Talk:Siege of Budapest

Problems

In 1945, the Soviets were pushing back the Germans on the Eastern Front, so I don't understand why the outcome would be considered a "German Failure," which is why I've changed that field on the table to "Soviet victory." Unless the Germans were trying to attack and drive back the Soviets from Budapest, I wouldn't see why else it would be called anything but a "Soviet victory." On the contrary, I would assume the Soviets had driven the Germans back from Budapest. Also, most of the information here is assumed, so somebody PLEASE check for accuracy. In addition, the original date of the battle said October 1945 to February 1945. Obviously, the war ended in May 1945, so I take it that October 1945 was supposed to mean October 1944. Ctifumdope 03:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Problems

Yes, you are right, it is 1944, of course. It was a typo. Anyway, I'm writing a longer article based on the book of Ungvary.

Damage to Budapest and the irony of the Combatants

I have come to this Battle from references in the novel "The Historian" by Elizabeth Kostova, and was struck by the scale of the battle, and the irony of the combatants and the outcome. The immediate outcome reflected in the novel (from a supposed perspective of 1954) was repeated mentions of the damage and ongoing re-building to the shattered city. I can now see why that would be so note-worthy to a visitor to Buda and Pest, given the length and severity of the battle.

The irony is of the Hungarian forces particpating in the destruction of their capital, trying to hold back an unstoppable tide of Soviet domination. I will follow up on this, and other aspects of recent Balkan history, but I can imagine there were many mixed feelings on the part of the Hungarian forces.

They were fighting the anti-communist fight that the German Army couldn't understand that the Western Allies didn't want to convert too, after the defeat of the Nazi's as the war was drawing to a close in Europe. They lost their fight for freedom, which would appear from a Western perspective to be fought against the wrong enemy, but from their perspective they were already committed to the Axis, and anyway their "Ally" was the best chance they had of securing a peace that would preserve something of the country the Nationalists desired.

As it turned out, they paid the price for their earlier choices, and for the dubious decision of Roosevelt's to consign Eastern Europe to the communist sphere. One of the very many complex, traumatic and heart-rending episodes in the tapestry of a Nation's History woven into the ebb and flow of History around the world. david_morris@hotmail.co.uk 24 March 2006

The Allies would have had to fight another war with the Soviets if they had tried to occupy eastern Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.54.159 (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm taking this one (EDIT: done!)

I'm planning to rewrite this article quite completely (it's a stub anyway). Just plz leave me some time ^_^ grafikm_fr 18:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I finished rewriting the page... tell me what you think! ^_^ grafikm_fr 22:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Mass rapes, looting

Hi, User:Grafikm fr asked sources for the mass rapings. My source is the Hungarian edition of Ungváry's book that is already mentioned in the References section.

It's a very detailed reference on the siege, I highly recommend it.

Cheers, nyenyec ☎ 18:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. Just for information in case you did not notice, I did not revert your edit - it was done by someone else :) grafikm_fr 13:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Looks like people systematically revert this one. I think this is understandable, since one reference is just not enough for such a controversial thing, especially that Ungvary is Hungarian and the book quite recent, so there might be some part of anti-Russian propaganda as well. I think one has to find another reference from another western source... grafikm_fr 08:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that it's anti-Russian propaganda, actually this is pretty common knowledge in Hungary. I added a proper reference. Rapes were very common in the parts of the country where the front stopped for longer periods. Other parts, where the Red Army just raced by were much more lucky. It's not a big surprise, though if you know what happened when the Russians entered Germany.

There is no thing such as "common knowledge". It can be misleading. While I agree that Soviet Army soldiers weren't exactly saints, one must use caution while talking about such things. Beevor's chapter in "Berlin the downfall" has like at least 30 different references on rapes and looting, both German AND Russian, so no one would possibly contest it. Here we have a single reference of doubtful origin (what is that "Swiss report"?). Show me some more references and it's OK... :) Grafikm_fr 16:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the part about the "beautiful bridges" needs a little rewording. The destruction of the bridges was in the interest of the Red Army, too, in the phase where th German-Hungarian forces from retreating to Buda. They tried their best with artillery fire so the bridges before the retreat were full large holes (big enough for a car to fall through). I'm writing this from memory, I'll look it up later.

Reconstructing a bridge is MUCH easier than building a new one. As long it is not entirely collapsed, the holes can be patched. Point is, they were finally scuttled by German forces. Grafikm_fr 16:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems like a good article by the way and I'd like to help expanding it as time permits. Cheers, nyenyec ☎ 15:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I certainly have no problem if you want to expland it, just stick to using cross references and NPOV... :) Grafikm_fr 16:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for your kind words about the article :) Grafikm_fr 16:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

(decreasing indent) What I meant by "common knowledge in Hungary" is that it's kind of hard to keep it a secret when it happened to tens of thousands of women (e.g. I've first heard about them from my grandparents, before it was permitted to talk about it). Although it was officially a taboo during the communist era, a simple google query will turn up dozens of references. Ungváry's book also cites Hungarian and Russian accounts. If you are a registered Amazon user, you can search and browse a few pages of his book online here. I also added another reference from James Mark.

There's a lot that can be said about the suffering of civilians during and after the siege. Fear of being conscripted by the Arrow Cross militia, the lootings, executions (by both sides), the mass deportations to Siberia, etc. All this might deserve its own section, although unfortunately these kinds of attrocities were all too common on the Eastern Front.

-- nyenyec ☎ 18:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this second reference is excellent indeed. Thank you very much :) .

As for the suffering of civilians during and after the siege, as I said, you're more than welcome to expand the article :) Grafikm_fr 18:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Relative Strengths

Before I make any changes, I'd like to ask for the sources for strength estimages used on the page. According to the source (defined below) these were (split between ration strengths, i.e. those reported for e.g. food, and combat, i.e. troops reported for fighting).

Date	Defenders - Ration	Defenders - Combat	Attackers - Ration	Attackers - Combat
24 December 1944	79,000	35,000	177,000	100,000
3 January 1945	70,000	30,000	145,000	80,000
20 January 1945	45,000	16,000	80,000	40,000
11 February 1945	32,000	11,000	75,000	36,000

Since the discrepancies seem to be huge, I'd like to have consensus before doing any changes.

Source: Ungvary, Krisztian, The Siege of Budapest: One Hundred Days in World War II, Yale University Press, 2005. Table 18, (respective strengths of defenders and attackers), page 325

--Jinxs 22:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it depends whether you consider the troops actually defending the city or city defenders + troops taking part in various offensives like Conrad and so on. Since it was essentially one and same action, that explains the figures.

As for your figures, I don't know where Ungvary got combat ones, but IMNSHO, he shouldn't drink so much (only kidding here :) His 'Ration' figures, however, make sense. Zwack puts the strength of Budapest garrison at 90,000 which is quite close to 79,000 reported by Ungvary. Attacker's "Ration" figures make sense too. BTW, you will notice that attacker figures for 11 feb 1945 look quite strange (175,000 vs 36,000 there seems to be a slight problem there :).

Hence, what one could do is to put two rows of numbers, such as: 180,000 (90,000 for city defense) 500,000+ (170,000 for city assault)

or something like that. What do you think? :) -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 23:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Corrected 175,000 figure to 75,000 figure. Totally agree with the update of the table. Anywone else?

--Jinxs 09:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont get it what does it mean what does Ration and Combat mean here in this post in this table what does those 2 words for stand for in this specific table? (Deng 10:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC))

"Combat" relates to strenght reported by the units to superiors for the purposes of planning military operations. "Ration" relates to strenght reported by the units to superiors for the purposes of administration. Two differs (ration greater than combat) because:

* one always have administrative troops, light casualties etc. which have to eat but don't fight (under normal circumstances);

* some units underestimate the battle strength, effectively hiding its true strength.

--Jinxs 11:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

OK for updating the table with figures I quoted or something similar. --Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 18:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian units switching sides

I'm not sure if its currently mentioned in the article or not, but several Hungarian units switched sides during the Siege, especially in the later phases. -- nyenyec ☎ 17:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC).

Let's introduce those changes. PLUS, why Romania was excluded from the table, as one of the combatants. I mean, guys were fighting there, right? --Jinxs 10:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Errors

I have corrected a few but there still are some.

• Gellert hill was only taken on the 11th of Feb.
• The last major German offensive of the war was Operation Frühlingserwachen, after the fall of the city
• There wasnt any significant Soviet bridgehead on the Castle hill. Ungvary speaks about one building a (school) taken on the 9th of Feb (not the 10th) on Attila Road which is not on the hill itself.

constant revisions of the rapes section

Re the constant revisions - I understand that some people might feel hurt that information about german rapes is not presented (to quote: Rollaround 'I do not see the same items on german victories but only on Soviet vicotories not one word can be found anywhere that the germans exterminated and raped soviets in any of the germn victory article). However, history is not democracy and does not yield to your whims. If it happened we have to put it. --Jinxs 12:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jinxs. I think it's very important that this be included. My father and his family survived the Siege in the basement of their bombed-out apartment building. When the Soviet soldiers came to their place, my 17-year old aunt and the young cleaning lady (Jewish, incidentally) were made to hide between two mattresses, which were then piled with carpets and various other things. Young neighbor girls were not so lucky, and the family could hear the girls screaming as the drunken soldiers raped them. My father was very aware that this was happening constantly all over the city. Horrible times. --Yaocihuatl 06:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"Puppet"

I personally do not agree with this. My view is that Hungary was still an independent country until Horthy lost his power on October 16, 1944. The country had a fully working parliament to that point. --Kurt Leyman 14:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but your personal view needs to be backed up by authoritative research. Each reasonable (non-Arrow Cross) member of Parliament knew full well that if Hungary did not tread very carefully, Germany would move right in and take over, the way they did with Austria. They were "between a rock and a hard place," which is also why they passed the various Jewish laws during that period. It was not from anti-semitic zeal. (Not to say that there wasn't anti-semitism in Hungary, but it is well known that Jews in Hungary were among the most integrated and "assimilated" of any European society.) Have you read Montgomery's book, or know who he was? --Joybucket 14:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Revision mistake?"

"German and Hungarian troops along with several civilians used fog to their advantage and moved in three waves. The first wave managed to surprise the Soviet soldiers and artillery, and its sheer number allowed them to escape. The second and third waves were less fortunate, as Soviet artillery had time to bracket the area and shell the escaping troops. Despite Soviet fire and heavy losses, 10,000 men managed to reach the wooded hills north-west of Budapest and escape towards Vienna.

German and Hungarian troops along with several civilians used fog to their advantage and moved in three waves. The first wave managed to surprise the Soviet soldiers and artillery, and its sheer number allowed them to escape. The second and third waves were less fortunate, as Soviet artillery had time to bracket the area and shell the escaping troops. Decimated by Soviet arillery fire and hunted by infantry, only about 1000 men managed to reach the wooded hills north-west of Budapest and escape towards Vienna."

Which is correct?

Budapest Offensive

We need an article for the overall offensive of which Battle of Budapest was the high point. See ref for some background.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Budapest → Siege of Budapest — Propose to move this to the Siege of Budapest title as several sources and most of the article already says —mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The airport

"Re-supply became a decisive factor because of the loss of the Ferihegy airport just before the start of the siege, on 27 December 1944."
This quote appears in the 'Combat intensification' section, para 1.
Is this the same airport as "Budapest Airport" that turns up elsewhere in the article? Because if it is not then it should be made clear in the text.
RASAM (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Weather only affects Axis troops?

The article states: "The extreme temperatures also affected German and Hungarian troops."—did it also not affect the Soviet troops? Were they better-equipped, or just more hardened to nature because they were "barbaric" and/or less "civilized"?Historian932 (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Better equipped and more hardened, since they came from a land where the temperature extremes were more common. It is not about barbarians and civilisation. (You implicitely call the Germans civilised. Both sides possessed high amount of "uncivilised" people, IMO.) --grin ✎ 08:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Romanian army and "victory"

An inexperienced anon tried to correct the part about "Soviet-Romanian victory" but failed to provide some explanation. He wrote me a few email and explained and provided sources. Unfortunately the article is written in a way that it concentrates only on German and Hungarian armies and very few data offred on the Soviets and Romanians.

Anyway. The source provides the following data (not direct quote, I am not paid for translation :)):

On the late night hours of 16th january Малиновский called Nicolae Sova lieutenant-general, the leader of the 7th Romanian and told him that the Romanians are not part of the siege any more , they are to be movd to North Hungary where they join the rest of the Romanian army. It was humiliating; since october 1944 the Romanians lost 23000 people, almost 60% of their manpower. At that moment they were in the middle of Pest and were expecting the final melee; Sova known well that the victory is just a few hours away. He realised that the point was to remove them from the winners. He complained and told Малиновский they have plans to advance and they know the terrain. Малиновский rejected and told him to leave the siege immediately. Nicolae Sova rejected.

According to captain Dascalescu Sova came back in the morning from Gödöllő to Pest and immediately commanded the attack, but the soviets already had a different command and did not intend to take part. It has been reported as well that the ammunition, fuel and food rations from the soviets they were expected to use were already distributed between the soviets and were not available. At 5:15 in the morning arrived the 66th soviet guards to replace the Romanians and they were out of options but to retreat from Pest. Sova even tried to get help from Bucarest but had to leave eventually.

Gasparovich, László (2005). A rettegés ötven napja. HAJJA BOOK KFT. p. 172-173. ISBN 9789639037755. {{cite book}}: More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)

Feel free to incorporate into the article somehow.

Anyway, it is clear that despite their great losses and efforts the Romanian army was not taking part in the last battles and were not present at the victory, so it has been a Soviet only victory, and it seems to be intentional on the Soviet part. It is improper, however, to call it anything else what it has been. --grin ✎ 08:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. CaptainFugu (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Each contribution has to be acknowledged and mentioned. You can't say that it was a merely Soviet victory, Romania was not a Soviet Republic. Just because the Russians were assholes and redirected away the Romanian forces just before the final victory doesn't mean that you have to be an asshole as well and dismiss.neglect the Romanian contribution. You have to understand...people died for that! You can't just brush away their sacrifices and contribution just like that!

User:Irondome I don't understand you at all...When more than 1 belligerent gains victory, as in teaming up with someone, the victory is of both. This is not what a book needs to say, it's a generally known FACT! I never saw this before, 2 countries earning a victory but only the name of 1 being mentioned! How can you, as a fair person, accept this?! Also, don't trust Western-written books about Eastern Europe, they tend to intentionally let out stuff because "it's not relevant" and the "Who cares anyway?" mentality. Books can lie. The blood of thousands of Romanians that was spilled at Budapest in 1944, is not a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.134.115 (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Allies_of_World_War_II#Soviet lists Romania post armistice (capitulation) as a Soviet client state. It does not list it as part of the Allies; therefore (in my understanding), if the "Soviet-Romanian victory" wording is to be included, WP:RS sources are needed that describe the aftermath of the battle in this way. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

was Patton in the siege of Budapest?

i removed a reference to the US army and Gen Patton. An editor added it back without a source or explanation. [1] unless there is a source mentioning Patton or the US, i suggest the editor self-revert. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Just pure vandalism. Entry claimed that Patton/Americans fought on the Axis side! --T*U (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070127101545/http://www.rev.hu:80/html/hu/tanulmanyok/1945elott/bpostroma.htm to http://www.rev.hu/html/hu/tanulmanyok/1945elott/bpostroma.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://archive.is/20121221115318/http://www.victory.mil.ru/war/oper/15.html to http://www.victory.mil.ru/war/oper/15.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930201524/http://www.historynet.com/magazines/mhq/3033336.html to http://www.historynet.com/magazines/mhq/3033336.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Parley Delegates

The section on the missions and deaths of Steinmetz and Ostapenko say unequivocally that the Germans killed them in cold blood. The sources cited are all Soviet. In The Siege of Budapest: 100 Days in World War II by Krisztián Ungváry, the author examines both incidents in detail and concludes that Steinmetz was probably killed unintentionally and that Ostapenko was either killed by Soviet artillery or Hungarian small arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.160.42 (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Impact on civilians section and Andrea Petö

Hello, freshacconci the source is unreliable because Prof. Andrea Petö is employed by the controversial CEU and therefore may be considered as politically biased,furthermore it is clearly POV(interestingly the Professor seems to imply that the historiography of the Communist regime is more trustworthy then that of modern Hungary) as stated in the very description of the cited book-it is a collection of essays that offer "comparative perspectives". Finally the entire section is off-topic never actually mentioning the events,only hypothetical "wild estimates" about them and supposed negative effect said estimates may have,neither of those is connected to the battle or the impact it had on civilians.Add the fact that the section is somewhat inconsistent with the source(note 2),which doesn't say that the wild estimates led to diversion of public attention and never mentions rapes committed against Soviet women by Hungarians,at all. So you have a politically biased source that was then cherry-picked by whoever wrote the section in an obvious exercise in whataboutism.In fact a closer look reveals that a more serious editing is in order.For example the part about the "wild estimates" comes right after the figures of between 5000 to 200 000 victims,in an apparent attempt to imply that the figure might be lower,despite coming from the same source(as you have mentioned) and despite the fact that the very next sentence on page 132 of the cited book states that it is widely accepted that about 10%(the pop. of Budapest at the time was between 1.6 and 1.7 million) of the female population of Budapest was raped.The other part in need of editing is the sentence "Despite the fact that the Soviets often took children and entire families under their protection and had a taboo on hurting children...",nowhere on page 293 of the cited book is there any mention of soldiers often(or ever) taking whole families under their protection and the "taboo" on hurting children is presented through a personal story and doesn't seem to include sexual violence as note 1 at the end of the same sentence in the article reveals.There are other inconsistencies as well.

Please, stop. Your attempts at POV-pushing and labelling everything you don't like as "unreliable" are completely inappropriate and against the rules of the project. Pető is a credible historian, Professor in the Department of Gender Studies at Central European University and a Doctor of Science of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and her opinion is notable and related to the subject. According to the rules, it is worth to be included into the article. As for Ungváry, he does say that "Soviet soldiers frequently took children or whole families under their protection" (p. 292), as well as that "Soviet soldiers had many taboos. One was hurting children. The following recollection could be paralleled many times over" (p. 293; "many times" means it was not an isolated case). His work is in many ways inaccurate, simplistic and biased, but you have no right to cherry-pick his claims that support your POV and remove all those that don't. Read the rules of WP before editing and stop acting like it's your personal blog, trying in vain to push your POV everywhere and edit out everything you don't agree with. Your edits are unconstructive at best. 113.23.17.75 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

"The worst suffering of the Hungarian population is due to the rape of women. Rapes—affecting all age groups from TEN to seventy are so common that very few women in Hungary have been spared." Swiss embassy report cited in Ungváry 2005, p.350. (Krisztian Ungvary The Siege of Budapest 2005) Is that a "taboo" on hurting children? Also the page you're quoting is not in the preview. Aspflcn (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a statement made by the Swiss embassy, not Ungváry, who is the author of the book. And if you disagree with him, Wikipedia doesn't care. The page I've quoted above is in the printed version of the book, but you can try to download it. And I don't even mention that the claim is marginal, extremely dubious and not accepted by most historians (including Ungváry), implying that almost all Hungarian females (not even 5,000-200,000) were raped, that the Swiss embassy checked almost every woman and girl in the Soviet-occupied Hungary, except for the "very few" females, and established that "fact". 113.23.17.75 (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Ungváry quotes it as credible,more to point the age of the victims than the number.Both the number and the type of victims are discussed in lenght through the chapter The Siege and the Population where he says that around 10% of women in Budapest were raped and describes rapes of children as well as those of mothers in front of their families(The Siege of Budapest: One Hundred Days in World War II p.348-357).Even Andrea Petö doesn't deny that mass rapes happened and that children were among the victims.I don't want to get personal but trying to excuses or mitigate rapes of children for whatever reason is absolutely disgusting.(Aspflcn (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC))

He interprets it as evidence for rapes but doesn't agree with it in every detail. Your argument as irrelevant, as he did make the aforementioned claims, that's exactly what he concluded in his own work. We may assume that Ungváry believed that the taboos were violated (soldiers and officers are not robots and some of them do violate common ethical norms and laws of their society), whatever, but we cannot edit out his conclusions, like if his own words did not belong to him. And no, I'm not telling you that rapes did not occur or that rape is not disgusting. They were quite real, all historians agree, but the number of rapes is extremely questionable, they say, and should not be exaggerated, as otherwise it will also be disgusting, historically inaccurate and offensive for both of the warring parties. Different sources provide different estimates, some of them being inaccurate or even politically biased, and it is definitely not WP editors who must decide which claim or estimate is the ultimate truth and remove everything they don't like. I hope I've made my point perfectly clear. 113.23.17.75 (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I have never removed any estimates in the article and I don't want to,I would like to add that it is commonly accepted fact that 10% of the female population was raped,a statement made by Ungváry and even repeated by Pető.

However the two main changes I wish to make are the following:

1.The second sentence referencing Andrea Pető essay be removed,for reasons I've gone into detail already the main of which and the one I want to stress again is it being completely off topic-the unspecified effects of hypothetical "wild estimates" proposed by a single person are in no way related to the impact the battle had on civilians and therefore this information doesn't belong in the section about impact on civilians.If you insist on this remaining in the article,it must be in separate section,which should also include the Communist regime attempt to censure any information about the crimes and the impact that had.I personally don't think such a section is necessary.

2.The part about a taboo on hurting children to be removed or placed somewhere else,because even if something like that existed it certainly didn't cover sexual violence,as Ungváry makes clear numerous times and since you completely ignored my references once,here I give you some direct quotes,both his own conclusions and reliable sources on the ground at the time.

"Rather,it was an outbreak of rampant demented hatred.Mothers were raped by drunken soldiers in front of their children and husbands.Girls as young as 12 were dragged from their fathers and mothers to be violated by 10 to 15 soldiers often infected with venereal diseases.After the first group came others,who followed their example."-The Siege of Budapest: One Hundred Days in World War II p.350

"...few have expected utter lawlessness and insecurity that came with the "liberation""-The Siege of Budapest: One Hundred Days in World War II p.349

"...from girls of 12 to mothers in the ninth month of pregnancy;raped..." from Bishop Jozsef Grosz-The Siege of Budapest: One Hundred Days in World War II p.348

"The worst suffering of the Hungarian population is due to the rape of women. Rapes—affecting all age groups from ten to seventy are so common that very few women in Hungary have been spared." Swiss embassy report- The Siege of Budapest: One Hundred Days in World War II p.350

"They spread mattresses in front of the altar and raped girls and women on them." from a priests diary- The Siege of Budapest: One Hundred Days in World War II p.352

Considering I already explained all this and you chose to ignore it while failing to address how the hypothetical "wild estimates" relate to the civilian victims of the battle or how the supposed taboo on hurting children reconciles with the the mass rapes of children,the only logical conclusion is that you are not interested in a productive discussion.

Aspflcn (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Considering that you ignore my points, I have to make it perfectly clear that I do know what Ungváry writes and have that book, as stated above, and there is no reason to provide quotes that don't change anything, citing the same Swiss embassy report again and again. And no, again, there is no reason to edit out what is closely related to the subject. In its current form, the article states that "despite the fact that the Soviets often took children and entire families under their protection and had a taboo on hurting children, a high number of women and girls were raped", i.e. there is no contradiction in it, since it mentions both the common taboo and the violation of that taboo (that's like saying "despite their usual law/custom/taboo prohibiting theft, the populace turned to looting"). Both points made by the author are present in the text. Besides, the article reflects the fact that there are completely different estimates regarding the number of rapes (ranging from 5,000 to 200,000) and warns that it is a complicated, controversial topic, again citing a RS. All that is historically accurate, relevant and quite neutral, and there is no need in making apparently unconstructive edits like yours and violating NPOV. Given your strange, illogical, groundless assumptions, that you blamed others for "excusing" or even "denying" the rapes, it seems that you don't even properly understand my replies, the sources cited in the article and the article itself. Indeed, there is not much to discuss with you, as long as your proposals are clearly not constructive, and it is time to stop.

You have voiced your opinion, and if respected editors decide to make changes to this article, they will read this talk page and take your and others' comments into account. However, making unconstructive edits without the consent of others and trying to rewrite anything just because you don't like it is against the rules and won't go unnoticed. Farewell. 171.250.20.56 (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The book makes it very clear that there was no taboo on raping children,something can't be a taboo and a common practice,done publicly,at the same time.The sentence in the article as worded currently suggests just that and is therefore redundant and misleading.

You have called my edits unconstructive numerous times,however you have yet again failed to criticize my only real edit and the main reason for it-the sentence is not connected to the impact the siege had on civilians.Yes,I repeat myself,because you repeatedly ignored my points,as with the Swiss embassy,which Ungravy considered relevant and is in line with other sources,yet you dismiss it completely.

Farewell to you too.Aspflcn (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• This is not my area of knowledge beyond a layman's interest (and having a father and family living through the siege). My main concern was with disruptive editing and the removal of sourced text. From my reading of the article, Petö is quoted by Bessel, in a book published by Cambridge University Press. Or, is it an essay written by Petö within that book? The citation isn't clear on this. Either way, as far as reliable sources go, that's a pretty good one. I can't verify the Bessel text, so I have no idea if what is written here in the article reflects Petö's words accurately or if it's cherrypicking. The second citation, Naimark, also looks credible. Until I personally can verify the sources, I can't really comment on Aspflcn's claims. We may need to take this to the RS noticeboard or do a request for comment elsewhere to get more editors involved in the discussion. As this isn't a BLP issue and I don't see anything libelous in the text, I don't see the harm in leaving it as is until more editors can weigh in. Perhaps it's a matter of further elaboration, expanding on what Petö is claiming, and finding further sources. Given the topic, there must be more sources available out there. I'm an art historian, not an historian, but I can do some basic research into this. However, I am unable to do so in the next few days. If other editors feel the issue is too pressing to leave for a while, I recommend the reliable sources noticeboard, requests for comment, Wikipedia:WikiProject History or another Wikipedia:WikiProject involving WWII, Hungarian history or the like. freshacconci (✉) 14:43, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment and attention, freshacconci. I have already verified the sources myself and, as long as virtually no other editors have decided to change the text or found anything even remotely libelous or irrelevant in it, believe that the only possible (and common for situations like this) solution is "leaving it as is until more editors can weigh in", as you have proposed. Especially given the fact that I cannot find any noteworthy criticism or even understanding in the above messages. Perhaps this article will be improved by experienced users in the future, but for now there is no significant reason to intervene, let alone remove or rewrite sourced content. 171.250.20.56 (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention,freshacconci. I have researched the issue thoroughly as is evident from the above conversation,however I'm only a casual contributor and since the topic is a sensitive one I agree it could use a little more experience.My opinion remains,as stated,that the section needs serious improvement.Aspflcn (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This section of the article significantly white-washes history due to political motivation: the monumental number of girls-women raped by the Red Army (happened all the way to and in Berlin...), the potentially even larger number of Hungarian men arbitrarily abducted for "malinka rabota" (a "little work") in Russia, many never to be seen again and to die due to the severe conditions, large scale petty and perhaps more serious theft by Red Army soldiers starting from watches ("chasi?) and drinking women's perfume. The article falsely presents the atrocities as if it was by renegades and not regular Red Army soldiers. The soldiers did seem to have a soft spot for children - apparently that did not include pubescent girls. It may well be true that soldiers in the Hungarian army which attacked Russia as the Nazis' ally raped, maybe on a large scale - maybe not. Since many edit Wikipedia and write books based on their political group identity the truth is not easy to get to. This section of the article is terrible and largely propaganda, which is unfortunate especially since the immense death toll and suffering in Budapest is not known to most. Hungary has a troubled and unstable extreme political past since World War I. Falsifying its history is not in the interest of the country. It is troubling that so called Hungarian "liberals" seem to minimize the severe atrocities by Russians while others minimize the massive crimes of the Hungarian gendarmery, national railroad, Fascists and the Arrow Cross, consider them to be heroes, have events remembering the attempted "breakout" of the Germans and allied Hungarian forces and bring back as icons war criminals condemned to death and Miklos Horthy who surprisingly did not spend his life in jail or received more severe punishment and was allowed to live out his life in exile in Portugal.He has been turtmed into a modern day national hero and in words of Prime Minister Orban a great Hungarian statesman. Emesz (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Andrea Pető

This madam was a Communist historian, then George Soros-funded university professor. She is by no means a reliable source worth quoting here. Mazarin07 (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Mass rape were carried out by Soviets deserters and Hungarian criminals

“after the end of hostilities Budapest was flooded by Soviet deserters living on pillage and fighting against the Soviet security service and police,[28] and excesses such as looting and mass rape were carried out by Soviets and Hungarian criminals.[29] Despite the fact that the Soviets often took children and entire families under their protection and had a taboo on hurting children”

Give over, retrospective weasel words. The vast majority of rapes were carried out by the Red Army.

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-savage-triumph/ 92.29.71.247 (talk) 14:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)