OK, I can't stand my word here.
1.) Your "unassailable facts" are not that unassailable at all - You roughly underestimate the Hungarian population (0,5M vs 1M) as well as commiting other (probably nonconscious mistakes). I never try to impeach facts, but You just can't seem to handle a normal argumentation.
2.) Imagine or not, in my last post, I have clearly stated YOU WERE RIGHT in the case of the 12. CS Div being made up of Czechs. But still
a.) You didn't prove the fact that Hungarians were much weaker than the Czechs
b.) mentioned an underestimated strength of the Hungarian Army, and when I corrected You with supported data (from Szakály Sándor's book about the Hungarian Leadership during 39-45), You just didn't even bother to correct Yourself
c.) and imagine it or not, Col Malár took over the VI. CS AK on 15/3/39, and the unit became Slovak in one day...
d.) but still if weren't for all of these, You just don't take into consideration what we were arguing about here. It was not about the 12. CS Div - it makes things worse for You anyways because in fact this, almost purely Czech division was defeated by the Hungarians...
2.) My arguments are not feelings. I have used 3 sources for what I have mentioned.
a.) Gosztonyi P.: Hungarian Army in WW2
b.) Szakáky S.: Hungarian Leadership 39-45
c.) Kovács/Simon: Slovakian Hungarian History III.
And I have topped this with brief references from Ránky's WW2 ovierview book, as well as internet sources. Whereas I haven't seen any source mentioned in Your posts.
3.) Keep from personal insults. I have attended "Sid Guttridge topics" well before You have come here, and there is no reason for You to give me any advices about the use of this forum.
4.) I wanted to end a discussion that had turned to a flame war from Your side, and I even would have let You have the last post - but You just keep on being offensive and insulting me instead of answering questions. A list of questions You have left behind in this thread include
a.) proof of Hungary being the weekest axis military nation
b.) proof of very bad Hungarian/Ruthene relations
c.) proof that Horthy is to be blamed for the Soviet treatment of the Ruthenes
d.) why Sudeten Germans are to be considered more of an inner enemy than Czechs
But I don't expect any answer to those from You eventually.
To Sid:
Hungary had wider ambitions than simply regaining ethnically Hungarian border areas of southern Slovakia and Ruthenia it gaine at the First Vienna Award. Hungary actually wanted to regain control of all of Slovakia and Ruthenia. It succeeded in getting the whole of Ruthenia and the eastern end of Slovakia in March 1939. Hungary was therefore a vey real threat to Czechoslovakia. If it had had its way, the latter country would only have consisted of the Czech lands.
The Hungarian ambitions were increased with the decreasing capabilities of the Czech Army and Czech politics. Hungary wasn't a real threat to Czechoslovakia until the Germans gained the Munich victory. Hungary was not a real threat to a full Czechoslovakia, because there was no real way of thinking about such an action. Thus, I find the Hungarian invasion into the E Czechoslovakia an oportunistic advance rather than the goal of Hungarian politics.
When Czechoslovakia ceased to exist, parts of the country were, indeed, given to Hungary. However, not by the non-Hungarian inhabitants, but by Germany.
... which was none the worse than the Entente giving the same territories to Czechoslovakia. It's the same pattern - just the balance of the forces had changed in 20 years.
If the Hungarian motorised and cavalry brigades had failed to make progress against the Slovaks in these circumstances, it would have been a miracle. As it was, they achieved their limited goals rapidly and easily saw off a single disorganised Slovak counter-attack.
Of course, there was no surprise in this turn of the events. I only pointed out that this had occured and was a victory for the Hungarians. All of this discussion has expanded from pretorian's words "Naturally Czechs even better organized, armored, experienced with high morale than Hungaries (which were weak during all WW2 among Axis alliance)" which both You and I eventually denied and proved wrong.
The Hungarians made a little ground against the Romanians in Transilvania in 1944 because the entire Romanian field army was on the Eastern Front at the time. Not a single unit of the Romanian field army was facing the Hungarians and the Romanians initially opposed the Hungarians (and Germans) only with training formations. Despite this, the Hungarians and Germans failed to capture a single Carpathian pass before the Red Army joined the Romanian covering forces. The Hungarian-German failure to capture the Carpathian line off the Romanian training formations was a major failure, not success.
The terminology Hungarian - German forces may give a wrong impression, as only parts of SS Div Florian Geyer (Gr. Siebenbürgen) and the StuG Abt 1179 (and later the Gr. Kessel) supported the attack. The forces were mainly Hungarian, freshly formed from replacement units and unsuitable for attack. They were not in a better situation as their Romanian counterparts (2. Army lost at the Don, 1. Army in the Carpathians, this army was far from posting the best troops), but managed to play a tactical "draw" here, and had some very good weeks of halting the joint Russian-Romanian attacks at Torda (this time around, supported by real German forces). I agree that the operation was not a success, but it wasn't a fiasco either as the later establishment of a defensive line in Siebenbürgen has its foundations in this battle.
Best,
Abel