Talk:Siege of Budapest

message: In 1945, the Soviets were pushing back the Germans on the Eastern Front, so I don't understand why the outcome would be considered a "German Failure," which is why I've changed that field on the table to "Soviet victory." Unless the Germans were trying to attack and drive back the Soviets from Budapest, I wouldn't see why else it would be called anything but a "Soviet victory." On the contrary, I would assume the Soviets had driven the Germans back from Budapest. Also, most of the information here is assumed, so somebody PLEASE check for accuracy. In addition, the original date of the battle said October 1945 to February 1945. Obviously, the war ended in May 1945, so I take it that October 1945 was supposed to mean October 1944. Ctifumdope 03:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems

message: I have come to this Battle from references in the novel "The Historian" by Elizabeth Kostova, and was struck by the scale of the battle, and the irony of the combatants and the outcome. The immediate outcome reflected in the novel (from a supposed perspective of 1954) was repeated mentions of the damage and ongoing re-building to the shattered city. I can now see why that would be so note-worthy to a visitor to Buda and Pest, given the length and severity of the battle.
The irony is of the Hungarian forces particpating in the destruction of their capital, trying to hold back an unstoppable tide of Soviet domination. I will follow up on this, and other aspects of recent Balkan history, but I can imagine there were many mixed feelings on the part of the Hungarian forces. 
They were fighting the anti-communist fight that the German Army couldn't understand that the Western Allies didn't want to convert too, after the defeat of the Nazi's as the war was drawing to a close in Europe. They lost their fight for freedom, which would appear from a Western perspective to be fought against the wrong enemy, but from their perspective they were already committed to the Axis, and anyway their "Ally" was the best chance they had of securing a peace that would preserve something of the country the Nationalists desired. 
As it turned out, they paid the price for their earlier choices, and for the dubious decision of Roosevelt's to consign Eastern Europe to the communist sphere. One of the very many complex, traumatic and heart-rending episodes in the tapestry of a Nation's History woven into the ebb and flow of History around the world.
david_morris@hotmail.co.uk 24 March 2006
:The Allies would have had to fight another war with the Soviets if they had tried to occupy eastern Europe.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.54.159 (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damage to Budapest and the irony of the Combatants 

message: I'm planning to rewrite this article quite completely (it's a stub anyway). Just plz leave me some time ^_^ grafikm_fr 18:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I finished rewriting the page... tell me what you think! ^_^ grafikm_fr 22:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm taking this one (EDIT: done!) 

message: I'm not sure if its currently mentioned in the article or not, but several Hungarian units switched sides during the Siege, especially in the later phases. -- nyenyec ☎ 17:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's introduce those changes. PLUS, why Romania was excluded from the table, as one of the combatants. I mean, guys were fighting there, right? --Jinxs 10:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hungarian units switching sides 

message: Re the constant revisions - I understand that some people might feel hurt that information about german rapes is not presented (to quote: Rollaround 'I do not see the same items on german victories but only on Soviet vicotories not one word can be found anywhere that the germans exterminated and raped soviets in any of the germn victory article). However, history is not democracy and does not yield to your whims. If it happened we have to put it. --Jinxs 12:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Jinxs. I think it's very important that this be included. My father and his family survived the Siege in the basement of their bombed-out apartment building. When the Soviet soldiers came to their place, my 17-year old aunt and the young cleaning lady (Jewish, incidentally) were made to hide between two mattresses, which were then piled with carpets and various other things. Young neighbor girls were not so lucky, and the family could hear the girls screaming as the drunken soldiers raped them. My father was very aware that this was happening constantly all over the city. Horrible times. --Yaocihuatl 06:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  constant revisions of the rapes section 

message: I personally do not agree with this. My view is that Hungary was still an independent country until Horthy lost his power on October 16, 1944. The country had a fully working parliament to that point. --Kurt Leyman 14:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Puppet" 

message: We need an article for the overall offensive of which Battle of Budapest was the high point. See ref for some background.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Budapest Offensive]]

message: "Re-supply became a decisive factor because of the loss of the Ferihegy airport just before the start of the siege, on 27 December 1944."
This quote appears in the 'Combat intensification' section, para 1. Is this the same airport as "Budapest Airport" that turns up elsewhere in the article? Because if it is not then it should be made clear in the text. 
RASAM (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The airport

message: The article states: "The extreme temperatures also affected German and Hungarian troops."—did it also not affect the Soviet troops? Were they better-equipped, or just more hardened to nature because they were "barbaric" and/or less "civilized"?Historian932 (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Better equipped and more hardened, since they came from a land where the temperature extremes were more common. It is not about barbarians and civilisation. (You implicitely call the Germans civilised. Both sides possessed high amount of "uncivilised" people, IMO.) --grin ✎ 08:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weather only affects Axis troops? 

message: An inexperienced anon tried to correct the part about "Soviet-Romanian victory" but failed to provide some explanation. He wrote me a few email and explained and provided sources. Unfortunately the article is written in a way that it concentrates only on German and Hungarian armies and very few data offred on the Soviets and Romanians.
Anyway. The source provides the following data (not direct quote, I am not paid for translation :)):
On the late night hours of 16th january Малиновский called Nicolae Sova lieutenant-general, the leader of the 7th Romanian and told him that the Romanians are not part of the siege any more , they are to be movd to North Hungary where they join the rest of the Romanian army. It was humiliating; since october 1944 the Romanians lost 23000 people, almost 60% of their manpower. At that moment they were in the middle of Pest and were expecting the final melee; Sova known well that the victory is just a few hours away. He realised that the point was to remove them from the winners. He complained and told Малиновский they have plans to advance and they know the terrain. Малиновский rejected and told him to leave the siege immediately. Nicolae Sova rejected.
According to captain Dascalescu Sova came back in the morning from Gödöllő to Pest and immediately commanded the attack, but the soviets already had a different command and did not intend to take part. It has been reported as well that the ammunition, fuel and food rations from the soviets they were expected to use were already distributed between the soviets and were not available. At 5:15 in the morning arrived the 66th soviet guards to replace the Romanians and they were out of options but to retreat from Pest. Sova even tried to get help from Bucarest but had to leave eventually.
:
Feel free to incorporate into the article somehow.  
Anyway, it is clear that despite their great losses and efforts the Romanian army was not taking part in the last battles and were not present at the victory, so it has been a Soviet only victory, and it seems to be intentional on the Soviet part. It is improper, however, to call it anything else what it has been. --grin ✎ 08:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. CaptainFugu (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

text: User:Irondome I don't understand you at all...When more than 1 belligerent gains victory, as in teaming up with someone, the victory is of both. This is not what a book needs to say, it's a generally known FACT! I never saw this before, 2 countries earning a victory but only the name of 1 being mentioned! How can you, as a fair person, accept this?! Also, don't trust Western-written books about Eastern Europe, they tend to intentionally let out stuff because "it's not relevant" and the "Who cares anyway?" mentality. Books can lie. The blood of thousands of Romanians that was spilled at Budapest in 1944, is not a lie.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.134.115 (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Allies_of_World_War_II#Soviet lists Romania post armistice (capitulation) as a Soviet client state. It does not list it as part of the Allies; therefore (in my understanding), if the "Soviet-Romanian victory" wording is to be included, WP:RS sources are needed that describe the aftermath of the battle in this way. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanian army and "victory" 

message: i removed a reference to the US army and Gen Patton. An editor added it back without a source or explanation.  unless there is a source mentioning Patton or the US, i suggest the editor self-revert. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Just pure vandalism. Entry claimed that Patton/Americans fought on the Axis side! --T*U (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  was Patton in the siege of Budapest? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Siege of Budapest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070127101545/http://www.rev.hu:80/html/hu/tanulmanyok/1945elott/bpostroma.htm to http://www.rev.hu/html/hu/tanulmanyok/1945elott/bpostroma.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Siege of Budapest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121221115318/http://www.victory.mil.ru/war/oper/15.html to http://www.victory.mil.ru/war/oper/15.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930201524/http://www.historynet.com/magazines/mhq/3033336.html to http://www.historynet.com/magazines/mhq/3033336.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section on the missions and deaths of Steinmetz and Ostapenko say unequivocally that the Germans killed them in cold blood.  The sources cited are all Soviet.  In The Siege of Budapest: 100 Days in World War II by Krisztián Ungváry, the author examines both incidents in detail and concludes that Steinmetz was probably killed unintentionally and that Ostapenko was either killed by Soviet artillery or Hungarian small arms.Ungváry, Krisztián. The Siege of Budapest: 100 Days in World War II. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2002.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.160.42 (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parley Delegates 

message: This madam was a Communist historian, then George Soros-funded university professor. She is by no means a reliable source worth quoting here. Mazarin07 (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrea Pető