Talk:Occupation of Southern Slovakia

Some issues

 * Title – At first, the territory was not occupied (ie. taken by military power), but was annexed by Hungary in accordance with the First Vienna Award, signed by both parties. At second, Slovakia did not exist that time and the annexed territories were not limited to what is today southern Slovakia, but also included Carpatho-Ukraine. Thus, the title is not only improper, but also misleading, anachronistic and seems like a POV push (=occupation).


 * Lead – While the lead deals with the losses of Slovaks it does not mention what happened to others, or what other things happened in the territory than suppression of those. Claiming a 1930 census find I also a bit misleading, knowing that the 1941 Hungarian census showed completely different numbers. Not making a judgement here of which one was a proper one, but presenting only one (even putting it into the lead) is far from being neutral. Also I find a bit awkward is that the difference between the censuses, which is kinda big and is a result of the Vienna Award, are not even present in the article. (=undue weight) An issue that surely deserves a few lines!


 * Article – Reading through the the article, two things came onto my mind. First is that it's been totally taken out of context, making it pretty hard to understand for someone who is not familiar with the topic. Second is, for me it is all about what Hungarians did wrong, how they persecuted the minorities, especially Slovaks. A bit awkward, a bit funny that every bad thing they did is listed, one after one, even the smallest, though there is not a single line about other significant events or efforts. While it sounds me rather like a propaganda stuff, I try to put it away and concentrate on how it could be improved:


 * First — a Demographics section dealing with the demographic and social impacts of the First Vienna Award (FVA) would be very welcomed. This could list and explain how and why the population of the area changed in the interwar period and after the FVA. This section could also contain the persecutions of minorities and other groups, and also the fate of Jews – however, I'd suggest to remain encyclopedic and don't do a one-by-one listing of all single events, rather summarize the happenings. A map about the ethnic composition of the annexed territories would be a great plus as well, adding an extra visual experience and making it more spectacular for the reader.


 * Second — an Administration section would be also a nice addition, to make it clear how the new system was set up. I think here about the administrative division (counties, county seats, etc.)


 * Third — I'd suggest to replace the End of the occupation section with Aftermath. One obvious thing is, as written above, that there was no occupation but annexation. It also had to be noted, that there were serious reprisals, such as citizenship revocation, declaring collective guilt, deportations, etc. after the FVA was nullified.


 * Fourth – sources, authors — Again, not making any judgments, it has to be seen that the article cites only authors who represent the Slovak point of view. Nothing wrong with it, it has to be there, though, I've to say it largely differs from the Hungarian point of view. Let me quote Attila Simon, a historiographer coming from the Hungarian minority in Slovakia:


 * Which translates to English as:


 * I think it clearly shows how differently the two look at the events and history as whole. Thus, until the Hungarian point of view is not represented, I think the article is pretty much one-sided or unequal, or if you prefer, interpret it as being non-neutral and having undue weight toward the Slovak point of view.

To summarize the things, I suggest to merge this badly titled fork back to the original article – added the merge tag to both articles –, under its old section (Consequences of the FVA) and solve the above listed problems. While I'm happy to point out improper, incorrect or inaccurate matters and share my objections, I also have to add that I've limited time to edit Wikipedia. As such, I dropped a note to the relevant Wiki projects to get some observations, opinions and help in the process. — Thehoboclown (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Title - the situation was result of a violation of international law. This is unquestionable and unambiguous fact, regardless to any other discussion, subjective feelings, etc. Term "occupation" does not mean exclusively that territory was taken in open military conflict. It is possible to find numerous examples of illegal occupations where territory was not taken by military power. The questions about legality of the First Vienna Award were closed dozen years ago and it does not matter that something was "signed by both parties". Every standard legal system (including international law), recognizes situations where aggressor cannot argument by signature of victim.  It is also obviously not true that "Slovakia did not exist in that time". We can say that Slovakia was not separate subject of international law, but it does not mean that it did not exist at all. E.g. in 1910 Hungary was not separate subject of international law (it was part of Austria-Hungary), but it clearly existed and she was a subject of Austrian-Hungarian constitutional law. Similarly, Slovakia exited as a separate subject within Czechoslovakia (compare e.g. with Act. No. 125/1927 Zb. about organization of country) and particularly in the time of the First Vienna Award Slovakia  had autonomy with her own government. I can agree also with term "annexation", but term "occupation" better reflects illegality of the act. The article does not cover occupation of Carpathian Ruthenia, so I cannot not see any reason why it should be in the title.


 * Lede – I have no problem with including data from Hungarian census. Let's do it. Of course, it is possible to compare both data, make comparison with number of refugees, colonists, etc. I am looking forward for discussion about conditions of Hungarian census during occupation and comparison with Czechoslovak census in 1930, level of democracy, etc.


 * Article - I don't think that it is out of context. It simply describes occupation of southern Slovakia. I personally prefer to focus on description of concrete historical event and flamewars about context can be easily included in more general articles like Hungary–Slovakia relations. I will go for facts and not to clone discussions how to interpret context. "Every bad thing they did is listed" - believe me, it is not. There is plenty of bad things which happened and can be included later:-) But seriously - I agree that there is potential for topics to be covered. That's why I forked original article - such information goes far beyond the First Vienna Award, but will fit well here.


 * First — I agree with proposal for demographic section. I don't fully agree with long-term detalied analysis of ethnic composition of the territory, because a) there are better articles for it b) it will be endless discussion.


 * Second — good idea.


 * Third - please, really short aftermath + links. Honestly, there is not any good article about post-war persecution of Hungarians in Czechoslovakia on Wikipedia (in the terms of factual accuracy) and I would prefer to improve what is already here.


 * Fourth - I agree that Hungarian authors are welcomed. However, half of references belongs to Hungarian author Tilkovszky (older publication, but rich on facts and still very frequetly cited). E.g. look on social rights and economy - those information are facts, not something Slovak or anti-Hungarian. Your quotation of Attila Simon - his scientific results are still very far from Ladislav Deák, what can be measured by number of citations, scientific awards, etc. It is his personal opinion. Correct me if I am wrong, but Hungarian side still did not publish collection of documents related to the First Vienna Award. I have read whole Deák collection several times and most of documents are official diplomatic documents, some materials for preparation of bilateral negotiations, documents related to arbitration, minutes from  negotiations and (of course) there are also police and military reports about actions of Hungarian terrorists, atrocities against Czech and Slovak civilians like raping, murders, looting etc, but such documents are relevant and are complementary to diplomatic notes speaking about them.


 * To summarize the things, merging back will not improve quality at all, because there is not any reason why the article about the First Vienna Award should describe details of events which happened 5 years after arbitration. Regarding to "Hungarian point of view", I am looking forward for concrete objections. Missing description of administrative division (counties, county seats, etc.) are second-level improvements and they are not reason to say that article is unbalanced.--Ditinili (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge back. One always despairs at these sort of articles which seem to get high-jacked by nationalists of both sides. It's interesting to compare it with the Treaty of Trianon article. This article contains little about the Treaty of Trianon itself, being taken up mostly with the after-effects. On that basis the current article should be merged back with the First Vienna Award. The title is clearly designed to be POV, the only surprising thing is that it isn't called Hungarian Occupation of Southern Slovakia. As noted above the use of Slovakia is completely inappropriate. I can't see the reason for excluding Carpathian Ruthenia from the article. Also a Hungarian would, of course, use the word Reoccupation rather than Occupation. In addition we already have an article Hungary–Slovakia relations which has a section "Slovak-Hungarian inter-state relations during the WWII (1939–1945)" covering broadly the same topic. The fact that the First Vienna Award was declared illegal was simply because Germany (and Hungary) lost the war. The winning side decides such issues. The Treaty of Trianon was clearly unfair to Hungary, but they lost WW1 (and WW2) and so it remains legal. If Hungary had been on the winning side doubtless Trianon would have been declared illegal instead. My final point is that there is a danger here that the article becomes too large. The author seems keen seeing it enlarging, based on the above comments. Moving it back would, I think, encourage a short, compact summary which is exactly what's required. Remember, this is Wikipedia. We're not meant to include every detail about every topic. Nigej (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, Hungarian Occupation of Southern Slovakia will be more accurate title than Brazilian Occupation of Southern Slovakia. I do not have any problem with word Hungarian in this context. Guys, go for term annexation, if you wish. Article "Slovak-Hungarian inter-state relations during the WWII (1939–1945)" does not cover topic of occupation (annexation, reoccupation or whatever) and it is not its purpose. E.g. changes in social system and economy are completely not related to inter-state relations. The First Vienna Award was not declared illegal "because Germany lost the war", but because of very concrete violations of international law which are documented. I agree that according to Nazi, fascist and inter-war Hungarian (key players) understanding of international law, it would be legal. But for now, all of us will respect current and recognized legal status. Reasoning like "what if article become too long/too short" can be included bellow any article. I am looking forward for concrete corrections, list of factual mistakes and explanation why First Vienna Award should contain details about economy, social system and political rights 5 years after arbitration. --Ditinili (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Add.: "As noted above the use of Slovakia is completely inappropriate" As it is documented and explained above, it is not. I can support my opinion by concrete documents about political and administrative organization (as I did), but you cannot.--Ditinili (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

We already have a page about this topic. You can not just take apart articles, especially when the subject is a sensitive issue. You should have first raised your intention at the talk page of First Vienna Award. The proposed title is misleading. Hungary occupied Transcarpathia and parts of Vojvodina but never occupied "southern Slovakia" (I know "occupation" has multiple meanings). User Ditinili you are an advocate of the Slovak POV. I personally would not mind it, we need the Slovak viewpoint as well (NPOV), however, when you begin to edit an article you systematically try to diminish the Hungarian POV. I know well your editing at article of Janos Esterhazy (or a more recent example is the article of Hungarian minority in Slovakia). Why did you create a new article about Deportations of Hungarians to the Czech lands? You simply moved some text from page of Czechoslovak-Hungarian population exchange. The post war period in reference to Hungarians (until about 1950) would not need separate articles.Fakirbakir (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We already have a page about this topic. Really? Where? We have article about particular act (award). We have also article about World War II and about occupation of Poland. There are two articles, because it is worth it and topic is broad enough.
 * The proposed title is misleading. What is misleading about proposed term annexation? (If you are unable to accept unambiguous illegality of the act).
 * Why did you create a new article about [Deportations of Hungarians to the Czech lands]]?. I did it, because I want to describe all three phases of deportation, include details about help for the Czech lands and add plenty of other thins, which are very relevant for Deportation to the Czech lands, but not for the article about mutual population exchange. This discussion does not belong to this talk page.
 * you begin to edit an article you systematically try to diminish the Hungarian POV. I will not discuss your subjective opinions. You can discuss whatever on appropriate talk page, not here. Some of "Hungarian POVs" were proven manipulation of sources.
 * The post war period in reference to Hungarians (until about 1950) would not need separate articles. I will not discuss hypothetical situations, such article was not created.--Ditinili (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

After merged back to the original article, the conversation continues at Talk:First Vienna Award.