a time. Romania and Czechoslovakia were no allies at that time. Now you can talk only about the economic-social burden on Hungary having to fight incessantly at that time, which is another matter. Octavian8 (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The question whether there were or were not cooperation between, for example, Romania and Czechoslovakia is only a detail that should be discussed in the article. Even if it was true, the economic-social-political burden of Hungary justifies that these conflicts should be treated in one article. Koertefa (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: This article should be deleted or renamed. The term "Allied intervention" is misleading. There was no alliance between Romania and Czechoslovakia. Romania Serbia and France could be considered allies, as members of the Entente. However, there was no French military intervention neither in the conflict between bolshevik Hungary and Romania nor in the conflict between bolshevik Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The Serbian military intervention in Hungary was at best insignificant. This can be seen also from the number of Hungarian troops facing the Serbian army compared against the number of troops fighting first the Czechoslovakians and then the Romanians... It should also be noted that the Hungarian reds never fought at the same time the Romanians and the Czechoslovakians and neither the Romanians nor the Czechoslovakians really helped each other during their conflict with bolshevik Hungary. At that time there was no alliance between Czechoslovakia and Romania neither on paper nor on the ground.Octavian8 (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: From my point of view, we should either have some integrating article about the conflicts of bolshevik Hungary (for example this one, but renamed to something like 'Conflicts of bolshevik Hungary' or some dedicated english term - if such a thing really exists), where to cross reference the Hungarian-Romanian war and the Hungarian-Czechoslovakian confrontation or we should simply include such references in the Hungarian Soviet Republic article (and completely delete this one).Octavian8 (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The title is proven by reliable sources.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

text: What is this supposed to mean? Do you want to say that this title is used in some other sources? Which sources are those? On what are they based? Was there any alliance treaty between Romania and Czechoslovakia in 1919? And finally they are reliable by what standards?Octavian8 (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please check the sources.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Check for what? I'm pretty sure I'll not find any alliance between Czechoslovakia and Romania in 1919. Octavian8 (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read this article about Entente allies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_I, and if you missed the Czechoslovaks, please read this as well.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

text: The book can't be accessed and Czechoslovakia was not part of the Entente. To say that the Entente intervened in Hungary only because Romania did so (at certain times against the will of the Allies) is absurd. France did not intervened militarily and I am not convinced that what Serbia did amounts to an intervention. Just compare the Serbian 'intervention' against the Romanian intervention...Octavian8 (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You did not read my link. Please read it. Czechs were part of the Entente.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the link was not accessible then. However I read the link you've posted below. See my answer there.
I oppose the deletion or the renaming of the article. The parallel conflicts of post WWI Hungary should not be separated. The Hungarian army not only fought against troops from Romania, but against troops from Czechoslovakia, as well, and Serbian forces also violated the demarcation line . The strong diplomatic involvement of France is very important, too . All of these issues are very strongly related, so treating them separately is not preferable, there should be a unified article about them. The article on the Hungarian-Romanian part of the war should be merged into this article, since treating it separately is misleading. Koertefa (talk) 09:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Be so nice as to read all the posts here and then respond. Fakirbakir and I invested quite some time in our discussion so I will not have it with you again. In short: there was no allied intervention in Hungary, but only a set of conflicts involving bolshevik Hungary.Octavian8 (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is only your opinion, and I did read the discussion and the cited sources. Koertefa (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

text: The same thing goes for merging the Hungarian-Romanian War of 1919 with this article. The Hungarian-Romanian conflict was only one of those involving bolshevik Hungary. I fail to see what is misleading in having an integrating article about the wars of bolshevik Hungary and separated articles detailing them. Didactically it is a lot better to have some structure rather than a mammoth article on everything. Furthermore, please discuss the merging in the appropriate thread. Octavian8 (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Why can't we use Hungarian Soviet Republic as an integrator? (SamiraJ (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this page is about Allied powers against Hungary.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And please do not question existence of Allied powers (Entente). Romania, Czechoslovaks, Serbia etc.....Fakirbakir (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure Serbia/Yugoslavia took part at this conflict? I can't find any other source except this... (19:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at, for example, the first map of the "1919 Hungarian–Romanian War" article... Koertefa (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Czechoslovakia was not part of the Entente. From the other named Entente powers, only Romania did fight against Hungary.Octavian8 (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: False reasoning. Please read that link: Czechoslovak legions were officially part of the Entente in 1918.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Stop your POV. It is obvious. The Czechoslovak government existed before 1920 and they were part of the Entente Powers.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You should stop yours... The Czechoslovak government existed before 1919 even, but it was not part of the Entente. Even by your debatable source, the Czechoslovak legions were considered by the British as part of the Triple Entente forces. The logic by which this amounts to a recognition of Czecoslovakia as part of the Entente looks more like speculation for the sake of argument.Octavian8 (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Oppose. This name would be clearly wrong, since the HSR was a very short lived state, it was only an episode of the post WWI  struggles of Hungary, but even the (Phase I of the) Hungarian-Romanian part of the conflicts started earlier than the HSR was established and, for example, there was no HSR any more when the Romanian troops withdrew in 1920. Moreover, we are not just talking about "military conflicts", for example, France was highly involved diplomatically. Koertefa (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Between the end of WWI and the period of the HSR, Hungary had no army. After the period of the HSR and until 1920 it was under foreign occupation. It is only in the period of the HSR when the conflicts turned to open warfare. Granted, the Phase I of the Hungarian-Romanian war starts before HSR, but only because for Romania WWI just continued into the Hungarian-Romanian war. However although the Romanian army advanced into Transylvania to support the unification wishes of the Romanian (and German) ethnics of Transylvania (together almost a two thirds majority of the inhabitants of Transylvania), there was little to no fighting at that time. Open warfare erupted only after HSR appeared. But how would you name that period? (please don't say the Allied intervention in Hungary, because as I've pointed out repeatedly in this Talk page there was no Alliance of any sort intervening in Hungary at that time).Octavian8 (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

text: It looks good, though it might be a bit too long for an article title. We may drop the part "and its neighbor states", to reach a more concise version. We may also want to include a time reference, e.g., (1918-1920), as you previously suggested. Koertefa (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy to see reason coming back here. I believe this is a good title and I support it. Now we can work on the article. Octavian8 (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad that you support the new name, I see it as a good sign. I fail to see, however, what did you mean by "reason coming back". The previous arguments were reasonable. The fact that previously there was a disagreement, but now we found a solution, does not mean that previously we were unreasonable. But let's work on the article. Koertefa (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete/Rename article

message: Please don't remove the article tag. If you feel offended by the deletion Tag, remember it is just a Tag to alert editors on this discussion. I would also sustain a renaming of the article to something like the 'Wars of bolshevik Hungary', together with a re write, to make this a sort of integrator for the Hungarian-Romania and Hungarian-Czechoslovak wars (each with stand-alone articles). Octavian8 (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why can't we use Hungarian Soviet Republic as an integrator? (SamiraJ (talk) 15:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this page is about Allied powers against Hungary.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And please do not question existence of Allied powers (Entente). Romania, Czechoslovaks, Serbia etc.....Fakirbakir (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure Serbia/Yugoslavia took part at this conflict? I can't find any other source except this... (19:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at, for example, the first map of the "1919 Hungarian–Romanian War" article... Koertefa (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Czechoslovakia was not part of the Entente. From the other named Entente powers, only Romania did fight against Hungary.Octavian8 (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: False reasoning. Please read that link: Czechoslovak legions were officially part of the Entente in 1918.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Stop your POV. It is obvious. The Czechoslovak government existed before 1920 and they were part of the Entente Powers.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You should stop yours... The Czechoslovak government existed before 1919 even, but it was not part of the Entente. Even by your debatable source, the Czechoslovak legions were considered by the British as part of the Triple Entente forces. The logic by which this amounts to a recognition of Czecoslovakia as part of the Entente looks more like speculation for the sake of argument.Octavian8 (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Tag

message: I would suggest to rename this article to "Military Conflicts of the Hungarian Soviet Republic" and rewrite it along this lines... which actually amounts to deleting this article and coming up with a new one.Octavian8 (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. This name would be clearly wrong, since the HSR was a very short lived state, it was only an episode of the post WWI  struggles of Hungary, but even the (Phase I of the) Hungarian-Romanian part of the conflicts started earlier than the HSR was established and, for example, there was no HSR any more when the Romanian troops withdrew in 1920. Moreover, we are not just talking about "military conflicts", for example, France was highly involved diplomatically. Koertefa (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Between the end of WWI and the period of the HSR, Hungary had no army. After the period of the HSR and until 1920 it was under foreign occupation. It is only in the period of the HSR when the conflicts turned to open warfare. Granted, the Phase I of the Hungarian-Romanian war starts before HSR, but only because for Romania WWI just continued into the Hungarian-Romanian war. However although the Romanian army advanced into Transylvania to support the unification wishes of the Romanian (and German) ethnics of Transylvania (together almost a two thirds majority of the inhabitants of Transylvania), there was little to no fighting at that time. Open warfare erupted only after HSR appeared. But how would you name that period? (please don't say the Allied intervention in Hungary, because as I've pointed out repeatedly in this Talk page there was no Alliance of any sort intervening in Hungary at that time).Octavian8 (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: New name

message: I will rename this article to "Military conflicts of the Hungarian Soviet Republic" if no objections are mentioned here within a week.Octavian8 (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks good, though it might be a bit too long for an article title. We may drop the part "and its neighbor states", to reach a more concise version. We may also want to include a time reference, e.g., (1918-1920), as you previously suggested. Koertefa (talk) 10:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am happy to see reason coming back here. I believe this is a good title and I support it. Now we can work on the article. Octavian8 (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad that you support the new name, I see it as a good sign. I fail to see, however, what did you mean by "reason coming back". The previous arguments were reasonable. The fact that previously there was a disagreement, but now we found a solution, does not mean that previously we were unreasonable. But let's work on the article. Koertefa (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving the article

message: I have no problem if you copy text and data from the article about the Hungarian-Romanian war of 1919, but while doing so have at least the decency to cite the corresponding sources. Octavian8 (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that copy and paste from another Wikipedia article without a link to that article, eg in the edit summary, is considered to be a copyright violation. I have seen at least one editor blocked for refusing to do this. Dougweller (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I saved my deleted editing from that page. It is not copyvio. Moreover I wrote this in the edit summary:"deleted statements from page of 1919 Hungarian-Romanian War".Fakirbakir (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I almost forgot, I did it two times, the first one was user Koertefa's deleted text from the same page (because User Octavian8 deliberately deleted those)and the second one was mine because of the same reason.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy/paste 

message: "All plans for an Allied intervention in Hungry came to naught, and Bela Kun's regime collapsed largely as a result of a unilateral action by Rumania."  This is actually used as citation to support the claim that there was an Allied intervention. Clearly POV pushing. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not deliberate. I did not read the source properly.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

text: What do you suggest? What would be the proper name of the page?Fakirbakir (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of sources 

message: I would be glad to contribute here, as long as this is done in an atmosphere of cooperation and consideration, the target being a balanced and neutral article. In my opinion, the way to edit an article is to discuss on the Talk page and if substantial edits are envisaged, new text propositions can be made on the personal page of one of the editors. Once we agree we edit the online version. Alternatively (that I don't support) everybody edits and reedits the online version, while taking into consideration as much as possible the edits of others, and explaining his edits on the Talk page. Even though I don't support the latter alternative, I could try to work this way, considering that this is not an established article, but rather something it is being written right now. Also, I would suggest to structure the talk page according to the sections of the article, to focus the discussion. Octavian8 (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have corrected some plain errors like the date of the HU attack in Czechoslovakia, the issue of what the Entente promised, the HU intentions and justifications for attacking over the Tisza river, the number of troops involved and casualties lists. I have also tried to bring some balance on the looting issue, according to the discussion on the talk page of the HU-RO war article. I hope this is OK for everybody. There is still a lot to be done here. Octavian8 (talk) 10:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working towards a new article