Talk:German occupation of Czechoslovakia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the German occupation of Czechoslovakia article.
Article policies
Map needed
 It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Europe may be able to help!
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Seeking information

I'm seeking confirmation that the Czechs in 1938 were a major mftcr of arms... anyone point to a source?

Found it http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust5.htm

(both of the previous unsigned remarks appear to be by User:DennisDaniels

You also might want to look at our own article on Škoda. -- Jmabel 08:20, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Czechs in interwar period was major mftcr of arms - in years 1935-38 was flating from 3place to first and again to 3 and later to 5 place in value of exported arms in world market. And not only Skoda was major manufacturer - Praga (division of CKD), Zbrojovka Brno, Tatra, Avia, Letov etc. was important manufaturers in Czechoslovakia and in europe- scale important too.

[edit] Relevant or not?

The following was recently cut: "(The Soviet troops, however, came back in 1968 (see Prague Spring) and were withdrawn only in the early 1990s)." The editor who cut this remarked, "End of the War - Deleted reference to the later Soviet occupation; events twenty years after the war aren't relevant to this article." That seems wrong-headed to me. It seems relevant because, given the ease with which the Soviet Union re-occupied Czechoslovakia, and given that the re-occupation lasted decades, in some ways the withdrawal can be seen more as an interruption in military occupation than the genuine end of it. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Anthropoid

I´ve entered internal links to the Operation Antropoid. It was probably the most important event during the occupation and there was no mention about it. User:Szalas

  • Certainly welcome; however, your sentence "It was so due to the success of the Operation Anthropoid too," makes almost no sense in the context where you placed it, what was "so"? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The Operation Anthropoid was something like proof - that Czechs are allies and that they are fighting against Hitler. The success of the operation was very well accepted between the allies. The situation about the status of Czechoslovakia, Benes and so... was very complicated that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Szalas (talk • contribs) 5 Nov 2005
      • I'll edit to make the meaning clearer. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust?

Is there a reason the holocaust was not mentioned here? The transfer of Czech Jews & Roma to Auschwitz? Was this omitted for a specific reason or just forgotten? -- TheMightyQuill 14:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly should be mentioned here, and there should also be an article History of the Jews in Czechoslovakia (with redirects from History of the Jews in the Czech Republic and [[History of the Jews in Slovakia). - Jmabel | Talk 17:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] allies?

Allies of World War II says that Czechoslovakia declared war on December 16, 1941 which is backed up by [1] and [2] "on all countries that are in a state of war with Great Britain, theUnited States, or the USSR". Huh? That means they declared war on Germany? How is this possible since they were right in the middle of German occupied Europe? --Astrokey44 16:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It is probably referring to the Czechoslovak government-in-exile. radek 21:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Which, in fact, would have been the only "government of Czechoslovakia" at the time: The rest was broken up into things like The Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, Slovakia, and the (annexed) Sudetenland. - Jmabel | Talk 00:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page name

Unlike all other German occupations during World War II (excluding the Anschluss with Austria), this one started before the war, so having a page name of German occupation of Czechoslovakia in World War II was misleading. --Philip Baird Shearer 02:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

there´s a question when started the war. For the West it was after invasion of Poland. For Czechs it was after Nazis invaded their country. It was the first Nazi invasion of some country and it was in 1939. It was the begining of WWII.
I think the current name is fine. If there's a better way to say it, I'm all ears, but something is necessary to differentiate this from the 1968 occupation. -- TheMightyQuill 10:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
How about Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia? +Hexagon1 (t) 09:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Not entirely appropriate: Czechoslovakia was occupied by a country's army, not by a party. Seems to me that the current title is better than that. - Jmabel | Talk 01:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
But the popular title of that country is "Nazi Germany". +Hexagon1 (t) 11:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, and there would be nothing wrong with Nazi German occupation of Czechoslovakia, but since there was only one German occupation of Czechoslovakia, I don't see a need for that. - Jmabel | Talk 22:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I do, the word Germany will stir up connotations of today's Germany, a nation that bears little resemblance to the "Großdeutsches Reich" of the 30s and 40s, whereas 'Nazi occupation' or 'Nazi Germany's occupation' clearly do. +Hexagon1 (t) 06:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

"Prague residents viewed German occupation of the city as a catastrophe." Doubtless many did. Doubtless others were happy about it. An odd statement for us to make without citation, in any case. - Jmabel | Talk 05:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought the caption could help understand the picture, but if you disagree with it, feel free to rephrase it. --Irpen 06:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References To The Sudetenland

Forget all the posts above about what should be mentioned or left out or rephrased. What worries me is that no one has noticed the one historical inaccuracy about the Sudetenland.

There are references to the Sudetenland here that say the land was to be "returned" to Germany. To my understanding the Sudetenland was never part of Germany and had always been a part of Bohemia? In history King charles of Bohemia invited "german speaking peoples" to farm the sudeten region, note, I say German speaking people because Germany didnt exist at that time. I think it is a wide misconception that people think the Sudeteland was taken from the Germans to form Czechoslovakia in 1919, it wasnt. It has always been part of Bohemia. - alcz

You responsibly raised the point in Talk and no one responded. Be Bold and make the edit. - TheMightyQuill 01:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This all gets so tricky. The Sudetenland has, indeed, always been part of Bohemia, but that is neither here nor there on whether it was part of "Germany". Prior to 1848, "Germany" was a rather amorphous region, not even a would-be state. From the 1620 Habsburg ascendancy in Bohemia into the early 19th century, the Sudetenland in particular and, to some extent, Bohemia as a whole (certainly the towns) was steadily and increasingly Germanized under the Habsburgs; Certainly, in 1848, the German National Assembly in Frankfurt saw all of the former Bohemia as part of the Großdeutschland they were trying to create. While some view Czechoslovakia as a successor state to the kingdom of Bohemia, that seems to me no less of a stretch than seeing the Sudetenland as a historic part of "Germany".

I'm not advocating for the German nationalist view here, just pointing out that the Czech nationalist view also has its problems. - Jmabel | Talk 07:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the solid explanation Jmabel. I think the word "returned" was in question, and certainly doesn't fit well. As in other articles, I think using the word "transfered" helps avoid any national POV one way or the other. - TheMightyQuill 08:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. I'm going to direct the question on other talk pages here. - TheMightyQuill 03:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

I think it's really important to include a map here of "amputated" Czecho-Slovakia before March 15 to give a sense of how shrunken and vulnerable it was, preferably with neighboring countries visible. Brutannica 09:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Prague liberation 1945 konev.jpg

Image:Prague liberation 1945 konev.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not very clear.

I had a difficult time going through this and trying to find out when Germany actually "officially" occupies Germany.

[edit] Page name

Occupation of Czechoslovakia by Nazi Germany or German occupation of Czechoslovakia? Why "Nazi Germany" in the page name and not just "Germany"?

As there is no other article on German occupation of Czechoslovakia there is no need for disambiguation by state and it is not usual to include the state's name when describing an occupation for example when France occupied parts of Germany after the First and Second World Wars one does not usually include which French republic was doing the occupation in the title of the article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The logic of having Nazi in the title would suggest that the title of the article would be "Occupation of the territory of the Second Republic of Czechoslovakia by Nazi Germany" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, there was no other german occupation of Czechoslovakia. Nonetheless, I don't see why adding "Nazi" for clarity is such a problem. No one has suggested including "Second Republic" or "territory" so that's a silly argument. I was going to say it was also parallel with the other articles, but you've since renamed them. With other countries (like Poland?) the occupation by Nazi Germany was not the only occupation by Germany. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
With other articles, you've had to include "During World War Two" which is longer and klunkier, and doesn't apply to this article, so a standard can't be set. "Nazi Germany" applies equally to all of these related occupations, so is better standard. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above about "Second Republic of Czechoslovakia" the logic for France (which it seems is partially occupying or partially occupied by Germany ever other week) would be to include the name of the French state if the German state is to be mentioned. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I read your comment, but it's irrelevant. No one has suggested including "Second Republic of Czechoslovakia" in the article. There were definitely no other occupations of Czechoslovakia by Nazi Germany, and there is no possible standard to set by including it. There are, however, an enormous number of articles about occupations by Nazi Germany, and some of them clearly need some kind of disambiguation. To properly disambiguate the others (ie. France) AND standardize the titles nicely, using "Nazi Germany" is ideal and causes no harm. Your "crystal balling" that people will try to further disambiguate the title is ridiculous. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Simply because you include the term "Nazi" in the title of "Occupation of France" doesn't mean you must include "Third Republic of France" or whatever. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
In response to your suggestion on my talk page, that "Third Reich" would be equally valid - That's an argument you'd have to take up with the people at Nazi Germany. It's totally irrelevant to this issue. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The page Italian-occupied France is not under Occupation of France by Fascist Italy and I see no reason why it should be. Should all occupations but under the names of the states and not the common English names for those nations. Should the occupied nations be described as the territory of the state under occupation? Names of articles should be under common English names and those names should not be preemptively disambiguated. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting ALL occupations be put under the names of the states. In most cases, it's isn't necessary, and no one is suggesting it is. As I've already said, in this case, including "Nazi" allows for standardization of the article titles and for disambiguation where it is needed. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I still do not understand why you think it is desirable to mention the name of one sate and not the other particularly when it is not necessary for disambiguation. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh... I thought I had made that clear. I want to mention the name, not just in this article, but in several, to standardize the names of all the occupations by Germany during World War II. I would be just as happy with German occupation of Czechoslovakia in WWII (like the other articles you've recently renamed) but it wouldn't be factually accurate in this article, since the German occupation began before world war two. So the choices are:
a) factually accurate, but not standardizing the names (German occupation of Czechoslovakia and German occupation of Czechoslovakia in WWII)
b) standardizing the names with "in WWII" but not factually accurate for this article
c) standardizing the names with "Nazi Germany" and still factually accurate for all articles.
Option C seems like the best to me, and I don't see what the harm is. Aside from worrying about the unlikely chance that someone will want to include "Czechoslovak Second Republic" in the title, I don't understand why you think it is so awful to have "Nazi Germany" in the title. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to create a set of articles, the occupations were not homogeneous and were very different in detail. Nazi Germany is not needed in this case and it contains a perceived POV as mentioned by Hexagon1 in an earlier section. Clearly this occupation started well before World War II ("Peace in out time") and as Czechoslovakia was not invaded by Germany more than once there is no need to include the name of the German regime, if Czechoslovakia had not been military occupied by the Soviets there would be no need to include Germany in the title just as there is no need to include Germany in the Channel Islands article. The use of Operational names is discouraged by the Military history project for the sensible reasons as laid out in WMHSG:Naming conventions (Operational codenames) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Hexagon1 suggested the title Nazi German occupation of Czechoslovakia. There were differences between occupations by Nazi Germany, but they were all quite similar: all done within a fairly short period of time, all part of the same thrust of expansion, and certainly all very much connected. I think it's worth standardizing the names. You disagree. That's where the debate lies. Since no one else has weighed in at this point, I'm not going to argue any further for now. It's obviously not a crisis to include "Nazi" I just think it's preferable. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)