Talk:Slovakia

Hungarians expelled

I'd like to note, that there is a important mistake in an article. Most of 75 000 Hungarians which were moved into Hungary were exchanged for Slovaks from Hungary according to the treaty between Czechoslovakia and Hungary. I think it is not fair,not even true to mark this exchange as '75 000 had been expelled'. Expelled had been Germans (according to agreement of Allies). Link to the Czechoslovak-Hungarian treaty is here [1] and number of people is 70 000 for each side.

I don't want to start any national flame-war, but I'm surprised that such important fact is not mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.67.25.139 (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps one important fact to expand this debate. The Hungarian citizens with Slovak nationlity could decide personally, whether they would like to move to Czechoslovakia or not. The Hungarians in Slovakia could not, 70 000 was expelled as echange. So from a personal point of view we should speak about expelled Hungarians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.127.82 (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

New European vector maps

You're invited to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 13:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Beneš decrees

This section is the subject of a Request for Comment in 2007, with the question, "We'd like to decide if the Beneš decrees should be included in the article Slovakia"[2]

Who thinks that we shouldn't talk about the Beneš decrees in the Slovakia article? Squash Racket 08:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Now, if you'll excuse me, I don't think we shouldn't talk about Beneš decrees and about its impacts today (last days confirm that), but currently I think there is too much emphasis on it. Because if we're talking about Beneš decrees in such detail, so we should on Magyarization. What I expect from this is no harassment for my opinion. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 08:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But these were not even mentioned in the history section! You think the Beneš decrees are not important in the history of Slovakia (actually even today, if you exactly know what I mean)? And you call someone a vandal for putting info back? Squash Racket 08:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I overreacted, as Beneš decrees are quite key event (why the Germans then disappeared), but what I didn't like is the removal of uncontroversial content and inserting POV wording, and that's frowned upon. And impact today – last days speak for themselves. But I question this - do you think that two opposing sides here can negotiate neutrality? Again, no harassment please. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You mean right now for this question? Can you propose an even shorter version that still talks about the impacts today?

We can wait for others' reaction too if you will. Squash Racket 09:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Possibly into this: "The part dealing ... ... has become a controversial issue in today's politics". I think we will just wait. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 09:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the history overview in this article should be kept brief and Benes decrees do not seem to me important enough to be included. Moreover, any meaningful NPOV discussion of Benes decrees would need at least a paragraph. Btw, despite the unnecessary and heated debate among some politicians today, there were no Benes decrees enacted in Slovakia (the Slovak National Council promulgated similar acts), Germans were evacuated before the end of WWII (unlike in the Czech Republic, from where they were expelled after WWII) and Hungarians were returned the citizenship soon afterwards. I believe it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to support national mythology and victimization. Tankred 14:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know what Luboš Palata said about the matter (writes for Lidové noviny)? Hobartimus 17:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't say much in LN, just barely mentions it, but in his blog he's much more wordy. You can read it here if you understand Czech:

http://palata.blog.sme.sk/c/112767/Benesovy-dekrety-to-jste-si-pomohli.html

If not, he says

a) as the similar act of Czech parliament 5 years ago, it's not an act of national pride, it's an act of fear and national insignificance. b) now they will have to deal with Hungarian population of the country which wouldn't be quite happy about reconfirmation of the decrees. Vryadly 02:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the decrees should be included because they affected Slovak population (thousands of Germans and Hungarians have been expelled), because the decrees have not been revoked until now and moreover have been recently confirmed by Slovak parliament, and finally because these decrees are still a hot topic of Slovakian-Hungrian relationships. All this combined makes the decrees a fact important enough to be presented in the article User:Vryadly 15:21, 23 September 2007 (EST)

I am afraid you are misinformed. First, Benes decrees had never been part of the Slovak legal system; legal acts of the Slovak National Council similar to Benes decrees in their contents had. Btw, only some of Benes decrees concerned collaborants, Germans, and Hungarians. The rest concerned economy and other aspects of life. Although these laws have not been officially revoked, the subsequent legislation has made them inactive. For example, the Czechoslovak citizenship was returned to Hungarians and those Hungarians removed to the Czech Republic were allowed to return to Slovakia. Most Carpathian Germans were evacuated by the German authorities during WWII, not expelled after the war. Hungarians have never been expelled from the country because of Benes decrees. Finally, the decrees have become "a hot topic" in the Slovak-Hungarian relations only recently and the rhetorical clashes between Slovak and Hungarian nationalists will fade away as they always do. And the rest of the world gives a crap about this transient war of words in Slovak and Hungarian media anyway. Tankred 19:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Benes decrees were part of Czechoslovak legal system, so they're part of Slovak legal system now. I'm aware that there were many topics the decrees were dealing with, but we're talking of the decrees concerning expulsions. As far as I know the citizenship was returned only to those Hungarians who haven't been expelled. And they have been expelled, though officially it was called " population exchange". Most Hungarians didn't want to be "exchanged" and were forced to leave their homes and go to Hungary. And in any case the dispute is still big in both Slovakia and Hungaria. I've studied the topic as part of my journalist work and in my knowledge the clashes between Hungarian and Slovak officials (who of course are often nationalists themselves) date back to the year when any discussions became possible, i.e. 1989.

If you have documents proving that I'm wrong, I'd be just happy to read them if you provide me with a link. I'd prefer documents in Czech or Slovak: I read both languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vryadly (talk • contribs) 20:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, are you aware that Slovak parliament just three days ago reconfirmed Benes decrees? In my opinion it clearly demonstrates that the decrees were part of Slovak legal system and that they're still play big part in Slovak politics. Vryadly 02:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be sufficient to write something like "After WWII more then 50000 Hungarians and Germans have been forced to leave Slovakia. This event is still a source of tension between Slovakia and Hungary." Vryadly 03:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Such a short description sounds reasonable. So, let us talk about the data. Can you provide a reliable source for your number (or any alternative number of expelled Hungarians and Germans)? Whom do you propose to include? Does this number include the Germans evacuated before the end of the war by German (not Czechoslovak) authorities? Does it include Hungarians moved to Bohemia (but later allowed to return)? Does it include Hungarians moved to Hungary as part of an intergovernmental agreement between Czechoslovakia and Hungary on population exchange? Tankred 04:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Some elements of the decrees attach collective guilt to Hungarians and Germans, these are not in harmony with the current principles of European law. Maybe deserves a mention, because mainly that is the source of tension between Hungary and Slovakia nowadays. Squash Racket 07:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I will find a reliable source in the nearest two days and post it here. I believe the numbers should not include the Germans moved before the end of the war, but it should included Carpathian Germam civilians slaughtered by Czechoslovak army after it - there were more then thousand documented and some historians cite more then 10000, though I haven't done any research on it yet and therefore can't say if this number is reliable.

I think the number should include the Hungarians unwillingly moved to Northern Bohemia - though I won't insist on it. And it certainly should include people moved as part of population exchange because most of Hungarians moved in this exchange have been moved by force, against their own will.

Just in case - please don't interpret me as being pro-fascist or something like it. I just think that important facts shouldn't br covered, and even more so if they're not very pleasant for us. Vryadly 22:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not oppose introduction of one or two NPOV sentences about this issue and I certainly do not think you are "pro-fascist". To clarify my position, I insist on a reference to a reliable academic source and on NPOV. It would be useful to differentiate between the number of the Carpathian Germans and Hungarians killed after the war and the number of Hungarians moved to Hungary. The information that it was part of a forced population exchange should be included because this solution was much softer than measures taken by other countries (or by the Czech part of Czechoslovakia), from where Germans were simply expelled after the Postdam Conference. I do not think it is a good idea to include the number of the Hungarians relocated to Bohemia because they were given some property there and they were allowed to return to Slovakia after a short time. The loss of the Czechoslovak citizenship was only temporal too. Tankred 23:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed 216.240.13.13 23:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's do it then. I search for the sources as soon as I have time. Vryadly 00:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The actual number is 76 600 according to this academic source: http://www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2003/Erika%20Harris.pdf (Leeds university)

I believe that the other 40000 mentioned here are the Hungarian who have been relocated to Bohemia. There were also 32400 Germans expelled (http://www.saske.sk/cas/4-98/olejnik.html - Slovak Academy of Sciences). Vryadly 04:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

76 616 Hungarians were expelled from Slovakia after 1946 within the framework of a forced population change. About 44 000 Hungarians were deported to Bohemia where they were forced to work for Czech peasants. They were deported in freight cars like the Jewish before, women and children alike. Their properties were confiscated and distributed among Slovaks similarly like the properties of the 68 000 people who were expelled into Hungary. All Hungarians lost their citizenship rights which were restored only after a two years long, humiliating "Reslovakization" process. And now the political elite of the democratic Slovakia expressed their view unanimously that everything was OK, indeed they agree with the decrees even now. It's utmost hypocrisy to claim that the whole topic is "unimportant". Zello 16:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the information on the expulsions should be present in the article, but, as far as I know Hungarians moved to Northern Bohemia, though moved there by force, haven't been forced to work for Czech peasants. And Slovak parliament's reconfirmation of the decrees was not unanimous. Vryadly 22:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It was unanimous because only the Hungarian minority party voted against it. I found an essay written by historian Zoltán Horváth about the topic. He collected the recollections of the victims: http://www.mtaki.hu/docs/cd1/felvmagy/felvmagy.htm The Juhász family was deported to Northern Bohemia: "It was kind of a slave market. The Czech peasants groped the the muscles of their new servants, inspected their teeth like they were horses." Zello 17:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You're certainly right about the unonimousity, but I can't find any reliable not hungarian or at least neutral sources which would confirm the claim about the forced labour. Until I find independant confirmation, let me doubt it. Vryadly 00:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And this "unimportant" decision about the reconfirmation of the decrees is also a defining factor in Slovak-Hungarian relationship. Every Hungarian political parties expressed their protest, President Sólyom László said "it was felt like a slap on the face" and Hungarian MPs in the European Parliament agreed on a joint action. Every mainstrean media reported the event with a clear consensus that it is an intentional insult against Hungarian minority in Slovakia. These are facts but let us add a subjective comment: the already bad Hungarian-Slovak relationship reached its nadir these days, and there is a strong feeling of indignation and distrust. Zello 23:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We have clearly a different perception of the Slovak-Hungarian relationship. I do not believe that a non-binding declaration by the Slovak parliament is a "defining factor in Slovak-Hungarian relationship" or that "the already bad Hungarian-Slovak relationship reached its nadir these days". I do not see any economic sanctions or display of force. What I see is a lot of mutual trade, cooperation within the framework of the EU, built-up of the common infrastructure, tourism, and cultural exchange. Tankred 23:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Economic sanctions or display of force is not possible between EU countries. Hungary had no other way to express her refusal than diplomacy and this is what political leaders did in the past days. Today the Speaker of the Hungarian Parliament cancelled her visit in Slovakia "to show her solidarity with the insulted Hungarian minority." Public opinion is obviously a subjective topic but yes we have different perception: I think Slovak-Hungarian relationship is characterised by a cold dislike with occasional conflicts and verbal attacks. The reconfirmation of the decress was an intentional insult and it was felt so. Zello 21:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It seems to me that Hungarian-Slovakian relationship is probably the worst among any two EU member countries, with a probable exception of Hungarian-Romanian relationships. And it's probably not only Slovakian fault if you recall a statement of Hungarian President claiming himself to be a "President of all Hungarians". It's impossible to understand "who's started it first". So I think we all should refrain from political discussions and accusations such as "intentional insult" which lead us nowhere, and proceed instead with the section. Vryadly 00:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this encyclopedia should really include this kind of information. Where there are Hungarians, it is necessary to inform the reader on the main page that at the end of WWII, as a sanction for war crimes commited by fascist Hungary and for the occupation of Slovak territory, some Hungarian people were sent to another part of the same country, received there empty houses with gardens and fields and then moved back to where they were before some months later, because they did not like the houses. I am sure their families are shocked until today. (Families moved when highways are build do not have the luck to be able to come back today.) It is also necessary to inform on the main page that as a result of WWII, as a sanction for war crimes commited by Hungary and for the occupation of Slovak territory, Hungarians were deprived of their citizenship for some two years and then got it back (what a punishment!). We also have to inform about the population exchange between Slovakia and Hungary, proposed by W. Churchill to prevent the problems that led to WWII, people were moved in an organised way to a country where their mother tongue is spoken as the official language (how terrible!) received houses and gardens at their destination. Maybe we could compare that with the solutions in Poland, Czech Republic, Turkey etc. - everybody immediately expelled without any compensation. To preserve the desired NPOV, it should be also mentioned in the article about Hungary that:

• 100 000 Slovaks and Czechs were expelled (in the proper sense of the word - they were not allowed to come back and did not receive houses etc.) during WWII by fascist Hungary from the Slovak territory occupied by Hungary
• further thousands were killed either directly by the Hungarian regime during WWII or deliberately sent to fight for Hungary in the Soviet Union etc. instead of Hungarians to be killed there
• within the population exchange after WWII the same number of Slovaks had to leave Hungary and was moved to Slovakia

The article about Hungary should also mention the planned and organised ethnic cleansing in the Kingdom of Hungary around 1900 and in the late 19th century, in the course of which:

• some 60 000 Slovak children were taken from their parents and deported to Hungarian-speaking territories to turn them into Magyars
• out of some 7000 Slovak schools after 1850 in Slovakia their number decreased to virtually 0 in 1914, although most parts of Slovakia are purely Slovak speaking
• people were persecuted by the authorities just for speaking Slovak in the street, owning Slovak books or newspapers etc.
• thousands of other "bad" things happened (which interestingly are not even mentioned here in the Magyarisation article, because obviously a banch of Magyar nationalists, who dont even hide it, managed to turn this wikipedia into another of the countless Hungarian propaganda page on the internet, about which uninformed readers from the US think that they are serious texts)

We should also inform the reader, how this wikipedia manages to turn Petofi, Kossuth and Liszt, all of whom were Slovaks, the last and first one even pure ones, as well as many other Slovak personalities into "Hungarians" and nobody cares. A special article about the Hungarian complex regarding their history - having no parallel all over Europe -, their hate against all their neighbours (resulting from what they are thought at schools) - without any parallel in the world - and their constant attempt to restore the borders of the old Kingdom of Hungary, part of which is also this wikipedia, should be written. The reader should be also informed about the military force established in Hungary by one of their parties recently to restore the old Kingdom of Hungary and he should be informed that this is possible in an EU country. I also suggest adding an information about antisemitism successfully used in modern Hungary - a country virtually without Jews - by some parties to gain voters. He should be also informed how this is possible in an EU country. He should be also informed that 50% of voters vote for a party that would be considered a nationalist fringe party in western Europe. I hope someone will make these additions. Egapresu 02:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Egapresu for your very first edits on Wikipedia right here on this talk page. Please use the Sandbox next time for this kind of spamming. Squash Racket 05:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

After reading the first some sentences I wanted to react on your staff, but after reaching the end I canT tell you anything but: you are a very petty-minded, dumb jerk. I feel absolutely unhappy knowing that there is a huge ammount of people of your kind in our neighbourhood. :(( 195.171.36.105 (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Karachar Nevian

________________________________________________

Would everybody agree with the following wording?

"After WWII more then [76000 Hungarians] and [32000 Germans] have been forced to leave Slovakia. This former event is still a source of tension between Slovakia and Hungary."

1 - http://www.psa.ac.uk/journals/pdf/5/2003/Erika%20Harris.pdf 2 - http://www.saske.sk/cas/4-98/olejnik.html

Vryadly 00:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"This former event is still a source of tension between Slovakia and Hungary." POV and meaningless. Slovakia and Hungary are countries. It may be a source of tension between some political parties and citizens in Slovakia and Hungary at best.--Svetovid 02:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that that WWII was a war between German citizens and parties and UK citizens and parties? When there are harsh statements from officials, there's tension between the countries. And harsh statements are plenty:

http://news.hnonline.sk/c1-22088600-hungarian-pm-says-resolution-on-benes-decrees-is-at-odds-with-eu

http://budapest.cafebabel.com/en/post/2007/09/21/Slovak-reiteration-of-collective-guilt-unacceptable-says-Hungarian-government

http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/getdocument.aspx?logid=5&id=C888D73A-0DAF-11DA-A035-0020188DFBD1

http://www.topix.net/world/hungary/2007/09/slovaks-reject-hungary-reconciliation-bid

http://www.slovakspectator.sk/clanok.asp?cl=29310

etc.

Any of these links or all of them can be taken as a valid reference to the tension statement.

We could add adjective "diplomatic" to the noun "tension" if you think it would make it more clear.

Vryadly 04:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad example with wars. These are just certain politicians spewing bullshit as usual, no "official" statements. Sure, the new law is official, but the tensions it may or may not create among particular people are not.--Svetovid 20:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I heartily disagree. President, prime-minister, Speaker of Parliament and Minister for Foreign Affairs ain't "just certain politicians". They are exactly four people who run the country. If they make harsh statement and cancel an official visit, it means precisely that there's a diplomatic tension. What other signs do you need to notice that the tension exists? Diplomatic rupture? Bombs dropping? Vryadly 22:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? I said tension may be real, but it's not something official, comparable with a declaration of war (your example). Also, those are "four people who run the country." You need to study basics about the distribution of power in a representative democracy with a parliamentary system.--Svetovid 09:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

To finish this discussion -

http://tvscripts.edt.reuters.com/2007-09-28/25a30dc0.html

- that's a transcript of Reuters broadcast which describes situation as tension. Reuters is a highly reliable source ::::according to Wikipedia definition of reliable sources. So tension it is. Vryadly 00:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The correct number for the Germans is 33000. The 75000 Hungarians from Slovakia were exchanged for Slovaks from Hungary, not simply "forced" to leave, dont confuse this with Bohemia. Vypso 03:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

1. 33000 and 75000 - do you have a valid non-partisan reference supporting this number?

2. I'm quite well informed in the history of the region and I'd like to assure you that I don't confuse Slovakia with Bohemia. I'm aware that the Hungarians were exchanged, but the exchange was forced and the Hungarians left their land and property unwillingly, under military supervision. If you want to include the word "exchange" you are invited to propose your version of the section that will include it. Just try to keep it short and refer to the forced character of the resettlement, because otherwise we will never reach an agreement here. Vryadly 04:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

'Some elements of the decrees attach collective guilt to Hungarians and Germans, these are not in harmony with the current principles of European law.' Maybe deserves a mention, because mainly that is the source of tension between Hungary and Slovakia nowadays.

I repeat myself (see above), but I think final version should contain this. The diplomatic war nowadays is mainly over this problem. You can't say that whole nations are guilty and punish them, basically that's the point. Squash Racket 19:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue of collective guilt is quite important - I agree with you. But I believe this issue belongs rather to the articles on expulsions and decrees themselves, not to the article about Slovakia in general. However important the issue is, it's not possible to discuss it here in deep. The basis for agreement seems to be to keep the info short. Vryadly 22:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

We added a well-referenced, short version about this without mentioning collective guilt and specific details. If everybody agrees, I will remove this template, thanks. Squash Racket 06:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have a proposal for an equally referenced final version, please discuss it here first (like Vryadly did). However I believe current version is acceptable for everyone involved (no collective guilt, slavery, loss of property and social advances etc. mentioned to keep it short) and we try to build concensus. If Vryadly took the time to get sources for his version please don't replace it with original research. Squash Racket 12:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Also if there is no agreement, we just keep the template and wait for others' comments. Squash Racket 13:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Tankred, I've temporarily removed the following statement you'd added: "Although this event was carried in a more human way than other population transfers sanctioned by the Allies at the Potsdam Conference". I can understand your concern, but this statement represents a POV and you haven't provided any reliable references to it. The other reason why I don't think it should be there - we with your active participation decided to make the section as short as possible. If we include here the statement about humanity of the relocation, I can't see how we will justify the refuse to include a reference to concept of collective guilt, or relocation to North Bohemia, or Slovakization, etc. All the details about severance or humanity of the action should be included in the existing article on the population exchange. If you think that the info provided by me is in some way unbalanced, let's work together to make it better. Otherwise all the parties involved will start to edit and reedit this piece again and again. Vryadly 20:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Vyradly, I see your point and I will not reinsert that part of the sentence unless someone else supports it. But what I would like to see in your sentence is the international context of the event. The expulsions were not just a Czechoslovak idea (as a random reader could believe). They occurred in a larger framework designed at the Potsdam Conference. Do you have any idea how to take this context into account in a concise and NPOV way? Tankred 23:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you find a reliable source stating that this was an idea of Potsdam Conference or some other international body, I believe we can include it in the info. Vryadly 21:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you have done some research on this question, you surely know the framework in which expulsions from Czechoslovakia occurred was given by the Potsdam Agreement and the expulsion was not an isolated activity of the Czechoslovak government. I agree it is a good idea to include a reference and I think we can cite either Article XII of Potsdam Agreement itself ("The Three Governments, having considered the question in all its aspects, recognize that the transfer to Germany of German populations, or elements thereof, remaining in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, will have to be undertaken.") or any history textbook discussing Potsdam Conference or any specialized book on the expulsions (I would recommend David Rock and Stefan Wolff [eds.]. 2002. Coming home to Germany? : the integration of ethnic Germans from central and eastern Europe in the Federal Republic. New York : Oxford : Berghahn). I do not know which alternative you prefer. Tankred 01:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not possible to expell people from a country in a "human way". Obviously there are differences between different crimes against humanity but this sentence is like "Gulag was a more friendly place than Dachau" or "Kim Jong-il is a more benign dictator than Pol Pot". Zello 21:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not include a sentence about how much more barbaric and brutal the expulsions, and oppression were compared to the "much more human way" of peaceful assimilation policies instuted earlier by Hungary? This could be compared to a lot of things. Hobartimus 03:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Who else was pushing for that 'solution' at the Potsdam Conference (with references)? Beneš is still not mentioned in the paragraph. Squash Racket 04:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Just after a sentence about collaboration Tankred added 'also' referring to the expulsions of Germans and Hungarians. Vryadly, you still don't think we should mention that collective guilt thing? Squash Racket 04:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think we should start an editing war here. I see why you could mind it, and you probably right when stating that it invites a notion of collective guilt. Could you talk to Tankred and discuss it with him to find some words which would be good for both of you? Vryadly 21:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?

"Tiso's government was strongly influenced by Germany and gradually became a puppet regime."

Weasel words, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.33.158.121 (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Existence of Slovakia/Czechoslovakia (1939)

As we all know in march 1939 independence of Slovakia(SK) was declared. First if such a declaration was legal and we accept the results of such declaration then Czechoslovakia(CZ) is most certainly over. If you do not accept the creation of SK (in the legal sense) then it is possible to say that CZ continued to exist even then. The article as it currently stands accepts the fact of Slovak independence in which case CZ cannot exist on the same territory under partly the same name. These two entities cannot exist at the same time if you accept the existence of one you deny the other. Hobartimus 22:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice if you provided sources for your claims before your second reinsertion.[3] Here are the reasons why I consider your version inferior to the previous one. First, some of the information simply and with no reason disappeared ("1/3 of territory"). Second, you characterize an armed conflict as a war. Social sciences usually define a war as an armed conflict with at least 1,000 battle-related deaths. In light of this threshold, your unsourced claim seems to be quite problematic. Third, proclamation of Slovakia's independence in 1939 is not equal to the dissolution of Czechoslovakia. This act from 1939 is now regarded as nullified by the international law. Moreover, Czechoslovakia clearly existed during the war, as an occupied state under a government-in-exile in London. To sum up, this is not the first time you have changed an unproblematic piece of text into a less precise and POV form. Please, propose your changes at the talk page first and include your sources. Until a consensus is reached here, the article will be reverted to its previous version. Tankred 23:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This act from 1939 is now regarded as nullified by the international law This is one of the possibilites exactly my point is that the article itself should be consistent within itself. In other words it's impossible to have it both ways. It must be clearly pointed out that the act of creation of Slovakia was illegal (or is viewed as nullified and void today, or some variation of those) OR Slovak independence is accepted(for the purposes of the article) and CZ is then over. Just as today as independent Slovakia exist there cannot be CZ at the same time. As for your weird objection to the usage of war, I think we both know that this particular armed conflict was war, but I guess you have your resons. I only want to point out that certain Slovak editors have a tendency to use the term 'war' (Slovak-Hungarian War) to charactherize skirmishers with as little as 8 Hungarian and 22 other deaths. Hobartimus 23:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, Czechoslovakia clearly existed during the war, as an occupied state I just noticed this very important sentence of yours. If this sentence is true, then the article should be immidiately expanded with a sentence describing this occupation committed by the Slovak state and others of Czechoslovak territory. I should also point out that it was I who initiated this talk page discussion in the first place, explaining my changes to achive a more correct version of the article(I only write this in response to your post demanding more talk page discussion/proposal of changes).Hobartimus 23:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hobartimus, can you explain me please why the same territory cannot be claimed by two different states at the same time? Either I do not understand your point or you argue against something that empirically exists. Tankred 23:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It was you who used the term occupation instead of having claims on territory. However If the article talks about Slovak independence as a fact, and not some illegal/nullified/undone etc act of no importance then in the view of the article consistency demands to make a mention of the end of CZ (notice that CZ most certainly did not exist in any sort of factual sense only possibly in legal sense). I would also accept a solution where the nullification of Slovak decl. of independence is mentioned together with the CZ government in exile, to explain continueng existence of CZ. Hobartimus 23:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This is just a short overview. If you want to go into details, History of Slovakia is the place. Or do you really want to list here all the countries that recognized the first Slovak Republic and the countries that recognized Czechoslovakia? I still do not see any inconsistency in the previous version of the article, but, as I mentioned above, I can see a couple of problems with your version. Tankred 00:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

History of name Czechoslovakia

I removed the digression about the history of the name Czechoslovakia because it badly interrupted the flow of the article and was beside the point. Moreover, one can find the same information in Czechoslovakia. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Agreement

Article has reference to Pittsburgh Agreement as being part of the Slovak / Czech split in 1992. The agreement [4] was created in 1918. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcmar (talk • contribs) 20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

First Slovak republic

The leader of slovak government in First Slovak republic was Vojtech Tuka (except few Tiso´s months). Tiso was a president and had no power in government. So i can´t understand why everybody writes Tiso´s government. The other things, i´ve made and were deleted, (like that Tiso was popular and it´s still controversial topic) are just true, aren´t they?--Michelozzo (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

True doesn't automatically mean notable though.--Svetovid (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor correction needed in one sentence

The 1945 Potsdam conference approved the Czechoslovak government request for the deportation of the Sudeten German population to Germany but did not approve their plan for the deportation of Hungarians to Hungary. Reference: Section "The Population Exchange between Czechoslovakia and Hungary". Squash Racket (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Bzenc

Where was Bzenc, a shtetl ?...
-- the zak (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean perhaps the small town of Bzenec (german: Bisenz, don't know the yiddish name for it) in Moravia, today's Czech Republic. This small town had a remarkable jewish population for centuries (14. - 20. century), so perhaps, this was the shtetl Bzenc. I'm not sure, though. Greetings, --84.163.115.170 (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional discussion

Further discussion about some of the matters on this page are ongoing at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. All interested editors are invited to participate. --Elonka 01:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Tótia?

Just one comment regarding the first sentence. It says that the Hungarian name of Slovakia is "Tótia". Actually, "Tótia" is a Hungarian pejorative name of Slovakia, favoured mainly in nationalist circles. In Hungarian, Slovakia is officially called "Szlovákia". Lengyelp (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Slovak Motto

I have serious doubts about the purported Slovak national motto mentioned in this article. I have conducted a source search and haven't been able to find any with the exception of Wikipedia, wiki-related sites and sites mentioning Wikipedia as their source. The only exception was the Book of Psalms 72,3, where it forms a part of a verse, without any mention of Slovakia.
As for the source given by the editor 91.102.226.249 (Osem storočí slovenskej heraldiky" (Eight Centuries of Slovak Heraldy) (80-7090-691-X), written by PhDr. Ladislav Vrteľ, published by the Matica slovenská in 1999), I haven't been able to verify its contents. However, not one of the official Slovak government sites mentions the motto in any way. Therefore it appears that the motto does not have an official status in Slovakia - it might have been a historical one, but is not used anymore.
In addition to that, several articles on the Slovak Wikipedia (sk:Slovensko, sk:Zoznam národných mott), which should have the best data about the issue, explicitly state that Slovakia doesn't have a motto (Národné motto: nie je). Therefore I believe the quoted source to be dubious at best. I am removing the motto from the article for a lack of sourcing. -- PeterRet (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The alleged motto has also been added to List of national mottos [5] by an anonymous editor 62.168.125.19. --AtonX (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)