Talk:Miklós Horthy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Question marks in the data box

I wanted to fill in the data box based on the article Ferenc Szálasi, but I don't know some data. That box says Szálasi was preceded by Horthy as a "Leader of the Hungarian Nation", but I don't find the exact years and Horthy's predecessor at this post.

Thanks for your help.

Adam78 23:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hope this is just a bad joke. This title (Leader of the Hungarian Nation / "Nemzetvezető") was created for Szálasi, no one else had ever claimed it before him.

If you really think you must use a succession box in this article, i would recommend this:

--Adolar von Csobánka (Talk) 18:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Fascists...

Have you ever heard about fascism? It's something that Horthy suppressed and banned several times... But perhaps I don't know Hungarian history well enough. Anyway it's very interesting that noone ever tried to label Ferenc Szálasi as a Fascist. Perhaps he deserves it a little bit more than Horthy, who had him imprisoned several times, who prevented the deportation of Jews from Budapest, who tried to start fighting against the Nazis. Perhaps.--Mathae 5 July 2005 12:20 (UTC)

I agree with everything Mathae said. Horthy even wanted to make Hungary change sides in the war. I hope he won't be put back into the Fascists category. (However, Szálasi should be put in the category.) Alensha 7 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)

Who was this absurdity committed by? Horthy was as fascist as the ("counter")revolution in 1956 was - not at all. This is a typic example of communist and panslavic propaganda. Gubbubu 13:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

„Horthy nem volt fasiszta diktátor.”

John Lukács: Állam, nemzet, nép. Előadás a Mindentudás Egyetemén, 2005. október 24. Gubbubu 08:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

("Horthy was not a fascist dictator". John Lukács: State, nation, folk. Lecture on politology at The University of Omniscience, 24. oct. 2005.)

Suggestion

Since this article has been several times moved into the category of fascists, and then removed form there, I think it would be useful to prevent further unnecessary work by placing a well-marked box on the top of the Talk page, that would incorporate all the arguments why Horthy wasn't a fascist or a nazi. I think the majority of the editors would accept it, and thus we wouldn't need to start the debate over and over again. (I can't create boxes but I could help in collecting arguments and sources.)--Mathae 14:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea; go ahead and do it. – Alensha 寫 词 17:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Postcard

I think the postcard is fine - it is a perfectly acceptable illustration to the life of Horthy, and in itself does not constitute an assertion that he himself was a Nazi. (Quite the contrary: if the Nazis had to distribute propaganda postcards to make people believe so, it must have been with a reason.) I think it should remain. KissL 09:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Dahn 11:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

About Romanian wikipedia

The problem is there only the mentality of people. Also I am Romanian, but I should like to change it if it was posible. The behaviour of two administrators is like Ceausescu's dictatorship. They do not support any kind of criticism like example administrator Vlad, I received an order to write about Miklós Horthy that he was fascist and criminal of war, unfortunetaly I could not find any kind of source (which said that) so I asked them to do it themselves but they did not do it and afterwards they found reasons to ban me. Is it right ? I will appeal to the highest rank of Wikipedia, becouse they discriminated against me. Please read this ! I feel a shamed to be Romanian. Ovidiu. 10:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If that is indeed the case, Ovidiu, I suggest you move your business over on English Wiki and report the abuse. I don't contribute on Ro Wiki precisely because it is controlled by a green-shirted POV. (Don't know if that is the case here, but my eyes have seen enough from browsing through that version of wikipedia.)

Note: I also agree with the fact that Horthy was not a fascist. I know that war crimes have been carried out under his administration, but I know that it is an open controversy about whether he was responsible for them. Dahn 14:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dahn, thank you for your kindly answeer, but how can i get to green-shirted POV, and what does that mean ? Becouse i should like to report the abuse directly to green-shirted POV.

Thank you again.

--Ovidiu. 15:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

About Miklós Horthy and the holocaust

In light of the worsening military situation and facing threats (from Allied leaders) of war crimes trials, Horthy ordered a halt to the deportations on July 7, 1944. In August, he dismissed the Sztojay government and resumed efforts to reach an armistice, this time with the Soviet Union whose army was on Hungary's borders. Horthy had begun final negotiations with Soviet army commanders by mid-October, when the Germans sponsored a coup d'etat. They arrested Horthy and installed a new Hungarian government under Ferenc Szalasi, the leader of the fascist and radically antisemitic Arrow Cross party United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, D.C

--Ovidiu. 16:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Chorin Ferenc - [...] Zsidó származású, 1919-ben megkeresztelkedett üzletember, nagyiparos, felsőházi tag, [...] A háború után amerikai emigrációban élt és anyagilag támogatta a szintén számkivetett Horthyt.

in literal translation: "Ferenc Chorin - [...] jewish descendant, baptized in 1919, businessman and industry mogul, member of the upper chamber[...] After the war he lived in emigration in the US, and supported (by money) the also fugitive Horthy"

(this Horthy, who this article describes) ! - the page links to the "Holocaust in Hungary" page.

Explanation

I have reverted some recent edits by an anonymous editor. Your information may be perfectly correct, but as long as you don't present verifiable sources to back them up, your edits are violating policy. Also, I fail to see how Wallenberg's heroic efforts to save the Jews of Budapest constitute a proof that Horthy didn't work for the same cause, or that "his efforts were negligible in comparison"; I think this is in violation of another policy, since it promotes an opinion rather than just listing the facts and letting the reader evaluate them. KissL 13:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Vitéz

How come his Hungarian name has an extra word, Vitéz? I don't think it correspond to de... does it? --Menchi 01:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

It means approx. "valiant", and to my knowledge it is similar to knighthood, but I'm not sure... Adam78 08:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The Vitézi Rend has been an internationally acclaimed order since 1962 (full name: The Knightly Order of Vitéz), when the 6th International Congress of Genealogic and Heraldic Sciences recognised it in Edinburgh. Horthy founded it after having been elected governor of Hungary, to honour his supporters and heros of WW1. He did not have the right to grant nobility, so he "invented" this order, which was dismissed in 1945, but emigrant vitéz-s reorganized it in 1956. --Mathae 18:59, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vitéz, Order of (Vitéz Rend in Hungarian) was a Hungarian Order founded by Minister-Presidential Order #6650 (1921). Initially the order was awarded to men who served with special distinction in World War One. Subsequently it was awarded to supporters of the Horthy Regime. The order was open to military personnel as well as civilians. It was a hereditary title, passing to the eldest son. The award of the order was in the gift of the Regent, Admiral Horthy, who himself was a recipient of the Order and the Order's Commander in Chief (Főkapitány). The award was accompanied by a land grant, 40 cadastral holds to an officer, 8 cadastral holds to other ranks or civilians. (1 cadastral hold = c. 1.43 acres). Jews were excluded from the order. Bardwell 20:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"Call on carcase"

The original speech says "tetemre hívom a magyar fővárost". This is a reference to the practice, common in the Middle Ages, that suspects were forced to touch the body of a murdered person one after another; it was believed that when the murderer touched the body, the wound would start to bleed. (In the speech, this is a metaphor applied to the nation as the victim, and the capital as the murderer.) I don't know whether it is possible to translate this into English exactly, but the fact that the title of "Tetemre hívás" (a poem by János Arany) was translated "Call to the Ordeal" in 1881 (see here) suggests not. The literal translation quoted in the heading is most certainly incorrect, so I'll change it. KissL 08:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely right. I hadn't got a clue how to translate "tetemre hívás" (this is why I translated it literally), so I agree with you. Cserlajos ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Catholic?

Somewhere I read:
"His resistance was partly inspired by the appeals made to Horthy, a Catholic by birth, by Roman Catholic clergy to have mercy on the Jews."

I think Horthy was a Protestant, and only took part on Catholic events due to he was the regent. Somebody who is unregistered made this change. Would somebody check up that it's true, or not?

User:Cserlajos, 28 May 2006.

No, he wasn't Catholic. That's why PM Béla Imrédy played the chief role in 1938 during the Saint Stephen Year and the 34th International Eucharistic Congress.--Mathae 12:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes: Horthy was protestant, not catholic (see [1]). That's why his supporter, Ottokár Prohászka catholic bishop hardly managed to convince the catholic clergy to give support for electing him governor (that was not only religious bias; but in Hungary, the king traditionally had to be catholic). I thought this is wide-known; but I see it isn't. But he was rather believer than extremely religious. In his emigration, he attended to church once a week :-)) ♥♥♥: Gubb  ✍    2007. April 21 12:43 (CEST) 12:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Date and circumstances of "entering" Budapest

The Romanian army entered Budapest on August 6, not August 4. At this time, the Entente had issued a telegraph requesting the Romanian army to keep its current positions, which was shown to Mardarescu, but he objected by saying that he can only accept orders from his own government. Those orders arrived after his troops had "entered" Budapest (whether this happened intentionally or not I'll leave for you to decide), but anyway, saying that the occupation of Budapest was an act "under the mandate of the Entente" is at least disputed, and can only be stated, if necessary, with mention to this. KissL 07:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

a word carries different messages depending on context. wording "Romania occupied Budapest" would be justified if Romania would have been an aggresssor state, set on annexing Hungary. eg. "Nazi army invaded France and occupied Paris annexing France looting/robbing the country vs. "American army defeated the Nazi army in France and entered Paris liberating France and captured massive quantities of nazi military equipment". you can easily discern that "American army invaded France and occupied Paris looting/robbing the nazi army of equipment" would be wrong formulation. -- Criztu 08:52, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Which is again a false analogy, because Paris was not the homeland of the Nazis, whereas Budapest is (and was) the capital of Hungary. KissL 09:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

well Paris certainly isnt the homeland of the Americans does it ? -- Criztu 11:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Who said it is? KissL 11:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

well then what did you mean by "Paris was not the homeland of the Nazis, whereas Budapest is the capital of HUngary" ? :)))) -- Criztu 12:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

When the army of one country (USA) drives the army of another country (Germany) out of the capital of a third country (France), it may or may not be a "liberation", depending on the circumstances (it is a heated controversy in Hungary, for example, whether the Soviet Red Army, by driving out the Germans, "liberated" or "occupied" Budapest at the end of WWII). However when the army of one country (Romania) drives the army of another country (Hungary) out of the capital of that same country (Hungary), it is an occupation regardless of circumstances. I can't make that any clearer. KissL 12:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

well, Americans also fought the french Vichy gov in WW II isnt it ? they sure did attack France, invaded lands of the pre-Vichy France and occupied Paris if looking at things from this perspective. while at the same time the Americans suported DeGaul. similarly Romanian army didn't "occupy" Budapest no more when Horthy came, and also when Horthy's gov was able to secure authority in HU, Romanian army retreated, not attacking a single Hungarian Horthist soldier. What did RO do ? attacked Bolshevik HU army and allowed Horthist HU army to take control of HU ? RO army occupied Budapest and in the same time Horthist units acted in Budapest without RO army engaging them ? which one is the Hungary you refer to ? Horthist Hungary or Bolshevic Hungary ? -- Criztu 13:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The Romanian army left Hungary after 4 (four) ultimatums from the Entente, the last one even containing the following paragraph:

Should [the Romanian government's] reply not be satisfactory to the Supreme Council of the Allies the latter has decided to notify Roumania that she has separated herself from them. They shall invite her to recall immediately her delegates to the Peace Conference, and they will also withdraw their diplomatic missions at Bucharest. As the questions concerning the settlement of boundaries are still to be made, Roumania will thus by her own action deprive herself of all title to the support of the Powers as well as to the recognition of her rights by the Conference. It would be with the profoundest regret that the Supreme Council of the Allies should see itself forced to severe relations with Roumania, but it is confident that it has been patient to the very last degree. [2]

It was clearly this ultimatum which made the Romanian army finally leave Hungary. It is also true that by this time, the country had been so thoroughly pillaged that any military retaliation was impossible for years to come – for instance, 75% of the railway carriages had been transferred to what afterwards became Romania. The Romanian army had no interest in hindering the initial activity of Horthy, because he, unintentionally, served the same political cause as the Romanians – the prosecution of the Communists, the only political power that had been capable of gathering any military power at all during the last year. When the Romanian army left, the country was already ruined, so the Romanians, as long as they weren't allowed to stay anymore, had again no interest to interfere. To infer that the Romanians supported Horthy is a later twist with the sole intent of whitewashing the injustice done by the Romanian army. KissL 14:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

wording "Romania's invasion of Hungary" or "Romania's occupation of Budapest" are correct if info on circumstances of such actions are provided. Without clear statement on which circumstances Romania invaded and occupied, the message is "Romania aggressed Hungary". If clearly discernable info on circumstances in which Romania "attacked, invaded and occupied Hungary" are provided, i have no objection for using these words. otherwise it would be manipulation of reader -- Criztu 13:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Provide those circumstances then, instead of removing valid content. But you won't be able to do that, because there are no serious sources that would accept the theory of any kind of (non-negligible) Hungarian offensive or agression. KissL 14:44, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

A regretable historical gesture indeed as the 'free' Hungary would cost the lives of many jews, gypsy, serbs, romanians and other nations. 90.5.212.112 (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

- - - - -

As the head of the newly organised National Army, he decided to spare his forces and avoided all combat. I have removed this sentence (Interwar Period, 1919–1939), because it is both hypothetical and over-simplistic and it is a misleading interpretation. The invading Romanian forces were a de facto proxy force of the Allies, who were concerned about the spread of communism into central Europe and the Balkans. After Kun’s flight to Vienna, and in the face of the extensive Romanian occupation of Hungary, there was in the country a political vacuum, food shortages and civil disorder were on a vast scale. The invading Romanians had France’s tacit support. For Horthy to fight the Romanians would have been tantamount to fighting the Allies – a madness, a naïve and pointless gesture on a Quixotic scale. Only the Allies themselves could force or order the Romanians out of the country. And this is, in fact, precisely what had happened. And as soon as it had come about, Horthy and the National Army took control.

Bardwell 17:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Museum of Terror in Budapest says Horthy was a Fascist

Their is a museum in Budapest[3], called the House of Terror, Terror Haza, about the terror of Fascism and Communism. At this Musuem Horthy is called a Facsist. And that is what he was! Bronks 10:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Horthy not decided to destroy any nations (not Jews, too!) - no, he saved 200,000 Jews! (This is not a legend, a fact with documentation (can be found in his memoirs attachment). There's a difference between nationalism and patriotism. In this case, weren't American leaders were Nazis? (Story with American Indians...)? Weren't Spanish leaders (another story with in Indians, full of brutality, somewhere in South America)? Weren't English leaders? (Story in India...) Weren't French leaders (yes, another story in Africa...)? The thing that these things happened much before the Holocaust won't free them from their crimes! How many people died just because they were different? And after the Holocaust? The "story" of Milosevic in Serbia? Buried in the honour of him? When we'll learn things?

And there comes Horthy, the educated, the trusty, the officer, the noble, from a great family. He was not the same as Hitler.. not a nobody. He didn't become the regent to destroy something. Well, the revisions. Official policy of Hungary, with the agreement of Horthy. But it wasn't his job. He was only the frontage man on the back of a white horse. And the massacre in Vojvodina? Made by disloyals. Horthy ordered the investigation. If I decide to kill as many Jews as I can, would László Sólyom, the President become a Nazi? I don't think so... The conclusion: Horthy was a conservative at a bad place, at a bad time. Furthermore, he was famous, and remained famous after the war (unlike Hitler)! (Don't believe communist sources, these marks him as the hated Nazi.) The real criminals were Döme Sztójay, Ferenc Szálasi, many parliamentary delegates who voted anti-Jewish laws, some members of the general staff, and that soldiers who executed these horrible commands! There's no Horthy.

He was not a war criminal, only a witness, even in the after-war trials after WW2, with the agreement of Americans and Soviets. His memoir is not full with nationalism, fascism. Simply tells his life. Unlike Hitler. If indepedent judges decided not to mark him as a Nazi, we could belive him and try to memorize the names of the real criminals. Not the name of a frontage man...

Of course it's my opinion, and I don't agree neither Fascism nor communism. I really loathe them, but I'd like to find out who was who. And after reading several sources, seeing many photos about this man, reading about the grateful Jew who visited Horthy in Estoril, reading through indepedent, right-winger and communist history books, after having a scout around the Internet, I found out a single sentence: "Horthy was not a fascist." User:Cserlajos

P.S.: Now many of you will say that i'm not right, while feeling angry. Investigate your own soul, not mine!

Actually, while I tend to agree with the notion of Horthy not being Fascist and rather Conservative, I think that mention of the Museum's judgment should be made. Cserlajos, none of your points make sense: despite your willingness to sanctify Horthy (investigate your soul, not mine), there is nothing inherent to fascism that would indicate "prone to genocide". Clicky on Fascism and tell me where you see that being stated. In fact, Fascism in Italy was a very inclusive and even non-Volkisch ideology - its criminal faults lie elsewhere. What you do is highly sophistical: if some to most of leaders who embraced fascism were genocidal, it should not be understood that Fascism itself is. Your statements about various genocides somehow not being included in the analysis of Fascism is absurd on all levels: everybody agrees that Stalin was a genocidal criminal, but is there a person you have met to support the theory that this made Stalin "a fascist"? No? Then, your point is missing... Dahn 22:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't got a willingness to sanctify Horthy. I admit besides that he was not a genocidal criminal, his concepts had some faults. When he arrived to Budapest, his soldiers did the White Terror. Under Horthy's regime, the freedom of voting was limited. When it was clearly visible for everybody - even for Horthy - that Germany is going to lost the war, he hesitated to ally Hungary with the Soviets (being a conversative, he loathed communism, like many others) as fast as possible. A good definition of Fascism, from the Fascism article: "Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." According to this Horthy was not a Fascist. He never talked about the "community decline", about the "pure Hungarian blood", never did humiliation, etc. Horthy was an old man, and he came from the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Horthy was a seaman, a captain, not a politician. Later, he became the regent. Last evening I wanted to describe that Horthy didn't do anything which made him a Fascist. He was a staunch right-winger, but not in this way. I suppose Horthy's notion was anti-communist, patriotist - and in some points nationalist, but not as rough as a Fascist's. Futhermore, the "men of the definition" or the leaders who embraced Fascism as their ideology were Fascists? Horthy was ethical all the time, and never made really Fascist decrees. I know that Fascism is not the word for genocides, but all Fascist regimes caused genocides (Germany, Hungary, Latin America...). It was a long progress to turn Hungary to a Fascist country for a while, and the last barrier was Horthy. Genocides can't be enclosed to any political ideology. The dictators of the world (Hitler, Stalin, etc.) only lapped the real reasons behind an ideology, like Fascism, or Communism. Nowadays, we like to point on each other, and can't recognize that everybody is right. Conservatives, Liberalists, Democrats, Republicans. Hungarians, Romanians, Slovaks. Since I'm only on the border of En-3 and En-4, it's a bit tiring for me to discuss in English. I'm a stalwart Democrat, and I could tell you more in Hungarian, the whole of my opinion, what "makes more sense", what is more correct. I hope now I wrote enough to give you a survey on my notion about Horthy. I suppose the future will turn out a adequate decision on Horthy. While the communist regimes existed in Europe, Horthy was a Fascist. After the democratic turn, many historians reviewed Horthy's life, and said "Horthy was not a Fascist". Furthermore, your argumentation was outstanding. Thanks for giving a great opponent (?). And could you help me to get information on Horthy's religion? It would be important. User:Cserlajos

• Just becouse he didn't want to kill all the jews, dosen't mean he wasn't a fascist. Mussolini didn't want to kill jews either, (and he was the "inventor" of fascism). Horthy was a fascist becuse he was in favour of a bourgoise dictatorship, he crushed the workers movements, banned all the unions and killed all communist and socialists. That is what makes him a fasicst!!! Bronks 18:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he should have been an authoritarian corporatist to be included in "fascists". His regime was not corporatist, and he was not especially authoritarian (stricto sensu). Dahn 18:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Forget about Horthy being a fascist. That's simply false. Only communists and other quite primitive marxists regard him fascist, but I guess the communist point of view is not a neutral point of view.

1. In Hungary only Ferenc Szálasi estabilished dictatorship, before that the political system was somewhere between conservative-monarchist authoritarian and limited parlamentarian.
2. The communist movement was banned, but the social democrats were permitted to exist (with limited rights). Anyway the communist party worked illegally with very few members (2 of them were executed in 1932).
3. Only unions of the railway workers and the post were "crushed" (banned).

Bronks, if you are extreme-leftist, do not be a POV-pusher. If not, think this fascist-stuff over. And I can hardly believe that the Terror Háza regards Horthy a fascist, please provide reliable information. Until then: revert...--Mathae 12:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Bronks, somehow I can't believe that you're blind. I had a look on your user page, (click) and well... I can see what are your interests. The only thing what I can say (write): see above. We discussed that Horthy was a conservative. In the future, please don't try to change this. Don't add him to the Fascists category. Wikipedia is not a place to tell your own opinion, it's the place of the "neutral" opinions. And don't forget: the most of the world doesn't support Marxism, or I should say: hate it. My grandfather felt fine in Siberia, that 10 years in his life was so so so good. And you're about to tell me: Horthy was the bad man, not those, who sent him to that cold place? (Before you describe him as a criminal, I tell you: he was caught to work for Our Gracious Stalin Comrade, to build the railroad, work in the forest - in spite of he was an intelligentsia.) User:Cserlajos

Cserlajos, your comment has no relevance whatsoever. Let's stick to the topic at hand. I have attested my belief that he was not a fascist (and I believe it is shared by many historians: I know Nagy-Talavera refuses to include him in that category, and centers on Horthy's aristocratic paternalism), but I also believe that, if the Holocaust Memorial does say it, mention should be made of this on the article page. I would also like to beg Hungarian contributors to stop shoving high praise and revanchisme into every problematic article. Dahn 14:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This was especially to Bronks.

Problem is, nobody proved that the Terror House says that, and I don't remember having seen/heard this there either... But I'm also fed up with people simplifying Hungary's recent history to (1) Nazis (bad) and non-Nazis (good), or (2) Communists (bad) and non-Communists (good). Life is just not black and white. KissL 14:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• A presentation in the House of Terror what indicates Horthy wasn't a fascist.
• A presentation what tells: "Állampolgárai életét a II. világháborús viszonyokat az ország geopolitikai adottságait és katonai erejét figyelembe véve egészen az ország náci megszállásáig igyekezett megóvni" ~ "He tried to protect the lives his citizens - considering the relationships of WW2, the geopolitical state of the country, and the manpower of it - until the Nazi occupation", but criticizes: "Horthy államfőként passzívan tűrte, jóváhagyta a vidéki zsidóság deportálását" ~ "Horthy as the regent passively stood, approved the deportation of the Jews in the countryside" (He cared only about the Jews of Budapest)
• The House of Terror is not the Holocaust Memorial. There is it.
• The Holocaust in Hungary's "Who is who?" sais: "1920 és 1944 között a Magyar Királyság kormányzója. 1918-ban az Osztrák-Magyar Monarchia hadiflottájának utolsó parancsnoka. Az 1918-as magyarországi polgári forradalom és az 1919-es kommunista Tanácsköztársaság bukása után lett a király nélküli királyság kormányzója. A két világháború közötti Magyarország államfője. 1938-tól a szélsőjobboldaltól tartva engedélyezte a zsidótörvények megalkotását, de 1944-ig a német nyomás ellenére sem volt hajlandó deportáltatni a zsidókat. A német megszállás után kinevezte a kollaboráns kormányt, visszavonult az államügyektől, de nem mondott le, ezzel mintegy legitimálta a megszállást és a deportálásokat. 1944. júliusában leállította a zsidók kiszállítását és ezzel megmentette a budapesti zsidóságot. A háborúból való kiugrást tétován és következetlenül készítette elő, 1944 októberében a németek a nyilas Szálasi Ferenc javára lemondatták. A háború után nem állították bíróság elé, de Magyarországra nem térhetett vissza. " ~content: "Horthy feared from extreme-rightists, so accepted the Jewish laws, but until 1944 -in spite of the German pressure- he not allowed the deportation of the Jews. In the July of 1944, he stopped the deportation of the Jews from Budapest. The Germans deposed him in the favour of Ferenc Szálasi".

The upper articles don't say that Horthy was a Fascist. So I don't think (and remember) that the House of Terror sais he was a Fascist. I hope it helps: User:Cserlajos

When the Communists published The Confidential Papers of Admiral Horthy in the 1950s despite the usual tedious introduction, not even they branded him a fascist. Surely that speaks for itself? David Lauder (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

More needed

I'm not prepared to do this myself right now, but we can't have a good article on Horthy without even a mention of István Bethlen, prime minister for a whole decade during Horthy's regency. Clearly their relationship deserves some exploration. Biruitorul 07:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and the article does need more input. I have some source materiéls so I'll see what I can do this week. Those (above this heading's entry) with axes to grind really ought to stick to political websites. Regards, David Lauder 21:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources are missing

Many, many things are missing from this article and it contains wrong information in several instances. For example: 1.The information concerning white terror is wrong. There were about 600-1000 victims. And this section is mainly wrong concerning the other pieces of information too (probably comes from hungarian communist historian György Ránki). Only the communists were banned. And so on. 2. Zvonimir Golubović has no proof to say that Horthy knew about the massacre in Vojvodina. There were about 3800 victims. The response (1944-1945 Killings in Bačka) from Tito's partisans from 1944 was the deporatation and massacre (ethnic cleansing) of german and hungarian civilian people. They alleged that they were war criminals and got rid of approximately 400-500 thousand civilian people (40-70 000 Hungarians) according to some of the sources. Though the number of victims is still not clear. The Foibe massacres are also attributed to partisans. Horthy had a trial for the war criminals Tito did not. 3. His government was more of conservative authoritarian government rather than a fascist one. Historians proved that he was not fascist. So this sentence suggest that the government was not fascist, but still something like that. The Canadian Slavonic Papers, Mar-Jun 1997 by N F Dreisziger wrote an article about Thomas Sakmyster's Hungary's Admiral on Horseback: Miklos Horthy, 1918-1944. 4. Hitler became Horthy's patron Hitler and Horthy hated each other, since Horthy was not willing to attack Czechoslovakia. Even before that Horthy did not like Hitler. 5. The Hungarian Army was very weak and badly equipped due to the Trianon Treaty to attack the well-armed Czechoslovakia and Romania. So even if she had wanted she could not have done so. As for the background of Trianon until the 30's I recommend the following book: C. A. Macartney: Hungary and Her Successors (The Treaty of Trianon and Its Consequences, 1919-1937). I could continue mentioning the errors, but I think that's enough. Some positive aspects are missing as well: 1. Hungary was a refuge to 1 million jews (and helped a lot of polish people as well) as long as possible. 2. When Horthy was informed about what happened to the deported jews he tried to stop the deportations. Since his orders were not followed by the hungarian extremists in the occupied country he needed to call some loyal troops, that helped him (Ferenc Koszorus). And so on. As the article has no reliable references I suggest using the "This article does not cite any references or sources" sign. Here's a useful link (e-book) to get to know some aspects of this period John Flournoy Montgomery Hungary: The Unwilling Satellite. I could continue this too. Probably I come back to help editing this article when I have enough time. Carlos72 (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I made some necessary changes. The article is now more or less acceptable. I removed the part about socialist sympathy as it's misleading, since (mainly) the communists betrayed for example the landless peasants and lost their popularity with most of the people because of the red terror imposed on them. The case of the social democrats is similar to the communists. I removed the A military cordon surrounded the Parliament building and several parliamentarians were refused admission, even as officers in uniform freely entered the building and walked around in the halls and galleries. as it is (probably) coming from hungarian communist propaganda from 1964 by György Ránki. Historians proved that Horthy did not use intimidation to be elected as Regent. His win was mainly due to the fact that he was an acceptable person by the Triple Entente (Thomas Sakmyster). The white terror was mainly due to the unorganised/undisciplined National Army, the chaotic state of Hungary at that time and the red terror. I will work on the article later to give an unbiased insight to the readers. Hungary's situation (and the region's as well) was much more complicated, than it is in the article. Hitler used the divide and rule policy in the region.Carlos72 (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Misleading article

I just checked again the main parts of the article. The holocaust part is totally wrong. I prepare an article to be a featured article in a different language so I have no time to modify this one. There are some reliable sources in Hungarian, but here's an english article hereEichmann's List: a pact with the devil. He did not receive the Vrba-Wetzler report until late June and then he had to wait for loyal troops to stop the deportations. Even the hungarian jews admitted that the hungarian zionists and the jewish council did not inform anyone until much later. They had a pact with Eichmann to save the most important jews, but I have no time now to correct it.Carlos72 (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The first massacre of Hungarian Jews took place in July 1941 when 20,000 Jews were expelled from Carpathian Ruthenia to German-occupied Soviet territories, where most of them were killed by SS troops. Though this was an inhuman act, but these people had no hungarian nationality and also some local troops helped in their slaughter.Carlos72 (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I rectified the biggest errors regarding the holocaust.Carlos72 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

npov and scholarship

There is a disturbing apologetic tone to this entire piece, particularly regarding what can only be said as his "if only they had told me" defense against the wholesale murder of the holocaust--a statement quickly switched to Horthy's protection of the Jews in Budapest (give or take 15,000 shot into the Danube), is not particularly strong.

Someone's apparently jammed in "proof" that the Jews collaborated with the "devil" in their own demise--along with, as always, those bad boys the Jewish Councils--citing as a source a newspaper headline essentially. The activities of Rudolf Kastner and Joel Brand are a tad more complicated, I'm afraid.

Not to mention the authority, on praising Horthy, and one belabored at length, of another newspaper article, of all things, with [non-original] underlines, from before the war ended. One word: risible.

Something smells severely WP:NPOV.

Plus, a section on the Holocaust in Hungary without reference to Randolph L. Braham's research and interpretation of the situation, is academically incomplete.

--Shlishke (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"give or take 15,000 shot into the Danube" You quickly forgot that the actual power was in Veesenmayer's hands as the country was occupied by germans. They used collaborators and gendarmes as well to deport jews, but I say again the german army occupied Hungary. I highly doubt that the majority of these people knew what would happen after the deportation. There were extremists and antisemitic people in Hungary as well as in any other countries. Those who killed those jews were these people, but you tried to blame hungarian people in general, which is unfair with the following: "Eichmann had arrived in Budapest with only 20 officers."

Nobody questions that bad things happened at that time in Hungary, but you should read more books/opinions before suggesting the blame of Horthy for everything. I read dozens of studies and some books about Horthy. Maria Schmidt (hungarian-jewish researcher), who wrote studies on the history of the hungarian jews, admits that Horthy did his best. Naftali Kraus (from Israel), who's considered to be an ardent zionist by some of the hungarian jews, also expresses a quite sound opinion about the above person. Sakmyster's book is quite good, too. Montgomery (former US ambassador) also gives a quite sound interpretation of the historical situation at that time. I could cite more and more names and opinions, but this is not my aim now. I'm convinced that even if I showed you the original copies of these, you would not want to accept these. If you're full of hatred you cannot be convinced.

Kasztner's role is highly disputed. Many people did not believe in his innocence and that's why he was assassinated. Even judge Halevi and hungarian jews criticized him.[4] If the relation between the holocaust and deportations was so clear why nobody did anything (e.g:western countries)? The deportations started early in France, long before it happened in Hungary. That was not a secret to England and the US. Randolph L. Braham's research could be as disputed as that of others. There was a pressure in Israel to acquit him on appeal (by this time he was assassinated). The responsibility of jewish council and the zionists is admitted. Even the Hungarian Jewish Faith Association (Mazsihisz) admitted it. To see things like you (the jews never made any mistakes, which is not even logical as they are human beings) is showing a quite narrow-minded, biased point of view. Even some jewish historians (e.g:Finkelstein) try to see things more realistically. I condemn anti-semitism, but I cannot accept the one-sided interpretation of history.

I'm not interested in editing this article and I probably won't do it as people like you would never agree on any point of the article. Your suggestion as a whole is much closer to the former communist history writing, than to the real one. The article is really unbalanced as you can nearly read more about the holocaust, than his life and role in history. Many things are missing (good and bad). Now it is getting really biassed against him. Please try to keep yourself calm before you answer and read the opinion of Naftali Kraus. To understand what happened you could write a study of 20 pages. I left a similar message on your talk page.

Opinion of Naftali KrausCarlos72 (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Chill out.--Shlishke (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I might return in the future to this article, if you are willing to be helpful. Then we could co-operate and try to create a more realistic historical assessment on Horthy. Don't rush to blame people with the lack of neutrality. As for the article I added "according to Stein" suggesting that it was his opinion, if you want I can remove this as it's only an opinion. Unfortunately there are very few realistic assessments (books) about Horthy in english as most of the new hungarian studies/books are not translated into english. These are anything, but nationalist books. One of the best contemporary historians is Maria Ormos (she's thought to be "leftist", but she's quite neutral). A sound discussion is more than welcome. Please tell me what your problem is with the article (which part) and what your suggestion is, so that we can remove the NPOV sign. Once again I mention, no one denies the atrocities and the inhumanity of the holocaust, so do not get upset. Waiting for your suggestions. Regards, Carlos72 (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw that you read my message and removed it from your talk page. Having no answer to it I remove the NPOV sign until further notice/discussion as the content of this article basically corresponds with historical facts. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.Carlos72 (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism?

As regards the Jewish problem, I have been an anti-Semite throughout my life. I have never had contact with Jews. That looks like a propaganda letter from him, rather than his own opinion. That's true that there's some debate in Hungary as the marxist-historians falsified his whole life and it's very difficult to find his clear image. As for the content of this letter it's simply not true that he never had contact with Jews. Some names: Chorin (Ferenc Chorin), Vida (Jenő Vida), Weiss-Mauthner, Kornfeld (Móric Kornfeld) .... families. Apart from that Solomon Stern (Stern Samu) also had influence on him. These Jewish families were close to Horthy's class and he had a contact with them. Chorin and some Jews supported him in exile, when he lost his power and existence. Why if there was no friendship? Even if you deny the friendship the contact cannot be denied. Some of these historians should start thinking and point out the contradiction between this letter and life.Carlos72 (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

-- Carlos, I think you're quite right on both counts - that Horthy maintained some contact with aristocratic Jews, and also that clarity on this issue was badly damaged by the post-war efforts to destroy any hint of nuance in his career. And of course it's well known, and also in the article, that wealthy Jews in America helped sustain him and his family after the war. I've adjusted the language to soften the harsh impact of the letter, which may, as you say, have been an effort to establish credibility in a political environment that was often more anti-Semitic than the regent himself was. Shlimozzle (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.Carlos72 (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Some extra information

Horthy wanted to get rid of Gyula Gömbös and only did not do so, beacuse he (Gömbös) was about to die.

Unwilling German alliance: When dealing with the subject, most of the historians (apart from C.A.Macartney and a few others) do not take it into account, that Hungary was also surrounded by hostile neighbours (little Entente) and situated between two terrible powers (Germans and later the Soviets) with no proper army (mainly due to the Trianon treaty). The Hungarian government tried to stay anglophile (especially Teleki), but without any practical help could not do anything against the Germans. Hungary was not only dependent on Germany regarding the economy, but also the Germans were practically the only power willing/able to give weapons to them. So without mentioning that they tried to stay anglophile, but it was not possible under the circumstances, this sentence is a bit unfair: This combination of menace and reward fixed Hungary firmly in the position of a Nazi client state. Also Hitler cleverly used these countries against each other as a threat (Hungary, Slovakia and Romania). So he left no chance for these countries to feel safe. Apart from that Romania and Slovakia had counter-revisionist claims against Hungary.

The invasion of Yugoslavia: to be fair the British threatened Hungary, but gave no military help at all (not even a promise to have an ethnically fairer redistribution of the lost territories after the war) to stop the German Army, which was much stronger than the Hungarian one and entered Hungary. Professor Macartney agrees with Horthy, that the Germans culd have attacked Budapest within 1 hour. So only an all out attack and an all out war could have slowened the Germans for a short while and with this (immediate occupation) none of the Jews could have survived at all. It was vital for Hitler to "pacify" the Balkans (and correct Mussolini's failure with Greece) for his plans against the Soviet Union, so this question had a top priority. By the time the Hungarians entered Yugoslav (ex-Hungarian) territory (with many ethnic Hungarians), Yugoslavia oficially ceased to exist.(Macartney)

As for the jackal of Europe I have only one question. Would an American be called jackal, if the Americans lost Texas to Mexico and they tried to get it back peacefully? Everything is only a question of view point. I think there's no nation let it be American, German, Romanian, Hungarian and so on, that would not try to get back a lost and vital territory. The Hungarians only tried to get back the ethnic Hungarian territories from Slovakia (and mainly from Romania, as Transylvania was so mixed up with nationalities, that it was impossible to make proper justice for either side).

The Horthy offer showing Horthy's good faith regarding the Jews is totally missing. With stopping the deportations, he did "enough" in the eyes of the Allies, still he tried to save Jews. After that Eichmann still tried to deport Jews. Horthy had to stop and return the train from Kistarcsa. He did not even mentioned the Horthy offer in his memoirs as a "pretext". So it must have been a genuine effort from his side to save Jews and it gave encouragement to others to save Jews. The Yad Vashem acknowledges this.Yad Vashem: Horthy offer

Here you can see that Horthy's power was very limited at that time: Here, too, the struggle goes on, "the duel," as the witness Freudiger termed it, between Horthy and Eichmann. In spite of the ban by Horthy, Eichmann persuaded the Hungarian gendarmerie to co-operate with him in carrying out the deportation.

The Kistarcsa incident on Nizkor.org:The Trial of Adolf Eichmann Session 112, where Horthy returned the train: However, at once Eichmann still managed to carry out the deportation of the Kistarcsa train. He told us that he has some kind of a vague recollection about a train that left and was brought back.

Horthy tried to stop the deportations before he actually managed to do so, but had no power over the government and the trio. On 26.06.1944. he held a crown council and tried to order a halt of the deportations. His order was rejected. He also needed some time to collect some loyal troops (Frank Koszorus) to do so. He had to be careful as well, as many of the army officers were loyal supporters of the Germans or the Arrow Cross Party. This becomes evident when he tries to make peace with the Soviets and many of his officers betrayed him.

Interesting addition that members of the Arrow Cross Party repeatedly attacked Horthy from the late 30's spreading leaflets against him, saying that he was "hired by Jews". In proper English we would say "Jew lover". They also said (deliberately and incorrectly) that Horthy's wife was Jewish in order to undermine his authority.Carlos72 (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Horthy and the Jews

• • As I write this there is a text in this article that claims the Jews of Pest understood that Horthy was no more to be blamed for the antisemitic acts of some of his officers than the Jews were for the acts of the Bolsheviks. This is probably false, even if it could be established what is meant by the "Jews of Pest" (obviously a diverse lot ranging from communists to capitalists and from baptized Christians like Horthy's friends who supported him in exile and still referred to as "Jews" by others on this page - to Orthodox). It is certainly an antisemitic statement itself, likening as it does crimes committed by the Hungarian government while Horthy was regent (such as the racial laws enacted 1938-1941) and had the authority to declare or annul criminal laws and practices, with crimes committed by Jewish Bolsheviks with "the Jews of Pest" in no position to stop them, as they had no authority at all over individual Jews.

Ikalmar (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

merge

I suggested that A Life for Hungary be merged to this article because the book itself is not notable out of the context of the subject of this article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I searched for references and found several published (gBooks) references to the book, I only added one, but the article seem capable of standing on it's own. There have been no other comments on the merge so removing the merge tag.

Miért irtok angol kommenteket ?!?

Elbaszta Hitler a háborút, s igy az egész magyarságot... szét van tépve ó-Magyarország s én itt rohadok Romániában, azaz Erdélyben, s a magyarországiak le oláhoznak minket, kapjátok be a faszam értiteke... mindegy... ez van... mit tudj csinálni... talán... áh mindegy. (unsigned) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.81.139.241 (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

    This is very difficult for a non-Hungarian to read.  Why not restrict non-English-language
    comments to other Wikis?  This article does appear in the Magyar Wiki, I'm certain.  Firstorm (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to disturb a lot of hungarians that people outside of their own peoples might take an interest in events that occurred in hungarian (i.e european) history, and, even more shockingly, have opinions on these events... why is this so disturbing to the hungarians?

red vs. white terrors

I am not sure exactly where to place this comment, but I have seen varying estimates on the numbers of victims in the red and white terrors, and differing opinions on which was worse. I think the difficulty can be from the accounting of 'victims' as those who were harmed, or those who were killed. I would also tend to believe any white numbers coming from Horthy because he does not apologise for what happened, even if he acted to curtail the most heinous abuses of individual squads. But it is of course possible that many abuses happened without Horthy ever knowing the actual numbers. The Communists, on the other hand, tend to try to hide evidence and were, for many years, in control in Hungary and had the ability to alter the records to reduce the number of victims of the Red Terror. It may not be possible to put any reliable numbers on the number of victims, but we ought to cite sources any such numbers, so that readers will know which propaganda machine (white or red) has done the accounting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.84.207 (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

His life

This article is meant to be about Miklos Horthy, the person Miklos Horthy, but a large section focuses on jews and how many were killed and sent to concentration camps etc etc, this seems very unprofessional as there already exists a page about Hungaries jews. This section must be made shorter. While it needs to be included as it is a part of his life, the amount that is there is completely unprofessional, he did alot more in his life than focus on jews...120.144.148.96 (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources for Horthy saving Jews

We need some good sources for this paragraph. Also, who is Mrs. Anne O'Hare McCormick of The New York Times? Was this a letter to the editor or something? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Horthy certainly did as much as any Western leader to protect and save the Hungarian Jews, and under the circumstances did a great deal more than the non-axis leaders, or the western media. The survival of 200,000 Jews in Budapest until the arrival of the Soviets could not have been possible without Horthy’s active resistance to the German orders, nor without the Hungarian Roman Catholic Church, which handed out false baptism certificates and false IDs in an effort to save the nation's Jews from being deported. At the time the New York Times itself admitted the fair treatment Jews received in Hungary from the regent. After saving the Jews of Budapest the first time and after returning the trainload of Jews to Kistarcsa, on July 15, 1944 the Times had an article praising Hungary as the last refuge of Jews in Europe, and that “Hungarians tried to protect the Jews.”

Who is Don Mabry of the Historical Text Archive who is used as a source? We must use mainstream academic historians for these kinds of claims. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not keep removing the fact templates. We must have sources for this paragraph, or it will have to go. And we need another source in place on Don Mabry. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Answers:

About Don Marby and HTA (+their awards - seems "mainstream"); Anne O'Hare McCormick (also have a look at The New York Times article's "Pulitzer prizes" section: "1937 Anne O'Hare McCormick, for distinguished foreign correspondence: dispatches and special articles from Europe."). Cserlajos 15:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The HTA book was written by John Flournoy Montgomery, not by D. Marby. He was an ambadassor of the US to Hungary at the time. Cserlajos 15:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that 5 years later claims similar those discussed above are still in the article, and beset by the same lack of sources, or citing some Hungarian sources (see WP:REDFLAG and WP:NONENG) which furthermore do not appear to verify the text. This is used to support that Horthy saved 124,000 Jews, but the source never even mentions Horthy, and seems to say only that the Christian churches sheltered hundreds of Jewish children and orphans. I don't see how that can be used to claim that "It seems certain that the survival of 124,000 Hungarian Jews in Budapest until the arrival of the Soviets would have been impossible without Horthy’s years of foot-dragging reluctance to implement German orders." The only English source cited in the article is an opinion piece from an newspaper from 1944, clearly inadequate WP:PRIMARY source after all this time. Who agrees with McCormick now that Hungary was "the last refuge of Jews in Europe", when now it's known that most of Hungary's Jews died? FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably a more accurate assessment of Horthy's position is found in Michael Mann's book (not the movie director!) The dark side of democracy: explaining ethnic cleansing. [5] Mann writes that in 1941 "The regime was not of one mind." (p. 299) and "the Horthy faction distinguished “Magyar Jews” from “foreign Jews,” recent refugees who merely resided in Hungary. They also denied citizenship to Jews from territories restored to Hungary during 1938–41. These foreign Jews were expendable. A German SS officer reported, “Horthy considered the assimilated Jews of Budapest as Hungarians but the poorer ones of the provinces only as rabble.”" (p. 299) After a 1941 pogrom against 18,000 Jews, two thirds of which turned out to be Hungarian citizens (p. 299), "the army become more Germanophile as the war developed. Many middle and lower officers supported the Arrow Cross and demanded that Hungary be cleansed of the Judeo-Bolshevik conspiracy. [...] Horthy held out until early 1944. Then he yielded up 100,000 more “alien” Jews, telling a confidant: 'The Germans have cheated me. Now they wish to deport the Jews. I don’t mind. I hate the Galician Jews and the Communists. Out with them, out of the country! But . . . there are some Jews who are as good Hungarians as you and I . . . here are little Chorin and Vida [Jewish industrialists and members of the Senate, Chorin also a Christian convert] – aren’t they good Hungarians? I can’t allow these to be taken away. But they can take the rest.'" (p. 300) "Eichmann expected difficulties in 1944 when he asked for the remaining Hungarian Jews. Yet he got all the cooperation he needed from radicals in the key state agencies. He said that Endre, the fascist secretary of the interior responsible for Jewish affairs, “wanted to eat Jews with paprika.” His deputy, the fascist Baky, provided the link with the gendarmerie. The Germans offered two trains a day for the deportations; the Hungarian planners asked for six. They compromised on four, since there was a war on. In two months almost 450,000 Jews were deported, mostly to their death." (p. 300) "A few prefects, mayors, policemen, and civil servants dragged their heels and a handful resigned. Most prefects had been replaced by radical rightists, and some were moved to areas where they knew no one and so could not organize resistance. But most of their deputies and town mayors had remained in place and carried out orders." (p. 301) "In July, Horthy was negotiating with the Soviets, trying belatedly to change sides – bizarrely using the bloodstained gendarmerie commander as his emissary (Erez, 1989: 624, 639). When the Germans got wind of this (through radicals within the regime), they arrested and replaced Horthy with the Arrow Cross leader Szalasi. He brought back the worst perpetrators for another burst of murderous deportations. Luckily the Red Army soon swept into Budapest, saving most of the capital’s Jews." (p. 302) I think the Chorin and Vida quote is probably suitable for the article. Attributing the salvation of the remaining Jews solely to Horthy's stalling is rather iffy. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess there weren't any NYT correspondents in WWII Bulgaria because on p. 307 Mann says "Bulgaria was the only Axis power to largely resist the Final Solution." I think wp:secondary sources should take precedence. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Another missing element here is that Americans used air raids to pressure Horthy [6]: "In July, when only about 100,000 Budapest Jews remained in the country, international protests as well as American air raids, led to suspension of the deportations, thus sparing the lives of the remaining Jews." FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

References

Nazi leader

Ok, I will not fight revert war here about the question was Miklos Horthy Nazi leader or not, but I will elaborate here some facts about him: he was ally of Adolph Hitler, he created Greater Hungary (compare this with Greater Germany of Adolf Hitler), and he is responsible for Southern Backa genocide in 1942, where numerous Serb and Jewish civilians were killed with the purpose of changing ethnic structure of the region (modern term for this is ethnic cleansing). So, my question is: what man should to do more to be labelled as Nazi leader? User:PANONIAN

• Greater Germany absorbed large lands that were not ethnically German, like Poland and Czechia. The areas that Horthy took back were inhabited mostly by Hungarians. This is clear in the case of the territorial revision of Slovakia, but less so in cases like Bacska or Northern Transylvania.
• I haven't read Zvonimir Golubović's book but I read several publications which don't speak favourably about his objectivity. Furthermore when he states (I'm paraphrasing your edit) "Horthy approved the raids", how would he have access to that kind of information? Was he in Budapest? Did he gain access to secret files? Does he give any proof that Horthy personally approved the massacres? He was the one that ordered an investigation. Let's not dive into conspiracy theories.
• Yes, he was an ally of Hitler, but Horhty's autobiography gives a bittersweet account of their relationship.
• He wasn't put on trial at Nuremberg and Mosad didn't come after him like to Nazis who escaped trials. If Horthy's word was good enough to Justice Jackson, that's saying something.

Horthy was a weak man. He wanted to take back the lands and in the process appeased whoever was willing to give it to him. He sold out his people, but a nazi he was not.▪ radonX € 02:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

---

There are some things to add and to correct.

• Horthy never said that he had created "Greater Hungary" - which had been divided among a "Smaller Hungary", Romania, the newly founded Serbian-Croatian-Slovenian Kingdom and Czechoslovakia. He just got some of the lost regions (Southern Slovakia, parts of Transsylvania), or occupied them (Ruthenia, Vajdaság), but he never came to restore Hungary entirely.
• He is not responsible for any genocide, as he never gave orders for that. In Újvidék (Novi Sad) treacherous officers cut all ways of communication so that Budapest could not have been informed of the massacre they did. Horthy personally ordered to stop it, and he wanted to condemn the responsible officers, but they fled - where? - to the Nazi Germany, and they returned after the Wehrmacht occupied Hungary. So the genocide was not an ethnic cleansing conducted by the Hungarian government, but a terrible sin committed by disloyal officers.
• In 1939 he refused to let German troops through Hungary for Poland even after he had been given some territories in Felvidék (Southern Slovakia) in 1938 by Germans and Italians.
• In 1942 he ordered to start negotiations with the British - the hope was cut by the slow Italian campaign and the Nazi occupation. By the way, before the occupation Horthy was invited to Klessheim on a conference, where he was virtually imprisoned for a few days, and he couldn't order resistance.
• After the occupation the Hungarian administration - the police and the gendarmerie - served the Nazis helpfully in deporting the Jews of the Hungarian countryside without any governorial orders. Horthy couldn't do anything, but by gathering loyal forces to the capital, he saved the Jews of Budapest. No other allies of Hitler dared ever to do so.
• Horthy never supported the Hungarian Nazi parties - on the contrary, he had their leader, Ferenc Szálasi imprisoned several times.

What else should a politician do so that he won't be labelled as a Nazi leader?--Mathae 19:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Anyways, it's only Pannonian's opinion that he was a nazi. Nobody, not even Encyclopedia Britannica ever mentions that Horthy's a nazi, so he won't be labeled as such on Wikipedia.▪ radonX € 02:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Pro-Nazi editor Mathae is lying here: "After the occupation the Hungarian administration - the police and the gendarmerie - served the Nazis helpfully in deporting the Jews of the Hungarian countryside without any governorial orders. Horthy couldn't do anything, but by gathering loyal forces to the capital, he saved the Jews of Budapest. No other allies of Hitler dared ever to do so." - every word of this sentence is a miserable Nazi lie! Jews were deported by orders of Horty and his government. Please study history, Mr. Adolf NaziMathae! Instead of kissing the Hitler and Horthy photos in your living room, plz buy a history book!!! --maxval (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Calling Miklós Horthy a facist

"put a VALID reference that Horthy was not a fascist and problem is solved" clearly indicates some twisted way of logical thinking. It is obvious that anybody who wants to insert this claim into the article needs to corroborate it with convincing sources. Take a deep breath.--Nmate (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is not neutral

I feel myself deeply hurted by this article, showing a dirty fascist dictator as a respectable person, also reffering to him as "Regent" and "His Serene Highness", while is predecessor Bela Kun, a highly remarkable fighter for freedom, is simply qualified "Communist" as it was a dog. I wrote the notes about the author and I found he clearly is a right-wing person, also qualifying himself as "Anti-Communist" and "Anti-EU", which is the strangest thing to hear to for an European. You always wrote that Wikipedia is neutral, so I invite you to remove this article and to write again in a proper way. More, I invite Americans to show a proper respect for opinions different form theirs, including democratic Communism, which teachs very good principles such as Peace, Equality, Freedom and Justice. Men are often dirty and use politics fot their own purposes, hiding them behind words, but ideas are always clean, and nobody in the world, but supporters of inequality, injustice and dictatorships, could say that Communist ideas are wrong! More, remember that Wikipedia belong to whole world and not only to USA! Val from European Union —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.55.179.31 (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As it can be seen in the article (which is a lot better, than it was a year ago) Horthy was not a fascist. You are a shameless, nameless, cheeky communist liar. Your communist mates caused millions of dead people. Why don't you glorify Stalin as well? How dare you lie like that and call Kun a freedom fighter? Half of Bela Kun's life was about terror. It's obvious, if you read the very poor, but at least basically acceptable article about him in Wikipedia. Someone used a communist source in Kun's article trying to lessen his sins in the Crimea, saying that his intact position shows he did not do it. Stupidity! The most cruel communists were usually the most successful and reliable. It's enough to read about Stalin and his mates.

As for Kun in the Crimea:

In late 1920 — early 1921 Bela Kun and R. Zemlyachka, secretary of the Crimean Regional Committee of RCP(b), initiated and inspired the atrocious repressions and unprecedented terror in the Crimea. (Ukrainian Government's website.

After the occupation of the Crimea by the Bolsheviks in November 1920, power in the Crimea was handed over to the notorious Hungarian Communist, Bela Kun, who carried out a policy of mass terrorism. In the process between 60,000 and 70,000 inhabitants of the Crimea were shot.International Committee for Crimea, ICC, P.O. Box 15078, Washington, DC 20003. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos72 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Horthy might be a conservative but he is still a scumbag and caused a terror far greater than Bela Kun's! And you cannout just go around calling the unsigned guy above a communist liar when you are quite clearly a Far-Right apologist. Most Hungarians and most of the world revile Horthy. Be more civil and NPOV or I'll report you to the mods. The Mummy (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Quotation recently removed

Recently, the following quotation was deleted (I have re-added it):

Dear Sztójay: I was aware that the Government in the given forced situation has to take many steps that I do not consider correct, and for which I cannot take responsibility. Among these matters is the handling of the Jewish question in a manner that does not correspond to the Hungarian mentality, Hungarian conditions, and, for the matter, Hungarian interests. It is clear to everyone that what among these were done by Germans or by the insistence of the Germans was not in my power to prevent, so in these matters I was forced into passivity. As such, I was not informed in advance, or I am not fully informed now, however, I have heard recently that in many cases in inhumaneness and brutality we exceeded the Germans. I demand that the handling of the Jewish affairs in the Ministry of Interior be taken out of the hands of Deputy Minister László Endre. Further more, László Baky’s assignment to the management of the police forces should be terminated as soon as possible.

This is a sourced text and can be found on page 267 of Horthy's Memoirs, re-published in 2000 by Simon Publications, Safety Harbor, FL 34695 (i.e., Florida, United States). This quotation provides insight into the connection of Horthy and Sztójay. Please, also note that it contains parts such as "in inhumaneness and brutality we exceeded the Germans", which clearly shows the cruelty of the Arrow-Cross government. I encourage the editors to identify and correct problems, in case they notice any. However, in case a conflict arises, please, be constructive and seek for a consensus on the Talk page. Regarding this quotation, please, identify your problem here, before deleting it. Thanks. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

80.95.82.69 wrote this at the end of the article:

• • remarks: the above text bears very anti historian tendency. It states Hungary was in the wave of Axis in early 3Os but even Hitler was not in power then. Otherwise after Hitler got to power, there were years of cooperation among Mussolini's Italy, republic Austria and Hungary counter ballancing Hitler's 3rd Reich in gaining all German speaking territory under his rule.

• • It is a low profile humor to make pun on monarchy without a king, the landlocked country with no fleet and under a ruling admiral. Poor jokes especially over a nation of 1000 years who was always such receptive for new ideas and people as no other places for many including possibly the joke makers and 31/32 of my ancestors. Even WW1 was defeted in the stalemate 'cause Charles I. was defeated not on the batllefield but for his love for peace and for his gentleman like honesty. My grand fathers were not defeated, even one of them was in Bucurest when Romania was defeated and somehow this Balcanic small kingdom turned out to be a victorious power from a defeated small territory. That shows how unable people were the ones preprogramming WW2 in Paris peace acts.

• • To talk about Horthy's - who for his luck was cought by US and not Russians - hand over as a war criminal to killer Joe Tito is good to hear from ones who agrees with Milosevic involvemenst in Bosnia of 1990s with genocide. Horthy's blame on Novi Sad early 1940s events should be placed in new prospective of th 1990s since Serbian backed local terrorists never turned up face to face but from behind roofs. (I know it from my father who finished secondary schools that year there...) On the other hand killer Joe Tito's partisan terror brigades - who in contrary to movies never turned up against regulary military troops - run such a murdering mashine killing 200 times in number the truly innocents when taking over at the end of war. Even Russian army - the rolling robber, raper and killer gang of millions (even 2 years old were killed while raped the mother in my village) - stopped Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia newly regaining army from further Balcan rooting attrocities. Comparing Horthy to them is no wonder US left Hungarian governor to free.

---

I think you are a little too defensive. I wrote the article, and 90 percent or more of what is here is still my work. I actually respect Horthy in many respects, in particular his passionate hatred of Communism, but it's a fact that he did come to sympathize with Fascism and supported the Axis in World War II. I think he did a lot of that because he had little choice, being a small nation caught between Stalin and Hitler, but the fact is, he did. I think he can best be summed up by saying that he did the best he could under very difficult circumstances.

One of my best friends is a descendant of Miklos Kozma, who was a high-ranking official of the Horthy government, and she had no disagreement with what's here.

The comments about Hungary being a landlocked country and Horthy being an admiral without a fleet are just to point out the irony of his situation after the war. No disrespect to the nation of Hungary is implied or intended.

Stalin, by the way, played a major role in Horthy not being tried as a war criminal. When the issue was discussed, his words were "leave the old man alone." user:Jsc1973

This is a very good article, and considering the fact that Horthy is a controversial figure you're doing well to protect it. COuld it be nominated as an Article of the Day? 82.36.129.101 (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"Good article?!?" This article is awful. The text somersaults and double-knots into a defense of a man whom it already has prima facie established was a nazi-sympathizer, and certainly a fascist on the Franco model. It takes Horthy's face-saving assessments in his memoirs at face value. What a crock of cold war tripe. I'm not going to touch it though, because I've learned you can't beat the vested interests on Wikipedia no matter how right you are. Detmcphierson (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Doubtful sources and attributions about Mrs. Horthy's ancestry removed

The very recent attributions about Mrs. Horthy's ancestry, based on a confusion of names, have been removed. See: http://hungarianspectrum.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/karl-pfeifer-peter-daniel-and-laszlo-grespik/comment-page-1/#comment-43122 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs) 22:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Stevan Harnad 22:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs)

Well, her (Horthy's wife) alleged Jewish ancestry may be a fringe theory because I have not found any other reliable sources about it yet. Why the modern biography writers do not mention it? Fakirbakir (talk) 10:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I have removed the (recently inserted) allegation, based on a speculative Wodianer-Vasarhely-Purgly link, in the absence of supporting evidence.

(The following is adapted from material provided by Professor Eva Balogh, retired Yale University historian, in the Hungarian Spectrum: http://hungarianspectrum.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/karl-pfeifer-peter-daniel-and-laszlo-grespik/comment-page-1/#comment-43122 )

The Vásárhelyis of Arad came from an ancient Szekler family with the noble title of “kézdivásárhelyi.” So, Mrs. Horthy’s mother’s full name was “kézdivásárhelyi Vásárhelyi Ilona.” The family became prominent already in the thirteenth century. Different branches of the family were active in different parts of the country. The Vásárhelyis of Arad are one of them. Jonathan Vásárhelyi was active in the middle of the 18th century. His grandson, János, was lord lieutenant of Arad County in the 1830s. The information on the Vásárhelyis originally comes from Pallas Nagylexikon (available on line) and from Kislexikon: http://www.kislexikon.hu/vasarhelyi.html

So, the family goes back a long way. There are two Vásárhelyis in Magyar politikai lexikon (magyar politikusok) 1914-1935, both from Arad. There was Dezső (born in 1871) who was most likely an uncle or a cousin of Mrs. Horthy (born 1881). and Sándor (1891), a younger cousin or some fairly close relative on her mother’s side. Both were members of parliament. Dezső became a member from 1906 on and Sándor in 1935. Both were supporters of the government party.

Hence there is no credible evidence at all of any connection between the Wodianers and Mrs. Horthy.

A Fülöp Wodianer (1822-1899) did live in Arad between 1849 and 1856. He owned a printing press and in 1897 he converted to Christianity and was ennobled with the title of “Vásárhelyi” because he was born in Hódmezővásárhely.

Mrs. Horthy’s mother was called Anna Vásárhelyi. It is conceivable that in the mid 1940's the anti-Semites of Szalasi's Arrowcross party tried to make the connection between the Wodianers and Mrs. Horthy through this coincidence, by conjecturing that the Jewish-convert Wodianers (at some unknown point for which there is no historic evidence at all) changed their name to Purgly.

At the time, that groundless conjecture would not have been made to white-wash Horthy, but to black-ball him (as Szalasi was even further to the bigoted extreme right than Horthy).

But in 2012 this groundless semitic connection is being resurrected for the opposite reason: To white-wash Horthy in the extreme right's attempts to resurrect him in a growing Horthy cult. Stevan Harnad 15:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harnad (talk • contribs) Stevan Harnad 15:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Technical note

Why do things have to be linked thrice on this article? Don't you trust the memory skills of your readers? Dahn 04:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC) I have just entered an important contribution from the International Committee of the Red Cross, who are impartial witnesses. It has been deleted without any further comment. I protest. The main author of this piece is not impartial, and I am trying to help, but being deleted before I can even enter an item!!! Stop this or WIKI will lose any semblance of impartiality!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavszabo (talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

"Bloody repression" (1920-1944)

The following statement is simply false:

• "As regent (1920-1944) was well infamous due his bloody repression."

• First of all, Horthy decided not to participate in everyday politics after having been elected regent, so he couldn't have started a terroristic rule.
• Bloody repression? Well, perhaps around 1920, when his troops (officers, mainly) made several actions against communists and other leftists, Jews and their supporters. But he did not order any murders and crimes personally. After that there was nothing to be repressed bloodily. Except for communists, but I think imprisoning them was not bloody - anyway, most of them were exchanged with the Soviet Union. In 1932 two of their leaders were executed, but that wasn't ordered by the regent, but Károlyi Gyula's government decided to do so, to prevent their convulsive activities induced by the effects of the Great Depression.
• About the massacre in Újvidék (Novi Sad) it is well known that treacherous and disloyal officers conducted it without informing Budapest or Horthy personally. That's why they fled to Germany after starting an investigation in the case of the shameful events.

So this is Horthy's dictatorial, personal, sadist, bloody repression. None of the victims were murdered on his orders, and I'd like to remind everyone that it was Horthy, who decided to stop deportations in 1944, while none of the Axis-allies ever dared to do so.--Mathae 22:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

An uninformed propaganda affirmation that keeps popping on the internet. In a way this is true - Horty was the first in the year 1944, as in between January the 1st 1944 and the given date. Otherwise it was Antonescu Ion doing the same in 1943. 90.5.212.112 (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Admiral Horthy was a nobleman and a gentleman. To suggest otherwise demonstrates leftist bias. David Lauder (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have just entered an important contribution from the International Committee of the Red Cross, who are impartial witnesses. It has been deleted without any further comment. I protest. The main author of this piece is not impartial, and I am trying to help, but being deleted before I can even enter an item!!! Stop this or WIKI will lose any semblance of impartiality!!!vitéz 10:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavszabo (talk • contribs)

War criminal and Anti-semitism of Miklos Horty

Recently an edit war started altough an attempt for discussion was started on talk page. Don't engage in edit war. Provide reasons for deletion of sourced text. 2QW4 (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

"It seems certain that the survival of 124,000Hungarian Jews in Budapest until the arrival of the Soviets would have been impossible without Horthy's years of foot-dragging reluctance to implement German orders."

This claim is being sourced with Rees, Laurence: Auschwitz - the Nazis and the 'Final Solution - BBC Books - 2005 - IBN 0-563-52117-1, without proper page, proper attribution of the claim and link. I would kindly ask User:Koertefa per WP:V to provide this material.--Tritomex (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tritomex for initiating a discussion about this. Unfortunately, it was not me who introduced the above statement and I do not have access to the aforementioned book (nor to the other reference: "Dangerous Diplomacy: The Story of Carl Lutz" by Theo Tschuy). We may try to look up the user(s) who introduced that information (it should be in the history) and ask him (them). I will also try to look up some sources about this, if I find some time for that. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

As no one sourced this dubious claim, per WP WP:V and WP:OR rules it has to be removed.--Tritomex (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Caning in the army

Is it true that in 1930 Hungary reinstated caning (corporal punishment) in the army? 176.14.26.179 (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Format of the first sentence

Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead:

The Babe Ruth Award is given annually to the Major League Baseball (MLB) player with the best performance in the postseason. (Babe Ruth Award)

(Text from WP:BOLDTITLE) 86.127.20.7 (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

See also User:Maproom's comment here about the particle "de Nagybánya": I believe that it should be linked later in the article, but not inside the boldface version of the full name (which pretty much implies, not in the first sentence). I would suggest also, not in the lede, but in a later section which explains why he is called "de Nagybánya", and whether this is part of his name, or a hereditary title. (I am puzzled by the "de" which seems to be neither Hungarian nor English, but French).

Maybe Hungarian editors could help. 79.117.174.113 (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

References

POV sentence

An IP-editor tries to add the following text to the lead: "A self-proclaimed anti-Semite with a strong contempt for Bolshevism, he was at the center of Hungary's rise of fascism and a consistent figure throughout the Holocaust." This addition is quite misleading and some parts of it are not even clear. For example, it is not clear what does the "consistent figure throughout the Holocaust" mean? It is of course true that, under German pressure, Jewish Laws were accepted during his regency, but at the same time he was quite protective of Hungary's Jews (as the article describes), and the mass deportations were committed by the Arrow-Cross government. Also, though he indeed said that "I have been an anti-Semite throughout my life", as the article cites, it should not be removed from its context (see the other parts of the quotation) and the historical situation of that time (alliance with Nazi Germany) . Finally, the part "he was at the center of Hungary's rise of fascism" is a quite POV, as Miklós Horthy should not be confused with the fascist Ferenc Szálasi. Regarding the part "with a strong contempt for Bolshevism", it is superfluous, since the lead already contains information about his attitude towards the Communists. Therefore, this addition is misleading and it is more like an attempt of POV pushing based on half-truths than a neutral addition of missing information. Keeping it would introduce a bias in the article. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course everything must be considered in context, but readers are intelligent enough to do so; merely stating his political opinions is not judgemental. I also didn't find other references to his anti-communism in the lead, so the sentence looks relevant.

Similarly, I don't see any POV in saying that he was in the centre of political and war events of the country he was regent of, it's even obvious; a different matter would be accusing him of being responsible for them. In particular, I agree that the holocaust sentence was unclear, but the Kamianets-Podilskyi Massacre was linked, which happened under his regency; a better link may be History_of_the_Jews_in_Hungary#The_Holocaust.

I've re-added and adjusted the sentences in question, as they appear balanced and they are sourced; feel free to challenge said sources or interpretation thereof, of course, and to add or replace information with more/other sources, but please don't merely remove such information just on the assumption of a "bias". --Nemo 22:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you did not really address my concerns. Taking WP:NOR into account, I would like to ask you to bring reliable sources which *directly* support the claims you want to add. It is especially important for sentences of the lead, which case some mainstream source (e.g., Encyclopedia Britannica) would be preferable. I don't think that the paragraph is adequately sourced at the moment, since, e.g., citing Horthy's memoirs for the claim that he had a "strong contempt for Bolshevism" is original research. Since, I think that this paragraph is controversial, I would like to ask you to bring forward your *direct* sources. Thanks, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Your request to prefer tertiary sources is in direct contrast with WP:WPNOTRS, hence I've reverted your edit. The primary source is not the only one for that sentence and you've not even tried to prove that the quotation is incorrect; again, please provide better sources or refrain from distruptive edits. --Nemo 18:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Please, carefully read again my comment above, since I have only asked for sources which *directly* support the claims. I mentioned that for the lead *mainstream* sources are preferred (in order to avoid edit wars, since there are many POVs available regarding Horthy). I gave "Encyclopedia Britannica" as an *example* of such a mainstream source. Therefore, I did not say that only tertiary sources were suitable. Moreover, if you take a look at the guideline you have cited, it states: "'Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion.". Since the lead should contain such a summary, it would not contradict WP:WPNOTRS, even if I asked only for tertiary sources (which I did not). Since the claims in question are still not directly supported and the sentences look original research which try to push a particular POV, I have removed that paragraph. Next time, please come back with direct sources. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Contempt for Bolshevism has nothing to do with being a fascist. Most people opposed Bolshevism. Whilst anti-Semitism is a central part of Nazism (though not fascism), being anti-Semitic does not equate to being a Nazi. The associations implied by this sentence are simply wrong.101.98.175.68 (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Hitler/Horthy cartoon

The cartoon, used on this page, of Hitler serenading Horthy, deserves some investigation as the violin Hitler plays intriguingly appears to have a face upon it - perhaps a pro-German Hungarian politician or a German statesmen such as Foreign Minister Ribbentrop through whom Horthy and Hitler conducted foreign relations. (NB - I have put this question here because attempts to put it at the end of the next talk point appear to disrupt the text which seemingly ends in footnotes.)Cloptonson (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Miklós Horthy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110708072245/http://warandgame.blogspot.com/2008/07/operation-panzerfaust.html to http://warandgame.blogspot.com/2008/07/operation-panzerfaust.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Reclaiming of ethnically Hungarian lands

"Horthy was able to reclaim ethnically Hungarian lands lost after World War I on four separate occasions." Is this correct? We also need to mention the non-ethnically Hungarian lands that were reclaimed. Nigej (talk) 08:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The first issue is what the sentence actually means. I assume that "ethnically Hungarian lands lost after World War I" means those areas of pre-1918 Hungary that contained ethnic Hungarians. We seem to have the First Vienna Award (November 1938), the Second Vienna Award (September 1940) and the Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories (April 1941) which involved the annexation of the areas containing ethnic Hungarians (as well as the annexation of areas containing few or no ethnic Hungarians). We also have the annexation of Carpatho-Ukraine and eastern Slovakia (March 1939) which involved few or no ethnic Hungarians and was an old-fashioned land-grab. If this last annexation is the fourth "reclaim" then the sentence is incorrect. The main confusion is over the word "ethnically". Nigej (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The phrase "ethnically Hungarian lands" makes no sense. People can be ethnically Hungarian but lands can't be. I propose changing "With Adolf Hitler's support, Horthy was able to reclaim ethnically Hungarian lands lost after World War I on four separate occasions." to "Between 1938 and 1941 Horthy was able, with Adolf Hitler's support, to annex areas of the pre-World War I Kingdom of Hungary on four separate occasions." which is also less WP:POV. Nigej (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No. "With Adolf Hitler's support' is highly dubious as the recovery of Carpathian Ruthenia was completely an own Hungarian campaign without any foreign and diplomatic support. Carpatho-Ruthenia was also part of Hungay before 1918, so "reclaim" is not incorrect phrase here. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

OK. I suggest "Between 1938 and 1941 Horthy was able to reclaim areas of the pre-World War I Kingdom of Hungary on four separate occasions" Nigej (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Fine. I accept it. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Scouting?

Wilson links him to Boy Scouting, was there a connection?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Miklós Horthy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140719171430/https://mozgovilag.com/?p=2479 to http://mozgovilag.com/?p=2479
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.horthy.hu/images/kormanyzoirasai/beszedbudapest/beszedbudapest_nagy.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Miklós Horthy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060306134317/http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/horthy/horthy.pdf to http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/horthy/horthy.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060306134317/http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/horthy/horthy.pdf to http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/horthy/horthy.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Mistakes in lede

Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is no mention of Polish refugees in the article. Horthy passed anti-Semitic laws which helped set the stage for the Final Solution, so it is misleading to say he did not contribute to the Holocaust. Hungarian forces did play a front line role during the Battle of Stalingrad. (86.160.157.139 (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)) I tried to address your problems[7]. It is true that under his leadership, Hungary introduced anti-Semitic laws however Horthy personally tried to delay the "final solution" (moreover, it is not even clear whether he knew about the fate of the deported Jews or not). Fakirbakir (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

Fenetrejones,

it is something you added recently without consensus, being a Fidesz politican has nothing to do with being a Hungarian nationalist. Please stop these fringe additions. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC))

It seems to me that based on: Nationalism eg "It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on shared social characteristics of culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history, and to promote national unity or solidarity.", that he would count as a nationalist. Nigej (talk) 20:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Nigej, also some parties are listed under nationalists by nationality such as the Worker's Party of Korea which maintains Korean Nationalism as one of its main ideologies. Another example is Nurotan which is ideologically Kazakh nationalist.Fenetrejones (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Please try to understand what is the difference between nationalism in general or the traditional Hungarian nationalism, which is attributed to far-right-extreme viewholders. At Horthy's time, Szálasi is representing that and he is in that category.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC))

Horthy is considered a Nationalists, That category is not for Fascists solely. Facists are a subcategory as most are nationalist. That is why there are subcategories and nationalists are not all the same and sometimes worst enemies are both nationalists. Go to to the Category Chinese nationalists (with lowercase n as it refers to people who believe in the concept of nationalism rather than the Chinese Nationalists party which is a subcategory to Chinese nationalists), the category includes the Chinese Nationalist leader Chiang Kai Shek AND Mao Zedong who was the main enemy of Chiang. Both were nationalists just believed in other different ideologies as well, however both were nationalistic at their own right. Or if you want t be closer to Hungary look at the category Romanian nationalists. On one hand there is the subcategory, Romanian fascists which includes Ion Antonescu and his ilk, but the category also contains Nicolae Ceausescu who was a communist against the fascists but he was still very much a nationalist. In fact there are a bunch of left wing leaders that you can find in Nationalist categories. It would be inappropriate to call Rakosi or even Kadar nationalist as the were soviet puppets who neither promoted traditional nationalism or a new form of nationalism like with Mao or the Kim Family. Horthy on the other hand was most definitely a nationalist. He did not like either Germany or Soviet Union and wanted Hungarian sovereignty to be upheld and respected. If he isn't a nationalist than why are Hungarians hailing him as a nationalist. I am a Hungarian and I would say he is. Being a nationalist is not necessarily being a fascist.Fenetrejones (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't seem to understand what I said, and it is irrelevant what by Chinese or Romanians are, those issues should be discussed on their particular area, they are not necessarily identical or comparable in a special way. Rákosi and Kádár was by not any means by a nationalist, and again, in a general form average nationalism is not the traditional Hungarian nationalism.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC))

Let me explain what I said. I said Kadar and Rakosi were not nationalists. The category nationalists by nationalists and all its subcategories include all nationalists no matter how far right or far left they are. Those categories are meant for all nationalists no matter how far right or far left they were or how unorthodox they were.Thus traditional nationalists count as nationalists. Here is a bunch of figures who are including in their respective categories: Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Kim Jong Un, Mao Zedong, Josef Broz Tito, Fidel Castro, Muammar al Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, Adolf Hitler, and Mohatma Gandhi. The categories are indiscriminate when it comes to who belongs.That category is just for nationalists no matter what is traditional or not. If they evoke nationalist principles whether it is main stream or not, they count.Fenetrejones (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Now if my topic is about including somebody who embraced fascism, then the category Hungarian fascists IS appropriate. The category, Hungarian nationalists like all Nationalists by nationality category, includes people who embrace some form of nationalism. It does not matter what kind of nationalist they are, those categories are for all nationalists. Orban is not a fascist so he does not belong under the fascist category, but Fidesz espouses nationalist views no matter what form they are.Fenetrejones (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nigej, do you consider categories that say "nationalists by nationality" to include every kind of person that embraces nationalism? This category is not just a "Let me label who is far right" rhetoric. What do you say? Should Fidesz and Horthy be considered nationalists as that category is not inherently for far right people only?Fenetrejones (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me that a "nationalists" category would cover all type of "nationalism", unless it explicitly says otherwise. Of course, it's also a general principle that categories should relate to the content of the article, so we would only add it if the article said the person was a nationalist (or it was otherwise obvious from the content). Nigej (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Correct all nationalists by nationality category pages work like that.Fenetrejones (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

And if you go to the article,List of figures in nationalism, it includes ALL figures no matter how mainstream or not they are. On the list are both Horthy and Orban, even on the older revision before I even started editing.Fenetrejones (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

And Fidesz is included under the category nationalist parties of Hungary.Fenetrejones (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This is only your consideration, again you should not conflate other issues with these. Again, the List of figures if nationalism article list nationalist to be considered in general, but not traditional Hungarian nationalists. No, Fidesz is not included such.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC))

I'm afraid your comments don't make any sense at all. What is the difference between traditional Hungarian nationalists and average/general nationalists (or whatever you seem to be calling them)? Coming up with meaningless distinctions is not helpful. Nigej (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree, which part you don't understand? I explained more times.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC))

You haven't explained the difference between traditional Hungarian nationalists and average/general nationalists and why traditional Hungarian nationalists should not be included. Simply stating that there is a difference is not "explaining". Nigej (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Except that is a broad category not a category for far right people. Is Traditional Hungarian Nationalism still nationalism? yes, just like Shia islam is still islam even if Sunnis don't think so. Category:Nationalist parties in Hungary, Fidesz is included under there so I see nothing wrong with Orban being included as Nationalist.Fenetrejones (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Nigej, I did, but no problem, then I reiterate. The traditional Hungarian nationalism is covering the far-right/extreme viewholders and their relevant theories, at any historical time, openly. It is not the same to be simply patriotic, or moderate nationalism. The category follows the same principle, and we should not conflate and wash together the two, since it would result as the other user's problematic assertions. If there is/would be e.g. a national conservative category that would fit to moderate patriots would not be any problem.

Fenetrejones,

again, this is your perception, the category apparently contains anyone being/holding far-right/extreme views, and there is not such specification you claim. That category now you shown (which I never met so far) has been created by a sockmaster, who erroneously washed together everything with far-right parties, moreover with a recursive, erroneous subcategorization. Not a surprise it was not even used the main pages where they don't fit.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC))

Again this your perception. The only one I see whitewashing is you. Nationalism is nationalism no matter if it is what you define as mainstream or not. The category is not Hungarian fascists or Far Right Hungarian figures. If it were just far right view people then why doesn't it say so on its description. The category ovations far right people but that is not what the category was created for. Nationalist categories include far right figures but it is not just for them. If you want to add someone to a far right category than you add it to the category Category:Far-right politics in Hungary. @Nigej, would you say that a nationalist is not always a far right individual and that by ideology both Horthy and Fidesz are ideologically nationalists even if they are not fascists and far right and that if the topic is only about far right people than they would go to the Category:Far-right politics in Hungary Fenetrejones (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

If all other nationalists by nationality include people of all political orientation but for this one only far right is allowed for something that is not meaning far right then what I see is you trying to redefine something that has already been defined.Fenetrejones (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nigej, his definition is that traditional Hungarian nationalism is far right and makes the distinction between moderate nationalism. But wouldn't you agree that both are still considered nationalist?Fenetrejones (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

And yes it does matter how the categories for other countries hold their standards. If all of them except any kind of nationalists but this one only accepts far right figures than I see that you are trying to redefine something to your own definition.Fenetrejones (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

We can't hold one category in a group of categories to a different standard just because you and only you are disputing this. And no, nationalists are not only far right or Fascists? Then why do we have National communism, Left-wing nationalism, National conservatism which is even included on types of nationalism and says that it includes Eurosceptics. Are all three of these nationalism? Yes. Are they far right? No. Does not being far right, disqualify you from being a nationalist? No.Fenetrejones (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Not really, the content also identifies what it is mean for, and I don't whitewash anything excuse me, I can make a wise disctinction and not to conflate something erroneously. Nationalism is nationalism, while Hungarian nationalism has it's individual, special charachteristics as it is attributed for. The categorization in WP is a whole mess generally, this does not exclude there are good solutions, but many have been poorly or erroneusly established, not a surprise they are rapidly changed, updated and reordered (and even experienced editors hardly understand some relations of other whereabouts of it, so everything has to be done carefully). The linked article and category's content is obvious and not meant for what you exactly wish to see, the term in many context in other cases may the subject of POV or special connotation/interpretation of such context, and there are no standards for this. Regarding your last sentence, if you still do not understand the traditional Hungarian nationalism with which groups are associated, and you still try to conflate/confuse with average nationalism/patriotism, it is a problem.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC))

Except that the category is for every type of nationalists whether they be a fascist, a far right winger, a communist, a socialist, an islamist, a pan africanist or whatever. I am not making it what I wish to see. I am just holding it to the same standards as every category in this grouping. Are there far right nationalists? yes. Are those the only nationalists? No. Traditional Hungarian Nationalism as you would describe it, is still a variant of nationalism. That is like saying that dude is not a Christian but a Catholic. That dude may not be a mainstream protestant, but Catholics are still Christians so that dude is still a Christian. Is that dude following what is considered mainstream by many (typical Protestant branches)? No. Does that make him not a Christian? No. And let us see what media says about Horthy and Fidesz on Nationalism.

Horthy: Reuters: The Economist: BBC: And let us examine what even his own wikipedia page says: "Horthy led a national conservative government through the interwar period, banning the Hungarian Communist Party as well as the Arrow Cross Party, and pursuing an irredentist foreign policy in the face of the Treaty of Trianon." Now let us see what national conservatism is: National conservatism is a variant of conservatism common in Europe and Asia that concentrates on upholding national and cultural identity, while mixing conservative elements with purely nationalist ones. Your "Traditional Hungarian Nationalism" defined is still a form of nationalism. I literally found it confirmed in his wikipedia article that he was a nationalist. Now for Fidesz: Fidesz is listed under national conservative parties, and I already defined nationalism conservatism for you if you are reading this in order. The Economist: Reuters: It even says in the article right wing nationalist. It does not say "far right". However, is it right wing? Yes. Is it nationalist? yes. Foreignpolicy.com: The Guardian: BBC: WSJ: I can make a wise distinction too. I recognize in a broad group that we must hold all categories to the same standard. If this is the only category segregated for far right people while the rest have a diversity of people, then we are not holding all categories to the same standard. If you only wanted to talk about far right than go to the category far right politics in Hungary. If there are so many sources that indicate Horthy and Fidesz as nationalists than they are nationalists. I left out right wing sources but they would say the same thing it is just that people take them less seriously in terms of credibility. Then I don't see the debate. Nationalism is not just one form and one form only, it can be implemented in many ways. @Nigej Doesn't my point make sense?Fenetrejones (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you define it like so, but there is not such definition particularly, as I said, categorization is an uneasy and controversial issue here, should be treated carefully, and conflating simple nationalism or national conservatism with far-right/radical Hungarian nationalism should be avoided (and this is the point, just because some different groupings share nationalism/patriotism in some way, it does not mean they are necessarily all the same by position or views, since the so-called Hungarian nationalism is not equal with nationalists who are from Hungary, etc.). You have to understand such like same standard does not exist here, categories are rapidly created, renamed and deleted, with a lot of illogic mistakes and naming, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC))

"No, I am not defining, I am just showing that there are many variants of nationalism and not just far right. Nationalism is not inherently equal far right as you are trying to define it. @Nigej would't you agree?Fenetrejones (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you are again speaking parallell, ignoring what I have written or pretending not to understand, the discussion was not about variants of nationalism n general, but exactly this category.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC))

I am not, the. you clearly are. Nationalism is of many variants there is no one way nationalism. Stop trying to segregate this only to far right politicians. I am just holding the category to the same standards to nationalist category pages for other countries. We have to hold them all equally. You would be right if it said Hungarian Far Right Nationalists, but it is not so you are trying to redefine it.Fenetrejones (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

And you are the one making up a definition that doesn't even have a wikipedia page. I use sources that are credible by wikipedia standards. And stop trying to equate nationalism solely to far right. Are there far right nationalists? Yes. But are they the only nationalists? No.Fenetrejones (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

And Fidesz is listed as a right wing nationalist party on the same level as Erdogan's party or the Trump republicans. Orban and Fidesz are considered nationalists like Trump and Erdogan are, and by definition they are nationalists.Fenetrejones (talk) 02:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Not really, yes, there is no one way nationalism, that's why their special types are sometimes the property or attributed to certain groups (and it may be different with even more alternatives like some others). The was no redefiniton, the page have been consisted of far-right elements. Nope, it has, and I never did what you say, just read back, hence your further argumentation is just based on this fallacy.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC))

You obviously are trying to segregate, and you are right there is no one type of nationalism which is why that category should be open to all types of nationalists. All other categories are behave like this so this one should too. Want a category that is made for Jobbik and other far right? Here it is Category:Far-right politics in Hungary, Horthy and Fidesz can be considered nationalists but they should be kept out of the category that I had just listed.Fenetrejones (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

And why am I literally able to pull up soures credible to wikipedia standards for my arguments? Why is that when I open similar categories for nationalists, it includes all types and not solely being used for far right? If this were solely for far right, it would not be in a broad category that includes some far left figures too.Fenetrejones (talk) 04:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

You want a break down in nationalism? Ethnic nationalism = Nationalism, African nationalism = Nationalism, Nazism = Nationalism, Alt Right = Nationalism, National Communism = Nationalism, Left Wing Nationalism = Nationalism, National Conservatism = Nationalism,

African nationalism≠Ethnic nationalism≠Nazism≠Alt Right≠National Communism≠Left Wing Nationalism≠National Conservatism They are all nationalism but they are not the something. Anyone who embraces any of those for example is a nationalist, but it does not make them the other type of nationalist. However, all of them belong under the broad umbrella of nationalistFenetrejones (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Not all categories behave like this, and you failed to build consenesus for the interpreation you trt to push. Sorry WP is not just about sources, but their evaluation, treatment and many other whereabouts counts, especially here now we are speaking about categories (what you possibly would do in other pages is another issue, not this), and you continously conflate the term nationalism with Hungarian nationalism, which I explained more times, you refuse to hear that, as you prove it on and on, and try to wash together everything.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC))

Let me Explain Nationalism to you:

Nationalism is an idea and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people), especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty). It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on shared social characteristics of culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history, and to promote national unity or solidarity.[1] Nationalism seeks to preserve and foster a nation's traditional cultures and cultural revivals have been associated with nationalist movements.[6] It also encourages pride in national achievements and is closely linked to patriotism. Nationalism is often combined with other ideologies such as conservatism (national conservatism) or socialism (left-wing nationalism). Now let us see what Horthy and Fidesz promote. Strong National Identity? Check. Build up a single national identity with in its borders? Check. Your "Hungarian Nationalism" is under that check too. The consensus according to you, is just you who is trying to segregate even Nigej agrees with me. I am trying to hold this category to the same category as every other nationalist category. They are all under one subcategory, and do not solely include far right people, then why should this be the only exclusive one?Fenetrejones (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I have already explained everything, am I sorry you still (pretend?) not to understand.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC))

I am sorry but your explanation causes unfairness to all the other nationalists by nationality category. If this one only excepts far right nationalists and the others except all types of nationalists than I am afraid that it is not hood wikipedia standards. This is inconstent. You said that they were moderate nationalists and that means they are nationalists. In fact, I looked up for the difference between Hungarian nationalism and Hungarian nationalism as you would call t and the only thing I have found are your comments. There are nationalists who are extremists and there are nationalists who are moderates but they are both nationalists. Your claim is simply put original research. @Ymblanter, what do you think? I have found no sources for his argument except himself, On the other hand I am using many credible sources by wikipedia standards.. I want you to have the final say so this can be put to restFenetrejones (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

No, there is not such like unfairness, I explained also this, these issues may vary and not the same. Your argumentation is circular, and you again confusing the type of nationalism with the country and/or the persons ethnicity, but it's not about this. Sourcing has nothing to with the category and it's interpretations and relations, but this was also explained, everything is may be read above.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC))

Kiengir, Maybe they are from Eastern Europe, where only the so-called ethnic nationalism existed. They have never experienced real Western type civic/liberal nationalism. They don't have even clue that liberalism and Western nationalism were the same thing until around the 1890-1900 period.--Manfrottos (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC) What about W. Churchill? Strong National Identity? Check. Build up a single national identity with in its borders? Check.--Manfrottos (talk) 20:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC) I am holding this category to the same standard as all other nationalist categories. Let us go south from Hungary for second and go to the category, Serbian nationalists. This category includes the Chetniks, the fascists, The Milosevic era politicians, the Serb Democratic Party (Bosnia and Herzegovina) which is a national Conservative party and Aleksandar Vučić who runs a conservative and populist government. Are these all the same? No. The Chetniks- The Chetniks were Royalists, however the Milosevic politicians were communists. You don't have to be a certain political orientation to be a nationalist. Or let us use Romania. There was Ion Antonescu, the fascist leader of Romania, and Nicolae Ceausescu the Communist leader of Romania, both were nationalist just had a different way of implementing it. However it would be inappropriate to NOT call either one a nationalist. Just because you are not a fascist or a far right winger, doesn't mean that you aren't a nationalist. And national conservatism is a form of nationalism. If you embrace national conservatism, you embrace both nationalism and conservatism. By definition you are a nationalist and you are a conservative. what do you think @Ymblanter?Fenetrejones (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@User:KIENGIR just go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboardFenetrejones (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry you are repeating yourself, as I said more times, just because by some things some are different, does not mean everywhere, you're mixing/conflating philosophical approaches, terms, with categories in general, next to other issues I already mentioned. I will not repeat and respond anything that we already discussed.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC))

Sorry you do not understand what nationalism is. There is far right nationalism, and I acknowledge that it exists, it is simply put a form of nationalism. What is nationalism?

Nationalism is an idea and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people), especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation's sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty).It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on shared social characteristics of culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history, and to promote national unity or solidarity. You claim that we should not hold categories to the same standards that is like allowing any Albanian Muslim to be included in the Category for Albanian Muslims but Only allowing Al Qaeda and ISIS for Iraqi Muslims, there are other types of muslims that are not the fanatic extremists. Nationalism has many variants and they are not all fascists and far right wingers. There is ethnic nationalism. Ethnic nationalism is Ethnic nationalism defines the nation in terms of ethnicity, which always includes some element of descent from previous generations, i.e. genophilia. It also includes ideas of a culture shared between members of the group and with their ancestors, and usually a shared language. Membership in the nation is hereditary. There is civic nationalism. Civic nationalism is the form of nationalism in which the state derives political legitimacy from the active participation of its citizenry, from the degree to which it represents the "will of the people". It is often seen as originating with Jean-Jacques Rousseau and especially the social contract theories which take their name from his 1762 book The Social Contract. Civic nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism, but as a form of nationalism it is contrasted with ethnic nationalism. Membership of the civic nation is considered voluntary. Civic-national ideals influenced the development of representative democracy in countries such as the United States and France. There is imperialist/expanionist nationalism: Expansionist nationalism is an aggressive and radical form of nationalism that incorporates autonomous, patriotic sentiments with a belief in expansionism or recovering formerly owned territories. The term was coined during the late nineteenth century as European powers indulged in the 'Scramble for Africa' in the name of national glory, but has been most associated with militarist governments during the 20th century including Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, the Japanese empire, and the Balkans countries of Albania (Greater Albania), Bulgaria (Greater Bulgaria), Croatia (Greater Croatia), Hungary (Greater Hungary), Romania (Greater Romania) and Serbia (Greater Serbia). There is left wing nationalism: Left-wing nationalism, also occasionally known as socialist nationalism, refers to any political movement that combines left-wing politics or socialism with nationalism. Notable examples include Fidel Castro's 26th of July Movement that launched the Cuban Revolution ousting the American-backed Fulgencio Batista in 1959, Ireland's Sinn Féin, Labor Zionism in Israel and the African National Congress in South Africa. There is national conservatism which is Nationalist policies with social conservatism. There is Pan Nationalism:Pan-nationalism is usually an ethnic and cultural nationalism, but the 'nation' is itself a cluster of related ethnic groups and cultures, such as Slavic peoples. Occasionally pan-nationalism is applied to mono-ethnic nationalism, when the national group is dispersed over a wide area and several states - as in Pan-Germanism. You claim I am being the problematic one. Now let us look at Hungarian Nationalism vs Hungarian Nationalism Okay the first one is just about the far right people they are nationalist. Next. "Hungarian Nationalism"- IT IS a form of nationalism and just because it is not Far Right does not equate it to being NOT nationalist. Let me list a bunch of famous nationalists who are not far right wing people: Mao Zedong Nicolae Ceausceau Theodore Roosevelt Ho Chi Minh Pol Pot Donald Trump Erdogan Vladmir Putin Josip Broz Tito Kim Il sung Kim Jong Il Kim Jong Un Mohatma Gandhi Just because you are not implementing nationalism in the far right way does mean that you are not a nationalist. You agreed that there is not one way to implement nationalism and that is true. You claim I am the problematic one yet you are the one who may say that nationalism is not just far right, but you are treating like it isFenetrejones (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Your content and distinction is original research that I have tried to find sources that confirm what you are saying and the only thing I have found is what you are saying from Yourself. Fenetrejones (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

You act like sources are irrelevant. With that type of mentality, it is suddenly acceptable to vandalize just because you see sources are irrelevant. I am not saying that you support vandalism but if you throw out sources then you open the door for vandalism and false information. Nationalism is nationalism no matter what form. If there were a far right group officially called Hungarian Nationalists than you would be right but there is no such thing. Nationalism is not an exclusive far right thing like you are treating it.Fenetrejones (talk) 21:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

And on the wikipedia page titled List of nationalist organizations here is the section for Hungary

Hungary Fidesz – centre-right to right-wing, Hungarian nationalist and national conservative Jobbik – Right-wing to far-right Hungarian Justice and Life Party – Right-wing Sixty-Four Counties Youth Movement Force and Determination – small far-right party, split from Jobbik Our Home Movement – far-right party, split from Jobbik Just because something is not an extremist does not mean that it isn't nationalist.Fenetrejones (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

So you just can't stop. The discussion is not about what "nationalism" is, and you still fail to understand the point regarding I told you about the categories (so your accusation of the way of treatment is not correct), the page you refer and its content widely contains inaccurate and outdated designations, etc., on the other hand it is anyway dubious which the list article would include, since parties and nationalist organizations are not one and the same, even if they may be overlapping, anyway the whole page has been edited in a sloppy manner. But again, the whole issue is not about the definiton of nationalism.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC))

Your Hungarian Nationalism is a form of nationalism regardless what you say. This is like arguing that anti stalinist left are not leftists because they oppose Stalin. There is no single way to be a leftist. Then why do other categories include all types of nationalists, if it is just far right then why doesn't it say Far Right Nationalists, if that is the case than I would accept that. Of course organizations and parties are not all the same this is not called far right parties. You refuse to accept Fidesz as Nationalist even though that is what they are. Even BBC, NYT, and many other credible sources say so.Fenetrejones (talk) 04:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

"The party’s ideology and political communication went through remarkable changes during the last almost 30 years, during which conservative christian democratic ideology, nationalist populism, and anti-elitist illiberalism became key values of their represented politics." "VIKTOR ORBAN looks set to win another four years as prime minister of Hungary when his country goes to the polls on Sunday (see article). A recent speech outside Parliament epitomised his approach. On March 15th—a national holiday commemorating the failed 1848 uprising against the Habsburgs who ruled Hungary for centuries—Mr Orban (pictured) issued a rousing battle-cry to defend the Magyar homeland from waves of migrants; militant Islam; plans in Brussels for enforced migrant quotas; and a United States of Europe. In today’s Europe, thundered Mr Orban, “it is forbidden to speak the truth”: that immigration brings crime and terrorism and “endangers our way of life, our culture, our customs and our Christian traditions”. During the campaign there has been little mention of health care, education and the economy. Why have Mr Orban and his ruling Fidesz party been so successful at rallying Hungarians to the nationalist message?"

Ever since the conquest of the Carpathian basin by the Magyar tribes around 1,100 years ago, Hungary’s history has been that of a small, embattled nation, fighting continually for its survival. It has been conquered and occupied by Tatars, Ottoman Turks, Nazis and Russians. The failed uprisings of 1703 and 1848 against the Habsburgs and the 1956 revolution against the Soviets are burned into the national psyche. (The Nazi invasion of 1944, when the Hungarian state mobilised to send hundreds of thousands of Jews and thousands of Roma to their deaths receives less attention.) That embattled theme resonates in the debate about refugees today. Hungarians also like to describe themselves as a Magyar island in a Slav sea. Other countries in the region share a similar history of occupation but speak Slavic tongues that are, to some extent, mutually comprehensible, giving them a sense of having cultural, linguistic allies in their suffering. The Magyars feel like a race apart: their language is unrelated to the Indo-European tongues that surround them, and works as a powerful national glue" The Economist

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/04/05/why-is-hungary-turning-to-nationalism

As I have said Nationalism is not inherently far right. Can it be? Yes, like with Mussolini and the Italians, but It can be far left like with Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia, or it can be moderate like Gandhi. Just because you aren't far right doesn't mean that you aren't a nationalist. I am sending this back to the dispute board @KIENGIR, @Nigej, Manfrottos Fenetrejones (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC) You also realize it matters to know what nationalism is. If I call someone something, than I should define what that is and if it is appropriate.Fenetrejones (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, you again still don't get or pretend not to get the point, this discussion is not about the definiton of nationalism (btw. one of the long copy paste here claims a nationalist message). Any futher contribution on repeating again such is clearly disruptive.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC))

The copy paste is not for me to endorse it. I am literally taking wikipedia's definition and showing it to you that, their ideology is nationalism because you refuse to concede that it is. National conservatism is Nationalism, just like a moderate republican is a republican even if he is not an extreme. The copy and Paste was an excerpt from a source above it. You refuse to respond to the fact that your claims are practically original research. I have tried researching the difference between Hungarian Nationalism and Hungarian Nationalism, and nothing pops up. The category was not made for far right people. Otherwise it would say Hungarian far right nationalists or have description on what it is for, but there is neither present. It may not be about what Nationalism but you refuse to concede that Fidesz is nationalist, and to see if they qualify as nationalist, one must look at what nationalism is.The debate was about whether Fidesz and Horthy Qualify as nationalists and If you refuse to concede, I chose too how you what nationalism is according to wikipedia standards. They qualify on the merit of the wikipedia definition and on the basis of wikipedia credible sources so Your repeating is clearly the disruptive one.Fenetrejones (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

No, just and only you are responsible for your copy pastes. I understand everything, and explained everything as well. The category was made for that I demonstrated, approved by the included ones as well, on the other hand as I as well explained the problem of categorizations, which includes sometimes even the issues which description, and not having it does not justify your claim, on the contrary. Again, Fidesz is a national-conservative party, and already explained you should not conflate general terms with a bit different issues. As well, I don't repeat much, you are flooding text here, if something has been explained three or more times, but still such continues, that is qualifying what I said, and it's not on me.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC))

I am responsible for copy and pastes because you refuse to concede that they are nationalists. To say is someone is something than one must understand the definition of that something, that is all that is for and not a detriment to my argument. National Conservatism IS a form of nationalism. On the website, nationalconservatism.org, on its about page, this is what they have to say "The return of nationalism has created a much-discussed “crisis of conservatism” that may be unprecedented since modern Anglo-American conservatism was formulated by Russell Kirk, William Buckley, and their colleagues in the 1950s. At the heart of this crisis is a question: Is the new American and British nationalism a hostile usurper that has arrived on the scene to displace political conservatism? Or is nationalism an essential, if neglected, part of the Anglo-American conservative tradition at its best?

“National Conservatism” is a movement of public figures, journalists, scholars, and students who understand that the past and future of conservatism are inextricably tied to the idea of the nation, to the principle of national independence, and to the revival of the unique national traditions that alone have the power to bind a people together and bring about their flourishing." Even The Atlantic points out that national conservatism is a form of nationalism.

You act like definitions are un important, the copy and pastes of definitions from wikipedia are only there to reaffirm my argument in how they are nationalist. Because if I call them nationalist than I best have the definitions defined.

National Conservatism is a variant of nationalism.

A moderate republican can be a republican in the United States just like a Neo Nazi, they are both republicans even if one guy is more extreme. There is no far right group called Hungarian Nationalists. There is no one way to implement nationalism which is why I pasted other forms of nationalism here to prove that there are many types of nationalism.Your Hungarian Nationalism vs Hungarian Nationalism is original research where I can not find a single source except you saying that. And why is National Conservatism considered a variant of nationalism according to wikipedia? If the category was only meant for far right than you should rename it and be more specific and called it Hungarian Far Right nationalists and write a description. Fenetrejones (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

No, you are still suffering about the same problem of not understanding or pretending not to understand what I have said exactly. Just stop copy-pasting and repeating, I don't need to read things twice, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC))

I am not suffering, You are. You refuse to accept that National Conservatism is a form of nationalism, so I don't know what is in your head but I feel the need to define nationalism if you can not concede. Your basis is original research that has no sources to back it up. NationalConservatism is literally a form of nationalism, according to Liberal sources, wikipedia AND pro National Conservative pages. Copy pasting? You mean citing my argument something that you have failed to do.Fenetrejones (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Your treatment of Nationalism being exclusive to far right is why I had to cite my sources to prove that nationalism isn't inherently. Nationalism is essentially one bing umbrella with many variants underneath it. There is left wing, communist, fascist, nazis, ethno nationalism, pan Africanism, national conservatives, and plenty more. They are not all the same thing but they all belong under the broad umbrella of nationalism.Fenetrejones (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

All groups listed are diverse on the political spectrum a nationalist communist and a fascist may both be nationalist even if they are not allies. AND don't make any excuses, "The traditional Hungarian nationalism is covering the far-right/extreme viewholders and their relevant theories, at any historical time, openly. It is not the same to be simply patriotic, or moderate nationalism." Moderate nationalism IS still a form of nationalism. A moderate republican and a Radical Neo Nazi republican are both republicans. A stalinist socialist and a democratic socialists ARE both socialists even if the former is more extreme than the ladder. Fenetrejones (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Look, you continously put words, examples to my mouth which I did not say, and since the beginning did not grab exacly what I said, but pushing your own considerations all around and presenting that it would be mine, with unnecessary repetitions and flooding the talk page disruptively. I won't explain it the nth time, may be read above. WP:NOTFORUM. (KIENGIR (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC))

You literally said that. I put it in equations marks.Fenetrejones (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Besides that, you as well address/insist allegations to me I never said.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC))

Good Try at Lying.

All I did was to type command F and I found your quote, just take off the quotation marks and it is there.Fenetrejones (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I did not "Try at Lying", what I said is fact and have in mind a civil behavior.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC))

You were lying. "Besides that, you as well address/insist allegations to me I never said." You denied that you said that yet a simple command f, says otherwise.Fenetrejones (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

No, everything may be read above (including what I said and what I did not, among them what you erroneously claim to be said although I did not, etc. - it's not about the literal sentence in quotations marks, but I referred to others as I just explained), but this discussion is over because of the continuous lack of comprehension and competence from your behalf, which is apparently recurrent, I won't play such games.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC))

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Horthy 1943.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)