Talk:Hungarian–Romanian War of 1919

Editing the article

Untitled

The principle behind Wikipedia is to contribute knowledge to all of us. Therefore, adding new insight is welcomed and by way of consequence so is editing the article in this respect. However, to get valuable edits may sometimes be quite difficult.

This Talk page is thought to exchange information and agree upon changes to the article such that only valuable edits really make it in the online version. The Talk page is structured to mirror the sections of the article such that it is as easy as possible to see if changing the online version really matters.

Below is a set of rules that I believe make sense for everybody who desires to contribute to this article. Please abide to them. I will revert any changes that do not follow these rules and I would like to ask all responsible editors of this article to do the same; although I will check regularly on this article, I can't be on the net 24/7. I hope we can all enjoy our hobby here :-). Best regards.Octavian8 (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Rules for editing the article

To ensure a civilized and focused discussion that will contribute the article, I would like to add here a few rules:

1). Remain calm.

2). Keep a civilized tone.

3). Do NOT modify the article before reaching agreement among all editors here.

4). Try to have your modifications sustained by references.

5). Wait for at least one week after reaching agreement among several editors, before changing the on-line article (so as to give the others time to respond).

6). Read this Talk page before you start a new topic or make new edits to check if what you intent to do has not already been discussed.

Pleas feel free to add other sensible rules.Octavian8 (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Result of the war

A war can end in victory or defeat. The end of the war cannot be decisive, as it represents the outcome of the war. A battle can end with a decisive victory in which case it decides the outcome of a war. The result of the Hungarian-Romanian war is a Romanian victory. One could say, for example, that the battle of the Tisza river was a decisive Romanian victory. Octavian8 (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Belligerents

The article covers in detail the fighting between the Romanians and the Hungarians. Additional conflicts like those in Bessarabia and Upper Hungary are mentioned only to the extent they've influenced the course of the main conflict (i.e., here between Romanians and Hungarians). We should write separate articles on those topics and cross reference them. Therefore, I will leave on the belligerents list only Hungary/Soviet Hungary and Romania.Octavian8 (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

France

I am aware that France had a group of advisors in the Romanian army and they supplied some equipment, however, to my knowledge there were no French troops fighting against the Hungarians, hence France is not a belligerent. If anyone has referenced insight into this it would be a very welcomed addition. Until then I will delete France from the list of belligerents.Octavian8 (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Third belligerent

I have added the Hungarian counter-revolutionary government as a third belligerent, since they were also involved, with Miklos Horthy as war minister. However, I kind of hesitated as to which article would aptly describe it. So far, there is no specific article dedicated to the counter-revolutionary government of 1919 (nor is there one about the Bela Miklos government of 1944-1945, BTW) : so I thought that the generic Kingdom of Hungary article could be used. The Horthy regency had not been established at that time, so I think the "Kingdom" is fine enough for now, since they classified as "royal" troops. If anyone has a better idea, I'm open to all suggestions. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge the counter-revolutionary government had no troops fighting against the Reds. They were supplied with arms by the Romanians. This hardly makes them a belligerent. If you have other informations than me, please share them, preferably with references.Octavian8 (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Soviet Slovakia

Again there nothing in the article about Slovakian reds fighting alongside the Hungarians. If anyone has information about this please mention it here first and we can think of a way of introducing it as well. Until then Soviet Slovakia is no belligerent. Also please let me mention this again: this article is about the Hungarian-Romanian war not about the Hungarian revolutionary wars. Additional conflicts like that with Czechoslovakia are mentioned only if they in some way influenced the Hungarian-Romanian war.Octavian8 (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Strength

The manpower of the two belligerents varied strongly during the duration of the war. For example in the war's second phase the Hungarian army mustered some 80000 soldiers, while in the third phase it had some 55000 prepared for the attack. The same could be said for the Romanian army that had some 50000 soldiers in the second phase, 62000 soldiers at the beginning of the third phase, and peaked by 96000 before crossing the Tisza. The two sides had even less soldiers at the beginning of the conflict. So it is difficult to give some numbers for the entire war - and the infobox refers to the entire war.

In the end, I believe it is fair to say that the two armies were comparable in strength, considering numbers, weapons, esprit de corps, availability of communication lines, fortifications, etc. This is what the strength entry in the infobox should reflect in just a few numbers. Approximating the mean number of available soldiers during the entire war, one comes to numbers in an interval around 60000. This is what should stay in the infobox, if we decide to leave this entry at all.

We can discuss here if you want, if the advantage in share numbers the Romanian army enjoyed in the end phase of the war was or was not compensated by the superior firepower of the Hungarian army - considering the largest caliber of the guns in their artillery. But for now, I will just put in the ~65000 number for both belligerents, which is as good a number as any ranging from 55000 to 65000. Or we could even reduce this to 60000 to abide by the number given in the Abstract. Octavian8 (talk)

The infobox should reflect the total number of solders who took part in the war. Since, the article claims that in the third phase of the war the size of the Romanian army was 96.000, then the infobox should contain (at least) this number as the strength of the Romanian army. If there are sources which claim that at some point the Hungarian army had 80.000 soldiers fighting against Romanian troops, then this should be given in the infobox. By the way: where do these numbers come from? Some reliable sources should be found for these statements, so for now I add the "citation needed" superscript to the numbers. Koertefa (talk) 08:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian losses

Does anybody have an overview of the Hungarian losses in this war, to add this info in the infobox at the beginning of the article. I found nothing until now. Octavian8 (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Prelude

Transylvania or Romanian Transylvanians

I've modified the introduction section as Romanians who have declared independence of Transylvania neither represented any official authority nor had any legal basis to do so in the name of whole Transylvania, and the National Assembly was not representative, as other ethnic groups (Hungarians, Germans, Jews, etc.) were not represented. Thus, it seems more fair to me for the sentence to be phrased like this. Everyonesequal (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

We have discussed - over the time since I've first put the article online - countless times about this introductory phrase. The compromise we've reached is very good and I don't think it should be changed. The phrase and the links within cover all POVs and offer the interested reader a well balanced introduction. Who voted for what is covered in detail in the article about the union of Transsylvania with Romania, which is linked in our introductory phrase. As for the legal basis it is included in Wilson's 14 points and is sealed by the capitulation of the Central Powers in WWI - I believe there is a reference to Wilson in the named article as well. If you have new insight pertaining this subject, pls. edit that article. Before changing this introductory phrase again, pls. consult this talk page and the history of the article.Octavian8 (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The Germans did actually agreed to the union with Romania, I don't know about the Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.137.105.45 (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone recently pointed me this article on the topic I studied. The Prelude clearly shows a POV, which needs to be corrected, if the article wants to be neutral and (fairly) balanced. As others have already highlighted, the Romanian-Hungarian conflict started at the moment when Romanian troops crossed the Eastern Carpathians in mid-November 1918. Therefore, breaking up the 1918/1919 Campaign into several pieces and presenting the 1919 events as a separate war (instead as an episode or a battle) is incorrect and historically unjustifiable. That's why the title should be changed to: The Hungarian–Romanian War of 1918/1919. The April 1919 Campaign, or similar. Also, Transylvania did not proclaim union with Rumania (it's nonesense, as there was no Government of Transylvania, or such, to proclaim something in the name of all Transylvanians). Instead, representatives of Transylvanian Rumanians did so. And so on. I will edit the Prelude to reflect these basic facts. Further edits to follow later on. Roman69 (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC))

I hope you find the article interesting and contribute in a constructive way to making it better. We have spent a great deal of time making it as unbalanced as possible and I believe we have succeeded (at least the fact that there were no more edits for something like more than an year shows it). If you intend to change anything pleas first discuss your intentions here and if agreed upon we will change the article, otherwise I will revert any changes.

To your previous post, I don't follow your logic. The article is named with reference to 1919 as then is when most fighting took place. The subdivision into phases and the text makes otherwise clear that the conflict started in 1918 as part of WWI and ended in 1920 when the Romanian Army left Hungary. Also, Hungary did not officially existed until a few days after the Romanian Army crossed the border. Furthermore, I don't understand what "April Campaign" are you referring to, the article covers the fighting in summer as well.

With respect to who declared union to what this is clear from the links and from an additional phrase (to which I have commented below - see Phase I). I would also want to point out that this is not the topic of the article. If you want to add something to who declared union to what please edit those articles that cover these topics. Regards.Octavian8 (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the editors (Everyonesequal, Roman69) who previously highlighted that it is misleading (and POV) to state that Transylvania proclaimed its union with Romania on December 1, 1918. A more neutral and balanced sentence is needed, like the ones that were already suggested. A more factual statement would be, for example, "representatives of Romanians from Transylvania proclaimed union with the Kingdom of Romania ...". Koertefa (talk) 06:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Purpose and form (from Redundant edits)

In the section 'Prelude', there is a link to the article Romania in WWI, therefore I fail to see how a recap of the beginning of the Romanian involvement in WWI ads something to this article. Also, within the article there is detailed data about the strength of the Hungarian Red Army troops facing the Romanians, to say that was a small fighting force is misleading, even if it may be true for the first weeks after the reds took power.

"On August 27, 1916, Romania declared war on Austria-Hungary. Confident of victory, Romanian troops crossed into Transylvania. Their campaign stalled, however, and German and Austro-Hungarian forces counterattacked, drove the Romanian army and thousands of refugees back over the Carpathian passes, deep into Romania and conquered the south of the country (Wallachia) by the end of 1916 and in December occupied Bucharest." Readded.

"In 1918, after the communists took power in Russia and signed a separate peace in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Central Powers, Romania was left alone on the Entente's Eastern Front, a task that surpassed its possibilities by far. Therefore, it sued for peace, and reached an understanding with the Central Powers in May 1918 in the Treaty of Bucharest. Alexandru Marghiloman, signed the Treaty of Bucharest with the Central Powers on May 7, 1918. However, this treaty was never signed by King Ferdinand, and on 10 November 1918, taking advantage of the precarious situation of the Central Powers, Romania reentered the war on the side of the Entente with the same objectives as in 1916. King Ferdinand called for the mobilization of the Romanian army and ordered it to attack over the Carpathian mountains into Transylvania." If there is a link to the article Romania in WWIIs, why is this mentioned? Do we nedd this here? Yes, like the text what you removed. Baxter9 (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the Prelude is to give a snapshot of the situation in Romania and Hungary in 1918. The events you describe, that took place in the begining of the Romanian involvement in WWI, are per se not related to that. They are also incomplete, as you forget to mention the Bulgarians attacking Romania from the South and forcing the Romanians to take troops from the Transylvanian front to deal with them. To make the link to 1918, you would have then to mention also the later Romanian victories in Marasti, Marasesti and Oituz as well as the tensed realtions with the russian allies. Than to be consistent you would have to also make a short description of the events involving Austria-Hungary in WWI... This is NOT the place for such things. I'll revert this edit. Octavian8 (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

How the war started - who did the Romanians fight

I am puzzled to see how simple and well documented facts could create such difficulties. The 1919 war was between HSR (i.e., Hungarian Soviet Republic) and Romania and was started, by the attack of the communist Hungarian army in 1919. Yes, the Romanian armies were in Transylvania from 1918 but, again, Hungary was a defeated country and, by signing the armistice, had to accept the victors’ decisions. The advance of the Romanian army in Transylvania was part these decisions and the Karolyi government complied with it. Only after Bela Kun and the communist party formed the HSR (to be noted that there was an other "white" Hungarian government at that time) the new organised Hungarian communist army began the conflict that is now called the "Hungarian-Romanian War".Tziganul (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the article? The conflict had three phases and the fighting in the last two was done against HSR, this is clearly stated. I don't quite understand what do you mean with 'How the war started?' De jure Romania didn't even recognized the Kun government, therefore it could not declare war against a state they did not recognized. De facto, armed confrontation started as early as November 1918, when Romania reentered WWI. In the beginning (i.e. Phase I) the Romanian army advanced to the demarcation line that was a direct consequence of the armistice. Later advances however, in Phase II, were in agreement not with the armistice, but with the promises made by the Entente to Romania in 1916. Starting then (i.e. Phase II), the Hungarian armed opposition to the Romanian troops was organized by the reds after departure of the Karoli government. In the beginning of the section Phase I ther is alink to the wiki article about the union of Romania with Transylvania. There is its proper place and is pointless to mention it in the introduction. I fail to see what's unclear here, so i'll remove the tags again and i will reinstate the initial text in the introduction.

Octavian8 (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course I read the article. BTW, it is interesting to see that it has three phases, starting in 1918. The so called "Phase 1" should be actually called something like "Prelude". You have to know that there was no military confrontation between Hungary and Romania when the Romanian army crossed the Carpathian. The minor skirmishes involving irregular Hungarians cannot be considered as start of hostilities. That's a basic misunderstanding that comes from this article. The advances the Romanian army in Transylvania were acknowledged by the Hungarian government (Kiraly) and they were not considered casus beli under any circumstance. Actually, doing so it would have violated the armistice deal, and they didn’t do it. At least until Bela Kun took the power. Then the situation changed but at that time there were already TWO Hungarian governments.

BTW, the fact that Romania did not recognize the communist government has no significance, because, Romanian army was attacked they had to respond.

The fact that you disagree and don't see the significance it is sad but that should only be a reason to discuss the matter further. Please don't change the article until we don't came to a conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tziganul (talk • contribs) 20:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

First: I regret to see that the article I've written does not please you, but I will not change its structure as your arguments do not convince me. The Prelude deals with the situation in Romania in Hungary prior to the conflict and it makes sense to do it like this.

Second: I did not changed the article, but you did, so don't change it again before we settle the matter here. If you continue doing this you'll force me to ask to make it semi-protected at least.

Third: In Phase I Romania crossed its to date internationally recognized border, that's a hostile act and it's the first step towards the latter confrontations in Phases II and III. Thus, the article is neutral in that it just state facts and complete in that it gives you reason for what happens, and that's the way it should be. It draws no conclusions as you did above, it just state the facts as they were and is a fact that in November 1918, Romania send it troops over the Carpathians.

Fourth: There is no discussion here about the armistice between the Entente and Hungary as this is not the place for such things. There is just a hint to the consequences of this act for the course of events that interests us.

Last: I'll change in the Intro to its very first formulation, I hope that is satisfactory for everybody, but DO NOT TAG THE ARTICLE AGAIN before we all agree on the tags. Octavian8 (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am amazed how these simple facts can be interpreted. But let's take it slowly:

1. The article probably was started by Octavian8 but now it is in the public domain. Hence it is not his any more, or not in the sense that it is his propriety, anyway we all have responsibility of the information and quality of the articles we contribute.

2. I expect that every Wikipedia contributor has to abide to reasonable standards of accuracy and honesty.

3. Romania was at war in with Austro-Hungary empire and not with Hungary (1916-1918). The empire disintegrated in 1918 and Hungary signed the armistice as successor of the former Austro-Hungary. However, the new Hungarian state borders were not, yet, recognised by the victors. The advance of the Romanian army in Transilvania was not a casus belli, in the sense that it could not have been interpreted, in any way, as a break of the armistice. The Romanian army movements were sanctioned by the Entente powers, notified to Karolyi that accepted them. I have provided the following documents to clarify the matter further.

• It is interesting to read the Horty's account of the events (Admiral Miklos Horty: Memoirs). He clearly states that: "The first to march into our country were the Czechs. In December, the Hungarian Government was informed by the military representatives of the Allies in Budapest that the claims of Masaryk(10) on Pozsony, the Slovak region, Kassa and Upper Hungary had been allowed. Simultaneously, the Rumanian minority of Transylvania declared their allegiance to Rumania, and Rumanian troops occupied the country as far as Kolozsvár(11), which was formally annexed to Rumania on December 27th. On the strength of the Belgrade Convention which Károlyi had signed, the Serbs entered the Banat and the Bácska, while Croatia joined the newly created Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The Károlyi Government(12) supinely watched this vivisection of their country. They even forbade the troops to oppose the Rumanian advance. "
• Also, C. A. Macartney explains in his book Hungary: A Short History:"...a meeting of the Roumanians of Transylvania declared for union with the Regat, and a meeting of Slovaks, for union with the Czechs. The demarcation line drawn by Franchet d'Espérey allowed Serb and Roumanian troops to occupy all south and east Hungary, and immediately thereafter, Czech forces entered northern Hungary and occupied it up to a line which, in most of its extent, corresponded to the full claims of the Czecho-Slovak provisional government. The de facto dismemberment of Hungary was already near-complete, and was brought nearer in the next weeks, as the Roumanian troops edged their way westward."
  
• The Romanian historiography agrees in this point with Horty :): the Romanians were not at war with Hungary in the winter 1918-1919. The war was started by the reds attacks in 1919, only. To give you just one point to start your study, please read the article "Spicuiri din razboiul Romaniei cu Ungaria din anul 1919 (unfortunately in Romanian only; you have the link given in article, too))."
  

It is quite clear from the above that there was NO WAR BETWEEN Romania AND Hungary while Karolyi government lasted.

4. In 1919 Romania was at war against the Hungarian Soviet Republic, but at that time there was another competing, counter-revolutionary, Hungarian state. I hope that everybody sees the nuance here.

5. I consider the Octavian8's interpretations as a quite big distortion of the historical facts relative to the above detailed aspects.

Taking in consideration all of these arguments, listed above I am going to tag the article, and to restore the previous contentTziganul (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear tziganul, please spare me the formless rethoric. In the formulation I gave to the intro, it is said that the initial skirmishes evolved in a full fledged war when the Hungarian Soviet Republic appeared. This describes pretty well the entire article as it is, and not only phase III as the introduction you so stubbornly sustian does. If you want to start an article about only Phase III of the conflict, be my guest, it would be nice if you would link it here afterwards. Now about the tags, if you want to tag the article, first explain your problems in the Tags section of the discussion page and then tag it. This is the minimal -- and in my opinion obligatory -- courtesy that you can bring your fellow Wikipedians concerned about this article.Octavian8 (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Octavian8, you are still quite not fond of the historic facts. Not taking in consideration your offensive language ("please spare me the formless rethoric") that does not honour a wikipedian, you are still quite far from the historic facts as they are proved by the documents:

• "Romania crossed its to date internationally recognized border, that's a hostile act": at that time Hungary's borders were not recognized internationally. Hungary, part of former Austro-Hungary had to accept the Entente conditions.
• The Hungarian-Romanian war of 1919 started[1] settled the western border of Greater Romania: That's false! Romania's borders were settled at Trianon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tziganul (talk • contribs) 09:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel offended, it was by no means my intention to offend you, but look here: "Romania crossed ITS to date internationally recognized border" if any state at any time crosses ITS to date internationally recognized border with the army, without invitation this IS a hostile act, if you don't understand this you are not quite found of logic -- no offence meant.

It is true that the borders of Greater Romania were de jure established at Trianon but de facto, the Romanians controlled at that time the territories they would get. So, I'll add de facto to the text, is this OK?Octavian8 (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

But you failed to mention the Union of Transylvania with Romania. Without it, Romanian army would have never entered Transylavania. Dc76\^talk 18:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the intro as it is right now. However, it is pure speculation if Romania would or wouldn't have entered Transylvania without the union, in the end, they did enter it in 1916.Octavian8 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, that is the couse for Romania entering WWI. This time however, the troops came after they received official invitation. Dc76\^talk 22:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I also think it should be ok to add a few words that right after the war, in July 1920, the Romanian-Hunagrian border was established by the treaty of Trianon. Dc76\^talk 02:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As about the border, it is very close to the border given in the United States of Greater Austria project. IMO, if Romanian Army wouldn't have entered Transylvania in December 1918-January 1919, there would have been the same western border, but perhaps also a Hungarian enclave in the Secuime. Dc76\^talk 02:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just saying that without the 1919 war, against HSR, the borders would have been the same. The pivotal element in breaking the Austro-Hungaria was the extraordinary eagerness of the people from empire to constitute their own states. If there would have been at least ONE minority wanting to continue the co-existence with Austrian or Hungarians, the outcome could have been different. But, as we know, even the Hungarians and Austrians did not want the empire any more. But that a discussion for an other history article, I think.--Tziganul (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

De jure & de facto

Again :) The Hungary's border were not "internationally recognized" therefore that was not a casus belli. At that time The French Army was in Transylvania and Hungary too, but then, what can be expected when the war is lost? Often, the victors' army enter the defeated state teritory. So that's not lack of my logic. Also, when the war ended, the Romanian Army initially retreated to the line along Theiss, later further east, but again, the war did not settled any borders, de facto or de jure. However, I don't mind if you came with any serious reference proving that. I have serious doubts you can because at Trianon that did not matter anyway. What I say is that even without war Romania would have get Transylvania. It is possible, actually, that they got even less than otherwise.--Tziganul (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, :) do you even know what 'de facto' means? Nobody talks here about any 'casus belli', what are you talking about? You try to suggest that when an army passes its border, uncovered by any previous agreement this is not a hostile act and you exemplify with the french?! They were the ALLIES of the Romanians and the ENEMIES of the Austro-Hungarians!!! You talk about victors and defeated but you ignore the hostilities that divided them into victors and defeated. If you come with any valid reference where it is said that Romania didn't established its de facto border in the war we are talking about, then I'll be ready to believe you. Furthermore, it is possible that Romania would have gotten these territories even without the war, but the war made this a certainty supported on the might of the Romanian army.Octavian8 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Octavan8, you got to read any History book to find out that the new Romanian borders are the outcome of WWI and not the Romanian-HSR war. The so called HSR war was, actually, a reckless attack from the communist state. Do you suggest that the allies would have let Romania alone if the Hungarians would have been successful? I believe you try to exaggerate the importance of this conflict for Romania. It was important for Hungary, yes, because it ended the communist episode but, from the point of view of the new borders, it was completely irrelevant. Regardless of that, the Hungary was to be disarmed and accept the new borders.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tziganul (talk • contribs) 10:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you understand English Tziganu? and if so do you understand what de facto means? I'm puzzled about how you've managed to come to the conclusion that I 'exaggerate the importance of this conflict to Romania', so I won't even bother to comment on that, but try to understand this, at the end of the war Romania controlled more territories than it got at Trianon, this means that it controlled territories INCLUDING those it would get. It did that before Trianon, so at the moment Trianon established the new borders de jure, Romania controlled them de facto, what's so difficult to understand this? What is false in saying that the war established the borders of Greater Romania de facto, as long as after this conflict the Romanians were in control of all the territories they get de jure later at Trianon.

Be so nice and stop putting words into my mouth, where did I say that the Allies would have left Romania alone if the Hungarians had been successful? In the article it is even written that the Allies were about to attack together with the Romanians, had the Hungarians not attacked the first, but you didn't bother to read it all as it seems. Also quit patronizing me, I think I've read enough history books -- perhaps more than you.

Finally pretty please quit butchering this article, if you have something to add, that is supported by references, then by all means do so, but stop arguing with me about semantics, at least until you master enough vocabulary.Octavian8 (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Phase I

Transylvania into the Kingdom of Hungary

By saying that the Romanian army reached the border of the old Principality of Transylvania, I choose a neutral formulation. One can also argue that it was after 1 December so it was in Romania already. The formulation is here purely geographical and I tried to avoid any political influences. By adding the link, everybody can read and judge for himself whether that was the Kingdom of Hungary, Romania, the Roman, Bulgarian, or whatever empire. This way we talk here only about the Hu-Ro war of 1919. Octavian8 (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

German support for the unification of Transylvania with Romania

There are two dates for the declaration of support of unification with Romania from the Germans in the greater area of Transylvania. Most sources I could find on the Internet indicate December 15. There are also some references to January 8. I've reformulated the phrase to avoid naming dates. Octavian8 (talk)

Phase II

Involvment of Bolschevik Russia

I have noticed that an editor warked on this section. I find the info very intersting, but it regretfully lacks refernces and is also in need of some editing with respect to the quality of the English language used. Pleas corrrect these aspects. RegardsOctavian8 (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreement in April 1919

Some editor added a phrase about Romania breaking an agreement by going over the demarcation line of the Vyx note and supported this claim by a cryptic citation. First I believe this should be explained in more detail. What agreement did Romania break? Who was part in this agreement? If by this is meant that Romania went over the demarcation line proposed to the Hungarians in the Vyx note and again by Smuts, but refused by them, which in turn lead to the Romanian attack that opened phase II of the conflict, than this is a redundant edit -- in the previous paragraph is already mentioned that the Romanians decided to go over the Vyx demarcation line for military reasons -- and I will delete it.

I am inclined to do so with the citation as well, though I am reluctant, as any meaningful citation is more than welcome, and even if the comment proves to be redundant, the citations are not. The citation should have: author, name of the book, edition, publisher, date and pages. If this is just a collection of texts by several authors, than include name of the authors that are cited, name of the book, publisher, volume and page, date. From the named citation I understand actually two citations:

• F. d'Esperey, Archives diplomatiques. Europe, (publisher?), vol. 47, April 1919, pp. 86
• G. Clemenceau, Archives diplomatiques. Europe, (publisher?), vol. 47, April 1919, pp. 83--84.

Octavian8 (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

After a bit of research, I found out myself what is with this agreement and where did the citations came from. It seems that the editor that added them (Biszo on 10.02.2009 at 21:20), was either an ignorant or had bad intentions and was trying to confuse the reader.

The citations are taken from a hungarian site, from an article, otherwise pretty well written by Maria Ormos (http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/tria/tria11.htm). There the citations are supposed to support the idea that there were some differences between D'Esperey and Clemanceau with respect to the Romanian intentions to attack in April. They should also underline the fact that the Allies expected the Romanians to stop at the armistice line proposed in the Vyx note and not to advance up to Tisza.

There is no mentioning of any agreement between the Hungarians and any other party with regard to the maximal advances of the Romanian Army in the West. Therefore, I will modify the article accordingly.Octavian8 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Upper Hungary/Slovakia

The original title of the section was "The Hungarian attack in Czechoslovakia". An editor changed the title to "The Hungarian attack on Czechoslovaks in Upper Hungary" and also added some material in the section that I personally thought it was valuable. As nobody challenged the title and I thought it to be descriptive for the section, the title remained like this until now, when another editor (this time only with an IP address) replaced Upper Hungary with Slovakia.

I am aware that there are some delicate issues between Hungarians and Slovaks as there are also delicate issues between Hungarians and Romanians or Hungarians and Serbs. I believe that the solution in such cases is to simply stick to the facts. I propose, as a compromise solution, to return to the original title. In the end, Upper Hungary is mentioned like this in the section with a hint that it is currently in Slovakia.

Before changing the article anymore, please discuss first your issues here. Octavian8 (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The boundaries of the country were established in 1920 after the Treaty of Trianon. Therefore the HSR fought "de jure" in Upper Hungary, Kingdom of Hungary against the Czechoslovak forces. "The full boundaries of the country and the organization of its government was finally established in the Czechoslovak Constitution of 1920. Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk had been recognized by WWI Allies as the leader of the Provisional Czechoslovak Government, and in 1920 he was elected the country's first president. "Baxter9 (talk)

De facto, Czechoslovakia existed since 1918. De jure you can also say that the attack was in Austria-Hungary, also de jure HSR didn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.103.190 (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Redundant edits

I would like to ask those editing this article (particularly the user Baxter9) to quit making redundant edits. I have no problems with edits contributing to the article, as long as they are made at the proper place and are not redundant.

In the section 'Prelude', there is a link to the article Romania in WWI, therefore I fail to see how a recap of the beginning of the Romanian involvement in WWI ads something to this article. Also, within the article there is detailed data about the strength of the Hungarian Red Army troops facing the Romanians, to say that was a small fighting force is misleading, even if it may be true for the first weeks after the reds took power.

In the section 'The Hungarian attack on Czechoslovaks in Upper Hungary', col. Stromfeld is already mentioned as the military leader of the Hungarian Army and it is also made clear that the advances of the Hungarian army were impressive. It is pointless to underline this by repetition.

The aftermath of the Hungarian attack into Czechoslovakia is discussed for technical reasons in the section 'Phase III' (in the beginning). There are mentioned and discussed both the promises and the pressures the Council put on Kun. It is therefore pointless to state these facts in the end of section 'The Hungarian attack on Czechoslovaks in Upper Hungary'.

The date I have for the Hungarian-Czechoslovak armistice is 23rd of June, not the 1st of July, and it is accordingly mentioned. If someone has other sources saying something else, please, discuss them first here in the talk page. Once we reach an understanding, we can make changes accordingly. Octavian8 (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"On August 27, 1916, Romania declared war on Austria-Hungary. Confident of victory, Romanian troops crossed into Transylvania. Their campaign stalled, however, and German and Austro-Hungarian forces counterattacked, drove the Romanian army and thousands of refugees back over the Carpathian passes, deep into Romania and conquered the south of the country (Wallachia) by the end of 1916 and in December occupied Bucharest." Readded.

"In 1918, after the communists took power in Russia and signed a separate peace in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Central Powers, Romania was left alone on the Entente's Eastern Front, a task that surpassed its possibilities by far. Therefore, it sued for peace, and reached an understanding with the Central Powers in May 1918 in the Treaty of Bucharest. Alexandru Marghiloman, signed the Treaty of Bucharest with the Central Powers on May 7, 1918. However, this treaty was never signed by King Ferdinand, and on 10 November 1918, taking advantage of the precarious situation of the Central Powers, Romania reentered the war on the side of the Entente with the same objectives as in 1916. King Ferdinand called for the mobilization of the Romanian army and ordered it to attack over the Carpathian mountains into Transylvania." If there is a link to the article Romania in WWIIs, why is this mentioned? Do we nedd this here? Yes, like the text what you removed. Baxter9 (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the Prelude is to give a snapshot of the situation in Romania and Hungary in 1918. The events you describe, that took place in the begining of the Romanian involvement in WWI, are per se not related to that. They are also incomplete, as you forget to mention the Bulgarians attacking Romania from the South and forcing the Romanians to take troops from the Transylvanian front to deal with them. To make the link to 1918, you would have then to mention also the later Romanian victories in Marasti, Marasesti and Oituz as well as the tensed realtions with the russian allies. Than to be consistent you would have to also make a short description of the events involving Austria-Hungary in WWI... This is NOT the place for such things. I'll revert this edit. Octavian8 (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Tags

Before you tag the article, please have the decency to discuss your issues here. Octavian8 (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Biased

The Romanian POV just strikes out from this article and its tone is extremely slanted towards "Romanian interpretations". What's more, it contains tons of weasel words, biased assertions with no supporting inline citations whatsoever. It cannot be considered neutral, by no means; which is a pre-requisite for all articles on Wikipedia. Also, it is almost entirely devoid of the Hungarian coverage of events, although this has been improved a tiny bit recently by other editors. It would appear that it will take several years and thousands of edits to balance out all the defects.
It could rather be submitted for an essay competition, though...(perhaps in Romania)
--Bizso (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your past interest in my article, however in the future if you want to have a civil discussion, please refrain from using aggressive formulations. If you think that the article is biased - which I don't think, but I understand some Hungarians thinking like this - start pointing out precisely where do you see this bias, then we can talk about this. This is far better than throwing around with general allegations and attempting to degrade the article -- btw. you call it essay, I call it history.

Perhaps you didn't know, but literature on the subject is very scarce in Romanian and almost inexistent in English. At least for the Romanian side this can be explained by the fact that between 1945 and 1989 Romania, as well as Hungary were brotherly communist states, hence discussing the subject of a Romanian army overthrowing an incipient communist regime in Hungary was very delicate and not touched. For the English reader, this subject didn't even existed before 1989 and regretfully, one can say it continues to do so after. The article I've written is an attempt to change this.

I am very interested to see a 'Hungarian coverage of events', because the way you put it, this seems to be completely contradictory to what I have written, or perhaps is just you being risen to think like this... The article cannot be considered neutral by you and you can be easily disregarded considering the number of English readers on this Earth. This being said, if you want to stop throwing with frustration at me or this article and want to help improving it so that it fits also your views, you are more than welcome, just bare in mind that is not only your opinion that counts and you are by no means a judge of impartiality.

Finally, thank you for your suggestion about the essay competition, I thought about this and found your idea pretty foolish. If in reality you didn't meant it like this and just tried to be sarcastic, I do not appreciate this type of sarcasm, and it may well be that I'll stop waisting my time with you and simply ignore you.Octavian8 (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• de-weaseling should be very easy
• inline citations can be obtained by adding tags after particular sentences
• the article is about a war. it should be possible to talk at length about it without ever giving interpretations.
• WP is well known for achieving in days and a dosen edits what originally might seem years and thousand of edits.

I am not really an editor of this article. In fact, it has been quite a while since I last read it. I took just now a sub-section at random, and did some minor copyedit. But I did not find any serious issues in that subsection. Do you see that subsection as problematic as well? Dc76\^talk 22:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I'm sorry, actually I wrote a page to describe the very obvious Romanian POV and very unbalanced tone, use of words, of this "essay". I also gave some examples that this "essay" is factually wrong at many points. This can be submitted for 9th grade history class at high school...

But I realized that I could argue about this over days with you, and I'm just wasting my life with this. So do whatever you want. See Ya. --Bizso (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude, you've just proven my fears right :(.Octavian8 (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag

If nobody explains precisely what is unbalanced in the article, I will remove the tag. If you think the article is unbalanced, please point out the sections you are concerned about, and describe here, in the talk page, ways in which you think this could be improved.Octavian8 (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, but please allow some time for people to bring issues up. Don't remeove the tags tomorrow. Allow at least a week or two. At least. Another thing I would like to mention with tagging articles: Unless the issues do refer to the entire article, it is much better to tag particular sections. That helps improving the parts that need improvement. Sometimes, there are excellent sections next to poor ones. Dc76\^talk 21:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Tag removed.Octavian8 (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is, however, still full of Romanian nationalist propaganda. 72.83.171.2 (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

To say that Bessarabia is an old Romanian land is not propaganda, is just history. Bessarabia was part of Moldavia since its foundation. Moldavia is one of the precursor states of Romania. Hence, to say Bessarabia is an old Romanian land is similar to say Oltenia - as part of Wallachia - is an old Romanian land.Octavian8 (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

I will remove this tag if nobody explains precisely, with respect to this article, what cleanup should be done.Octavian8 (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Tag removed.Octavian8 (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

References tags

The references tags with regard to additional references and references in third party publications are covered by the infobox about English sources. Therefore, I've removed these tags as well.Octavian8 (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A selection of most Wikipedia tags (courtesy of IP 143.167.xxx.xxx)

---

{{Peacock}}

Y

{{unbalanced}}

Y

{{Too few opinions}}

Y

{{Essay-like}}

Y

{{Weasel}}

Y

{{histinfo}}

Y

{{Disputed}}

Y

{{misleading}}

Y

{{Refimprove}}

Y

{{Primary sources}}

Y

{{More footnotes}}

Y

{{pagenumbers}}

Y

{{Copyedit}}

Y

{{Cleanup}}

Y (14/14)

---

The list is incomplete, you forget that this article is somehow responsible for the subprime crisis as well.... We should also add here, that this article should not be read by frustrated people. :)Octavian8 (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Dear user:Bizso, dude, I thought you are nolonger interested in this article, so why vandalizing it? I understand your frustration, but perhaps it would be better to discharge it into sports rather than wasting my time and yours with these type of stupid jokes.Octavian8 (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits of user Octavian8/Baxter9

Mr. Octavian8 reverting edits which say that the Romanian army reached the border of Hungary and instead he added "the old border of the Transylvanian Proncipality".[1][2] At that time Transylvania was part of Hungary, the principality was dissolved in 1711 (as an independent country) and later in 1867. Accept this fact. Your edits (the old border and principality replying for a non existing country) are redundant, not accurate and misleading.

I try to say that the Romanian army advanced only up to the Western Carpathians, which is the border the old Principality of Transylvania shared with Hungary before 1867. In 1914, to talk only about the situation before WWI, the borders of Hungary were on the Eastern and Central Carpathians, and included Transylvania. I just removed 'then in the Kingdom of Hungary' and placed a link over the 'old Principality of Transylvania' pointing to the 'History of Transylvania' so that everybody can see that 'de jure' at that moment in time Transylvania was part of Hungary, even if 'de facto' the majority of the population in Transylvania spoke already for a union with Romania. What is redundant, inaccurate and misleading here? What edits are you talking about?Octavian8 (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The W. Carpathians did not constitute the border of the principality, because the Partium was also the part of it Dont try to hide the fact that the hungarins did not joined Romania.[3] The population of Transylvania in 1910 was 53.8% Romanian 31.6% Hungarian 10.7% German. Baxter9 (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if we believe the 1910 census, that besides other flaws overemphasises the number of Hungarians over others in Transylvania, the Romanians form an absolute majority (>50%) and together with the Germans, that supported the unification with Romania they form almost (>64%) a two thirds majority. The W.Carpathians constituted in part the border of the old Principality of Transylvania. The South-West part of the border lies on the W. Carpathians.Octavian8 (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The subject seems pretty much the same as Hungarian Revolutionary War. This is confirmed when you compare the various interwikis in each article. JJ Georges (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the Hungarian Revolutionary War should simply be replaced by a link to this article. All theses under scrutiny in there are discussed in a far more balanced manner in this article as well.Octavian8 (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Just thinking : since the article also addresses the war with Czechoslovakia, maybe it could have a broader title than just Hungarian–Romanian War of 1919. Does anybody have an idea ? What about just Hungarian War of 1919 ? JJ Georges (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I would rather suggest that the conflict with Czechoslovakia gets its own article, where it is discussed in more detail than the subsection here. Then we can have a page named "Hungarian Border Wars" or something like that where to give a short overview and link the two respective articles. This article is pretty much dedicated to the Romania-Hungarian War. As I said it covers in more detail the events that the article Hungarian Revolutionary War, but the war with Czechoslovakia is briefly mentioned here only for completeness purposes. Again, I think it deserves an own article.Octavian8 (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"we can have a page named "Hungarian Border Wars" or something like that" - I held the opinion that any such page must have an historiographical established name. Otherwise we'll end up with a plethora of such spuriously named articles (e.g. the previously deleted fictious Eastern Hungarian Kingdom). Just my tow cents. Cheers! ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"Hungarian Border wars" with Hungary vs Czecholsovakia AND Hungary vs Romania as subsections is a good idea, but I agree that a historically established name should be used. But the point is, IS there only an established name in english ? JJ Georges (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea if there is such a thing as an established english name for this. Perhaps some hungarian editors may help here.Octavian8 (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe something like War in Hungary (1919) (but on the other hand, the war also took place in Slovakia) or Hungaria War (1919) ?? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Movie reference

There is a scene at the end of the "Capitaine Conan" film where the Hungarian are trying to cross the Dniester defended by French troops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.142.126 (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Closed. This is a redirect and will be adjusted if the target page moves. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian–Romanian War of 1919 → Hungarian War of 1919 – The name of the article is incorrect in my opinion. The Hungarian Revolutionary War is redirected here. The page has to deal with both "Hungarian-Czechoslovak war" and "Hungarian-Romanian war". The new name is an established English name.[4]Fakirbakir (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.