Talk:Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the Czech Republic. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia is part of WikiProject Soviet Union, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Soviet Union. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the class scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Disputed

Post-war Czhechoslovakia was a sovereign and internationally and universally recognized state, not an "occupied territory", perhaps a Satellite State, but being a satellite state is not the same as being under occupation. Stationing foreign troops according to bilateral treaties concluded between the SU and CZ government is not the same thing as occupying someone. Troops were confined to bases rather that enforcing the occupational regime. The deplorable 1968 events is a separate topic and a separate article. This one is a fork created by a notoriously disruptive user to make a WP:POINT. Tagged as such. --Irpen 21:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This Soviet version is already in the article under denial section.--Molobo 00:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There are many scholarly sources (having nothing to do with the Czech government) that discuss 1968 and subsequent as Soviet invasion and occupation. Occupation lasting beyond just the initial act of suppression following Prague Spring.
For the outside visitor, Irpen is only repeating his verbatim prior denouncement of of the article creator as "notoriously disruptive user" here. Feel free to make your own judgement by examining not just the evidence, but the entire trail leading up to alleged behavioral violations.
Irpen, Wikipedia is not your personal forum for repeating charges you make against editors stating your charges as known fact. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 04:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is no one's personal forum to settle scores and kick the cold war's dead horses. This whole creation of the occupation series is anything but serious article writing. --Irpen 05:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
If an occupation (as upheld by reputable sources) is prevented from being described as an occupation (typically by absolutely no sources, only by wails of "nationalist POV") then the horse is not dead. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Vecrumba, how do you treat the source that writes about CZ post-war history and simply does not use the term "Occupation"? Are we to imply that the author "denies occupation" or he just thinks that the term is not necessary. Some source can be found to many more claims than need to be mentioned in Encyclopedia. I had an argument with my Polish colleagues about the propriety of calling the Home Army "nationalist" which is perfectly sourced here. If I took your position I would have persisted to this day. --Irpen 05:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's the problem. I see all too many places where a single source is quoted verbatim, but often out of context, from which grand conclusions are drawn. Specifically with regard to the topic of "occupation" in the Baltics and Eastern Europe, we have to look to see what
    (a) the countries in question say about their history and what events/agreements/etc. they cite to support their official position, then
    (b) what the majority of scholarly sources say, that is, are there a significant number which describe the period as occupation; also, mere absence of the term does not imply non-occupation (as in encyclopedia articles which devote perhaps 10 lines of text to the entire history of one of the Baltic Republics). We can then (c) note dissenting positions, but those only become alternate valid interpretations if they have (b) scholarly sources on their side which deal with the specifics of the situation.
    Unfortunately, your means of dispute is to tag articles and to engage Baltic and Eastern European editors in RfAs. I would be more than glad to engage you on a source which, for example, attempts to explain based on specific facts, how Latvia came to "legally" join the Soviet Union, this according to the Russian Duma, but neither you or anyone else has produced anything except tags disputing content.
    The Latvian case in particular could not be clearer. Produce a source supporting the Duma position. Otherwise, here and everywhere else regarding Soviet occupation it is wholly sufficient to simply note that the official Russian position differs. Otherwise, it is in fact you who are continuing the "Cold War" by attempting to perpetuate Soviet historiography as somehow being truthful. Accusing others of what you are in fact doing yourself is a classic Soviet tactic. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you show that the "majority of scholarly sources " consider CZ to have been in the status of the "occupied territory" all the way to 1991? --Irpen 21:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official position of Czech Republic

Regarding Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia can be found here: [1]

It would seem Czech Republic considers the period 1968-1991 an occupation.--Molobo 00:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a POV of one particular author, by all means not a universally established one. I am returning the tag per the objections above. Please no more undiscussed removals. Use talk page. --Irpen 03:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
That is not a personal homepage Irpen but official page of Czech Republic.

--Molobo 09:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe this :-D. The official website of the Czech Republic is a "POV of one particular author".Irpen you're joking right? Please provide an alternative source, a "POV of another particular author" it seems you're referring to and then we'll take it from there. As long as it's not done, the tag is not relevant in any way since any evidence of any other POV-s are not provided.Therefore everything is according to the facts and NPOV, until proven otherwise. Thanks!--Termer 20:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources that describe the post-war history of the country without calling it being occupied until 1991 include Britannica and Columbia encyclopedia. It shows that "occupation" is not a mainstream consensus of the condition of the country. --Irpen 20:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
When you brought out your Columbia encyclopedia reference, I checked it out, but the talkpage was then suddenly lost, possibly in the Ghirlandajo's Great Move-Go-Round campaign. In any case, given that Columbia encyclopedia does not mention Soviet occupation in the article on Lithuania either, and Lithuania's being occupied by the Soviets is a well-established fact, I would say it's probably an artefact of Columbia encyclopedia's editing policies, and not an indication that Columbia encyclopedia does not believe there was such an occupation. 泥紅蓮凸凹箱 21:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your valuable personal opinion. But guess whose opinion, yours or CE's, counts more? --Irpen 22:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Irpen The fact that Britannica and Columbia might not mention the Soviet Occupation of Czechoslovakia directly unlike Encarta [[2]] does not make your personal opinion regarding The official website of the Czech Republic is a "POV of one particular author" stand on a solid ground at all I'm sorry to point out. --Termer 06:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The Encarta article you linked is narrowly devoted to the 1968 event, not to 1945-1991 period that the article claims the "occupation" lasted. Secondly, if out of three major English L. encyclopedias only one uses the term at all, it just shows that this is not a widely held view. It may be used in the article in the referenced form but not in the title and not even in the lead if presented as an all-agreed fact. --Irpen 08:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
?? The article claims 1968-1989 as the span of the occupation. Britannica definitely mentions the Soviet invasion and occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1968 [3]. Martintg 11:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Denial

I haven't yet found a clear English case of Russia positively denying having occupied Czechoslovakia. However, this one from [4] is interesting:

“ Russian President Vladimir Putin's official visit to Prague came to a close on Thursday. Mr Putin held talks with his Czech counterpart Vaclav Klaus, Prime Minister Jiri Paroubek, and the heads of both houses of Parliament. Oil and gas supplies, foreign investment, and Czech exports to Russia were among the topics discussed. Mr Putin also said Russia bears a "moral responsibility" for the occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1968. At final talks on Thursday, Prime Minister Paroubek deliberately avoided sensitive issues such as the war in Chechnya and democracy in Russia. He says bilateral relations are better than ever before. ”