Jump to content

Talk:László Bárdossy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Fiction" edit

[edit]

Hi User:Peacemaker67,

I want to ask a few questions about this edit:

"This allowed the Hungarian government to maintain the fiction that Yugoslavia had ceased to exist, and therefore Hungary was not invading it"

I checked the Kingdom of Yugoslavia article where

-a: it is written: "The Kingdom of Yugoslavia was soon divided by the Axis into several entities."

-b: After I checked the corresponding map on the page: "Occupation and partition of Yugoslavia, 1941–43."

--> Could you tell me on the map where Yugoslavia still exist? / Or if I am not misunderstanding you, you want to refer to that that the Allied Powers did not recognize the partition thus they regaraded Kingdom of Yugoslavia still existent on it's full former size?

(I have to ask this after the discussion with Mr rnddude)

Thank You (KIENGIR (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Do you have a reliable source for your contention (BTW, WP isn't one)? It is a settled principle of international law that an invaded country continues to exist in its original form until the conflict is concluded and a treaty (like the Treaty of Trianon) is entered into that changes its borders, and that annexing, or creating new countries out of occupied countries during a conflict isn't lawful. Yugoslavia continued to exist in a legal sense throughout WWII, and had a government-in-exile which was located in Cairo then London which represented it. So did the Netherlands, Poland and Belgium. The "fiction" I am referring to is well known, which Hungary carried through by avoiding even signing the armistice at the conclusion of the invasion of Yugoslavia, as it claimed it was not a belligerent and had not attacked Yugoslavia (despite the treaty of friendship and non-aggression it had signed with Yugoslavia in 1940). Then there is the fact that the parts of Yugoslavia that were invaded by Hungary weren't even included in the NDH. But I digress. I will be making substantial reliably cited additions to this article, which has no inline citations (and desperately needs them). You will see what those reliable sources say about this matter once I have made those additions. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, maybe you misunderstood a little bit, since Mr rnddude gave also a different approach, I just wanted to be sure exactly about your station before asking more, my only aim was to more clarify the things. Well, sometimes WP is reliable, sometimes it needs more contruction, by the way this is our goal isn't it? The rest you wrote I know, since I am well-trained in the question. In my opnion, it has to be noted, that regarding de facto and regarding the Axis viewpoint Yugoslavia was abolished, of course with the not that the Allies did not recognize this and still recognized Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Only to pinpoint this neutral viewpoint was only my aim. (KIENGIR (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]
But what is missing is citation of this opinion to reliable secondary sources. Currently it is impossible to distinguish your personal opinion from what the reliable sources might say. The only way to do that is to cite your contentions to reliable secondary sources, so they are verifiable and can be contrasted with other reliable sources that may have a different take on the situation. So, please do that. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of websites

[edit]

Please explain how each of the following websites meet en WP's requirements for reliable secondary sources:

Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I reviewed the page you linked and I don't see necessarily in all the cases the possible violation regarding these sources. Regarding Magyar Hírlap - that is leading domestic newspaper - the military historian Zoltán Babucs's article is presented. Délmagyar is a online-newspaper, where contemporary original newspaper's are also presented and cited about the happenings. Szegedma is also an online newspaper, most of the content the sources from the books

- "Kádár Gyula: A Ludovikától Sopronkőhidáig. Budapest, 1978."

- "Szilágyi István: Egy magyar katona feljegyzései a bevonulásról. In: Vincze Gábor (szerk.): Visszatér a Délvidék. Budapest, 2011."

were used. Rubicon is a the most-known domestic historical review and the author of the article is Tarján M. Tamás, who is Phd member of the ELTE BTK doctorate school of historical studies, he was an associate of the review of many years. delvidekitragedia.hu is an online encyclopedia of the affairs of he "Délvidék" with photos, written sources, interviews, articles, and with a bibliography of numerous acedemic sources also. Especially the exact reference to the citated content is from the source "Vékás János: Magyarok a Vajdaságban, 1944-1954". The orangefiles is edited by Sean Lambert who worked as English-language journalist for the Hungarian News Agency (MTI) who was born in New York City and raised in the western part of the U.S. state of Wisconsin, earning a B.A. in history at the University of Minnesota and an M.A. in Hungarian Studies at Indiana University. As I see, the last one could be a blog without really referencing on the author or the source, this may be problematic.

On the other hand I acknowledge you have utterly more experience regarding the source policy and all the requeriments or standards/recommendations, etc. If I miss something, please help me, should I i.e. also cite the original content, not just it's translation? Or should I reinforce the the references with the detailed information as I introduced here, instead just having the web links?

Thank you for your help in advance!(KIENGIR (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Newspaper websites should be ok, if they are not tabloid press, but the key issues are the reliability of the author, reliability of the publisher and reliability regarding the matter in question. It appears that some of these sources may be reliable, ie written by historians and published in a reputable newspaper website, but that isn't clear from the citations. To clarify these matters, they really should be cited to the actual author using the {{cite newspaper}} or {{cite web}} templates. The ones I am most concerned about at this stage are Délmagyar (the age of the source matters, and contemporary accounts written in Hungary are probably too close to the subject and will have been taken over by later study), delvidekitragedia.hu (which appears to be too close to the topic and present only one side of it - let's face it, the name of the website is a dead giveaway) and orangefiles (which is a journalist's personal blog). All these concerns are explained in more detail at WP:RS. I will attempt to identify alternative sources for some of this information, using academic-quality university press-published books. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to do my best, however I never used this templates, I hope I'll manage. Regarding Délmagyar, no direct quote from the contemporary/archived content, better a refernce to the article's content about the bombings. Regarding Délvidékitragedia, I don't see any bias towards one side, since the most valuable academic bibliography is presented there in the most numerous way, morover the word "Tragédia" may be the reference not necessarily on pro-Hungarian way but an overall designation of the happenings during war conditions, so I don't see any trouble because of the name, if it would be i.e. "The Most Beautiful Times of Délvidék" I would see your concern. Regarding orangefiles, since the journalist has two academic degrees regarding history and Hungarian studies - the earlier in a non-Hungarian institution - I don't see it problematic, better the totallyhistory.com where we are unable right now to trace the author. Cheers (KIENGIR (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

More details

Hi, Peacemaker67,

I have a problem with this addition:

"On the other hand, the treaty was seen by Hungary as a means by which to offset German pressure and maintain lines of communication to the British. The treaty resigned Hungary's territorial claims to Croatia, while leaving open the possibility of peacefully negotiating the return of other former Hungarian territories. During the treaty negotiations, the Hungarians were disturbed to learn that the Germans were willing to guarantee Yugoslav territorial integrity in return for Yugoslavia acceding to the Tripartite Pact. [8-Cornelius]"

I could access the original source, and yes this wordage is used. The problem is the author mistaking something (I think it the common Anglo-Saxon mistake of referring back in time present-day situations and designations), since Hungary did not have any territorial claims to Croatia. It's clear that the former Hungarian territories of Muraköz, Muravidék and Drávaszög (present-day Prekmurje, Medimurje, and Croatian Baranja) are today part of Croatia, but Hungary lost is to the Serb-Croatian-Slovenian-Kingdom, and inside of it - or later as renamed to Yugoslavia - not even the Croatia existed really as an administrative unit or a region, but some Banovinas and other districts composed the country. Regardless that later the Banovina of Croatia was created, Hungary's territorial claim was against Yugoslavia, not literally Croatia. Moreover, by annexing the corresponding territories, Hungary reset the near millenia old historical Hungarian-Croatian border.

Please fix it somehow, however it is really in the source, but I kindly ask you better ignore this part, since it is heavily misleading and may be improperly misunderstood. Thanks(KIENGIR (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I'm afraid I am not quite sure what you are saying (partly I think because of your English grammar), as the Banovina of Croatia existed from 1939, and Croatia had previously been part of Transleithania, and therefore effectively under Hungarian control. But what you are suggesting is not how en WP works. I'm afraid you need to find a source that says what you are saying, and compare and contrast it with what Cornelius is saying. We don't remove information because it doesn't suit your understanding of what went on. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:18, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, than I am trying again to explain:

I know how WP works, you are allowed to cite if it fulfills some requirements, but the GOOD FAITH is leading us to DO NOT cite such information that is totally false, fake or based on a huge misunderstanding, or i.e a mistake of the author, or it is simply not true. I corrected countless such mistakes in WP.

Moreover, here reverse engineering does not work, why to find a source to contradict something that did not exist? (Generally sources are STATING what the situation IS, not DENYing some personal mistakes, inventions - if they are not commonly known widespread - so this is not the way (I.E. countless Anglo-Saxon source are speaking "Austro-Hungarian citizenship" and WP accepted it widely, although such citizenship never existed in World History. Also by my initiation, everywhere it is corrected in WP. We did not need to find a source that is denying the existence of something that never existed, it was enough to dig in the state affairs that even the dual citizenship was banned, etc., and I could tell you other heavy mistakes.

Croatia earlier was with a PERSONAL UNION with Hungary, thus two countries are tied by the King, Croatia was not part of Hungary and Hungary had never any territorrial loss or claim towards Croatia. Banovina of Croatia from 1939 is NOT a country, but a sub-part of Yugoslavia. Hungary in 1920 lost territories to the Serbian-Croatian-Slovenian Kingdom THAT HAD NEVER BEEN PART OF CROATIA. Hungarians were not interested in the inner administraive changes in Yugoslavia, they claimed territories formerly belonged them and none of the were formerly Croatian-territorries, regardless part of this territorries were allocated inside Yugoslavia into the Banovina of Croatia in 1939, Hungarians never treated or seen this thing if they would be "Croatian" territories, because theye were NOT.

Consider, how to claim a territory from a country that did not even existed that time. It is not about that "it is not suiting my understanding", it is a completely ridicoulus mistake from Cornelius and all serious people who have an adequate and professional knowledge of history and Hungary and it's affairs would just wink and shake their heads, how such thing could be on paper. Hungary had territorrial claims to Yugoslavia, to all territories erlier belonged them and none of them were part of Croatian state earlier. Moreover, it would be funny to have any claim if they supported the re-establishment Croatian state, so it is totally ridicoulus.

If you do not fix this - the most easy is to remove that part from the quoatation, it does not harm any Wiki rule - I have to involve in this subject more editor's both from Hungarian and Croatian side, since this information is a heavily misleading and totally improper information that has a serious weight, since Hungary never claimed any territorry that was not belonged to her earlier.

Consider, Peacemaker67 it is also about your personal reputation, since as Wikipedian (moreover an Administrator recently) who is interested in the area and claims he knows and well-educated in the subject, simply CANNOT cite a content that is not true, or if you want this to remain, a clarification is needed to draw the attention of the author's mistake not to mislead Wikipedia audience. Thank you in andvance your understanding. (KIENGIR (talk) 09:26, 19 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

And please, tell me if in the Thomas-Szabo source the citation is word by word equals with the added content or if not, please let me know what is in the source, since I could not access it: "These brigades then drove southeast to capture the western Serbian town of Valjevo a day later. Other Hungarian forces occupied the Yugoslavian regions of Prekmurje and Međimurje.[38]"

Thanks(KIENGIR (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I'm afraid you are factually wrong. Hungary still had territorial interests in the Banovina of Croatia even after the Treaty. Otherwise why was Međimurje occupied and annexed in 1941? The town of Čakovec, for example, which was part of the Banovina of Croatia. BTW, the Thomas/Szabo source is a close paraphrase, the meaning is clearly reproduced correctly. Two Hungarian motorised brigades crossed the Danube and entered into Croatian Syrmia (Danube Banovina) and even ventured as far south as Valjevo in western Serbia (Drina Banovina). I'll check Terzic's volume on the war, but do you have a reliable source that contradicts this information? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, I am not wrong, you know me a long time, tell me if I once mistaken in Hungary affairs. The present-day Medimurje region was part of Hungary earlier 1920, as Csáktornya also. These were attached to the Banovina of Croatia in 1939 when it was created inside Yugoslavia, but as I pinpointed it, it has no relevance in that way since the perspective is the pre-1920 affairs and Hungary had claims on Yugoslavia (regarding also other territories that fromerly belonged to them and became part of other Banovinas, like a huge part of Bácska and Bánát). Hungary in 1941 RESTORED the historical Hungarian-Croatian border existed near a millenia, that border was along the river. I kindly asked to join our discussion some Hungarian and Croatian history affiliated editors just to see the point.

Thank you that you are checking the exact quote (Thomas/Szabo), I do not want to contradict them just if it is not clearly written ("Yugoslav regions of Medumurje and Prekmurje") word by word I would change it to "regions of present-day - || -" because of the reason I wrote in the edit comment that you reverted. Cheers (KIENGIR (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

All this Trianon stuff is really beside the point. Cornelius is talking about 1940-41 (ie post-Treaty of Eternal Friendship) not 1920. It is very clear from the context. And we refer to places by their names at the time, not the current time. That is just a weasel-word way of avoiding recognising that they were part of Yugoslavia at the time. They were Yugoslav territories in April 1941, and they had Yugoslav names, so we use them when referring to them. Just as we would use the Hungarian names if we were talking about pre-1920. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:17, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's why Cornelius is heavily mistaking (the eternal friendship was singed with Yugoslavia, not Croatia), since Croatia did no exist that time so Hungary cannot have claims on a country that does not exist, more the claims were for former Hungarian territories that were not part of Croatia earlier 1920, but part of Hungary since it was founded, at the time, before ceding it to the Serb-Croatian-Slovenian Kingdom, the territories of present-day Medimurje, Prekmurje and Croatian Baranja were parts of Vas, Zala and Baranya counties of Hungary. Moreover, Hungary and the Hungarian leaderhsip NEVER manifested or excommunicated not any means any territorrial claims on Croatia, literally and also not later such act happened. It has to be corrected or noted, that's why Cornelius is not professional enough!
Regarding the other stuff, I don't agree, I am not interested in any weasel-word, similar mistakes are often in Wikipedia that present-day names or entities ar referred back in time in an anachronistical way, however, it is not the most heavy case. If you say that time those regions were called the same way as today, than I have no objection.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]
If that's the case, you won't have any trouble bringing reliable sources that contradict Cornelius? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Međimurje was a part of Croatia during Ban Josip Jelačić, but that's not important here. Međimurje was also seen by NDH as a part of their country in 1941 and they never officially acknowledged the Hungarian administration of it. On their maps they always showed Međimurje as part of NDH.[1] [2] [3] [4] Tzowu (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Peacemaker67, as I told earlier if source is stating something that is not true or it is very misunderstandable and it is not a widespread urban legend, you cannot expect necessarily to have a source to deny something that did not existed. I.e., if a RS would state that Horthy ate every saturday a yellow frog and you'd cite it, I don't think there would be a bunch of sources that would literally and explicitly deny this.
Moreover, if Croatia exist as a country that time, that would mean the state Yugoslavia did not exist? Or I could not continue more contradictions to the article, that's why it would better ignore Cornelius. I really do not understand you, because you have good faith and you have to know if you deal with Yugoslavia affairs that Hungary did not have claims to Croatia since you are not a layman and our struggle it to make Wikipedia more precise and historically accurate! I perfectly explained to you what's the problem, here not Cornelius has any advantage, but the historical accuracy!
Well I have to tell than there is NO CONSENSUS regarding the Cornelius cite edit, we have to make a deal according to the Wikipedia rules, I invite also kindly to participate Fakirbakir, Borsoka and Tzowu as well.
I have two proposals for consensus:
1. We remove the Cornelius citation - this is the most easy way, since the article remains consisent without any possible controversion (moreover, this article is about Bárdossy, not necessarily in all details the Yugoslavia related matter)

OR

2. We put before the Cornelius citation that "According to Cornelius...." and after you let an explanative sentence regarding the proper situation to get rid of any possible misunderstanding

Tzowu, no doubt that between 1000 A.D. and 1920 Hungary's territorial continuity broke more times, but it was identical regarding these two dates (of course I don't count other feudal state relations or vassalage or other similar things). As I am also aware the POV of the NDH, but this has no connection to our problem - since the source states things earlier than 1941 - and even though Hungary had no territorial claims towards Croatia, neither implicitly, nor explicitly, just and only regarding the former territories belonging to Hungary. And After 1920 until 1941, Hungary had affairs with the Serb-Croat-Slovenian Kingdom and Kingdom of Yugoslvaia, not other entity. What was before and after is another story.

All in all, Hitler even offered to Horthy Fiume and/or former Croatia's territory in oder to restore the old model, but Horthy rejected it, he was not interested to take other nations/former country's territory that was formerly not part of Hungary, moreover Hungary supported the re-establishment of the Croatian state, so in such conditions the same period Cornelius make his refernce, is utterly blatant to state that Hungary would have any claims, even Cornelius is not defining what he means under "Croatia". Earlier of course I referred the historical Croatia with it's historical border's during the classical personal union with Hungary.

Peacemaker67 should present a contemporary source - preferably Hungarian - better if he is utterly want to have Cornelius, becuause recently Hungarians are shaking heads and are amazed...nobody cared that time the inner Banovinas or administrational inner affairs of Yugoslavia, moreover Hungarians did not treat Croatians in any way hostile, neither the Croatian Émigrés Hungarians...it's like we'd hear that we'd claims towards Australia...Cheers for you all.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

No. That is not how we operate on en WP. We also do not ping people we think might agree with us. That is called canvassing, and is very poor Wikiquette. I am quite comfortable taking this to a community forum if necessary. Like I said, the obligation is on you, not me. Find a source that says that the Treaty of Eternal Friendship didn't abandon designs on Croatian territory. Croatia was a province of Yugoslavia at the time in question, and referring to regions of Yugoslavia as Serbia, Slovenia and Croatia is quite common even post-1929, so it is entirely possible that Cornelius is correct, and the Treaty explicitly excluded any designs on Croatian territory. The WP:ONUS is on you to produce a reliable source that contradicts Cornelius, not on me. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have located further information regarding revisionist claims to regions of Yugoslavia, including Croatia, in Lemkin, and have added it, with a reference to the "Doctrine of the Holy Crown". Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have also ordered a copy of the page of The Times issue of 12 December 1940 which contains the Treaty in full. It'll take a couple of weeks. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67, I did not make any canvassing, since Tzowu is Croatian Wikipedian I wanted to stay as much objective as possible, that's why I invited him to join to meet the Croatian perspective, the other two editor's I invited beucase they are a long time professional Wikipedians regarding Hungary matters. I won't invite anyone beucase he would "agree' with, it's not about me, it's about historical accuracy. Moreover, I know how WP:CONSENSUS works. If I indicate there is a problem with an edit, so long consensus is not reached according to the BRD gulideline the status qou ante principle has to be followed. This is the way, so I would not add anything further until not reached consensus, if thereis no consensus inthe end, the addtion has to be removed.
Your latest addition is also dubious, since the Holy Crown Doctrine again would not claim Croatia in a way that it should annexed to Hungary, but to restore the old personal union = two countries - on King, and it is TOTALLY NOT THE SAME regarding the other neighboring countries, so with this you did not reinforce anything. Since I could not access it, please copy to me here word by word what is clearly written in the source about this, I want to know if it is identical with your addition or you just summarized in your interpretation what was there. Also for this edit I still hold NO CONSENSUS until clarification.
The problem with Cornelius is, regardless how we interpet, if it refers to the historical Croatia proper, than his statement is false, if he refers to the Banovina of Croatia then it is still since Hungary's claims also affected other Banovinas regarding her former territorries. A total mess what it creates without proper clarification. Regarding Horthy REJECTED to incorporate Croatia to Hungary (even with a personal union) and resigned on any annexation of any territory of Croatia proper, regarding Hungary only annexed her former parts, such allegation or allusion is heavily doubtful, regardless how many foreign sources you wish to hunt. If a comtemporary Hungarian source would claim Croatia (surpassing the former personal union), then you'd be able to add sources or such quutations with GOOD FAITH, until then it is the misunderstanding and misinterpratation of foreign people who does not know properly Hungary, Hungarians, their history and their affiliation towards Croatia, Croatians. Anyway much of that was mentioned here has a source, you should accept those.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]
I'm afraid, that unless you produce sources that contradict both Lemkin and Cornelius, this discussion is over. The WP:ONUS is on you. There is no point telling me your opinion, or that Hungarian sources would be superior and would contradict Lemkin and Cornelius. You haven't produced any. When you do, we can resume. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONSENSUS rules are valid for every Wikipedian, no exception. Anyway, here you are:
War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: 1941 - 1945 - Jozo Tomasevich p 48. :[1]
"Eventually an idea of the independent Croatian state emerged. Initially, in a message to Regent Miklós Horthy of Hungary on March 27, Hitler suggested that Hungary should in some way absorb Croatia. But Horthy wisely declined the offer and so informed Hitler on March 29."
Reinforcement: (Branko PETRANOVIC: Istorija Jugoslavije 1918–1978. Nolit, Beograd, 1980. 198–199.) German document about the dissolution of Yugoslavia: "In the first one Croatia was meant as an autonomous state under the influence of Hungary, in the second it is mentioned as an independent state...(...)"(KIENGIR (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Consensus doesn't apply if you have nothing but your opinion to hang it off. Horthy's interaction with Hitler happened after the Yugoslav coup, when the Germans had decided to invade. I have a copy of Tomasevich, and I plan to add something from it, but this does not contradict Cornelius or Lemkin, it just shows the position taken by Horthy when the offer was made by Hitler. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You continously repeat the fiction that it would be only my opinion. Without repeating anything I clearly demonstrated here why such statements are ambigous, misunderstandable and problematic without proper explanation. If the thing you want to suggest with your citations would be true, regarding the facts and sources demonstrated also here in the article, than Hungary would take Croatia or it's territories since the Germans gave a green light also. The fact Hungary refused, clearly show what was the case, and these two sources are perfectly contradicting Cornelius. (About Lemkin, since you still did not answered about the original text, I cannot judge it right now)
So WP:CONSENSUS totally applies here, and also regarding the wiki etiquette not any further bold edits until consensus should be pursued, since because of BRD and status qou ante the page has to be reset to it's earlier state in case of no consensus - however I am for consensus.
Seriously I don't understand you, why are you doing this, why you want idenftify Hungarian aims differently as their were, it has no connection to good faith right now. Consider if a foreign source would state tha Australia had territorial claims towards New Zealand, but Australia and her history writing does not really now about that (in such a case a demonstration of a contemporary Australian source of the claim woould be decisive, but such regarding Hungary you refused/avoided), how fair would be to cite such a thing withour proper explanation! Remember, you were not even aware of Medimurje (Muraköz) and Cakovec (Csáktornya) being part of Kindom of Hungary proper.
The relation with Croatia is complex, not easily to be understood of those who are not profssional in Hungarian history. Any edits, citation should be carried out with a serious care in order to avoid any misunderstanding, please try to understand this! Be nomen est omen, make peace, not war!
And I am still waiting from you the exact source's wordage regarding your edit about the "Doctrine of the Holy Crown". Thank You (KIENGIR (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Hi, I just found and checked the Lemkin source [2], and your insertion is not present in the correspondent pages you referred.
You're insertion was:
"Based on this doctrine, Hungary sought the revision of the treaty, claiming territories from Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia, including regions with no significant ethnic Hungarian population, such as Croatia.[7]"
What is present in the source:
"In particular they claimed territorries lost to Czechoslovakia under the Treaty of Trianon, namely, Subcarpathia and the so-called Highland Territories, situated in the highlands along the northern borders of Hungary, which are the southern borders of Czechoslovakia. They claimed also territorries lost to Yugoslavia and to Rumania (Tranyslvania)."
So it seems the final part of your insertion was your own, mistaken interpretation. Croatia is of course not present in the list, since such claim would be totally unnatural, as discussed here. The source in general mentions in the corresponding pharagraph the Holy Crown Doctrine, that is a symbolic reference, but in history much more other territories were under the crown like Bosnia, Slavonia, Dalmatia, as separate countries/entities as also Croatia. Both interpretation co-existed of what means Kingdom of Hungary and/or the Holy Crown:
KIENGIR, the above text was inserted by me. The final part was not my own, please read the cited pages again, more carefully (especially page 261). I also strongly suggest that you should read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, because copyvio may have serious consequences. Borsoka (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"In the bipolar world of the Hungarian politics regnum was either the monarch's of the ország's and was used in two different clusters of senses (see Rady, Nobility, pp. 16 and 172 – 73).
It was either coterminous with corona and embraced the whole territory of the Hungarian crown (the ‘kingdom’ sense) or it meant the Land, which, as a repository of right, was coterminous with the Hungarian nobility and its territory, Hungary proper (the ország sense).
Werbőczy juxtaposed regnum Hungariae with Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia and Transylvania: Tripartitum,Pt. III, Tit. 2. On the other hand, regnum Hungariae in the royal Oath and the Inaugural Diploma was coterminous with the whole territory of the Holy Crown. Both uses survived into the nineteenth century" [3]
So you have to see, how dangerous is what happenned....Hungary's Holy Crown Doctrine, revisionist policy from 1920 claimed the former Kingdom of Hungary proper's territories, in that interpretation, as it has been manifested by all the contemporary sources (and mostly of these the restoration of territorries with significant Hungarian population. For Croatia, such claims in such sense did not exist.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]
I suggest you should refer to sources which are directly connected to the subject of the article (László Bárdossy). We do not need to interprete the concept of Holy Crown in this context. Borsoka (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unfortunately I am unable to access p. 261...could you please paste it here - the relevant content - or to my user page? So I could react properly. Thanks (KIENGIR (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]
"After the Treaty of Trianon, Hungary claimed a revision of the frontiers with Yugoslavia, not only with a view to restoring Hungarian ethnographic regions but also regions which had belonged to Hungary in the past, such as Croatia." (Lemkin 2008, 261.) Borsoka (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, that's all, not any exact details more in the corresponding page, regarding Croatia and the so-called claims? (I am 99,9% sure that you would insert more if it would be, but I have to be sure really, so please assure me there is nothing more that would be relevant! Thanks (KIENGIR (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]
I cannot assure you, because I did not read the whole book. I only modified the text to avoid copyvio and checked the cited pages. Borsoka (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was just interested on p. 261. but if you checked that page I already have my answer. The original text tell us "...also regions which had belonged to Hungary in the past, such as Croatia." that is not really precise, since the bipolar interpretation presented by the Holy Crown Doctrine "belonging to Hungary" does not necessarily mean belonging to Hungary proper or just referring the personal union of two countries, moreover the same goes to the expression that Croatia would be a "region", instead of a country, etc., however the latter would imply the earlier improper interpretation here. That was my concern from the beginning since without further explanation it may be heavily misunderstood, since such claims like to former Hungary proper territories did not exist regarding Croatia in such a way or weight, the possible demand to have i.e. a harbor to the Adriatic See is definetly not the same. Thus I will insert in a chronologically proper way the Tomasevich source that attests Hungary refused to absorb Croatia, that with I see my concern balanced and so I will regard this case closed, although I am still not totally satisfied. Please support that. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://books.google.hu/books?id=fqUSGevFe5MC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=1941+Hungary+Yugoslavia&source=bl&ots=-OeZfkgbWi&sig=Gvg83Wg_k7R4vWjGJtti4L97iDE&hl=hu&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjYsuTC3_PNAhVBfxoKHSTACBI4ChDoAQhbMAk#v=onepage&q=1941%20Hungary%20Yugoslavia&f=false
  2. ^ https://books.google.hu/books?id=y0in2wOY-W0C&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=doctrine+of+the+holy+crown&source=bl&ots=m0fyYMAsVb&sig=K9uC55t1zeDr_A9vXcssOXCKiqQ&hl=hu&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjv8IziiYjOAhXlCMAKHRR8CaY4ChDoAQg0MAM#v=onepage&q=doctrine%20of%20the%20holy%20crown&f=false
  3. ^ László Péter - The Holy Crown of Hungary Visible and Invisible, SEER, Vol. 81, No. 3, July2003

Clarification is needed

[edit]

The article says: "On 12 December 1940, at the initiative of Prime Minister Count Pál Teleki, Hungary concluded a Treaty of Eternal Friendship and Non-Aggression with Yugoslavia. Although the concept of the Treaty had received support from both Germany and Italy, the actual signing of the treaty did not, as Germany's planned invasion of Greece would be simplified if Yugoslavia could be neutralised." The statements in the two sentences are quite contradictory: (1) Hungary and Yugoslavia conclude a treaty which neautralize Yugoslavia; (2) which makes Germany and Italy happy, but (3) Germany and Italy are unhappy, because they wanted to neutralize Yugoslavia. I would be grateful if somebody could clarify who wanted what and why. Borsoka (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in that passage says that Germany and Italy were happy with the treaty. It says that they were happy with a rapprochement between Hungary and Yugoslavia, but weren't happy about it being formalised in a treaty, because they still needed to neutralise Yugoslavia (by getting it to join the Pact) and the treaty may have got in the way of that. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do still not understand: (1) Germany and Italy would have been happy if a treaty was concluded between Hungary and Yugoslavia; (2) Hungary and Yugoslavia concluded the treaty; and (3) Germany and Italy were unhappy because of the treaty. Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with your edit, I think it provides the needed context and is pretty neutral. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:László_Bárdossy&oldid=1199518096"