Talk:Red Terror (Hungary)

Hungary Mid‑importance

	Hungary portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Socialism Mid‑importance

	Socialism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

...

I believe the first sentence of the 4th paragraph is technically incorrect -- as the Treaty of Trianon had not yet been signed the new boundaries were not yet defined, and therefore the Red Army cannot be said to have invaded Czechoslovakia or Romania but rather was fighting the armies of these two countries which occupied what was still technically sovereign Hungarian, or at the very least disputed, territory. 142.1.155.32 (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

n. of victims

590 is the number of executions carried out by tribunals recorded in the registry of the attorney general. it is reported in many sources, such as the library of congress of US, but also hungarian sources, such as Tibor Hajdu. Saying that the n. of victims of the red terror is 590 is wrong and deceiving, because the number counted also common criminals, offenders, etc.--Desyman44 (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you know that Hajdu's book was published at a time when there was another communist regime in Hungary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.69.177 (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the immortal words of Robbespierre...

You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miasnikov (talk • contribs) 22:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Proletarian Banner (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Red Terror? Propaganda Much?

600 dead after a revolution. Must be the most bloodless revolution ever. Even in India under the peacefull Ghandi more died. You might not like this regimé but it wasn't the dictatorship the 1947 regimé was. It was a peoples republic. I suggest that we remove this article. 79.102.210.229 (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

600 is not even the real number, since executions were 590 but this included common offenders and criminals, not only counterrevolutionaries. I think the most biased part of the article is to attribute to Georg Lukács the justification of terror, which, according to the source quoted, is a one-sided interpretation. He talks about "liquidating" a ruling class. This not necessarily means bloodshed. And the word can be decieving in its english translation. It should be checked which hungarian word he used.--Desyman44 (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

quit vandalizing articles you disagreed with by simply demanding it to be removed Benfor445 (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this article is pretty biased (probably written by a Far-Right Horthyist) and Bela Kun was pretty popular with even some anti-communists. The regime was probably one of the leas aggressive and bloodied out of all revolutionary groups in Europe, and one of the least in the world. The fact that less than 590 people died actually raises the question of whether there should even be an article for this so called Red Terror. 90.207.120.229 (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If only we had the power to remove articles, but unfortunately, that is practically vandalism according to Wikipedia's rules, blanking or removing an article. Proletarian Banner (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]