Talk:János Esterházy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The neutrality of this article is disputed. János Esterházy was an Hungarian agent in Czechoslovakia under the name "Szalma" with the number 221. Its objective was revision of the Treaty of Trianon (see the revisionist inter-war Hungarian foreign policy and Greater Hungary (political concept) - Hungarism fascist ideology). In this effort he coordinate their actions with the Hungarian government, which was supported. Why in the article is missing quote "I was raised in antisemitic spirit, I am antisemitic and I will remain antisemitic"?
My translation: The last time the representatives of the public and the media, public officials are turning to Federation of the Jewish Religious Communities in Slovakia with issues relating to the wartime Slovak Hungarian politics, the constitutional factor of Count János Esterházy.

We appreciate the fact that Janos Esterhazy as the only member of the Slovak parliament not voted in May 1942 (he not voted against, only abstained) for emigration law. In this vote, the council apologized to the President by letter with a statement in which he wrote, among others, "that alone is and always has been anti-Jewish thought." J.E. had many opportunities to express themselves and protest against the anti-Semitic actions and policies, which never do as never protested against the deportation of Jews from southern Slovakia, which was administered by Hungary, where they went the first transports of Jews.

Moreover J.E. was a member of the Slovak Parliament since 1939, when the Holocaust began gradually depriving civil, economic and human rights of Jewish citizens and voted for all the anti-Semitic laws in addition to the emigration law. In 1940 he gave J.E. speech in which he praised the Slovak government for the people of the Jews made a second-class process and started confiscation their property. All of these documents (and many others) are available in the archives and published.

It is not true that J. E. was arrested after the liberation of Slovakia also for his assistance to Jews. J. E. was built before the National Court in 1946 (communism was raised up in 1948), together with all members of the Diet and other representatives of the then state of war for helping anti-democratic and fascist regime.

Despite the huge efforts of his family and lobbyists have never demonstrated his support "hundreds of persecuted Jews, Czechs and Slovaks" and never received honors "Righteous Among the Nations". Research carried out by Israeli, Slovak and Czech historians who have researched the history of the Holocaust in Slovakia, none of these claims has not shown.

The final 12 years of personal and political life was for him and his family was tragic. This does not give anyone the right to make such a person of democratic politics, the anti-fascist fighter and intrepid defender of the Jewish people. Relevant and well-known historical facts say something quite different.

Igor Rintel, President of the Federation of the Jewish Communities

User:Fakirbakir please provide the translation from your last edit[2] --Omen1229 (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I translate it gladly. The title of the article is "Esterhazy was not antisemitic". A historian Imre Molnar (according to the page you can read his book about Esterhazy in Slovak and in English as well) disproof Esterhazy's alleged antisemitic views. Link (In Hungarian)Fakirbakir (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Fakirbakir, it would be nice of you. User Omen1229 may also try to use Google Translate. His opinion which can be read above is the Slovakian POV about him. The Hungarian POV claims that these accusations are not-well supported by contemporary documents, and the real reason of his conviction by the Czechoslovak authorities was to intimidate the Hungarian minority. I created a paragraph in the lede which describes *both* of these POVs, to make the article NPOV. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This edit[3] should be NOPV? "According to Janek, the real reason of his conviction by the Czechoslovak authorities was to intimidate the Hungarian minority." According to president of the Federation of the Jewish Communities - Esterhazy together with all members of the Diet and other representatives were sentenced for helping anti-democratic and fascist regime, so some "intimidate" is illogical here. Do you think only "innocent" Esterhazy was punished as some kind of martyr? Please write more details about these synthesis. --Omen1229 (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Synthesis? The source [4] writes " Janek István szerint azonban Esterházy elítélésének célja a szlovákiai magyarok megfélemlítése volt." which translates to "According to István Janek, the real reason of Esterházy's conviction was to intimidate the Hungarians in Slovakia". What did I synthase? And the quote that you put back is very dubious, not well-sourced. Could you cite the exact place with the whole paragraph (to see the context) where he says this? Thanks, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but some "intimidate" is nonsense here, because he was not only sentenced. Esterhazy together with all members of the parliament and other representatives were sentenced for helping anti-democratic and fascist regime. I do not understand arguments by Janek from the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, so please write more details about this synthesis. Yes, the quotes in the article is very dubious (The Slovak government has strayed onto a dangerous path when it submitted the bill about expelling the Jewish, because by that it acknowledged that simply ousting a minority by the majority is lawful...), is necessary to add the complete citation. It will be "interesting" reading. --Omen1229 (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I doubt that there was a *collective* judgement about all MPs. While it may be true that individually all of them were sentenced (it would still need a proper academic source), they were most likely sentenced case-by-case, so it is possible (without saying that it was really the case) that the intimidation of the Hungarian minority was indeed one of the reasons of his conviction. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion, but it is only your original research, so please see Wikipedia:No original research. You added in the article specific Hungarian POV (According to Janek, the real reason of his conviction by the Czechoslovak authorities was to intimidate the Hungarian minority.) and I made the article balanced with neutral reliable source[5]. If you do not understand NOPV, please do not edit this article and read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.--Omen1229 (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
It seems that it is not me who does not understand the meaning of NPOV. There are two viewpoints of János Esterházy. According to some Slovak scholars, he was a Hungarian spy, a war criminal, etc., according to some Hungarian scholars, he was a brave politician whose conviction was aimed at intimidating the Hungarian minority. Both of these viewpoints are currently stated in the article. The fact that he is still treated as a war criminal in Slovakia is also presented. All the information is there, and shown in an NPOV way. Yes, "officially" he was sentenced to death (in a one-day trial!) for "helping the fascist regime" (I guess by voting against expelling the Jews...?). But the *real reason* of his conviction is a matter of debate. BTW: there was no collective trial for all MPs, he was sentenced individually [6]. Interestingly "the Bratislava People's Tribunal announced that Janos Esterhazy would be tried in his absence and ordered a Czech woman lawyer, Dr. Cikvanova, to defend him. She received the Esterhazy dossier on the same day". Sounds like a fair trial. And the theory that his trial was aimed against the Hungarians is not only claimed by István Janek, for example: "The trial of Janos Esterhazy, head of the Hungarian Party in Tiso's Slovakia, was one of the most glaring examples of the double standards practiced by the Slovak people's courts against the Hungarians." [7]. Note that the book was published by the Columbia University Press and one of the authors is Gunther Erich Rothenberg, so it is not only a Hungarian POV. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
No, there are only two quite misleading paragraphs created by User:Fakirbakir.--Omen1229 (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
If Imre Molnar says that he had not found any Estrehazy's antisemitic sentences then he is totaly disqualified as a historian. By the way, his official speeches in The Slovak Diet (1839-1945) are publicly available together with other parliament documents in The Common Czecho-Slovak Digital Parliament Library - [8] or [9].-- (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, but it is not clear to me which statement of Imre Molnar you were referring to. Regarding your edits: I have reverted them, since you have removed several sourced sentences and your new additions were full of unsourced POV statements, like: "In his parliamentary speeches, he repeatedly declared support for antisemitic policy of government." and "On the other hand, he protested against harming Hungarians under the cover of "the legitimate fight against Jews".". Also, you should not remove citation needed tags without proving a source or giving an explanation why it does not need any. Moreover, generally I do not think that simple websites should be given too much emphasis on Wikipedia, but we may create a section about the criticism of him. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I am afraid that you are wrong. It is not my sentence, it is exactly what Ivan Kamenec (recognized historitian an author about several publication about Slovak Republic(1939-1945) with special focus on holocaust) says. By the way, this source is already in article (Osobnost Janosa Esterhazyho a jej kontroverzne interpretacie), however it is true that I did not give reference for every single sentence. It is widely accepted and documented fact. For whoever doubt, compare it directly with his parliamentary speeches in commonn czech and slovak digital parliament library.-- (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Some additional comments:
  • "I have reverted them, since you have removed several sourced sentences". No, I did not. However, you did. Here is your revert as a proof You (and not me) removed several sources sentences. If I count properly, you removed 6(!) sources sentences. I did not remove anything. Even statement about "voting against deportations" which is inaccurate and needs some clarification was preserved in version which was reverted.
  • "your new additions were full of unsourced POV statements ..." As we can see, you removed also fully sourced text, so this very poor reasoning. If you have doubts about specific sentence, please, be so kind and mark this sentence by tag. As I already wrote, I did not put reference after each sentence. However, I can without any problem.
  • "you should not remove citation needed tags without proving a source". No, I removed tag "verification needed" after providing additional reference. The proof is link above. Also in this case, you (and not me) removed "citation needed" tag. By the way, I am just curious about reliable and reputable source for sentence "László Sólyom, a staunch advocate of friendship between Hungarians and Slovaks". I don't have anything against him, but this is more political declaration and not encyclopedic text. Especially, in the case of living person.-- (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that Esterhazy co voted for the first arization law, therefore is also responsible for persecutions of jews.Also Esterhazy did nothing to prevent deportations. He was member of slovak parliment so he also carries guilt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

...And this "antisemitic" person saved Jews....Fakirbakir (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I assume that you speak about your contradiction tag ( In my opinion, this your change in fact increased and did not removed contradiction. Please, take into account that it is known (and sourced in article) "he was not the only one who voted against", but he was "the only one who did not vote in public and demostrative way". Of course, this is also positive moral gesture. If we can agree on such formulation (used for example by Deak) this will remove contradiction. It is natural, that special publication about holocaust in Slovakia (Kamenec, I.: Po stopach tragedie available also in English as On The Trail of Tragedy) provides more details about voting than general publication about HU minority in Slovakia (Breuning, Eleonore; Jill Lewis, Gareth Pritchard: The Hungarian minority in Slovakia) and it is confirmed by other historians.
Voting for antisemitic laws and helping Jews is not contradiction in article. If he did it, we can include opinions of historians about his motivation. The issue is that such help is not properly sourced in article. Instead of that, there is unsourced sentence "János Esterházy helped hundreds of Jews, Czechs, Slovaks and Poles in 1944 to escape persecution". However, the reason why they needed help was in anti-jewish laws he actively supported.-- (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
You try to push the Slovak POV. Pls be aware it is a sensitive issue. Anyway, who is this Kamenec? Fakirbakir (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't. However, you did.
  • You removed extended references. This includes also parts where I was explicitly asked for additional references.
  • You removed fully sourced clarification for rehabilitation in Russia. By the way, this clarification was requested by tag in intro of the article.
  • You reintroduced again obvious and unsourced lie about reopening trial in The Town Court in Bratislava. I am talking about lie, because it is so far from reality that original author of this "information" (whoever he was) had to be aware of it. This lie was returned back by you in such way that you removed sourced text. proof
For other authors:
Can we agree on formulation "the only one who did not vote in public and demonstrative way"? Thanks.-- (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

-- (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Dubious claim: "he was never citizen of Hungary"[edit]

The claim that "he was never citizen of Hungary" citing Ladislav Deák was recently added. That claim is highly dubiois, if not simply false, since he was born in Nyitraújlak in 1901, well before the collapse of Austria-Hungary. Note that there was no joint Austro-Hungrarian citizenship, everyone was either a citizen of Hungary or a citizen of Austria before 1920. Does the source claim that he was an Austrian citizen before the Treaty of Trianon? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, good point. The meaning here is that he did all his political activities as citizen of Czechoslovakia and later Slovakia and not as citizen of Hungarian state.-- (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
One note to your last edit. It is widely accepted that Czechoslovakia existed since 1918 not since 1921 (also here in wikipedia) so he was not 21. But is does not matter, I agree with your new text.-- (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting question. According to the Treaty of Trianon article and for example this [10] source, the treaty came into affect in July 1921. Thus I think that, according to the international law, he became the citizen of Czechoslovakia in 1921. Though, Czechoslovakia indeed declared its independence in 1918, but its territories (and hence its citizens) were uncertain until the treaty. Anyway, I am glad that you agree with the new sentence. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
This is for longer discussion but it is not so important here.-- (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: The Federation of the Jewish Communities in Slovakia[edit]

A question: where does this [11] source claim that the "The Federation of the Jewish Communities in Slovakia" was the one which protested against the Courage to Care Award? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Original: "Zástupcovia židovskej komunity na Slovensku zareagovali otvoreným listom, v ktorom ocenenie kritizujú ako necitlivé k slovenským obetiam holokaustu." Translation: "Representatives of Jewish comunity in Slovakia reacted by open letter, where they critized this award as insensitive (or caolus? - excuse my English) to the Slovak victims of holocaust." I can also prove that translation of their viewpoint as it is provided on top of this Talk page is correct. I mean, this is their official opinion. Off course, representatives of Hungarian Jews can have different opinion. -- (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
There are more than one Jewish community in Slovakia. What makes you think that it was The Federation of the Jewish Communities in Slovakia which protested? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
PS: The website that you linked indeed belongs to The Federation of the Jewish Communities in Slovakia and they indeed have a different opinion about János Esterházy. But were they the ones who protested against the Courage to Care Award? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I can try to find more sources. Maybe this will help: [[12]], it seems to cover this topic. At least president of the Jewish federation Igor Rintal is mentioned there (you have to translate). In the worst case we can reformulate it to "representatives of Jewish community protested in open letter bla-bla" and then mention what the federation of Jewish communities published (top of this Talk page). - (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Esterhazy's help to general Rudolf Viest[edit]

Can you provide more details? I cannot find sources. As far as I know, general Viest strongly disagreed with the breaking up Czechoslovakia and he signed declaration against creation of The First Slovak Republic. In August 1939, he did not return from negotiations in Budapest where he was as a member of delimitation commission and emigrated to France through Yugoslavia. I assume that Esterhazy's help (supposed or not) is related to this event. However, his role here is not clear for me, because note that breakage of Czechoslovakia was his goal and otherwise Viest will not need any help. -- (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

My main source was this [13] article, which names Rudolf Viest among those people who were saved by János Esterházy. This [14] book also mentions this. This [15] article from a history oriented website also claims that János Esterházy helped Rudolf Viest to escape to London. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
PS: Sorry, but I only found Hungarian sources. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
PS2: How do you know that Rudolf Viest did not need any help? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I am just curious about details and it is unclear to me. On September 1, 1939, he went to Romanian embassy in Budapest where he was as a member of Slovak-Hungarian delimitation commission to get visa. On September 3, he escaped to Bucharest where he obtained false French passport with the help of colonel Pika. Then he started to travel to Paris. He remained in France until its capitulation and then escaped again on Egyptian steamship. He joined Benes in London on July 10, 1940.
I don't say that Estarhazy did not help him. I only want to say that some additional verification and clarification is reasonable. Correct me, if I am wrong but this theory at wikipedia is based on:
a), "main source" which is not a historical journal and it seems to contain only summary from article in other journal (Am I right?)
b) which does not contain any references
c) one book. I do not speak HU - did author of this book wrote/referenced something concrete or it is just undocumented statement?
How do you know that Rudolf Viest did not need any help?. I am only putting into your attention that primary reason of Viest emigration is in breakage of Czechoslovakia - strategic goal of Esterhazy, followed by orientation of a new state. Viest signed memorandum against independent Slovakia and for preserving Czechoslovakia already in March 14, 1939. He was "Czechoslovak" in the meaning of Czech and Slovak unity and it is not very probable (possible, but not so much) that he coordinated such action with Esterhazy. The problem is that we are missing basic facts - how and when he helped him. - (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you that it would be interesting to know the details of this help. However, our primary role is not verifying, but using and citing the sources (unless we suspect that they are unreliable). Of course, if I find a more detailed source, I will cite it and use that instead. Here is another candidate [16], but it also does not provide the details. BTW: this is an official journal of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and it also claims this, i.e.: "1939-ben õ segített Viest késõbbi ellenálló tábornoknak nyugatra szökni" which means: "in 1939 he was the one who helped Viest, the later partisan general, to escape to the West". Finally, a side remark: I do not think that breaking Czechoslovakia apart was a "strategic goal" of him, even though he openly criticized the joint Czech-Slovak state. Moreover, Esterházy could help Viest even though their political views were different. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Then my opinion is that IT IS NOT reliable source. Not only, that such help is not documented in Viest biographies published by historians from The Slovak National Memory Institute (Jasek, Kincok, Lacko: Slovenski generali, Ottovo nakladatelstvi, Praha, 2003) or by The Institute of Military History of Slovak republic and The Institute of Military History of Czech Republic (Vojenské osobnosti československého odboje 1939–1945, Ministerstvo obrany ČR − AVIS, Praha, 2005). This could happen BUT I would take very seriously that Viest described his escape in very deep details, including names of persons who helped him, when and how. His memoirs are available and he did not mention Esterhazy in any context. More, he provided also names of persons informed about his escape and Esterhazy definitely does not belong here. I am newbie, but I think that this information falls under rule "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Reference to memoirs: Zápisky generála Rudolfa Viesta : exil 1939-1944, Ministerstvo obrany Slovenskej republiky, Bratislava, 2002.
Note 1: Talk about strategic goal is secondary here, but I can copy here his (Esterhazy's) own words. Maybe later.
Note 2: I have registered on wiki, I will write under this name.--Ditinili (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
> BTW: this is an official journal of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and it also claims this. Can you confirm that you did not cite that sentence from scientific article, but from review of book? More, book where his daughter is author or co-author? In addition, it seems to repeat typical inaccuracies like legendary "he was the only one who voted against...", etc. Am I right?--Ditinili (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
That is indeed a review of a book, and one of the *editors* of the book is Alice Esterházy–Malfatti. The book is published by a well-known publisher, it can also be treated as a reliable source. And it strengths the reliablity of the book that it was reviewed by a journal of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Even if Viest had a memoir, it would not be surprising that he forgot to mention Esterházy's help, since officially Esterházy was a war criminal, so it would cast bad light on him. Here is the memoir of Lujza Esterhazy [17]. According to her, Esterházy and Viest met on 15 March 1939 in the Carlton café in Bratislava (page 106), where Esterházy promised Viest to get him permission for travelling to Hungary, in order to help his escape. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I am sure that you can understand difference between "he talked about" and "he did something". If it ever happened, because his daughter is hardly independent and reliable source. General Viest was in Budapest as an official member of commission, so he did not need any permission.
> it would not be surprising that he forgot to mention Esterházy's help, since officially Esterházy was a war criminal. Sorry for saying that, but you prove with every comment that you have absolutely no idea what are you talking about and you don't know elementary facts. Viest was captured by Germans already in November 1944 and he was probably executed in concentration camp Flossenbürg. This means that any post war process cannot have impact on his memoirs. I don't want more, than serious sources. Not unreliable sources like memoir of member of his family or some legend (?) based on it and uncritically accepted by some historians who are obviously not able to correctly cite other known facts like "voting against, bla-bla" or ignoring other well known facts. I want proof for this sensation. I mean multiple independent sources. If all of them adopted this theory from memoir of Lujza Esterhazy, they are not sufficient. --Ditinili (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I have already presented several independent sources. I do not know where they got their information, but it is not our role to verify them. Do you have any source which claims that he did not need any permission to travel to Hungary or is it your original research? You are right that the post war process could not influence him, my fault, but please do not make generalized personal attacks, like "you prove with every comment that you have absolutely no idea what are you talking about and you don't know elementary facts". Such things do not lead us anywhere, especially, since you generalized from one statement of mine. You should concentrate on the content and not on the editors, so I will ignore such comments. I do not know what do you mean by "sensation" and you already have your proof. But, for good measure, here are some more sources [18][19][20]. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Try to exclude sources like "review of book", "summary of article", "memoir of family member" and you will see that you don't have so many sources. If you look on the rest, you do not know how many independent sources do you really have. It is probable that you have only one source cited in several books. I agree with you that it is not our role to verify, etc. However, I believe that it is correct to ask for multiple independent sources for sensational claim.
I apologize for personal attack, this was my fault. I only wanted to say: your theory about modification of Viest's memoir in relationship to Esterhazy's process is wrong, because he was already dead for several years. (As you already know)
I am dependent on google translator, but I have feeling that Lujza Esterhazy did not wrote that he helped Viest. I am not sure, but it seems that she wrote only something like "Esterhazy offered help" and "later, I heard that Viest escaped", p. 106-107. If it is true, it means that even this absolutely biased source does not claim that he helped him to escape. In such case, it is not relevant reference.
As I already wrote, Viest was in Budapest as an official member of Slovak delegation in Slovak-Hungarian commission. This is well known fact proven by his biographies (links are above). Believe me or not, he as an official member delegated by Slovak government to common Slovak-Hungarian commission he had not problem to get there. I don't need any "own research" for such claim.
I propose this approach to move forward:
1. Make short list of relevant sources (no "summaries", "reviews", biased sources like "memoir of family member", etc).
2. Prove, that they are independent. It means that they do not depend on single source.
That's all. I have no problem if he helped him. It is not "political issue". It is "technical issue" because original references were really poor. By "sensational claim" I mean - it is in contrast with available Viest's biographies and against memoirs of person who was supposed to receive help(!). --Ditinili (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
According to Lujza Esterhazy, János Esterházy did not only offer his help to Viest, but later she heard that Viest indeed escaped using Esterházy's help (i.e.,"Nemsokára hallottam, hogy tényleg ezen az úton sikerült Viest generálisnak kijutnia Beneshez, Angliába", which means "Not long after this, I heard that general Viest indeed escaped this way to Benes, to England"). I know that this is a primary source, so a subjective account, and also that she only *heard* that Viest indeed used Esterházy's help. On the other hand, we should trust historians, as they are the experts. Very likely they do not just simply take the subjective account of witnesses as plain facts. Therefore, I doubt that all of these sources are only based on Lujza's memoir. However, I do not have any way to test or verify their independence.
Earlier you said that: "Viest described his escape in very deep details, including names of persons who helped him, when and how. His memoirs are available and he did not mention Esterhazy in any context." Do you have access to Viest's memoirs? Could you quote what does he write about how did he travel to Hungary before he escaped to meet Benes? Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
"She heard that he escaped" is not equal to "Esterhazy helped him to escape".
Yes, I have Viest's memoir here on my table. "Deep details" means that only his escape from Budapest to Romania is covered on 3 pages (p. 57-59). I will not translate 3 pages, but here are main parts:
In that time, a lot of factors demonstrated preparations of Germany for war. (...) My fear that I will be late was high especially after return to Bratislava on September 19, when tension between Germany and Poland escalated. (...) I evaluated as the best option to use official journey to Budapest for meeting of delimitation commission, which have met several times in Bratislava during summer and next meeting was in Budapest. (...) On August 29th, 14:00 we left by cars through Petržalka to Budapest (.. list of persons travelling with him folllows...). I did not talk with anybody about my decision to emigrate. I wanted to prevent inconvenience to anybody. I told only to Ján Országh, that I am not sure if I return. I did not say anything even to my brothers and sisters. (...longer description about letter to minister of defense, money left in Slovakia, disagreement with policy against Poland...) On border, near bridge over Danube, gendarme warned us that edict was issued which banned crossing borders for men between 17-50. But he immediately added that it has none impact on us because we go officially. In Budapest we had negotiation of commission until Saturday, September 2, 12:30. We had free day on Friday, September 1, which I enjoyed because I required time to get visa. In consideration of situation - that day German started military action against Poland - I decided for journey to Bucharest. (...reasoning...) On September 1, I went to Romanian embassy and asked for visa for my Slovak diplomatic passport and I also explained the purpose of my journey. Secretary of embassy asked me if I want to join Romanian army. Of course, I said "thank you". (Note - it means in Slovak that he refused). I did not get visa immediately and I had to come on Saturday, September 2. However, I did not obtained visa even on Saturday and they sent me to consulate where I obtained visa immediately. (... details about problems with Hungarian policeman on consulate...) After long waiting, I met consul. He was already informed about my journey and he willingly complied. He even did not want fee. (...journey to Romania...) I came to Bucharest before noon on September 4. (...) I called to agency of Škoda to Zdeněk Augenthaler, ex-business attaché of our embassy in Budapest. He came to my hotel and told me than colonel Heliodor Píka is not in Bucharest, but he will return in a few days through Italy. I have tried to obtain necessary documents on French embassy. They told me to come in 4 days. I have waited. H. Píka fortunately returned already on Thursday, 7 September. Then he arranged everything, so I did not have to care. He gave me French passport with name René Vienot, born in Paris, living in Warszawa. He brought me ticket to sleeper of 1st class to Paris. (...journey to France through Yugoslavia follows. On the next 20 pages he described his activities in France, until evacuation to the Great Britain on Egyptian steamer Mohamed Ali Ed Kebir after fall of France. Some Hungarians are mentioned in Paris, but only in the negative meaning due to their anti-Czechoslovak activities).
I agree with you that "we should trust historians", but it (in itself) does not fulfill requirement for multiple independent sources. I really dislike to repeat myself, but if they only cross cite themselves or they cites only one biased source then they are not independent. More, if this primary source even does not contain such claim, they are not reliable. Inability to provide any elementary facts like "how and when he helped" is secondary in this case, but you can look on it (for your internal purpose) as on warning sign. I would be happy, if you can prove me that my fear is wrong.--Ditinili (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply and I am especially grateful for your constructive approach, i.e., that you have quoted from Viest's memoirs. Unfortunately, as I wrote earlier, I do not have any way to test or verify the independence of the sources. Or do you want me to go over the bibliographies of the above sources and compare them?? :-O For example, Gábor Szent-Ivány just refers to a "contemporary account of the trial", when he quotes ""Next, the defense requested that witnesses be called because the court had not summoned a single witness. Specifically, the Czech defense lawyer wanted to have testimony from witnesses who could prove Esterhazy's anti-fascist behavior throughout the entire war and even before the war, when he rescued any number of Czechoslovak patriots from the Gestapo and helped them to go through Budapest to Belgrade and then to London. One person Esterhazy had helped to go to London was General Viest, the well-known Minister of War of the Czechoslovak government in exile, who became the military leader of the Slovak uprising in 1944. The court rejected this request, too.". Even though, he provides an extensive and detailed bibliography, it is not clear to me where does this quote come from. His bibliography does not contain Lujza Esterhazy's memoir, but it contains some "private, unpublished" papers from her which are part of a private collection. Could she be the one who gave the contemporary account? I would doubt that since she was not in Bratislava in that time and according to her diary, she read about the trial in the New York Herald Tribune. Anyway, probably the simplest solution is to write something like: "According to Lujza Esterhazy's memoir and some modern historians, János Esterházy also helped general Viest to escape to London, but it is not mentioned in Viest's personal diaries.". KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Your proposal is fine for me, it is the correct way. I don't have hope that we will be able to find out more. I checked several sources at university library + internet and it simply seems for me that the only one source of this theory are (not very clear) mentions in biographies about Esterhazy. Maybe, I am wrong but it is my current state of knowledge.--Ditinili (talk) 09:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, I also doubt that we could uncover this issue, as it would require too much work and we are not historians. Thus, the best is to just state the bare facts. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Other Members of the First Slovak Parliament[edit]

Currently, the article reads as if all (or most) of the other members of the First Slovak Parliament were sentenced by the Bratislava People's Tribunal for helping the anti-democratic and fascist regime. However, in the book of Gabor Szent-Ivany called "Count Janos Esterhazy" [21], there is a quotation about Esterházy's trial which reads : "In view of the foregoing, the defense attorney asked the court to take into account mitigating circumstances and judge Esterhazy by the same standards that have been employed with regard to all other members of the Slovak parliament. With a few exceptions, they have been all acquitted.". So it seems that we should state that *unlike* the other members of the First Slovak Parliament, Esterházy was sentenced to death... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"After war, Esterházy had to be judged on The Slovak National Court as all members of the Slovak Assembly". Keyword here is "judged". It is obvious that not all members of parliament were sentenced to death. Sentence "unlike the other members he was sentenced to death" is true, but confusing and has no real meaning, because it does not take into account how much their behavior fulfill retribution law. It is meaningless comparison.--Ditinili (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that most other members of the First Slovak Parliament were acquitted, while Esterházy was sentenced to death. It is not a meaningless comparison at all, since it looks like a double standard [22]. Especially, since (1) Esterházy's defense attorney received the charges only days before the trial, and according to her, she did not have enough time to prepare for the trial; (2) the entire trial lasted only three hours; (3) the court did not summon a single witness and did not allow the defense to have testimony from witnesses, either; (4) most evidence against Esterhazy were only journals of the Slovak parliament which contained his speeches; (5) according to his defense attorney, the Czech Dr. Cikvanova, the court has failed to prove a single charge; (6) following the defense summation, the court retired for only 15 minutes and announced the death sentence; (7) according to a contemporary account of the trial: an old leader of the Slovak communists declared that "This is sheer murder". (These information come from the book of Gabor Szent-Ivany). Thus, his trial was quite "interesting". KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
You don't have to prove that those post-war people tribunals were not compatible with current standards. It is very widely accepted among historians. However, it is hard to present Esterhazy as a special case, because the same applied also for politicians from HSĽS (Slovak's people party). Well known example is president Jozef Tiso, who was also sentenced by court with clearly biased judge Igor Daxner, court refused some proofs and witnesses, access to materials for defense lawyer was too short, etc. Other example is ex-minister Ďurčanský who was sentenced to death in absence, even if he was removed from politics on direct Hitler's order so he did not participate on deportation of Jews, but he was an advocate of Slovak independence. Minister Sivák, who intervened for Jews and Czech teachers was sentenced to several years. It is hard to speak about "double standards", each law suit is unique. These people tribunals are considered to be something what was also tool of political fight, but far from later communistic process from 50's.
By the way, defense attorney has different role than to be objective and historically accurate.--Ditinili (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, you can argue whether his judgement shows a strong double standard, but the above details are quite relevant as they clearly show how superficial his trial was. I am going to add a description about this. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I assume that "superficial" is Imre Molnar's formulation, but I will wait for surprise:-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditinili (talkcontribs) 20:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Activities against Czechoslovakia[edit]

At the beginning, I want to point out that his activities against Czechoslovakia are documented, backed up by his reports to Hungary, confirmed by his public speeches and some of them are documented also by memoir of other politicians (for example by Polish politicians because he acted as Hungarian emissary in Poland in 1938). From this point of view, I have to refuse trials to interpret them as "alleged activities".

I am interested in constructive work and not playing games like this or similar:

> he did not accept the right for existence of a joint Czecho-Slovak state. ((fact))

because even if I can document this very easily (not only by citations of historians but also by his own words), this go far behind constructive work and it is not the way how to improve article, but how to add work to contributing authors. By the way, I provide extensive references but shell I really put reference after each sentence even if it is obvious that sentences belongs together? But for sceptics, most known example: "Voči česko-slovenskému režimu šli sme ohňom a železom. My sme sa na Československú republiku vždy pozerali ako na životaneschopnú zlátaninu ľudskej zlomyseľnosti a nevedomosti a veľmi dobre sme vedeli, že táto umelo pozliepaná a štátom prezývaná ohava nemá žiadneho práva na jestvovanie." In English: "Against czecho-slovak regime we went by fire and iron. We had always looked on Czechoslovak republic as on not-viable mess of human malice and ignorance and we knew very well, that this artificially glued and "so called state" nasty do not have any right for existence". (source: official Slovak and Czech digital parliament libraries, links were above). Nobody, even HU historians (as far as I know) do not say that he supported existence of Czechoslovakia. There is only discussion among historians if he was also official agent or not. Note: for me personally, it is quite interesting that he as Hungarian decided that Slovaks and Czechs do not have right for common state, but my personal opinions are not so important.

About cash flow from Hungary. It is also confirmed by his reports and by his own words. For example if we talk about forming autonomous block with HSĽS he reported to Hungarian government: "Anyway, to satisfy the relevant officials I note that I do everything with highest carefulness, and as long as there is no need, I will try to maintain everything in the principles of pure love, which does not mean that after a certain passes there will not be a need for smaller contributions". By the way, citation of his report where he requested money for corruption when both HU parties unified is already in text. I assume that from principle, probably nobody knows what was real cash flow. That's also why I explicitly mentioned, that statement from 2,500,00 crowns/year is from later police questioning.--Ditinili (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

sorry, but are you blind? You push Slovak POV from Slovak authors you did not even attempt to cite Hungarian academic sources. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I did not delete your contributions because you used "proper" sources but everybody can see that your contribution is not NPOV. I have a right to show other editors that Hungarian POV is missing at the appropriate sections. Read the lead. According to Janek " the accusations that he was a Hungarian agent are not supported by contemporary documents". The article has to be balanced even if you do not want it and you do not want to cite Hungarian authors....Fakirbakir (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Please, do not teach me about POV. It is very easy to compare current revision with this revision before my first contribution and make list of incorrect information, half-truths and clear lies, in addition often based on absolutely unreliable sources. It is also not necessary to discuss how did you extend section about antisemitism, without single mention about his well documented antisemitic statements or voting for other antisemitic laws. If you have any concrete suggestion how to improve article feel free to include your Hungarian academic sources. My sentences are very clear and referenced so do not play with templates after each sentence, just because you dislike what they are saying.--Ditinili (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
If we talk about "Slovak authors", Gniazdowski is Pole, Lorant Tilkovszky is ethnical Hungarian (referenced book is reviewed by prof. Gyorgy Ranki, who is obviously also Hungarian), Šutaj is Slovak (at least I think so), but he deals with after war persecution of Hungarians, Zbyněk Zeman is Czech. It would be nice to verify basic facts for the future--Ditinili (talk) 11:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Like Fakirbakir, I also think that the article started to become unbalanced, so I am also planning to improve it, to show other points of view. This is especially important, since he is a controversial personality of the Hungarian-Slovak relations, so WP should show all viewpoints about him. About Czechoslovakia: while it is clear that János Esterházy was against the joint Czech-Slovak state, but it can be debated whether he actively contributed to its dissolution. There are sources which state that he did not. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, it is not my fault that you did not include sources in your language. Even section about helping Poles was written by me. However, I believe that the way how can you improve it (don't take it persnonally but only as a suggestion) is to go to library and to add your sources instead of reverting or questioning my changes, just because "you have strange feeling". it can be debated whether he actively contribute to its dissolution Really? I am open for this discussion. Feel free to add these opinions, it is fine to have different views. In the meantime, I will try to support this discussion by collecting some historical documents.--Ditinili (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Unreasoned modifications, misunderstandings, unreliable sources[edit]

Few remarks to this revison:

  • Proper citation about rehabilitation in Russia was again removed. There is huge difference if he was rehabilited in the meaning of his illegal deportation and imprisonment in Russia (as thousands other deported Czechoslovak citizens, mainly Slovaks) or somehow "in general".
  • "According to historian Deák" close to text about cover names should probably lead to interpretation that it is some author's unproven theory under discussion. However, it is not. As I already explained (!) it is not matter of doubts if he used these cover names, but if he was an official agent. Even expert opinion of Hungarian historians requested by The Town Court in Bratislava do not put this into doubts, but says that "usage of cover names could be explained by the spirit of that era, personal danger and danger of war". (Note: I will include these expert opinions Slovak/Czech/Hungarian historians later, there are quoted in Historicka revue 3/2012 already referenced in article)
  • The same applies for "according to Deak" in relationship to Konrad Henlein. We should respect results of research or you should have some source claiming opposite or some other serious reason. I don't have problem with phrase "according to". However you should not to use it only to make doubts where you don't have any other arguments. By the way, as far I remember this collection of German documents contain also some documents related to his cooperation with Nazis in breaking Czechoslovakia. I can confirm it tomorrow, if it is available in university library.
  • Janek does not say that Slovak accusations (as you try to present this issue in general) are not supported by contemporary documents. He says in original: "Usage of cover name does not prove anything. His position of agent should be supported by official documents about his role and tasks" (source: the same journal Historicka revue 3/12. As I said previously, is not scientific journal, it contains only summary of this article after 3rd cross translation and it should not be used. Once more and forever - there are three independent topics a) usage of cover names (confirmed by documents) b) his activities (confirmed by documents, including his own reports) c) if he was an official agent (theory based on indices, not proven by official documents). Do not mix these three things together.
  • Removal of "Esterházy as a member of Slovak Diet voted for several anti-democratic laws including antisemitic laws leading to Jewish tragedy." Again, removal of already discussed text without any reason and based on fringe theory (see comments bellow).
  • if he was not a citizen of Hungary during his political career.((fact)) This "fact request" belongs under "unreasoned adding of work to other contributors" as was noticed. He was very clearly citizen of Czechoslovakia and later Slovakia. Look above, it was also discussed in separate section.

For this] and this edit I have serious doubts about reliability of source. I fully depend on Fakirbakir summary and google translator, but can we really accept as unbiased and reliable source somebody who clearly:

  1. Ignores primary sources not fitting his theory (= he ignores publicly available parliament speeches and uses only Esterhazy's articles to prove expected result)
  2. Denies results of research (or makes trivial mistakes) in so widely and well covered topic as is Holocaust in Slovakia. To be specific. This sentence "it is not true that Esterhazy voted for laws against Jewish people because the Jewish Codex was accepted by the government and not by the Parliament." is absolutely meaningless. Because so called Jewish Codex (officially "Nariadenie č. 198/1941 Slov. z. o právnom postavení Židov" - Decree about legal status of Jews) was not the only one anti-jewish law, but was preceded for example by Arisation Act (113/1940), which was not any government but parliament act (supported also by Esterhazy!). Even in the case of Jewish Codex, "Codex" was issued by government but it was because parliament (including Esterhazy) delegated its competencies to government in this question (Constitution Act 210/1940).--Ditinili (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Deak's proper citation was removed from the lead, but you can find it in the latter text, again. It is duplicated text is not it? Moreover Deak's "proper" citation is only his own POV.
  • "According to historian Deák" It is very important to show who says these statements to avoid POV problems. I repeat myself it is a sensitive issue.
  • "Janek does not say that Slovak accusations (as you try to present this issue in general) are not supported by contemporary documents." I cite my source " A szerző szerint a fedőnév önmagában még semmit sem bizonyít, Esterházy ügynöki beosztását és konkrét feladatait hivatalos kordokumentumokkal kellene igazolni." According to the author (Janek) Esterhazy's operations should be justified by contemporary documents because his agent name proves nothing.... It means there are no proper documents...
  • We should cite Imre Molnar's opinion in connection with Jewish Codex and Slovak jurisdiction, because he is widely known expert.
  • He was Hungarian citizen before 1920. It is fact. I would like to see proper citations in reference to his citizenships in his life.
The main problem is that you treat the Slovak POV as a fact. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
No. The problem is that you cannot rationally discuss problematic parts and that you are not able to give any feedback to arguments. You (especially you) seem to be more focused on building some kind of martyr legend, where historical facts do not play any role. --Ditinili (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
You simply do not understand what NPOV means. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I am listening, please explain it. Let's go to your arguments:
  • Deak - he cites historical records. It is quite difficult to call it POV. Even after several demands, you are not able to say what is POV here.
  • Janek - as I said alreay 3 or 4 times, your source is 3rd level of cross translation. It is completely irrational to try to prove that your citation from is correct and my citation from original (!!!) used by is incorrect.
  • Imre Molnar - yes, we can include his incorrect opinion. However, it is not something like discussion between historians having different opinions. This "expert" (expert in which field? Holokaust in Slovakia?) creates fringe theories which can be denied in 2 minutes by simple search for list of anti-jewish laws [23]. Despite fact that there is plenty of literature about it, but I gave you list of primary sources, otherwise you will call it Slovak POV. That's the reason, why did I ask for reliability of this source.
  • He was Hungarian citizen before 1920. This was already discussed. Try to read it again and also try to read what is written in the article.--Ditinili (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I am going to seek proper sources about the "detailed" Hungarian viewpoint if I have a little time. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit wars[edit]

I would really appreciate, if you try to discuss open questions here in Talk page. I personally dislike if you don't provide any serious explantation and ignore trials for discussion. It is quite inneffesctive for me to write dozens of lines of serious arguments and then see how they are ignored, left without any reaction and afterward reverts are done up and down, completely ignoring any rational argument or request for discussion. I personally dislike game about Slovak POV and Hungarian POV. Try to evaluate sources as reliable or not reliable. I also dislike some double standards for citation used here. The most stupid (sorry for saying that so openly) claims are presented as facts or as fully alternative theories even if even quick check can prove their errors and irrelevance. On the other hand, for some editors whatever from Slovak source is immediately target of questioning. Thanks. --Ditinili (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the importance of discussion. But, don't forget that you also just started to edit the article without arguing here first. In case of disagreement, the Talk page must be the solution where we argue based on sources. No doubt about that. In the special case of this article: the problem with the sources is that they are contradictory (especially the Hungarian and Slovak ones contradict each other). A solution could be to have two separate sections for those "facts" which are presented differently by various sources. Mixing them would only confuse the reader. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. That's why I created section "Controversy among historians". However, if something is obviously wrong it cannot be presented as alternative theory. For discussion, here is my list what I consider to be fact. Let's see where we can agree and where we cannot:
Facts (as understood by me):
1) He was not nazi or fasitic politician.
2) He protected Hungarian miniority rights.
3) He critized Hungarian policy against Slovaks in Hungary.
4) He participated on Hungarian revisionistic policy.
5) He did actions to weaken Czechoslovakia and considered it to be state without right of existence.
6) He coordinated his activities with Henlein party.
7) He used cover names.
8) He disclosed internal details about Czechoslovakia to Hungary.
9) He asked and received money from Hungarian government.
10) Main decision of his party were made or consulted in Hungary.
11) He voted for several antisemitic and antidemocratic laws and supported them by his presentations.
12) He did not agreed with deportations.
13) He helped Poles during war.
14) He was illegally deported do USSR.
15) He was judged on retributional court = special kind of post-war courts which did not match current standards.
Different views (I will leave reserve and count from 20):
20) If he was offical agent (spy): yes (Mitac), there are some indices (Deak), no and such claim must be well documented by official documents (whole list of HU historians)
21) Level of his antisemitism: hard-antisemitic (Dusan Kovac), antisemitic with human face (Milan Zemko), not antisemitic at all (Imre Molnar)
22) His motivation to help Slovaks in Hungary: political pragmatism, honest interest.
22) Motivation for his behavior after 1942: alibistic positions, honest political views.
23) Role of Husak in his imprisonment: it is not supported by documents, he did it as described in the article
24) How much his nationality played role in his trial: he was persecuted because he was Hungarian, anybody on his position will be sentenced
I don't have reliable sources and I welcome references for:
30) Help for Rudolf Viest.
31) Help for Jews, Slovaks and Czechs. I honestly don't have any idea about number of people and when it was done, because 1941 is very different from 1944. Help to Poles is much more better documented.
Your opinions? Then we can discuss each point separately. --Ditinili (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the list. I am quite busy at the moment, but will bring up my list if I have time. Until then:
  • I agree with: 1, 2, 3, 9 (sounds possible, some sources are of course needed), 12, 13, 14, 15.
  • I weakly disagree: 4 (you should clarify what do you mean by "participation"), 5 (if openly criticizing Czechoslovakia is such an activity, then I agree with the first part; I have some doubts about the quotation which supports the 2nd part - will look if others mention this); 7 (it needs some solid proof); 11 (this might be explained by self-defense, since he was MP in a fascist country which was allied with Nazi Germany)
  • I strongly disagree: 6 (even his Czech defense attorney pointed out that there was no real collaboration between Esterhazy and Henlein), 8 (based on which historical documents?), 10 (which were these main decisions and why do you or some historians think that this was the case?)
Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for feedback, I hope this can move us forward.
4) Participation in Hungarian revisonistic policy means, that he advocated annexation of territories administered by another state (see also Irredentism) and coordinated his policy with foreign government. This is pure historical fact, independent on personal opinions if this was positive or negative step.
5) I am not sure what do you mean by "I have some doubts about the quotation which supports the 2nd part - will look if others mention this", because even if this quotation is widely referenced in other sources, I cited directly transcription of stenographic records from parliament (from primary source). As an official record, it contains also original not only translation to official language: "Mi magyarok a csehszlovák köztársaságot mindig, mint az emberi gonoszság és tudatlanság életképtelen tákolmányát néztük és tudtuk nagyon jól, hogy ennek a mesterségesen összeragasztott és országnak csúfolt szörnyszülöttnek semmi létjogosultsága nincs."
7) "Solid proof" for cover names. This request sounds very strange for me, because I did not receive any feedback when I declared that even expert opinion from Hungarian scientists as requested by The Town Court in Bratislava do not put this question into doubts, but they explained it by "personal danger", "atmosphere of time", etc. I have not seen any (even Hungarian) source claiming opposite. Only sources claiming that it is not sufficient to prove his role of agent.
11) Yes, voting for several antisemitic laws can be explained by his "self-defense". However, this voting is historical fact without a doubt. I have nothing against mentioning different theories why he did it, including theory about self defense. By the way, I did not receive any feedback to my question if we can accept Molnar as a reliable source if we look for example on his "made on knee" theory about antisemitic laws which ignores any knowledge in this field.
6) You strongly disagree, but you build your theory on what "defense attorney said". Speech of defense attorney is stylistic form with specific purpose and I cannot imagine more biased source. On the other hand, coordination with SdP is documented by historians and we do not rely only on publication about Esterhazy, but it is also supported by general publications about political system in Czechoslovakia, cooperation of parties, history of SdP or Hungarian United Party, etc. I quoted short part from his report about Henlein and Nazi plans for Czechoslovakia. I can provide full quotation also for France and Austria. Esterhazy was pretty well informed, received these information from Henlein and reported them to Hungary. I am afraid that it is far from reality to call it "no real collaboration".
10) Such decisions are for example: decisions about cooperation with other parties, unification of parties, personal questions related to high positions in party, etc. In standard situation, such questions are decided within party and not abroad with other government.--Ditinili (talk) 03:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Voting "against deportations"[edit]

I am quite unhappy that I have to open another section without getting feedback to my previous trials for discussion . I am sorry for saying that but I am afraid that poor quality of some posts really does not help to make this article better. Please, do not take this personally but as my recommendation how to make article better and save us work. Please, take time to read what you wrote. Your last edits:

  • Sentence "According to Ivan Komanec Esterházy did vote" is non sense. Kamenec says opposite (!) as it is clear from "quote".
  • Do not use "quote" for sentences which are not quotation of author, but extract from this article.
  • It is meaningless to document opinion of Kamenec with reference to Gabor Szent-Ivany's book, written before Kamenec.
  • It is Ivan Kamenec, not Komanec.

I am sorry, but I have to revert such non senses.

More, I propose serious discussion about this "voting against", because you cannot rely on Szent-Ivany book from 1989 if current status of research is somewhere else. By "current status", I don't mean some "the most recent", but it was well documented at least 22 years ago. Please, take also into account that procedures of the Slovak Assembly (1939-1945) are documented independently on any "Esterhazy" discussions. I am aware that authors who are not experts in this topic can easily cite this "inaccuracy", but it does not change fact that it is completely obsolete. General quality and accuracy of Szent-Ivany's book is for separate topic and it is quite easy to document plenty of mistakes there also in sections which are not related directly to Esterhazy. And I am not talking about quality of OCR of free scan on which makes several important statistical numbers completely incorrect (beside author's "easy to be documented" mistakes)--Ditinili (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Kamenec does not say the opposite (according to the citation).... You should not state untrue things. Lets see that quote: "The Slovak national assembly voted by acclamation, by raising of hands. The only deputy among the members present, of whom it was obvious that he did not raise his hand, was Janos Esterhazy the representative of the United Hungarian Party". Esterhazy obviously voted against the bill because he did not raise his hand.... Kamenec meant Esterhazy voted against the bill because he did not raise his hand. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
No, it is not the same. "Voting against" is from technical point of view something different than "not voting". The assembly worked such way that agreement was achieved before meeting (not only this case, but in general) and if consensus was not reached then there was not any voting or deputies left the hall. This is what happened also in this case. Čarnogurský and company simply followed this standard process and we also cannot say that they "voted against". "Voting against" is inaccurate term and can lead only to incorrect interpretation as we can see also from history of this article. There is not any real reason why to not to leave only technical description of events without pushing inaccurate term "voting against". Especially if such term is criticized by some historians and is abused by some politicians.
Recommendation: do not interpret sources which you did not read.--Ditinili (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear Ditinili, please, don't take it personally, but your personal opinion about Szent-Ivány's book is fully irrelevant. If you have scholarly, academic sources which contradict the facts in Szent-Ivány's book, then you should put them forward. In this case, we can move the debated sentences to the controversies part. Moreover, I agree with Fakirbakir: if an assembly is voting about an issue by raising hands, and you do not raise your hands, then it clearly means that you are against the issue. How could you possible give a negative vote otherwise? So I do not understand what this voting or not voting thing is about. Finally, don't worry, I plan to make extensive contributions to this article, since it is a very interesting topic, but at the moment I am engaged with other issues. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I have scholarly and academic sources proving that a lot of information from this book is highly inacurrate or incorrect. For example here is written that "The Slovak Peoples Party, under the leadership of Father Hlinka, was the largest. It embraced some 80 percent of the Slovak people". However, the best result was cca 32% as you can find easily in your favorite public library. On the same page is written: "In 1930, the Czechoslovak Army had 140 Czech generals and one general of Slovak descent", what is obviously incorrect because the first Slovak general in ČSR was Viest in 1933. Details and correct numbers (including also number of German generals counted by Szent-Ivany for unknown reasons as Czechs) are published i.e. by Vojensky Historicky Ustav (Institute of Military History) in Vojenske dejiny Slovenska (Military history of Slovakia). Of course, you can ignore my recommendation. It is my good will to warn you that this book is full of factual mistakes and you should be very careful. It is on you if you look for good and quality sources or just for something to support your opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditinili (talkcontribs) 17:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Add.: Reliability of term "voting against" is not based on your or my personal opinion. See my answer to Fakirbakir, there is not any real reason to push controvert terms where we can agree what really happened.--Ditinili (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
About the sentence in question: sorry, but I do not see why the sentence: "The Slovak national assembly voted by acclamation, by raising of hands. The only deputy among the members present, of whom it was obvious that he did not raise his hand, was János Esterházy." would be a manipulation of the source. This is exactly what Kamenec claims, isn't it? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
PS: Regarding the examples you made: you might even be right, but talking about a source or "favorite public library" is not the same as citing a concrete source (about the public support of the Slovak Peoples Party). Also, I do not see why the number of Slovak generals is important here. You are, of course, very welcome to verify the information which are being added to the article, but the claims above are not among them. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
PS2: Sorry, Ditinili, I misunderstood your edit summary. You were referring to the "Slovak historian Ivan Kamanec also states that Esterházy voted against the bill." Based on your comments, I see your problem with it (though I think that Esterházy indeed voted against the bill, but it may not be what Kamanec wanted to state), thus I omitted it from the revision. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Let me summary. User Fakirbakir pretends that his own conclusions (own research) are opinions of other (academic) author. More, he did it in the form which is not included in source. This is absolutely unacceptable behavior. Because it is not the first manipulation of source OR removal of sourced information I take this very seriously and if it repeats, I will simply consider to escalate.
P.S.: To mistakes in Szent-Ivany book. I have no duty to document preferences of HSLS in relationship to this article. It is my friendly recommendation for you to verify even elementary facts in that book. I do it to save your work. But if you want more details, in the last democratic elections in 1938 HSLS received 29,93% (ŠUCHOVÁ, X.: Prílohy II – Politický systém. In: Slovensko v Československu 1918-1939, ref. 29, s. 595, 590. Výsledky obecných volieb 1938 na Slovensku, see also BYSTRICKÝ, V.: Politické rozvrstvenie spoločnosti na Slovensku vo svetle obecných volieb roku 1938. Historický časopis, 40, 4, 1992, s. 453). You asked me, if number of generals is important here. No it is not. It is example, how "reliable" are information in this book and I used it as example just because it was on the same page.--Ditinili (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
If you are such an expert in this theme you should introduce the Hungarian POV too in the article. He was unable to vote against the bill technically because in the Slovak Parliament nobody asked the MPs "Who votes against the bill".....Fakirbakir (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why to do that, because there are already two authors (including you) who promised it. In addition, there is already request for other authors to help you with that (created by you). Using your terminology, this article was already nothing more than "Hungarian POV" and I added mostly facts as names, dates, events and in the cases where you had doubts, I added quotes. However, I am not sure what this "Hungarian POV" means, because Slovak Hungarian Tilkovszky (cited here several times) is miles from your position and the same for i.e. Martin Hetenyi.--Ditinili (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
> He was unable to vote against the bill technically because in the Slovak Parliament nobody asked the MPs Yes, you got it. Nobody voted against because it was not possible. There were 3 options - vote for law, leave the assembly hall or stay there and don't vote. He did it in one way, others in other way. He simply sat there, told nothing, had no question, no public protest (stenographic protocol from voting is here. Very quickly voting was over and deputies simply went to next point. And some deputies voted "for law" simply because it was May 15, 1942, Jews were deported already from March 25, 1942 and this was the only one way how to create some legal frame to protect at least part of them. It sounds like paradox and it is paradox. --Ditinili (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, if I understand correctly, you think that the MPs only voted for the deportation law to protect the Jews? You must be joking, right? Are we talking about the same situation? (for example, this [24] source talks about pressing for the deportation). I also think that your argument about the alleged factual errors in Szent Ivány's book can be debated. For example, this [25] source also talks about 80% when it mentions the Slovak People's Party. And in the Slovak general elections in December 1938 HSLS-SSN won 97.3% (out of which 72% went to candidates of the original HSLS). So it is not obvious how much support Hlinka's had (I know that he died in August 1938). Moreover, it is also possible that Szent Ivány simply referred to the proportion of Cahtolics when he talked about "embracing" 80%. Regarding the number of Slovak generals in the Czechoslovak Army: similar claims can be found in other sources, too, e.g., [26] and [27]. The latter one talks about "late thirties", so there might be a vagueness in the date. Nevertheless, these data have little to do with this article and even if you could prove that Szent Ivány made a factual mistake (what is, of course, entirely possible), it would not falsify the *whole* book of his. I suggest, we should focus on the actual claims we want to use in the article, otherwise, there is a danger of having an endless and pointless debate. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I will split my answer into several points.
  • It is very clear that this law was not created to save Jews. I just want to put into your attention that deportations did not start because of this law, but significant part of Jews was already deported. Illegally also according to constitution of that time, as an action of radicals mainly Tuka and Mach. The law was different then original government proposal and the difference was in possibility of exceptions. So some deputies (including president of assembly Martin Sokol) really had different motivation to vote for, even if they disagreed. More maybe in other article.
  • "97,3%" is absolutely unreliable number from undemocratic elections. Nobody can take such number seriously, especially if this undemocratic process is documented.
  • It is meaningless to advocate Szent-Ivany that he maybe talked about 80% of Catholics. It just proves that you cannot take "facts" in this book seriously.
  • I insist on opinion that this book is strongly biased and presents extreme opinions. Without any compromise. Some examples are already here. Yes, this makes this book unreliable source. I strongly disagree that we have to focus only on claims which we want to use in the article. If you really want to prevent discussion, right way is to find reliable source and not to hunt for correct facts in unreliable source. --Ditinili (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
PS: Regarding the sentence you have made bold (starting with "User Fakirbakir pretends that..."), please, read WP:NPA, i.e., "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.". KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
No, I only summarized what he did. Did he or not? It is not personal attack if I say that some editor again violated rules, he did it repeatedly and he did it shortly after he was notified about problem.--Ditinili (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Yad Vashem[edit]

"In 2010 Yad Vashem acknowledged his efforts in saving persecuted Jews". Is it possible to clarify what does it mean exactly and maybe to verify this information? It is not written explicitly in this form in the article, but straightforward (and probably incorrect) interpretation is that he is holder of well known Yad Vashem award Righteous Among the Nations. However, publicly available list does not contain his name and The Federation of Jewish Communities also claims that they do not have any knowledge about awarding him OR states that it is not true. It is a little bit confusing.--Ditinili (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the observation and it seems that he did not get the "Righteous Among the Nations" award. Nonetheless, this is not what the article claims and there are several sources which state that Yad Vashem recognized that János Esterházy saved persecuted Jews. This is mentioned by many sources, for example, by the Anti-Defamation League [28] and also by an official Hungarian governmental site [29]: "As the letter of appreciation of the Yad Vashem and the Commission for the Designation of the Righteous – issued on 24 June 2010 in Jerusalem – states, in agreement with the testimony of many rescued victims and other witnesses: “Thanks to this help [offered by him] persecuted Jews were able to survive the horrors of the Holocaust”." KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't have any doubts that there are such testimonies. I only want to notice that it seems to be frequently misunderstood and interpreted as Righteous Among the Nations award. I have found plenty of sources in various languages presenting this misunderstanding as a fact. This includes also some mainstream media (i.e. Polish Radio here and some other, especially Hungarian sources in English), so my opinion is that it needs some clarification.--Ditinili (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Noble title[edit]

Czechoslovakia canceled noble ranks and titles already in 1918 (Act no. 61/1918). Can somebody document any legal reason to call him count or is it just formal mistake of Hungarian and some other historians? I mean this as an absolutely serious question. Ditinili (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not a historian but referring to aristocrats by their titles, even in regimes which have cancelled nobility titles, is not a mistake, it's simply a custom. In Romania (Transylania), during the Communist regime, we always referred to Janos Esterhazy as Count Esterhazy in private; in public, everybody had to be a "Tovarăş" or you ended up in jail. We couldn't even use the generic "Domnul/Doamna (Mr/Mrs). Daciadecuir (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

We should distinguish between "customs" or "jargon" and facts presented in the article. I am just courious. Is it formally correct? It is not related to communism which came in 1948 - 30 years later. --Ditinili (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Language Cleanup[edit]

This article has very clearly been written in large part by non-native speakers of English; there is a great deal of editing needed to make it read appropriately. Given how long it is, this will be quite a chore, but at present the lack of definite articles and non-English structure makes it difficult reading. Schnabeltiere (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)