http://www.stiri.com.ro/stire-37553/cum-au-sters-autoritatile-cuvantul-budapesta-de-pe-arcul-de-triumf-de-dragul-maghiarilor.html
| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| WorldWar2.ro Forum > WW1 and Regional Wars (1912-1919) > "Budapest" erased from triumphal arch |
| Posted by: dragos October 03, 2012 04:28 pm |
| A revolting case http://www.stiri.com.ro/stire-37553/cum-au-sters-autoritatile-cuvantul-budapesta-de-pe-arcul-de-triumf-de-dragul-maghiarilor.html |
| Posted by: MMM October 03, 2012 05:16 pm |
| It's not very clear, though, when did that happen (2008 Videanu or 2008 Oprescu)? And why is "spotted" now? |
| Posted by: ANDREAS October 03, 2012 06:49 pm |
| MMM, if you think that it's such a big difference between them (Videanu or Oprescu) you are naive! They are just some Romanian politicians as we see in the past two decades... But it is outrageous to where they went with their flunkey manner... |
| Posted by: Dénes October 03, 2012 07:05 pm |
| I fully agree that historical monuments (like the Arch of Triumph) should not be altered due to (changing) political reasons. But let me ask, what sort of "great victory" (Dintre toate numele de localităţi unde soldaţii români au obţinut victorii răsunătoare...) did the Rumanian army achieve in Budapest in 1919? There was no battle in/around Budapest, the Rumanians marched in unopposed, as the Hungarian government, let alone the army, had fallen apart days earlier. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: 21 inf October 04, 2012 04:39 am |
| Bucharest felt in 1916 in the same manner, unoposed to Central Powers, but this was not a reason for them not to present the fall of Bucharest as a great victory. Paris was taken the same manner by germans in 1940 and it's capture considered a great victory. Taking the main city of the adversary it is considered a performance, preceded or not by a battle, more or less serious. |
| Posted by: MMM October 04, 2012 05:46 am | ||
Same happened in 1944 in Paris, Rome, Bucharest! No fighting in the city, yet huge propagandistic victory! I wonder what would be the reaction in any other country at such events...  |
| Posted by: Dénes October 04, 2012 10:06 am |
| This is OT, but there was a Battle for Bucharest, which was lost by the Rumanians, that's why they vacated the capital. Also, despite Hungarian troops also entering the Rumanian capital in December 1916, I have not read that this was one of the 'glorious victories' they won... Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: dragos October 04, 2012 11:14 am | ||
In 1916 Hungarian troops was not the main faction that led to the fall of Bucharest, it was the Germans. Not the same in case of Romanian troops in 1919. |
| Posted by: aidan zea October 04, 2012 12:39 pm |
| Denes, if you occupy an enemy state capital but he did not stop fighting nor stand to negotiations, there is no reason to celebrate anything! I have in mind French invasion of Russia in 1812, even if the parallels stop there! |
| Posted by: Dénes October 04, 2012 03:03 pm | ||
True, that's why I wrote "also". Anyway, my intervention was only to show that the occupation of Budapest in 1919 by the Rumanian troops was not a military battle won, a 'bright victory', but a political move, as the Hungarian army had already been beaten at the Tisza River. After that, the Hungarian soldiers (not an army any more, per se) were in complete disarray, without the capability to show any resistance. Better, more accurate was if it was called the 'victory at River Tisza', but not Budapest, unless there was a political message. Gen. Dénes[I] |
| Posted by: adicontakt October 04, 2012 03:59 pm |
| *** deleted by admin *** |
| Posted by: Radub October 04, 2012 05:12 pm |
| I recall that the Arch was "defaced" first by the communists in the fifties. Does anyone know what changes did they make? Are there any photos of the word "Budapest" on the arch? All photos I found only show the plastered inscription. Radu |
| Posted by: Imperialist October 04, 2012 05:27 pm |
| This is outrageous. Who allowed them to alter that monument? Based on what reasons? This should get more coverage and public pressure should build up on the authorities to undo the act of vandalism. |
| Posted by: bansaraba October 04, 2012 06:18 pm | ||
Of course, they covered or dismantled the bas-reliefs of king Ferdinand and queen Marie. I don't know about other changes. Later edit: from Adevarul: "The commemorative plaque had a tumultuous life. It was plastered in the early years of Romanian communist regime and restored in 1953, after Stalin's death. During communist times, Arc de Triomphe was mutilated by the authorities, because of the antimonarchic regime. The proclamation texts of king Ferdinand were removed from the sides of the building, and the portraits of King Ferdinand and Queen Mary, made by sculptor Alexander Calinescu, were destroyed from the south facade and replaced with some flowers. After 1989, there were mounted two bronze medallions depicting kings' faces, replacing the original ones." (Plăcuța comemorativă a avut un destin tumultuos, cu atât mai mult cu cât același basorelief „Budapesta‟ a fost zidit în primii ani de comunism românesc și reabilitat în 1953, anul morții lui Stalin. În timpul comunismului, Arcul de Triumf a fost mutilat de autoritățile vremii, din cauza regimului antimonarhic. Textele proclamanților Regelui Ferdinand au fost scoase de pe părțile laterale ale construcției, iar portretele Regelui Ferdinand și al Reginei Maria, realizate de sculptorul Alexandru Călinescu, au fost distruse de pe fațada sudică, fiind înlocuite cu niște flori. După 1989, au fost montate două medalioane de bronz ce înfățișează chipurile regilor, înlocuindu-le pe cele originale.) Later later edit: http://b365.realitatea.net/inscrip-ia-budapesta-de-pe-arcul-de-triumf-a-fost-tearsa-in-1953_183342.html's another point of view (long story short, the plaque was covered in 1953 and never restored; it is unknown if the original letters are still under the mortar) Here are some old post cards: 1973  uncirculated:  |
| Posted by: dragos October 04, 2012 07:39 pm |
| So "Budapest" inscription was covered in 1953 and not in 2008 as the newspaper article in the first post claims? |
| Posted by: Florin October 05, 2012 07:06 am | ||||
Add Baghdad / Iraq in 2003 - about 80 percent of conscripts deserted and left to their homes before seeing anything resembling an American soldier. Only parts of the Republican Guard were willing to fight - somewhere between 20% and 40%. Also some militias of the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party had the guts to put a fight, and some of them were quite heroical. But of course, because they were the bad guys, they were "suicidal". Regarding the first quote: I understand that by the time they reached Budapest the Romanian soldiers were unopposed, but that action as at the end of a war, started far away from Budapest, in Transylvania claimed by both sides. Because of that war "the Hungarian government, let alone the army, had fallen apart days earlier." That Hungarian government could try to sue for some peace talks, before dissolving. They could sign a surrender document - they would not be the first or the last in history, and I would not call it a shame, when you can spare your own population from worse things. Because they did not do it, the war I mentioned was technically going on. |
| Posted by: bansaraba October 05, 2012 07:08 am |
| It does seem that it was indeed obliterated in 1953... Here's another article published 2 days ago in Adevarul: http://www.adevarul.ro/locale/bucuresti/bucuresti-stiri_din_bucuresti-arcul_de_triumf-sorin_oprescu-basorelief-budapesta-primaria_capitalei_0_785321518.html |
| Posted by: Florin October 05, 2012 07:42 am |
| A story from the same category: once upon a time, when you approached the train station from Ramnicu Sarat from the local square (opposite to track side) there were punches and holes in the masonry, some quite near the entrance doors. My grandfather told me when I was child that they were bullets and Shrapnel traces from World War One. There was heavy fighting around Ramnicu-Sarat in that war. In the 1990's, all those marks were still there. Sometime after 2000, some idiot covered them with cement. End of story. |
| Posted by: Dénes October 05, 2012 10:17 am | ||
The Hungarian Government did sign many peace treaties, but the Rumanian troops violated them one after the other, advancing deeper and deeper in the 'enemy' territory. The latest peace treaty, incorporating further huge territorial losses, was so unacceptable to the pacifist Hungarian Goverment of Count Károlyi, that he stepped down, handing over the power to Béla Kun and his Bolsheviks. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Imperialist October 05, 2012 01:36 pm | ||||||
From the article:
  This picture was taken in 2008: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gwaldon/2481277586/ Article from 2009:
http://www.nineoclock.ro/events-dedicated-to-heroes-day/ It looks like an intervention to me. |
| Posted by: 21 inf October 05, 2012 05:00 pm | ||||
How many peace treaties signed hungarian government with romanian one and were violated by romanians in that period? As far as I know even with the Allies in 11th november 1918 was signed an armistice, not a peace, and that was signed by the germans. |
| Posted by: Florin October 05, 2012 06:52 pm | ||||
I am not arguing with what you wrote until I will have time to learn more about it. |
| Posted by: contras October 05, 2012 07:12 pm | ||
True, Hungary has no any document signet with Romanians. The parts in war were Hungary and Romania, there was no truce or armistice between these two parties, so what Romanian troops "violated"? |
| Posted by: Florin October 05, 2012 07:16 pm | ||||
I click on the link, I can read on the article, but I cannot see the 5 photos they are talking about. * * * A way to solve the mystery is to install a ladder, make some very close photos and attempt to take a material sample from that patch with concrete – if the letters were carved into the stone and they were filled. Then find out what contractor was paid by the city administration and compare with the fillings they did into the other buildings they had rehabilitated. Also compare it with works from the early 1950’s and see if the material has the same texture. If the letters were as bas-relief and they were simply chopped off, it is almost impossible to date the modification, because already more than 4 years passed since this was done. I feel that this was not an unofficial initiative of a common worker, so if it was done recently, was done with orders from management or supervisor, and they in turn followed orders. An inquiry could end with some confessing about it. * * * One of the smart jokes circulating in America is: "If a cause is unimportant enough, the Americans will join ranks and will have no rest until they will solve the matter." It can apply anywhere. |
| Posted by: 21 inf October 06, 2012 07:19 am | ||||
That's what I also knew, that hungarians didnt signed any armistice or peace with romanians in 1918 or 1919 before romanian ocupation of Budapest. Maybe the hungarians signed some kind of armistice with french expeditionary corp in order to put them on safe place against romanians, hoping that if they had some papers signed with the french, the french will keep romanians at bay. |
| Posted by: contras October 06, 2012 10:11 am | ||
Hungarians signed a treaty with Franchet d'Esperey in 1918, French general who was in Jugoslavia, and there Romanians were not signed anything, because they were not invited. These treaty give to Hungary a demarcation line in Apuseni mountains. To not upset the French, Romanians respected it, until they were attacked in April 1919. After second Hungarian attack, on Tisza river in 20th July 1919, same Franchet d'Ësperey urged Romanian troops to capture Hungarian army and bring Hungarian teritory under their control. So, what treaties Romanians violated? |
| Posted by: Dénes October 06, 2012 12:12 pm |
| The Rumanians were allied to the French, among other nations. This is included in the secret protocol what Ion Bratianu signed in Bucharest, on 4/17 August 1916. Based on this protocol Rumania claimed the area up to the middle of the Hungarian plain in 1919. All documents signed by the French in the name of the Allies were thus binding to the Rumanians, too. This is common sense. These official documents, also singed by the Hungarians as the other party, were then repeatedly violated by the Rumanian army. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Florin October 06, 2012 05:30 pm | ||||||
Your interesting input did not address very specific information mentioned by "Contras" right before your post. From his comment:
Considering the first Hungarian attack, when the separation line was somewhere across Apuseni Mountains: So, when you are attacked and finally you are counterattacking, are you going to stop on the initial line? It is totally up to the side that endured the initial attack. Did Soviet Union stopped on the line where "Barbarossa" started 3 years before? No. I don't blame them. Did the British stopped in 1945 at the starting point of the "Fall Gelb", German invasion of the Low Countries and France in 1940? No. They did the right thing. So… You are counter-attacking, stop at Tisa River because you want so, and the other side, after recovered and regrouped, is attacking you again. What are you going to do? It is totally up to you, the side that was attacked. The attacking side should consider that your response may be their total annihilation. Regarding
It may be common sense in diplomacy manuals and in universities teaching diplomacy. What I noticed in real life is that the allies, whoever are they, occasionally behave differently toward the same matter. Sometime an ally signed documents that contradict documents signed with the other allies, and that ally is following the agreement that fits more for him. (Japan vs. USSR vs. Germany) Another example: In 1944 Churchill signed with Stalin the agreement to divide Eastern Europe without informing the United States. Roosevelt was stunned when he learned about it. If, as Contras mentioned, "...same Franchet d'Ësperey urged Romanian troops to capture Hungarian army and bring Hungarian teritory under their control", I do not understand why the Romanians were not in line with the French point of view at that very moment. |
| Posted by: 21 inf October 06, 2012 06:17 pm | ||
Hungarians knew very well what will happen next to the fall of their german ally and I refere to the will of the other nations they ruled in AH monarchy: czechs, slovaks, romanians and others. The aspect was very clear especially in the case of czechs and slovaks who formed volunteer divisions as early as 1915 to fight against AH. Hungarians knew that everything will colapse in AH monarchy and that they will loose all the teritories inhabited in majority by non-hungarians. It was practically the final of 1848/1849 when all the named nations (including the croatians, which had a special status during centuries in hungarian kingdom), all of them wanted to be free of hungarian ruling. That's why hungarians tried to sign as soon as posible a document with the french, in order to be sure they will save what they could from their kingdom. What happened in 1918 to Hungary was the delayed effect of 1848/1849, when serbs, romanians, croatians, slovaks, all wanted to live in their way, free of hungarian influence. Back on the subject, it is at least naive to believe that a paper signed by french and hungarians without being signed by romanians would oblige romanians to do what was written there. By comparison, when romanians were forced to sign Buftea peace treaty with Central Powers, french and english army didnt surended and they were also linked to romanians by an aliance. Is this fact working only when hungarians signed a paper with a romanian ally and is not working viceversa? Come on!  |
| Posted by: Ferdinand October 06, 2012 06:52 pm | ||
Denes, it seems that Romanian troops did a lot of violations. That's allright, Hungarian army showed a lot of diplomacy arround 1940-44 in some parts of occupied Transylvania. |
| Posted by: Agarici October 06, 2012 07:03 pm | ||||
... not to mention the case of Italy, a senior member of the Axis, which did not enter the war with Poland in 1939 when Germany started it (nor the war with France until its final phase), or of Japan and Bulgaria, allies of Germany (by treaty), which did not declare war to USSR neither in 1941 nor later on. |
| Posted by: MMM October 06, 2012 07:22 pm | ||
... which fact has not saved them from meeting the Red Army when it suited the Russians... On Topic: I still don't understand when this "cover-up" was done: in '53 or in 2008? |
| Posted by: Florin October 06, 2012 11:34 pm | ||
I explained under page 2 of this topic a way to trace and solve this problem, from a technical point of view. * * * Considering that we live in a society where every person was trained in a specific job, or self offered to fill a specific niche, I would leave this detective work to Corneliu Vadim Tudor or a certified equivalent. |
| Posted by: Radub October 07, 2012 08:08 am | ||
I think that Bansaraba's post on 4 October provides plenty of irrefutable proof that this was done a long time ago. No one seems to be able to show one single photo of the "original" inscription, which is evidence in itself that the inscription was covered a long time ago when there weren't that many cameras around. Radu |
| Posted by: MMM October 07, 2012 11:14 am |
| I understand that! So why did 2008 appear in the first place? I think we're "beating around the bush" a little too much for a thing that happened almost 60 years ago and in the last 23 years nobody thought at "undoing the wrong"... |
| Posted by: dragos October 07, 2012 11:32 am |
| Maybe because nobody wants to do anything about it, despite the fact that the monument went through some restoration process in the near past, as the picture with the scaffolding speak for itself. |
| Posted by: Radub October 07, 2012 04:17 pm | ||
2008 was the year of the last elections and UDMR became a member of the governmental coalition during this mandate. Whoever wrote that "piece of journalism" was simply attempting to blame UDMR for it. The article was very clear in pointing the blame squarely at the door of UDMR. "Hate for Hungarians" is so facile in Romania, so the rest basically took care of itself. In truth, the word Budapest was removed by Communists simply because in 1918 the Romanian Army fought Bela Kun's bolshevik forces in Budapest. In the early days of Romanian communism, "fighting bolsheviks" was a tabu subject, so all such mentions had to be excised from memory (along with much of Romania's involvement in the Spanish Civil War and WW2). That was the only reason why the word was removed, nothing to do with nationalism. That is just one more bit of our history that was mutilated by comunists. Radu |
| Posted by: MMM October 07, 2012 04:45 pm |
Thanks, Radub! So it wasn't that much about the Mayor's Office in Bucharest, but about the RMDSz...  The fact that nobody cares about restoring an old, filled with artistic and historic value monument, is sad, though... Yet it's still standing and it will be there next decade, unlike "Hala Matache", for example... |
| Posted by: Florin October 07, 2012 05:13 pm | ||
Worse things are happening around Bucharest and they draw little attention. Think of Chiajna Monastery / Manastirea Chiajna. http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%83n%C4%83stirea_Chiajna Built in the days when George Washington was carrying on the Independence War = The Beginning of Time from the American point of view. Today is surrounded by a huge urban garbage disposal site. OK, I understand that is listed as historical monument (code LMI: B-I-m-A-17884.01) It is surrounded by a protection fence? No, as far I know. Is somewhere there on full time payroll to protect it? No, as far I know. In the 1980’s you can see it from far away. Now so much garbage was dumped, that masked it from view. There are more than 20 years since the revolution, and I can tell you that in the 1990’s the Gypsies took loads of bricks from the monastery's walls. These kind of guys should be shot on the spot – the same as when they attempt a bank robbery ! If we consider all Romania, we'll never end this subject. In 1995 or in 1996 the new rich class from Alba Iulia (let me call them the local Mafia) started to destroy ancient Roman ruins – including the remains of the palace of the Roman governor (correct me if I am wrong). Why? They wanted to make space for their new palaces. |
| Posted by: contras October 07, 2012 07:26 pm | ||
I think we could make difference between a convention signed by allies and a armistice between former enemies. So, when French army and the Serbs took a buffer zone in Southern Hungary, they do not violated the documents signed with Franchet d'Esperey? |
| Posted by: Imperialist October 08, 2012 07:26 pm |
| "Nu ne mai profanati monumentele istorice!"/"Stop vandalizing our historical monuments!" http://youtu.be/TzlWrk9V4Vo |
| Posted by: Radub October 08, 2012 08:58 pm | ||
But who is the "message" intended for? And why are they asking for a "stop"? Is the "vandalising" ongoing? Looks like they want to lock the doors of the stable after the horse has bolted.  Radu |
| Posted by: Florin October 09, 2012 06:08 pm | ||
Moments 3:11...3:15: look at the color level of the rectangle with the erased inscription, versus the rectangle above marked "COSNA". If the erasing work would be done in 1953, 59 years of automobile and industrial pollution would "darken" it to a closer appearance with the surrounding design. My bet is that it occurred only few years ago. * * * The guys lined under the arch claimed that it was erased by U.D.M.R. I don't say it was or it wasn't, but until it is proved this may be considered "calumny" and subject of lawsuit. Whatever wrote the author of the video, the policemen and the gendarmes looked peaceful to me. But that was because the protesters did not block the auto traffic. If you don't block the traffic, you can protest 1000 years. |
| Posted by: MMM October 09, 2012 07:57 pm |
I'm confused!  So it's not from 1953? "Da' eu cu cine votez?!" Florin, it seems that we have our certified equivalent of CVT, right? |
| Posted by: Cantacuzino October 09, 2012 08:23 pm |
| [/QUOTE] 3:11...3:15: look at the color level of the rectangle with the erased inscription, versus the rectangle above marked "COSNA".[/QUOTE] http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/703/imgp0080dy.jpg/ Uploaded with http://imageshack.us http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/838/imgp0081ix.jpg/ Uploaded with http://imageshack.us |
| Posted by: Radub October 09, 2012 08:36 pm | ||
As explained earlier in this thread, the arch was renovated after the Revolution when the original inscriptions were restored. There was even a photo earlier in this thread showing the scaffolding. So, mosy likely, it was cleaned them. There is no way there is such old grime anywhere on it. Radu |
| Posted by: Ferdinand October 09, 2012 09:38 pm | ||
Thanks Dan for the pics! I don't think it is erased but covered with cement. If the authorities didn't noticed when the cover was done...maybe they will not see me uncovering it! ) |
| Posted by: Florin October 09, 2012 09:40 pm |
| Cantacuzino, I get your point, and I looked into your photos. Did you see that portion of the movie? (3:11...3.15) Your photos seem to prove the rectangles are the same, those seconds from movie seem to prove a different thing. One big difference is that your photos are an overall image of everything, while in those seconds the image is zoomed into that spot. P.S: I wrote much more about photography and digital cameras with automatic settings, then I had deleted it. I don't want to abuse anybody's time. |
| Posted by: Radub October 10, 2012 07:52 am | ||
Shock! Horror! Do you mean that the video was "doctored" and edited with the intention to manipulate? Who would do such a thing?   Radu |
| Posted by: Radub October 10, 2012 08:02 am | ||
No one knows for sure what is under the plaster. Apparently, when the order was given in 1953 to erase the inscription, the text was first chiselled off and then it was covreed with plaster. http://b365.realitatea.net/inscrip-ia-budapesta-de-pe-arcul-de-triumf-a-fost-tearsa-in-1953_183342.html But it should not be impossible to replace the entire block of stone with a new one decorated with a fresh inscription. Radu |
| Posted by: Imperialist October 10, 2012 08:50 am | ||
You're joking, right? |
| Posted by: Florin October 10, 2012 11:19 pm | ||||
No. In any democratic country, if you make a public statement against another side and you cannot prove it, that side may sue you for "calumny". * * * Remember the 1990's ? Corneliu Vadim Tudor was defendant in about 60...80 calumny lawsuits occurring in the same time. I can give another example - it may not be appropriate. Let say you are accusing Adrian Nastase of making fraud against national interest, or stealing from public money, or getting bribes for his official duties. If you cannot prove it, he may sue you for "calumny". Well, he is in jail (with his laptop connected to Internet to fill his time) - so... P.S: And how is the laptop charged? When the Romanian cells got outlets for power supply ? What kind of jail is that? |
| Posted by: Florin October 10, 2012 11:33 pm | ||
No - nothing was "doctored". Neither the photos presented by "Cantacuzino", neither that movie. I mentioned that the video had a close "zoom in", so it is a more reliable source of information, proving that what happened it happened in the last few years. The same portion of an image may look different when it is part of a "wide angle", versus when you focus into it with "zoom in". The automatic digital camera tries to adapt to overall luminosity. Trust me, I made about 20,000 digital photos since 2002, and hundreds and hundreds of short digital videos as well. ( I do not claim that all of them were good.) |
| Posted by: MMM October 11, 2012 06:04 am | ||
Well, it's a special one, designed for PM's and other VIP's (Very Import Papagal), as another ex-con said once about another ex-PM... It's better to keep in mind that we live in Romania and we do not obey the regular laws of Physics: if A.N. wants to charge his laptop through the power of mind, well... he CAN do it! Maybe we should ask him nicely to recover the inscripton as well!!! |
| Posted by: mihnea October 11, 2012 06:30 am |
| I hate finger pointing is the most useless thing you can do, and it's happening way to often in Romania. In my opinion the problem is simple, the inscription is missing now, who did it is not so important anymore. We should restore the monument as it was when built and f&ck the rest. As far as I'm concern, I live in Bucharest since I was born and I have walked around that square countless times and I was always interested in the erased inscription (it's clearly visible from the sidewalk), before and after it was surrounded with the scaffolding and I have never seen the inscription "BUDAPESTA" on the arch. |
| Posted by: Imperialist October 11, 2012 09:28 am | ||
Sure, but I never heard of protesters being sued for the slogans they write on their protest signs. If UDMR feels like sueing someone it will probably sue the person/media institution that published that article. |
| Posted by: Imperialist October 11, 2012 02:08 pm | ||
At least we, the public and media, made them promise they will: http://www.cultura.ro/articol/436 It's a small step for man... let's hope it keeps going. |
| Posted by: contras October 11, 2012 04:59 pm |
| Here is an article who pretends that the inscription was erased in 1953 and nothing was happened in 2008. Good news, the inscription will be restorated. http://b365.realitatea.net/victoria-armatei-romane-la-budapesta-se-intoarce-pe-arcul-de-triumf-dupa-50-de-ani_183589.html |
| Posted by: Florin October 12, 2012 12:06 am | ||
"Cine face si desface are intotdeauna ce face." / "Who is building, then dismantling, will always have what to do." (good rhyme in Romanian language) |
| Posted by: teraman January 04, 2013 09:51 pm | ||
I supposed they had fallen apart, days earlier, from... natural causes! Just like that! Spring wheatear, you know… too much rain, wind and so on! Most likely Romanian Army had nothing to do whit that… “fallen apart” mentioned before. Slovak, Serbs and French, they may have something to do with it. And in unprecedented greatness, just for the sake of friendship, they decided to let Romanian Army to MILLITARY OCCUPY Hungarian capital. Right? 1st Lt. (for real) teraman |
| Posted by: Dénes January 05, 2013 07:59 am |
| Haven't you heard armies falling apart internally? E.g. the Russian Army in 1917, more recently the Iraqi Army during the US invasion in 2003, etc. Whatever you wrote, Lt. (for real) teraman does not change the fact I noted, namely there was no battle in/around Budapest, the Rumanians marched in unopposed, as the Hungarian government, let alone the army, had fallen apart days earlier. Gen. (luckily, only virtually) Dénes |
| Posted by: udar January 06, 2013 07:19 am |
| Hungarian army colapsed due to defeats and pressure from Romanian army, thats hard to dispute. The occupation of Budapest was the "coronation" of those battles, the following result. If you wish, the battle for Budapest was fought on the Tisa fields, after that the road to Budapest was open. Now is history, i can understand some Hungarians may be a little hurt about that outcome but any nation (including Romanians) have moments in history that want to be forgotten or changed [edited by admin] |
| Posted by: teraman January 06, 2013 09:15 pm | ||
that's all, folks! |
| Posted by: teraman January 06, 2013 09:23 pm | ||
Not in time of PEACE! Both "falling apart internally" cases you, sir, mentioned happened under a very heavy enemy army (coalition) pressure, IN TIME OF WAR. Just as udar mentioned: "Hungarian army colapsed due to defeats and pressure from Romanian army, thats hard to dispute. The occupation of Budapest was the "coronation" of those battles, the following result. If you wish, the battle for Budapest was fought on the Tisa fields, after that the road to Budapest was open." |
| Posted by: Victor January 06, 2013 09:25 pm |
| udar, please try to avoid words that contain references to certain anatomical parts in the future. It's the second time you use this word. |
| Posted by: aidan zea January 07, 2013 02:38 pm |
| Udar and Teraman, I'm so sorry but from a military perspective you are wrong! After the defeat of the month July 1919, the Hungarian Red Army has disintegrated alone, she having yet units that were not destroyed in battle, so which would be able to fight behind the Danube or in defending Budapest! They simply disintegrated, the discipline being a old problem of the Hungarian Red Army since early 1919! Consequently as there was no battle for Budapest I wonder why everybody insist on this issue? |
| Posted by: Dénes January 07, 2013 06:06 pm | ||
Because of political motivation. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Dénes January 07, 2013 07:22 pm |
| Here is an excerpt from a book manuscript on the history of the Hungarian army I am working on: "Informed that a major offensive was planned by the Rumanians, who had already advanced to the River Tisza, deep inside central Hungary, the Red Army decided to act first, even though the odds were against it. It is now known that this hopeless attack, whose outcome was all but certain, was masterminded by the new Chief of Staff of the Red Army, Ferenc Julier, who had no other way to destroy the Bolshevik regime but from within. On 20 July 1919, units of the Hungarian Red Army crossed the River Tisza’s line and initiated a desperate counter-attack. Following initial successes, the outnumbered and outgunned Hungarians were forced to retreat behind the Tisza line after seven days of intensive fighting. Demoralisation and confusion within the Red forces, with no established chain of command, prevented an effective defence. It was further weakened by the lack of supplies and contradictory orders issued by the central government in Budapest. Morale was also low. Entire units surrendered or disbanded. Even under those circumstances, the first Rumanian attempt to cross the Tisza was stopped. Only after reinforcements had arrived could the Rumanian troops break the Hungarian resistance and land on the western bank of the river. Their advance on Budapest, their final goal, could not be prevented by the Red Army, which was by then in a state of utter demoralisation." I hope this answers the issue. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: udar January 08, 2013 05:39 pm | ||
Aidan, i am sorry but you are wrong from all perspective, including the military one. Hungarian army was well motivated after they defeated the Czeckoslovakians (and i think even imposed a Bolshevik republic in Slovakia), its ranks was filled for patriotic reasons too and numbered a close number of soldiers with Romanian army from Transilvania. More then that, they was the one who attacked over Tisa, in an attempt to conquer as much as possible of Transilvania. It was a mistake of Bela Khun, puffed and deluded by the victory over Czechs, as he believed he can do the same against Romanians (and he expected some Russian Soviets help too) Sure, soon after Romanian army defetead their attempts and start to push them back and chase them, they crumbled and the outcome was clear for everyone, meaning the occupation of Budapest, left undefended now after the defeat of Hungarian army. |
| Posted by: udar January 08, 2013 05:40 pm | ||||
With all due respect Denes, do you realize that same argument can be used against your stance in this matter? |
| Posted by: adicontakt January 08, 2013 05:54 pm | ||
but the moral of the hungarian army was good |
| Posted by: Dénes January 08, 2013 08:05 pm | ||||||
No, because I have proven that there was no 'Battle of Budapest', but others could not prove that there was such a battle. Hence the political motivation I referred to in insisting on something that did not happen only because it fits a political agenda. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: ANDREAS January 10, 2013 10:41 pm | ||
... or to insist on not to mention a "national shame" that the "opincarii romani" had destroyed the Hungarian (Red or whatever colour you want) Army and had occupied the enemy capital, hanging their "opinci" on Budapest Parliament (legend or not it is to beautiful not to mention!) |
| Posted by: Florin January 11, 2013 12:04 am | ||
Should I understand from your words that Ferenc Julier was a traitor / "mole" ? If so, how did he get the function of Chief of Staff of the (Hungarian) Red Army ? Even inside a collapsing army, you have to prove some previous merits to be advanced that far. Moreover, the guys around have to consider the new leader more capable than the previous Chief of Staff. |
| Posted by: Dénes January 11, 2013 06:37 am | ||
You see, Andreas, you're giving again a political statement. This is what I meant in my previous posts. What's the point? What if I always reminded you that the Hungarians occupied the Rumanian capital first, in 1916 (noi v-am tras-o primii)?  I didn't do it because, personally, I see no point in doing this. I prefer to stick to history, not politics. Gen. Dénes |
| Posted by: Florin January 11, 2013 08:42 am | ||
From a realistic point of view, this kind of statement is the same as when the Russians say "We had defeated Nazi Germany" and forget Great Britain and U.S.A., and the Americans say ""We had defeated Nazi Germany" and forget Great Britain and Soviet Union, and occasionally even the British "forget" the others. A pure non-political fact: the combined frontlines around Romania in Autumn 1916 were twice the length of the Western Front, while the Romanian troops defending them were one tenth of the total of combined French - French colonials - British - Commonwealth troops located in France. The Romanian Army was under pressure in the same time from German, Austrian, Hungarian, Bulgarian and Turkish troops. The Russian troops arriving in Romania at the end of 1916 were more burden than help. The fact that "...the Hungarians occupied the Rumanian capital first, in 1916..." was possible under this situation. They would never achieve that without the others. The historians usually remember the event as the occupation of Bucharest by German troops - so big was the number of Germans, compared with Austro-Hungarians. Actually, the leaders of Hungary became quite realistic about this after 1921, and never tried something serious alone. They waited the right opportunity (1940) and the right friends (Nazi Germany - Mussolini's Italy - Soviet Union). "A friend in need is a friend indeed." |
| Posted by: Dénes January 11, 2013 12:14 pm | ||
That's of course true. I would never question it in a serious discussion. Pretty much the same way, historians remember the occupation (to some "liberation") of Budapest in 1945 as a Soviet affair. All I wanted to point out, trying to be sarcastic, using the same language of semi-covert messages, is how point-less is the political approach to a military event, how myths are created by politicians, and how these actually stick with a certain area of the public, because it fits an agenda. Gen. Dénes |