"Budapest" erased from triumphal arch

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

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]

This post has been edited by Victor on January 06, 2013 09:17 pm

that's all, folks!

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."

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.

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?

Because of political motivation.

Gen. Dénes

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

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.

Because of political motivation.

Gen. Dénes

With all due respect Denes, do you realize that same argument can be used against your stance in this matter?

but the moral of the hungarian army was good

Because of political motivation.

Gen. Dénes

With all due respect Denes, do you realize that same argument can be used against your stance in this matter?

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

This post has been edited by Dénes on January 08, 2013 08:30 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!)

This post has been edited by ANDREAS on January 10, 2013 10:42 pm

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.

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

This post has been edited by Dénes on January 11, 2013 07:31 am