Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories

Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories

 * This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page. 

The result was: scheduled for Today's featured article/April 11, 2016 by — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)



The Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories was the military occupation then annexation of parts of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia by Hungary during World War II. These territories had all been under Hungarian rule prior to 1920, and had been transferred to Yugoslavia as part of the post-World War I Treaty of Trianon. The occupation began on 11 April 1941 when 80,000 Hungarian troops crossed the Yugoslav border in support of the German-led Axis invasion of Yugoslavia that had commenced five days earlier. Despite only sporadic resistance, Hungarian troops killed many civilians during the invasion. The Hungarian authorities deported tens of thousands of Serbs from the territories, re-settling Hungarians from other parts of Hungary. Resistance to the occupation commenced in the latter half of 1941, and in January 1942 the Hungarian military conducted retaliatory raids during which they killed over 3,300 people, mostly Serbs and Jews. In March 1944, when Hungary began to negotiate with the Allies, Germany took control of the country, including the annexed territories. This was followed by the collection and transport of the remaining Jews to extermination camps, resulting in the deaths of 85 per cent of the Jews in the occupied territories. The territories were restored to Yugoslav control as the Germans were pushed out of the region in late 1944 and 1945.
 * Most recent similar article(s): Most recent TFA on a military operation was Raid at Cabanatuan on 31 January 2016 (whilst that was also in WWII, it was an American operation in the Philippines)
 * Main editors: User:Peacemaker67
 * Promoted: 25 August 2013
 * Reasons for nomination: 75th anniversary of the Hungarian invasion of Yugoslavia
 * Support as nominator. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Meets the criteria as far as I can see. Important anniversary. 23 editor (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: Please make sure there's a link to the article in the summary. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, anti-Hungarian POV with factual errors: "maygarised", what is it? Furthermore there is no mention that "annexed" territories belonged to Hungary before 1918. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That is factually incorrect, and frankly, offensive suggestion. The article is not anti-Hungarian. "Magyarised" is explained in the article when it is mentioned. It is a well-balanced article using a wide range of academic sources, in several languages, and the article does mention the lands were part of Austria-Hungary before 1918. Conflicting sources are compared and contrasted, and it went through a thorough process via GA, Milhist A-Class review and FA. I have no axe to grind, as I have no affiliation with any of the countries or nationalities involved. Do you? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the point is valid that it may be seen (by some, not all) as POV to omit (from the summary) the fact that much (all?) of the territory we're talking about belonged to Hungary until 1918 or 1920. I get it, some of these guys were bad guys doing bad things. But occupation and reoccupation are generally treated differently. I plan to omit "Magyarised" from the summary, since it's an unfamiliar word, and since similar words sometimes have loaded connotations. It's not wrong, it's just not necessary. - Dank (push to talk) 01:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have an issue with including the fact that the territories were part of Hungary before 1918, or the removal of "magyarised" from the summary. I don't believe they make the summary POV, but I take the point about it being a loaded term. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made a couple of tweaks based on the feedback. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The Hungarian occupation lasted until March 1944, when territories became under indirect German administration following Operation Margarethe. So, "collection and transport of the remaining Jews to extermination camps, resulting in the deaths of 85 per cent of the Jews in the occupied territories" is not relevant to this subject. Of course, we can add aftermath info, but interestingly, for the nominator it is not important that after Communist Yuglosav takeover, tens of thousands of Hungarians, Germans, Croats were deported and exterminated by Tito's partisans. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop making provocative comments about the nominator. If you have suggestions to make about how the article or the blurb could be improved, make them without being uncivil. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 15:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thoughts on this point, PM? Were the Hungarians responsible in some way, apart from their initial choice of Germany as an ally? - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Bencherlite, I made my proposal above (I missed the mention of subsequent genocides against Hungarians, Germans etc.), it's at least as important information as German authorities deported Jews after March 1944 (which fact does not belong to the history of Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories). Anyway the whole article represents Serbian standpoint. It says "An estimated 5,000 Hungarians were killed following the return of the occupied territories to Yugoslav control". Nonsense, the number of victims at least 40,000, under the principle of collective guilt. According to this current blurb there were "Evil" Hungarians ("Magyars", which phrase is used by Slav extremists as pejorative) and "Benign" Serbs, however it not true, both sides committed serious war crimes. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The scope of this article is clearly about the period during which Hungary was in control of these territories between 1941 and 1945. The fact that the Yugoslavs committed crimes against Hungarians in Vojvodina after they recovered control of the territories is mentioned in the aftermath, but it is not in the scope of the article. The summary should be about the article scope, not the aftermath, but I can see where we might include a short sentence about it at the end of the summary (assuming we can fit it in the word limit). This is a red letter day, as it is the first time I've been accused (if indirectly) of being pro-Serb on WP, so I'm going to keep this to show all the Serb editors who regularly complain I'm anti-Serb... In fact, I'm neutral, I just rely on the academic sources and present them in what I hope is reasonable prose. For Bencherlite, the militia of the Hungarian Arrow Cross Party (which got 15% of the vote in the 1939 elections), interior ministry troops and the gendarmerie all willingly collaborated with the Germans in rounding up and killing Jews throughout Hungary after Operation Margarethe, that is a matter of public record. And thousands of Hungarians were tried after the war for their actions. I see no reason for whitewashing the active role Hungarians played in the extermination of that country's Jews, and I am outraged that anyone would seek to do so. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Arrow Cross Party gained 15 percent of the vote in 1939, but Szálasi's movement lost much of its support by 1944. Anyway they came to power in October 1944, after the overthrow of Miklós Horthy. "And thousands of Hungarians were tried after the war for their actions", it is definitely a falsification, there were several show trials organized by so-called people's tribunals. This topic is about Hungarian participaton in Yugoslavia, and I can say, Arrow Cross Party and Hungarian interior ministry members did not participate in deportations as Germans overtook the control in Yugoslavia. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That assertion is not based on reliable academic sources, and appears to be merely your opinion. If you have reliable academic sources for your assertions, I suggest you bring them to the article talk page. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Norden1990, the article in question has been tagged for collaboration under WikiProject Hungary since 2011, and has gone through good article, A-class and feature article reviews in 2013. Indeed, you've actually made edits there back then. Coming in here three years later and crying foul in this manner is a disingenuous violation of WP:AGF on part of numerous other editors, and consequently a violation of the rules of decorum set out in WP:ARBMAC. You now need to proceed to the relevant article Talk page and provide a modicum of reliable sources for at least a modicum of these claims, otherwise this may well be treated as a WP:NOTHERE/WP:POINT incident and sanctioned appropriately. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Joy, Leave me alone and do not threaten me. My remarks are about the (I think) biased summary, not the article itself. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There was nothing biased about the summary, and you have continuously failed to present any evidence that there is. The term "magyarised" could trivially have been linked to its article - Magyarization. The distinction between occupation and re-occupation could be said to have been at least moot, had it not been for the fact that when the title was discussed in 2013, you explicitly said that you support the current article title, so how could this 'bias' have suddenly materialized in 2016? Your other comments went well beyond the summary - the claim that the term "Magyars" itself is somehow meant to be understood as pejorative and something that only extremists use is blatantly contradictory with its own article. Wikipedia discussion forums such as this one are not meant to be a breeding ground for fringe theories. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Collaboration by militia, troops and police substantiates inclusion in the TFA summary of the rounding up of Jews. (The other points had already been addressed.) This article is only about the Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories (though I would argue that "reoccupation" would be a more appropriate word for it). I agree that the reprisals against and hardships suffered by Hungarians are also awful and also a part of the bigger story ... and I look forward to seeing someone nominate that article at FAC, where I'm sure it will be treated with respect. - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Dan. International law is clear on the occupation/re-occupation issue. The territories were lawfully ceded to Yugoslavia under an international treaty entered into by Hungary (albeit as a defeated nation of WWI), so it is definitely occupation then annexation in the legal sense, despite the fact that many Hungarians would say that the Treaty of Trianon of 1920 was unfair. Few post-war treaties are fair, as they are usually drafted by (and advantage) the victors. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Suitable to mark this anniversary. Nick-D (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, if only to countermand the bizarre oppose above. I agree with Peacemaker67 regarding the occupation/reoccupation issue; to take an example from the same war which is probably more familiar to en-wiki readers, we wouldn't say in Wikipedia's voice that Germany and the USSR "reoccupied" Poland in September 1939, even though all the territory seized at the start of the war had been a part of Germany or Russia within living memory. &#8209; Iridescent 16:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)