|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 Biography
- 3 i have a problem with that
- 4 did Hungary of Bela Kun attacked ROmania in 1919 or what ?
- 5 Jew-spotting
- 6 NPOV
- 7 Birth of the Hungarian Communist Party
- 8 Kun's torture after his arrest
- 9 Change to Crimeria section
- 10 looks like Sinatra!
- 11 Assertion that Kun caused anti-Semitism in Hungary removed
- 12 Section about Crimea
What is known about Kun's fate following his trial? Was he executed, or did he die in a gulag? Everyking 23:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Glad to see that was addressed! Having something so quickly addressed like that doesn't happen often enough around here! Everyking 19:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- His father was a lapsed Jew, and his mother a lapsed Protestant. His father was the village notary. Béla Magyarized his surname to Kun in 1906.
What *was* his surname before 1906? It's not addressed prior to that statement. Tetigit 09:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
i have a problem with that
- Afterwards, the Romanians looted Budapest before leaving in November. - please provide evidence for this piece of info. like : is this a "common hungarian interpretation" or was it stated by a Court, like, did Hungary asked compensation for this looting or a declaration, something -- Criztu 13:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
did Hungary of Bela Kun attacked ROmania in 1919 or what ?
- To buy time, Kun tried to negotiate with the Allies, meeting the South African Prime Minister, General Jan Smuts at a summit in Budapest in April. Agreement proved impossible and Hungary was soon at war later in April with Kingdom of Romania and Czechoslovakia, who were aided by France.
i read that Hungary started the war with Romania in april 1919. Altho the current formulation is ok, it leaves the reader with no clue about whom started the war. -- Criztu 10:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
From everything stated in the article, Béla Kun was neither religious (all the contrary), nor a Zionist or otherwise Jewish identified, nor brought up in a Jewish environment, nor was his mother Jewish. Also, even if he had been Jewish by any definition, this would be completely irrelevant except for the same kind of antisemites who attacked him. There's no point in stating someone's ethnic ancestry in such a prominent place as is the introductory sentence of an article. This reeks of Jew-spotting. I removed the word "Jew" as well as his alleged name of birth (Aaron Cohen) which doesn't even match the name given in the first paragraph, Béla Kohn. The word "Jew" was added by the openly racist (Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_White_supremacists diff) ex-user Exil2.--126.96.36.199 17:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
No, it is critical to note that he was at least recognized as being an ethnic Jew because such information was critical in shaping the mindset of conservatives, Fascists, nationalists, and the Arrow Cross in linking socialist revolt with the Jewish minority. Even the supposedly tolerant Horthy noticed this connection and saw it in Cohen (Kun). Doesn't matter whether he was religious; most cosmopolitan Jews weren't, but they were still ethnic Jews in the eyes of most. And nobody failed to notice this. See the writings of Cecile Tormay as well if you like. - unsigned
Well, I think it's quite important, because it clearly had an effect on his contemporaries. Not to mention you can bring up "reverse Jew-spotting", which is also quite prominent; many famous people who did not identified themselves as Jewish, and were not religious, also are identified as such. I think it's a bit silly to complain about either. It's part of their background, just as well as I would be identified as Catholic, even though I'm an atheist if I ever get my wikipedia page :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I find it really hilarious and quite sad how desperate you people are to conceal the truth about the USSR and it's underlings.
the guy was Jewish, that is a relevant fact about his life because as a Jew he was a minority ruling the majority.
I think this article is far from npov, ground informations are missing and full of with lies (see victims of 5000 of White terror). I think it will be neutralized soon. If I were more unpatient, I would edit in a POV template. Gubbubu 09:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Please give sources for your assertion that there were fewer than 1500 victims. You gave the name of a source for 5000. You don't have to agree with him, but the estimate is there. James James 09:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- Please give sources there were more than 100. i don't know any serious sources would say that 1500 is a serious estimate. Please read this:
- Sajátos “számháború” bontakozik ki a tankönyvek lapjain arról, hogy tulajdonképpen hány áldozata is volt a fehérterrornak Magyarországon. Azt a tényt, hogy a zsidó és kommunista egyre ment a különítményes tisztek szemében, csak Hosszú írta le. Ő közli azt is, hogy 626 meggyilkolt áldozat esetét sikerült dokumentumokkal is bebizonyítani.32 Lator csak annyit ír, hogy “Napirenden voltak a gyilkosságok… Fölerősödött az antiszemitizmus.” De mivel ennek okairól egy szót sem szól, a tény megmagyarázása valószínűleg a tanárok feladata marad. Salamon Konrád 600 áldozatról tud, de nem említi, hogy Horthy különítményesei nemcsak antikommunisták, hanem fajvédő antiszemiták is voltak.33 Itt is megfigyelhető, hogy Salamon sokkal kritikusabb a baloldali, mint a jobboldali diktatúrákkal szemben.
- A Benkes–Borsányi–Kende és kollégáik által írott tankönyv 1500–2000 főre becsüli a fehérterror áldozatainak számát, szintén nem utalva arra, hogy köztük a zsidók “túlreprezentáltak” voltak, de pontos adatokat közölve a legálisan letartóztatott és elítélt emberekről is.34 Az amerikai holokauszt-szöveggyűjtemény Böhm Vilmos volt hadügyi népbiztost idézve 5000 főre teszi a meggyilkolt forradalmárok számát, mit sem törődve azzal, hogy a szakirodalom ezt a becslést már évtizedek óta túlzottnak tartja.35 Ormos Prónay Pál fehérkülönítményes parancsnok vélekedését idézi, aki szerint Horthy eleinte azért nem mert gátat vetni a zsidók elleni “büntetőexpedícióknak”, mert különben a “nemzeti oldalon álló” tábor elpártolt volna tőle.36 A kérdéskörrel kapcsolatos szakirodalom eddig nem hangsúlyozta, hogy Horthy Sir George Clerknek, a párizsi békekonferencia képviselőjének nyomására már 1919. november 1-jén határozott hangú nyilatkozatban ítélte el a zsidóüldözést, és vizsgálattal, haditörvényszékkel és a Nemzeti Hadseregből való kizárással fenyegette meg a bűnösöket, a tetteseket és az uszítókat is.37 
- I must remark this source says that only 626 dead victims are proved with documents.40
- Gubbubu 12:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- My resource (Tóth Gy. - Kaslik) says that: "Az amerikai Dupuy Institute által fenntartott OnWar.com dokumentációs központ szerint Kun Béla 133 napig tartó magyarországi uralma alatt 590 személyt végeztek ki, közöttük 200 tanárt, illetve tanítót. Ez a szám természetesen nem tartalmazza Kun Béla életútjának későbbi áldozatait." (The OnWar documentation centre held by the american Dupuy Institute says that 590 persons were executed during the 133 days-reign of Béla Kun - 200 teacher between them. this number certainly does not contains the later victims of Kun). Váry Albert in his book says also he can prove that after documents proven number of victims is at least 590. Gubbubu 17:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought I don't have time for this article. But I see revertion militarism here as in the Hungarian Soviet Republic article, so I will rewrite the whole article now, based on the hungarian article. This edit war you have started happened on the page Talk:Hungarian Soviet Republic and I proved there my side is right, I won't replay that discussion Gubbubu 11:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- I divided the section "Early career" to two undersections "Early ages" and "early career in the Worker's Movement", this was too long.
- I rewrote this paragraph, with a lot of plus infos: In March 1918, in Moscow, Kun co-founded the Hungarian Group of the Russian Communist Party (the predecessor to the Hungarian Communist Party). He travelled a lot, e.g. to Petrograd, or to Moscow. He came to know Lenin there, but inside the party he formed the ultra-radical left-wing political opposition of Lenin and the mainstream communists. Unlike Lenin's pragmatism Kun and his friends (like Terracini from Italy or Mátyás Rákosi from Hungary), aggregated around A. Sinovjev or K. B. Radek, thought and advertised the politics of „revolutionary offensive by any means”. Lenin often called them as „kunerists”.
- I also completed this paragraph: During the Russian Civil War in 1918, he fought for the Bolsheviks. During this time, Kun first started to make detailed plans for exporting Communism to Hungary, though characteristically he paid no thought as to what he would do if he took power. In November 1918, Kun, with at least several hundred other Hungarian Communists, and with a lot of money given by the soviet communists; returned to Hungary. (it is so understood that the soviet communists given Kun an extra mass of money to getting up in hungary).
- I deleted this paragraph: Kun, a good speaker, gave fifteen to twenty speeches every day, and the rest of the Communists were supposed to match his example. In addition, Kun founded an newspaper called Vörös Újság (Red News) and wrote countless pamphlets and, as he was an equally good writer, was widely read in the winter of 1918-19. (it is so-so pov, and it is too dubious "kun gave fifteen speeches every day" is no more than a legend spread between communists ... if you gave me resources, it can be put back).
- I havent deleted this paragraph: Kun's speeches had a considerable impact on his audiences. One who heard such a speech wrote in his diary: "Yesterday I heard Kun speak...it was an audacious, hateful, enthusiastic oratory. He is a hard-looking man with an head of a bull, thick hair, and moustache, not so much Jewish, but peasant features, would best describe his face...He knows his audience and rules over them...Factory workers long at odds with the Social Democratic Party leaders, young intellectuals, teachers, doctors, lawyers, clerks who came to his room...meet Kun and Marxism"2. (but please tell me who was the "one" who said that, see Wikipedia:Cite sources)
- I deleted the estimate of victims of White terror. It is so disputed, and not relevant in this article (I think, in this article we should speak about Kun's victims, not about other victims). It must be taken into the White terror article, anatomizing particularly the disputes (see Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View). Gubbubu
- I deleted "howewer, number of victims of red terror were low ... " this is an awful, inhuman pow remark I think. Gubbubu
My resources can bee seen at the end of the hungarian article. To be concrete, I used an article of Tóth Gy. László A pótolhatatlan Kun Béla published in the Magyar Nemzet, what mainly links to the sources below:
- Victor Serge's memoirs (# Victor Serge: Memoirs of a Revolutionary Publisher („Egy forradalmár emlékiratai”), Writers & Readers Publishing, 1984.
- Pierre Broué: Germany, 1921: The March Action. The Journal of the Socialist Labour League, Vol. 1., No. 2., 1964 (benne: Lenin levele Zinovjevnek).
- Lenin's letter to Zinovjev, can be found at Pierre Broué. Gubbubu 12:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
If I will have time or energy, I will write about his "activity" - if we can call mass murdering like this euphemistic way - in the Krím and his fall in Saxon Germany during the time of "The March Action". Gubbubu 12:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Birth of the Hungarian Communist Party
Béla Kun returned to Budapest on 17 November, 1918, but the article states that he founded the MKP on 4 November, 1918, in Budapest. Which statement is wrong? --Comrade Che 1 13:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Kun's torture after his arrest
The whole story about Kun's being tortured by the NKVD comes from Krivitski (I was Stalin's agent, 1940), who defected in May 1937. The problem with it, that at that time, Kun had not yet been arrested. Thus I think this statement could be removed, though it is possible that he was tortured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacz (talk • contribs) 13:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Change to Crimeria section
Borsányi quite clearly showed that the authors who stated the alleged executions refer to each other and that the common source is unknown Redcross nurse. It would have been impossible to identify the total number of dead (if you know Crimeria, you know why) by one person, not to mention the problem of separating these dead bodies by the cause of death. I have no doubts that there were executions there and probably quite a few.
As to the upset in the Bolshevik Party, he gave speeches to the Congress, he was elected to the Engerebüro, he was sent to Berlin - these quite clearly suggest the opposite. However, it does not mean that in the fraction-struggles, the allegations was not used against Kun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacz (talk • contribs) 14:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
looks like Sinatra!
- Kinda, but do have a look here before you decide to edit in such nonsense. Dahn (talk) 10:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Assertion that Kun caused anti-Semitism in Hungary removed
I removed the following" "Although Kun was hostile to all forms of religion, his partial Judaic ancestry and his advocacy of revolutionary communism resulted in hatred both for him and for actual members of Hungarian Jewish communities."
Section about Crimea
The article cites some very spurious sources to claim that 50,000+ were executed in the Crimea. Rayfield is not a historian and his book was not issued by an academic publisher. He doesn't cite any source to support his claim. So we have no way to verify what he says.
Gellately's book, which was not published by an academic press, is also cited in this article, even though he has zero qualifications on Russian history. Gellately's is a recognized expert on Nazi German history: his research chiefly consists of The Gestapo and German Society: Enforcing Racial Policy 1933-1945 (Oxford University Press, 1991) and Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany (Oxford University Press, 2002). He can and should be cited about Nazi Germany, but not for Soviet-related stuff.
The source that Gellately does cite is the polemic "Black Book of Communism", which cites the discredited anti-Soviet agitator Melgunov for its allegations. Melgunov himself cites anti-Soviet newspapers claiming that 50-150 thousand were killed in the Crimea in a reign of terror. Melgunov, however, is not a reliable source: he was an apologist for the White leaders and lied about them. The scholar P.A. Golub for Dialog (August 2003) journal writes:
:"In 1923, S.P. Melgunov, one of the most active instigators of civil war and apologists of Kolchak and other military dictators, issued in Berlin a self-righteous opus "Red Terror in Russia 1918-23". In this work, he hypocritically cried, "Where and when in the government policies and even the press of the anti-Soviet camp will you find theoretical justification of terror as a system of government? In bourgeois cricles, this man was considered a venerable historian and wrote a three-volume work "The Tragedy of Admiral Kolchak". He seems to know nothing of the monstrous cruelty such as the "Law on Rebellion" ordered by the Admiral on March 23, 1919, barbaric practices against Siberian partisans, the order of 14 May 1919 to shoot without trial soldiers who refused to kill their fellow human beings, and many other savage acts of the "supreme ruler" He knew of course, but persistently told the big lie about the White regimes not practicing systematic terror."
What's worse is that Melgunov's allegations are discredited by more modern Russian observers. It turns out that the mass terror in Crimea during 1920 described by Melgunov's propaganda is dubious.
- "Melgunov gives different numbers of victims of the Bolsheviks in the Crimea: 100-120 thousand or even 150 thousand. The "Red atrocities" written about by Melgunov were implausible because when I was living in Sevastopol in 1948, none of the local residents talked about them. At this time, witnesses had been living for at least 30 years. Compare this to how it's been 50 years since the end of World War II, and millions of witnesses are with us to talk about it. In addition, my grandfather with his family lived in the countryside of Crimea during and after the Civil War, and my father, who was 14 years old, lived in Simferopol. I did not hear anything about these "Red atrocities" from them. Furthermore, in Sevastopol two older brothers of my father were captured White soldiers. One of them was wounded in Perekop and was treated in hospital. None of them were subjected to violence or exile. To clarify what happened what did not, I turn to a resident of Sevastopol, Vladimir Kulich, almost 90 years old: It was in 1920, at age 11, he saw a lot, but he emphatically said that he did not witness or hear about the "atrocities" described by Melgunov. No one at Sevastopol was executed, and no civilians were repressed. Moreover, ordinary soldiers in Wrangel's army were left alone and untouched. It is true that the Germans hanged, but the Reds did not.
This article falsely states about Wrangel: "They had surrendered after having been promised amnesty if they would surrender." This is not true ! This is what really happened: Frunze promised Wrangel mercy for surrender. But Wrangel ignored this and ran off with his troops to Constantinople.
- When Frunze broke into the Crimea, Wrangel appealed for French assistance in evacuating as many of his army who wished to escape the Bolsheviks and offered his entire navy and merchant marine for comepnsation. On November 11, Frunze broadcast an offer of amnesty in exchange for the surrender of the White forces. He promised a "full pardon for acts commited during the civil war" and "unimpeded departure" for those not wishing to remain in Russia, provided they swore a solemn oath to abstain from participation in further struggle against the Soviet government...There was no response to the Soviet proposal, for as Wrangel prepared to leave Sevastopol he was not thinking in terms of abandoning the struggle but of renewing it in the spring. He had placed his surviving forces under the protection of France not to be caried safely into exile but to begin their reorganiation for a new campaign. In three days Wrangel embarked the best of his troops and an equal number of civilian refugees, and steamed for Constantinople. On the afternoon of 14 November the evacuation was complete; the following morning the Red Army entered the city unopposed. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)