"Budapest" erased from triumphal arch

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.

This post has been edited by Florin on October 05, 2012 07:27 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/bu..._785321518.html

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.

This post has been edited by Florin on October 05, 2012 07:45 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

This post has been edited by Dénes on October 05, 2012 10:18 am

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.

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

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.

This post has been edited by 21 inf on October 05, 2012 05:50 pm

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

I am not arguing with what you wrote until I will have time to learn more about it.

This post has been edited by Florin on October 05, 2012 06:57 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"?

http://www.nineoclock.ro/events-dedicated-to-heroes-day/

It looks like an intervention to me.

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.

This post has been edited by Florin on October 07, 2012 05:28 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"?

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.

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?

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

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.

This post has been edited by Florin on October 06, 2012 06:30 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!

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.