|Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
|WorldWar2.ro Forum > WW2 in General > Horthy - war criminal ?|
|Posted by: udar September 16, 2005 03:02 pm|
A history mistake.For many romanians(and for others),was a war criminal,compared with Hitler or Mussolini.
|Posted by: Dénes September 16, 2005 03:47 pm|
Let's see then, in your opinion why wasn't Horthy tried as a war criminal, once he was already at Nuremberg?
|Posted by: tomcat1974 September 16, 2005 05:09 pm|
|I think many bad things happend from both sides of the war.|
|Posted by: dragos September 16, 2005 05:18 pm|
| Denes, let's see what's the excuse for invading Yugoslavia.
Does Horthy qualifies for crimes against peace?
|Posted by: Dénes September 16, 2005 07:03 pm|
This topic is pointless. The answer was already given over 50 years ago, when Horthy was not indicted by the Nuremberg Trial, as they didn't have any charges against him.
Now, if you wanted to find out "why do you think Horthy was a war criminal?", it's totally different...
As for the initial question, FYI, Horthy refused Hitler's offer to joint the attack against Yugoslavia on April 6, 1941 (similar to Antonescu, BTW).
Hungarian troops crossed the former Yugoslav borders only when Yugoslavia de facto ceased to exist.
|Posted by: dragos03 September 16, 2005 07:03 pm|
|The massacres commited by Horthy's armies against Romanians are enough to qualify him as a war criminal. He also deported Jews, although on a small scale.|
|Posted by: Dénes September 16, 2005 07:07 pm|
That's your opinion, I believe. Apparently, those in charge right after the war thought differently.
Hungary was an occupied country by then. The Jews were deported on Berlin's orders.
|Posted by: dragos03 September 16, 2005 07:10 pm|
| You mean your opinion is that these massacres didn't make him a war criminal?
And Horthy also deported Jews, before the Germans occupied Hungary. On a small scale but he did.
|Posted by: Dénes September 16, 2005 07:16 pm|
That's not my opinion. It's those ones', who were in charge right after the war.
BTW, I am not aware Horthy being asked to be extradicted by Rumania or any other country (including Israel).
Can you be more specific?
|Posted by: dragos03 September 16, 2005 07:19 pm|
|You dodged the question. What is your opinion?|
|Posted by: dragos03 September 16, 2005 07:27 pm|
| Some details about the crimes against the Jews.
"Three anti-Semitic laws completed the exclusion of the Hungarian Jews between 1938 and 1941. The first two laws made their economic situation more and more difficult; the Third Jewish Law, which was passed in 1941, however, was a real, Nuremberg-type, racial law introducing "race-protective" orders.
In July and August of 1941 nearly 16,000 Jews regarded as aliens or whose citizenship was stated to be unresolved, were deported to territories under German rule in Galicia where the Germans massacred them in the vicinity of Kamenec-Podolskij."
"In January 1942 in the Southern region (Délvidék, which was reclaimed from Yugoslavia) during an action taken against Serb partisans Hungarian gendarmeries murdered nearly 3,500 people. There were about 800 Jews among them. The gendarmeries shot their victims and threw their bodies into holes blown in the ice of the frozen-over Danube. Evidently, in order to frighten the civilians, they also hanged people in the public squares as we can see in the pictures."
|Posted by: Dénes September 16, 2005 08:17 pm|
| Your examples don't fit the original claim.
First, those Jews deported to Galicia in 1941 were staying in Hungary illegally and were returned where they come from. Then they were killed by the Germans - as your quote clearly says - not by Hungarians.
Second, the well-publicized Újvidék (Novi Sad) executions were directed not against Jews, but generally partisans and, unfortunately, local civilians, as reprisal for many sabotages and sniping. Among the civilians executed were Jews, too.
The officers resonsible for those tragic events were prosecuted by Horthy's administration. Some were jailed, some escaped justice, seeking refuge in Germany instead.
Here is an excerpt from a book manuscript, which will hopefully help you understand better the events (if you're interested in it at all):
Any other 'proofs' up in your sleeve?
|Posted by: Imperialist September 16, 2005 08:28 pm|
If he wasnt found guilty at Nuremberg, he wasnt a war criminal.
|Posted by: dragos03 September 16, 2005 08:29 pm|
|As long as you continue to dodge my question, i have nothing more to add.|
|Posted by: Zayets September 16, 2005 09:07 pm|
|I am the last one to speak for Horthy,but I say this : if he wasn't found war criminal by a recognized/legitimate court then he isn't a war criminal.|
|Posted by: Dénes September 17, 2005 02:24 am|
Why are you so interested in my private opinion?
To give you a hint, my opinion is based on facts, not sentiments.
Let's talk facts, not feelings, shall we?
|Posted by: dragos03 September 17, 2005 12:14 pm|
| Ok, if your opinion is based on facts not on sentiments then you should think he was a war criminal.
The facts are obvious. His armies butchered civilians. Maybe those responsible for the massacre in Serbia were trialed but those who killed Romanians in Northern Trasilvania were not.
When he sent the 16.000 Jews "back to where they came from", he knew very well he was sending them to death.
After the war there was a country (Yugoslavia) that asked for his trial as a war criminal.
I don't think Horthy was a major criminal or a monster. I don't think he planned all these crimes. But he tolerated them, which is enough to make him a war criminal. He was a patriot, trying to do what was best for his country, even when that meant killing thousands of innocents.
Imperialist and Zayets, do you think that the man whose army killed so many Romanian civilians without reason was not a war criminal, just because he wasn't judged at a phoney trial focused on Germans? Stalin was not a criminal either then, and so many others that escaped trial.
|Posted by: dragos September 17, 2005 01:17 pm|
Denes, you know very well that not all the war criminals were trialed after the war. According to your logic, Stalin wasn't a criminal because he was never trialed. The question is whether his actions make him a war criminal or not.
First I notice that you see no problem with invading a defeated country in order to take the spoils.
But according to http://www.feldgrau.com/yugowar.html
the Hungarian 3rd Army crossed the border into Yugoslavia on 11 April 1941, while the armisitice with Yugoslavia was signed on 17 April.
|Posted by: Samus September 17, 2005 04:07 pm|
| First it is necessary to establish why is sombady declared criminal of war (I mean not politically) and after that is possible to discus. Like in american's trials is necessary to have precedents.
But comparing Antonescu with Horthy, Horthy is not a criminal of war because hungarian nation is a very united nation, while Antonescu was betrayed by the political parties and even by his king.
The rule is known: If you fight in a war is better to win or to have very powerful friends.
Crimes made by Russians (against everybody), Serbs (against minoritar german population in Voivodina), Czechs (in Sudetenland), Hungarians (against romanian population - they said that this is not true, and accuse Romanians for similar crimes) were not puted in a trial.
|Posted by: udar September 18, 2005 09:21 am|
In principal because so called great powers dont agree that Romania joint to winner camp.The reasons is various,but this is another topic.In consequence,Romania dont have the posibility to assert his problems on Nuremberg.Where,as other members say before,was just a trial of winners against losers(especially germans nazis).Ofcourse,they was guilty,but the winners have their own criminals,who ,ofcourse, was not charged.And nobody cares about small countries and their problems,when they need to resolve their own problems,especially war reparation,who was paid by losers,even by Romania(one reason to not be considered in winner camp,and shes problems put away).The russians dont give 2 cents on war crimes against romanians(because they did war crimes against us),and Uk and USA dont care about this crimes against a country considered enemy,even if was the 4-th power(before France) in war against nazis.
|Posted by: mateias December 11, 2007 06:50 pm|
| For Denes,
I suggest you to read what is written on the site of US Holocaust Museum on Hungary BEFORE/AFTER German occupation about what happened to the Jews.
HUNGARY BEFORE THE GERMAN OCCUPATION
In 1939, the Hungarian government, having forbidden Jews to serve in the armed forces, established a forced-labor service for young men of arms-bearing age. By 1940, the obligation to perform forced labor was extended to all able-bodied male Jews. After Hungary entered the war, the forced laborers, organized in labor battalions under the command of Hungarian military officers, were deployed on war-related construction work, often under brutal conditions. Subjected to extreme cold, without adequate shelter, food, or medical care, AT LEAST 27,000 HUNGARIAN JEWISH FORCED LABORERS DIED BEFORE THE GERMAN OCCUPATION OF HUNGARY IN MARCH 1944.
In the summer of 1941, HUNGARIAN AUTHORITIES DEPORTED SOME 20,000 JEWS, most of whom resided in Subcarpathian Rus and none of whom had been able to obtain Hungarian citizenship. These Jews were deported to Kamenets-Podolski in the German-occupied Ukraine, where they were shot by Nazi Einsatzgruppe (mobile killing unit) detachments. IN JANUARY 1942, HUNGARIAN MILITARY UNITS MURDERED 3,000 JEWS AND SERBS IN NOVI SAD, THE MAJOR CITY IN HUNGARIAN-ANNEXED YUGOSLAVIA.
HUNGARY AFTER THE GERMAN OCCUPATION
Of approximately 825,000 Jews living in Hungary in 1941, ABOUT 63,000 DIED OR WERE KILLED PRIOR TO THE GERMAN OCCUPATION OF MARCH 1944. Under German occupation, just over 500,000 died from maltreatment or were murdered.
PS. BTW, wasn'y Horthy's Hungary first country in the world to pass the first racial war after end of WW1 (1920) ? If I am wrong, please correct me. Thank you.
|Posted by: Dénes December 11, 2007 08:08 pm|
| Mateias, despite of what you try to allege, Horthy was not declared a war criminal - as demonstrated earlier in this thread. He was summoned to the Nuremberg Trails as witness only, then let go.
Rest assured, that if there would have been a slight chance for him to be convicted of anything related to his activity during W.W. 2, he would have surely faced trial once at Nuremberg. Well, he wasn't and died of old age in Estoril, Portugal, in 1957.
According to his last wish, he was reinterred in Hungary on 4 Sept. 1993, only after the last Soviet soldier had left his country.
|Posted by: Dénes December 11, 2007 08:15 pm|
| As for Jews being deliberately killed by Hungarians in Hungary - except for a few isolated cases, like Sarmas, you mentioned earlier - it just wasn't the case. At least it was not government policy.
The round up of Jews and their subsequent deportation to Nazi-run lagers largely happened only after Hungary had been occupied militarily by the Germans, and according to the Germans' orders.
The event of Ujvidék (Novi Sad) you mentioned was not an anti-Jew pogrom, despite what is alleged, but rather a brutal anti-partisan sweep, when Jews fell also victim to the partisan hunt (but not because of their ethnicity).
|Posted by: mateias December 11, 2007 08:43 pm|
| For Denes,
1. I did not say anything. I only told you to read what is officially stated by the most important Holocaust Memorial Museum after Yad Vashem. Tell them right now they are mistaken ! And mention this American official site in your book as a liar !
2. I only said about the First Racial Law passed in 1920. You avoid to answer this, too ?
Are you really anti-American ?
The counter-revolutionary regime, which followed the revolutions of 1918-1919, created an anti-democratic, conservative form of government that raised anti-Semitism to the level of official policy. The two revolutions and the traumatic loss of two thirds of the territory of Hungary at the end of World War I, were closely connected in the consciousness of society. Exploiting this, counter-revolutionary propaganda made the revolutions responsible for the disastrous peace treaty signed at Trianon in 1920. From there, it was but a small step to connect liberalism, the democratic civil movements, and the Communist Soviet Republic to the Jews. According to this theory, the Jews "had made" the revolutions and were therefore responsible for Trianon and for all the social and economic troubles of the mutilated country. Despite this anti-Semitic propaganda, many Jews were not to be persuaded, until World War II, that whereas before 1918 it had been "good" to be Jewish in the Monarchy, after 1918 it was "bad" to be a Jew in Hungary, as Ezra Mendelsohn has said.
The impoverished country, squeezed within the borders defined at Trianon, had nearly as many professionals and civil servants looking for jobs as in the earlier, larger country. In addition to those fleeing to the truncated territory from other parts of Hungary with a university degree, a considerable proportion of the children of middle-class families, fugitive from the lost territories, entered the universities. One attempt at solving this "overproduction" of professionals was Law XXV. of 1920, the first anti-Semitic piece of legislation in Europe, which limited the proportion of young people allowed to enter the universities according to the proportion of various "races or nationalities" within the nation as a whole. 2 For the first time, "The Israelites /were/ regarded as a separate nationality." The nearly half a million Jews made up 6 % of the total population of Hungary, which was below 10 million.
Between 1920 and 1938 no more discriminatory acts were passed in the Hungarian Parliament. This may be explained by the selective anti-Semitism of Regent Miklós Horthy and the leading politicians of the period, who distinguished between assimilated (Magyarized) Jews and immigrants especially from "Galicia."
|Posted by: Dénes December 11, 2007 09:20 pm|
| Of course, Mateias, you did not say anything. I didn't say it either that you said it.
You only alleged it, as the title of this thread is "Horthy - war criminal?"
P.S. By the way, I think all non-topic posts should be moved to another, more relevant thread. However, I personally fail to see how these information on Hungary's anti-semitic laws have any bearing on this forum, dedicated to the Rumanian military history...
|Posted by: mateias December 11, 2007 09:37 pm|
| 1. I did not allege anything on Horthy being a war criminal. And I was not even "born" on this forum, somebody else started this topic in 2005.
2. As regards reprisals leading to execution of partisans (civilians, sometimes led by military people), it seems there are double standards: Voivodina (Horthy's troops) against Odessa (Romanian military HQs blowed up, leading to reprisals).
You just said that at Voivodina they just did a good thing because everything was quiet afterwards. Same happened in Odessa.
3. However, I think this has no justification at all, in spite of all the rules internationally accepted in an occupied territory (martial law).
|Posted by: mateias December 11, 2007 10:50 pm|
| Sorry, Denes !
I just remembered there are countries which could still consider him a war criminal:
- Russia (Horthy was involved in Barbarossa plan as well, since June 27, 1941, with 3 army corps, being "provoked" by the Russians who dared to bomb Kosice/Kassa !)
2. BTW, for me it's not clear. Who bombed Kosice/Kassa ? Russians or ROMANIANS ? It's written so on this site. Do you think it was a false flag case arranged by Hungary like another famous case, that of Gliwice ?
|Posted by: dead-cat December 11, 2007 11:53 pm|
| the execution of partisans per se was not a war crime according to the standards of the day.
however given the nature of rather indiscriminate reprisals especially in YU or on the eastern front, it is certain that innocent people became victims too.
i read the quote provided 3 times without noticing any "good thing" stated in conjunction with the said executions. the statement about the reduction of partisan activity is a comment about the (military?) effectiveness of the reprisal and not a (moral) qualification.
|Posted by: New Connaught Ranger December 12, 2007 09:56 am|
| Or is the real purpose of this thread, that of another "history revisionist" throwing his opinions around??
Kevin in Deva.
|Posted by: dead-cat December 12, 2007 10:11 am|
| why not? after all, without contradictory opinions, there isn't much (history) to discuss. the german weekly magazine "Spiegel" seems to have come to the same opinion this week in starting a series about the russian october revolution, blaming the kaiser and militarism for everything, including the ozone hole, while giving leftist to say the least "radiclaized historians" as reference (Fritz Fischer).
So it seems like revisionism is back in fashion.
|Posted by: CB1 December 14, 2007 11:37 pm|
| Hi Gentlemen,
Why was Horthy not tried as a war criminal? Why indeed? Here is a possible explanation (that verges on being anti-Semite, by the way):
Horthy was an anti-Semite. He did not like Jews. And that is about that. He never wanted to exterminate them. After Germans occupied Hungary in MAR44 there were certain concessions to be made. Ethnic-Germans in Hungary were sacrificed to SS-conscription, Honvéd units were sent to the Eastern Front and yes, Jews were sent to Auschwitz. This was done to buy time and keep Horthy in power and Arrow Cross out.
Now, let us elaborate a bit on the Jewish issue. As I have read it in a book, Horthy did not like the small time Jew (i.e. shop-owner, craftsmen etc.) but thought that the big industrialsts (Weiss, Chorin etc) are essential for Hungary as they are organizing the industry and the job cannot be taken over. Hitler was constantly annoyed by this stance. Horthy's son was even "worse" from this aspect.
So when the time came when concessions were to be made Horthy thought that the small time Jew is readily expendable but the industrialist are to be saved (Wilhelm Höttl said in an interview that Horthy pleaded something like this: "Please do not deport my Bridge partners." - He used to play Bridge with Weiss and the rest). I suspect there was a rather dirty deal arranged. I think it was along the lines: Germans get the small time Jews (Albert Speer could hardly wait the work force he was promised) with no fuss (Rezső Kasztner was to see to that) while the industrialists (and the Budapest Jewry) is spared for signing away their factories to the SS. And the deal worked until the Arrow Cross takeover.
Horthy was present in Nuremberg and he was a bit anxious until the Americans assured them that he was going to be a witness only. After that ordeal was over he moved to Portugal (as far as I know a fascist regime by then) where he spent the rest of his life in exile. He was living in a villa in Estoril and guess who paid the bills. Ferenc Chorin, an ex-Hungarian Jewish tycoon.
So the answer to the original question "Why was Horthy not tried as a war criminal" may be two words "Jewish gratitude". If you happen to visit the Horthy crypt in Kenderes you may see material evidence to this:
I have seen that ribbon (hálás zsidóság=grateful Jewry) with my own eyes some ten years ago, and that link shows it is still there.
PS: just for info: I am NOT an anti-Semite...
|Posted by: mateias December 15, 2007 09:19 am|
| Horthy's memoirs give lots of details on evolution of anti-semitism in a Hungary led by his wisdom. And one should not forget that the first anti-semitic law in Europe was a Hungarian one, in 1920. Long before Hitler, Mussolini, or Goga-Cuza in Romania.
ADMIRAL MIKLÓS HORTHY: MEMOIRS
THE SECOND WORLD WAR; HUNGARY'S NON-BELLIGERENCE
|Posted by: CB1 December 15, 2007 11:04 am|
Yeah, and if I wanted to be cynical I would say Hungary only followed the lead of a great democracy, namely the USA where some informal restrictions were in place since 1918.
Now let us examine the situation: Hungary lost two thirds of her territory and the new masters did not really need Hungarian intelligentsia. These people became refugees, mostly living in railroad waggons in Budapest. And what did they see? Jews, who had been over-represented in the Communist revolution, took up most of the fine jobs in the capital (48 percent of doctors, 57 percent of lawyers, a whopping 81 percent of bank and insurance employees etc.). This gave rise to resentment. The government needed to do something. Instead of banning the Jews from these jobs they installed a quota system to allow every nationality to have a share in university and college tutition up to at least 90 percent of their ratio in the population. This was negative discrimination against the Jews and positive discrimination for all the others. The percentage of Jewish students fell from 30 percent to around 8-10 percent (so it never reached the 6 percent ratio of the population) and foreign (i.e. Vienna) tutition was still open to them. This numerus clausus was abandoned in 1928.
You may disagree but I see this legislation not as an anti-Semitic law but rather a "protective measure". Something was thrown to the dogs who could chew on so radical changes could be averted while the Jews were not harmed needlessly.
|Posted by: mateias January 11, 2008 03:45 pm|
| I wonder if 1 (one) day counts in history.
The difference is between March 18 (Horthy's promise to Hitler on 100,000 Hungarian Jews to be dispatched to Germany as workers in forced labour camps) and March 19, 1943 (afterwards the number rose to 725,000 Hungarian Jews and Jews of Romanian residence captured after the Vienna Diktat in the area of Transylvania given to Hungary).
|Posted by: Dénes January 11, 2008 05:23 pm|
| Mateias, first you should learn about the circumastances of that meeting in order to have a clearer picture.
Here is an excerpt of the book manuscript I wrote:
"On the 15th [of March] – Hungary’s National day – Hitler invited Horthy to his residence in Klessheim, reportedly to discuss matters raised in the letter written earlier by the Hungarian Regent. Horthy grew suspicious of Hitler’s real intentions, but eventually decided to accept the invitation, on advise of his Foreign Minister, Ghyczy, and Chief of Staff, Szombathelyi. Vice-Admiral Horthy arrived aboard his special train, called Turul – the mythical bird of Hungary – to the Railway Station of Klessheim on March 18, being personally greeted by Hitler. In the subsequent meeting, Hitler bluntly informed Horthy that he is aware of Kállay’s "treacherous" politics and therefore decided to occupy Hungary to prevent the one-sided step out of the war of Germany’s Eastern neighbor. He even threatened to allow "friendly" Rumanian and Slovak troops to "assist" the German occupation, meaning the loss of Transylvania and Upper Hungary and possibly more. Horthy protested vehemently, and left the castle without saluting the Führer. He wanted to leave Klessheim immediately, but Szombathelyi and Csatay persuaded him to go to a second meeting with Hitler and try to negotiate the terms. In view of his country’s fate, Horthy finally changed his mind and returned to the castle later the evening. Hitler repeated his plans, but promised if the distrusted Kállay would be replaced with a pro-German Prime Minister, the German occupation will be only temporary. Eventually, the two Axis leaders settled the details and Horthy was allowed to return to Hungary instead of being interned."
Also, the source you quoted mentions that there were 725,000 Jews living in Hungary in 1944. This is NOT the total number of Jews deported by the Germans to the IIIrd Reich, but the overall number of Jews reportedly exising in Hungary at that time. About half of them managed to remain in Hungary, also due to Horthy's strict stance in not allowing Jews from Budapest to be deported.
Finally, I cannot qualify your sentence: "...Jews of Romanian residence captured after the Vienna Diktat in the area of Transylvania given to Hungary."
The Jews in Northern Transylvania were all Hungarian citizens and had no Rumanian residence, or similar.
About "the Vienna Diktat (...) the area of Transylvania given to Hungary", please see the separate thread on this controversial topic.
|Posted by: Florin January 12, 2008 04:22 am|
Your last sentence is correct as long you consider only the period of time starting in September 1940.
The same Jews from Northern Transylvania were Romanian citizens before that date. Then I guess they received documents of Hungarian citizenship from the newly installed Hungarian authorities. I assume the Romanian nationals received these papers of Hungarian citizenship, too. Only the Jews born in Northern Transylvania starting with September 1940 were Hungarian citizens from the very first day of their life.
The quote you are mentioning has the flaw of not being too clear and allows to be targeted, but your sentence may be subject to correction, too.
Very unfortunately, this confuse situation about citizenship and place of residence allowed some historians to mention the hundreds of thousands of Jews rounded up by the Hungarian authorities in the summer of 1944, and given to the Third Reich, as Jews living in Romania, and killed by the Romanian authorities. Also some Jewish organizations came up with the same approach, in order to put political pressure toward Romania, when they targeted certain demands.
|Posted by: Florin January 12, 2008 04:41 am|
Krisz, you really made me curious with this one.
Can you suggest to me some sources of information?
All I knew until now was the police of New York rounding up Jews who came from Russia, and sending them back to Europe. The spirits were overheated after a truck filled with explosives blew up on Wall Street, and of course the Communists had to be blamed, and of course who were the Communists?
|Posted by: Dénes January 12, 2008 11:17 am|
Florin, if you want to go along that route, you have to go all way.
All Rumanian citizens you mentioned, older than 19 years, were Hungarian citizens before 1921. Therefore, a Jew (and not only), who was born before 1921 in Northern Traqnsylvania was first a Hungarian citizen, then Rumanian, and then Hungarian again. Those lucky one who survived until 1945 and returned home became Rumanian citizens again. Quite a 'citizenship rollercoaster', isn't it? However, this case not the worst in the region. Several years ago I saw a documentary with an old man, living what is now the most south-western tip of Ukraine (the Sub-Carpathian region), who had six citizenships, all different, without him ever leaving his village!
As for who is claiming what for a particular person, based on his/her citizenship(s), is valid on both ways. Also, many famous/infamous non-Rumanians born in Transylvania are claimed by certain historians to be Rumanian for various reasons. Therefore, one should be aware of the essential difference between one's ethnicity and citizenship - which obviously is not necessarily the same - and stay consequent all the way...
In our case, the Jews deported fom Northern Transylvania in 1944 were the victims of the Germans, assisted by Hungarian authorities, and not the Rumanian State at all.
|Posted by: Florin January 13, 2008 07:35 pm|
I think what eventually defines an individual as belonging to a certain country are his achievements, and in what country he achieved his dreams. What is really important is what that individual considered as his country, based on the public statements he made.
I’ll try few examples.
Aurel Vlaicu was technically Austro-Hungarian citizen, but his cherished goal was to build his airplanes in Romania, and he dedicated his life for the benefit of Romania, while he could achieve more in Germany.
Or the case of the Hungarian aristocrat, with interest in Paleontology, who was so sour by the transition of Transylvania into Romanian control, that he donated his famous collection of dwarf dinosaur skeletons (discovered in Transylvania) to the Museum of Natural History in New York, just to be sure they are far away from Romania.
Most interesting are the people who achieved a lot in two countries. To whom they belong, eventually? Like Igor Sikorsky, Enrico Fermi or Werner von Braun.
As this subject emerged from the case of the Jews, it is interesting to see that while they were disliked everywhere, every country was so eager to take the merit and the pride for its own great citizens who happened to be Jews.
|Posted by: Dénes January 13, 2008 09:01 pm|
| What you said, Florin, is very true. More so for the famous Jewish ethnics born in a certain country.
As for Aurel Vlaicu (and Traian Vuia, for that matter), although they were both born in what was back then Hungary, I saw no Hungarian claim whatsoever, which would say that they were pioneers of the Hungarian aviation.
By the contrary, I saw in a recently published sizeable - otherwise excellent - encyclopaedia of Rumanian aviation the name of Martin Lajos - a famed Hungarian aviation pioneer - included [born in 1827 in Budapest, who died in what was then Kolozsvár (now Cluj) in 1897]...
But let's get back to the topic, i.e. Horthy and his wartime activity.
|Posted by: ANDREAS April 09, 2009 07:37 pm|
| Hallo Gen. Denes and all other members here,
Ok, let's get back to the topic, i.e. Horthy and his wartime activity -as Gen. Denes said.
My personal problem is not with the jews, and the hungarian authorities, under Horthy or Szálasi, but the romanian civilians issue. The romanian ethnics living in occupied Northern Transilvania, especially, feel on their own skin the policy of the Rendorseg, Csebdorseg and other paramilitary detachments (sustained when necessary by the hungarian army) who did the killings, beatenings, tortures, terrorising and threatening the unarmed civilians. For the only reason they were romanians. And Horthy has nothing to do with it in a country in which he was the ruler? -see f.i. the relates of Gyorgy Ferenczy, szekely-origin journalist, who describes the criminal policy and hatered climate from inside (decent honorable people you can find everywhere!) in the revenge dominated authorities of Horthy regime. And the official policy in which the royal army, police, gendarmery and paramilitary detachment work together for the same purpose.
The huge number of atrocities -22.700 documented- for a period of one year -september 1940 -november 1941, speaks more then anything else! And the ruler, the regent, the dictator, has nothing to do with it? He's not to blame? He's not a criminal, he's just a accomplice with the murderers, right! No one was charged for all that, but Horthy (like german officials who did not know what happened with the thousands and thousands of innocent civilians brutally killed in extermination camps), has nothing to do with that? We are, at least I believe we are, no stupid, and just for this tragic episode Horthy is surely guilty!
|Posted by: Dénes April 09, 2009 08:15 pm|
| The problem with your post is that apparently you rely solely on selected Rumanian sources, some of them published in the 1980s, at political order, when tension between the two (officially friendly and allied) countries rose pretty high. Would you please list your sources, so we would know how reliable they are? I bet the pillar is the infamous "Teroarea horthysto-fascista in nord-vestul Transilvaniei", Editura Politică (!), Bucharest, 1985. If so, as I said, the book is discredited by the strong national-communist political influence upon it.
Other than that, although undeniable attrocities committed by Hungarian police and military did occasionally occur, it was not a state policy to extermine ethnic Rumanians living within wartime Hungary's borders, so no war crime was actually committed. These issues were discussed in great details, in this forum and elsewhere, too.
The bottom line is, no matter how much would some people like to see Regent Horthy somehow declared (now at least posthumously) a war criminal, a hineous murderer, etc., he was not - and that's a fact those people have to live with.
|Posted by: ANDREAS April 09, 2009 09:07 pm|
|No, actually my opinion wasn't that the state policy of Horthy-ruled-Hungary was to extermine ethnic Rumanians but to revenge the so-called 1919 Trianon disaster (desintegration of historical Hungary) and also to frighten the romanian population living there. And also to win some territories between the hungarians-lived insles from Szatmar and Bihar districts with Kolosvar and Marosvasarhely majorities. By cleansing the territories! A long term policy which, by the way, continued even after 1945, when the communists sustained by the soviets came in power...|
|Posted by: MMM April 16, 2009 11:50 am|
| It is interesting how everybody keeps avoiding an issue: if Horthy wasn't declared, trialed and sentenced (like, say, Antonescu ), then he wasn't a war criminal! Is that so? On the same line, Hitler wasn't either - only because he committed suicide, just to avoid that fate.
IMO, the simple fact that under his rule war crimes were committed makes him a war criminal. Full stop.
|Posted by: Dénes April 16, 2009 02:44 pm|
| MMM et al., it's not your opinion (or mine, for that matter) that counts, but the competent forums', specialised in prosecuting war criminals.
Horthy was invited to the Nürnberg war court, but only as a witness. No charges were laid against him.
Also, if indeed war crimes were committed against Rumanian civilians that could be proven in a court of justice, then Rumania would have surely asked for his extradiction. This did not happen. Same with Yugoslavia or Slovakia.
As I said earlier, "the bottom line is, no matter how much would some people like to see Regent Horthy somehow declared (now at least posthumously) a war criminal, a hineous murderer, etc., he was not - and that's a fact those people have to live with."
|Posted by: MMM April 16, 2009 03:46 pm|
| I wish there were also some Romanian defenders of Antonescu as fanatic as you are defending the Admiral...
As for the fact that he was not indicted at Nurnberg, two questions:
1. Was any other hungarian indicted? Why not?
2. Don't you think plausible that a bargain was made - his testimony for his freedom?
To try a conclusion, every and each one of us is entitled to the right of an oppinion - so there can be as many oppinions regading Miklos Horthy as people reading this thread!
|Posted by: Dénes April 16, 2009 05:25 pm|
Sorry, but I am not defending Horthy (he was not faultless), I am only stating some facts (even if they do not please everybody). The rest is politics and allegations...
|Posted by: MMM April 17, 2009 04:51 pm|
|Just a curiosity: among Hungarians, the oppinions on Horthy are divided like in Antonescu's case or everybody just sees his positive side? Is there a current of oppinion which would like him to be considered a national hero of some sort?|
|Posted by: Dénes April 17, 2009 06:39 pm|
| Yes, the opinions are divided, largely based on the political affiliation. However, no one, not even the far left, sees him as a war criminal.
|Posted by: 21 inf April 18, 2009 12:35 am|
|For the crimes against romanian civilians from Ip, Salaj, the murderers were judged by romanian court after the war and founded guilty and convicted in contumacy. They were actually never put in prison, they were never found by romanians. The instigator and the planner for the crimes in Ip was baron Farago and the executioners were hungarian civilians from the village. Horty's name was not involved at least in these crimes. I dont know if his name was involved elsewhere.|
|Posted by: MMM April 18, 2009 06:55 pm|
| Off-topic (or not...): the final responsibilty belongs to the ruler of the state, in our case M. Horthy, just as for other crimes was blamed Antonescu (not for Odessa, because he gave direct orders there, much like the massacres in Serbia above-mentioned). The other excuses, such as "following orders" or "over-zealousness" are just whitewash - after the facts!
A final mention for the "selectivity" with which some questions are answered and others avoided as if non-existent: