Talk:Mihály Károlyi

Mihály Károlyi has been and still is a concern of debate in Hungary. For the right wing he acts as a focus of their hatred. For example even in 2006 Péter Boross, a right-wing politician, still found it important to state in one of his speeches in the Parlament that he stands against Mihály Károlyi's politics.
The many negative comments in this wikipedia article can be accounted to this traditional bias among the right-wing, and is not an objective view on him.

• In "Leading the People's Republic" the phrase "who been expected and who himself expected... " doesn't make sense. Someone who divines its intended meaning might fix it. Did he expect a lenient truce? (AndersW 14:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

Zotim edit

There are too many errors in the entry. As a Hungarian, I am very sorry that so much nonsense is being brought about from Károlyi.

1) Károlyi promised nothing to the French to release him.

2) She wasn't a silly child, this was only written about by Cecile Tormay, an anti-Semitic writer of the age. This is spread by today’s Horthy-friendly, semi-fascist, anti-Károlyi groups to this day. It is true that he had private teachers, but this is true of all Hungarian aristocratic children. The aristocrats did not send their children to public school. Each of them was a private student, and the best teachers of the age visited the family castle. Károlyi was fluent in three foreign languages: English, German and French. He easily talked to the highest foreign politicians. In America, he gave lectures in English on the Hungarian domestic political situation. Károlyi wrote a lot. He was able to express himself extremely selectively and interestingly. His memoir, Faith without Illusions, is a particularly interesting, readable writing. It provides an insight into the life of the Hungarian aristocracy. It gives a lot of anecdotes, interesting short stories and life pictures to the reader. An authentic source recommended for everyone. Its first English edition was published in 1956.

3) Károlyi did not disarm the Hungarian army. He adhered to the ceasefire in Belgrade, which he signed on 16 November. He maintained six divisions and two cavalry divisions. His enemies accused him of not taking up arms but of taking a ceasefire, thus failing to protect the country from surrounding hostile countries. In fact, he was a pro-peace, he was absolutely right about that. That's why his enemies said he was a traitor and the pro-war gentlemen were angry with him. Károlyi urged peace with the Entente during the war. He saw that war was not in Hungary's interest. If the Monarchy wins, Hungary will be a servant of the German Empire, if it loses, then historical Hungary will disintegrate. He said that Hungary was interested in friendship with the surrounding Slavic peoples and confederation with them. Károlyi was very afraid that Hungary would lose. Yet we see in retrospect, he was right, because the war was lost by the Monarchy. In the post-war economic bankruptcy, social chaos, and the impending Entente attack (French-Serb troops stood at the southern border), he saw the only solution as asking for a ceasefire. Otherwise, he risked an attack by French-Serbian troops and total occupation. There was no chance of resistance. In retrospect, the Horthys, who needed a scapegoat, made him a traitor. Poor Károlyi became the scapegoat, and all his property was confiscated.

4) It is a great mistake to quote Freud here. Tisza was not the smartest count. He was a very strict, short-sighted, pro-war politician, much of the country hated him. Károlyi was much wiser than Tisza. But Károlyi was not given the government, only when he had to take over the bankruptcy mass caused by the Tisza. No Hungarian politician wanted to take up the post of prime minister, neither Bethlen, nor Horthy, nor anyone else in October 1918. Moreover, his old opponents offered their services to Károlyi. They thought that Károlyi was a friend of the Entente. Thus, through Károlyi, they can preserve their wealth and position. When they saw that the entent did not like Károlyi, they parted ways with him.

Károlyi had only one big mistake, he was very naive, he believed blindly in human understanding, goodness and his ideas almost all his life.

First, you forget that we don't live in the People's Republic of Hungary, the communism collapsed in 1989. You sounds like a typical party historian of the communist party, you just repeated 100 times debunked myths. You are not aware of the very small small African and middle Eastern Balkan army of the Frenchs & Serbians, neither the Czech and Romanian armies. You are not aware of the number of Hungarian Royal Honvéd Army (1.4 million) before Károlyi's self- disarmament either.--Creator Edition (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC) Sock of Stubes99

This article is a mess

Disclaimer: I am new to this, I have not made many wikipedia edits- but this article was too much. Claims with no sources, obviously biased statements, little to no structure... it looks like the Zotim edit tried to fix some of the bias only for someone to come back in and add it all back. Is there anyone out there with more experience with this? I don't want to go in with a hatchet, I don't have the experience and I don't understand the Hungarian citations, but I have the sources. I get that Károlyi is an unpopular figure in Orban's Hungary, but the bias here is overwhelming and whoever's responsible isn't even backing up their information with sources. Shabnakadyr (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You can not remove well referenced texts, just because you don't like the content. You can read about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:I_just_don%27t_like_it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kivasalo (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I do not know what is the business Karolyi with Orban. Karolyi lived 100 years earlier. Historical events and writing do not start with Orban. Also historyography will continue after Orban. I see the removed sources are much older than any Orban regime, maybe he used time machine to write those personally. OrionNimrod (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You're right, many do predate Orbán, that may have something to do with the fact that Orbán tends to repeat a lot of the narratives from the Horthy era. Shabnakadyr (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not aware than Orban would be a historian or ever would write an historian documents which used ever as source in Wiki. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're talking about, to be honest. I mentioned Orbán only because Károlyi's reputation seems to have taken a significant dive since Orbán came to power, and Orbán appears to have spread a number of mistruths surrounding him. I am (definitely) not saying Orbán is a historian? Shabnakadyr (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure which texts you're referring to. Shabnakadyr (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)