Talk:Hungary–Soviet Union relations

Disputed

Post-war Hungary was a sovereign and internationally and universally recognized state, not an "occupied terrotiry". Even though they may be called Satellite State this is not one and the same as occupied territory. Stationing foreign troops according to bilateral treaties is not the same thing as occupying someone. The suppression of 1956 Budapest is a single event, not 1944-1990 "occupation". --Irpen 17:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Until the end of Stalinization and normalization of relations between SU and its various satellites, such as signing treaties that formalized the presence of Soviet troops in those countries, many scholars argue that the term 'occupation' is applicable. This was discussed at Northern Group of Forces (and interested editors are invited to read through that article and particulary, the ref Mirosław Golon, Północna Grupa Wojsk Armii Radzieckiej w Polsce w latach 1945-1956. Okupant w roli sojusznika (Northern Group of Soviet Army Forces in Poland in the years 1945-1956. Occupant as an ally) - [1] - unfortunatly its only in Polish).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Some scholars argue" is not enough to be stated in articles in an undisputed form. And even less so in the articles' titles.

And on top of that, the article states that its scope is not the initial years until the "formalization" but an entire period until 1991. --Irpen 18:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we should continue this discussion at Talk:Soviet occupation.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No objection to continuing the discussion there.

But I would like you to explain here why you removed the tag justified at the talk page without explanation. And also, restored the unreferenced speculation whose author even does not know whether it exists.[2] --Irpen 18:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that it exists. However, I'm gallantly letting you to put in at least *some* sources into the article. Where's the fun of coöperation if I'll have to do all the work?

Besides, if it's taken out of the article, some clown will inevitably claim that the Soviet position is not represented. Digwuren 01:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen how about instead of disruptive tagging and bannering improving the article? You are allowed to expand the article so that the Soviet POV is represented to your hearts desire. Hobartimus 16:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Tagging accompanied by a reasonable and good-faithed explanation is a proper way of action. It is removal of the well-explained tag that is a disruption. The article was blatanlty POV.

The circumstances of Soviet's overrunning Hungary are dramatically different, from, say, occupation of Baltics in 1940. Hungary was a member of the coalition that attacked the Soviet Union in 1941 and the Hungarian troops fought shoulder to shoulder with Germans all the way to Stalingrad. So, Soviets did not just "invade and occupy" Hungary in 1944. When the course of the war reversed, the Soviets liberated their own territory. Then they rolled in on their way as they were eliminating the Nazi plaque from Europe, something that no one else seemed interested or willing or able to do. Soviets were no angels either, but this can be discussed in the article's text, the title is not the place to make judgments.

Further, the article stated that Soviets "occupied" Hungary until 1990. This is again a blatant POV. Post-war Hungary was a sovereign and internationally and universally recognized state, a Satellite State, perhaps, but not an "occupied territory". Soviet troops were confined to bases according to the bilateral treaties with the Hungarian government rather then were the occupying military. The suppression of 1956 Budapest is a single event, not 1944-1990 "occupation".

I replaced the article's content with the events of the "occupation" placed into their full context and the tag with {{POV-title}}. I hope you like the improvement. --Irpen 17:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that you attack the title of the article but the title doesn't have the 44-90 date in it. Even your seemingly very strong POV admits that there was soviet occupation in Hungary at some point in time you just maintain that it was not 44-90. Hobartimus 02:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, the article is now switched between two versions. One (Digwuren's) that introduces the "occupation" without any context, claims it to last till 1990 and makes an unsourced statement about the Soviet denial. There is the other version where I put the events in their context, that is the Soviets' overrunning the country in the course of the war where they were attacked first. Contrary to Digwuren's claim, I never called or thought of Hungarians as "Nazis that deserved to be occupied". My personal interaction with the Hungarian people and my visits to their country left me with a highly positive impression, so I have no ax to grind.

We need to understand first of all, the scope of this article and whether it is redundant at all as several articles about the War and post-war Hungarian history already exist. If the entire period of the Communist Hungary is called occupation (it is grossly POV). If, OTOH, we deal only with the end of the war and its aftermath, the subject matter to consider "occupation" separately is POV (the tag addressed both the title and/or subject matter.) If you have ideas on how to develop the article and avoid its redundancy with what already exists onwiki (several articles about the Hungary in the war, after the war and the revoltuion), I am listening with attention. So far it seems, that an ax-grinding user merely started a series of articles to inflame matters. He knew the result of his actions well in advance, don't you agree? --Irpen 05:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have some conflict which is bigger than this one article and the ("article [being] switched between two versions") is not very good in this early stage of the article because it hampers developement. I think your context based approach is flawed because it's inherently POV (I understand that you want to place the Soviet actions in context to explain and justify them). Imagine for instance that others may want to apply your logic and demand that the Hungarian DOW(which is part of your "context")to be put into context by mentioning the 1849 Russian aggression on Hungary, among a variety of other things so where does it end? I think it's better to leave the context part to other articles (in this case Wikipedia has plenty of articles on WWII, where proper context of the whole war is explained). Also it would be nice if you would not remove the mention of the 1956 revolution from your version. I think at this point the article is small enough so no information needs to be really removed, there will be plenty of time for that later. Hobartimus 05:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

We need to define the article's scope early on. Is the article's scope to define the entire post-war period until 1990 as Hungary under occupation as D.'s version seemed to imply? This is certainly a POV. Overrunning country militarily is an occupation by the very definition. Troops stationed according to the bilateral agreement with the countries legal government is not an occupation. Now, it may be someone's POV that it still is but that's a POV and needs to be presented as such, rather than how the article was written. Finally, as for a context, your question "were does this end" is a legitimate one. We need to draw a line somewhere. Are you saying that invading and occupying the country in defiance of the international law "because we can" and crossing the border of the aggressor in the course of the war when one is attacked makes little difference in understanding the occupation? Because this was what article implied. "military presence and force-based political influence on Hungary from 1944 up to 1990" horribly omits the crucial point that the "occupation" was a result of the war were SU was attacked. And it states "until 1990", which is nothing but a POV, even if sourced one. It is very misleading way to totally remove the context of this. Don't you agree? --Irpen 05:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a hard question I think this is most typically solved by writing both opinions in the article.something like "Reliable Source xyz writes that the occupation lasted from 44-90 ,while Reliable Source abc maintains that occupation lasted only to '49 and for a short period after '56". Also the article is in it's infancy so "horribly ommitting" many things is rather natural at this point. That can be quickly fixed by expanding the article with new information. Hobartimus 05:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

But how do you deal with dedicated sources that write on this period of the country's history but do not state that it was an occupation, they simply do not use this term. Does it mean that they state that there was no occupation? The issue is more complex than mere sourcing. We must treat sourced facts differently from sourced judgments. That the Red Army captured Budapest on February 13, 1945, is a sourced fact. That the entire post-war period of HU history can be called as occupation is a judgment. There is much more scrutiny to passing judgments to WP as unquestionable truths than passing facts even if both are sourced. If there are reputable sources about HU history that do not use the term occupation it means they did not find it necessary to make such judgment. It may be OK, depending on the context, to say in the text that the source A considers this to be an occupation. But titles appear without annotations and cannot include terms that are not reasonably universally agreed upon. The title like this for the article's scope as is originally defined by Digwuren is a blatant violation of NPOV. --Irpen 06:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevance

I note that under the guise of "adding context", Irpen has, in an article discussing 1944–1990 been trying to push (unsourced!) position that could be summarised as "Those Hungarians were Nazis, they deserved to be occupied!". The inappropriateness of this particular application of Godwin's law aside, I would like to extend thanks to him for this brilliant example of violation of the principle I proposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop#Knowledge must be systematised. Digwuren 02:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing like Hungarians where Nazis in the article. As for "unsoursed" this is nonsense and you know that. All facts and dates you can find in, say, Britannica article on the Hungarian history. The context of this is important. From your article one would conclude that Soviets without provocation invaded and occupied another country. This is not what happened here. So this is relevant and restored. And I am adding the link to EB for your convenience. Also, the 1949 treaty granted the Soviet troops the stationing rights. FYI, Soviets completely withdrew before the events of the 1956 revolution. Then they bloodily returned but than, under Kadar they withdrew fully again. Later they did return as a Warsaw pact force but this was a military treaty duly signed by the internationally recognied government of Hungary. You cannot call it occupation. --Irpen 03:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Per above, the military presence in accordance with valid international treaty is not an occupational force. Otherwise, Germany is still "US occupied". This material belongs to history of Hungary and other historic articles, including the article a dedicated article about 1956 events. The "occupation", however, ended. --Irpen 01:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, please no Original Research. Please bring sources confirming your claims, your word alone is not enough. --Molobo (talk) 03:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Molobo, we've been through this multiple times. Something being said somewhere does not by itself warrant the inclusion into the article. There is a famous Pilsudski quote about Poles. Would you like it in Poles article? (I won't.) Please, let's keep this article on topic and discuss the POV language of sources in narrow articles. What Pildsudski said about Poles does not belong to Poles article even if it belongs to Pilsudski article. --Irpen 04:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You completely avoided any answer to my request by changing the subject.Again-reliable source please. Your word alone is not enough per Wikipedia guidelines.--Molobo (talk) 04:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not avoid it. I addressed your question precisely. The statement that Hungary or Poland were occupied till 1989, even if sourced may or may not belong to articles. Sourcing itself is not the only factor. See the example with Pilsudski. --Irpen 04:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Again Irpen-reliable sources are needed to confirm what your wrote about Hungary in the first place. Do you have them or was this unsourced ?--Molobo (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What was unsourced? --Irpen 04:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your claims to which I responded in my first entry. If they are unsourced I will remove the tags.--Molobo (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Molobo, this is about relevance, not sourcing. The article itself does not claim that the entire period until 1991 was "occupation". As per this, these events are irrelevant to the topic. To give room for discussion, I tagged them, instead of removing. IMO, the 1956 events as well as the fact that Soviet troops remained stationed until 1991 is worth to be mentioned but not as sections at the same level that describe the the events of the Soviet entrance (act of the occupation) and the military rule until the transfer of authority (regime of occupation.) The rest may be presented as the aftermath but there is no need to fork this here as there is a dedicated article for this material. I would be interested in Turgidson's opinion on the offered compromise (brief mention at the lower heading level). --Irpen 05:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

So you got no sources to support your pesonal thesis that I responded to in the first places ? --Molobo (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

I expanded the article, adding both substance and context. Can we remove the tag now? Turgidson (talk) 06:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No. The "occupation" having been lasted till 1991 is a POV even if sourced. We can give it in referenced form in the main body but not in the lead as an unquestionable fact.

The lead should just say when and in what context it started, when the formal authority was transferred to the government (mentioning its being Soviet-picked), when the military presence was formalized by the treaty with the internationally recognized gov of Hu. We can also say that the latter presence lasted until 1991 and say in the text (not the lead) that some consider it all as "occupation" per WP:UNDUE. As for the text, see my remarks above. --Irpen 08:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think we can remove it quite well. Unless anybody else opposes I will remove it, so far Irpen you are alone in this, and still didn't brought any sources to back up your statement[3] --Molobo (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine in case The "occupation" having been lasted till 1991 is a POV even if sourced. Just that what would be the opposing POV then? According to WP:NPOV, in case conflicting perspectives exist, both need to be listed. So Irpen please provide evidence from published sources of another POV to support your claim and justify the tag. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If this was an undisputable universally shared POV, we won't have a multitude of sources that talk about the post-war history for Hungary without calling the entire period until 1991 as occupation. You can look at all major encyclopedias for such examples. --Irpen 17:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources that claim there was no occupation please.--Molobo (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Each book that does not use the term as wholesale applicable until 1991. All three encyclopedias. --Irpen 17:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

How about we just copy-paste Talk:Soviet occupation of Romania here, changing each appearance of the word "Romania" to "Hungary"? It would save everybody a lot of time and accomplish exactly the same thing...K. Lásztocska^talk 18:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Maybe so. But keep in mind what good ole Karl said, in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon: "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce." So let's not do that — I think it would be more productive to start drawing some common themes (and contrasts, as the case may be), between these two articles (and the many related ones), and look at the various Eastern Bloc occupations from a more unified point of view, not just one by one, in isolation. Eg, both the articles you mention hint at how Soviet troops stationed in Romania were involved in the crushing of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 (and there is also the matter of the Soviets bringing Nagy to Snagov after snaring him from outside the Yugoslav Embassy). Also, there is the matter of Soviet troops occupying part of Austria until 1956, and using that as one of their rationales to occupy both Romania and Hungary up to that point (so as to allow movement of troops to Austria, that is). Or, the important influence of the Polish October on the string of 1956 events. How about the impact of the Hungarian Revolution on the Bucharest student movement of 1956? And we haven't even started talking about 1968, and the crushing of the Prague Spring. Anyone else interested in looking at all these events in a more unified way, hopefully with less Sturm und Drang on talk pages, and more of the nitty-gritty of adding sourced content—building on what we already have, some of which is really great stuff, and some not-so-great yet—in a coherent and comprehensive way, to this group of articles? Turgidson (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Irpen but isn't it a bit too much to ask your opponents to look up the sources for you? But fine, always ready to help. The first encyclopedia I opened Britannica talks clearly about Soviet Occupation in Hungary and about the attempt to establish Hungary's independence in 1956. Imre Nagy article for example returning to Hungary under Soviet occupation, ...whose attempt to establish Hungary's independence from the Soviet Union cost him his life. Even WP article Russia speaks of the The Red Army had occupied Eastern Europe after the war... Stalin installed communist governments in these satellite states. So as far as I'm concerned it's universal POV and a fact that after WWII the whole Eastern Europe was occupied by the Soviet Union until it's collapse. Alternative POV would be hard line communist/conservative Soviet, that communist revolutions in Eastern Europe helped "people's governments" to power etc. Since you clearly support such a POV please provide some direct sources this time for the alternative POV here. Either from the Soviet Encyclopedia or whatever conservative communist source it might be. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think tertiary sources like Soviet Encyclopedias or other communist controlled literature should be treated with caution, given the tendency of communists to rewrite history to suit their own perverse political agenda. Also, given that communists have been marginalised and turned into almost a fringe group since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there would be issues of WP:UNDUE in regard to their POV. Martintg (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Martintg, the Soviet style communism was a totalitarian regime that oppressed individuals and nations. But since it's been claimed, "Soviet occupation of Hungary" is a POV, we need to find out what exactly the alternative POV is. And in that sense it doesn't matter really if the alternative POV would have been laid out by devil himself of by mean alien killer tomatoes from out of space. As long as it's published and says anything different that "Soviet occupation of Hungary" we need to lay it out here for the reader to decide. The problem so far, Each book that does not use the term is the only alternative POV offered by Irpen. But as proven by the article from Encyclopedia Britannica I listed, Irpen was mistaken about All three encyclopedias. So we still miss the alternative POV from a published source to justify the tag.--Termer (talk) 04:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK, since Irpen has not provided (yet) a reliable source to back up his POV that there was no Soviet occupation of Hungary (or Romania, or ...), let me be a sport, and mention a rather famous statement on this (see here):

On October 6 1976, during a televised Presidential debate in the 1976 Presidential election with rival Jimmy Carter, President Gerald Ford became confused and stated that Poland and Eastern Europe were not under the domination of the Soviet Union. When challenged over his comments, he repeated "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration." He added that he did not "believe that the Poles consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union", and made the same claim with regards to Yugoslavia and Romania.

As a result of this blunder, Ford's previous surge stalled and Carter was able to maintain a slight lead in the polls. (It should be said that Ford retracted his statements about a week later, but it was too late by then.) It is widely believed that those statements contributed to Gerald Ford's defeat in the 1976 election. Maybe we should use those statements as supporting the alternate POV? Turgidson (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Turgidson but it seems you have also missed the point like Irpen. The point was, please list, cite any published sources that clearly are in conflict with the current title. Otherwise it can be interpreted as WP:OR. Or like Irpen has very well spelled it out: this is no more than your personal opinion that you are free to post to your personal blog. Or you can try to publish it in a scholarly journal and after it passes the peer-review scrutiny, we will include it to the article. So, it seems we're still missing an alternative POV that would be based on a published source.--Termer (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Termer, I don't think we should jump around like monkeys looking for sources of an alternate POV Irpen claims is missing? If Irpen believes there is an alternate POV, let him bring that reference to the table. Since 1945 books, papers and articles have been written supporting the occupation view, you would think some Western academic would have a brilliant idea to critically examine these occupation claims and refute them. So where is this paper? No where. Why? Because there is concensus that occupation is an unquestionable fact. Martintg (talk) 10:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats exactly what I was saying Martintg, perhaps you just spelled it out better than me.--Termer (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Easy, Termer, easy. I would have hoped that anyone reading my comments about that famous quote from Gerry Ford would see that they were made tongue-in-cheek. Of course I was not advocating putting that in this article -- as I explained in the above, the story is mentioned in United States presidential election, 1976 and in List of U.S. presidential faux-pas, gaffes, and unfortunate incidents#Gerald Ford—no need for me to repeat all references from those articles, but trust me, there are dozens, nay, hundreds of references when it comes to a famous statement in a US Presidential Debate. Evidently, my intent was to present one of the few known instances of someone notable from the West (in this instance, a US President, no less!) maintaining that there was no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe during the Cold War. But of course, this was basically a gaffe, which he retracted shortly after, as again I explained, if you would take the time to actually read what I wrote. At any rate, perhaps in the future you will assume more of good faith from me, and be less prone about lecturing fellow editors about WP:OR, WP:POV— the works (did I forget anything?)—at the drop of a hat. That a deal? Turgidson (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, Turgidson, I have no idea why do you seem to think my response to your obvious "tongue-in-cheek" idea was any different in tone.--Termer (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

All right, maybe I misunderstood what you said. Some nuances are hard to communicate through this medium, and there are so many people devoid of sense of humor around here, that one gets edgy at times. At any rate, let's just keep chugging away, and improving these articles. But one needs some humor now and then (shared by others, hopefully), to keep on working, yes? Especially on such dreary subjects as Soviet occupations -- how many people even want to think about this nowadays anymore? Turgidson (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)