Talk:Battle of Batina

Recent edits
, such issues have been discussed many times at many pages (hope you remember), it has nothing to do with legitimization, the infobox shows the actual country status quo, it is not about recognition isssues, which may be explained in the lead and/or the core (e.g. Allied point of view, and other events etc.), so I have to disagree to give up the standard form.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC))
 * It isn't an Allied point of view, it was the international legal situation at the time. There is no "standard form" or consensus that the invading and occupying country should be what goes in the infobox. The status of Batina was Hungarian-occupied Yugoslav territory. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * no, this was the key point in the previous discussions, it was not the international legal situation, and it has been explained more times. The Allied Powers are not identical with the international legal situation, which is falsely believed or asserted, especially in war conditions, when the two or more blocks generally do not recognize anymore each other, not even necessarily members of the same group, as various striking examples have been already shown (and between two de jure a de facto makes somehing real/actual). The status you describe is the Allied approach, the Yugoslav state has been already abolished then.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC))
 * This is completely contrary to principles of international law. The international legal situation during a war is that the pre-war borders apply. The "actual country" is Yugoslavia, not Hungary. State borders are amended by treaty between the involved parties, and there was no treaty between Hungary and Yugoslavia ceding this region to Hungary, such as Trianon which ceded Hungarian territory to Yugoslavia post-WWI. You don't need to ping me for discussions here, I watchlist this article. Also, what previous discussions, link to them? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I won't ping here. Peacemaker, akin issues, even wholly or partially related we or more did discuss (sometimes even the times before you became admin) as well we (hence excuse me if I not dig from the past, I may summarize here the main things). Principles of international law and/or international legal situation is thin ice in this context, subject to POV, and in such forms do no exist as you wish to reflect to the events (relate it to a war, or post hoc, back in time is dubious, we cannot ignore contemporary situations). Not always treaties decide on these question, or if there are treaties, one party would not accept it even in war conditions (before/after/meanwhile various argumentation are, especially the Allies liked to change recurrently such, even contradicting the principles you are referring).
 * Ok, I won't ping here. Peacemaker, akin issues, even wholly or partially related we or more did discuss (sometimes even the times before you became admin) as well we (hence excuse me if I not dig from the past, I may summarize here the main things). Principles of international law and/or international legal situation is thin ice in this context, subject to POV, and in such forms do no exist as you wish to reflect to the events (relate it to a war, or post hoc, back in time is dubious, we cannot ignore contemporary situations). Not always treaties decide on these question, or if there are treaties, one party would not accept it even in war conditions (before/after/meanwhile various argumentation are, especially the Allies liked to change recurrently such, even contradicting the principles you are referring).


 * The actual country cannot be Yugoslavia, since that state have been abolished in 1941, and only after the war was reestablished. You are right that no state treaty have been made about cession by the aforementioned parties, however it could not not even be possible, since the state broke up earlier (btw. regarding the Treaty of Trianon, Hungary ceded territories to the Kingdom of SHS, accurately).(KIENGIR (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC))


 * Your comments, as far as I can understand your English expression, demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of international law as it applies to armed conflict and the law of occupation. It is not "thin ice" or POV in any way whatsoever, and there are literally hundreds of books that explain this issue in nauseating detail. When wars actually end (WWII didn't end until 1945), treaties or agreements are concluded between the belligerents which operationalise territorial changes, if any. Yugoslavia was never "abolished", it continued to exist from an international legal perspective from 1941 to 1945, and had a government-in-exile for that entire period. It remained occupied by the Axis powers, and the annexations were not legal, but a legal fiction of the occupiers. Yugoslavia was the legal successor state to the KSHS, so your latter point is moot. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 01:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Excuse me on the contrary, I professionally understand these areas, especially including Hungary, Central-Eastern Europe, or more general, in which majority of non-experts sometimes render erroneous approaches (regarding plenty of issues in the 1918-1947 timeline). In case you would not understand something properly (my English), please specify and I'll try to explain it again with other words. With the expression think ice I was just indicating that in these timeline and areas, plenty of happenings happened, and because of that you simply in this case cannot cite anymore that international law or anything you mean since especially that time many earlier laws or such has been already abolished/changed/overriden (not just by ending a war is that possible), by more means, but especially during the war, the international community split and many cases maintained opposing recognitions, next to the existing facts. Treaties or agreements may be concluded among belligerents, if the entity exist and/or is recognized, this may as well vary. That international legal perspective was not anymore existent as the way you wish to present/interpret, as I already said the community have been split, and the Allied standpoint is just one side of the coin, and it should not be confused with the earlier mentioned (especially, because as I already said, the Allied Powers quickly updated and inconsistently applied such approaches not meanwhile, before, but also after).


 * When I was referring to the KSHS, I did not debate Yugoslavia would not be the legal successor, I was just sharply precise as usual. So, the situation was like this: Yugoslavia abolished as a state in 1941 (fact), as new countries have been proclaimed, after parts of it had been occupied and annexed by other countries, etc. other administrative areas have been created, etc. (fact). This was not recognized by the Allied Powers (fact), but was recognized by the Axis (fact). In the late 1945, the Yugoslav state was reestablished (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) (fact). Your representation coincide with the Allied stance, but we have to be neutral, that's why I was recommeding broad explanation in the article, but the infobox should show the actual status quo situation, appropriately.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC))


 * You clearly do not "professionally understand these issues". This is clear in your statement that Yugoslavia was abolished as a state in 1941. It was not. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do, I just explained the situation (see the information before second fact tag = cause, and before the first tag is the = effect), what you insist again, is the Allied point of view (they regarded it as existing, while others not, however besides the conflicting recognition, the facts are evident).(KIENGIR (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC))
 * It is pointless discussing this with you. If you wish to pursue this, start a neutrally-worded RfC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)
 * Peacemaker, I respect you much more than you would say such, we discussed a lot since the past years, sometimes we agreed, sometimes we disagreed, but you cannot debate I am consistent, thus I have to say the current state does not have consensus, however, I don't see reverting a solution, since it would reset the page to an obviously erroneous state. Also, e.g. when the Ottoman Empire broke Hungary into three parts, the infobox contains Ottoman Empire on those parts effected, shall I like it or not, besides any other similar arguments anyone would raise, hence I proposed what I proposed about lead/core and infobox, instead of taking sides (even if it is not intended like such). However, I am confident on your good faith, but I don't wish to pursue an RFC, since these issues are more or less appropriately identified in the infoboxes, and we should be consistent. That is another issue, that some articles in certain areas - especially in the Balkans - have been written in the past of such editors who are not anymore active or have been sanctioned, and sometimes they written those in a very one-sided way (i.e. enough to check ten year old discussions in the talk pages), especially including Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian, etc. issues, Hungary has been partially affected, but many articles needs some corroboration in time. Have a nice day.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC))