Talk:Bač Fortress

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bač Fortress. 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://web.archive.org/web/20120301192324/http://www.sekcijatvrdjava.org/en/fortresses/bac.html to http://www.sekcijatvrdjava.org/en/fortresses/bac.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

After 1918

Hi KIENGIR. What neutrality? The border set at the ceasefire in November 1918 was deemed temporary international border until the treaty is signed. Since the joint South Slav kingdom still wasn't formed at this time but a bit later, it was actually the border between the internationally recognized Kingdom of Serbia and the internationally unrecognized Hungarian republic(s). Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes itself was recognized internationally before the Trianon in 1920. So the lands which Hungary lost in 1918 were neither Hungarian nor in the twilight zone until the Trianon. Zagreb, Novi Sad, Cluj, Uzhorod or Bratislava were integrated into other states for over a year and a half by then and developed accordingly. Following the logic applied here, Szczecin and Wroclaw were part of Germany until 1990, cause only then the German-Polish border treaty was concluded.

As for the World War II, I can’t see any rationale for claiming that Bač remained occupied/annexed by Hungary until the end of war, 9 May 1945, when it was liberated by the forces of the state to which it belonged on 22 October 1944. Are you implying there is some sort of “occupation right” of the occupier, which extends from the liberation day to the last day of the conflict? Especially in this case, as Hungary itself flipped sides before the war ended. Occupation and annexation were unlawful and legally void anyway. PajaBG (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

PajaBG,

netrality means for instance that you address accurately the events, and not one sided. There was no international borders until all the respective parties did not sign the treaty, agreed and have been internationally recognized them. On the period, any international border was the former status quo, just demarcation lines were drawn. You cannot claim overall recognition for something that did not even have borders created, and yes concerning this the Treaty of Trianon made the recognition and setting the new borders (Hungary and some of her territory became subject of foreign occupation after 1918, but it did not mean then territories would not belong to her). Zagreb is has been part of Croatia,a separate country, it does not belong to this subject. The other cities were occupied and were subject of temporary, unrecognized or rapidly changing administrations, proclamations, either with military interventions, even breaching the Entente's rules of how to treat legal affairs and population in the occupied territories. (Btw. the internationally recognized and enacted transfer of lands to other countries was made in 26. July 1921)

On the other issue, until the end of the war does not mean in fact when the area was occupied by any forces, please understand that international affairs are not dependendent of such actions and do not redraw borders (btw. these issues was settled in the 1947 peace treaties). The territory was occupied and annexed, and became part of Hungary. I am not "implying" anything, I just neutrally describe the events, with claiming liberation you do that, since you take sides, especially in war conditions the liberation/occupation is a subject of POV, and you seem to forget that Yugoslavia broke up in 1941. Hungary did not flip sides, despite there was a self-proclaimed opposition which started to act on such behalf, but in fact legally nothing changed. Your statement about unlawful is again a subject to POV, since only one side considered like so, anyway such issues are arguable in war conditions, when traditionally the two sides not necessarily recognize anything, but we cannot disregard the facts. The "legally void" status became in force by signing the treaties again.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC))

It's been a while since I've seen so many flawed arguments grouped at one place. Hungary's occupation and annexation in 1941-44 had no overall recognition, to the contrary, except for the Axis powers, rest of the world continued to recognize Yugoslavia, and yet, we say it was occupied and annexed because that was the factual state. Just as it was a factual state that, one way of another, it belonged to Serbia/Yugoslavia from 1918. Yes, states can exist and be recognized even without all borders set or having just demarcation lines. Croatia settled its border with Slovenia just recently, and still hasn't done so with Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia, yet they are all recognized states. Border in Kashmir is a total mess, yet China, India and Pakistan are all fully recognized states. Like I said, German-Polish border was recognized by both states only in 1990 and that didn't make Poland unrecognized in the previous 45 years, nor Wroclaw was part of Germany and not of Poland in this period.

Bač was part of Yugoslavia, and when it was retaken from the occupiers by the Yugoslav forces (of any kind), it was liberated. Who cares about the neutrality feelings towards the occupier when it is defeated and expelled? I am suppose to honor occupiers point of view that when it loses a territory it occupied, it is neutral to take its stand into the account? What fricking POV are you talking about? Do you read what you write? Do you think about what you read? Yugoslavia didn't broke up in 1941, It was attacked, occupied and dismembered by the occupiers. It kept international recognition and as such signed Atlantic Charter and Declaration by United Nations. By the time Bač was liberated, joint royal-partisan agreement was already reached, by which the government in exile recognized partisan forces as part of the state army. Therefor, Yugoslav army liberated it after three years of occupation. Anyway, this is s short passage within the article which is simply to count things which are well known and accepted (after 1918, etc.) Yet, some weird, distorted view on things is presented, either yours personally, or usual in Hungarian historiography and its views. PajaBG (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

PajaBG,

there is not any flawed arguments on my side, on the contrary. I did not say about overall recognition, which Yugoslavia did not enjoy as well, the Allied Powers are not rest ofthe world, and hence you further argumentation of belonging is not neutral (and again, as said before, belonging change started by 1920, not 1918). As well do not conflate state recognition with border/belonging recognition, the same way full recognition with partial recognition (as well your later and modern examples does not influence the particular issues we are talking about).

The question of liberation is subject to POV/controvery, similary to anything what in fact the Soviets carried about much all over Europe. WP:NPOV is our principle here, which you should not ignore, such terms like occupier/liberator etc. at some terms may suggest taking sides, which we should not. You should indeed calm down a bit (and yes, I am perfectly aware what I have written). Yugoslavia broke up in 1941, as it was completely dismembered, and the situation had conflicting recognition (Atlantic charter was just an American/British statement, while the UN was only established after the war). Your last sentence, excuse me is quite a boomerang, it's not the case.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC))

I can only say that your arguments are nonsensical, and in some points, like the occupation/liberation issue, perverted. You are hanging on a thread by basically holding the side of the Axis powers with your upside down conclusions. Also you are clinging to a small part of the text which contains data known to everyone - this not an article on Serbian-Hungarian relations. Since you claim you are perfectly aware of what you write, I conclude that you are nitpickingly hiding behind the cloak of alleged neutrality. Think whatever you like, but don't mess with the article or I will report you. PajaBG (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

PajaBG, treating facts like nonsensical is really not professional, if you don't see e.g. the Soviets claimed liberation and after in fact occupied many countries, that is a problem, as well not understanding the term liberation is a point of view, shall anyone favor any side. No, I don't hold any side, I act per WP:NPOV, your accusations as said, in fact a boomerang one, I never cared e.g., your personal stance, it's irrelevant, I care about factual accuracy, which you don't really wish to care. I don't know why you claim "clinging" on "Serbian-Hungarian issues", since you again removed the Soviet part of the story which I really don't understand, and such allegations like "nitpickingly hiding behind the cloak of alleged neutrality" is excuse again a bad faith remark of yours, since I really demonstrated the things, why you just do accusations recently, it is really the wrong path. On your last remark, sorry I have to disagree, I did not mess the article, but made it more accurate (together with you at the current point), certainly better as it was, and we may improve it together, but unfortunately you don't act friendly, a threating with a report is just again a kind of rejection of WP:AGF.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC))

Role and acts of the Soviets in Yugoslavia and Hungary were different. The Soviets and the Partisans fought jointly, the Partisans were already recognized as the official state forces, and the Soviets basically just passed through Yugoslavia. Luckily. In Hungary, I am sure, things were different. In a nutshell - Hungary occupied part of Yugoslavia in 1941. Yugoslav and (Soviet) forces liberated it in 1944. Yes, liberated, suck it up. No room for philosophy there.

Your facts are not facts. You mingled sources to fit your projected view and, of course, mistakes became evident. You say: “In October 1944, the Banat and Bačka were captured by Soviet troops. After a few weeks, they withdrew and ceded full control of the region to the Partisans, who established a military administration in the Banat, Bačka and Baranja on 17 October 1944.” However, two forces crossed the Danube only on 19 October, while Bač itself was liberated on 22 October, so even by your chronology, and twisted view on things, it was 5 days AFTER Yugoslav military administration was established. Hence, there was no Soviet two-week capture of Bač. Who cares what happened in other areas, it has no merit in this case.

You messed the article cause you don’t know the subject you are writing about, but came with already prepared view which had to be fitted into the mold. There was a reason why the period after 1918 was just one or two short sentences – nothing specific regarding the fortress happened during the administrative changes. If something pops-up, it will be added. You improved nothing, just forced addition of non-related and wrong details. I was adding info just to refute your claims one by one (1918-21 vacuum, legal position of the Partisans, twisted comprehension of word liberation, etc.) cause you got everything wrong. Every single thing, but you stubbornly continued with adding not needed, biased and wrong data. “Good faith“ should be evident from the edit you make. You can’t make a quite obvious biased mess and then invoke good faith and whine about me not being friendly. And I am still wasting time on your nonsensical philosophy, which has nothing to do with the article at all. PajaBG (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

- Your 1st para: I won't reiterate what I have already told you I am sorry if you did not understand. On the other hand, try to remain in a civilized tone.

- 2nd: I see, so Macartney, Ther and Sungdhaussen made a mistake (because it was not my chronology), well it may happen

- 3rd: Apart from this, nope, I did not mess up anything, and just because I did not add anything specific in regarding with the fortress, it does not mean improving accuracy or amend other sentences would be a problem. I did not add any biased/wrong details regarding on the 1918-1921 period, and you could not refute anything on that, just demonstrated your hiatus of knowing the exact details. On the rest, which is a repetition of your mistaken belief and personalization - as well has a problematic tone - is even a lacking of WP:AAGF.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC))