Jump to content

Talk:Hungarian–Romanian War: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 155: Line 155:


Please check for yourself and correct me if I am wrong. Otherwise I'll remove the statement from the page.[[User:Cealicuca|Cealicuca]] ([[User talk:Cealicuca|talk]]) 13:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Please check for yourself and correct me if I am wrong. Otherwise I'll remove the statement from the page.[[User:Cealicuca|Cealicuca]] ([[User talk:Cealicuca|talk]]) 13:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
:Mystery solved. This was added by [[User:Litender|Litender]], a sock of [[User:Stubes99|Stubes99]] (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian%E2%80%93Romanian_War&diff=next&oldid=836685743&diffmode=visual). Initially added without any reference, obviously. I'll do the cleanup and check other sources as well. Anyone else cares to join? :) [[User:Cealicuca|Cealicuca]] ([[User talk:Cealicuca|talk]]) 14:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:16, 10 April 2021


Editing the article

The principle behind Wikipedia is to contribute knowledge to all of us. Therefore, adding new insight is welcomed and by way of consequence so is editing the article in this respect. However, to get valuable edits may sometimes be quite difficult.

This Talk page is thought to exchange information and agree upon changes to the article such that only valuable edits really make it in the online version. The Talk page is structured to mirror the sections of the article such that it is as easy as possible to see if changing the online version really matters.

Below is a set of rules that I believe make sense for everybody who desires to contribute to this article. Please abide to them. I will revert any changes that do not follow these rules and I would like to ask all responsible editors of this article to do the same; although I will check regularly on this article, I can't be on the net 24/7. I hope we can all enjoy our hobby here :-). Best regards.Octavian8 (talk)

Rules for editing the article

To ensure a civilized and focused discussion that will contribute the article, I would like to add here a few rules:

1). Remain calm.
2). Keep a civilized tone.
3). Do NOT modify the article before reaching agreement among all editors here.
4). Try to have your modifications sustained by references.
5). Wait for at least one week after reaching agreement among several editors, before changing the on-line article (so as to give the others time to respond).
6). Read this Talk page (including the Archives) before you start a new topic or make new edits to check if what you intent to do has not already been discussed.
7). Place your comments in the appropriate sections of the Talk page (i.e., mirroring the articles' sections) to allow a focused discussion.

Pleas feel free to add other sensible rules.Octavian8 (talk)

Comments

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. See: Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. This is even true for the "official" rules of Wikipedia, but those "rules" above are not even official ones. So don't worry about them and feel free to improve or maintain the article. Koertefa (talk)

Which rule do you mean? If you mean the rule about NOT modifying the article before reaching agreement, this is a very sensible rule meant to avoid revert wars and you can be sure that I will enforce it. Should this prove to be impossible, I will ask for full protection for the page until a civilized discussion makes its way back on this Talk page.Octavian8 (talk)
You should not enforce any rule, especially if its your own creation. I see your set of "rules" as gaming the system, in order to maintain your control over the contents. This is unacceptable as well as threatening with full protection. I would like to remind you that nobody owns articles. Koertefa (talk)
In the face of revert wars and editors that cry good faith but do not act by it, I see this to be the sole solution. Look on my constructor page and compare the original version with this one to see that I am not against modifying the article, as long as it is made in a meaningful way. It mesmerizes me why you and your likes can't understand that in order to cooperate we need to agree, and modifying the article before agreement is not only very uncivilized but also leads to fight rather than cooperation. The Talk page is here precisely for this reason, to promote cooperation and thus improve Wikipedia. And about protection, I will ask it if this revert war continues.Octavian8 (talk)
Answer to User:Koertefa on renaming this section: In this section there are arguments pro and contra these rules, so it is a choice of rather poor logic to call the entire section "Against the rules". Furthermore, I believe your quarrel is only with the rule that stay against you editing the article at your will, or you have something against being polite, remaining calm, etc.? Therefore I will reinstate the original title of this section. Octavian8 (talk)
I only want to improve the article with making some statements more precise (so they cease being POVs). It is you who do not want to make any compromises. Editors do not need your permission before editing the article, your are abusing the concept of consensus. If somebody edits the article in a way that is unacceptable for you, then you should modify it in a minimal way such that it becomes acceptable for you, as well, instead of deleting the whole contribution and pointing to you own "rules for editing the article". I am absolutely not against reaching agreements and making consensuses, but I am against your total control over the article, namely, that you want to decide what can be included and what cannot. You do not own this article. Koertefa (talk)
I will not compromise from rules that allow us to move forward on improving this article. The main thing about discussing edits on this page first, is that it allows us to avoid a revert war - that is waisted time for everybody. Furthermore not every edit is valuable, by discussing them first we make sure that only valuable edits that reach a consensus among editors are taken over in the online article. At this current moment you are desperately trying to impose your view on the article that I believe to be false. The solution is to discuss it here and making use of logic and argument to reach a compromise. A compromise includes accepting that ones opinion previous to the discussion was wrong! Again I have no problem with edits that are meaningful, compare the original version of the article with this one to convince yourself. I have a problem with people trying to butcher this article and so step over a lot of work and dedication invested here by me and other editors.Octavian8 (talk)
Your "rules" have only one purpose: to maintain your total control over the article. They actually prevent the article from improving. And who should decide which edits are "valuable"? You? Moreover, it is quite strange that you do not keep yourself to your own "rules": you did not reach an agreement here before you have inserted this [1]. I guess that: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"... Koertefa (talk)
I believe these are the rules of any well-behaved person. For the last time, I agree to meaningful modification of the article, a comparison between this version and the original one shows this easily. With respect to me not keeping my rules, this is a rather poor exercise in 'rhetoric' from your part. I did not modify the text, just added a reference and a link. This should show you that I react to meaningful suggestions, Fakirbakir asked for a citation. Because the description of the group around Horthy leads to a categorization I accept this and provided the citation. I was unable to provide a citation for the Archduke Joseph, that's why I left the tag there. If no-one finds a citation I will modify the text to avoid categorization, e.g., to something like using faction instead of nationalistic group. However, this is becoming childish, if you try to criticize my actions is OK, trying to defame me in a cheap manner - remembering on a playground spat rather - is another thing. It may be that I will stop answering to you and report your actions as well.Octavian8 (talk)
If you can "agree to meaningful modification", then please, tell us your problem, for example, with the first sentence in the version that you keep deleting blindly. Why is it not "meaningful"? By the way: in order to make a consensus, first you should precisely identify your problem, which you clearly failed to do so, no matter how many times I keep asking you to tell us your exact problem with the modified variant. Your problem may just be that you did not approve that modification. Koertefa (talk)
Before pointing the finger at me, why don't you apply your own logic to you? To be more precise: in order to make a consensus, first you should precisely identify your problem, which you clearly failed to do so, no matter how many times I keep asking you to tell us your exact problem with the original(my note) variant. Then I could easily continue,Your problem may just be that you did not approve the original version (my note).Octavian8 (talk)
I am adding a new rule, about posting comments in the respective sections to be able to keep the discussion focused.Octavian8 (talk)

Edit war in autumn 2011 - protection request

Since the time I have written this article a few years ago, there had been several edit campaigns, that in the end benefited the article greatly (please compare the original version from my personal page with the current version). However, the edit campaign that started a few weeks ago has in the mean time transformed in a edit/revert war, where some editors started insulting me directly (see the message from user Norden1990 on my Talk page, as well as his comments concerning my person in the comment to some reverts he effectuated). In the beginning of the war, user Norden1990 rudely (without discussion or any hints on his action) renamed the article from "The Hungarian-Romanian war of 1919" to "The Allied intervention in Hungary" and then to "1919 Hungarian-Romanian war", once I tried undoing his deeds. This is why there is a request (and discussion) for renaming the article as well - actually is a request for returning to the original name.

  • While previous edit campaigns had to do with adding information, this one is mainly about semantics. I will try to summarize them shortly:
    • User Koertefa constantly adds references to who voted for what in the prelude, and when I pointed him that this information was already in the article, he accused me of hiding (sic) information in the article.
    • There is an obsession among editors Koertefa, Norden1990 and Fakirbakir with the looting of Hungary. In the article there was already mentioned that the Romanians took extensive booty from Hungary together with details about what was taken. They insist however on naming this looting - which I can understand - and of adding such important information as that the Romanians took the telephones from some administrative building in Budapest - which I can't understand. They also want contemporary images showing Romanian soldiers feeding the population of Budapest to be removed, seeing here only propaganda - in contrast to the story about the telephones.
    • The only edit that has the potential of benefiting the article is about the Serbian involvement. To my knowledge, the Serbians stayed out of the Hungarian - Romanian war because the French pressured them into it. If there are serious studies demonstrating the impact of the Serbian involvement in the Hungarian-Romanian war I would be thrilled to have a section dedicated to this topic in the article.
  • Most important all these editors constantly edit the article without agreeing first on the text with other editors interested in the article, as for example me. Instead of talking and cooperating and agreeing on the talk page, they accuse me of owning the article and go along with the edits, but not once have they stopped to discuss the changes before committing them - because, I believe, they are convinced I will not agree, however, this is THEIR assumption, never have they bothered to try verifying it.
  • I thought a few days ago we finally reached an understanding (after week-long discussions and various warnings), but I am off Wikipedia for a few days and all the edits are back again.
  • I am committed to the idea of Wikipedia that means that in general only balanced articles on hot topics survive long enough to have an impact. I see this article as a good opportunity to ease this old Hungarian-Romanian feud by understanding each other. However while users like Baxter and Renard seem to share my thoughts, others like Norden1990 seem to be just extremists, bothered only with ensuring that their hatred and frustrations make it to the next generations.
  • I can't be online 24/7 to guard the article and at the same time try to reason with editors that reject my efforts from the start.

Considering all these I have asked the article to be protected in the version before the edits of the last two weeks. Once either this happens or the edits stop, we can get back to talking. Until then I will respond to no posts anymore, and will concentrate on just holding the original (as before the revert war started) version of the article online. Octavian8 (talk)

I have to repeat myself. User Octavian8 just simply ignores the sources. See: [2]Fakirbakir (talk)
Now that the article has been protected, we can start Talking. See the corresponding sections on the Talk page.Octavian8 (talk)
User Octavian8 just desperately tries to maintain his total control over the article. His rhetoric that we should start talking is a bluff, since there were continuous talks in parallel with the edits. In order to maintain his POV, he deletes every sourced contribution, often without pointing out his problem with them, hiding under statements such as "there was no consensus reached before the edit". His behavior and "rules" do not allow the improvement of the article. Koertefa (talk)
I will not answer your accusations as I already did it on several occasions, even in my post above. However, I am starting to believe that your intention is not talking and cooperating to improve this article, as you have been offered countless times the opportunity to talk here (on the Talk page) and I have written numerous posts answering you. You just try to impose your distorted view of an historical event here and you get angry and frustrated because I won't let you ruin my and others work.Octavian8 (talk)
I have, I am and I will continue to offer you the possibility to argue why you think the article needs improvement and where it should be improved here on this Talk page. This is the meaning of the Talk page, so that we can talk about modifications and agree upon them before committing them, but please come with something new, the looting issue is almost solved, and the prelude is very good as it is, without you making it POV. Now, this is the last time I am answering your baseless accusations about me owning the article. If you continue with this I will begin with stopping answering you and then will get to other steps as well if you don't understand it.Octavian8 (talk)

Florian Bichir

A lot of Romanian materials looted by Hungarian troops were found in Budapest including historic bells of churches[1][2][3][4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.118.213 (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Florian BICHIR. Lumea credintei, anul III, nr. 3(20)
  2. ^ Ion Ardeleanu, Ion Popescu-Puțuri, Arhivele Statului (Romania), Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică, 1986, p.64
  3. ^ Revista Fundației Drăgan, Issues 5-6, 1989, p.79
  4. ^ Varvara Aioanei, Ion Ardeleanu, Desăvîrșirea unitătii național-statele a poporului român: Februarie 1920-decembrie 1920, Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică, 1983, p.64

Explanation

Hi Turgidson,

the Hungarian-Romanian war as you may see as well in the infobox location, did not touch Romania, the events happened in Hungary, hence the removal.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

  1. The way I see it, this type of category is not strictly confined to events that happened on the territory of a given country that participated in WWI. For instance, Category:Aftermath of World War I in France has a whole sub-category on the Franco-Turkish War, which, believe it or not, did not happen on the territory of France, but rather, in faraway Cilicia and Upper Mesopotamia. Also, a multitude of pages in this type of categories involve events that happened outside the countries they refer to, for instance, all sorts of treaties that were signed elsewhere.
  2. The Hungarian–Romanian War occurred between November 13, 1918 and August 3, 1919. By December 24th, Brașov, Sibiu, and Cluj were under control of the Romanian Army, and that control was not relinquished throughout the war; to the contrary, it was extended within a few months to the present-day border between the two countries. Now, I guess you may have in mind that that control was only de facto in 1918–1919, and not formalized de jure until the Treaty of Trianon of 1920. But that would be a very, very narrow, extremely legalistic interpretation of what this category involves. By this token, why would, for instance, the Republic of Heinzenland be listed under Category:Aftermath of World War I in Hungary? Was the Burgenland de jure part of Hungary in early December 1918? And I hope you will agree that the Hungarian–Romanian War of 1918–1919 was a much more consequential event in the history of both countries than that "Two-day Republic" was in the history of either Austria or Hungary. Turgidson (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. I see your point, but since there has been not any category description (nor the French counterpart has), I could on assume the meaning of the name of the category itself (i.e. Category:Aftermath of World War I in Hungary has a definiton)
2. a, Burgenland did not exist in 1918; b, If you refer to the territory it covers, it was part of Hungary,(KIENGIR (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]
I still maintain this is a very narrow interpretation of the category description; a bit like that famous quote, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is," only here we are arguing about the definition of the word "in". And definitely the territory on which the Hungarian–Romanian War was fought (let's focus on the period Dec 1918–March 1919 for now) was under the administration of the Kingdom of Romania, as I argued above, and you did not dispute in your response. So let me try once again, staying for now on that very narrow ground of what the word "in" means in this context (certainly Transylvania was much closer to Romania than Mesopotamia was to France in the aftermath of WWI, or at any other time in history, but let's leave that aside for now): were for instance Brașov, Sibiu, and Cluj in Romania by the end of 1918 and throughout 1919, as a direct result of the war covered by this article? I am interested in hearing more about this, since it may help clarify the overall structure of the article, not just as it pertains to the category in question. Turgidson (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the word in in this context is very clear. Any comparison with the French category is not necessarily binding, since as I said, if there is not a category definiton, on the title we may assume anything, so this may be another issue. No, the cities you listed were not in Romania, imposed military administration in occupied territories is not changing country's sovereingty, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]
That's your opinion, but what is the concrete historical evidence you base it on? The fact of the matter is that the Treaty of Versailles, formally signed on June 28, 1919, recognized the sovereignty of Romania over Transylvania, see e.g. History of Transylvania#After World War I. And that was before August 3–4, 1919, when Romanian troops occupied Budapest, thereby putting an end to the Hungarian–Romanian War. Yes, there were follow-up treaties, at Saint-Germain (signed on September 10, 1919) and Trianon (signed on June 4, 1920), but as the aforementioned article mentions, those treaties only "further defined the status of Transylvania and the new border between the states of Hungary and Romania."
So, to recap: by the end of 1918 the most important cities in Transylvania were already under Romanian administration, and by mid-1919 the sovereignty of Romania over Transylvania had been formally recognized at Versailles, while the war described in this article was still going on (by then, at the Tisza). Thus, I contend, this event, which undoubtedly happened in the direct aftermath of WWI, happened in a substantial way in Romania. Turgidson (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is a fact (by knowing appropriately and consecutively the historical evidence and events on the time, etc.). The Treaty of Versailles had no connection of what you say, and in the History of Transylvania page it must be a junk sentence by mistake (anyway followed by a pharagraph with contradictive content, referring the same etc.). The Treaty of Versailles was concerning Germany and the Allied Powers. The Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye was concerning Austria and the Allied Powers, while the Treaty of Trianon Hungary and the Allied Powers. Thus your deduction is not accurate. Sovereingty transfer has been established by signing the Treaty of Trianon on 4 June 1920, which came into effect internationally on 26 July 1921.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Recent edits

Azure94,

some names you remove or alter, or changing the ordering in an inappropriate way, etc. Please avoid this, thank you.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]

That's what I was to tell to you. Your order is entirely inappropriate and follows irredentist POV, thank you. Azure94 (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is nonsense, I warn you finally to drop baseless accusations, what you do is against status quo.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
I warn you to stop rewriting history. You are not who decides the "status quo". Azure94 (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this unserious discussion in such form it useless to to continue. Contrary, to your misleading edit log, the Vix note set demarcation lines and were not even identical with the borders the Trianon Treaty set. Sure, not me, but the Trianon treaty set the status quo, in this you are right.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Czechoslovakia was founded in 1918, not 1920. These lands were de facto part of it since 1918. The borders set by the Vix note were not that much different from the final borders at Trianon, in fact both the Vix note and the Trianon treaty put the relevant towns outside of Hungary. Your unserious discussion and editing reveals your irredentist POV. Azure94 (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was not about when Czechoslovakia was founded, and not all lands were even de facto that were later bordered. Again, the Vix note set demarcation lines, not borders, at least you have acknowledged your mistake that even they were different with the borders set later. Final warning to drop personal attacks.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think the problem in this discussion has been dealt with correctly. For example, I don't think it's appropriate to continue referring to modern-day Slovakia as "Upper Hungary" while a literal war was happening between (Czecho-) Slovaks and Hungarians. I also see several Romanian cities today that only have a Hungarian name displayed (like Satu Mare). Some changes should indeed be done. Super Ψ Dro 17:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me where in the text "modern-day Slovakia as "Upper Hungary" referred? I found one instance of solely "Szatmárnémeti", I have no problem to add the Romanian names as well of course.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
"Czechoslovakia took control of Upper Hungary and Carpathian Ruthenia.", "In June, the Hungarian Red Army invaded the eastern part of the newly-forming Czechoslovakia, approximately the former Upper Hungary." "Many former Austro-Hungarian officers re-enlisted for patriotic reasons. The Hungarian Red Army moved its 1st and 5th artillery divisions (40 battalions) to Upper Hungary." "Kun withdrew his remaining military units that had remained loyal after the political fiasco in Upper Hungary.". I consider that "Slovakia" or "modern-day Slovakia" should be added somewhere, specially on the last mentions. Super Ψ Dro 11:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did in the introductory occasion.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you. I replaced the second mention of Upper Hungary cited in my first message with "modern Slovakia", which I consider better. If that's kept, I don't have more complains. Super Ψ Dro 14:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I read you now, I fixed it, see the edit logs, hope will be fine with you.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Deborah S. Cornelius - Bias

@Turgidson: - I'm pinging because I see you have an interest on the subject.

I've noticed some reliance on this source (Hungary in World War II: Caught in the Cauldron). This source is widely considered as biased, to say the least. You can find a good article here: https://ahea.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/ahea/article/viewFile/82/71

Now, the sourced content might be ok, but in this case we need to find a better source. Can you help with this?

Of course, any other editor is welcomed to contribute.Cealicuca (talk) 11:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Norden1990: - Pinged you too, since you seem to again after many years (and KIENGIR's departure) have a renewed interest in this.Cealicuca (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spare me the comments from such. This page has been on my watchlist for at least eleven years and I edit it at intervals whenever I want. I have only made a few typographical corrections now, unfortunately I do not know the subject better, although it is a fact that, afte reading, this article is quite one-sided, but from the very beginning, when it was created in 2008. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any valuable contribution is welcomed. I am pretty sure that soon enough there will be a renewed interest for other editors.Cealicuca (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian self-disarmament

The following "conclusion" is on this page and several other pages. Neither on this page, nor on other pages where I've seen it, is this sourced in any way. Moreover, around this particular statement, several others "conclusions" are insinuated or flat out added to the page.

"The unilateral disarmament of its army made Hungary remain without a national defense while it was particularly vulnerable."

Can anyone find a WP:RS attesting to this?

Moreover:

1: Linder's declaration seems to be taken out of context. "Next day the press reported in headlines that Minister of War Linder ‘does not want to see a soldier,’ whereas the meaning of his appeal was that there was a need for an army more aware of its élan and discipline” (Menczer 1995, 51). Indeed discipline was a major concern of the Károlyi government in November 1918, as undisciplined troops returned from the Italian front with weapons and looted and terrorized the countryside."

2: "In an essay written on the fifth anniversary of the 1918 revolution, the reporter László Fényes, who in 1918 was government commissioner of the “armed citizenry,” the National Guard that that was set up to keep internal order, wrote that upon their return to Hungary the troops “Could not be used for further service, they had to be disarmed because of their bitter spirit. How many a notary, district administrator, steward, renter, and grocer, can thank his life for this decision. Naturally they now make the loudest noise….We have attempted the impossible, with little result, to stem destruction by the revolution” (Fényes 1923, 133)."

So this disarmament was (1) meant as a reform of the army and to prevent mutiny, looting - overall having a disorganized and armed ex-military threatening to add to the instability in the aftermath of the war (2) a necessity due to the low morale of the soldiers.Cealicuca (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting find. I did look at Robert Pastor's review article of Deborah S. Cornelius's book, and indeed it sheds new light (at least for me) on some of these events.Turgidson (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR / WP:SYNTH

I have checked the source (indicated page) and there is no reference supporting the statement below at the indicated location, at the very least not in the from it is mentioned. Just to be clear, I've searched the whole chapter (5.4), p. 40 - 42.

After the Hungarian unilateral disarmament, Czech, Serbian and Romanian political leaders chose to attack Hungary, instead of holding democratic plebiscites concerning the disputed areas.

Source: Bardo Fassbender; Anne Peters; Simone Peter; Daniel Högger (2012). The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law. Oxford University Press. p. 41. ISBN 9780199599752.

Please check for yourself and correct me if I am wrong. Otherwise I'll remove the statement from the page.Cealicuca (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery solved. This was added by Litender, a sock of Stubes99 (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian%E2%80%93Romanian_War&diff=next&oldid=836685743&diffmode=visual). Initially added without any reference, obviously. I'll do the cleanup and check other sources as well. Anyone else cares to join? :) Cealicuca (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hungarian–Romanian_War&oldid=1017049101"