Talk:Hungarian–Czechoslovak War

Recent edits

Azure,

no, we cannot name any territorial encircling that would exactly cover where the military operations took place since it's impossible. Present-day Slovakia cannot be, because it's anachronism, did not exist then. As well the operations covered territories even outside of the territory of present-day Slovakia indeed, so it would be twice as more erroneous. Just because some article have present-X, is not binding, artcile are continously improved again anachronism (however, in brackets may be mentioned). Moreover, Slovakia did not exist officially since 1918, not even Czechoslovakia, which became internationally recognized with her new borders in 1920 (as well, inside the regions were established only in 1928, officially). Upper Hungary adequately covers the territory in an inclusive way.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC))

The region of Slovakia did exist. Not just in 1918, but even centuries before. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovakia#Etymology Using, "Upper Hungary" is wrong, since that term used to describe a region that shifted in size and borders much much more than Slovakia ever did. In the end, using the phrase "present Slovakia" is the best possible compromise, since it gives readers a better idea than something as nebulous and undefined as "Upper Hungary".Azure94 (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Not really as a region, but a term in a geo-cultural way, however, it has nothing to do with this discussion. Upper Hungary encompasses the events what meant then, so this is again not an appropriate argument, hence your conclusion I completely disagree, since present-day Slovakia is not just erroneus, but anachronistic.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC))

It's not erroneous, nor anachronistic. Slovakia was already an administrative division of Czechoslovakia at this time in history. Plus the fact that "Slovakia" was in use even centuries before. If anything, it's "Upper Hungary" that is too nebulous to define, due to how its borders constantly shifted. Azure94 (talk) 11:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Nope, Slovakia as a land region was established in 1928, the rest you have been already explained, until another editor did not reinforce your error as well, you just continued your POV pushing. Upper Hungary includes then what it meant all, and again, the events could not happen in present-day.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2021 (UTC))

Nope, Slovakia was outright mentioned in the Martin Declaration from 30th October 1918. On 10th December, Czechoslovakia created the "Ministry for the administration of Slovakia". Meanwhile, "Upper Hungary" ceased to exist the moment Austria-Hungary collapsed, and Vyx set the first borders. Stop pushing your irredentist POV. Azure94 (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, this is not about mentioning or ministries, the administrational situation was clear, it was about counties. Upper Hungary is a region, not a state, it has nothing to with the collapse of AH, btw. Vix did not set any borders, just demarcation lines. Sorry, I don't push any "irrendetist POV", apparently there are problems with your knowledge in the topic area.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC))

Excuse me, this is about Slovakia being a real term, used durign this war. Slovakia is a region, and an administrative division, recognized by the Czechoslovak government who even created ministries to it. Slovakia is thus much more real and concrete than "Upper Hungary". Refusing to admit this is irredentist POV by you. Azure94 (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You are totally mixing the things, present-day Slovakia did not exist back then, and the issue is not as you try to grasp it. The Czechoslovak goverment in fact recognized the Land of Slovakia in 1928, as and administrative region. Anyway the term did not have by any means solid boundaries, as well do not encompass the events then, while Upper Hungary does. As well, please drop baseless accusations.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC))

Displayed flag of Czechoslovakia is wrong.

Displayed flag of Czechoslovakia is wrong. Please correct it as per: https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Ceskoslovensk%C3%A1_vlajka

94.112.179.31 (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Infobox outcome

Even though I've edited the infobox to display the correct information, this article keeps getting changed without a reason given. Since I don't want to have a pointless edit war I'll list my grievances here. The problem is, the article argues that the actual Hungarian army collapsed in the front of a Czechoslovak counteroffensive. This is literally stated in the article:

The recapture of Zvolen meant a combat turnaround. The Czechoslovak Army took the initiative and attacked the Hungarians in two directions: Levice (Léva) and Lučenec (Losonc). Weekly battles exploded and all Hungarian advances were exhausted. The Hungarian Army Command agreed with the ceasefire and retreated to the demarcation line

As a result, it is completely unreasonable to write that the Hungarian army was victorious but retreated only after diplomatic pressure: this is not what *the article itself* states. As I wrote in one of my edit summaries (which was ignored): "Negotations with the Entente are unsourced and not mentioned in the article, although if the included sources and bibliography talk about this aspect, it should be actually added to the article rather than just casually thrown around like that." And also: "No, it wasn't a Hungarian victory, the article - and other articles - clearly argues how the Romanian successes enabled the Czechoslovak army to crush the Hungarians and push them back - nothing to do with diplomacy, which factored in later."

I think this situation ought to be resolved because it makes no sense for an outcome to be stubbornly changed to reflect the opposite of what the actual article talks about. --Dynamo128 (talk) 13:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

This article overall conflates the Northern Campaign (the Hungarian offensive in early June 1919) and the whole conflict, that started either with the collapse of AH (with only disorganised fighting) or when they started to intervene against the Soviets in late April. I think it's fair to say that the Northern Campaign itself was a Hungarian Victory. By the time the offensive was exhausted, Hungarians held much more territory. Even if you say that the widthrawal was militarily inevitable, the offensive still deprived Czechslovaks of their original war goals by re-capturing the Miskolc area. Even after the collapse of Soviet Hungary, the Czechslovak occupation area was smaller then what they held in mid-May 1919. But anyways, I think what happened after the June 23 ceasefire falls outside the scope of the campaign.

As for the war as a whole, it's a bit harder to say. If the war started in Nov 1918, it's undoubtably a Czechslovak victory, since Hungary lost Slovakia. If I just consider the anti-Soviet intervention though, it was overall inconclusive. The demarcation line of the 1st Vix Note, from which the Czechs started their operation in late April was almost the same as the final Trianon border. Neither side could achieve their objectives.

So in Summary - Northern Campaign (June 1919): (tactical) Hungarian Victory

Hungarian-Czechslovak War (April-June 1919): Inconclusive

Hungarian-Czechslovak War (Nov 1918-June 1919): Czechslovak Victory Vauia Rex (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds to me then, that the whole outcome section on the infobox should reflect this, just as many other pages have multiple victories over different periods (for example the Serbian Campaign). --Dynamo128 (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)