Talk:History of Czechoslovakia

History of Czechoslovakia Series: Organization
I propose the above breakdown. "The WWII Slovak Republic" just doesn't sound right. "Slovak Republic (1939-1945)"?

I also propose to remove the pre-1918 history, and place them elsewhere (Slovakia/Czech Republic series, Austria-Hungary article, etc). Comments or suggestions? --Jia ng 07:45, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Comments: - The pre-1918 history is very important, because it shows why the state arose actually and why the Czechs and Slovaks were different, which was very important for the whole History of CS. And ...compared to the original public domanin article, it has been shortened considerably. And historically, in some 20 years or so, it will be probably the most important part of the whole article anyway.

- The title German-occupied Slovakia is wrong, because it was not occupied by Germans. Slovak Republic (1939 - 1945) sounds good, but I am not sure that everybody knows that the above years correspond to World War II,which is probably important if you want to give the article an "independent" name.

- There is no reason to call the first article Czechoslovak Republic (...)instead of Czechoslovakia (...)- the long form was rarely used and there was a Czechoslovak Republic from 1948 to 1960 too (do not confuse this with the Czech Republic).

- The period 1989 - 1992 comprises not only the Fall of Communist Czechoslovakia. The Fall of Communism occurred only from November to December 1989.

- It is absolutely necessary to have a separate article on Czechoslovakia during WWII (which includes links to the Protectorate and to Slovakia), its government in exile and its liberation (just like it is now the case) because during WWII, some countries recognized Czechoslovakia (i.e.the government in exile) and other countries recognized the Protectorate + Slovakia and other countries (e.g. the Soviet Union) switched from the first to the second group.

- The period 1938 - 1939 (German occupation, Slovak autonomy, WWII) is a totaly special period in Czechoslovak history called the Second Republic. Also, treating it separately has the advantage that articles on WWII and so on can link to this special article. User:Juro

--Jia ng 22:09, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Since it is a defunct entity, we are only interested in the state's existence, not anything unreleated that happened to occur on the same land. Yes, we need to explain the origins of this state, but that is the only topic we discuss. This would either be incorporated into the first article, or into Origins of Czechoslovakia. Of course, we don't want to lose information. The info could very well belong to Slovakia under Hapsburg Rule, etc. (Czechoslovakia doesn't matter anymore since it no longer exists.)
 * 2) I think it is well known, esp. among people who would have the patience to read the whole thing, that WWII in Europe occurred during those years. We could also call it simply History of Slovakia (1939-1945).
 * 3) History of Czechoslovakia (1918-1939) (History of ... (year-year) works when we can't think of a specific name.
 * 4) The last article concerns anything related to Czechoslovakia's demise. If the concern is that there're events unrelated to the fall of communism, per se, then it can still belong in Communist Czechoslovakia (they can slightly overlap).
 * 5) Did the government-in-exile use its pre-occupation name?
 * 6) Only up to 1939 or the entire war? Call it Second Republic of Czechoslovakia?


 * 1) I suggest Origins of Czechoslovakia. If we incorporated it into the first article, we would gat problems with the year 1918 in its name, because these things happened before 1918.
 * 2) I suggest Slovak Republic (1918-1939). Maybe I will change the name anyway, becaue I am trying to write a better history of Slovakia then the present one which is full of mistakes, but that can take time.
 * 3) I simply wanted to suggest the name Czechoslovakia (1918 - 1939) [or rather-1938]. It is clear and correct. Moreover, it is quite peculiar to have one article named History of Czechoslovakia and another one History of Czechoslovakia (years x), while the other daughter articles are not called History of Czechoslovakia (years y).
 * 4) I suggest moving the parts on the end of Communism (i.e. Nov - Dec.1989) to the Communist Czechoslovakia article (actually this corresponds to the Velvet Revolution which is a separate article, so that it would be enough to link to Velvet Revolution ) and to call the last one The end of Czechoslovakia or so (for the years 1990 - 1992).
 * 5) Of course. They also signed treates etc.(otherwise it would be no government-in-exile)
 * 6) Only up to the end of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 (actually that is shortly before the beginning of WWII, but every text on WWII starts with the year 1938 when Hitler occupied Czechoslovakia, which was the first violent act)  The problem with the 2nd republic is that it is not quite correct, because formally it started only in late 1938, while its reasons (the Munich agreement etc.) happened earlier in that year. So correct names would be: Second republic of Czechoslovakia and the Munich agreement (or the other way round), Czechoslovakia (1938 - 1939) or Czechoslovakia on the edge of World War II

We include "History of..." because when people see the article by itself, they may assume Czechoslovakia existed only from 1918 - 1939. But in the table, where it is clear that this is part of a series, we can just have Czechoslovakia (1918 - 1939). Answer: O.K.

What's wrong with "Fall of Communist Czechoslovakia"? Why should the years 1990-1992 and the end of communism be separated? Or how about "Post-communist Czechoslovakia"? Answer: Post-communist CSK is perfect. What's wrong : I can only repeat the above - the fall occurred only in November and December 1989, afterwards the Communists played absolutely no role in the country.

What information is there about the government in exile? Would it be worth a full article? Or should we just link to it from the two other WW2-era articles? --Jia ng 06:48, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC) Answer: Have a look at the present article - information on the govern.in exile and information on the liberation of Czechoslovakia and information on the Soviet occupation of Ruthenia clearly refer to Czechoslovakia as a whole, therefore I think the best solution is to keep the present article dealing specifically with Czechoslovakia during WWII. User: Juro

Munich conference
I'm preparing an article on the concept of Western Betrayal User:Halibutt/Western betrayal. I need someone to drop in and add facts about the Munich conference and the overall fealing it gave to the Czechoslovak population. Any volunteers? Or did Czechoslovakia feel betrayed by the West and the USSR at all?Halibutt 09:48, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Minor suggestion
"Mentality" seems like a strange word to use in the first paragraph. Would "culture" be better?

Merger with Czech lands: 1918-1992
Please see appropriate section at Talk:Czech lands: 1918-1992. - TheMightyQuill 21:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo: Tears of joy, tears of sadness
Whatever your interpretation of the image, it doesn't make sense to have two copies 1. Image:Anschlusstears.gif and 2. Image:Prague 1939 tragic greeting.jpg? Does anyone have a preference, the darker or the lighter? I think I prefer #1, the darker of the two. Please post your comments at Talk:German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia NOT here. - TheMightyQuill 03:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Expulsions and forced migrations of ethnic minorities after World War II
Here is a dialogue that occurred on Talk:Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia after World War II


 * ==Expulsion of Hungarians should be mentioned==
 * The same the arrival of Czechs from Silesia.
 * Xx236 13:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I had given this some thought and deliberately decided to omit the mention of other ethnic groups because the title of the article is "Expulsion of Germans...". Can you make a case that we should expand the scope to discuss other movements of people within Czechoslovakia?  I think it would change the title of the article.  Perhaps a better solution would be to start another article to cover the history of Czechoslovakia during this time period. --Richard 15:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What about the march of ethnic minorities to Austria that ended with most of the male member's dead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1AE9:266:E00:1111:BE0B:DF4E:EA62 (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is really a difficult subject. I think that the article has been started well. Should we also talk here about the expulsion of Czechs from Slovakia? Cepek 17:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The background behind the creation of this article is that it is a subsidiary article of Expulsion of Germans after World War II. In fact, the text of the first revision of this article was lifted from Expulsion of Germans after World War II.  There are "sister" articles Expulsion of Germans from Poland after World War II and Expulsion of Germans from Romania after World War II.  The point is that the focus of these articles is on expulsion of Germans as opposed to any other ethnic group.  I think the rationale here is that these expulsions are controversial because of public attention focused on them by the Federation of Expellees and historians such as de Zayas, Overmans and Nitschke.


 * For this reason, I would oppose a widening of scope to cover all migrations of peoples in Czechoslovakia at the end of World War II. However, I can imagine creating an article titled Ethnic homogenization of Czechoslovakia after World War II.  The new article would reference this one and also cover the expulsion of Hungarians and the expulsion of Czechs from Slovakia.  Does this approach make sense to you? --Richard 18:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, absolutely! Cepek 19:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I was unprecize. I believe that the expulsion of Hungarians should be mentioned/linked, eg. in "See also", not described here. The arrival of Czechs from Silesia should be described here, because they partially replaced expelled Germans.Xx236 06:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The net of this discussion is to propose a new article titled Ethnic homogenization of Czechoslovakia after World War II. We are seeking your opinion about whether this article should be created and, if so, what the title should be.

--Richard 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

HOW THE HELL DO YOU SAY IT ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.72.107 (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The American professor Alfred Maurice de Zayas is an expert for peoples`rights. As a member of the UNO is an expert for the ethnic cleansing of Germans and other nationals after World War 2.In his eyes this expulsion was a genocide.--Wurzeln und Flügel (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Minor nitpicks
Why is "liberated", referring to the red army move from 21.9.1944, in quotes while the same word later in the same sentence referring to the allied army, is not? If there is a rational explanation then it would be good to be put in, otherwise it looks like a personal slant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.152.152.92 (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Misreading the rules on "undue weight"
Yopie misreads the wp:Undue rule. It states, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views." That is, the views of a tiny or fringe minority should not be given disproportionate weight. In the Cold War context the views of the US government and the head of the CIA are indeed a major viewpoint and all the scholars of whatever politics consider the CIA to be one of the most important Cold War agencies. Here we are talking about the analysis made by Dulles, the long-term head of the agency at the height of his power (his brother was then the US Secretary of State). Does Yopie really consider the CIA as a "tiny or fringe minority" ???? He has used the UNDUE tag repeatedly (in History of Czechoslovakia and Czechoslovakia, and called the info "trivia." No other editor supports his deletions of sourced material.  In this case the importance of Dulles position was validated and put into context by coverage in a recent scholarly book published by a university press.  Yopie has failed to indicate the reasons he thinks the CIA position is a fringe  position.  The risk is that Yopie is engaging in an edit war expressing his private POV and tries to cover up embarrassing information he does not want Wikipedia readers to learn about. We certainly hope that is not the case but Yopie has merely reverted sourced text over and over again with no explanation for his strange actions. Rjensen (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Not liberated
It is POV and highly offensive to say the Soviets "liberated" Czechoslovakia, as the USSR annexed the country after World War II. (ByronJenner (talk) 09:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC))
 * there was never a Soviet "annexation." The Communists took control several years AFTER 1945.  Scholars use the term "liberation" for 1945. See   Rjensen (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * After World War II Czechoslovakia became part of the Soviet sphere, as Stalin had always intended before 1939. "Liberation" is highly offensive and should only be used with regard to the western invasion. (ByronJenner (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC))

"Liberated" is offensive
As Stalin annexed all of Czechoslovakia after World War II by financing and arming a Communist coup, the term "liberated" should be removed from the article. The History of Poland article on this site does not say that Poland was "liberated" by Stalin. (ByronJenner (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC))
 * the coup was 1948, 3 years after what RS call liberation. Annexation happened to the Baltic countries. Rjensen (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the History of Poland article does not use the term "liberation", it should not be used in regard to Czechoslovakia either. The Soviets invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland and the Baltic States. (ByronJenner (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC))

Daddy uwu
Slay, pound me harder 69.126.211.194 (talk) 18:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest to remove the comment.Xx236 (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)