Talk:Hungarian Soviet Republic

message: * Károlyi did not resign in favour of the communists. In fact, they conducted a coup d'état with the help of some Socialist Democrats. Károlyi wanted to appoint a clearly social democrat government, but some of the leading socialists meanwhile agreed to unite their party with the Communist Party - without informing the president about this. Károlyi appointed the government (21st March) and he was told  about the union only in the evening. The new government declared Károlyi's abdication without telling him about it... The president accepted the situation.
* Too bad, that the Red Terror is not mentioned... Poor peasants of the Hungarian countryside, who suffered the brutality of Szamuely Tibor's Lenin Boys and other paramilitary units.
--Mathae 09:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two remarks 

message: I'm definitely going to revert much of what has been changed recently. In the meantime, please be informed that there was no such thing in Hungary in March 1919 as a Bolshevik (or any other kind of) Revolution. Sources please (non-Communist ones). KissL 15:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Arthur Koestler's autobiography. He was anti-Communist at the time he wrote it.--MacRusgail 18:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is with the term Revolution. It was a simple coup d'état without crowds in the street.--Mathae 20:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolshevik Revolution - you bet 

message: Any statement that accuses Romania of any damage done to any country has to be substantiated by evidence. These are inter-state matters, so they are widely known. I can provide you link to the text of Treaty of Triannon that recognises the sovereignty of Romania over Transylvania and Hungary as an aggressor state in the WW 1. so anyone intending on designing a formulation like "Romania attacked Hungary, ROmania external threat to Hungary, Romanians eliminated party in Hungary, Romanians occupied Budapest" should first provide evidence for a legal decision(meaning that it is recognised today as legal, eg. Vienna Diktat recognised Hungary's sovereignty over N Transylvania, but since 1947 it is void/not legal) stating that Romania attacked Hungary in 1919 or Romanian army occupied Budapest as an aggressor state. If you want to state Romanian army occupied Budapest then it has to be mentained that it did so as a defending state and under mandate of the Entente. I have nothing against stating "Hungary faced external threats" but if it is suggested that ROmania was an external threat to Hungary, than provide evidence that Romania acted as an aggressor against Hungary, the only way it can be acceptable in an encyclopedia (IMO). otherwise the statement would be just a personal opinnion, source for unending revert wars -- Criztu 18:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provocative article unsubstantiated accusations towards Romania, unacceptable 

message: *"At the same time, the Romanians attacked from the South-East" - this is grave accusation against Romania. until you'll prove that Romania was the aggressor in the war of 1919 such sentence will be reomoved by me. -- Criztu 08:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This sentence doesn't say that Romania was the agressor (which is otherwise, talking about the area of post-Trianon Hungary, f***ing true). definitions of "attack" Therefore your removal is not justified. KissL 08:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: if there is no mention that Hungary attacked ROmania and that Hungary was the aggressor, then "Romania attacked Hungary from the south-east" induces the ideea that Romania was the aggressor state. unless specified that Hungary was the aggressor in the 1919 war with ROmania, i will specify it time and again "Hungarian offensive was repulsed by ROmanian counteroffensive" -- Criztu 08:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you formulate it in a way which shows that the Hungarian "offensive" was a feeble attempt (lasting at most a few days) at taking back lands which today belong to Hungary – a very little east of the Tisza – and in retaliation to help Hungary get rid of the Communists (or was it to keep order?;o))) lol) the Romanian troops occupied entered happened to wander into over half of present-day Hungary, then you may be correct, though overly sensitive. If, however, you formulate it in a way which suggests a persistent Hungarian agression against the Romanian army, which there was not, you are putting an outright lie into the article. This was meanwhile your 4th revert in the last 24 hours. Have you ever heard about WP:3RR? KissL 08:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: i read the following: Hungarian offensive in Transylvania begun on 15/16 april 1919. Romanian counteroffensive reached Tisza on 1st of may 1919. On 20 july hungarian offensive trying to break the romanian lines on Tisa. 25 july romanian counterofensive reaches Budapest 4 august. -- Criztu 12:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: asking with bold : who was considered the aggressor in the war between HU and RO in 1919 ? -- Criztu 12:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I never heard of any Hungarian offensive 15/16 April 1919, I'm waiting for your sources. But if there was one, it couldn't be in Transylvania, because the Romanian army already held a position west of Transylvania on 20 March, when there was no Soviet Hungary yet. KissL 13:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: you never heard of any Hungarian offensive 15/16 april 1919 ? I never heard of any attack of Romania against Hungary in 1919. so what shall we do, remove the current formulation "ROmania attacked Hungary in 1919" until i will hear of such thing or until you provide primary sources attesting Romania attacked Hungary in 1919 ? -- Criztu 20:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: If we consider the text of the Treaty of Trianon, of course it called Hungary an agressor. If, however, we consider who attacked who, it is as plain as plain that Romania attacked Hungary, and not vice versa. KissL 13:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: so according to the Treaties which are now in power, Hungary was considered the aggressor of Romania. Don't bother to convince me of the opposite, your opinnion is equal to my opinnion, your opinnion is "RO attacked HU", my opinnion is "HU attacked RO". fighting over our personal opinnions is not leading anywhere -- Criztu 20:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By that logic, should the article on World War One place all responsibility on Germany, because the Treaty of Versailles says so? Right now, this article is neutral and merely states the facts - without assigning any blame. Why do you have a problem with that? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 11:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: As a Romanian firmly opposed to absurd nationalist revisionism, let me re-affirm the point that has already been demonstrated with proper sources: Romania was the aggressor. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Romanians attacked from the South-East 

message: *"In addition, Soviet Hungary faced external threats. [...] the Romanians attacked from the South-East " - this is countrary to the consequent Treaty of Trianon that stated Hungary was the aggressor in the war with Romania. until the Treaty of Trianon will be declaired illegal, Romania cant be designated as a threat and aggressor of Hungary in 1919. i'll have to revert until you realise the immensity of such affirmations (Romania threatened Hungary, Romania attacked Hungary). -- Criztu 13:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Criztu, the truth of these statements and the biased nature of treaties have been explained in detail, thus your arguments for reverting have already been refuted. If you continue to revert the article without even trying to raise a single valid point in explanation, you confirm that you have no reason to do so other than your POV (which you are entitled to, provided you don't want to force it into the article). KissL 13:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: hehe, prepare to revert until the Treaty of Trianon which designated Bolshevik Hungary the aggressor in the war with Kgdom of Romania and Czechoslovakia in 1919 will cease to be legal. -- Criztu 15:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  unacceptable 

message: Thanks to Mihnea, the article is getting better and better. I think we'll be able to achieve an agreement, and finish the debates.--Mathae 12:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. :) I hope to achieve consensus very soon. I've made a few edits to the text you recently added; I'll also try to add a sentence or two about what happened after August 6. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signs of constensus 

message: Are you kidding? The "Birth of the Soviet Republic"? "Re-born Hungary"? This article reads like a law of the Supreme Soviet. The adjective "hostile" is used throughout the article for things and nations that Hungary was hostile towards. It makes Hungary seem to be a poor defenceless sheep being led to slaughter by her West Imperialist neighbours (I never thought I'd see Romania described in such an evil-capitalist light). The Foreign Policy section is also really confusing, it doesn't even state that CS and Hungary were at war, merely details Hungary's glorious conquest of "significant parts of Czechoslovakia" (this made me laugh, this article should be migrated :) ). As for the "worldwide workers' revolution"... Later, even the slightly more neutral section on Downfall talks about the baby-eating Czechoslovak forces occupying poor Soviet Slovakia, and then it talks about a Romanian backstabbing of defenceless Hungary and the "Romanian occupation zone". Wrong article, mate. I am not after demonising Hungary, merely some neutrality. +Hexagon1 (t) 06:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, I see there's been some trouble in the past regarding this. So, for now I have reinstated the POV tag independently of any previous disputes because when I got here I found the article a little lacking in NPOV. So, leave the old disputes and start arguing afresh. :) +Hexagon1 (t) 06:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I've slightly rewritten the article so it presents something closer to reality but we could use a (neutral) expert in the matter for the factual details. Thoughs/ideas? +Hexagon1 (t) 07:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right it was definitely POV, and your edits were improvements. I think it's a pretty controversial topic, what with Red Terror and White Terror, Trianon, Romania vs. Hungary, etc. What the article needs is proper referencing, and neutral language. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Is there a History noticeboard or something of the sort? I think we might also need some help from someone more familiar with the topic, too often in POV writing some facts are obscured to make way for others, and there are still some confused sections in the article. I've tried looking up and reading about this on the Internet but most of the material is either in books, Wiki mirrors or these kinds of websites, which address you as a "Dear comrade". +Hexagon1 (t) 23:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: PS: Hello, what's this? It seems to be the source for much of the article's info yet contains some interesting facts that were.. omitted from the article's POV version. :) I've rewritten the article slightly with the Library of Congress source. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV dispute 

message: Hey guys, I see you are very up for disputes, mostly on ideological (white and red) stances than fact. Maybe you should just use more sources than personal opinions. Here I just want to provide you a free on-line library, where several good sources can be find to improve this article: http://www.hungarian-history.hu. It's in English, and it would be a good idea to replace the references aviable only in Hungarian (how many people can actually read it?!) or not online with equivalents, for example from here. Finally, please replace the "see sources of red terror" with appropriate, in-line, precise references, because it is not really transparent as it is. Good work.Desyman44 (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, if you check the dates, you'll see that you're responding to a debate that ended a year ago. Second, you are right that sources are important, but a brief look around the site you posted revealed only highly nationalist views of Hungarian history. The site offers little or no information about who is running it, nor do the documents listed have any kind of publishing info (for instance, when they were written). Hardly suitable sources for an unbiased article. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources, what a good idea...

message: The members of early communist party in 1919 were multiethnic. It is important in the article, without this the reader can't understand their motivations. When the first communist party formed in the multi-ethnic Budapest, they refused to use the name "Hungarin Communist party", due to the fact: the vast majority (80%) of the party didn't considered themselves as Hungarians. They used the name: "Kommunisták Magyarországi Pártja" (Party of Communist >>>FROM<<< Hungary)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.6.251 (talk) 11:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The foreign majority of the communist party

message: The symbol / coat of arms of the Hungarian Republic of Councils (HRC) was the red star, without the hammer and sickle. Take a look at, for example, the contemporary posters of the HRC: . Several of them feature red stars, but none shows the hammer and sickle inside the red star. Koertefa (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Star vs Red Star with Hammer and Sickle 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hungarian Soviet Republic. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070530055207/http://www.mediawave.hu:80/mediawave/konf/1999/2001_BUN_ES_BUNHODES_FAZEKAS.html to http://www.mediawave.hu/mediawave/konf/1999/2001_BUN_ES_BUNHODES_FAZEKAS.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Battle of Vámospércs. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 5#Battle of Vámospércs until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Battle of Vámospércs" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: There's an ongoing 'revision war' on the article. On 24 January I undid revisions by 199.119.233.162 on 22 January 2022 claiming that the Hungarian Soviet Republic lasted to 1947, introducing Russian as a common language, Soviet as demonym and Soviet Ruble as currency. Later the same day the claim were repeated by 199.7.157.65. Rather than just undoing it again, I leave it to you registered users. The short lived socialist republic were succeeded by the short lived Hungarian Republic (1919–1920), in turn succeeded by the Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946), the Second Hungarian Republic (1946–1949) and the Hungarian People's Republic. 37.200.47.25 (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  1919 vs 1947 'revision war' 

message: Page should be protected. There is constant vandalism. Tankpiggy18 (talk) 00:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection request 

message: So @Charles Essie what are you talking about when you say this? There's literally nothing anywhere to indicate the flag was anything but a normal socialist red flag NorthTension (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to the the name of the file. Charles Essie (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah so why did you feel the need to return it to all the pages? NorthTension (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the title says otherwise"