Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories

 * Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has recently successfully undergone GAN, and I have made further improvements to bring it up to A-Class. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Small comment (I haven't gone through the whole article): in the Demographics section, maybe the data should be presented as a table? Inkbug (talk) 15:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day again. I've substituted a table, let me know what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is much clearer now. However, the sentence after the table can probably be incorporated into the table itself as a "total" row, and sentence after it is missing a period (and maybe should also go in the table). Inkbug (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, except for the Prekmurje data. There is not a lot of data on Prekmurje alone, but this gives readers an idea of the relative population split between the two Mura regions. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd probably add numbers to the total row and percents to the total column, but besides that it looks good. Inkbug (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The total row looks good, but what about the total column? Can you give a total for all of the minorities in all areas? What about the percent of all minorities in each area? Inkbug (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * References: I've cleaned up the links to Google Books. A number of other issues:
 * Mojzes is missing an ISBN, as is Jordan, Golubović, and Cseres – does the ISBN just not exist, or is it just not there? If it doesn't exist, do they have some other id?
 * Fixed, one had to have a oclc.
 * "Books" heading – since all of the refs are books, it seems redundant.
 * Fair enough.
 * Do publishers and locations get linked?
 * Per Template:Cite book, a. only if relevant, b. not usually.
 * At least some of the authors have Wikipedia articles, and should probably be linked.
 * Done.
 * Inkbug (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Footnote 61 – the link is not working. Inkbug (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * just had to specify which Portmann book. Thanks.
 * "Districts" section: Are those all of the districts? If so, then it is not "Some examples". If it is only examples, then maybe you should convert in into prose and include only one from each county or something like that. Inkbug (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've clarified that they are all the districts involved and I think it is important to include the lists because of the contested nature of the territory between Hungary and Yugoslavia (Serbia/Croatia/Slovenia). Cheers.
 * Hi. It looks a lot better now, but the words "some examples" are still there. Inkbug (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But they are examples of the renaming of towns, not examples of the renaming of the districts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Then the words "Districts of" in the title of each table are confusing. If I understand correctly, it should say "Bács-Bodrog County" without "districts of". Inkbug (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Footnote 27 doesn't mention "magyarize", and therefore the quotes are probably unnecessary. A link to Magyarization should probably be added.
 * You are correct. It mentions the imposition of a "Hungarian pattern" but I thought "Magyarisation" was tidier. I have quoted Lemkin then used the linked term a couple of paras later where it is used by Tomasevich.
 * Footnote 30 doesn't seem to support the sentence. Inkbug (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, you are right. The page in question only uses "Southern Territories". I have substituted p. 631 (per the infobox) which uses the exact phrase. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The two instances of footnote 42 can be combined.
 * Thanks, done.
 * In the Demographics section, it might be useful to mention the number of people in each of Yugoslavia and Hungary before the occupation, just to give a sense of scale. See also my comment above (from 22 March) about the table. Inkbug (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify? I haven't done the totals in the table because these are the "significant minorities", not all of them, so the numbers aren't complete. For example, there were Roma, Jews and others in the territories, but they are not included in the table. The only source I have been able to find for the 1931 census results is Ungvary, and everything he provides is there. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is no other info then it is fine. Inkbug (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Good work! Inkbug (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the comprehensive review. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments. I thought I'd have a look at this, but you'll have to bear with me—Balkan history is interesting, but not something I know a great deal about. This is a very well written and by the looks of it meticulously researched article. I have just a few comments and queries:
 * Would the date be better in the first sentence?
 * by moving the present-day sentence to the end of the lead, the timing of the occupation is brought forward in the lead. I think it reads a lot better now, thanks.


 * Do we need the present-day political status of these areas so soon in the article? An idea of the geography is obviously useful, but I'm not sure the modern politics is useful so soon, especially given that many of the borders in the Balkans have changed or been the subject of disputes over the last 70 years.
 * agreed, see above.


 * newly-formed—you don't need a hyphen after "-ly" adverbs
 * done, thanks. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Is it worth noting that that "Independent State of Croatia" was a "puppet-state of Nazi Germany" (according to the WP article)
 * good point, done.


 * "brutal" is a strong term and the measures that follow that adjective don't seem especially brutal by the standards of the time; it's also used twice in quick succession
 * I've substituted "harsh", and removed the second one, overly dramatic.


 * so–called "Recovered Southern Territories" Do you really need the "so-called" and the scare quotes?
 * removed the so-called, left the scare quotes.


 * Hungary enlarged its borders Is that the right term? That phrase makes it sound like the border increased in size, which presumably sin't the issue at hand.
 * good point, I've changed it to territory.


 * You say The Hungarian authorities immediately introduced genocidal policies, but then go on to talk only about deportation, not killings; a claim like that needs to be backed up by examples
 * it is Lemkin (who coined the word genocide) that uses this term to describe the imposition of a Hungarian pattern in the territories. Deporting Serbs and Jews, replacing them with Hungarians, etc. Also, deporting Serbs to the Independent State of Croatia was a likely death sentence given the Ustasha terror at the time.
 * Well the "-cide" suffix implies killing rather than homogenisation by other means, so is genocide the right term in this instance?


 * Do we know why the Germans opposed the mass deportations?
 * they had enough on their hands dealing with the Serb refugees from the NDH and didn't want any more, I suspect, but neither Tomasevich or Pavlowich specify the reason.


 * Forced labour was also used by the Hungarian authorities against the Jews Is forced labour something one uses? Also, out of curiosity, was it just Jews who were subject to forced labour or were other groups included?
 * reworded.


 * almost all of the remaining Jews in the occupied territories Why "almost"? Were some spared?
 * good point, it is not actually stated in the text, I've removed it.


 * "massacre" is a term I'd be very wary of using in an encyclopaedia article
 * it is frequently used in the academic texts to describe mass killings.
 * It is, but the style of writing for an encyclopaedia isn't the same as that for academia. But as long as you've thought about it and you're not just using the term off-the-cuff, I'm satisfied.

— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * all done, do you think I should quote Lemkin about the genocidal policies? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess if his definition involves measures other than killing; anyway, it's a fairly minor issue so I'm happy to support. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, Harry! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments: looks well researched and comprehensive, and the images seem appropriately licenced, but I am a little concerned about the prose. I've listed the main things that leapt out at me, but I think it might need a full run through. Happy to discuss anything you disagree with:
 * the article seems to have a mix of British and US English, for example "defences" (British), but also "maneuvers" and "Defense" (US). Please test and adjust for consistency;
 * in the lead, perhaps vary the language here: "The occupation commenced on 11 April 1941 when 80,000 Hungarian troops crossed the Yugoslav border in support of the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia that had commenced five days earlier." (two insstances of "commenced" in the same sentence);
 * in the lead, this might be tighter: "The insurgency was to a large extent concentrated" --> "The insurgency was mainly concentrated"
 * in the lead, perhaps reword slightly: "with the result that some 85 percent of the Jews in the occupied territories were killed during the war" --> "resulting in the deaths of 85 percent of the Jews in the occupied territories."
 * the language could possibly be varied here: "Due to the support Hungary received from Germany for these border revisions, Hungary established even closer relations with Germany" (two mentions of Germany, seems repetitious);
 * perhaps this could be tighter: "On 10 April 1941, Horthy issued a declaration to the effect that Hungary " --> "On 10 April 1941, Horthy declared that Hungary..."
 * "The rapid maneuvers of the German army during the invasion" --> "The German army's rapid maneuvers during the invasion";
 * perhaps vary the language here to avoid repetition with the preceding sentence: "There was some resistance to the Hungarian forces from Serb Chetnik irregulars" --> "Serb Chetnik irregulars fought isolated engagements..."
 * "News of the success of the Hungarian armed forces in Yugoslavia were welcomed" --> "news...was welcomed";
 * this paragraph has a punctuation issue and is a little awkard: "Despite the very limited fighting during which..."
 * in the Geography section, is there a citation for this: "Prekmurje consists of flat agricultural land in the south and hilly country in the north."?
 * the hyphen should be removed from "newly-formed";
 * inconsistent capitalisation "Hungarian Parliament" v. "Hungarian parliament";
 * "Hungarian occupational regime did manage to" --> "Hungarian occupational regime managed to";
 * "Despite this, Serbs and Croats that had lived in the territories prior to 1918 did retain their citizenship rights" --> "Despite this, Serbs and Croats who had lived in the territories prior to 1918 retained their citizenship rights";
 * "In September 1944, the workforce of the Bor mine were forced" --> "workforce...was";
 * "followed by expulsion to the NDH or Serbia" (has the abbreviation NDH been introduced?)
 * "Less than a year of the beginning of the occupation" --> "After less than a year of the occupation..."?
 * "The operations were ordered by Lieutenant General Ferenc Feketehalmy-Czeydner, Grassy, Colonel László Deák and Royal Gendarmerie Captain Márton Zöldy but..." --> "The operations were ordered by Grassy, Lieutenant General Ferenc Feketehalmy-Czeydner, and Colonel László Deák and Royal Gendarmerie Captain Márton Zöldy but..."
 * "Roma people" probably should be linked;
 * "Partisans formations" --> "Partisan formations";
 * sometimes you use italics for "Wehrmacht" and sometimes you don't. This should probably be consistent;
 * this seemed contradictory to me "persecutions targeted against one part of the local population" and then "Victims of the communist regime were of different ethnic backgrounds";
 * "Prof. Dr. Sándor Kaszás from Novi Sad University in his book Mađari u Vojvodini: 1941–1946 [Hungarians in Vojvodina: 1941–1946] (Novi Sad, 1996)" --> "In his book Mađari u Vojvodini: 1941–1946 [Hungarians in Vojvodina: 1941–1946] (Novi Sad, 1996) Prof. Dr. Sándor Kaszás from Novi Sad University..."
 * some of the endashes seem incorrect, and probably should be replaced with hyphens, for instance: "Well–educated ", "less–desirable", "lower–level non–Hungarian", "mid–1942", "government–in–exile",
 * in the References, some of your titles use title case and others don't. For instance compare Abbott with Eby;
 * in the References, "Clark, New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd" --> "Clark, New Jersey: The Lawbook Exchange". The advice I've seen at FAC is to drop things like "Ltd" or "Pty" etc. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, AR, all addressed. The only one I didn't make any changes to was the title cases in the Refs. In order to get them consistent with some external rule (see Inkbug's comment at the top), I changed them so they were all consistent with the capitalisations on Worldcat. Do you think that is the wrong way to go? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day, sorry to be thick, but I couldn't find where this was mentioned above. Could you perhaps recount the gist of the argument? To be honest, it is only a small matter of style, and I won't oppose over it. Anyway, I've made a few tweaks myself. Please review and adjust as you feel necessary. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I've bumdrummed you there. I'm thinking of another article that Inkbug reviewed recently. I'll go through and fix em. thanks very much for the review! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done now. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments Support
 * No dab links (no action required).
 * External links all check out (no action required).
 * Images all have Alt Text (no action required).
 * The Citation Check Tool reveals no issues with reference consolidation (no action required).
 * Images are all PD or licenced and seem appropriate to the article (no action required).
 * The Earwig Tool reveal no issues with copyright violation or close paraphrasing (only a wiki mirror) (no action required).
 * No duplicate links per WP:REPEATLINK (no action required).
 * Language here is a little repetitive: "expelled them to the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia, Independent State of Croatia and Montenegro, ultimately expelling..." (expelled and expelling), perhaps reword one?
 * "On 12 April, the Hungarian 1st Parachute Battalion captured canal bridges at Vrbas and Srbobran." Was this an airborne operation? I imagine the Hungarians probably haven't done many so it would be fascinating if it was (all assumption on my part).
 * apparently it was an airborne op, but I haven't yet located a reliable source. Here's what I have found
 * Interesting, thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Hungarian troops killed between 1,122 and 3,500 civilians during these initial operations, including some ethnic Germans." Do we know why the Germans were killed? Accident or deliberate? Possible motive?
 * The final sentence in the Geography section is missing a citation. Can one be added?
 * "At first, these territories were placed under military administration." Which territories (its a new section so needs to be clarified IMO)?
 * "In Bačka and Baranja, the Volksdeutsche and Hungarian authorities contributed to significant losses amongst the local Serbs...", this seems a little euphemistically worded to me. Consider instead something like: "In Bačka and Baranja, the Volksdeutsche and Hungarian authorities killed many of the local Serbs..." (or something like that).
 * "... usually followed by expulsion to the NDH or Serbia...", abbrev NDH needs to be introduced at first use.
 * This is awkwardly worded: "Less than a year of the beginning of the occupation, in January 1942, the Hungarian army and gendarmerie massacred...", consider instead: "In January 1942, less than a year after the beginning of the occupation, the Hungarian army and gendarmerie massacred..."
 * Full ranks and titles should be used for consistency with the rest of the text: " Prof. Dr. Sándor Kaszás from Novi Sad University..." and "Capt. Márton Zöldi, were first tried in Hungary...."
 * Overall an excellent article. I've made a few edits so pls check I haven't changed the meaning of anything you wrote and revert if req'd. Anotherclown (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All done. I think the Hungarians were just a bit anxious and trigger-happy (re: the Volksdeutsche being killed), although there was no love lost. Nothing specific in sources though. I've addessed your query about the paradrop above. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * G'day all, I've had to head off into the bush for a few days, won't get this sorted till Wednesday night at the earliest. Sorry about the delay. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Added my spt now. Anotherclown (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Thanks for the review! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.