Talk:Occupation of Czechoslovakia

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles

Military history: World War II

This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	World War II task force

Comments

Of all these, the only one rightfully termed an "occupation" is the Soviet one, so this page should simply be a redirect to Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia in my opinion. K issL 11:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you at all. --Koppany 12:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like this disambiguation page either. But the Nazi occupation was as real as the Soviet one. As I know you guys a bit, I am sure no one is denying the crimes of the Nazi Germany and its allies here. But the wording of your comment is kind of ambiguous. Tankred 14:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think I said anything ambiguous, but it seems some clarification is needed. The point is simply that an occupation of a part of a country is not an occupation of THE country. Thus, in reference to 1939, it is fine to talk about the German occupation of Bohemia and Moravia, but not of Czechoslovakia. (Similarly, in reference to 1919, no one talks about a "Romanian occupation of Hungary", although the Romanian army actually advanced up to and beyond Budapest.) You are right that the 1944 occupation does fit in the list; at the time I made my comment it was not yet listed. Additionally, the case of the Hungarian "occupation" of southern Slovakia is different from all the others in that it was justified by a kind of treaty that had been signed by all parties. Some people might say that the First Vienna Award was obviously forced on the Czechoslovak delegation, but then so was Trianon on the Hungarians, and yet you wouldn't call the corresponding military actions an "occupation of Hungary", would you? K issL 15:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Thank you for your clarification. Well, it seems occupation of a part of a country is still considered occupation. See Italian-occupied France for instance. As to the First Vienna Award, it was nullified as a violation of the international law. Most occupations are established by a forced "agreement". Even the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia was facilitated by a treaty signed by a new Czechoslovak government, the one imposed from Moscow. Tankred 16:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that stub went unnoticed by Italian and French editors. On the list of military occupations these are listed more exactly. Do you have a better example for that wording when it comes to occupation of a part of a country? Squash Racket 10:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. And you have seen them all listed at List of military occupations#Examples of belligerent military occupations. If you take only first ten cases, seven of them were partial. By the way, I think the best conclusion of this discussion is already written by TheMightyQuill below (Dec. 4, 17:47). I have nothing to add to it. Tankred (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the partial occupations are also listed as partial there not as occupation of a whole country. The answer by TheMightyQuill is acceptable here. Squash Racket (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia is a redirect, so you'd be making a double redirect. - TheMightyQuill 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. The argument is whether or not this disambig page is necessary? You're suggesting that it's impossible or highly unlikely that someone might search for "occupation of czechoslovakia" when referring to the nazi take-over of bohemia/moravia? Do a google search for "Nazi occupation of czechoslovakia" (you might want to -wikipedia) and you'll see that many people use the term. A disambiguation page doesn't suggest it's a correct term, simply that "it might refer to..." If you want to rename German occupation of Czechoslovakia, you might have a better case, but I'm not sure what you'd call it instead. - TheMightyQuill 17:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]