Talk:Székely Land/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Second Vienna Arbitrage - NPOV issue

The following consensus offer was rejected (see edit log, the last revert and as a result an ANI incident)

"On 26 July 1940 by the German-Romanian diplomatic meeting in Salzburg The German leadership put a pressure on the Romanian party to achieve a mutually a new border arrangement with Hungary. After the negotiations failed, The German and Italian governments then proposed an arbitration, a proposal characterised in the minutes of the Romanian crown council of 29 August as "communications with an ultimative character made by the German and Italian governments". Finally the Romanian ambassador in Berlin transmitted their the acceptance, as Hungary also accepted in advance the German-Italian arbitration lead by Joachim von Ribbentropp and Galeazzo Ciano.This is widely seen as

joined with

->the militarily dominant Nazi Germany forced a weak Romania to cede Northern Transylvania to Hungary, by that time arguably a German client state, via the Second Vienna Award; this territory included most of the historical Székely areas. Hungarian authorities subsequently restored the pre-Trianon structure with slight modifications."

A demonstration why WP:NPOV is harmed if only the second part is shown (one part is from WP:WEASEL):

Wikipedia articles should not be making arguments in the first place. Simply state facts, cite the sources of them, and let the readers draw their own conclusions. -> a consensus was rejected on just state the facts, the other party wanted only to appear POV arguments at the same time the rejection again sourced facts, so the reader has not a chance to draw it's own conclusion

NPOV means that people should write the things that almost everyone agrees about -> Only some Romanian and some Anglo-Saxon POV is that Germany forced to cede Northern-Transylvania, but it is still not a fact since after the failed Hungarian-Romanian negotiations Romania asked the arbitration and accepted in advance the result - as Hungary also did. To insist much in this wordage like force is dubious, since it would be twice as more valid to the 1940 Bukovina and Bessarabia case, where practically Romania received an ultimatum, such wordage could be three times more used in i.e. the Paris Treaties; Treaty of Trianon or any treaty where the winners dictate the conditions, but surprisingly Hungarians do not try to alter every article with similar like "Military dominant strong Romania along with the strong and victorius Antante powers lead by France forced the weak, militarily crushed and defeated Hungary to cede Transylvania"

The important issues or debates must be written in a way which does not favour any one side too much. Strange or rare opinions can be stated as side matters with details about who says them.-> this means the readers inform the first place about the factual approach, the most short, politically and emotionally free would have been that was rejected like "In 1940, as a result of the Second Vienna Award Northern-Transylvania became part of Hungary again." and next to it you may mention some views about this decision, but the facts cannot be overriden and an indication is needed it is just a POV.

More on WP:NPOV:

Marco's country fought a war from 1670 to 1675. Marco's Kingdom was Fylburia in Eastern Europe, etc. Because almost everyone agrees that these things are true, they are "neutral point of view" and okay as the main point of the article. Only once these things are done should the different opinions on Marco and the war, and his skill as a king, be added - it must be clear that these are not agreed on by everyone, and all sides should be treated fairly. Opinions should be said like this: "Scientists who live in Canada say that Marco was good because (say their reasons). College students with high grades think he was a bad king, because (their reasons)."

The rejection of everything because someone don't like the FACT that Romania did such things in 1940 forgetting what neutrality is, if the soul is only in peace if it is stress patterned that such could be happen because just and only a FORCE and other emotional WEASEL words to emphasize the personal view rendered - even if some Romanians or some Anglo-Saxon opinions share this view. Surprisingly Hungarians do not insist the same method on the much more painful Trianon and it was never denied the strong German diplomatic pressure Romania faced with, that's why the details were added and I was very tolerant although the one sentence short version would be enough since this article is about he Székely Land and not the Second Vienna Award, and if this opinion would have been really shared it would have been immeadiately accepted, despite in a very foxy way the aim was to redirect only my additions to the current article!

Moreover, the station that Hungary would be a "German client state" even supported by a source is false since Hungary joined the Tripartite Pact later, it was again an attempt to render an assertion that "Germany would helped his ally thus the decision would be forced and biassed" although Germany was totally dissatisfied that Hungary refused to take military action regarding the question of Czeshoslovakia, twice as more as Hungary rejected to be part of the invasion of Poland, rejecting the German troops in any means to trespass or use the Hungarian territory and airspace, third as more as Hungary received more tenthousands of refugees from Poland, they treated Hungarians as ungrateful and in the Awards the Germans wanted to always support less territorrial claims that the Italians did. So if we are really professional with GOOD FAITH, the Douglas source should have been ignored, to say nothing of the "arguably German client-state" is again WEASEL!

So, if there is a wish for new consensus building by any party, let's do it here and until the corresponding section should remain unharmed - since the status quo ante was unreferenced - having a short, totally neutral version should stand to avoid any possible conflict and or edit warring!(KIENGIR (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC))

Kinegir, saying that Germany was dissatisfied "that Hungary refused to take military action regarding the question of Czeshoslovakia" is only half the true. Germany was mainly dissatisfied by Hungarian hesitations because the Hungarian elites at some moments supported military solution and at some other they did not. From this point of view, they were not "peaceful", but simply unreliable. Notably, they were afraid of the Czechoslovak army and this is not only some subjective speculation, but this opinion can be supported by archive documents. It is also true that Hungary refused to participate on the attack on Poland. However, this must be viewed in the light of previous Polish-Hungarian relationships. Hungary and Poland underestimated Germany and participated on anti-Czechoslovak block, what was at least shortsighted.

"The Germans wanted to always support less territorial claims that the Italians did" simply because it was not in the Nazi interest. It was more effective to control several weaker satellites.

"the station that Hungary would be a "German client state" even supported by a source is false since Hungary joined the Tripartite Pact later" is a poor argument. For example, the first Slovak republic joined the Tripartite Pact on 24 November 1940, but it was founded as a client state on 14 March 1939. Ditinili (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

regarding Czechoslovakia, "hesitations", consideration are existing regarding every possibility in any country and any situation, like always, any chance of any intervention in Czechoslovakia was theoretical, anyway we can make any judgment on what happened, not some other speculations. Hitler was so much dissatisfied after the second rejection of the Hungarian party he stated he not just won't support the Hungarian claims but will not even raise them in the Munich Conference, moreover he'll refuse to accept any official from Hungary. Afterwards, only the struggle of Kálmán Kánya - breaking through even a police cordon to be able to reach Ciano - asking Ciano to raise the question of the Hungarian problem in the conference, in the end, in the supplementary record of the Munich Treaty obligated the Czechoslovak and the Hungarian party to make a negotiations and the questions should be arranged within 3 months. The Hungarian diplomacy struggled very much to choose a person that had no connection to the government, and also the Germans did not refuse him to negotiate, finally Ignác Darányi was chosen, but after he also rejected any military intervention or attack, Hitler get so angry that after 45 minutes of shouting he let him alone with Ribbentropp.

Between the Munich Agreement and the First Vienna Award, Hungary threatened by the military attack and proclaimed that she will not tolerate "behaviour of the Slovaks". Hilter refused and said that nobody will help her. Both states considered military attack at a time when it suited their own interests. The fact that their plans were not always synchronized (in time) does not mean that they refused military action in general.

Some diplomatic measures were always regarding this wordage, however here the Czechs and Czechoslovakia affairs has to be emphasized, since the Czech's oppressed also the Slovaks. Despite Hungary refused even when the Germans informed them about their full support.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC))

OMG, the Czechs did not oppress the Slovaks. In the interwar period, the Czechs significantly contributed to the cultural development of the Slovaks, helped to establish and operate numerous Slovak schools (absolutely impossible without Czech teachers) and numerous cultural institutions like the Slovak National Theatre and others. There were tensions, but tensions between the autonomists and the centralists. E.g. Slovak ludaks (Hlinka Slovak People's Party) were autonomists but Slovak social democrats were centralists. Moreover, the prime minister Milan Hodža was Slovak. Of course, some Slovak radicals from HSLS used such rhetoric (oppression) and this fact was emphasized by interwar Hungarian revisionists and also by postwar ludak exile (e.g. Milan Stanislav Ďurica), but it can be easily refuted. This is also general conclusion of the Slovak mainstream histography - regardless of some misunderstandings and mistakes, the Czech did not opress Slovaks, they did rather opposite.

Well, Hlinka's opinion was significant, as you also acknowledged the tensions, however a new state model was in trial, but since "Czechoslovak" nations never existed it would have been much more fair if the Czechs would not want to rule over Slovaks and Ruthenians, moreover there were more Germans than Slovaks in Czechoslovakia. Well maybe "classic" oppression we may not call the situation.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC))

Czechs "did not rule over Slovaks". Unlike Kingdom of Hungary before 1918, Czechoslovakia was a liberal democracy with universal suffrage where governments were formed by winning parties that were able to form a coalition. This means - also by autonomist Hlinka Slovak People's Party or German parties like Bund der Landwirte or Deutsche Christlich-Soziale Volkspartei. Hlinka's opinion was not more or less representative that the opinion of any other Slovak politician. There were Slovak politicians who firmly supported not only the the idea of common Czechoslovak nation and they also fought against the autonomy.Ditinili (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, still the Czechs were dominant and decisive in Prague, you can form the wordage as you want, just because there are more opinions it does not mean one cannot be true. You should not necessarily compare Kingdom of Hungary with Czechoslovakia, since system in a kingdom different like in the new type of democracy after the fall royalist-era, however Kingdom of Hungary in it's time was one the most liberal and democratic countries comparing to other ones.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC))

Kiengir can you see the difference between "oppression" and "decisive role"? There was not a single one Slovak high school or university before 1918, high schools were closed during magyarization and elementary schools were significatly reduced. The Czechs had a completely different intellectual background. Instead of fixing this superrior position, they helped to restore Slovak cultural institutions, elementary schools, high schools, to educate the first Slovak professors, etc. The whole school system had operated thanks to Czech teachers. Do you understand what is a democracy and civil society? If Slovak voted for statewide Social Democratic Party or other party and the president of that party was Czech, does it mean that he was oppressed?

"Kingdom of Hungary in it's time was one the most liberal and democratic countries comparing to other ones" is not a serious statement, do you mean liberals and democrats like Gyula Gömbös? Ditinili (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You again play with words, if it is not clear what I have written, read back again. Also add the role of the Slovaks who closed the schools, although they should not cope with it. Just because after the fall of royalist era the concept of democracy changed, it does not mean theat Czechoslovakia would be a healthy state since these actions should have been done in every other country, it is not necessarily the proof of any Czech benevolence, since they had to maintain the idea of he "Czechoslovak" nation. I perfectly understand what is democracy and civil society, but it still does not mean that the problem of minorities were solved or they could change their situation with it, since by percentage they had no chance. Oh, it is a very serious statement, I did not refer to any person but the state, since Hungary introduced in Europe such laws that was missing in any other country, and regarding also the full emancipation and the liberal economy and development the era was very promising and properous.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC))

"...Czech benevolence, since they had to maintain the idea of the "Czechoslovak" nation." You simply missed that a) this idea was adopted also by numerous Slovak politicians b) the idea is older than Czechoslovakia c) one of main propagator was Slovak Jan Kollar d) by the definition - if the Czechs and the Slovaks are one nation, not only the Slovak nation, but also the Czech nation does not exist as a separate nation (sic!). It seems, that you completely do not understand the problem or its background.

Liberal and democratic postwar Hungary is a fairytale, in genaral not accepted even by HUngarian historians. Ditinili (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not miss anything. a, it does not mean anything, since Czechoslovak nation never existed, b, detto c, so what? d, so what?? I never said Czechoslovak nation existed. I totally understand everything, but you seem continously misunderstanding me and introducing new things that have no connection to what I have said.

So what... so your theories about Czech "oppressors" or your view on (only) the Czechs pushing Czechoslovakism to the Slovaks was refuted. By the way, a nation is a subjective category and it exists if there are people who declare that they are a member of the nation. Ditinili (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not speak about postwar Hungary.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC))

Thus we can call this much more "peaceful" than "unreliable", since Hitler offered even the full Slovakian part of Czechoslovakia to attach to Hungary and also offered his full support, Hungary rejected to be an "aggressor".

This is most likely only ignorance of archive materials. Between the first Vienna Award and the break-up of Czechoslovakia, Hungary definitely considered an occupation of the whole Slovakia. Moreover, this was planned and supported also by the leaders of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia who worked on such solution with Hungary. Details e.g. in Seges-Hertel-Bystricky (2012): Slovakia in Polish and Hungarian Diplomatic Documents 1938-1939. More info about "peaceful" attitude of Hungarian government e.g. Deak L: The First Vienna Award - Documents I-III. You have also missed that in January 1939, Hungarian foreign minister Csaky visited Hitler, accepted Hitler's criticism and promised that Hungary will better coordinate her policy with Germany for the future. Notably, both parties were well aware that the alleged "ethnic principle" is only a pretext and Hitler explicitly asked Hungary to wait until they will adopt further solution (details + full reference to the related archive document e.g. Deak L: The Game for Slovakia, p. 182)

What you state here does not contradict what I have said and no ignorance has been proved also, moreover I did not speak about the period between the First Vienna Award and the brakeup of Czechoslovakia. You could have mentioned also that Tiso made also negotiations with the Hungarians and also offered to join to Hungary in some possible emerging scenarios. I did not miss anything, you go totally broader than the certain topic is, in the end what matters what happened.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC))

Let's return to the original statement. It is not true that Hungary had not any interest in the occupation of the Slovakia and "refused to be an aggressor". Moreover, in May 1938, Tiso was a common politician of the party that received 30% of votes in Slovakia in a _coalition_ with 3 other parties. Moreover, he had not any mandate for such step from his voters, he abandoned the idea very quickly and he knew well that this would be politically unacceptable even for his voters. --Ditinili (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

No, no the fact is that Hungary refused to be an aggressor, as she deniend the countless opportunity offered. The fact that this possible version of Tiso's policy did not trial was mainly because the First Vienna Arbitrage had already been scheduled.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC))

She did not refused an oportunity. In August 1938, the Hungarian government commited in Kiel to military intervene in Czechoslovakia, but not at the same time as Germany but later, because she wanted to wait for the reaction of western powers and the Little Entente. On 17 September 1938, the Hungarian government confirmed this standpoint for the Polish government as follows: "Ready to fight, we are waiting for the appropriate moment. However, we will not start the attack concurently with the Germans and surely not earlier." (Deak 1997, p. 105, with full references to the archive documents) It means that the Hungarian government did not refuse the idea of military attack but wanted to schedule the attack for the least risky moment. Of course, this made Hitler angry and he declared that in the case of passivity, Hungary will not receive the whole Slovakia and Carpatian Ruthenia.

"The fact that this possible version of Tiso's policy did not trial was mainly because the First Vienna Arbitrage had already been scheduled." Such opinion ignores elementary chronology. He discussed this option with Kanya in May 1938, but the award was a consequence of the Munich Agreement signed only on 30 September. It ignores also other activities of HSLS in the meantime which were clearly not oriented on this solution. Tiso could easily agree on such solution in Komárno during the negotiations with Hungary preceding the award. --Ditinili (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it did not ignore anything, since secretly they were still negotiating and as I recall the last one was two days before the schedule of the Award. Since those times the circumtances changed rapidly, every side continously revised the situation. Moreover you again make a stress pattern on plans and diplomatic affairs, although I emphazised more times, in history the outcome is decisive and counted.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC))

They were never seriously negotiating about joining Hungary. Tiso tried to open this question in May as a some kind of survey (the same way he negotiated also with Poles or the central government), but he was totaly disgusted by Kanya attitude. HSLS refused this variation also after a trial for Polish mediation and it was refused also in Komarno (on Monday, I can send you a protocol). During 20 years of Czechoslovakia, Hungary had not been able to create any relevant pro-Hungarian platform. Ditinili (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you that you acknowledged that they were negotiating.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC))

I have never said the opposite. I say that you roughly ignore the results. --Ditinili (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I did not ignore the results.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC))

I would not agree that Hungary would underestimate Germany, Hungary's aim was to recover her former territories peacefully and to avoid to get in war at the first place. By rejecting again anything regarding Poland, Germany also rejected Hungary to send military help to Finland using her territory.

Hungary and Poland underestimated Germany, notably Poland was unable to recognize in forward that she will be the next victim and the break-up of Czechoslovakia is not in her interest. They simply misuderstood that Germany will reorganize the central-Europe on its own and their position is very weak to enforce own visions. Hungary was not interested in any "peaceful solution". Already before the award, she organized terrorist groups (with the help of Polish officers) that committed several terrorist attacks in Czechoslovakia. There is a difference between "I want to prevent open military conflict because I am not ready" and "I want a peaceful solution".

I still do not agree, since the German policy of the cessation of the Treaty of Versailles and restoring borders in a much more truthful way was an open policy. I don't know about any "terrorist groups". Hungary had a peacuful revisionist aim, the "békés revízió" a whole policy was build around it, since if it would go by war then it may be annulated if the winner will be on the opposing side, Hungary as long as she could maintained a policy to be remain as neutral as it is possible and stay away from war as much as possible (despite it failed since the Allies also annulated pre-war rearrangements that they former acknowledged, as well they forgot to annulate so other rearrangements that happened inthe war but that time they did not recognize.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC))

German alleged "open policy" definitely did not cover her plans for Poland. Planned occupation of the Czech lands was really communicated with Hungary and both minority parties (German, Hungarian - at least one year before the occupation), but Germany pretended only to protect Sudeten Germans. German plans for Slovakia had been unclear until autumn 1939 and they used it only as a bait for Hungary. So, it was not an "open policy" as you try to present. You don't know about any terrorist groups, but Hungarian historians like Istvan Deak do (Territorial Revisionism and the Allies of Germany in the Second World War, p. 24). The Czechoslovak Army and police had not only captured hundreds of members of such paramilitary units from Hungary, but also confiscated explosives and other military equipment. In March 1938, Hungarian foreign ministry instructed Hungarian ambassador in Germany Stojay to open a question of the collaboration of the general staffs, because it is possible that "the Czech question" could be resolved only by the millitary attack. This is "bekes revisio".Ditinili (talk) 02:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

No, Germany openly had the utmost dissatisfaction of the new border's regarding Poland, Eastern-Prussia, Danzig and the situation of the more million Germans, much more intense as they completed the other revisions. The Germans in 1939 tried minimum three times with more offers - continously degradating their demands - even just to establish a mutual communication and arrangement plans to discuss, but they were all the time rejected. What I called "open policy" is that what I meant and it is true: revision of the Treaty of Versailles. About paramilitary groups I knew, but not under the designation "terrorists". You are again try to sell background diplomatic communications and discussion of possible scenarios as it would have any connection to what happened and what did not happen. As I said earlier, in every country, any situation these discussions and plans of inner diplomacy are existing, there is no exception, since they would be stupid if they would not check all the possibilities and outcomes, but what really counts what happened and Hungary chose the "békés revízió".(KIENGIR (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC))

Kiengir, do you really want to discuss how was the Poland informed about real German plans in time of common German-Hungarian-Polish anti-Czechoslovak block? Are you sure?

"Peaceful revision" is an abstract political concept which have to be evaluated in the light of the real policy. Organization of paramilitary units that are sent to the neigbouring state to murder state employees and blow up bridges or collaboration with Nazis against the neigbouring state with the goal of its desintegration and occupation is not "peaceful" at all.--Ditinili (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I just answer to you, I think you started to go farther on the topic, in a way it seems like you'd are continously misunderstand me a little bit. I think you should not emphasize and concentrate on the phrase "Nazi", moreover about blown things or desctruction against Hungarians in Czechoslovakia I could also speak about, but I am not intending to stress pattern on more tensions. However Hungary's goal was not occupation, but revision.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC))

I do not "concetrate on the phrase Nazis". Germany was ruled by Nazis, Nazis had plan how to weaken and eliminate Czechoslovakia, because it was a part of their Neuordnung and Hungary was collaborating on the plan with Nazis well aware that it would mean Nazi occupation of the Bohemian lands. That's factual approach, I cannot see the reason, why to whitewash this international situation. For the Hungarian government, German Nazi government was more suitable partner than the liberal Czechoslovak government and they joined Nazis in the common interest. Ditinili (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

"Nazi" counter 1,2,3,4,5....nobody tried to "whitewash" anything. Germany is the subject, I also don't add in any country any designation as reference on it's sytem or ideology, since it is a little bit weasel. The "liberal" Czechoslovak goverment did not offer a proper solution for the problem of the Hungarian minority, Germany stuggled to correct the heavily imbalanced an injust Versailles Treaty system, OF COURSE Hungary supported this also.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC))

What do you dislike on the proper description of the international situation?

"...did not offer a proper solution for the problem of the Hungarian minority" Of course, they did. Firstly, the Hungarian minority received much more rights than the Slovaks in the Kingdom of Hungary not only before 1918, but also after 1918 (curiously, the worst countermeasure was implemented in 1939 by the Hlinka Party when they bound Hungarian minority rights to the minority rights provided by Hungary. This seriously deprived Hungarian minority rights). Statewide parties negotiated at least twice with some Hungarian party about their participation in the government and they did also other proposals. Of course, this could not work because you need two partners for a discussion and it was Sudeten German Party and United Hungarian Party that was not interested in the serious dialog. Henlein secretly declared that he will sabotage any trial for the compromise and any trial for the agreement and he will just increase his demands to make them unacceptable. Esterhazy passed this information to the Hungarian government and received the instructions to apply the same strategy. The relevant text of the atchive document: "1938, április 1. Prága. – J. Wettstein számjelzett távirata a külügyminisztériumnak M. Hodža és K. Henlein közötti tárgyalásokról:" Fentieket Henlein közölte 221-el, hogy folyó hó 7.-én fognak válaszolni. Hodzsa ajánlatánál magasabb igényeket támasztanak, amelyeknek teljesitését érdemleges tárgyalások megkezdése előtt követelik. Ezek teljesitése esetén ki fogják jelenteni, hogy csak autonomia törvénybeiktatása esetén tárgyalnak tovább. Henlein kijelentette, hogy megegyezést körülmények közt sabotálni akarja, mert egyedüli mód Csehszlovákia gyors felrobantásának. Felkérte 221-et, hogy ezen törekvéseiben őket támogassák. (221 = pseudonym of Esterhazy) Seges-Hertel-Bystricky (2012).

You simply missed that the German goal was not some correction of "injust Versailles Treaty system", but preparation of the "New Order" and "Drag nach Osten". Thus, you repeat interwar propaganda instead of its critical evaluation and it seems that you are not able to see Nazi actions in the wider context. Similarly, Hungarian foreign policy was not aimed only to some border correction (so called "revision based on the ethnic principle"), but also on restoration of pre-Trianon borders to High Tatras (so called "integral revision"). Of course, occupation of the Czech lands (realized) or Slovakia (not realized not because of unwillingness of the Hungarian government, but because of Hitler's further plans with Poland and Soviet Union) had absolutely nothing with the self-determination right, but its a very rough violation of this principle. Ditinili (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I never disliked any proper description of he international situation, you seem better to act like so. Real comparison with the most liberal Kingdom and a newly formed state in a new system is not the most healthy thing, just better with the post 1920 Hungary. This offer was completely insatisfiable since autonomy would be the minimum to start serious negotiations. I did not miss anything regarding Germany, since I am professional in the topic, you missed the Drang Nach Osten when you insisted how Poland would have clue that Germany want to arrange the German minority's future? It is a FACT, that Germany sough a revision of the injust Versailles Treaty system, so when I said this it was right. You introduce some other viewpoints and you try to look like if I would not say what I said or what I said would not be true, although it is not the case. You apply in a very gifted way to acknowledge and at the same time deny something, twisting as much as it is possible. It was not a propaganda, but a real phenomenon step by step, how ridioculus would be to deny it, isn't it? :) I am able to see everything, you should stop once your continous negative remarks, with this you don not achieve anything! What you again intruduce about Hungary was not denied, however the main goal was the sought for a justful revision at once, without a denial of having also former territories without Hungarian majority.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC))

"since autonomy would be the minimum to start serious negotiations" Who says? This is a very subjective statement. As you can see from the document above, autonomy would not be accepted anyway, because the strategy was to raise new and new demands only to sabotage any trial for the agreement. You already have a quote, black and white. Moreover, in 1930s "autonomy" would mean a creation of Nazi "state in the state". Ditinili (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

It has been a general opinion time by time more reinforced, of course, the revision was pushed in a first place. The last sentence is just your POV (and again "Nazi" counter="Nazi counter + 1") again, I have to completely refuse to make any allusion or comparison to any possible Hungarian autonomos region as being a "Nazi "state in the state"", it is a disgusting negative prejudication again!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC))

I know that you don't like word "Nazi", but in late 1930s Sudeten German Party was strongly Nazified and the autonomy for Germans under the political leadership of Sudeten German Party tied to Nazi Germany would not stabilize the situation. This is not my subjective statement, this is simply incompatible with Hitler's vision of the world and his further plans. I do not use word "Nazi" without understanding the purpose of this word, but to emphasize the international context. The autonomy for Hungarians was _refused_ by Hungarian delegation in Komarno, because the Hungarian policy was not oriented on any "minority rights" or "autonomy", but on the revision (ethnic or integral). Nevertheless, in mid-1930s there was a concept of "autochthonous inhabitants of Slovakia" which should cover both Slovak and Hungarian question and was supported both by Slovak Ludaks and Hungarian opposition parties like Provincial Christian-Socialists. However, this concept was not realized, because open Hungarian revisionism undermined Ludaks political position and raised question about the purpose of the autonomy, especially in the situation when Tuka was sentenced as a Hungarian spy. --Ditinili (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I referred to the Hungarians, they were not "Nazi" az also a possible autonomous Hungarian region would not be "Nazi", ad hoc visions to be extended just becuase of the Sudeten German case is dubious.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC))

It is just your opinion, anyway it has truth in it, moreover mine is that Germans very precisely wanted to arrange these things, even they debated much regarding little villages where should they belong, however Ciano wanted to really educate himself about the situation, nevertheless, his ambitions to be a decisive factor was also important, just remember the "Ciano-line", if you know about it.

In the case of Hungarians (or more exactly - opposition minority parties, because there were also pro-government MP's), I don't speak about Nazis, but about revizionism and collaboration with Nazis aimed against the state. While the Sudeten German Party planned the occupation of the Czech lands, Hungarian United Party worked really hard on annexation of Slovakia by Hungary. Of course, both parties synchronized their activities not to achieve some "autonomy", but to totally disintegrate the state and to annex the remaining parts by Germany and Hungary: "1938, május 24. Prága. – Vörnle J. Apor G. számára címzett kísérőlevele Esterházy J. csatolt jelentéséhez, amelyben beszámol Henleinnel folytatott tárgyalásairól: (...) Henlein állítása szerint Hitler Mussolinivel megállapodott abban, hogy Olaszország fegyveresen fenyegeti meg Franciaországot abban az esetben, ha Franciaország a németek ellen akarna vonulni egy csehszlovák megszállás esetén. Henlein kijelentette továbbá azt, hogy Hitler szerint a felvidék vissza fog kerülni Magyarországhoz, ahol a tótok autonomiát fognak élvezni, viszont Csehország azon része, ahol csehek és morvák laknak Németországhoz fog csatoltatni egy nagyon széleskörű autonomiával. Henlein állítása szerint Mussolini és Beck erről a tervről tudnak és vele egyetértenek." --Ditinili (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

What you have written was not this, anyway it does not contradict again what I have said. Btw. "Slovakia" is not mentioned here.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC))

Try to look better: "felvidék. Ditinili (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

No, no Felvidék is NOT Slovakia, it as older concept and designating a larger territory that Slovakia ever was, even if it's meaning now in a way tranformed to the territory of present-day Slovakia.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC))

Nice trial. However, I am afraid that the guy who wrote this report ("Tamas" alias Esterhazy) did not speak about a concept of "felvidek" from the 19th century or older, but about concrete territory in the "modern meaning" what is clear also from his other speeches and diplomatic documents. (A drawning man will clutch at a straw) Ditinili (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"Drawning?" :))) What is a fact, in your citation neither "Slovakia", or "Szlovákia" or identical is written. Point. I don't see any reason to debate this more :) (KIENGIR (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC))

Yes, we can close it. You have a proof that more than year before the break-up Czechoslovakia, the plan for the total elimination of the country was discussed between German Government-Sudeten Germans Party-United Hungarian Party-Hungarian Government and your excuse that "felvidek" in this context does not mean Slovakia is very poor and unreliable. Ditinili (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Ditinili, as I see, you start to provocate me, really! What you again stated - without any real connection to the subject does not change anything, moreover despite if I am using a bad wordage or I am mistaken, I have always acknowledged it, you never can say that "sorry, I have mistaken" and this is a huge problem! So listen up and read carefully, and not ever make such ridicoulus evading comments like "very poor and unreliable", since with this you again make yourself heavily unserious and ridicoulus!! First you say that the source is mentioning Slovakia - that is fake of course, your personal false interpretation says that - although even in the common modern reference it would be - that is not since that time that did not existed - then it could be just and only the territory of Slovakia, since "Felvidék" never meant equal with the Slovak state, it is a region name - in correct English "Upper-Hungary", moreover Slovakia did not exist that time - 1938 only as a part/subdivison of Czechoslovakia - Hungary's subject was regarding territorrial disputes with Czechoslovakia, not Slovakia, moreover Hungary openly did not have just claims towards those territories that was belonging to Slovakia in Czechoslovakia, moreover Felvidék has it's historical meaning and it has been - that time without any debate - a reference on the former Hungarian territories of Czechoslovakia, and dear Dinitili, if you knew Czechslovakia was not only consisted of Slovakia, but Carpathian Ruthenia, yes?? Moreover, in the First Vienna Arbitrage the recoverd territories of Felvidék did not contain - of course - just Czechoslovakian territories regarding from the Slovakia subsdivision, but also from Carpathian Ruthenia, so it is obvious what in 1938 Felvidék refers and in Hungarian heads the term "Slovakia" is not existing, but Czechoslovakia in a primary way since this is the existing state (because you are a Slovak, you always concentrate on Slovakia, Slovakia, Slovakia.....Ungvár and Munkács were never part of "Slovakia" in any means yes? So who is poor and unreliable? So you regard Hungarians as fried fools? Really? If your possible answer is not right now to apologize of your serious lazy and unprofessional inaccuracy, then excuse me, we have nothing to talk of more about this, I am not a ridicoulus begginer in the subject, pal, ok? So do not provocate me more! Without the proper professionalism, you won't reach anything!(KIENGIR (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC))

Fortunately, this is not my translation, but peer reviewed collective work of several experts. You missed that the problem of Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenia was addressed differently both by Hungarian and German policy and what these two guys talked about was the future of Slovakia, what is clear also from other documents. If you do not think so, give me reference to reliable source. Nevertheless, I have no problem to accept other translation, if it is sourced or simply to use "Upper Land". The point is that both representatives of minority parties knew about the plan for a total elimination of Czechoslovakia almost a year in advance. If you want to say that Hungary was not supposed to annex only Slovakia, but the Upper Land including Slovakia and Ruthenia, I am fine with it.

I am sorry. If you have a feeling that you look like in this discussion like a "fried fool" or as a "ridiculous beginner", it is not my intention. Ditinili (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not miss anything, I hold my former answer. I don't have to give a reference because I can read and comprehend Hungarian texts flawlessly, and Felvidék is not any case "Slovakia" those times. Of course I want to say they "did not want only annex Slovakia" - however as I said, "Slovakia" was quite a non-existent term in the heads of the Hungarians, since they dealed with Czechoslovakia and only you emphasize "Slovakia" but I have already told this before - they goal was to recover at least the Hungarian majority inhabited areas which included not just the Slovak part of Czeshoslovakia. I never head a feeling that I would look like a "fried fool" or "ridicoulus beginner", I have only referred you should not any case treat me or Hungarians like so, since too many times you judged too early and considered the other party mistaken.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC))

Nice theory, but it fails with the fact that this report was written by a man who lived in Slovakia for his whole adult life and he did not only used this "term" (allegedly non existing in his head) regularly, but he considered it to be a separate entity which should have an autonomy. I suggest you to stop own research. Ditinili (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Slovakia"? The First Slovak state, or the second, or you refer az a sub-part of Czechoslovakia? A man's own consideration would override a term that has a clear meaning? But if he considered like so, why he simply did not write "Szlovákia" ? :) I suggest you to stop. Soon you'll tell Liszt Ferenc stated that he is Hungarian, so it meant he is Slovak :) (KIENGIR (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC))

I clearly refer to a sub-part of Czechoslovakia (this is clear also from the dating of the document). He did not write "Szlovakia", because he preferred another term and he used it as an equivalent term in his numerous speeches and articles. Don't take it personally, but I rely not only on my personal opinion (like you) but on the peer-reviewed publication. Ditinili (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

In this case you have an ad hoc personal opinion about why he "would not write" what he would have referred...the source does not support (exclusively) your POV, moreover the two terms cannot be equivalent - only just considered equvialent by some persons, but you cannot undisputedly demonstrate it that now this would be the case.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC))

Can you understand the written text? It is not "my personal opinion". It is a translation from the collective work of three authors, peer reviewed by two formal reviewers, historians who are experts in the field and who understand the context vs Kiengir. --Ditinili (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Don'k make me laugh, of course. But what you don't want to understand or read? That "Szlovákia/Slovakia" is not mentioned. Point. Thus, tt is useless to continue this thread.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC))

Kiengir, the same way we can take e.g. sources that describe old Hungarians (e.g. Administrando Imperio) and say that they do not contain word Hungarian but "Turkoi" so there is nothing about Hungarians. Is it reasonable approach? Absolutely not. Why? Because it is the responsibility of professional historians to translate and to interpret primary sources, since they understand both context, relations and contemporary terminology. Your opinion and your conclusions are absolutely irrelevant. What is more important and why did you probably focused so much on "translation" and tried to made it a substitute topic is that this document (and many others) shows how the leading representatives of German and Hungarian were informed about the real plan regarding Czechoslovakia, collaborated on this plan with German and Hungarian governments and this plan had nothing with alleged "self-determination right" and there was also not any serious interest in "discussion" with the Czechoslovak government. The opinions you have presented here are a mix of various outdated theories, mid-war propaganda + some cliches. That's my last word, I am not here for endless discussion without sources from your side. --Ditinili (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Ditinili, your comparison fails since there is no doubt or debate regarding Turkoi in administratio de imperio, moreover you want to explain something out that you cannot demonstrate - even that that this particular person would really mean in this case just and only Slovakia - the reasons I already told, demonstrated, explained, I don't have to again present a source since the interpretation of Felvidék in different times are obvious, easily to be verified or checked. Moreover you again introduce many things that has no connection to the topic, you try to identify everything as "my opinion", although it is much broader, on the other hand you want to force your interpretation even when it is dubious.

"The opinions you have presented here are a mix of various outdated theories, mid-war propaganda + some cliches. That's my last word, I am not here for endless discussion without sources from your side." -> Not true, what I have presented is very professional, the majority have general dispcrepancies to properly interpret Czechoslovakia and their subdivisons, also regarding Hungarian context. Since you did not present any source that Felvidék here would mean just and only "Slovakia", it is funny what you are writing, since not I am the one who is generating endless discussion, you do it since more weeks.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC))

It's peer reviewed publication vs. your opinion. Ditinili (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, there is something that would assure the assumption the author really meant just and only what you state? (I am really curious).(KIENGIR (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC))

Yes, but this is a topic for another article. Here, it was only for illustration how this alleged "application of the self-determination right" and "negotiations with CS government looked like. --Ditinili (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Italy was more interested because in her view, stronger Hungary obliged to Italy could increase her influence in the central Europe and to counterbalance Germany. On the other hand, Hitler was simply focused on the elimination of Resttschechei and Slovakia had not play any important role in his policy yet. "they debated much regarding little villages where should they belong" - this is again only the half truth. The whole arbitration took only one day and as one of participants noted, they drew and erased the border repeadetly and finally it was drawn by a dull pencil so the borderline was thick several kilomenters and had to be clarified later (details e.g. in Deak's works).

Anyway, because of geographical reasons, much work needed to clarify that dull pencil.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC))

I don't agree since the foundation of the First Slovak state has no connection to Hungary since Hungary was not founded "as a client state", and the continous refusal and tensions does not equal with a client state that is an ally affirmed with an official document and co-operates. By signing the Tripartite Pact, Hungary had to let the Wehrmacht to fully use her territory, so this the turning point, since that time she can be regarded as a client state. Since Slovakia took part the invasion of Poland, with this they already made a station, regardless that they later signed the Pact.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC))

Kiengir, Slovakia also felt independent and not always aligned her policy with Germany and there were also continuous tensions. For example, on 29 March 1940 she tried to inform the British Government that she is a neutral state. I can collect a lot of similar arguments, but I will not do my own research as you do for Hungary.Ditinili (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Add: "where practically Romania received an ultimatum, such wordage could be three times more used in i.e. the Paris Treaties; Treaty of Trianon or any treaty where the winners dictate the conditions". You have probably missed a difference between peace treaties (after victorious wars) and international arbitrations. Peace treaties are not and they cannot be signed between two equal parties, they are always (more or less) forced and they usually raise some negative sentiments on defeated side. On the other hand, arbitrations are a completely different tool of the international law and they have to meet some formal criteria, roughly violated for both Vienna Awards. Ditinili (talk) 07:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Many Hungarian politicians wanted "peaceful solutions". Pál Teleki, the prime minister of the KOH, even committed suicide because he could not cope with Hungary's military actions. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Pál Teleki was the prime minister in time when Hungary attacked and occupied Carpathian Ruthenia and she led the Little War against Slovakia, what really does not look like peaceful solutions. Ditinili (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, you have to feel, if you say Slovakia was founded as client state and moreover they took part immediately the invasion of Poland, it cannot be considered neutral. However also by Hungary the turning point could be determined by the Axis intervention against Yugoslavia, but I am much more fair if I date it earlier when the Pact was signed. --Ditinili (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hungary foreign was dependent on Nazi foreign policy since the beginning of their collaboration and this dependency continously increased. It was a revisionism that made her dependent, not particular agreement signed later and confirmed the status. --Ditinili (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

"Depending on a policy" is not the definiton exactly of a client state, we could say all Europe depended on this policy.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC))

You know very well that Great Britain was "depended" on the German policy in a completely different way than central/eastern European satellites. Ditinili (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

No doubt, but it still does not contradict anything earlier mentioned.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC))

Definitely not. Even if German and Hungarian relationships were not always optimal, Hungarian revisionist policy (the top priority of the Hungarian foreign policy) was completely dependent on the policy of Nazi Germany. Hungary was unequal partner reliant on Germany. Ditinili (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

This may be also true for all countries in Europe who sought a revision of the Versailles Treaty system.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC))

...and thus became Nazi sattelites. Ditinili (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Nazi counter=Nazi counter+1. I hope you will also all the time mention those countries in the same time who become Allied/Soviet etc. sattelites, however not just those countries became "sattelites" who sought a revision for the Versailles Treaty Sytem. The German or Axis sattelite would be the proper designation, but it seems you make a competition to use as much the phrase "Nazi" as much is it possible, with it's negative-aimed emotional content. PC is very popular among Anglo-Saxons recently however, they dealt with many cases regarding the Nazis, soon you'll also designate them in a way "Nazi", who knows :)(KIENGIR (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC))

I don't see any reason, why to not say that the regime in Germany was Nazi and some states collaborated with Nazi government and planned aggresion against other states together with Nazi representatives and it was a part of wider Nazi plans. Maybe, you dislike it, but it is a correct description of the situation. --Ditinili (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

If you'd want to understand me properly about PC and precise composition, you almost ignore the word "Germany", you just simply use "Nazi" when even not really Germany is the subject, and your continous usage and stress pattern even if some cases when it is not relevant you push on this as a hidden prejudicate judgment of anything. Soon we'll end up if i.e. the Nazis also liked ice-cream or stated that "the sun is shining", soon everbody will be deisgnated as "Nazi" who also likes ice-cream and acknowledges that the sun is shining, because he collaborated/agreed with the "Nazis". We should also designate i.e. the Allied Powers and their allies as i.e. "Commies" because the Soviet Union was one of them? I cannot believe you don't feel why you are exaggerating!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC))

"you almost ignore the word "Germany"" Of course not, you can make a statistics. I will not comment your personal opinions about the sun or ice-cream. Because some German actions were driven by Nazi ideology, it is worth of mention.--Ditinili (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

You talk like you would not have own personal opinion largely in these discussions...it's worth to mention, but not in every reference or sentence, since you don't do the same regarding other cases.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC))

Shortly - a theory that "I almost ignore word Germany" is clearly a false statement. --Ditinili (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, then let's say then the usage of the word Nazi is more dominant from your side I stopped counting at 47 and one response around 9 was the winner.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC))

Honestly, I don't care about your subjective feeling. I use this word always in appropriate context and if you don't think so you can complain. --Ditinili (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any "subjective feeling", stop with this and better look into yourself! I have counted the number of appearance, so no subjectivity is involved, you use it much more as it is necessary.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC))

""I don't have any "subjective feeling" (...) "you use it much more as it is necessary". I don't know what to say. --Ditinili (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

With this you reaffirmed me that the winner-defeated treaties are may be called much more as a force than arbitrations. I don't agree the Vienna Arbitrages would not meet formal criteria, moreover the First Vienna Arbitrage was fully recognized internationally.

It seems that you do not understand what is an arbitration. International arbitration is a tool for a peaceful solution of the conflicts in such cases when both parties exhausted all other possibilities. They should voluntary agree on the arbitration (not under the threat of further aggression), choose arbiters (not self-appointed arbiters without any real chance for change) and the arbiters should be neutral (not involved in the conflict, notably not to be interested in the preparation of the further aggression like in the case of Nazi Germany, Czechoslovakia and the First Vienna Award). It was "fully recognized internationally" like the Munich Agreement which had allegedly to "save the peace", but nowadays it is null and void.--Ditinili (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I prefectly understand what is an arbitration. Both parties exhausted all they possibilities and did not reach an agreement (Czechoslovakia-Hungary). They voluntarily asked the arbiters (France or England claimed ignorance in the case and willing not to participate), that were accepted mutually. Since I earlier explained that Hitler declared openly they won't support Hungary we cannot say Germany made any pressure to manipulate a fair arbitration, moreover - as this was also earlier mentioned - they were the one who supported less claims. The fact "that nowadays it is null and void" has no connection to the current topic. Your wordage shows your dislike for the the arbitration and the result, by a strictly factual approach, it was fair enough in comparison with any other border arrangements, arbitrations or territorrial changes before or after, as also the participants in the delegation had their mutual respect and they struggled hardly to be the most fair as is it possible. Although I am certain that i.e. the present-day Slovak POV would be a totally different and harsher viewpoint, however, such questions should be regarded and evaluated with zero national or emotional involvement.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC))

Both parties did not exhaust all posibilities. Instead of serious intetest on the peaceful solution, Hungary simply organized paramilitary units and sent them to commit crimes in Czechoslovakia, the Hungarian Army tried to cross the border several times and the Hungarian government threatened by further escalation of tension. The selection of arbiters was not voluntary, but dictated by the Munich Agreement which was not fulfilled anyway, because of non-participation of France and Britain. The arbiters were not independet, but fascists powers directly interested on weakening and elimination of Czechoslovakia, especially Nazi Germany. This is factual approach. Ditinili (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

This is your POV. You emphasize the Hungarian crimes you consider, at the same time you do not emphasize the Czechoslovak crimes against the Hungarian minority. I don't think Hungary would be worse than any other country that times, since paramilitary groups, secret actions, missions existed towards many sides just many of them are not mentioned, emphasized or we do not even know about it, such existed in Allied-Axis or even inside them as today as anytime in history. Since Czechoslovakia was not willing really to solve the case in a satisfiable form, somehow the negotiations failed and not because of just and only the Hungarians, why not Czechoslovakia offered a fair solution? Than not any arbitrage would have been necessary. The Munich Agreement did not dictate the abitrators, it obligated to mutually negotiate and solve the disputed questions within 3 months primarily. France and Britain's opt-out is not a break of fulfillment, if they voluntarily did that, thus your claimed "dependency" is not the blame on Germany or Italy, since Britain and France let it like so. If you dislike this, make a recension on them, however it automatically means that they accepted Germany and Italy as independent in the decision, even if you have a posterior dislike for this.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC))

Kiengir, Nazi Germany and Horthy's Hungary were notorious oppressors of national minorities, they did not come to explain Czechoslovakia principles of minority policy. Hungarians in Czechoslovakia had more social and civil rights than Hungarians in Hungary and they could be also in the government if they wanted. I can personally understand that most of them did not welcome Czechoslovakia and that (contrary to modern Hungarian minority in Slovakia) they wanted to join Hungary. Of course, also Czechoslovakia had strongly pro-Czechoslovak Hungarians. I can also understand that the fall from the position of "superior nation" to the position of national minority was painful. However, when the southern Slovakia was annexed by Hungary their social and civil rights were not improved, but deprived. I am really very open for a comparision of minority rights in Horthy's Hungary and Czechoslovakia, the second alleged "defender of minority rights" (Germany) is not worth of comment.

I gave you a list of reason why this arbitration did not meet formal criteria, they are all valid. Your statements like "all international arbitration are did in this way, it was absolutely standard" are not true at all. Otherwise, independent arbitration courts would not exist, because everybody could push his interests by force. I appreciate your trials to explain and apology Nazi policy in the Central Europe, but I really do not think that Nazi Germany was a neutral arbiter. Ditinili (talk) 06:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Germany did not have large minorities, mostly they struggled to arrange the fate of the more millions Germans that became outside it's borders in the new Treaty system. Horthy's Hungary WERE NOT a "notorius oppressor", it is totally ridicoulus, Hungary's minorities became very small in the new borders, you may mention the Numerus Clausus as a law against the minorities - although at the same time you should have also called the United States of America as a "notorious oppressor" - anyway the law was changed in 1928 and their effects were reduced. In the recovered territories between 1939-1941, not any situation differed, of course the situation of the Jews and the Jewish laws you may use this wordage, but unfortunately much of Europe presecuted the Jews, Germany was in the top, Hungary was the last safe place until 1944, on the other hand any other Axis or Axis occupied countries collaborated harshly regarding the solution of the Jewish question since 1940. Hungary's effort of the situation of the Hungarian minority was discussed and indicated in all diplomatic channels. The fact the average living standard as being a defeated country was lower than the newly created or winner countries was natural, since the territorial gains were not enough, a horrible injust reparation was also to be payed, so this is again not the superior by-product of Czechoslovaki sytem. However, the majority of the Hungarians were happy to return, everywhere, this is important that their wish come true (just for precisity, Hungary annexed from Czechoslovakia, territories including Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenia at the same time). Regarding the modern situation, the Hungarian minority in Slovakia have very bad memories of Czechoslovakia - oppression, forced labor, graves in the Czech Republic, Benes-decrees, and unfortunately very bad memories of the Meciar, Fico goverment and other politicians. However, since the average living standards in Slovakia are stable in many matters - having also Euro - this questions is nowadays not so strong, and the majority of the Hungarian minority are not standing for their rights and interests, they are avoiding any possible conflict, even the phrase of the word "autonomy" became a matter of riot that is very unhealthy, the majority is negligent and they get tired on the situation and gave up their opportunities. Since Bugár following his own political goals - not debating the success of the opening for the Slovak side, but still not offering the wanted solution - but he made split Hungarians in two parties where they cannot represent their interest properly. You may say, it is an inner problem of the Hungarians, but unfortunately the Slovak stubborness on the Benes-decrees, tha langauge-laws and the citizenship issue is really not a liberal, democratic, non-combattan attitude, as well I have to make a harsh recension on the Czech Republic also, such racially discriminative decrees cannot be the part of a constitution, the most shameful is the Czech Republic is not vene obligated to keep the European Charta's Human Rights section. All in all, deep in their heart Hungarians from present-day Slovakia would support that they don't even stand up anymore, playing a political game expecting once the Slovaks on their own will solve their problems. However, it is nice to have such persons like Hlina who apologized in front of Hungarians, but even Radicova how horribly was attacked because she was proposing after the fall of the communism a plebiscite...you see, Czechoslovakia would be fair if they'd hold a plebiscite, but of course, they "liberal democracy" was not so prosperous. Despite, Szeklers are brave and standing up for their rights, this is the case. The reasons you gave are not holding, I've explained why. I did not made such statement thy you cited alike. The arbiters were Germany and Italy, confirmed by England and France. I don't agree with you in this case, the First Vienna Arbitrage is one those territorial exchanges where the intention of all sides were to carry out the result as justful as possible, and I earlier explained i.e. why Germany in this case was not biassed towards Hungary. The Slovaks should be fair, and acknowledge this decision - almost identical with the Barta-Hodza line - was more fair than the Trianon decision, since the numbers do not lie to us and they have no national feelings, the goal is such a mutual arrangement where the number of minorities are the most little and most equalized in both sides.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC))

The problem was not in the size of national minorities in Germany. The problem is that the Nazi regime (by its definition racistic and labeling whole nations as inferior) pretended to be "defender of minority rights". We all know what kind of "minority standard" was guaranteed by Germany in the occupied countries. Hungary suffered the same problem. Alleged "defender of Hungarian minority rights" was not willing to guarantee at least such minority standard as was guaranteed by Czechoslovakia. That's the fact. According to the social situation - it was the Hungarian propaganda that spoke about "wheat and wine", promised to send "trains of food" to southern Slovakia, etc and minority politicians who demagogically misinterpret social situation in Czechoslovakia and Hungary and shamelessly lied.

Honestly, I do not care where is the current border and what is considered by somebody as fair or unfair, I am interested in the interwar policy. The Hungarian minority in Slovakia has various memories on Czechoslovakia including largely positive moments and various memories on Hungarian occupation including those very negative. Moreover, nearly nobody really remember these events because those people who were 9 years old in 1945 are already 80 years old. It is "prehistory" and exclusively political topic.--Ditinili (talk) 06:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I spoke about Germany, not the occupied territories, and the laws in Hungary "contemporary proper" did not change but was extended also to the newly annexed territories. The Hungarian minority in Czechoslovakia was not willing to rejoin with Hungary because of some living standard of food, but first of all because of their soul and devotion.

Old people are still alive and their have their experience and memories, the so-called "positive" memories are better nostalgic that has no direct connection to the state itself, but everyone's youth and childhood, negative comments I did not hear regarding rejoining Hungary - not just an "occupation" - the worse living standards we already discussed.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC))

Yes, old people are still alive and only a month ago I heard a dialog in a bus from Bratislava to Dunajska Streda during which one Hungarian old man spoke, how they were tricked during the world war II by the Hungarian government. I mean, this is not a serious statistic survey or a reliable academic source, but I live in this territory and people have various memories. --Ditinili (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, of course corruption, criminality exists everywhere, we should be careful how we make a deduction or generalization to the whole system. BTW, how you don't know if I did not travel more times in the same line? :) Or if I live or have lived in Slovakia. Well, just to see how fair I am, I also now a story that was even presented in the Hungarian television, that in North-Transylvania one Hungarian was so much pariot that he painted everything to Red-White-Green and he happily waited the Hungarian entrance, but he was robbed by the soldiers....scums exist everywhere unfortunately.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)).

We should not "make deductions" we should cite sources. For the behaviour of HU authorities from "anyaorszag" on "felvidek" see e.g. bilingual work Hrubon-Ristveyova (2014): „Prinavrátené“ Komárno / Komárom "visszatért" . Ditinili (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You started "making deduction" on the bus road, I am prefectly aware of the rest.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC))

No, you stated something about "memories" of Hungarians, I only reacted. --Ditinili (talk) 06:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Carpathian Ruthenia, as the Czechoslovakia broke up Hungary's aim was to recover another former territory. Mostly casualties happened between the Sich and the Polish border guards, the Hungarian Army did not seek necessarily any trouble if they were not attacked, as I recall also Czech troops were still stationed in the area, moreover I can agree that time not any party hesitated but tried to use the power vaccum on his advance. The Slovak-Hungarian affair was because Hungary demanded a 20 km secure area of Ungvár, the Slovak viewpoint was that is their territory by inheritance, the Hungarians argued the eastern borders of Slovakia was not set and clarified - I can agree in one day when states are born or declared and the status quo and recognitions varies rapidly, such situations may be arguable. Finally the both sides turned to the Germans, finally they accepted the Hungarian argue, and finally Slovakia ceded the territory. I can understand your dislike about this, even if legally it is arguable, however, you may agree not Teleki is the example of the "agressor" minister.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC))

The idea that a country can attack any other country under the pretext of the "former territory", "to fill power vacuum" or other pretexts is inherently wrong.

Both parties "did not accept Hungarian argue". Hungary attacked a neigbouring country without a declaration war, at the time when she could not argue by any alleged "ethnic principe", the Germans who illegally occupied the Czech lands crossed the borders and prevented access to some military equipment and then they violated just signed agreement about the protection. The same way as Hitler ignored and violated any international agreement. By the way, Kanya declared that Hungary is not bound by the First Vienna Award and does not reject further revision already on 19 November 1938. So statements about "clarification" are at least misguiding (moreover, the "clarification" is the task for the mutual commission). The "peaceful" action of Hungarian government in Carpatian Ruthenia was prepared in forward and not as a spontaneous reaction on break-up of Czechoslovakia.

There was an administrative border between Slovakia and Ruthenia. If Czechoslovakia ceased to exist for whatever reason, then the Slovaks and the Ruthenians should say if their border is clear or not. The idea that the third party can come and to occupy the first region and then it can attack also the second one, because it is not (allegedly) clear for somebody where is the border and to penetrate 20-30km to the territory is hilarious. However, the topic is not Czechoslovakia but Szekely land. I only wanted demonstrate some examples of alleged "peaceful" policy. Ditinili (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Hungary did not attack "any other country", Czechoslovakia ceased to be exist.

Since both Slovakia and Hungary appealed to the Germany to mediate regarding this conflict, finally the Hungarian argument was accepted that the eastern borders of Slovakia was not set or declared. I already told also the Slovak viewpoint that the former administrative border between Carpathian Ruthenia they regarded as the border of Slovakia. Well, officialy Emil Hácha asked the protectorate of Germany, it is another case that it was regarded by mostly the Allies as a huge diplomatic force and very unnatural act and since then the mutual relation became colder and colder. What you tell about Kánya is nothing new, since Hungary openly was opened for further revisions, az Czechoslovakia ceased this opportunity arose again, I think the question of "peacefullness" is not the case here. The Slovak state was acknowledged and recognized, the exact borders were not set in the east - I agree about the chaos since Carptahian Ruthenia was not recognized as a state or similar thus in less then one day any clarification is highly unfeasible - however I see your point that Hungary did not wait but stood up heavily for her interests in this situation, that is considered dubious regarding being peaceful with the newly founded Slovak state. Yes, the topic is Székely Land, despite your comments are welcome.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC))

Czechoslovakia did not just "ceased to exist", the Czech lands were simply occupied by Nazis and Slovakia was forced to declare the independence. The first had been planned together with Hungary, the second was a surprise. Shocked Hungarian ambassador asked for instructions and while Hungary quickly recognized new state to prevent its further orientation on German "protectors", she did everything (through diplomatic channels) to persuade Nazis that Slovakia is priceless for Germany and to realize the original plan - annexation by Hungary. Thus, this recognition was not a final standpoint of the Hungarian government. In this situation, when Hungary argumented that Slovakia is tool small and it is not economically sustainable, she began the above mentioned military operation in the Eastern Slovakia with further reduction of the territory. More, there are opinions that the goal was to move border at least to Poprad. This is really supported by some archive documents (but discussed by Historians) and it was really one of plans that were considered by Hungary. Because in such case the existence of Slovakia and its value for Germany would be really more than questionable.

Hungarian government knew very well where is the eastern border of Slovakia, because it was de facto a federal state of Czechoslovakia and not some fuzzy entity. Neverless, Hungarian representatives could open consultations by diplomatic channel or to propose bilateral negotiations. However, they adopted unilateral military solution (as you say - "bekes revizio") and notably, when the Hungarian Foreign Minister was exlicitely asked if the Hungarian army perform any military operation on Eastern Slovakia, he denied. Ditinili (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, we again stuck in between de facto and de jure. Emotionally totally understanding the story of the Czechs, I am afraid after having the the Protectorate status the Germany Army had the right to enter to the area. I am also aware in case Slovakia would not declare it's own state (again we could debate about "advice" vs. "force", since it's about a choice Slovaks had to decide) than between Hungary and Poland it would have been "swallowed" possibly. Diplomatic communications that are in every country in every situations, it does not override finally what happened, the latter is decisive in any historical matter. However Slovakia was recognized (even with our witout exact border's - there are similar situations in history -. No doubt the former administrative border bewteen Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenia was known, but it was still not fixed - and I acknowledged that in such a short timeline, - regarding Carpathian Ruthenia or Voloshin's declaration was not recognized - is was barely impossible. I have to reinforce, I agree with you because of the complexity and dubiosity of this case I also would not consider this as the best showcase of any "békés revízió", however an alertic diplomatic maneuver to support Hungary's interests.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC))

Slovakia was a federal state also "de iure" (Czechoslovak constitutional act no. 299/1938 zb., the second Czechoslovak republic was an asymmetric federation).

The fact that Nazis illegaly occupied the Czech lands could not legalize the presence of their army in the neighbouring state, such construction is meaningless.

"Diplomatic communications that are in every country in every situations...". In other words, it allegedly means that we should ignore any archive materia, because none official or unoficial document cannot document standpoint of the Hungarian goverment. If Hungary did some diplomatic manuever to support her interest and she literally wrote that she is interested in some territory (and she did for years, before the Munich agreement, between Munich and Vienna, between Vienna and Berlin, after Berlin) she was not (irony). If the Hungarian army attacked the Slovak army, outside of the territory of Hungary, in the territory of ex-autonomous Slovakia (then "independent Slovakia") it was not an aggression. I think, we have close the topic. It is clear that your call for alleged "neutrality" has completely nothing with any neutrality and what we can read here are various excuses for Nazi and Hungarian policy and total ignorance of any archive material. Ditinili (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Your first sentence does not contradict what I have earlier mentioned. Your second sentence you repeat something that is legally not holds, the reason I earlier mentioned. The problem is you put a stress pattern on the diplomatic background - where there is alwas a screenplay for every situation - any you emphasize everything negative towards Hungary even if such a screenplay did not happen, at the same time you almost ignore the recension of the other side. Hungary on that current day were expanding it's border's, and the complex and disputed situation I presented properly also with the alleged Slovak point of view and I also acknowledged more things in favor of your POV, more than vica versa. Finally I did not "excuse" for any "Nazi" (Nazi counter=Nazi counter + 1) or Hungarian policy and I did not ignore any archive material, I was concentrating mainly of the de jure situation and the factual approach on the subject, being as objective and as neutral as it is possible - I have to refuse your words again since I support the utmost neutrality, however I respect your POV although I think more neutrality without any possible influence of personal emotions or considerations would be needed from your side. You have to live with it, that that i.e. the Allied, Axis, or Slovak, Hungarian viewpoint won't be always the same, but the de jure situations should not be enquestioned back in time. They happened, you may like or dislike it, we have no chance to change them. If you want to close the topic, I can cope, unless if there is something I feel to react. For the much more injust Trianon decision we don't make such a fuss to back in time turn out the world from it's four corner and to clearly judge between good or bad, black or white or have a serious prejudication that everything that comes from one side it is necessarily evil, bad, etc. Soon I feel you'd think it would be more fair if Hungary would initiate a war and as being victorious to annex everything she wanted, and then I could use your phrase and arrange things so easy like "Peace treaties are not and they cannot be signed between two equal parties, they are always (more or less) forced and they usually raise some negative sentiments on defeated side." (irony). Finally, it is the shame of the "liberal", "democratic", "unlimited benevolent qualifier ++" Allied Powers that they created such an injust border and "peace" system under the phrases of the self-determination of the nations on ethnic principles that even the "Nazi", "Fascist", "unlimited negative qualifier ++" Axis Powers achieved an internationally fully recognized arbitration where the outcome was more justful. At least, there both parties may present their ideas and there was the chance earlier mutually to arrange the question, unlike the case of the "nationalist", "revisionist", "unlimited negative qualifier ++" Hungary in 1920, where their delegation could only represent their claims and ideas where everything was already decided and signed. Sic transit gloria mundi!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC))

"The problem is you put a stress pattern on the diplomatic background - where there is alwas a screenplay for every situation" - in other words, the Hungarian government repeatedly declared standpoints which did not represented their opinion. Wow.

"Finally, it is the shame of the "liberal", "democratic", "unlimited benevolent qualifier ++" Allied Powers that they created such an injust border" How do you measure justice? The ethnic aspect is not everything, by the way this was also the argument of the Hungarian delegation which originaly declared that there are also other more important aspects (the Hungarian delegation had not any principial problem with state with larger national minorities, but this state should be Hungary and the national minority should not be HUngarian, otherwise it was a national tragedy).

Hungary in March 1939 definitely planned also a larger aggression, not only alleged "small correction" of allegedly "unclear" border. Why did she not begin larger attack? It seems that this was more thanks to missing support from Adolf Hitler and not because of good will of "peaceful" Hungarian government that pressed on such solution. Rudolf Andorka diary: "Holnap indul meg a kishatár-korrekció. Hitler Memelben van, tehát a „nagy“-ra Sztójay nem tudott engedélyt kérni."

What was this "nagy" (big) solution? Only one day before this Andorka's record (and two days before the attack) Hungarian Foreign Minister Csaky informed the Polish government that the Hungarian army would attack and move the border as far as possible and would not be stopped only by active resistance. So, it is clear that the original goal of the Hungarian foreign policy was not to make some "correction of unclear border" (a fairytale used by the propaganda in 1939), but it has wider context, incompatible with any "peaceful revision". Also after the attack, Teleki spoke about further aggression aimed to reach the line Presov-Muszyna, however this was already unrealistic. Ditinili (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I could repeat the same again, you should cite also the (pre or during WW1 or after) Czechoslovak, Romanian , Yugoslavian, Polish, Soviet, English, USA and other background diplomatic papers and affairs any you'd end up in the same WOW. But yes, Hungary is always guilty and has to be guilty, everyone else in the word is the champion of benevolence and have ultimate good faith, only these horrible Hungarians are evil-amed all the time...with such an approach you won't reach anything really.

:) How the Allied measured justice? I already wrote to you how it had to be measured, and I also informed you - that your surely know without me - what was the alleged ethnic principles they referenced on, and finally they did not kept it. If I bark about nation-states and the self-determination of the nations, then I support to create nation states and at least I organize as many plebiscites in disputed areas as much as possible, not only in such rare situations where ignoring this would be also the victorious powers ashamed - nota bene, they did not have much shame, better interests. The Hungarian delegation pinpointed that some of the territory claimers couped and cheated heavily with some statistics and other information, they goal was to make the new borders more justful, without having vast majority of Hungarians outside of it.

Again "aggression" (soon it will compete with "Nazi"). Again background diplomacy. I hope the same way you speak about Czech agression, Czechoslovak agression, Romanian aggression, Soviet aggression, English agression, USA aggression, French aggression in the relevant timeline. However, I have nothing to add to this more, I've already told my POV that was acknowledging your concerns regarding this case.

Summa summarum, If you'd maintain as much PC as I do - this goes on our discussion on the whole - and you'd be more fair and balanced regarding Hungary, it would led you to be more objective, my aim was at least not to all the time to blame i.e. Slovaks for something with a harsh wordage or similar. Only without prejudication is possible to discuss heavy or disputed questions, since the two parties has to deeply understand each other's considerations in a proper way, unless real effective discussion is hard to be established.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC))

Look, you asked for "factual approach" so I wrote you the facts and supported them by the archive documents. This material refutes your theories so you came with various excuses like "diplomatic background", "other injustices", "blaming Hungarians", etc. Yes, we can speak also about Soviet aggression (e.g. Czechoslovakia 1968), or about the participation of the Slovak state on the aggression against the Poland or Soviet Union. And what? Ditinili (talk) 04:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Look, you are very easily simplifying the situation in your favor, but if this is your wish, I repeat again, your documents supported what kind of effort and screenplays were maintained in the background diplomacy (that exist in every country for any situation), but history is about WHAT HAPPENED IN THE END, and the review and judgement go about this. The LEGAL MATTERS you could not refute I presented, and I felt you a bit one-sided against Hungarians regarding your tone and presentation and also being subejctive in many related cases. However, I believe this discussion is contructive and insteresting for anyone who will read it surely will be balanced - let's say from a Slovak/Hungarian viewpoint.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC))

I am not "simplifying the situation". On the contrary, the documents quoted above show clearly, that opinions like "Hungary wanted a peaceful revision", "Hungary refused to be an aggressor", "Hungary had only tried to adjust unclear border", "Hungary only wanted to correct injustices of Trianon" are largely simplified. Alleged "screenplays", "background diplomacy" and similar euphemisms are plans exchanged on the government level and should be taken very seriously. Ditinili (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, without starting to debate again about the first three quote (where the legal outcome is not equal with the quoted diplomatic screenplay), the last qoute cannot be even debated in any matter. Well at least you should agree the the factual and legal outcome has more weight than any diplomatic screenplay. However I see a serious stress pattern on Axis diplomatic screenplays, but less negative aimed content on i.e. Allied diplomatic screenplays that are not so much quoted or highlighted before or after this period.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC))

"Factual and legal outcome" is known. The arbitrations mentioned above are null and void under the terms of the international law, German and Hungarian representatives committed crimes against the peace and this covers also their activities against Czechoslovakia. Some of "screenplays" were not known during their trials, other were used as the evidences of their intention. Ditinili (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You are funny, like so you could say also i.e. the Roman Empire never existed since her border's and null and void today, concluding it was never recognized :))))))))) The factual and legal outcome was that the arbitration was internationally recognized, and only after the war was it nullified. It is again propagandistic and one-sided from your behalf that Hungarians would commit any crime "against" peace or Czechoslovakia, and arbitration is not a crime, moreover it was mutally agreed and internationally recognized. Please try to detach away your personal emotions, and you should not concentrate on such content that does not really belong here (anyway, you are silencing about any Czechoslovak "crime" or any negativ approach). I hope in a such serious or harsher way you judge the "peace" treaties "established" in 1920, that was the primary cause of the further disputed cases and also WWII. Try to be objective, you don't reach anything if you continously blaming Hungarians with something negative, at the same time you always represent the other party clean and shiny.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC))

I don't think I am "funny". The activities of the accused against the Czechoslovakia were qualified as a crime of preparation, incitement or waging the aggressive war, or as a participation in the common plan or conspiracy, incitement or waging the aggressive war. Hungary by her activities expressed agreement with the criminal intent, participated in its preparation and intention and thus she participated in the crime in a deliberate attempt (prof. JUDr. Jozef Bena, CSc., The international context of the Vienna Award, 2008, includes references to the judgments). I don't do my own research about international arbitration or peace treaties. I also "do not blame Hungarians", I quote historical documents and I reference sources for the concrete historical events.

You have missed that (temporary) recognition by some government cannot make this act compatible with the international law, if it was not compliant with the international laws (and this is exactly what is nowadays internationally recognized). Ditinili (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes you are, since you are continously repeating a (Czecho)Slovak POV and you represent only those sources informations that fits your personal belief or the majority of Czechs/Slovaks. The charges you cited I hope the same author even more harsher way is attacking the Czech Army and the crimes, conspiracy, incitement or waging aggressive war, agreement with criminal intent, participating crime in deliberating attempt in WWI and afterwards until 1920 or later. This is a one-sided - near propaganda - text, Hungary sought revision for the injustice that happened, and finally the most possible peaceful solution she choose in the end, with a much more truthful and fair outcome than in 1920. This is heavily irritating those, who always are screaming wolf regarding the Hungarians, i.e. if Hungary would attack Czechoslovakia a recover territories with blood and war, such kind of accusation would better stand.

Now your funny again, since in history then - according to you - everything is temporary, since more thousand years ago upon today Sumeria, The Hunnic Empire, The Prussian Empire, Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro and even Czechoslovakia was temporarily recognized, they don't exist anymore, Czechoslovakia is null and void because of "...." and "....". It was compliant with the international laws, unless the Allied Powers would not have recognized it, and not because of that what you say was necessarily nullified, since the winners can easily find any pretext how to punish the defeated, the problem is if it would be like so as you say, then also the cessation of Southern-Dobrudja would have been nullified, but surprisingly they accepted the "Nazi++" & "Fascist++" "act" although the Allied pretext was that they don't recognize anything after the breakout of the WWII, and they want to reset Europe as is was before (and there are many more examples). Well, they again did not kept their word, but anyway, why we are still discussing about these, since the 1947 Paris Treaties are also already null and void, since they were also temporary :) (KIENGIR (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2016 (UTC))

Kiengir, you mix subjective feeling of injustice with the existing legal status. It is possible that you believe that something was legal, but in the reality it is internationally recognized that it was not. Sorry, I cannot take seriously statement that state-sponsored terrorism, collaboration with Nazi Germany aimed against the existence of the neighboring state (increase your counter) and similar actions are "peaceful solution" or even "the most peaceful action". Alleged "correction of injustices of Trianon" is a pure lie. As you can see from the quotes above (and I can support it by numerous other documents), Hungary, when it reached the first Vienna Award (and thus she could not complain about any alleged injustice or ethnic principle anymore), continued in actions against her neighbor to totally eliminate its state existence. I am also afraid that your comparisons with "Roman empire", "Sumeria", etc, just shows that you don't understand what does this formulation "null and void" mean. Unfortunately, you are not able to show me any official document stating that "1947 Paris Treaties are also null and void". So please, stop your own research and "wanna be" legal analysis. Ditinili (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Ditinili, you are again heavily funny, like you'd enjoy to always deteriorate from the subject and to repeat continously such things that were already refuted, seems you just enjoy talking or pretending always to misunderstand me or turning out of the real meaning about what I have said.

"you mix subjective feeling of injustice with the existing legal status. It is possible that you believe that something was legal, but in the reality it is internationally recognized that it was not." -> This was a perfect description of your behavior, this is what you are continously doing, it is ridicoulus now you try to redirect it to me :)))) If still you are not aware, read back again :)

"Sorry, I cannot take seriously statement that state-sponsored terrorism, collaboration with Nazi Germany aimed against the existence of the neighboring state (increase your counter) and similar actions are "peaceful solution" or even "the most peaceful action"." -> "state-sponsored terrosism" -> Dinitili POV exaggeration (nothing again about Czechoslovakia), England and France also collaborated with the NAAAAAAZIIIIIII Germany, and why an arbitration is more peaceful than a military attack you were already told. Moreover you are continously mixing contemporary (legal) events with other events that happened later and have no connection to the subject.

"Alleged "correction of injustices of Trianon" is a pure lie" -> it is a fact a policy based beginning in the 20th's and 30th's a historical reality. Hungarians pursued further revisions after Czechoslovakia broke-up so better remain at legal matters, not Hungarians proclaimed Slovakia or whatsoever.

I am totally aware of what I am saying, you don't understand it properly as usual. It was not a comparison, but a demonstration that you argued about the legal outcome, and what you stated was more years later, meanwhile you wanted to "forget" the contemporary outcome, if you understand properly sarcasm. With such an argumentation you can easily say the same way that the outcome i.e. of the Roman Empire that it is not existing anymore, but it does not mean it did not exist or were not recognized once.

"So please, stop your own research and "wanna be" legal analysis" -> this better goes again to you, you have to be aware that the Paris Treaties are not in action, without any source, you may debate my wordage, but it is obvious. You need a source really to justifiy the i.e. the bilateral Slovak-Hungarian host contract/master agreement or the laws of the EU or NATO or the present-day status quo of the borders that are not identical with the 1947 Paris Treaties and the nowadays status quo is bounded with new contracts? (Anyway we are discussing on a talk page, isn't it? :) )(KIENGIR (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC))

I am afraid that the only one refuted opinions were those about "Czech opressors","Czechoslovak government rufusing agreement", "voluntary character of the awards", "Germany just trying to correct injustices of the Versaille, "Hungary refusing to be an aggressor", everything with the references to verifiable sources. By the way, these opinions were refuted already during the Nurnberg trials and until now, it was only me who cited some verifiable sources instead of personal opinions. So, if you have references to some serious legal studies and judgements confirming your opinions, let me know. If you have a problem with the word Nazi, please discuss it with other wikipedia editors, if it is a proper description of German policy and government. Thanks. (It seems that you cannot understand the relationship between current bilateral agreements and Paris treaty which has never been nullified in the same way as the both Vienna awards) Ditinili (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Trianon could have been worse. Those chauvinist Czech politicians dreamed of a corridor between Czechoslovakia and the Adriatic Sea. Don't you remember? Oh, I almost forgot that the Ipoly (Ipel) river was shippable according to the decision maker idiots of Trianon. Also, these "democratic intellectuals" did NOT care too much about ethnic borders. What about Wilson's principles? Shame. They knew in that time that Czechoslovakia didn't "deserve" present-day southern Slovakia, they ONLY received it because the decision makers lacked of self-control. This treaty was deliberately harsh on Hungary. After the Second World War, the return of the territories of present-day southern Slovakia had nothing to do with the "Communist Slovak National Upraising" nor the ethnic realities. Slovakia was a fascist state too and it ONLY owed the return of those territories to the fact that its Czech counterpart was on the winners's side. (IMO) Fakirbakir (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Guys, I am not interested in someone subjective perception of justice or injustice or competitions "who did what" in the past. I speak about concrete events (in this case Vienna Awards and the German and Hungarian policy), about verifiable archive documents and about recognized legal status. All my statements are supported by reliable sources and they can be verified in any time. I expect the same approach from your side.

Fakirbakir, if you do not understand that the First Slovak Republic is not legal predecessor of present-day Slovakia, the current government is successor of Czechoslovak government in-exile (thus recognized allied government, a part of anti-fascist coalition and an enemy of the government of the First Slovak Republic) and the National Council of the Slovak Republic has nothing with the Slovak Diet, but it has origin in the resistance movement, do not open the topic. If you do not understand events related to the Slovak National Uprising (e.g. that it was not "communist" uprising but the uprising was led both by democratic and communist resistance movement, do not open this topic as well. Alleged "Czech counterpart" is common Czechoslovak government in-exile, in which Rudolf Viest - the leader of the uprising was a minister. Here, I also expect a serious approach, not unscientific clichés repeated by some frustrated people. Ditinili (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I knew this "Slovaks on the winner's side" topic would anger you..... The Slovak's sin was largely forgotten after the WW2. But scapegoating Hungarians, collectively, were employed frequently (e.g. "fascist Hungarian collaborators"). They even dared to make fascistic laws (e.g. Benes-decrees). Actually, back to 1920, nobody can explain me why a "democratic" Czechoslovakia wanted a "Czech corridor" or why "democratic" Czech (and Slovak) politicians disregarded Wilson's principles and dared to lie at the table of the decision makers in hope of receiving more Hungarian populated areas. I mean they wanted compact Hungarian ethnic blocks (e.g. Csallokoz). Fakirbakir (talk) 11:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

It does not "anger me", I wrote that this is unscientific cliché that ignores real relationships between the Slovak state, Czechoslovak (not Czech) exile and the resistance movement. Also, alleged "Slovak sin" was not "forgotten", but leading representatives of the regime were simply hanged by Czechoslovak bodies (or more exactly by the Slovak National Court established by the National Council - a part of the resistance movement) or imprisoned. Wilson's principles were not respected even by Hungary, because their acceptance would mean an agreement with the dissolution of the kingdom. This is again an unscientific statement that ignores an evolution of Hungarian arguments. --Ditinili (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Dinitili, reactions to all you have written here:

"I am afraid that the only one refuted opinions were those about "Czech opressors","Czechoslovak government rufusing agreement", "voluntary character of the awards", "Germany just trying to correct injustices of the Versaille, "Hungary refusing to be an aggressor", everything with the references to verifiable sources. " -> these are your personal POV imaginations, I spoke about LEGAL MATTERS - that you don't really care, but always reiterating your POV and moroever you fill the subject of such things that are not really belonging here and you make appear Hungary in a heavily one-sided way, on the other hand the other side as clean and shiny. Hungary and Czechoslovakia mutually agreed on the arbitration. FACT, Point. In Germany since the 20th's there was a huge sought to correct the injustice of the Versailles Treaties, it has literature it's undeniable phenomemon that was also carried out later in practice. FACT, Point. Hungary tried to choose in the end in every situation the most non-conflictual solution that was possible for revision under certain circumstances. FACT, Point (afterwards of coure everybody knows better what should have been done better or worse, but this is not the subject). What you foxily do, that you always put some words, little changes of my statements and you turn them out from their real meaning - from legal terms. This is what you are doing, and your sources not any case refuted any legal matter, moreover you are calculating imaginary things that what would have happen or what should happen etc., history is not about this! Now you introduce the Nuremberg Trials - how foxy :) - that have again ZERO CONNECTION to the subject and you mix here porterior POVs of the winners that - acknowledged by you also - are almost never objective, moreover let's not start a long term discussion about the objectivity and fairness of the Nuremberg Trials, because it is not belonging here. You mainly presented some sources that had no connection to the legal matters, but you tried to reinforce your POV on some collateral matters and make a deduction - filled with your personal feelings - that's outcome anyway does not influence or have an effect on already happened historical matters. This is talk page, you find the sources you want on your own, like the sun is shining, this is just again a deterioration attempt. You again reintroduce and already discussed case about "Nazi" - maybe you feel compelled again to phrase your favorite word - although the subject was Germany as a country and I already explained my problem that you pretend again not to understand, I don't have to discuss such case with someone else, read back if you have forgotten it already!

"(It seems that you cannot understand the relationship between current bilateral agreements and Paris treaty which has never been nullified in the same way as the both Vienna awards)" -> again a clear provocation, I have just explained to you in the last answer why I can understand what about I was speaking and why you are still - pretending? - not to understand it properly, it is your personal problem, read back as many times as soon you'll get it, if not, ask further help.

"Guys, I am not interested in someone subjective perception of justice or injustice or competitions "who did what" in the past. I speak about concrete events (in this case Vienna Awards and the German and Hungarian policy), about verifiable archive documents and about recognized legal status." -> Laughable, since you are one of the subjective part in this discussion regarding you presenting anything negative POV about Hungary, but zero about Czechoslovakia. You did not present anything about "recognized legal status", anyway it should not be a matter of debate from your side since it is obvious.

"All my statements are supported by reliable sources and they can be verified in any time. I expect the same approach from your side." -> Laughable, since you failed this approach and if you are still not aware what parts of your statements are not supported, read back again all of or discussions so far - mostly you presented sources that had no connection to what I have said or stated regarding legal matters, how foxy you are again - anyway, non-existent things you cannot verify. Only if you construct a time machine you'll able to change the past and it's legal matters.

Wilson's principles were not respected even by Hungary, because their acceptance would mean an agreement with the dissolution of the kingdom. This is again an unscientific statement that ignores an evolution of Hungarian arguments. -> You are again foxily shifting timelines, may I ask you, when and were the Wilson principles were introduced? How can you say "it was not respected", did Hungary to have a real chance to express what she respects or not??? What kind of arguments is this on the contrary of the winner's behavior in settling the Peace-Treaties? What is unscientific??? Jesus, Dinitili, stop the clear provocation!(KIENGIR (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC))

Hungary and Czechoslovakia mutually agreed on the arbitration. FACT, Point. The fact is that this was not a voluntary decision but a result of several illegal actions of Germany and Hungary, the fact is that I gave you a reference to legal study and the fact is that you do not reference anything.

Hungary tried to choose in the end in every situation the most non-conflictual solution As it is clear from the cited documents, this is not true. This is elemenentary and wrong assumption you made.

Now you introduce the Nuremberg Trials - how foxy :) - that have again ZERO CONNECTION to the subject - this is also wrong assumtion, because already these trials documented that your previous assumption is completely wrong.

you mix here porterior POVs of the winners - I don't speak about POVS of winners but about that the fact that documents against your opinion were known dozen years ago.

You mainly presented some sources that had no connection to the legal matters It seems that your missed reference to the legal study of prof. JUdr. Bena, CSc.

...Nazi..., ...bias against Hungary..., ...provocations... you are foxy No comment.

Reliable sources - Laughable, since you failed this approach. No comment, personal opinion. That's me who cite sources here.

How can you say "it was not respected" The original intention of Hungarian representatives was to avoid dissolution of the country and the main plan was to argue by "historical principle", "unique unity of the Carpathian Basin" and similar arguments. Only when this was not successful, the plan B was to apply ethnic criteria. As you can see from the cited documents and events, Hungary in the mid-war period committed several actions against the self-determination right of other nations, e.g. planned annexation of the whole Slovakia (not realized because of different plans of Germany which prevented this) or occupation of the Czech lands (Hungary was aware of this plan, but continued in her collaboration with Nazi Germany against Czechoslovakia) were in conflict with this right.

Now back to the topic:

* Emphasizing the forced nature of the second Vienna Award does not violate NPOV policy, it is historically accurate.

* Opinion that it is emphasized only by some "Romanian and Anglo-Saxon literature" is dubious and seems to be an original research. Until now, user Kiengir has not provided any reliable source for this opinion. If he is not able to do so, it should be completely ignored.

* It should be taken into account that international arbitrations have to meet different requirements than post-war peace treaties. This statement was not seriously questioned and can be sourced (e.g. by already referenced work of prof. JUDr. Bena). The objections were related to subjective complaints about justice or injustice of other treaties. User Kiengir has not provided any sources.

* The opinion that "Hungary refused to take military action regarding the question of Czechoslovakia" has been at least seriously questioned. The quoted archive documents show that this "refusal" had not been not long-term standpoint of Hungarian government. User Kiengir has not provided any reliable source for his opinion that these documents and standpoints elaborated and exchanged on the government level are only some unimportant screenplays and they do not show real intention of Hungarian government.

* It was questioned if Hungary can be described as a German client state. In my view, this is secondary problem. Since this statement is sourced, I strongly recommend to provide references to sources that claims opposite or to stick to the sourced content.

If Kiengir is not able to provide sources, I simply follow rules of wikipedia. Ditinili (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

"Hungary and Czechoslovakia mutually agreed on the arbitration. FACT, Point. The fact is that this was not a voluntary decision but a result of several illegal actions of Germany and Hungary, the fact is that I gave you a reference to legal study and the fact is that you do not reference anything." -> So again, you are mixing "saison" with "fasion" like almost all the time. What you state here - true or not true, it does not matter - HAS NO CONNECTION OR DOES NOT CONTRADICT MY STATEMENT. Hungary's and Czechoslovakia's mutually agreed on he arbitration and it's result they mutually accepted, they signature is on the paper. I don't have to reference anything, it's talk page and if you debate this/you cannot find a source on your own :))) you again make yourself ridicoulus, it is a well-known fact that is already history.

I can say it once more, no problem: "agreement" was obtained as a result of several illegal activities of Germany and Hungary. They are documented and sourced above, so please, try to not repeat yourself. --Ditinili (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

So, you are really try to assert that Czechoslovakia just and only agreed the arbitration because of your claimed "illegal activities"? Not beucase of the Munich Agreement Appendix 3 month negotiation failure? Are you serious? (KIENGIR (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC))

Yes, I want to say that already Munich was a part of Nazi criminal plan and alleged 3 month period was not respected, but violated because of criminal activities of Hungary. --Ditinili (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Well this is your POV and it is hard to make any inference or connection to this clearly, since again you speak about "plans", the fact is the agreement was signed and recognized by all parties. 3 month was a deadline not period that necessarily has to be fulfilled in three months, and I don't see direct consequence that your claim of "criminal activities of Hungary" - anyway a dubious generalization - would the direct cause of the Czechoslovak party to accept an arbitration procedure after the failed negotiations.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC))

Kiengir, did all parties sign this document of their own free will and accord? Seriously not. Did counterparty respect at least "agreed" period? No, she began to violate international law by the organization of paramilitary units sent to the neighbouring state to commint crimes (togther with other illegal acts) to prevent any serious usage of the period. Could both parties freely choose arbiters? No, they could not. They were dictated by the Munich agreement. Were arbiters neutral? No, they were not. They were represented by fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, directly interested on weakening and elimination of the state. So, let me express very serious doubts if this "arbitration" procedure was compliant with the international law and recognized principles of international arbitration (and it's not my POV, but sourced legal analysis). It is not about "time-space curvature" and similiar dehonesting pseudo-arguments, but about valid and recognized international rules in the time of the arbitration. --Ditinili (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It is always the choice of the current subject what to sign or not to sign, if the parties would not agree they don't sign, if they agree they sign, if they don't agree and despite sign it is still their own choice, and this is true for every agreement and contract also before a 1000 years or over. You still repeat your POV, althoug it has no connection to the subject and the outcome and you are continously silent about Czechoslovakia. Both party could choose freely arbiters, because if they would not agree in the choice, they would not have chosen it and it is not their fault that i.e. England or France were not interested. The Munich Agreement was signed, with this you could also say that every contract is "dictating", Treaty of Trianon, Treaty of Speyer, Treaty of Zsitvatorok, Treaty of Bucharest, etc. The arbiters neutrality cannot be disputed in such a way you push, since England and France also agreed and recognized the arbiters and with their resignation they automatically accepted the remaining arbiters as neutral also legally. However, your poetrical questions about neutrality you could also ask the same way regarding the Habsburg Monarchy, France, England, Holy Roman Empire, Prussia, Russia, Germany regarding any treaty and agreement. That "sourced legal anaylisis" can also the same way shown to the Treaty of Trianon or the majority of the treaties, agreements signed in the near past thousand years, but it does not make them not happen or not be recognized. Really, we don't cry so much about the Treaty of Trianon although we could raise twice as more complaints like you, we bear the serious pain that unfortunately it was recognized, regardless how much it was not compliant with the international law and recognized principles of a treaty. My arguments are not dehonesting, but everything has to be judged on the contemporary times and next to different point of views the outcome and the international acceptance you cannot nullify or debate, but you have to accept even if you don't like it, as we have accept also those that we don't like or do not consider fair or legal, but they were accepted despite. All the European history is full with such cases.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC))

Kiengir. Can you understand the difference between the post-war treaty and international arbitration? That post-war treaties simply have to be forced (most of the time) and it cannot have impact on their validity, because otherwise, nearly none post-war treaty would be legal? Can you understand that an international arbitration like this one is something completely different with different legal requirements? Thus, it cannot be compared at all? Of course, that you can nullify the outcome that's exactly what happened. Ditinili (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course I understand, but legally a treaty, agreement, etc., call as you want is a legal contract where both parties with their signature attest that they agree and accept the terms and conditions and regardless what was the background, by law they are equal partners because both party is obligated to keep the terms and conditions. Every contract may be nullificated, updated, modified in some conditions with the agreement of the involved parties. I don't think in Wikipedia would be a proper way to qualify every treaty, agreement at the first place with i.e. the word "force" since then we may put it next to all such events. The short reference to the correspondent page at the first place, where details are relevant legal terms fisrt, after possible opinions or evaluation.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC))

"attest that they agree and accept the terms and conditions and regardless what was the background" This is shockingly naive opinion. Some "agreements" do exist at all (from the legal point of view) since the beginning, so they cannot be updated or modified. Especially, if an approval is obtained as a result of illegal activities or an agreement violates other laws and recognized principles, it is more than questionable if such "agreement" even exists in legal terms. Ditinili (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

If you have any information on "an approval is obtained as a result of illegal activities or an agreement violates other laws and recognized principles" please report it immediately to the relevant authorities!(KIENGIR (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC))

Why? It was "reported" more than 70 years ago and the "agreement" is null and void. Ditinili (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Since you spoke in present tence. Anyway, it was not nullified beacause of any "report".(KIENGIR (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC))

Shortly, if you are interested in "legal matters" this "agreement" or "arbitration" has never existed from the legal point of view even if whoever signed whatever and whoever accepted it. This is recognized status, not unusual in the law, final conclusion and it has nothing with time machines. It was not modified, canceled or whatever similiar (you can be sure that all violations of international rules were very carefully reported by the government in-exile).Ditinili (talk) 07:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Not true. You are contradicting yourself continously, first you say it was not recognized, after you say it was recognized, after you say it never existed from legal point of view :))))) This is the point when cannot be taken serious anymore. It existed, also legally and it was recognized. Point. It was nullified later. Point. The reports of the "government-in-exile" has not any relevance like any other entity or diplomacy would report their concernes, anyway a later report does not influence anything back in time. Also the Allies were not consequent about re-establishment of former borders, the relevance goes to the demands of the Winners, not necessarily any casus belli they can found easily.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC))

It seems that you do not understand what does it mean "null and void". It literally means that there is not even a semblance of the treaty and therefore it is not necessary to qualify any type of invalidity. Legally nonexistent. E.g. if I "marry" a second wife (in my jurisdiction) then it will no matter that any involved party believes in our marriage (me, my second "wife", our families, whoever) and it will not be relevant that we signed or agreed on whatever. Such null and void act means that no divorce or annulment is required. The arguments like "all parties agreed", "the priest married us" or "we married in 2010 and it was declared only in 2016 that it is null and void and it cannot influence anything back in time" have no influence. --Ditinili (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

:)))))) Again....not I am the one who does not understand...Jesus Christ, Mamma Mia....you speak again about something new...like I would speak about an apple, and you speak about pear...So long it is not null and void, it exists, it is just your wish not have existed legally. Moreover you contradict yourself again, since if no annulation would had been required, then it would not had to be nullified :)))) Anyway the nullification process and it's result had to be signed also by all parties in a way. You are hilarious really! It was internationally recognized by all parties - it existed legally, fully - and in after time after signing some papers and later treaties or decisions it were nullified. Point. I see you take a time machine and in December 1938 you explain to Hungarian, Czechoslovak, English, German, Italian, French, U.S., Soviet diplomats, people, countries etc. that what you see and what is existing in reality does not exist, you just fantasized the arbitration, you are the victims of your own delusioning because later this status quo that you believe in will be nullified :))))))(KIENGIR (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC))

"it is just your wish not have existed legally" No, it is not "my" wish but the recognized legal status.

"Moreover you contradict yourself again, since if no annulation would had been required, then it would not had to be nullified". It was not "nullified" as you understand it (active step like cancelation of the agreement). It was simply declared that it is null and void, it had not to be even canceled, because it did not (legally) exist.

"Anyway the nullification process and it's result had to be signed also by all parties" Obviously not, because if something (legally) does not exist it cannot estabilish any requirements for the further process.

"It was internationally recognized by all parties" Can you understand the example with the second marriage and why it legally cannot exist even if it is "recognized" by all parties and why are any signatures irrelevant?Ditinili (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It's your wish, but you already contradicted yourself more times. It existed legally, and any declaration would not be enough, since armistice agreements or later treaties had to be signed for any new status quo. Your continous mania is that it legally did not exist, although it did, again read back as many times as it is needed to recognize your own contradictions and fallacies. You're example with a marriage is false from the beginning because of "(in my jurisdiction)". The jurisdiction was recognized and enacted by all parties internationally. I am sorry you simply do not want to accept what you don't like.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC))

I only suggest you to study more, what does it mean "null and void". The statement about "my juristidiction" is related exclusively to the example with marriage. It's clear that for international arbitrations, internationally recognized rules applies and "recognition" and "signature" in this jurisdiction do not mean more than "recognition" and "signature" of null and void act in "my jurisdiction".

"any declaration would not be enough, since armistice agreements or later treaties had to be signed for any new status quo" I am afraid that if you read the post war treaties, you will find only that it is "null and void" (thus it has never existed and was not canceled). There is also explicitly written that this fact is only declared, nothing more or less.

Unfortunately, it is again a sourced legal study and recognized legal status against your deductions, what is not the best way how to clarify whatever.Ditinili (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Your example fails, regardless how you want to explain, i don't have to study anything, since you are again harming the space-time continuum, since you make a backpropagation POV/inference from the future back to the past, that is illegal and leads to controversion. "Null and void" is a not a counter-proof of legal existence in the past. Your condtradicting yourself again "thus it has never existed" -> you deny the existence of something that have definetly existed. The "sourced legal study" does not prove or support your claim, it is a posterior POV that has no effect back in time. My deduction is flawless, your's are heavily failing and lead to numerous controversion and contradictions. The First Vienna Award was internationally recognized, enacted and de jure and de facto existed. The Allies only did not recognize some later happenings after the outbreak of WWII. Point. If you debate this, really it is useless to continue, since we are not in "uncyclopedia". If by any reason the creation of the second Slovak state would be regarded as "null and void" in 2357 it would not mean it did not exist since 1993 or it was not recognized that time. (KIENGIR (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC))

You obviously do not understand the difference between a historical existence of some act and a legal existence of the same act, you refuse to study the problem to understand the difference, you do not provide any relevant reliable source, you refuse existing source and you openly say that it is "your deduction". Sorry, this is own research of somebody who is not recognized expert in the field. If something is "null and void" (ab initio) it did not exist de jure. That's the terminology, not an interpretation. Yes, if proclamation of independence is "null and void", then it has never existed de jure. --Ditinili (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

"You obviously do not understand the difference between a historical existence of some act and a legal existence of the same act" -> not true, you have a mistaken idea that the First Vienna Award would not exist legally that is false

"you refuse to study the problem to understand the difference" -> Not true, I know the case very well and you regard something as a "difference" that is legally not a "difference" or something.

"you refuse existing source and you openly say that it is "your deduction"" -> Not true, the source and it's presented content does not support your claim, but you put your own considerations on the written content and you make deduction from it back in time, that is harming the causality. You may have different evaluation and posterior opinions about the Roman Empire and their legalty to conquer Britannia, Gallia or Alexandria, you may uphold similar reviews the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or the British Empire, but it does not chage legal matters back in time, even some possible "(Czecho)Slovak" wish is for that. I am quite expert in the field and I am open for any contructive debate or discussion as always, but do not underestimate me/us/Hungarians that we do not notice if something is wrong or by far. You would be a "recognized" expert? Or the author? Facts and legal matters does not depend on "author recognition" anyway. The fact that the Allies offered armistice agreements or Treaties that contained such wordage, does not change anything back in time, regardless what pretext they or you or other's ar using, not even the British diplomacy or the Diplomatic Papers of the Great Britain and Northern Ireland United Kingdom would be able to deny their recognition, similarly to other countries and the legal existence and acception regarding all parties in practice, in application, in international affairs, laws and internal and domestic laws. They could have even used instead of the wordage "null and void" i.e. "skull and solid", it would not have changed anything regarding that. This pretext was meant - including many other distractions - used to forge a legalty backwards on the Czeshoslovakia's existence, moreover as WWII get on and regarding the outcome the Allies tended to enquestion everything that happened before - even those happenings that they accepted, agreed, signed, recognized - just because some part of the Axis or Germany was involved. If your own - or adopted - deduction would be true, you may enquestion and regard "never existing legeally" most of the contracts/treaties/decisions/arbitrations in the past, it is just based on the effort. You should discuss with the Allies/concerned parties after they recognized something why they considered not to recognize it anymore - that would not be normally a problem - and why they used this wordage, that anyway cannot change anything back in time, recognitions however are always changing but never annulating aynthing reagrding the past. If you ask the parties about Hungary's recognized border's in 1938, 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944 <------roughly----> 1947 Paris Treaties, they only did not recognize fully/internationally the changes since 1940 (but it does not mean it gained no recognition i.e. by the mutual parties or some other countries). If by any reason an author in 2526 would wrote about some concerns about the topic of 1993 and because in 2357 the creation fo the second Slovak state were regarded null and void because of (.......) and (......) by (......) it still would not change the legalty of legal existence and recognition between 1993-2357. Unless, you have to take a time machine and explain them that what you believe in, what you cognit, the reality you see and exist, the official contracts you signed and the laws that are in action is just your fantasy, because a few hundred years later we will conclude and sign new documents where we declared them "null and void", so guys, please stop fantasizing!(KIENGIR (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC))

"you do not provide any relevant reliable source" -> I don't have to really, this is such an evident case like the Allies openly told what territorial changes they did not recognize after 1 September 1939, moreover the counter-proof obligation is not on my shoulders beucase not I am enquestioning a fact.

Too many words and no sources. Your opinion:

Not true, the source and it's presented content does not support your claim, but you put your own considerations on the written content and you make deduction from it back in time

Now, what is really written on p. 92:

(...a list of violated principles...) Under international law, the Vienna award did not exist at all. The Paris Peace conference in 1946-1947 took into account these circumstances and their legal assesment and qualification. The preparatory materials about the Vienna Award only stated, that the Vienna arbitration decision from 2 November 1938 is nullite (null and void), it does not legally exist and therefore, it is not even posible to declare that it is invalid. The declaration about nullity of the Vienna decision was included in the article 1 4a) of the peace treaty....

I am not interested in your belief that you are "an expert in the field", wikipedia does not work this way. Ditinili (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

You introduced the "recognized expert" phrase, not me, I said from the beginning that it does not work in that way! I told why I don't had to show any source right now.

You think it is fair that now you show a section from the source that you did not show until now? How you could put it next to what I have said?

Anyway the presented text speaks about the author's remark and after the 1946-47 Paris Treaties - as it is seen right here. If so, then this a POV of the author and after the reference to the details on this topic regarding the Paris Treaties, and it is still harming causality. Could you present a contemporary source from 1938 that refers or exactly cites an official statement/document regarding any of those states that in your or the author's consideration did not recognize the First Vienna Award / Hungary's new borders? I just tell you everything is as I told from the beginning, the Allies recognized it but they changed this point of view during WWII. Anyway I checked 5-6 sources telling the same, since after 1940 the Allies openly did not recognize the further territorial gains. Point. Are you able to find these sources? Even the British Foreign Office informed the Czehoslovak ministry of exterior that His Majesty's government has not any objection towards the border disputes between Czehoslovakia and Hungary will be decided only by the German-Italian jurisdictonal arbitration. The First Vienna Award was inernationally recognized - including Great-Britain and France, etc. - and was carried out by the agreement of these. i.e. the Foreign Office until the end of the war did not declare any change of recognition. The French changed their mind in 1941. Hungary in Moscow had to sign an armistice agreement in 1945 that they have to resing on the gained territoires and retreat the to the 1937 borders - that's all about legalty. Ecetera, many other distractions, infos are sill available, you just have to open your mind and let loose from the strong (Czecho)slovak POV and their influence.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC))

I understand what you want to say. The problem is in the misunderstanding of legal terminology, particularly of terms void and voidable.

void, null and void or void ab initio is something what is not legally binding. We can speak only about a "purported legal status". If Hungarian, Chinese and Ghana government sign an agreement about common market with slaves, the agreement will be void and it does not matter that all parties signed and recognized it. If 14 years child signs a mortgage loan, it will be void even if it is recognized by him, the bank and the real estate company. It is the same situation as if the document does not exist at all.

voidable, on the other hand "is valid unless and until it is undone at the behest of someone who has a legitimate interest in doing so"

The Vienna Award was not voidable, it was null and void. You can believe, that it should be terminated as a valid contract or undone as voidable agreement, but this is not recognized legal status, only your opinion. Ditinili (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I do not misundertand anything. You make your own legal research or posterior legal review by others that does not change the fact, that until some part of the Allies reconsidered themselves, it was legally accepted internationally. Chamberlain, Lord Halifax also recognized and evaluated the same, openly. France and also Britain extended their diplomatic coverage with consulates until the new established border, that they have recognized. Even they welcomed - by ministry of exterior diplomacy - the annexation of of the remainder Transcarpathia, and they regarded it as a counter-balance against the possible German-expansion. You may check also the Anglo-Saxon official maps of Europe and it's recognized borders. It is obviously not just "my opinion", many sources also reinforce it, anyway it is generally known by those who are well educated or interested in history without any one-sided influence. The French National Commitee lead by De Gaulle, 29 September 1941 declared to the Czechs in London (both entities recognized only by the Allies) that they regard the Munich Treaty and all international agreements in any connection to it as invalid (However, the First Vienna arbitrage is legally not bounded with this). In 1944-45, because of the war and Germany mainly, the Allies changed many of their point of views - even contradicting themselves - and they forged the documents in a way to be signed to find a kind of legalty to annulate what was former recognized, with the pretext of "violations" and other circumstances, and this was signed by the armistice agreements and the new borders were acknowledged in the Paris Treaties. What you don't want to understand that just because this happened later, it does not mean there was not a period of time when it was recognized. Like if today all countries of the world would sign that the annexation of Britannia and Gallia by the Roman Empire is null and void because of (.....) and (....), it does not mean that in those contemporary times the border was fully internationally recognized.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC))

"You make your own legal research". Kiengir, Kiengir. That's me who cite sources not you. If you do not understand wikipedia rules and do not know what is "own research', fee free to discuss it with other editors. I will enjoy it. Ditinili (talk) 05:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I can cite them any time, stop with this repetitive "not understanding" of "wiki rules" or "own research", here in these discussions, not I am the one who don't want to understand some things. What I told is from sources, and you should know also about these, with or without me, in the talk page there are different rules anyway. You are the one who is enjoying discussions for a long time ago.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC))

Super. Let's do it. Please, cite sources that confirms your legal interpretation. I mean - not source claiming that it was "recognized" in some moment (we both agree), but that the decision was not null and void. Or that it was declared against the law that it is null and void. --Ditinili (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

You really would agree that "it was recognized some moment"???? You never talked like this before! Now you want to shift away the reason that we were discussing/debated. Interesting. Now you expect sources about a thing that was not debated - what armistice agreement and/or Treaty were signed - etc. Great, it really worth such a long discussion! Since declarations are one-way acts in a way, I don't know how you think it would be against any law. You may declare anything, unless it is a hate speech or similar that may be punished in some circumstances.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC))

Please, read carefully. I have never ever dedied that it was recognized at some moment by some party. Instead of that, I have (repeatedly) explained a difference between void (ab inition) and voidable and why some agreemnets legaly do not exist, even if some subjects believes that they are valid.

"I don't know how you think it would be against any law" This is exclusively your problem, because it was already explained and sourced. Your personal opinion vs. reliable source is absolutely irrelevant.

"Since declarations are one-way acts in a way ... you may declare anything" Just another improvisation. The declaration about a nullity and voidness of the award is a part of the international treaty signed also by Hungary (Paris Peace Treaty 1947). In contrast with the award, this treaty has never been challanged and it is binding and legally enforcable (unlike void acts).

I read it carefully, you again talk in a different way, since there was a moment when it was recognized not just by some but all parties, thus it legally existed and your "explanation" cannot override these facts. Your explanation failed and the source just presented a posterior POV that has no influence back in past, these were also explained and demonstrated many times - at the same time other sources confirm that there was a moment of time when it was recognized internationally thus legally it existed in action. What I have said about the ending peace treaty, that regardless what was signed and legally what holded than, it also cannot/could not influence the status quo and legal recognition back in time.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC))

"Hungary tried to choose in the end in every situation the most non-conflictual solution As it is clear from the cited documents, this is not true. This is elemenentary and wrong assumption you made." -> Since Hungary refused all the time to have a military intervention although she had full support, there is nothing else needed to react more, the rest we already discussed (arbitrage vs war)

Sorry again, this is a huge mistake: Hungary "did not refuse all the time to have a military intervention", sources are above. This is a part of the problem - you ignore sources and then you present your personal opinions. Ditinili (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not ignore anything, you represent your personal opinions, no source has been presented that Hungary recovered territories in 1938 with war - and you won't find any source for it, since it happened by the First Vienna Arbitrage. Again you try to rape nonsense, again are you serious?(KIENGIR (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC))

You are only not able to understand written text. Can you understand the difference between "refused" and "did not realize because it was prevented by the third party? --Ditinili (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Not true, I am able to understand, but you are playing with words and misuse their real meaning. Refused means that all offer and push for this was rejected (I explained why the Germans were heavily dissatisfied, it has literature), if Hungary would not had refused, she'd had made a military intervention.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC))

Here is a logical mistake you made and you cannot understand: "if Hungary would not had refused, she'd had made a military intervention".

If A is true then B is true (refusal => no war)

B is true (no war)

Therefore A is true (refusal)

It's called Affirming the consequent.

"Refused means that all offer and push for this was rejected". That's a good definition, but as we have already seen, this is not true. Thus, it is not only logical mistake, but also ignorance of the archive documents. Of course, that the Germans were at some moment heavily dissatisfied by the Hungarians, but in another time the Hungarians pushed and the Germans refused. --Ditinili (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ditinili, since I am an expertly qualified person of first-order, high-order and modal and mathematical logics and inference, moreover an expert in AI and CS as well, logical argumentations is what I understand in the first place. What you have missed my sentence referred to the German wishes, thus my statement is CONTEXT SENSITIVE, thus G -> A & B. Anyway, the diplomatic papers and their content still would not mean that in an other scenario really that would happen what we expect, we may just set propability functions to estimate possible outcomes. We will never know what would have happened, unless Doc will deliver us there with the Delorien.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC))

What to say on your expertise... It's unusual that "expertly qualified person of first order, high-order and modal and mathematical logics" do such elementary mistakes. Did you consider to write articles about math rather than about history? --Ditinili (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not do any elementary mistake (how funny to allude such since we can clearly read who makes continous "misunderstandings?" - not I have failed noticing the context sensitivity and timing), on the contrary I represent the consequently trustable stability with a mathematical beauty in a sytem where controversions are excluded. Well, history is a sub-part of the many areas I am interested in, however, if I see a mistake in any article that would harm any coherence, NPOV or just has a false statement or a little mistake, I try to my best to have the best correction. Better to say I am not stuck in any area or profession strictly, although it is said today real polihistors barely exists, in every area nowadays you can almost infinite develop yourself. However, the "engineer" view ir proven to render and order any other areas. Of course, the are more favorite areas, like history.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC))

Let's say that your implication was logically incorrect and as it is clear from Affirming the consequent, it cannot prove your opinion.--Ditinili (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

No, no, my implication was FLAWLESS and it has no connection to the "Affirming the consequent", and the fact the German wishes were refused could not be refuted. Your ignorance of the proper interpretation of my sentence is not may fault.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC))

" the fact the German wishes were refused could not be refuted" Kiengir, they were refuted. You have a quotes proving Hungarian proactive approach. You know what? I will not discuss it with you, but I will simply add quotes about alleged "refusals" to the appropriate articles. --Ditinili (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

No, because Hungary did not start any military intervention on a German wish or pressure, it does not nead any quote, this is history. The fact you mix it - a very long time ago - with other things i.e. when Hungary on his own were prepared to intervene in current circumstances is something different.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC))

:-) "did not start any military intervention on a German wish or pressure". And Germany did not allow any military intervention on Hungarian pressure, even if Hungary proactively demanded a permission. So stop with these half-trues or let's say lies, because I already don't believe that this is "misuderstanding. --Ditinili (talk) 06:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not say any lie, you could only laugh on your fallacies and yes the continous misunderstanding, or teasing out my words.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC))

"Now you introduce the Nuremberg Trials - how foxy :) - that have again ZERO CONNECTION to the subject - this is also wrong assumtion, because already these trials documented that your previous assumption is completely wrong. + you mix here porterior POVs of the winners - I don't speak about POVS of winners but about that the fact that documents against your opinion were known dozen years ago." -> foxy Dinitili mixing different timelines, also what is in 2016 will not change what was in 1699. What is in 1938 is not influenced what is after 1945.

I do not "mix timelines". If somebody commits an illegal activity, and it is overlooked, tolerated, ignored or simply accepted it does not make compliant with the law.Ditinili (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You many times harmed causily in the space-time curvature, read back if you are still unaware of it. You are stating here your POV again, the legal fact is the First Venna Award was recognized and accepted internationally. If you dislike this, you can post mortem complain to the contemporary governments, countries and their diplomacy. Soon you will also rewrite the history of the Middle Ages because recognized some happenings would not fit to your compliant taste of any law? Are you serious? (KIENGIR (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC))

I don't say that it was not recognized. I say that it violated several principles of international law valid at the time of the "arbitration". --Ditinili (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

This is your POV, anyway you may extend this approach back and forward in history, i.e. countless treaties in the Middle Ages or the post-WII or the Soviet-era or the about Treaty of Trianon you could say the same, i.e. the U.S. id not even enacted the treaty. What counts are the legal matters, that it was recognized.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC))

What count is that it was nullified :-) As numerous other agreements which has been found void ex tunc or ex nunc. --Ditinili (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

It counts when it was nullified or it's effect to the future. But here we speak about contemporary events.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC))

Yes, so we speak about contemporary recognized principles of international arbitrations (in 1938) and their violation, not about "Sumer", "Prussia", "Roman Empire", "Treaty of Trianon", etc. I speak exclusively about principles valid in November 1938. --Ditinili (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

However, not any "violation" was recognized, it is your permament form of speech.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC))

"You mainly presented some sources that had no connection to the legal matters It seems that your missed reference to the legal study of prof. JUdr. Bena, CSc....Nazi..., ...bias against Hungary..., ...provocations... you are foxy No comment." -> prof. JUdr. Bena, in 2008 cannot override the happenings in 1938. Moreover what you have cited did not have any connection to the legal matters.

Read the previous comment. Ditinili (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Also read mine. Maybe in 2156 you won't even recognize that i.e. the Roman Empire's borders because it was not compliant with the law :) Find a time machine, go back and tell them the status quo that is recognized then is not existing and the humanity needed more than thousand year to reveal it :)))))) Everything has to be judged on the contemporary times, later constructed posterior opinions are secondary.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC))

Sorry, I am not interested in speculations and artificial comparison. --Ditinili (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

If so, do not hurt the space-time curvature on contemporary matters.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC))

In my opinion, the statements about "hurting the space-time curvature" and similar are not constructive and they are not serious arguments. --Ditinili (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, I have met with plenty of "not constructive and not serious arguments" in this discussion unfortunately.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC))

"Reliable sources - Laughable, since you failed this approach. No comment, personal opinion. That's me who cite sources here." -> In a talk page you don't have to present sources, and if you again did not understood, read back, here is a helping repeat: mostly you presented sources that had no connection to what I have said or stated regarding legal matters

I am afraid that every cited source was always connected to the topic we have discussed. Ditinili (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The questions is in what kind of connection? Like Elvis Presley is connected to Poprad, or tasting with wasting or Karel Gott with Péter Németh? You started to discuss a very broad topic that has little direct connection, but really nothing you presented contra legal matters.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC))

See my previous comment. Ditinili (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

See also mine.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC))

Hugarians mainly argued the borders should be made on ethnic grounds - that would be the Wilson principle - but when they presented their point of view everyting was already decided and signed, so Hungary cannot be blamed for anything regarding this, in 1920. Again - when you will get it finally??? - backround diplomacy and screenplays HAVE NO CONNECTION TO THE OUTCOME, HISTORY IS EVALUATED BY THE OUTCOME. The outcome was, Hungary mainly restored former territories on ethnic ground, although regarding the remainder of Carpathian Ruthenia this may be debated, but still Hungary in after 1941 had much more better ratio of Hungarian vs. non-Hungarians, like many new creations after WWI, a much more truthful outcome regarding the Wilson-principles and the concept of nation states.

Kiengir, try to read at least works of Hungarian authors like Ignác Romsics, Miklós Zeidler or László Vörös. Hungarian arguments had evolved in time from "preservation of the kingdom regardless of the self-determination right" through "ethnic principle" and then back to "restoration of the kingdom in its previous borders, regardless of the self-determination right". Yes, history is evaluated by the outcome. In this case, the outcome was WWII. Ditinili (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I am enough leared and professional of the subject, you speak again some alternating theories of irredentism. The outcome and legal action has to be evaluated, in every country, in every situation countless theories, directives, claims are existing. WWII has no direct connection to this, it has to the injust Paris Treaties after WWI mainly.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC))

Read their works, you are wrong. "Some alternating theories of irredentism" are repeatedly official standpoints of the Hungarian government for her partners.Ditinili (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, it has no real connection to the current topic. What matters is the outcome.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC))

Who says? What does matter is a proper description of historical events. What is the outcome? E.g. for the Czechs, the outcome of German-Hungarian collaboration against the republic could be the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia with all victims. Ditinili (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

First of all, the main historical approach primarily is concentrating on outcomes, only secondarily on the background of the events. I don't see Hungarians to have any responsbility on Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia with all victims, Germany dealed with this affairs.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC))

Where? At elementary schools? I believed that historians research also why and how the events happened and this is not a secondary topic at all.

(I see this responsibility very clearly. If they agreed on the plan which had a goal to totally eliminate Czechoslovakia and to join Bohemia and Moravia to the Nazi Germany, they took responsibility.) Ditinili (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You again (want to?) misunderstand me. I meant when the topic or the subject is not necessarily the background, then a short reference is enough. I see you POV, I think it is too harsh and unfair, since Hungary cared about her former territories, they were really unintersted on the Czechs. Like so i could also say the Czechs have a responsibility on this, since if they would not wanted to occupy and annex Upper-Hungary ignoring the ethnic principles etc., than Hungary would not struggle to revise what was failed in 1920. You go by far to always scapegoating Hungary.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC))

I would say, that you made several incorrect assumptions about the policy of contemporary Hungary and thereafter, you don't like such information about the "background" which does not fit your opinion. The Czechs "did not occupy Upper-Land" (a cliché widely used in Hungarian revisionist literature), but formed a common state with the Slovaks. Of course, the ethnic principle was not the only one principle applied to the formation of borders (we can speak also about strategic, economic and military reasons). However, we have to say also that the principle of "territorial integrity of thousand year old state" as presented at various moments by the Hungarian delegation, did not respect any ethnic principles as well. The ethnic principle is not a "golden calf". Saying that the Czechs who were occupied by Nazis are responsible for the occupation is at least unethical, unprofessional and inaccurate. I would say that the problem was not in the Czech policy, but in theories about master race, lebensraum and similar and in those who collaborated with Germany in her policy against Czechoslovakia. --Ditinili (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

"you made several incorrect assumptions about the policy of contemporary Hungary and thereafter, you don't like such information about the "background" which does not fit your opinion" -> This is not true, I would better say you did this also regarding Czechoslovakia. The Czech Army occupied Upper-Hungary initially, and only after they formed a state. The hearing of the Hungarian delegation was only after already everything has been signed and mainly decided and the main argue was the ethnic principles, but even the demand for plebiscite was refused, so the Hungarian delegation respected much more the ethnic principles like Czechoslovakia or the Allies.

"Saying that the Czechs who were occupied by Nazis are responsible for the occupation is at least unethical, unprofessional and inaccurate." -> The same way "unethical, unprofessional and inaccurate" as your statement about Hungary, it was an irony if you would not notice.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC))

The Czech Army occupied Upper-Hungary initially, and only after they formed a state. I am afraid that you are wrong again (as usually). Czechoslovakia was founded on 28 October 1918. "Czech Army" (officially Czechoslovak) began to "occupy" territory of Upper-Land only thereafter and notably, in the cooperation and with the agreement of the Slovak National Council. The Hungarian delegation changed its strategy several times or let's say that it emphasized different solutions. A plebiscite was an alternative plan, not something fundamental. It is meaningless to look for some "moral value" here it was just a policy. I honestly don't know what do you have with the "ethnic principle". Hungarian political elites had not cared about any "ethnic principles" for dozen years (this is not something against the Hungarians, but it simply worked this way before the war). Thereafter, they "woke up" and when it became clear that territorial integrity of "thousand years old state" will not be respected they made "the ethnic principle" some kind of fetish. Where was the "ethnic principle" when the leading representatives of German and Hungarian minorities discussed how will be Bohemia and Moravia joined to the Third Reich and Slovakia to Hungary? It simply "disappeared".

I hope that other people understand the difference between a regime or state collaborating with the Nazis against the neighboring state and the victim of this policy. --Ditinili (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Most of the times I am not wrong "as usually", the differece is between us that I am able to recognize my mistakes - those rare ones are better syntactic ones - but I never heard from you any recognition although this talk page is full with yours, like you wilfully don't want to understand the things or tease/turn them out from they real meaning and pushing even fixa idea of yours, regardless that it cannot be held. Well, I made a mistake of my wordage, since my intention was to refer to the Treaty of Trianon and the later enactments when Upper-Hungary became officially/legally part of Czehoslovakia, and this was in 1920-21. Hungarians did not agree on the occupation, also some Slovaks. Hungary cared the most in those times about the minorities, even if the local autonomy was not really established and many critics are possible from a modern point of view, but Hungary's minority laws were unique and most of the contemporary states did not even had minority laws, this should not be forgotten. You are again mixing timelines or background happenings. We are discussing ethnic princpiples Trianon vs. Arbitrage.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC))

Czechoslovakia could not "occupy" "Upper Land" as a territory of Hungary because a state called "Hungary" (or Kingdom of Hungary) had not been a subject of the international law before 1918. From this point of view, the peace treaties did not "officially/legally" confirm that Slovakia is a part of Czechoslovakia more then they confirmed that any other part is a part of Hungary. They confirmed that a state "Hungary" exists as a subject of the international law and defined its borders. The original Austrian-Hungarian state ceased to exist (dissolution, "dismembratio") so these "Upper Land" territories were not assigned to Czechoslovakia by cession nor adjudication and could not be "occupied" by Czechoslovakia until 1920/1921 in any legal sense.

"Hungary cared the most in those times about the minorities" We call it "to walk a step behind the history".

I don't know what you want to discuss about the ethnic principle in Trianon. It was not the only one principle applied by the decision makers, they stated it openly and it was also not the only one principle of the Hungarian strategy. It could lead to a feeling of injustice for somebody, it could be welcomed as a liberation for somebody else, somebody could welcome that the borders reflected strategic interests and protected him better against the potential aggressor, somebody could take it as a compensation since the Hungarian governments were responsible for significant losses in culture, education and other areas.

Nevertheless, this was a post-war treaty where the winners used their traditional right to organize post-war order. Arbitrations are a different type of agreements and should follow some formal criteria valid in time when they are realized. Ditinili (talk) 06:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Since Austria-Hungary was a Monarchy and a joint entity of two separate states with their own separate citizenships, Kingdom of Hungary was a subject since internationally Hungarian citizens with Hungarian passports could legally justify themselves, etc., even in the Embassy immediately people were redirected if they are dealing Austrian or Hungarian affairs, common or dual citizenship never existed. After the dissolution of Austria-Hungary, Hungary also remained a subject with her borders, demarcation lines were set off until final judgement or treaty or arrangement. The existence of the demarcation lines allowed some other entities to occupy the territory of Hungary, and the Czech Army did that. Upper-Hungary became part of Czechoslovakia by CESSION (like other territories), and legally only part of Czechoslovakia after the signature of the Treaty and the following enaction and recognition. You made a step behind in history, since you have referred again about "ethnic principles". However, Hungary was one of the most prosperous and liberal developing state those times, despite the many disputed ethnic questions, that was a ground and in a way and the founder of some principles that later was partially applied or ignored, leading to huge controversions.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC))

Not exactly. The only one full-fledged subject of the international law was Austria-Hungary. Czechoslovakia declared the independence on the monarchy on 28 October 1918 (by disintegration). The first Hungarian republic was proclaimed only thereafter - on 16 November 1918. The opinion of Hungarian representatives that their new state includes also "Upper Hungary" was at the best their legal view not recognized by anybody else and thus, a statement that this territory "legally" belonged to Hungary is more than questionable. The Treaty of Trianon did not legalize any "annexation" and it does not contain such wording. It simply stated that "the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy has now ceased to exist", formally confirmed that "has been replaced in Hungary by a national Hungarian Government" and defined the borders of this national state. Ditinili (talk) 12:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree it's a complex situation, but Hungary legally had to sign a Treaty where it was enlisted which of her former territories has to be ceded. If your deduction would hold in all way, Hungary would not had to resign on those territories. Anyway the proclaimed states - like in may similar cases in those intermediary times - had not exact borders, or better to say, necessarily mutually or internationally recognized borders, or even by far some proclaimations were not recognized (fully).(KIENGIR (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC))

Hungary would formally sign that she resign on those territories to make situation clear and to prevent any misunderstanding, because even though historical kingdom had objectively disintegrated, Hungarian representatives had subjective difficulties to understand it. It should be clear also for those who believed in non-existing territorial integrity --Ditinili (talk) 05:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It is again a POV, Hungarians had no "difficulties" to understand anything, everything is crystal-clear, on those times you could call almost everything as a "disintegration", however legal matters are important - as always.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC))

What to say... The Czechoslovak state (not Czech) was internationally recognized, but Hungarian government (having serious difficulties with the recognition and handled by Entente literally as a local office) still persisted on the standpoint of "territorial integrity" not recognized by anyone else. I don't want to argue, but it seems like a misunderstanding of the events and real political situation. Nevertheless, if you want you believe that Hungarian government had no difficulties to understand it, why not.--Ditinili (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

The "Entente-recognition" is not a holy cow or something that would influence factual or legal things ultimately. They wanted to recognize a government that shapes Hungary as they want or as it would sign the peace treaty, also politics and other distractions involved. So you say everybody in the international community would recognize the creation of the Czechoslovak state? Like a state without borders? You counted in the "defeated countries" also? The signature of the Treaty is the first step to exact recognition. The many Hungarian government's proclamations affected mostly the type of state like "Republic", etc. I agree better not start another argue.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC))

Kiengir, Kinegir, Kiengir... Even before Hungarian government recieved an invitation to the peace conference, Czechoslovakia was already recognized also by Austria and Germany, obviously defeated states and not Entente members. "Everybody in the international community" does not have to recognize some state even in the present, because such recognition does not have constitutive, but declarative character. I don't know what does it mean "a state without borders", because after WWII, the exact borders had to be defined almost for every state in 1919-1920. We can close it. None Czech state (with Czech Army) which allegedly occupied "Upper Land" did not exist, was not recognized and was not even declared. --Ditinili (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

My question was poetrical, not because I would not know! International recognition means something, and without it you cannot speak about any full international recognition. You don't know? States without borders are recognized entities without exact borders. "because after WWII,"-> hurt of causality++.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC))

I am afraid that "a state without borders" is an euphemism for a state waiting for formal confirmation of its borders. Thus, more or less any European state in 1918-1921 (Hungary, Austria, Poland, Germany, France, Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, Romania, ...). "Recognition by everybody in the international community" had none legal impacts. Curiously, Czechoslovakia began to formally fix her borders before Hungary (definitely) and was (formally) widely recognized (as a fully fledged subject of the international law) than Hungary. It's a little bit strange argument. --Ditinili (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree, since there were formed many states that were never recognized those times, anyway recognition not just fully depend on the Allies or Entente. Hungary was fully recognized, only some governments did not have (full) recognition. Anyway the rest you have written is true for those times, but what is legal that is signed in the end.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC))

"Hungary was fully recognized, only some governments did not have (full) recognition." Kiengir, Kiengir, Kiengir... Really, it was not. For example, U.S. recognized independence of Hungary only in 1921.

"what is legal that is signed in the end" I will not argue, but this clearly contradicts the opinion that "Upper Land" "legally" belonged to Hungary after the disintegration of monarchy and before the signature of peace treaties.--Ditinili (talk) 08:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

:))))))) So you think you can teach me about the 1921 U.S. case? Recognizing independence is not equal with recognizing an entity or state! The U.S. motivation was they did not enact the Paris Treaties because they left disappointed after seeing how the principles were cheated! And of course it does not condraticts anything regarding "Upper-Land", since until the recognition of the new borders and at the same time ceding territories in the Treaty is obvious, anyway not any full recognition had the opposite! Ditinili, if you would not exist, you'd had to be invented :) (KIENGIR (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC))

You want to say: its independece was not recognized, but "Hungary was fully recognized". This is very unusual view. Hungarian borders (as a new state formed after the desintegration of Austria-Hungary) were confirmed by the Treaty of Trianon, but some territories the behind the demarcation line legally belonged to her. Yet another unusual view.--Ditinili (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It is not unusual, since Hungary's natural borders were given and the armistice agreement signed with Diaz guaranteed Hungary's borders. After came the demarcation lines of retreat and the new border's were set by the Treaty. The U.S. recognized Hungary, but her new border's were recognized only in 1921. I don't really know what the embassy's page is referring on, what "independence" (from the ties with Austria??) but anyway, the treaty is full accesible.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC))

Well, how long you decided to go back to the topic, finally:

• Emphasizing the forced nature of the second Vienna Award does not violate NPOV policy, it is historically accurate. -> What is/would violate NPOV policy is clearly shown in the top of the thread. You can present it as an OPINION from certain sources, but it DOES NOT OVERRIDE LEGAL MATTERS, these cannot be ignored, moreover on my consensus proposal this view was also presented

Which legal matters? Those "legal matters" that had not been cited by you until now? --Ditinili (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I have cited them, if you'd read everything carefully, they are in the top of this section, in the first part. Why don't you listen properly?? (KIENGIR (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC))

You did not cite anything. --Ditinili (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

But I did.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC))

When? Ditinili (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, since you accused me so many times with so many things, I'll let you to reveal it, since you have to prove in case if really I would not have used any source.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC))

Ok, LOL. Let me to "reveal it". Ditinili (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Nothing funny on this. Diffs talk :) (KIENGIR (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC))

Kiengir, if you are asked for sources you should provide it. If you don't want to do so, you should say it clearly. If you did it, it is not necessary to be mysterious and give me reference. --Ditinili (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I have already provided them long time ago, you are mysterious because of your denial and you have to feel the weight of an accusation that is not true. So to increase your precisity I'll let this on you for now.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC))

Ok, you had not provided anything. Sorry, I have to ignore such unclear and "mysterious statements". --Ditinili (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, surely you speak and write in English in an advanced level, most likely the comprehension would be the same level, so what is not sure that you wilfully do not want to understand English sentences properly. Read back or ask for help if you don't understand properly. I provided, and I won't work instead of you, the accuser has to prove it's statement, however I see you are not confortable to to check on it unfortunately.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC))

Kiengir. Give me sources. --Ditinili (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

So really, you don't want to watch the diffs ot the main page or this section where I added the sources of the legal background? They are so visible that even if you willfully would like to miss it, roughly you would not manage...(KIENGIR (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC))

• Opinion that it is emphasized only by some "Romanian and Anglo-Saxon literature" is dubious and seems to be an original research. Until now, user Kiengir has not provided any reliable source for this opinion. If he is not able to do so, it should be completely ignored. -> You are foxiliy deteriorating again the things, read back again the top of this section (NPOV means that people should write the things that almost everyone agrees about). For this literally no source needed i.e. "only by some Romanian and Anglo-Saxon literature", since we see the sources and their references clearly. Anyway, again, these sources are presenting opinions, not legal matters, and again, in my consensus proposal these were not refused.

"since we see the sources and their references clearly" => own research. You cannot make own conclusion about e.g. Russian historiography, because somebody cited here some "Anglo-Saxon sources" so it is allegedly emphasized only by "Anglo-Saxon sources". Ditinili (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Dinitili, you are really consider valid that assertion that EVERYONE agrees about this opinion although you know it is not true? If a source would state that yellow frogs were tamed by Vladimir Meciar in Congo, I'd need a source to gather with explicitly deniying that "Vladimir Meciar DID NOT tame yellow frogs in Congo? Anyway, the presented sources are attesting us about the legal matters, thus only that can be asserted that Romania faced with a strong diplomatic pressure from Germany to arrange her border disputes with Hungary (negotiations, after arbitration).(KIENGIR (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC))

Who made this conclusion about Anglo-Saxon and other literature? You? Then, it is own resarch. What was a basis for your own research? "Statistics" from wikipedia? Absolutely unacceptable. Please, ask other editors on OR talk page.--Ditinili (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not speak exclusively, and it is not a research, I did not use any "statistics", if you are well-trained in the topic, you know what kind of viewpoint is present on some topics from different sides. I don't have to ask about this anyone. The situation is clear since definitely not everyone agree about this, that is against one of the definitons of NPOV. Moreover the other sources presented attest us the legal matters that are telling us clearly what happened.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC))

Kiengir, who did make a conclusion that it is emphasized only in "some Anglo-Saxon literature"? You? Then, it is completely irrelevant and unsourced statement. Of course, different views should be mentioned, but making similar assumptions is unacceptable.Ditinili (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I spoke about POV, and not just about the Anglo-Saxon one. Anyway, in my consensus proposal - that was not rejected by me - all these sources were included, however as I also emphasized, we have to clearly distuinguish POVs from legal matters, since the it maybe dangerous to have in Wikipedia regarding any treaty, agreement, contract, etc. a plus long term POV explanation since it would turn the current article quickly out of scope.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC))

Let me cite you: "Only some Romanian and some Anglo-Saxon POV...". This is obviously incorrect and unsourced opinion. Ditinili (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you reinforcing me that I did not said what you wanted to put in my mouth ("only in "some Anglo-Saxon literature""), yes the current statement is unsourced - like the yellow frogs in Congo - but it is not incorrect in a way you want to make it appear, since this is a relevant POV in Romanian and Anglo-saxon sources. Maybe my mistake was to use "Anglo-Saxon" instead of Allied.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC))

Can you give me a reliable source confirming that this alleged POV is present only in "Allied" sources? --Ditinili (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you give me a reliable source about the yellow frogs in Congo? NPOV does not function like this, "NPOV means that people should write the things that almost everyone agrees about". Since in this case not everyone agrees and it is clearly seen by the different sources, moreover other sources attest us about the legal background that is different like some sources with lazy and inaccurate wordage, you achieve nothing with this.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC))

No, I cannot because I did not write a single word about "frogs in Congo". You wrote "only in "some Anglo-Saxon literature" and I wanted to see a source for this incorrect assumption. You said that it was "maybe mistake" and you should write "Allied" and I want to see a source for this statement. --Ditinili (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

You cite me wrong again as before, I said "POV", not literature. As I explain I don't think this needs a source beucase of the example I demonstrated. You check the different sources, and you got a conclusion that they have a different review and wordage, you check the sources of the legal background and you draw again conclusions, and you realize what is a POV, what is a fact, etc. You apparently recognize in the majority Romanian, some Anglo-Saxon or other Allied review a POV about this happening, while in other's - also Romanian, Hungarian, even Anglo-Saxon etc. - you see a review based on the happenings with not necessarily only just a POV phrase, but the legal details that not necessarily equals with the former short and not proper or precise summarization.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC))

I cited you word by word. You should distinguish between "there is a different view and wordage" and "Only some Romanian and some Anglo-Saxon POV is..." or "some Allied". The first does not prove the rest. If something properly describes the event (forced character) it cannot be "POV".Ditinili (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes once, but twice you cited me improperly (or precisely you cited again your first improper attempt to cite me - POV vs. litareture). The problem is it does not describe properly, since those sources does not speak about "forced character", but simply cession of territories by force that is not the case, it was properly explained in the top. Only for accepting the process of arbitration - without knowing in advance the result - Romania faced with a German diplomatic pressure, this is true and not debated by any means.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC))

• It should be taken into account that international arbitrations have to meet different requirements than post-war peace treaties. This statement was not seriously questioned and can be sourced (e.g. by already referenced work of prof. JUDr. Bena). The objections were related to subjective complaints about justice or injustice of other treaties. User Kiengir has not provided any sources. -> Dinitili again foxily deteriorates the subject to something THAT HAS NO CONNECTION TO THE TOPIC, since the "post-war peace treaties" is not the subject here, thus no sources I have to provide for this. JUDr. Bena work has also NO CONNECTION TO THE TOPIC, since his cited statements DO NOT OVERRIDE LEGAL MATTERS OR CHANGE HISTORY BACK IN TIME

My dear colleague, if the "post-war treaties" is not subject here, why did you argue by comparison of the Second Vienna Award with post-war treaties? Please, read your original posts. It seems that it has connection to the subject if it can support your opinion and when it seems that it does not support your opinion, it has no connection to the subject. Ditinili (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ditinili, zariedene oznamujeme obcanom, I did not harm the time-space curvature like you, since I referred only back in time, not in the future, morover it helped to understand and demonstrate what is a grading regarding "force" (war/ultimatum/negotiation/arbitration).(KIENGIR (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC))

I have no idea what is "zariedenie oznamujeme obcanom". --Ditinili (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't matter.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC))

• The opinion that "Hungary refused to take military action regarding the question of Czechoslovakia" has been at least seriously questioned. The quoted archive documents show that this "refusal" had not been not long-term standpoint of Hungarian government. User Kiengir has not provided any reliable source for his opinion that these documents and standpoints elaborated and exchanged on the government level are only some unimportant screenplays and they do not show real intention of Hungarian government. -> Foxy Dinitili again reintroducing something THAT HAS NO CONNECTION TO THE SUBJECT. IT IS FACT that Hungary DID NOT MAKE ANY MILITARY ACTION, for this I again do not have show any reliable source, since history is not working on reverse engineering, you have to support WHAT HAPPENED, not WHAT DID NOT HAPPEN, so you are heavily failing again!

If it has no connection the subject, why did you argue by Czechoslovakia in your original post? Let me cite your own post: "Hungary refused to take military action regarding the question of Czeshoslovakia". Now, reliable source: "the Imredy government fearing that the German-CZecho-Slovak conflict might explode into a European conflagration, refused Hiter's request to begin military action at the same time as Wermacht attack, or even befre it. Therefore, the Hungarian government kept to its [revious position, which was formulated on 17.9.1938 in the word: "Prepared for battle, we will await for a favorauble moment for intervention, but will not start at the same time as a German Attack and even less before it". This position clearly shows that the Hungarian government did not exclude military action against Czceho-Slovakia, but wanted to decide for itself the time of attack which would be most favorable to Hungary (Deak L.: Hungary's Game for Slovakia, 1996, p.77)

This shows the Hungarian foreign policy in 1938 in a completely different light than you originally presented. Then, when your arguments were refuted, you decided that it has "no connection to the subject". What is important here is the intention of the Hungarian government - she was not against the military solution (as you stated) even if it was not realized. Ditinili (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Dakujem, Dakujem Ditinili to support me! Thank you to assure me that I was right and Hungary did not take any military action! Thank you, Thank you!!!! - "she was not against the military solution (as you stated)" - Možno, že nie je rozumieť správne anglicky? (KIENGIR (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC))

Honey, I did not "support you". I just demonstrated that your original statement is only "half-truth" and manipulation.--Ditinili (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You demonstrated that you misunderstood - willfully or not - my English since I did not state what you tried to put in my mouth - see above & above.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC))

"Prepared for battle, we will await for a favorauble moment for intervention, but will not start at the same time as a German Attack and even less before it". This is a refusal? Ditinili (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

As I said, the German wishes for attack were continously refused, so no attack has been made regarding this. The rest see above.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC))

"Hitler is in Memelben, so Sztojay could not receive a permission" This is clearly not a "refusal of German wishes", but a proactive approach. --Ditinili (talk) 02:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Germans wished the "nagyhatár-korrekció", or Hungarians? :) (KIENGIR (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC))

Hungarians. Do you know who were Adolf Hitler and Döme Sztójay and which states did they represent? Ditinili (talk) 14:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reinforcing me again. Your last question is meant to be a joke :)))))))))))) It seems you enjoy long discussions over the topic, we may continue on our personal pages.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC))

It was not a joke. I cited a document with two names - Hungarian ambassador in Berlin and Fuhrer. It is clear from the document which side behave proactively, wished the large correction and tried to obtain a permisision (thus "did not refuse every demand" as you constantly misguide, but it did rather opposite). If you asked "who whished" then you probably don't know who represents which country. Otherwise, it would be a very stupid question. Ditinili (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

No, you missed regarding everything, since with this you acknowledged that not Germany's wish was "the nagyhatár korrekció", and as demonstrated above, you all the time mixed the refusal of German wishes with Hungary's own plans in some circumtances. (KIENGIR (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC))

Let me cite you again: "As I said, the German wishes for attack were continously refused, so no attack has been made regarding this."

Here, you have black and white that Hungary did not continously refused, but acted proactively and larger attack was not realized because of "Hungarian refusal", but because she was not able to obtain a permission. If you are not able to understand written text, I have simply to ignore you (sorry) and just work with sourced material in compliance with all wikipedia standards. You can complain anytime. Ditinili (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that you are the one who are not able to understand written text, since the German wishes were refused, this is what I have talked about all the time :) You are again teasing out my words and mixing the two things, moreover you want to again appear if I'd not understand :))) Read back, as many times as it is enough :) (KIENGIR (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC))

...some German wishes were refused, other Hungarian wishes were refused as well. It's strange how do you always forget the second part. --Ditinili (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I never forget the second part, this is your mania. What I have told is Hungary refused the German wishes for military interventions, and in the end a solution was carried out without it.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC))

You strongly suggest you to not use words like "your mania", "you are funny", "don't make me laugh", "laughable", etc.

Yes, I understand well that Hungary refused military intervention at some moment and the final solution was carried out without it. There is not any discussion here and we can both agree. The problem is only in recognition that in other cases, Hungary acted proactively and pushed on the military solution which was not realized because of good will of Hungary, but because of missing permission from Germany. So please, split the problem in two parts, and don't repeat only the first part, because otherwise, I will have to repeat the second, what is a waste of time. Thanks. --Ditinili (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

"You strongly suggest you" - ?? Anyway, I am sorry but some back-propagation has to be put since you almost reach a record by enlongening a section that had to be ended a long time ago and you should recognize those problems that you don't want to recognize. I always spoke about the "first part", you acted if if I would speak about the "second part", and for weeks you did not understand this problem! Finally, thank you, Dakujem!! Only you introduced the second part that was not under debate, it was only your "m...a" - oh sorry, I suggest myself not write it.....please follow the same enlightement in some other cases also, otherwise really, it is just a waste of time!(KIENGIR (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC))

Sorry, "I suggest you" (my mistake, typo). Yes, you speak about "the first part". I don't say that you spoke about the second part. Yes, I introduced the second part. Why? Because if only the first part is mentioned and the second part is not, it will be a half-true and it will deform a view about contemporary goals and attitude of Hungarian government. --Ditinili (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, my - hopefully - closing remark is, what I have told is not a "half-truth", since it was fully true. You just wanted to mention another event that has only connection through the topic of "planned but never fulfilled military interventions" - just to be totally precise!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC))

Kiengir, is the second part true? Did Hungary proactively push on military solution, but was not able to obtain a permission? Yes or no?Ditinili (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Since you introduced this, I give you a general answer: in case if it would have been necessary Hungary was prepared to make own military actions regarding to recover of her former territories, but this was not an alternative in the first place, only if other considered solution exactly that time she would have not seen possible. However, with this I did not tell anything new, it was true for many countries those times.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC))

So, Hungary dit not "refuse" military solution in general. She "was prepared to make own military actions regarding to recover of her former territories", it was only not the "alternative in the first place". OK, I agree. Can you confirm now, that she proactively pushed on this military solution also after the first Vienna award, when she could not comnplain on any "injustices of Trianon" or "self-determination right"? (P.S.: I am not sure what does it mean "true like for many countries those times", but I see a preparation of aggression against other independet state together with Nazis).Ditinili (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Those times most of the countries were prepared for military solutions. "I see a preparation of aggression against other independet state together with Nazis" -> I don't see such, I am surprized you do. I cannot confirm what you state, since she occupied and annexed the remainder of Transcarpathia after the Czechoslovak state ceased to exist, regarding Transylvania - where she could "complain on any "injustices of Trianon" or "self-determination-right"" - negotiations and another arbitrage decided, regarding the southern-lands - where she could also "complain on any "injustices of Trianon" or "self-determination-right"" - she struggled to avoid and refuse taking part in the invasion of Yugoslavia, only she occupied and annexed territories after the state of Yugoslavia ceased to exist. However, in the latter case we may agree by letting the Wehrmacht to launch part of their operation from Hungarian territory - as an obligation by the Tripartite-pact - she willingly or unwillingly and undoubtedly became a German-client state. Hungary tried as much as a little country could resist in such conditions, so we cannot speak about any pro-activity.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC))

"most of the countries were prepared for military solutions." Defilitely. Some prepared agression with Nazis, other prepared defense.

""I see a preparation of aggression against other independet state together with Nazis" -> I don't see such, I am surprized you do." As it was documented numerous times, German and Hungarian aggression was not a result of "desintegration of Czechoslovakia", but desintegration of Czechoslovakia was a part of the plan for aggresion.

"only she occupied and annexed territories after the state of Yugoslavia ceased to exist" What to say... The opinion that any country can begin occupation of any territory under such pretex is shockingly naive and has absolutely nothing with the international law.

"so we cannot speak about any pro-activity." No comment, this was already sourced. --Ditinili (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

First: it is your very simplified POV. Third-Fouth: After a putch - this was legal by the international law? Poetrical question - and after the foundation of the Independent State of Croatia a situation arose where not the same status quo was recognized by all parties, internationally. Hungary was not naive, but tries to withstand the sitatuation in the most proper way it was possible. Your source again does not contradict that Hungary was not pro-active but all in all she tried to avoid unnecessary military conflicts. There are many sources, but a source does not equal with the truth or legal matters necessarily, we need more to be totaly objective and also those that contain proof. What is your opinion about John Fletcher Montgomery: Hungary the Unwilling Sattelite?(KIENGIR (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC))

• It was questioned if Hungary can be described as a German client state. In my view, this is secondary problem. Since this statement is sourced, I strongly recommend to provide references to sources that claims opposite or to stick to the sourced content. -> Good faith command us not to cite obviously dubious or mistaken content. Again you expect sources for something that IS not existing, this is not the way. It may appear like "according to Douglas Hugary was .... or similar, however it is TOTALLY OUT OF THE SCOPE OF THE SZÉKELY LAND ARTICLE AND THE MAJORITY OF THE THINGS YOU PUSH HERE

I don't push anything. You began a new section, I only replied to your comments. Really, majority of the things do not belong here, but it was nor me, who begin to include here things like domestic affairs of Czechoslovakia, oppression of Slovaks, Slovak National Uprising, etc. Originally, I have only reacted to misiterpreted policy toward Czechoslovakia from you side. --Ditinili (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

This is your POV, I did not misinterpret anything, but on the other hand I demonstrated in this discussion what you have misinterpreted or we simply did not understood each other properly.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC))

OK, as far as I understand your and Fakirbakir's misinterpretations of domestic affairs in Czechoslovakia like relations between Czech and Slovaks, or minorities or uprising, or post-war retribution were only misunderstandings. No problem. Ditinili (talk) 03:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I am not authorized to speak on Fakirbakir's behalf, but what is sure that you misinterpreted me many-many times, but these we discussed/still discuss.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC))

Hah, Ditinili, you cite Deak? Janek says about Deak: "He and his co-authors present the events from a one-sided aspect underlining the heroism of Slovak soldiers. Deák did the same in another study, which bappeared in the 2004 issue of Historické štúdie. The research of Deák is very important, his findings must not be neglected or pushed aside, however, one must be aware of his biased attitude." Deak is biased as hell. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Here is Istvan Janek's whole study,[1] It's worth to read. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

This is nothing new. In Malá Vojna [Little War] 1992, ed. Ladislav Deák, the author tried to resolve a question, why did Hungary realize only so-called "little solution" instead of "great solution" (borders moved to Poprad). He came to the conclusion that this was influenced by the active resistance of the Slovak Army that allegedly played an important role in changes of the Hungarian plan. However, nowadays it is a well-known inaccuracy, because it opened a public scientific dispute between Deak and his opponent Frantisek Csefalvay from the Institute of military history, who had successfully documented that the Hungarian attack was not stopped by the Slovak army, but when their units reached the border of the "little solution". Csefalvay also pointed to Andorka's record cited here by me: „Holnap indul meg a kishatár-korrekció. Hitler Memelben van, tehát a „nagy“-ra Sztójay nem tudott engedélyt kérni“ (Tomorow, it will begin a small border border adjustment . Hitler is in Memelben, so Sztojay could not receive a permission). Csefalvay also documented that Hungarian government wanted to receive a permission for larger territorial changes from Germany, but failed. Deak was not a military historian, "heroic resistance" allegedly declared by him and his "co-authors" means that they overestimated the impact of the active Slovak resistance. To give you idea how this "heroic resistance" is really described in the criticized work (Pavol Simunic, Little War, p. 31):

Only in the late afternoon, 23 March 1939, the units of the eastern group of Malar began to counteract. (...) Their fighting capacity had been weakened by disorganization, lack of officers and also by lack of soldiers because 2000-3000 regiments were reduced to 70-400 men. The leader had not any option, only to ask those Czech officers, who stayed for some reasons in Slovakia, to serve in the Slovak Army.

So, if you expected a bunch of romantic heroic stories, you are probably disappointed. Janek's opinion about Deak's "bias" does not surprise me. His opinion on authors like Janek was not better. I know this study. --Ditinili (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"If Kiengir is not able to provide sources, I simply follow rules of wikipedia." -> Dinitili, just be very careful, I don't have to provide any sources, and don't forget about WP:CONSENSUS, and also don't forget, Wikipedia is an incrementally verifiable platform, you if you continously state things that are not holding for any reason - we met countless deterioration attempts, mixing timelines, introducing things with no connection, referring on content that has no conection to legal matters or factual outcome - sooner or later it can be verified by any third party, so I recommend you to choose the peaceful and professional collaboration instead of harsh meotional POVS and opinions, since these cannot override BY ANY MEANS LEGAL MATTERS. Moreover any attempt to hide legal matters will be rejected, moreover I don't understand you really, what the hell you want to achieve, since I never refused to present other opnions on the subject as my former consensus proposal is showed in the top. It seems you have a personal dislike towards Hungary/Me/the subject, otherwise you would not behave in such offending manner, although I was never against presenting alternate opinions, just sruggling not to mix saison with faison (facts, legal outcome, opinions, plans), this is what you have failed to grasp regarding the Numerus Clausus where you were unable to understand i.e. that "targeted" or "intentions" will never override the legal facts that the law discriminated all ethnics. However, we have bad memories of such persons who rhetorically try to appear to be neutral, on the other hand all the time the one-sided POVs, dogmas are dominating, meanwhile the legal matters are ignored. Wikipedia is not a propaganda site, opinions are welcome in the size of importance but just and only next to the legal matters and factual outcomes!(KIENGIR (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC))

Because you have not provided any references, I will deal with your opinions as with any other unsourced material.

I will also not comment your opinions like "I personally dislike you", I simply suggest to use verifiable sources. Ditinili (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ditinili, read back I provided, thy are on the top of the section referred, so with this you reach nowhere, nothing new is needed right now. Read back carefully everything, I responded every of your answer.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC))

References