Provocateur (talk | contribs) |
DITWIN GRIM (talk | contribs) →Hungary : independent belligerent ?: new section |
||
Line 149: | Line 149: | ||
:::The problem with the above discussion (and particularly the moralizing criticism of Napoleon's foreign policy) is that it altogether minimizes the decisive role of British diplomacy, gold, and propaganda in forming and sustaining perennial anti-French coalitions with the goal of reducing France to the pre-Revolutionary ''anciennes limites'' (and in particular ejecting the French from Antwerp). [[Albert Sorel]] wrote somewhere unless Britain could be brought to accept the "natural frontiers," Napoleon would essentially have to win a Battle of Austerlitz every year for the next hundred years to survive as a ruler; this is the background "truth" or reality against which all of Napoleon's actions must be judged (if, indeed, we feel entitled to judge) or at least understood. In other words Napoleon, the supposed "megalomaniac" "corrupted by power" or "losing touch with reality," was in fact the supreme realist: accepting that his military genius would not suffice to fend off France's enemies indefinitely, he embarked on a series of desperate manoeuvres in a search for solutions against a ''much more powerful and aggressive'' geopolitical rival. In hindsight, and contrary to the Anglo-Saxon caricature of a ruthless "Ogre" and "disturber," it's clear that Napoleon showed the treacherous ancien regimes of Europe altogether too much respect (being lenient to the point of folly with the defeated House of Habsburg) and genuinely sought to win their trust through countless conciliatory measures. I think we can say with confidence that Napoleon was not interested in wars of conquest for their own sake; the Iberian intrigues of 1808, the annexation of the north-German departements; the Russian expedition; all were measures forced on him by the implacable war which Britain had been waging against France since 1792 and which would continue until France were once again reduced to a vassal-state to the emerging thessalocratic superpower. There are indeed tyrants in this "Greek-style human tragedy," but they're not always the ones you think. [[User:Albrecht|Albrecht]] ([[User talk:Albrecht|talk]]) 22:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC) |
:::The problem with the above discussion (and particularly the moralizing criticism of Napoleon's foreign policy) is that it altogether minimizes the decisive role of British diplomacy, gold, and propaganda in forming and sustaining perennial anti-French coalitions with the goal of reducing France to the pre-Revolutionary ''anciennes limites'' (and in particular ejecting the French from Antwerp). [[Albert Sorel]] wrote somewhere unless Britain could be brought to accept the "natural frontiers," Napoleon would essentially have to win a Battle of Austerlitz every year for the next hundred years to survive as a ruler; this is the background "truth" or reality against which all of Napoleon's actions must be judged (if, indeed, we feel entitled to judge) or at least understood. In other words Napoleon, the supposed "megalomaniac" "corrupted by power" or "losing touch with reality," was in fact the supreme realist: accepting that his military genius would not suffice to fend off France's enemies indefinitely, he embarked on a series of desperate manoeuvres in a search for solutions against a ''much more powerful and aggressive'' geopolitical rival. In hindsight, and contrary to the Anglo-Saxon caricature of a ruthless "Ogre" and "disturber," it's clear that Napoleon showed the treacherous ancien regimes of Europe altogether too much respect (being lenient to the point of folly with the defeated House of Habsburg) and genuinely sought to win their trust through countless conciliatory measures. I think we can say with confidence that Napoleon was not interested in wars of conquest for their own sake; the Iberian intrigues of 1808, the annexation of the north-German departements; the Russian expedition; all were measures forced on him by the implacable war which Britain had been waging against France since 1792 and which would continue until France were once again reduced to a vassal-state to the emerging thessalocratic superpower. There are indeed tyrants in this "Greek-style human tragedy," but they're not always the ones you think. [[User:Albrecht|Albrecht]] ([[User talk:Albrecht|talk]]) 22:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Hungary : independent belligerent ? == |
|||
:Hello, |
|||
:I’m engaged into an edit war with [[user:Doncsecz]] ([[User talk:Doncsecz|talk]]) on the [[Battle of Raab]] article. Doncsecz wants to list Hungary as an independent belligerent. I reverted his edit as Hungary was part of the Austrian Empire and as his contribution was unsourced. After many reverts, he accused me of “falsification of history”, stating that Hungary should be listed as independent has it had an independent Diet, some commanders were ethnic Hungarians or because Hungarian troops had different uniforms… Finally, Doncsecz conveniently brought Hungarian language sources to confirm his point, but refused to follow Wikipedia guidelines [[WP:NOENG]]. I really need help from the community with this rude editor... [[User:DITWIN GRIM|DITWIN GRIM]] ([[User talk:DITWIN GRIM|talk]]) 11:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:10, 9 September 2012
Napoleonic Wars was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Template:Cleanup taskforce closed
Index
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The First World War?
Anyone agree?
-G
Ehh well you'll need to go against every other Historian in the world. There are plenty of "World Wars" before this one. You could look at the Fall of Rome as a world war since so many different Germanic tribes and Persians and Steppe horsemen were fighting each other and the Romans for the scraps. This was very much a European war except if you include Napoleans Egyptian expedition or the War of 1812. WW1 had America actively participating and Japan fighting the Germans in China whilst there was also a Middle Eastern Front too.Tourskin 22:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Almost, but i agree. The Fall of Rome may have counted many tribes but the Napoleonic wars was the biggest one in history up to that point. Its repercussions had much the same impact as those after the two world wars and it ushered in a new age. It caused devestation in many parts of the world and served as a springboard for the new British Empire. In the First World War America only declared War in 1917 whereas the American invasion of British Canada in 1812 was 3 years before the end of the war. The British also fought the French in the Carribean, India and the Mauritius.--[User:Willski72]] 20:55 25 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willski72 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- If we were to start counting them like this, then the American revolution would count too. the were battles from Europe to the Americas and India. Joesolo13 (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- what about the mongol conquests the battles in that covered a continent and a half — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.167.43 (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Infobox
I added an infobox at the bottom of the page (Template). It's not finished by all means, I haven't added any of the major battle from the Peninsular War for one, anyone else is welcome to do that if they wish. I've only added the infobox to this page for now but will put in on all the major pages when I time, unless someone else wants to do that too? I might do one for the Revolutionary Wars and even combine them unless there are objections. Experiment 47 (talk) 23:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Proposal to add United States to Side 2.
I believe that because the United States indirectly helped Napoleon by forcing England to send troops to British North America, that it makes America a de facto belligerent on the French side. However, I also propose that a note be added as well explaining their role as a line to divide the United States from the actual French allies just as we have for the Invasion Of Poland, in which Nazi Germany teamed up with the Soviet Union to invade Poland. Rainbow Dash 12:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- One of the problems with that is that I do not believe that either the British nor America considered the United States a French ally, and though American privateers would use French ports this happend for the most part under the Bourbon Restoration. This subject was discussed at some great time and the conclusion if I remember was to leave the US out of the article.Tirronan (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I disagree Tirronan. I think there are two issues here. I think this is sort of an American Perspective. From the British perspective, the British tended to see the two conflicts as connected. However, from the US perspective they were not. So to say they are not, probably leans to a US viewpoint. Secondly, the French did provide ports for US privateers, and actually fought with US in one battle. If the US and the British are fighting together in a battle, it does tend to combine the two. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- If the United States are considered as allies of the French in the Napoleonic Wars, then the French must be added into the infobox of the War of 1812 as a US ally... That would be strange, as neither France nor the United States considered themselves as an ally of the other side. I must also point out that most of the so-called War of 1812 occured during the Bourbon Restauration (1814/1815-1830).DITWIN GRIM (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
There was no noted alliance between the two nations. As far as the US was concerned the agreement with France following the American revolution was nul and void. As far as Napoleon was concerned an enemy of my enemy is my friend but not "lover." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.235.1.4 (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Treaty of Amiens: Exactly which parts did Napoleon "violate"?
The article states that "both sides dishonored the treaty". Nothing in the Treaty of Amiens states for it being illegal for the French to intervene in the Swiss civil war, a conflict the British had supported. On top of that, which "Italian coastal cities" did the French occupy, and why are they in violation of the Treaty when the only major articles pertaining to Italy was the French evacuation of Naples and the Roman States, of which the French had fulfilled?
Britain was the one who violated the treaty, but in the name of neutrality it can be said that they did so because of the moves Napoleon did to extend French influence in Europe. That, coupled with the expedition to Haiti probably made the British think Napoleon had an insatiable aggression, but ultimately, the French did not dishonor any part of the Treaty.
I think either the article needs to specify which parts of the Treaty of Amiens France violated instead of giving out vague reasons, or say that while Britain was the one who ultimately refused to evacuate from Malta, they did so on what they saw as justifiable grounds to preserve article neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.161.120 (talk) 06:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Here is the complete text of the treaty, in English.
- Frankly, France didn't violate the Treaty of Amiens. Napoleon did, however, break part part of the Treaty of Luneville, specifically Article XI, which guaranteed the sovereignty of the Helvetic Republic; Napoleon's intervention in the Civil War there shortly after his troops withdrew, although it saved the country from anarchy, technically did violate Article XI of Luneville. I suppose someone could argue that Luneville was a foundation for Amiens, but that's a stretch. To be honest, the only reason why the statement that the French violated the treaty remains is because that myth is so widespread that removing it will contradict many reputable secondary sources. Marechal Ney (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Persia?
Why is Persia listed as a combatant? Not mentioned at all in the article text. best, 188.221.129.72 (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Persia was allied with Napoleon against Russia and Britain from 1806-1813. Although Persia only fought battles against Russia and they closed the embassy to the British. The Persians and Turks cooperated against the Russians. Napoleon also gave them a new model army which is almost like the Turkish Nizam Cedid.
- Why is Persia also listed against Napoleon? They made peace with Britain and got back the British diplomats and officers in 1811 but they were still at war with Russia. They got rid of the French diplomats but some officers stayed and they never actually declared war on France, in fact the French officers came back when the Persians decided to make another offensive into the caucasus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cauca50 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Seems silly.
Propaganda
The text states that N was sorry not to have achieved his dream of a 'free and peaceful' Europe, then states that this was achieved in the last century by the EU. This is unsourced.
I have repeatedly attempted to edit stating that N's idea of a single Europe was achieved twice last century by Hitler and the EU. This has been censored by the thought police, stating that the comparison with Hitler is 'ludicrous' and that I havent stated sources.
The comparison: N united Europe by massive wars of conquest of almost every European state and by imposing puppet pro French regimes. Hitler united Europe in exactly the same way. The EU was created by entirely peaceful negotiation between countries. Isnt it obvious - to the unbiased person - which comaprison is more exact? Note that I do not try to delete the EU comparison, it is not me who insists on a single POV!
Ludicrous? Geyl was a serious historian who took the same view as I do, who are you to say its ludicrous? I see others on the discussion page on N himself take the same view. You are imposing a single editorial point of view that is not justfied by the objective facts
N's idea was a 'peaceful and free' Europe? The man who invented mass warfare, invaded and occupied almost every major european state and inserted puppet regiems and secret police wherever he went, was really a champion of 'free and peaceful' union? This is pure fantasy!
Sources: I am seriously supposed to source the fact that Hitler invaded and occupied most European coutnries and imposed puppet regimes? But at the same time, our good friend the EU propogandist is allowed to have unsourced remarks attributed to N without challenge?
I sont mind being challenged but in the circs, the censorship imposed on me looks like an attempt to sustain a particular POV about N that isnt justifed by the facts and isnt objective - propoganda, in short — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unraed (talk • contribs) 12:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Napoleon never declared a single war, his conquests are the direct result of the defeats of the European monarchies which had attacked France in the first place. This is sufficient to contradict your main (unsourced) point of view ("Napoleon's wars of conquest"). Read this for further information. I strongly suggest that you avoid terms such as "thought police", "censorship", "propaganda" ...DITWIN GRIM (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- Even as badly cited as this article is, it should hold to the mainstream views of major historians. That said significant minority views would have to be represented. Meaning that more than a few historians held another view. Also Napoleon invaded Russian outright the Russian's didn't advance across the border declaring war. He instigated quite a few conflicts so I would disagree with your evaluation. There are a lot of interpretations of Napoleon and his goals. Comparison's between Napoleon and Hitler probably don't need to be in the article. Too much space, time, and differences in political views to be terribly useful. I would agree that terms like thought police, propaganda, and so forth are not helpful. As for a lot of time spent on Nappy's views and goals. Really to accomplish much you are going to have to have an entire article on that. It probably already exists. Oh yes the EU comment should be cited and everything else too.Tirronan (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- War with Russia was the last thing Napoleon wanted. Russia triggered the hostilities by violating the treaty of Tilsit and by gathering troops near the Polish border. Poles requested help from France, which sent the Grande Armée in Poland. Alexander responded by an ultimatum ordering Napoleon to withdraw from Poland. At each stage of his advance into Russia, Napoleon proposed peace to Alexander, which he refused. It is obvious that Napoleon always sought peace, not only by sincere humanism (he was nourished by enlightment ideals), but it was also a mean to protect his own dynasty, I must admit... Nothing common with Hitler's Lebensraum and agressions. Not to mention their respective attitude towards Jews and Poles. The only common point I see between Hitler and Napoleon is that they were both diverted in their war against Great Britain by Russia and that's what lead them to their loss. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Even as badly cited as this article is, it should hold to the mainstream views of major historians. That said significant minority views would have to be represented. Meaning that more than a few historians held another view. Also Napoleon invaded Russian outright the Russian's didn't advance across the border declaring war. He instigated quite a few conflicts so I would disagree with your evaluation. There are a lot of interpretations of Napoleon and his goals. Comparison's between Napoleon and Hitler probably don't need to be in the article. Too much space, time, and differences in political views to be terribly useful. I would agree that terms like thought police, propaganda, and so forth are not helpful. As for a lot of time spent on Nappy's views and goals. Really to accomplish much you are going to have to have an entire article on that. It probably already exists. Oh yes the EU comment should be cited and everything else too.Tirronan (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh come on, do you honestly think you are the only one that picks up a history book? I don't enjoy partisan flag waving no matter what side it comes on and that and other statements come across like an Napoleonic apologist. Napoleon's invasion was to enforce the European trade block he had on England and to settle rising tensions. I enjoy reading about Napoleon but he was far more complex than you are allowing. I am an American so I really don't have much of a dog in this fight. I do however enjoy the period and its turns. We are not about glorifying Napoleon here, and frankly he was also raising another nobility while casting down one at the same time. Remember also he had his own propaganda machine in place. There was a reason why the statement "to lie like a bulletin" was common in France. There were a wealth of interesting human beings in place at the time. They were all very gifted and very complex and oh so human. I can't tell you what to do but I'd suggest you reread your histories with a more jaundiced eye. If you really want to come at the article with those views in place then honestly you need to consider finding another area to edit in, if you can't assume a neutral POV.Tirronan (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you are being so agressive, I don't even understand what are the points you're contesting... Do you think that invading Russia was Napoleon's secret dream ? Do you really think Napoleon was a warmonger who whished to conquer the world ? I'd really like you to come with sources for such assertions. The truth is that Napoleon was appointed as Emperor "to protect the gains of the French Revolution at home and peace at the borders", not to make Russia a French province. Napoleon knew he had to fulfil both missions if he wanted to stay on his throne. Napoleon really had other business to do than starting the conquest of Russia... Until Russia violated the Treaty of Tilsit and threatened the Polish Border. I don't pretend Napoleon was a pacifist hippie, I'm just saying that maintaining peace was in his own interest, and the facts show that Napoleon always sought peace, even if it meant creating puppet states, overthrowing unfavorable monarchs or reorganising the map of Europe following defeats of France's ennemies. That's what distinguishes the Napoleonic military strategy (seaking favorable peace treaty through temporary occupation of land) from the clausewitzian strategy (annihilate the enemy and grab as much territory as you can). Now, keep your advice for yourself, if you can talk quietly on the subject, I suggest you to move to another article. DITWIN GRIM (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oh come on, do you honestly think you are the only one that picks up a history book? I don't enjoy partisan flag waving no matter what side it comes on and that and other statements come across like an Napoleonic apologist. Napoleon's invasion was to enforce the European trade block he had on England and to settle rising tensions. I enjoy reading about Napoleon but he was far more complex than you are allowing. I am an American so I really don't have much of a dog in this fight. I do however enjoy the period and its turns. We are not about glorifying Napoleon here, and frankly he was also raising another nobility while casting down one at the same time. Remember also he had his own propaganda machine in place. There was a reason why the statement "to lie like a bulletin" was common in France. There were a wealth of interesting human beings in place at the time. They were all very gifted and very complex and oh so human. I can't tell you what to do but I'd suggest you reread your histories with a more jaundiced eye. If you really want to come at the article with those views in place then honestly you need to consider finding another area to edit in, if you can't assume a neutral POV.Tirronan (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi to both. First, let's just tone down; we all know how these discussions in virtual space tend to easily get very heated indeed and the more heated they get, the less productive they are.
- Here's my opinion on the issue. I have become interested and began studying Napoleonic history while I was a teenager. What caught my eye initially was the sheer magnitude of the character, his genius, his legacy. After a while, I became aware that he was far more complex than that. There was a darker side to his character: he was often overbearing, pushy, self-centered, uncompromising, arrogant, he couldn't bear to see a jugular without having a go at it. His personality greatly impacted his politics. However, Napoleon did not officially start any of the conflicts known as the Napoleonic Wars, although he led an aggressive foreign policy for much of his reign. Based on my studies and understanding of European politics at the time, he could be said to have been interested in going to war in 1805 against Russia and Austria, in 1806-1807 against Prussia. This was all part of France's century-old strategic interest of creating a system of alliances and a buffer zone in Germany and in Italy. The attempt at occupying the Peninsula in 1808 was somewhat different, as it was initially directed against Portugal, a country that refused to implement the Continental System. Napoleon probably occupied Spain because he rightfully saw the country as being a weak and unreliable ally. It goes back to his own personal pattern: he saw the jugular and went for it, although, to his defense, it has to be said that prominent political figures such as the highly-influential Talleyrand also advised for such a move. The ensuing war was more of a civil war and there was no formal declaration of war on any side. This war was not in Napoleon's interest at and one could argue that he could have struck a bargain at some point, but then again one has to remember that the man thought that anything else than complete victory would be a failure for him and his regime. It is true to some extent that, being the upstart that he was (himself and as the leader of a new regime), he thought he needed to look invulnerable in order to survive among the old dynasties of Europe. The 1809 war was entirely of Austria's doing, as this country was almost bankrupt and attempted to reclaim its status as a great power. The war started after Austria invaded Bavaria, a French ally, while launching an ultimatum to French forces present to stand down and withdraw or risk being treated as hostile. Napoleon had no interest in this war, as he had almost nothing to gain from it. He had already secured the territories that were vital for France following the wars in 1805 and 1806. Napoleon fought the 1812 war to force Russia to honour its commitment to enforce the Continental System, but Napoleon was actually desperate for peace long before the war ended. I guess that we could spend weeks discussing the various aspects and complexities of the Napoleonic Wars. I for one believe that Napoleon was just one of the main characters in a Greek-style human tragedy called the Napoleonic Wars. Would the wars have taken place anyway had Napoleon died at the siege of Acre (for example) in 1799? Given that the Napoleonic Wars were a natural continuation of the Revolutionary Wars, with the outbreak of which Napoleon had nothing to do, I would tend to say yes. Would these wars have been so bloody without him? Probably not. Would they have lasted so long? Would they have turned out differently? Would they have had different consequences? I don't know. What I do know and this is (unfortunately) undeniable is that war has consistently shaped human history, from the age of the protohumans and to this date. What I hold to be true is that Napoleon was "a warrior" as a popular English song went at the time, but he was not a warmonger. He was not a pacifist either. People who want simple, straightforward truths about human history would better go look elsewhere, because Napoleon and the Napoleonic Wars are just about as complicated and complex as it's gonna get. Best,--Alexandru Demian (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Folks, sorry I was not trying to be aggressive. Just realize that there are many takes on Napoleon from God provided Savior to blood thirsty tyrant. This all depended on where you were visa via France's ambitions. Lets take another example out of history, Rome declared very few wars yet managed to be in one war of expansion after another. Given as a whole I would still have to say they were and expansive and aggressive Empire. Regardless of the reasons given there was many wars some provoked some not. My point being to make sure we are always center lined on the main stream historiography. As Alex said I don't personally see Napoleon so much as a blood thirsty conqueror at least no more so that an acquisitive Russia or Prussia or Austria for that matter. But he was far better at it. Claiming that the massive expansion of France was anything other than a expansion for expansion's sake is probably stretching it a bit. Napoleon was quick to take up a cause when it suited his needs, and equally quick to drop it when it didn't. Poland comes quickly to mind for one. Now that was all I was trying to say, simply keep and eye on a balanced view.Tirronan (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- The problem with the above discussion (and particularly the moralizing criticism of Napoleon's foreign policy) is that it altogether minimizes the decisive role of British diplomacy, gold, and propaganda in forming and sustaining perennial anti-French coalitions with the goal of reducing France to the pre-Revolutionary anciennes limites (and in particular ejecting the French from Antwerp). Albert Sorel wrote somewhere unless Britain could be brought to accept the "natural frontiers," Napoleon would essentially have to win a Battle of Austerlitz every year for the next hundred years to survive as a ruler; this is the background "truth" or reality against which all of Napoleon's actions must be judged (if, indeed, we feel entitled to judge) or at least understood. In other words Napoleon, the supposed "megalomaniac" "corrupted by power" or "losing touch with reality," was in fact the supreme realist: accepting that his military genius would not suffice to fend off France's enemies indefinitely, he embarked on a series of desperate manoeuvres in a search for solutions against a much more powerful and aggressive geopolitical rival. In hindsight, and contrary to the Anglo-Saxon caricature of a ruthless "Ogre" and "disturber," it's clear that Napoleon showed the treacherous ancien regimes of Europe altogether too much respect (being lenient to the point of folly with the defeated House of Habsburg) and genuinely sought to win their trust through countless conciliatory measures. I think we can say with confidence that Napoleon was not interested in wars of conquest for their own sake; the Iberian intrigues of 1808, the annexation of the north-German departements; the Russian expedition; all were measures forced on him by the implacable war which Britain had been waging against France since 1792 and which would continue until France were once again reduced to a vassal-state to the emerging thessalocratic superpower. There are indeed tyrants in this "Greek-style human tragedy," but they're not always the ones you think. Albrecht (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Hungary : independent belligerent ?
- Hello,
- I’m engaged into an edit war with user:Doncsecz (talk) on the Battle of Raab article. Doncsecz wants to list Hungary as an independent belligerent. I reverted his edit as Hungary was part of the Austrian Empire and as his contribution was unsourced. After many reverts, he accused me of “falsification of history”, stating that Hungary should be listed as independent has it had an independent Diet, some commanders were ethnic Hungarians or because Hungarian troops had different uniforms… Finally, Doncsecz conveniently brought Hungarian language sources to confirm his point, but refused to follow Wikipedia guidelines WP:NOENG. I really need help from the community with this rude editor... DITWIN GRIM (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)