Talk:Carpatho-Ukraine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled][edit]

The National Anthem was Shche ne vmerla Ukraina. The Change to Ukrainy has been recent and in 1938 it would have been Ukraina Bandurist 02:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Carpatho-Ruthenia[edit]

The Economist had an article on 14 March 2009 talking about the 70th anniversary of the one-day Republic of Carpatho-Ruthenia rather than Republic of Carpatho-Ukraine.[1][2]--Rumping (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Novel about "Carpathia"[edit]

It may be of interest that the 1972 novel The Lost Embassy by Adam Fergusson describes a "Carpathian" Embassy in London, 'orphaned' since WW2, and an abortive attempt by its parent territory to re-assert independence from Ukraine, in mildly humorous but also poignant and sympathetic style. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Part of Hungary[edit]

This phrase, "the historical part of Hungary", seems antagonistic or otherwise outside of NPOV. The claim is also made with neither reference to the part of history nor a source showing what time period can claim Hungary's exclusive domain.

16:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, excuse me, I don't understand why it would be "antagonistic" or "outside of NPOV". This is not a claim, but a fact, as Hungary that time reclaimed part of her former territories of the historical Hungary.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carpatho-Ukraine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes on the current title ...[edit]

It seems that current title of this article ("Carpatho-Ukraine") may be at odds with some naming conventions. Content of this article is very specific, and covers a very short historical period, from 1938 to 1939 only. On the other hand, term "Carpatho-Ukraine" has much wider scope, both chronologically and territorially, since it is synonymous with the term "Carpathian Ukraine" and both of them are primarily used as common designations for Carpathian regions of Ukraine in general. Therefore, it doesn't seem proper to reduce the use of the term "Carpatho-Ukraine" to this, very specific article. This article is dedicated to the history of a polity called "Carpathian Ukraine" (Карпатська Україна) from 1938 to 1939, and that narrowness of this article should be reflected in the title. Therefore, we could clarify the title by changing it into "Carpathian Ukraine (1938-1939)" or something like that. Sorabino (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged massacre of Ukrainians by Polish soldiers[edit]

The article currently alleges that 500–600 Ukrainians were executed by Polish soldiers in March 1939 and refers to two Ukrainian sources which both appear rather dubious. Are there any more reputable sources that could confirm this massacre actually took place? -84.253.227.120 (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Hungarian land[edit]

Hi Super Dromaeosaurus,

I would like to clarify your edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carpatho-Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1132771331

You wrote "deception" Could you tell me why? When I see history maps I can see that this region Carpatho-Ukraine belonged to Hungary from 900 to 1920, so why do you say that it is a deception? In the article we have many precise numbers about many things, why it would be problem this number? Or what is your math? Or do you think that for a while the area belonged to the Principality of Transylvania? Due to the Ottoman wars the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom became Principality of Transylvania in 1570, and the Eastern Hungarian king became the first prince and 99% of the time it was ruled by local Hungarian nobles, and the land still belonged under the Hungarian crown. That state was a second Hungary.

Europe maps:

900

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/The_Hungarian_campaigns_of_899-900_in_Italy_and_Germany.jpg

912

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Europe_912_en.jpg

1000

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Europe_1000.jpg

1097

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/First.Crusade.Map.jpg

1190

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Europe_mediterranean_1190.jpg

13th

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Public_Schools_Historical_Atlas_-_Europe_13th_century.jpg

14th

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Europe_in_the_14th_Century.jpg

1400

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Europa_1400.jpg

1519

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Europa_1519.JPG

1560

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Europe_about_1560.jpg

1600

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Euròpa_-_Reforma.png

1700

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Europe%2C_1700—1714.png

1740

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Europe_1740.jpg

1867

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Europe_1867_map_en.png

1914

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Europe_1914_Shepherd.jpg

The region was attached to Czecoslovakia in 1920 by the Treaty of Trianon

1923

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Europe_in_1923.jpg OrionNimrod (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A single Hungarian state continuous from 895 to 1920 has never existed. And there were several interruptions of the region being led by any Hungarian state at all as well. However my main issue with this is that I don't understand why is this necessary in the lead. We can talk about this in the history section if need be. Super Ψ Dro 18:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I think the "historical" term is good, then we can add the details in the history section. Just my problem was why did you say "deception", because I would like edit Wiki in a good faith that is why I showed you the historical maps, because I can see the region belonged to a Hungarian state in all time in the mentioned period. The lead mentioned that Hungary invaded the region, so my intention to add these details to the lead section (Trianon, Vienna Award, etc) to explain why Hungary invaded the region, explain the reason in short.
"A single Hungarian state continuous from 895 to 1920 has never existed." I see what you mean, however that states were still Hungarian states in that region: Principality of Hungary, then Kingdom of Hungary, then Eastern Hungarian Kingdom, then Principality of Transylvania, then Kingdom of Hungary. But anyway it was part of the Hungarian crown, as Principality of Transylvania was part of the Hungarian crown. So the proper pharse would be "Hungarian land" instead of "state" ? Or do you have a better pharse how can we say this? Why should we silent about the numbers? I see Wiki has a lot of numbers in the articles in general in many various topics. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "Hungarian states" or "Hungarian-led states". Though for example I hardly think the Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867) was a Hungarian state. We have other interruptions too such as Michael the Brave's takeover of Transylvania (including Maramureș, half of this state) in 1600. Simply put, there is few lands, if any, that Hungarians have continuously ruled for 1,000 years. Super Ψ Dro 19:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And again I don't see why we should state in the lead, which is supposed to act as a summary of the article, of an article about a Ukrainian short-lived state that Hungary used to rule this land exactly for X years. Super Ψ Dro 19:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Super!
As I said, I accept your edit that you wrote "historical".
However I do not understand why do you say that Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867) was not a Hungarian? If it was not a Hungarian state then could you tell me what was it? We in Hungary and the Hungarian historiography do not know about this that Kingom of Hungary was not a Hungarian state. This is really new for me. If it was not Hungarian why does it call Kingdom of Hungary "Regnum Hungariae" in Latin as official title?
Although the Habsburg kings ruled Hungary, it remained a separate country ruled in personal union with both the imperial title and the various lands within the empire (see Habsburg monarchy for details), and it was neither annexed nor incorporated into the empire. Habsburg monarchy This was especially demonstrated by the status of the Kingdom of Hungary, a country that had never been a part of the Holy Roman Empire and which had always been considered a separate realm—a status that was affirmed by Article X, which was added to Hungary's constitution in 1790 during the phase of the composite monarchy and described the state as a Regnum Independens.
Do you think Kingdom of Croatia was not a Croatian country anymore because it was personal union with Hungary? Croatia was still governed by local Croatian nobles. Do you think Poland was not a Polish country anymore because the Hungarian king Louis I was crowned king of Poland too? Do you think Poland was not a Polish country anymore because the Hungarian nobleman who was prince of Transylvania Stephen Báthory was crowned king of Poland too? Do you think that Prague and Bohemia was not a Czech land because it was part of the Holy Roman Empire (Hungary not)? Do you think Wallachia and Moldavia was not a Romanian land because they were vassal state of Hungary then to the Ottoman Empire until 1878 (Romanian War of Independence)? Even here you wrote that the Voivodeship of Maramures was a "Romanian voivodeship" however the region was part of the Kingdom Hungary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voivodeship_of_Maramureș&diff=1086646190&oldid=1086644657
In 1526 the Hungarian king died at the battle of Mohacs, but the Ottomans moved home some days later. After this, Hungary had 2 kings, an ethnic Hungarian king (John Zápolya King of Hungary from 1526 to 1540) was elected by the majority of Hungarian nobles and a Habsburg king was elected by a minority. Why does Hungary would be not a Hungarian state anymore if it was 2 kings of Hungary? Do you think it was Hungarian state in 1526 and the in 1527 not a Hungarian state anymore? Since 1366, after 180 years long heavy Hungarian-Ottoman wars, when the Ottoman Empire was at its peak, in 1541, the Ottomans occupied the center region of the Kingdom of Hungary, thus Hungary split 3 parts for 150 years: Royal Hungary (ruled by Habsburg kings) in the west, Ottoman Hungary in the center, Transylvanian Hungary in the east. The borders always changed between these countries because it was heavy Hungarian-Habsburg-Ottoman wars in all way all the time 150 years long. During this long time, Hungary was a battlefield that is why the Hungarian population decreased heavily. The Eastern Hungarian Kingdom was ruled by an ethnic Hungarian king (John Sigismund Zápolya) and by Hungarian nobility. After the Treaty of Speyer in 1570, the Eastern Hungarian kingdom was renamed to Principality of Transylvania because it was ruled by princes and not by kings anymore because the Hungarian crown passed to the Habsburgs. The Habsburg kings were crowned with the Holy Crown of Hungary and the capital of Royal Hungary was Pozsony (Bratislava) near to Vienna due to the Ottoman capture of Buda. You can see Transcarpathia belonged in that Eastern Hungarian kingdom then to Principality of Transylvania. The Eastern Hungarian King, the same person became the first Prince of Transylvania, and actually, the Principality of Transylvania was more independent than the other Hungarian countries during that time, however, it was a vassal state of the Ottomans. The Principality of Transylvania was ruled by Hungarian princes 99% of the time, they led many campaigns, and the armies of Transylvania led by Hungarian princes and nobles fought against the Habsburg and against the Ottomans.
Michael the Brave who was the Prince of Wallachia he recognized Sigismund Báthory the Prince of Transylvania as his king in 1595 and ruled in Wallachia as a governor on his behalf, in 1598 he became the vassal of Rudolf Habsburg. Nevertheless, on June 28 of 1599, he took an oath of allegiance to András Báthory the Prince of Transylvania. Then with the support of Rudolf Habsburg, he invaded Transylvania on October 17 of 1599. The Szekelys (Hungarian ethnic group) supported Michael because Rudolf Habsburg bought them with more than 100,000 gold plus the Szekelys had a problem with András Báthory. The outnumbered army of Michael's defeated András Báthory on October 28 of 1599 at the battle of Sellenberk. The Szekelys elected Michael as Prince of Transylvania, but this was some months because he could not restrain his soldiers. The Hungarians do not wanted this anarchy so Sigismund Báthory defeated Michael and the Habsburgs's army in Goroszlo. It was part of an Hungarian-Habsburg conflict in Transylvania. Michael the Brave called himself chief of army in Transylvania and procurator of Habsburg Rudolph. Do you think Principality of Transylvania was not a Hungarian state because Michael ruled it as personal union for a short time?
By the way Sigismund Báthory ruled first Transylvania, Wallachia, and Moldavia together before Michael. On 13th November 1594, Michael the Brave the ruler of Wallachia introduced a unique method to cancel his debts. He summoned his Turkish creditors all to Bucharest and killed them there. This method of payment naturally angered the leaders of the Ottoman Empire who wanted to punish Michael the Brave. And not only him, but Aaron the Tyrant the ruler of Moldavia who rewarded the Turks in the same way who helped him to get his ruling position. The rulers of Moldavia and Wallachia sent a delegation to Sigismund Báthory the Prince of Transylvania for armed support. And they negotiated so well that Sigismund Báthory became the prince of all three medieval states. Michael the Brave and Aaron the Tyrant thus became a kind of governor of the Hungarian Prince of Transylvania. Following this contract, Sigismund Báthory intervened in Wallachia to fight the Ottoman army together with Michael the Brave. It is interesting that Michael the Brave used exactly the method of Sigismund Báthory when he became the Prince of Transylvania for a short time. He appointed himself the ruler of the three states and designated Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia) in Transylvania as his capital, and appointed his own governors to Wallachia and Moldavia with the titles of voivode and prince. He sent his own son Nicolae Patrascut to Wallachia and his nephew Marcu Cercel to Moldavia.
Sigismund Báthory using the title Prince of Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia in a 1595 engraving. Do you think Wallachia and Moldavia was not a Romanian state for this time when Sigismund used this title? I do not think so.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sigismund_Bathory_in_full_regalia.jpg
Why did the Habsburg kings crown with the Hungarian crown if Kingdom of Hungary was not Hungarian state? Why did they use the title of "King of Hungary"? Only Joseph II was not crowned by the Hungarian crown, because if the crown he need follow the Hungarian laws and Hungarian constitution in Hungary.
If Kingdom of Hungary was not Hungarian state how possible that Hungary has own coins with Hungarian coat of arms?
Ferdinand I (1526-1564) King of Hungary
http://www.ancientresource.com/images/medieval_crusades/hungarian-coins/madonna-child-cm2182.jpg
http://www.coins.calkinsc.com/images/hungary_ferdinand_denar_1537kb.jpg
John I of Hungary (1526-1540) King of Hungary
http://www.coins.calkinsc.com/images/hungary_johnI_denar_1527kt.jpg
Maximilian (1564-1576) King of Hungary
http://www.coins.calkinsc.com/images/hungary_maximilian_denar_1568kb.jpg
Rudolph II (1576-1608) King of Hungary
http://www.coins.calkinsc.com/images/hungary_rudolphii_denar_1580.jpg
Matthias II (1608-1619) King of Hungary
http://www.coins.calkinsc.com/thumbs/thungary_matthiasii_denar_1619kb.jpg
Gabriel Bethlen Prince of Transylvania (1613-1629) King of Hungary (1620-1621)
http://www.coins.calkinsc.com/images/hungary_denar_gab_1621.jpg
http://www.coins.calkinsc.com/images/transylvania_denar_1621KB.jpg
http://www.coins.calkinsc.com/images/transylvania_1626CC_groshen.jpg
Bethlen Gabor coin 1621 with Hungarian coat of arm:
https://m.eremshop.hu/datadir/termekek/Bethlen-Gabor-Taller-1621-K-B-6525-4756.jpg
Bethlen Gabor coin 1626
http://www.coins.calkinsc.com/images/transylvania_1626CC_groshen.jpg
Bethlen Gabor coin 1627  with Hungarian coat of arm and holy crown
https://m.eremshop.hu/datadir/termekek/d206974deaf9316797fc5b3b833a0f97.jpg
Ferdinand II (1619-1637) King of Hungary
http://www.coins.calkinsc.com/images/hungary_ferdinandii_denar_1633kb.jpg
Ferdinand III (1637-1657) King of Hungary
http://www.coins.calkinsc.com/images/hungary_ferdinandiii_denar_1643.jpg
Maria Theresa (1740-1780) Queen of Hungary
http://www.coins.calkinsc.com/images/hungary_denar_1766.jpg
Sigismund Báthory (1581-1598) we can see the Virgin Mary as the symbol of Hungary
https://www.numismatica.hu/upload/pics/products/1828.jpg
Stephen Bocskai (1605-1606), Prince of Transylvania, Transylvania and Hungarian coat of arm together (Arpad stripes and double cross)
https://www.numismatica.hu/upload/pics/products/936.jpg
If Kingdom of Hungary was not a Hungarian state how possible that is was many Hungarian armies led by Hungarian nobles who fight against with Ottomans and Habsburgs? Just some examples:
Siege of Esztergom 1543
Siege of Szigetvár 1566
Siege of Eger 1552
Battle of Szikszó 1588
Rákóczi's War of Independence (1703–11)
Hungarian Revolution of 1848
Old contemporary history maps, if Kingdom of Hungary was not a Hungarian state why the contemporary authors showed separate Hungarian country and wrote "Hungary"? (It ruled by Habsburg Monarchy)
1635 map of Europe by Willem Blaeu, a Dutch cartographer, The proportions are overall not so good, Hungary looks smaller than the reality, but we can see what was the Hungarian lands at that time. Hungarian land from Pozsony/Bratislava (Pressburg) to Gyulafehérvár/Alba Iulia (Weissenburg).
https://external-preview.redd.it/rYdkPyeF-bUy_lr9BDdl294yojmJZwifBAeX_Vnz9Us.jpg?auto=webp&s=2dffc358c45b57877c2467e12acf6eda82cc212a
1724 map of Europe from Paris
http://history-maps.ru/pictures/max/0/827.jpg
1751
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~3914~480119:L-Europe-divisee-en-ses-principaux-
1779, French map
https://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:3f462x294
1787, English map, Kitchin
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Europe%2C_1787_%28Kitchin%29.jpg
1800, English map
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:An_accurate_map_of_Europe_from_the_best_authorities_%283046039588%29.jpg
What do you think? OrionNimrod (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is way too long. I am not going to refute all of the comments. I will just say that, in my opinion, in these times where nation states were not a thing, we could say that a country "belonged" to the nationality that ruled it. For example the Voivodeship of Maramureș was led by Romanians despite being in Hungary. Wasn't Habsburg Hungary led by Austrian nobles? Maybe not. This is anyway not an objective definition. I guess that this 1,000-year old stance can be defended. But not as "Hungary ruled this place for 1,000 years", because then we'd have to define what "Hungary" stands here for. Not sure if this discussion is needed anymore. Super Ψ Dro 19:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious source removed[edit]

Ukrinform article was created in 2019.03.15, this is the earliest "source" stating any kind of massacres (27000 people, by the Hungarian army). There are no other historical sources.

For example Serbia demanded that Hungary recognize the Novi Sad raid. In June 2013, Hungarian President János Áder formally apologized for this. Ukraine did not demand any such measures and no information can be found about this supposed genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.192.50 (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BorgQueen (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by KelpyGLover (talk). Self-nominated at 13:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Carpatho-Ukraine; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Hi KelpyGLover (talk), unfortunately this article is not eligible to appear in the Did You Know section of the main page. The eligibility criteria require that an article be newly created, recently expanded (by more than 5x in length) or recently promoted to WP:Good Article status. Please do bring any such articles here though, all the best - Dumelow (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I was going to post my own review, but conflicted with Dumelow above. Here are my comments:

General eligibility:

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Unknown
Overall: Hi KelpyGLover and welcome to the DYK process. Unfortunately, this article is ineligible for DYK because it hasn't been created, expanded fivefold, or promoted to Good Article status in the last seven days (in fact, it has barely been edited in the past month). Additionally, this page has several cleanup tags, which have to be resolved even if this page were new enough. As such, I will have to quick-fail this nomination. Please read Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria so this does not happen in the future. Epicgenius (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further, this would not be ready for a full review anyway. The hook is too short, misses the link to the article, and needs work on the English, as well as a reference that is not from Wikipedia (you must show an external source). If the article can be made quality, consider something like ... that Carpatho-Ukraine claimed independence as a country but survived less than a day? or ... that Carpatho-Ukraine survived less than a day after its proclamation of independence in 1939? Note that no country recognised C-U's existence as a separate entity, so we can't say that it was a country, only that someone tried to claim this status, before the Hungarian army crushed it (which process took 2-3 days in all, but it is probably reasonable to say that true claimed independence was just for <1 day). So three volunteers all reviewed at the same time - well, that's something. Actually, an interesting topic, if qualified. SeoR (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carpatho-Ukraine&oldid=1206553609"