![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The article implies that Czechoslovakia ceased to exist during the WWII, but exile government was formed in London and Czechoslovakia de iure existed through the war. Also the dates in "infobox" are then wrong in my opinion... -- Motionofmind ( talk) 15:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
what of the munitions manufacturing in Czech before Hitler invaded? I've heard that they were the 2nd largest mftr in east/west Europe (Vienna is EAST of Prague)? It would certainly justify the invasion...proximity of course being important as well...--dgd
The big armament manufacturer in Czechoslovakia was Skoda.
RE:COMMENT:There is a paragraph missing which would say information about the first years of Czechoslovakia. Also a few words about minorities (german and hungarian)should be added. It is very important to understand the situation before these two countries joined the common nation of Czechoslovakia.Thanx. Martin
This page is for the discussion of the improvement of the article, not for discussion of the general subject of said article. Thank you, Silverbeak 15:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the intro paragraph mentioning all the names somewhat ridiculous? -- seav 13:33, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)
Public domain text (dated 1987) on Czechloslovakia can be found at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cstoc.html. -- Jia ng
Very interesting (although slightly outdated). I will try to incorporate it into Czechoslovakia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. -- Juro
This page is at its 32kB limit. Consider siphoning some off to individual articles (like the lists...) -- Jia ng 01:12, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
No need to crosspost text - it makes it hard to update. Let's just keep all the history in one place - in the daughter articles. -- Jia ng 01:28, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The Communist leaders must be together with the presidents and prime ministers (on what ever page), because the Communist leaders were the true leaders (and not the other 2) . That is how Communist countries worked and work. Juro And the short version of history was designed for those who have no time to read the long articles (like with the Brasilia or Rumania articles) or need to find quick info for one of the long articles. Now, nobody will be able to read the history. I will put it back later or create a separate History page if I do not hear a good reason. And where are the presidents now ???????????? Juro
Yes, a history of Czechoslovakia main article should be created, but it should be at most a summary. The history section on this page should be a one page summary, like in wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. A series table needs to be added to the history articles, like in History of Afghanistan, History of Algeria, etc. We could link on the PM and Presidents list pages "See Communist Party of Czechoslovakia for a list of Communist Party leaders". That will be enough. -- Jia ng 04:00, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
What's with this line in is also possible that the Moon landings were staged on a Hollywood sound stage. Beep, anything is possible -- whether it happened is another matter. Without either further elaboration or sourcing on this remark, it appears to be just an attempt at a backhanded slight against the people who were jailed for dissent. dasnyder 05:28, 18 July 2006
I think that taking atheism as a bad thing isn't neutral but even offensive. If you look at the context ("the country was characterized by the absence of democracy, the promotion of atheism, and relative economic backwardness compared to Western Europe"), the issue of the promotion of atheism is between 'bad' factors.
Apart of that, it isn't even necessary to mention the issue of the promotion of atheism. Many conutries promote religions and it is not explicited nor put as a bad thing.
The sentence does not say that atheism is bad or good. It simply says that atheism was promoted. The promotion of atheism is simply a fact, but it is necessary to mention it because it played an important role in the history of that country. Juro 03:11, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Carpathian Ruthenia became part of the Ukraine, not the USSR - the country "came under the influence of the Soviet Union"? This phrase does not appear on the pages regarding Italy, France and so forth, thus it is POV and is removed - absence of democracy? There were elections. Removing. Ruy Lopez 02:45, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I lived in Czechoslovakia for many years but for the first time when I have seen the "hyphenized" name was in 90's when nationalists were comming to the power in Slovakia. From my point of view, it is quite funny. I don't think that today's Slovaks write it with the hyphen, and I know many Slovaks. It is more a darker and ridiculous short history of this country. It does not seem to me to be very useful information.
You are wrong. It's the codified form since 1990. It must be and is used in newspapers, on TV and at schools when referring to the country in general. Other forms can be used in historical texts only. Also, there is a distinction between československý and česko-slovenský now, the former meaning "referring to Czechoslovakism /anti-Slovakism", the latter meaning "referring to Czechoslovakia" (see for example the Krátky slovník slovenského jazyka of the Academy of sciences on the web) Juro 01:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(1) What you are saying about the KSSJ authors applies equally to the authors of the Duden, Larousse etc. (but maybe not to those of Oxford - but there is always a difference between "normative" continental dictionaries and English language ones), (2) Do not forget that the hyphenated form is used by the newspapers, the TV and in schoolbooks too, so it's not only the KSSJ... Juro 02:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What is the difference between the two mottos?-- the Dannycas 22:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The first one is in Czech, while the second one is in Latin. I do not know why. Juro 00:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
First sentence: Czechoslovakia (Czech: Československo, Slovak: Česko-Slovensko/before 1990 Československo) Isn't it strange? From this I understand, that name Česko-Slovensko was oficial name 1990-92 only in Slovak/ia, but it was oficial name of whole Czechoslovakia. I'd propose following sentence: Czechoslovakia (Czech, Slovak: Československo, after 1990 Česko-Slovensko) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.13.78.10 ( talk) 18:51, 19 July 2006
This information is wrong and misleading. Jan Strasky was not a president - he was not elected in presidential election. As prime minister, he was administering some presidential rights, as Vaclav Havel resigned.
SOMEONE KEEPS CHANGING THE YEAR 1918 TO 2918 AND THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CHANGED TO SAY THE COUNTRY WAS IN AUSTRALIA ETC - SOMEONE HAS STUPIDLY SAVED AND KEEPS UPLOADING A VANDILISED COPY OF THIS ARTICLE TO IRONICALLY STOP ANDALISM- VANDALISM WHICH IS IN RELAITY TRYING TO KEEP REAL FACS AND FIGURES IN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.182.137 ( talk) 23:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems bizarre to me that there is no article that covers the history of Czechoslovakia continuously from 1918 to 1992. Or, if there is one, there is no link to it on this page! At the very least Czechoslovakia should redirect to an article that covers the full history of that state, including the various different regimes, not to one that only covers a portion of the history. -- Russ (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The Republic of Czechoslovakia was Czechoslovakia's name until 1960, not until 1939 and the name does not correspond to the political system, because Communist rule started after WWII. Also, "Czechoslovakia" is a well-defined country that existed from 1918 to 1992 de-iure without any interruptions as a subject of international law, therefore this division is both technically and "legally" wrong. Juro 17:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've rolled all of this back to where it stood on November 27th, before the unilateral fork decision. Any page move or fork that major should be discussed here on the article's talk page first. There can be a master article that covers the country's entire history, with sub-articles on major periods of government (as exists for Yugoslavia, for example), but there needs to be a single article that covers the country's entire existence. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
By no means was I implying that the cleanup work here is done, and I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was swooping in, calling it "fixed," and bailing. A separate History of Czechoslovakia article is an acceptable content fork, given its length, but then the History section here should be a concise 3-4 paragraph summary of the country's history. We may also need to fold some of those other sub-country articles back into this one, and then fork out other sections as appropriate. You seem to have a good handle on how this information is broken up; could you propose something along these lines? The primary goal should be to make this article a summary of all of the high-level info on the country, with sub-articles as needed. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is there a separate page for the Socialist republic but not the Federal one? I've restored Czech and Slovak Federal Republic as there is no reason to have pages for some eras in the nation's history and not others, even as all of them are available. + Hexagon1 ( t) 08:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I happen to think that Czechoslovakia just like France or Austria-Hungary was a country, which is more than "a history of several connected states" (and 74 years "a long period of time"?), and it should have an overview article just like any other, dealing not just with its history but also all other aspects a country has.
I also see that Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and Czech and Slovak Federal Republic have been made into redirects; I haven't checked yet if with any loss of information. Here, the correspondence with (sometimes strangely sectioned) historic articles is not smooth as well: while ČSFR basically corresponds with post-Velvet democratic era, ČSSR's 1960 Constitution is just an arbitrary point in its communist regime.
Finally, I really don't see the point for using Republic of Czechoslovakia and not adjectival Czechoslovak Republic: the former might serve a literal translation of "Republika Č/československá" which was used in some contexts early in the "First Republic", but AFAIK Československá republika (which was the official name) was always translated into English with preservation of the word order. -- Malyctenar 15:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Would everyone please stop reorganizing these articles without discussion? Thank you. If anyone can revert the merger/redirects of Czechoslovakia: 1948-1968, Czechoslovakia: 1969-1987, Czechoslovakia: 1989-1992, and restore their talk pages, that would be especially great. TheMightyQuill 02:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I realize these articles are a complicated mess, but that's no reason to unilaterally change everything. Hexagon recently created Czechoslovakia: 1948-1989 in order to encompass the entire communist era. I think this is a mistake for a number of reasons. Most importantly, it already exists as History of Communist Czechoslovakia. Also, the article is now over size, whereas it had been broken up into reasonable time periods. Thirdly, as stated above, and elsewhere, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic can exist separately from the history page, similarly to German Democratic Republic & History of the German Democratic Republic or History of Poland (1945–1989) & People's Republic of Poland. Just like any other country ( United States and History of the United States) a "country article" shows statistics, flag/crest/motto, population, transportation, etc, whereas the history describes the history in a narrative style. I realize the everything to do with Czechoslovakia is history, but that doesn't mean the two article styles must be merged. - TheMightyQuill 02:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The History of the United States has 3 separate articles to deal with 1945-1988. Why shouldn't Czechoslovakia? Merging 1969-89 isn't a bad idea, but the article is too long as it stands now. There's no way to make it smaller except to divide it. I think it makes sense to separate articles stylistically, one narrative, the other country based. Lots of other countries do it. That's what User:Domino theory was attempting to do, but did it poorly. - TheMightyQuill 07:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, would you please stop redirecting the CSSR page until we've finished discussing this? A little patience would go a long way here. It's been like this for a long time, so there's no immediate rush. TheMightyQuill 02:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else have an opinion on this? I really think that People's Republic of Poland vs. History of Poland (1945–1989), and Soviet Union vs. History of the Soviet Union demonstrate my point clearly. I think it would be rather hard to include all the information from Czechoslovak Socialist Republic into the history article. Not just the statistics either... For instance
are all separate articles about Communist Czechoslovakia, that don't really mesh well with a narrative history article. TheMightyQuill 03:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean "more than it already is" ? Most of those communist czechoslovakia articles are not linked from the history article, and have no other page to link to beside the CSSR page. I don't see why it would be more confusing than the other articles I mentioned above. Do you think it's confusing to have a Soviet Union page and a History of the Soviet Union article?
I don't know what you mean by totally distinct. The name and constitution of the country changed. In some of the shifts, the borders changed dramatically. Yes, it's more or less the same place, but each republic was a formally re-organized state. I don't see the problem with recognizing that. The History of Czechoslovakia shows the continuity, but the state pages show the breaks and changes in states. We seem to be at an impass here. I wish more people would comment. - TheMightyQuill 04:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Great. I think your re-ordering of the History pages needed to be done, and I'm not opposed to it in theory, just a little worried about length. The separate state articles should exist simultaneously to show changes in state formation, border changes, etc. - TheMightyQuill 19:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. That's perfect. Now hopefully I can find some time to work on this. - TheMightyQuill 05:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
This needs a proper cite.
PMA
11:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Note that the correct adjective form is Czechoslovak, not Czechoslovakian (likewise Slovak, not Slovakian).
You're right, neither is authorative. I'd never heard the word "czechoslovakian" before, but there are almost as many google hits for it as czechoslovak. Still, it might make sense to try for consistency. TheMightyQuill 17:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The OFFICIAL name of both Czechoslovakia and of Slovakia and of all corresponding institutions has always been Czechoslovak/Slovak Republic etc., and all academic sources use Slovak only, the -ian forms are plainly wrong. Juro 02:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that there is a misconception among a large number of people that Czechoslovakia still exists. I mean, people still refer to other people as being from Czechoslovakia, when the country is not existing any more. If somebody can back me up on this with some sources, please include it in the article. -- webkid 00:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to comment on the recent practice of using the form "Republic of X" and related instead of "X Republic" and related on Wikipedia. This is WP:OR. Established sources have always referred to CS by the "X Republic" form, including the CIA and Britannica. Even though R of X sounds better then X R, we must continue using the established norms instead of using better ones, according to WP:NC(CN). + Hexagon1 ( t) 07:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You are invited to join Wikipedia:Czech Wikipedian's notice board! The Czech notice board can be used for discussions on Czech-related topics; to plan your Czech-related projects; and ask for, or offer assistance for Czech-related subjects. Editors are encouraged to sign their nickname on the list of active participators. -- Thus Spake Anittas 02:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Very interesting case - the article doesn't mantion the Federal Assembly of Czechoslovakia. Xx236 09:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, there's been a slow but ongoing edit war and I'd like it to stop. I know I saw a discussion about this somewhere else, but I can't remember the outcome. I believe Czechoslovakia was dissolved on December 31, 1992, and the Czech Republic & Slovakia came into being on January 1, 1993. If that's the case, Czechoslovakia lasted until 1992, not 1993, correct? - TheMightyQuill 06:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, this is stupid. It's not like the country had no economy before the Communists. Some mention of it might be nice. Like, Tatra, for instance? Or the fact Czech car companies were protected by an 8% tariff? See G.N.Georgano, Cars: Early and Vintage, 1886-1930 (London: Grange-Universal, 1985). Trekphiler 04:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
links to gif files of coats of arms are provided but at a 3rd party server? Are those images sort of (c) protected?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpga ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 15 December 2004 (UTC)
I am looking für the article Dr. Walter Staffa in the german Wikipedia for informations to the Hodolein-camp near Olomouc (in this time called too Olmütz). Which persons where in the camp? Normal members of the german "Wehrmacht", normal people called "Sudetendeutsche", or members of organisations of Konrad Henlein oder NSDAP-members? Any information is warmly welcomed. Please inform me in the german" Wikipedia, under member "Nup". Thanks! Nup ( talk) 10:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Please help to let win the truth in this articles. Look the german Wikipedia under "Walter Staffa", "Olomouc", "Deutsches Seminar" and "Sudetendeutsche". Look to my edits and my diffulties. Please contact and/or help me, but under the german "Wikipedia", I am there "Nup" too!
Thanks Nup ( talk) 10:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The expulsion of 3 million Sudeten Germans after 1945 is a fact and has nothing to do rightwing ideas. 800 years of German culture and history are gone. The Sudetenland is in horrible state, even more 60 years after the ethnic cleansing of the Deutsch Böhmen. The existence of the Benes Decrees is an ongoing shame in Europe for a country which claims to be part of the European value system.-- Wurzeln und Flügel ( talk) 21:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Preliminary note: astounding that an article of this nature has virtually been abandoned in 2008 -- astounding even though Czechoslovakia did break up 15 years ago.
Some time before 2008, some editor(s) wrote a POV astounding for the arrogance of how blatant it is. Time to delete this crap. Hurmata ( talk) 08:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
We need {{ Czechoslovakia-stub}}. We have other former country stubs ({{ Ottoman-stub}}, {{ Soviet-stub}}). Comments? Discuss stub creation proposal at STUBSORT. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
"retroactively, there was internationally recognised government, army, international treaties etc"
Can we ask sources about a possibility of a "retroactively" recognised government? Never, in books about international law, I read about this possibility. Instead, in history books, I read that a good history is never made later on.
The situation of Czechoslovakia between 1939 and 1945 is clear:
Three errors in your vision:
Did you have for your POV any source? Burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds material. Read WP:V first.-- Yopie ( talk) 17:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you, I'm graduated in international law with a thesis about the diplomatic recognition of continental European States during WW2, and I see you do not know the basic principles about sovereignty, about the States as subjects of international law, and generally the principles of
ius cogens. No territory, no citizens: how can we speak of a country as your asserted CSK in 1940? And, by the way, I read Talmon's book, and authors agrees with him about the political consequences of governments-in-exile, but the legal consequences are clear too (and, when we use the word legal, or your loved de iure, we are referring to ius cogens). Answer my question you continue to ignore: why Palestine is not a member of UN, even it is recognized many many States?
Let's speak about sources and evidences. I think you will be able to show us your sources about your statements. You say that Czechoslovakia still existed after 1939. Ok, please say us:
I think you like playing poker, but your bluffs are very poor. I asked you the name of the Czechoslovak ambassadors in 1940, not whenever you want: in 1940! Your link speaks about the situation in 1942 and later (and, however, 18 States are less a third of the 60 independent States of that age: a minority if maths is not an opinion).
But, let's go out from your useless game, and let's seriously speak about
international law and the core of the problem. You are right when you say that membership in UN is not necessary for sovereignty. What is necessary then? International law links sovereignty to the effective control of the land. Now, I can answer the question you was not able to answer: Palestine is not member of UN because it is not considered a State by the large majority of international community, because the supreme control of its land is owned by Israel. German invasion and annexation in 1939 led to a classic debellatio, and consequently to the end of Czechoslovak State.
Then, Government Benes in London was a very, very important and positive political fact, I totally agree with you about it, but politics is politics, law is law.--
Cusio (
talk)
22:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Asking sources on this basic principles of international law by someone who says having studied law, is equivalent to someone affirming he had studied maths and asking sources about the fact that substraction is the opposite of addiction. But well, if you want them, I will show you dozens of books. Considering that you didn't give us a sole source about your position (and you can't give them, because the aren't), this game will arrive to an end. Let's see us tomorrow.-- Cusio ( talk) 00:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
BTW: You have problem differentiate between declarative theory of statehood and Constitutive theory of statehood. Please read article Sovereign state first, especially last part. And remember Ex injuria jus non oritur. -- Yopie ( talk) 00:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
About your "belliregent" theory read The international law of diplomacy: the diplomatic instrument and world.
Because you probably don't understand, what is government-in-exile, simply read International law: a dictionary
I've already said you: you are not a good player of poker. Wiki page about Constitutive theory of statehood clearly says that the constitutive theory is merely a theoretical construct as it has neither been codified by treaty nor widely recognized in international law; your linked Talmon says that nobody recognized CSK before late 1941 (so, your same sources affirm a clear hole in CSK continuity) and, even after 1941, the large majority of the international community saw CSK as defunct (we can surely say that countries as Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland or Vatican City are not known for their fascist history).
I see, your studies of international law was made on text of Metternich, Talleyrand, and other ministries of the
Congress of Vienna. No, we are speaking of certainly more modern international law. I suggest you some text where you can study that effectiveness, and not recognition, is the base of statehood.
*
about effectiveness as basic principle for statehood
End of the game. -- Cusio ( talk) 01:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
As I learned the Sudetenland since long was part of so called "Bohemia", also in times of the Austro- Hungarian Empire Bohemia included the german-speaking parts. So the chechoslovak Rep. did'nt need to annex those parts. True, The Austrian Republic demanded to its former provinces, in this case Bohemia/Český, the transfer of there german- speaking territories. But in fact, after WWI they where weakend to much to enforce its demand. Truly too, that also in the Sudetenland after independence of ČSR were moves to split of and go to Austria. Here the Czechoslovac Troups entered to stop secession. That is very probably the "risky operation" to "annex" the text is speaking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.48.3.24 ( talk) 19:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering what would be the best way of including the information that Czech glass buttons are famous in the button collecting community?-- Tyranny Sue ( talk) 02:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Adding the hyphenated spelling as this is now the official form in Slovak, and used consequently throughout Slovak wikipedia. -- 78.105.144.87 ( talk) 03:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
@Wladthemlat: It is irrelevant for how long the name was official, as long as it was the official short form in one of the official languages, you cannot say it's 'false'. Martin -- 78.105.144.87 ( talk) 17:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I have done what I was asked for: I supplied three references supporting my edition: an official print of the Czecho-Slovak Federal Parliament, official publication of Ľudovít Štúr Institute of Linguistics, which is the authoritative body for the Slovak language, both of these from 1990; and a contemporary source from the official website of the Slovak Parliament (which existed as a legislative body also in federal Czecho-Slovakia) -- all of them mentioning the name "Česko-Slovensko" in the Slovak language.
There are some more, e.g. a 2007 article in the on-line version of a major Slovak daily newspaper (Czecho-Slovakia Split 15 Years Ago). http://www.sme.sk/c/3616146/cesko-slovensko-sa-rozpadlo-pred-15-rokmi.html
Please feel free to challenge any of them if you do not believe they are 'appropriate'.
Please note I am not claiming anything about the orthography in English (I am using the hyphen only in my private texts on this discussion page); nor I am saing that the hyphenated version is the only correct in Slovak (also). However I believe I am right in saying that the hyphenated version is a correct spelling in one of the official languages of the former republic, and without this mentioning the article will be less accurate.
I hope we can have a civilised discussion with arguments rather than just an edit war. Martin -- 78.105.144.87 ( talk) 23:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record: if you consider nrsr.sk "unreliable", I am not going to argue (although I don't agree completely) -- this is the official website of the Slovak Parliament, but the page itself is for information only and as such has no official sanction.
However, the other reference is absolutely and irrefutably reliable: this is a government-drafted proposal submited to the parliament of the country in question, bearing the signatures of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, who (or their staff) would have known how to spell the name of their country, shouldn't they. The document itself is provided via service of the Czech Parliament so there cannot be any question about its authenticity. I am not re-inserting it myself but maybe someone wants to re-insert it in the future or refer to it: http://www.snemovna.cz/eknih/1990fs/tisky/t0200_00.htm
Martin -- 78.105.144.87 ( talk) 22:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I am sure that it probably was addressed already, however can somebody explain what is up with the Zakarpattya region being shown as a successor state for Czechoslovakia. Why not parts of Silesia that transferred to Poland is shown? It seems like a claim for the territory of Zakarpattya by Czechoslavakia and as if its some kind of independent political entity today. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 02:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I found no info whatsoever about Zakarpattya being a successor of Czechoslovakia after its dissolution. What I found however is that Zakarpattya was given to the USSR in 1945, and that is all, no other divisions were made. 95.24.4.208 ( talk) 12:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
A common misconception about the creation of Czechoslovakia is that it was created by the Treaty of Versailles. This is because many history books say that Czechoslovakia was created by Versailles. This is in fact correct as this is not the same as saying 'created by the Treaty of Versailles'. In this context, Versailles is short for the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 in its entirety, in which these treaties were created. Note that the Treaty of Versailles dealt with Germany (Prussia) only. The Treaty of St. Germain dealt with Austria and as part of its terms, the new state of Czechoslovakia was created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.217.249 ( talk) 13:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I am thoroughly confused (which is not hard to do) with the history of Czechoslovakia vs Czech Republic. According to the entries in these 2 articles, Czechoslovakia came into being in 1918 and ceased in 1993 when part of it became the Czech Republic:
History of Czechoslovakia
"The creation of Czechoslovakia in 1918 was the culmination of the 19th-century struggle of identity and ethnicity politics."
"On 1 January 1993, the Czech Republic (Czechia) and the Slovak Republic (Slovakia) were simultaneously and peacefully founded."
Czechoslovakia
". . .was a sovereign state in Central Europe which existed from October 1918"
". . .when it declared its independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, until its peaceful dissolution into the Czech Republic and Slovakia on 1 January 1993."
However, in this article, the Czech Republic far pre-dates Czechoslovakia:
Czech Republic
"The Czech state, formerly known as Bohemia, was formed in the late 9th century as a small duchy around Prague. . ."
"From 2013 on, the president will be elected by the public, not the parliament." [This statement implies that it's still in existence today.]
The reason I ask about this is that, while doing genealogy on a branch that came from Suchdol in the 1880s, "Czechoslovakia" and "Czech Republic" are used interchangeably in various documents. I wonder what form I should use, please while entering data into my computer program? I know that history is messy, frequently with eras that bleed and lap over each other, but shouldn't there be consistency between related articles? Thank you, Wordreader ( talk) 04:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Can someone explain this revert? 1 Carpathian Ruthenia ( Carpatho-Ukraine) was in West Ukraine before being absorbed into Czechoslovakia in 1919, and it was then transferred to Soviet Ukraine in 1945 as is now Zakarpattia Oblast. Not sure why it was reverted? Esp. the prose in the intro.-- Львівське ( говорити) 13:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
http://www.czso.cz/sldb2011/eng/redakce.nsf/i/the_first_czechoslovak_population_census_1921 http://www1.ceses.cuni.cz/benacek/hist%20kniha2.pdf /info/en/?search=Events_preceding_World_War_II_in_Europe http://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/1938/tschechoslowakei/fall-gruen-30-05-1938.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Czech_resistance_to_Nazi_occupation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pankr%C3%A1c_Prison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Franti%C5%A1ek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Balab%C3%A1n http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karel_Kuttelwascher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobylisy_Shooting_Range http://www.rarenewspapers.com/view/575513?list_url=%2Flist%3Fq%255Bdate_range_end%255D%3D2013-08-03%2525q%255Bdate_range_start%255D%3D1500-01-01%2525q%255Bquery%255D%3Dczechoslovakia%2B1938%2525q%255Bsearch_method%255D%3DAll%2BWords http://www.friedenberger.org/friedenberger_org/images/friedenberger/graf_oestl_fri/13d_ostsiedlung_fri.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Czechoslovak_Partisan_Brigade_of_Jan_%C5%BDi%C5%BEka http://www.wehrmacht-history.com/timeline/1938-wwii-timeline.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938 http://www.bautzen.de/aboutbautzen.asp?mid=142&iid=177 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bautzen http://www.bautzen.de/aboutbautzen.asp?mid=138&iid=183 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krkono%C5%A1e /info/en/?search=Ore_Mountains_(Central_Europe) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissen http://www.sachsen.de/en/276.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dervan /info/en/?search=Sorbs http://www.landschaftsmuseum.de/Seiten/Lexikon/Slawen_Vikingnet.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost /info/en/?search=Ostsiedlung /info/en/?search=Germanization /info/en/?search=Treaty_of_Versailles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Anthropoid http://www.outsideprague.com/lidice/lidice.html http://www.thelocal.de/national/20121011-45485.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidice http://www.zchor.org/lidice1.htm http://www.rarenewspapers.com/view/561263?imagelist=1 http://www.worldisround.com/articles/361658/text.html http://www.terezin.cz/en/index.asp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Kings_(Czech_antinazi_resistance) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Daluege http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Hermann_Frank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_von_Neurath http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le%C5%BE%C3%A1ky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lety_concentration_camp http://blog.aktualne.centrum.cz/blogy/adrian-wheeler.php?itemid=12828 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Letensk%C3%A1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Kude%C5%99%C3%ADkov%C3%A1 /info/en/?search=Anglo-German_Naval_Agreement http://www.pamatnik-terezin.cz/en/history-collection-research/historical-overview/the-litomerice-forced-labour-camp?lang=en /info/en/?search=Anthony_Eden http://www.ianchamberlain.net.au/script/03-Parliamentary%20Chamberlains.pdf http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SSchristie.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PReden.htm http://www.timelines.ws/countries/CZECHOSLOVAKIA.HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryanisation http://www.digital-guide.cz/en/realie/important-events/assassination-of-reinhard-heydrich/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Czaj%C3%A1nek%27s_barracks http://www.lidice.cz/obec/historie/Pe%C4%8Dk%C3%A1rna/10e.html http://www.lidice.cz/obec/historie/Pe%C4%8Dk%C3%A1rna/01e.html /info/en/?search=Bavaria_Slavica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_Geographer http://www.mittelbayerische.de/index.cfm?pid=10008&pk=833339 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flednitz http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rauher_Kulm_(Oberpfalz) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bajuvarian /info/en/?search=Boleslaw_I_of_Poland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boleslaus_I_of_Poland http://www.mzv.cz/tripoli/en/general_information_about_the_czech/history/index.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carantania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_IV,_Holy_Roman_Emperor /info/en/?search=Chronicon_Slavorum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_resistance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_resistance_to_Nazi_occupation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_Air_Force http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?138192-Czechoslovak-army-1918-1938 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_border_fortifications http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:85mm_kan%C3%B3n_vz._44/59 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Czechoslovak_border_fortification_before_World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_Legions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovakia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Czechoslovakia http://search.seznam.cz/?q=czechoslovakia+may+21st+1938&aq=&oq=&sourceid=szn-HP&thru= http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~pv/munich/czdoc04.html http://www.carrollquigley.net/misc/Quigley_explains_how_Germany_conquered_Czechoslovakia.htm http://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/1938/tschechoslowakei/fall-gruen-20-05-1938.php http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWbenes.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SSchristie.htm /info/en/?search=Elbe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franti%C5%A1ek_R._Kraus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franti%C5%A1ek_Moravec http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_around_650.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_Gr%C3%BCn_(Czechoslovakia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Eben-Emael /info/en/?search=Germania_Slavica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Fu%C4%8D%C3%ADk_(journalist) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Opletal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karel_Pavl%C3%ADk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milada_Hor%C3%A1kov%C3%A1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations /info/en/?search=Locarno_Treaty /info/en/?search=List_of_Medieval_Slavic_tribes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Lusatia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Sorbian /info/en/?search=Lusatia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusatian_culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miliduch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obrana_n%C3%A1roda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oda_of_Meissen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Th%C3%BCmmel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alois_Eli%C3%A1%C5%A1 /info/en/?search=Remilitarisation_of_the_Rhineland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II,_German_Emperor http://search.seznam.cz/?q=prague+nazi+gestapo&count=10&pId=bZiKzokJOAfbdamkCbjJ&from=20 http://www.radio.cz/en/section/curraffrs/czech-police-investigate-forgotten-atrocities-by-nazis-from-final-days-of-ww-ii http://www.radio.cz/en/section/panorama/czechoslovakia-island-of-democracy-and-refuge-between-the-wars http://www.radio.cz/en/section/special/heroes-or-cowards-czechs-in-world-war-ii /info/en/?search=Free_State_of_Saxony http://www.czech.cz/en/Discover-CZ/Facts-about-the-Czech-Republic/History/The-Second-World-War http://ukrhistory.tripod.com/page-18.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendish_Crusade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_of_%C4%8Ce%C5%A1ov http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DDwObXDG5o /info/en/?search=Stresa_front http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/bank-of-england/10213988/Never-mind-the-Czech-gold-the-Nazis-stole....html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wielbark_culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avar_March — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.7.158 ( talk) 16:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
This [3] is incorrect. A reliable source is needed to *include* the map not to exclude it. Note there is a note on the image's page "Correctness and neutrality of this map is disputed. See the talk page of this file." so I'm not the only one who's noticed problems. The actual comment is here [4]. "Similar to" is not good enough. The actual map is in the comment linked. This map took some... liberties, with the colors. Volunteer Marek 18:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Czechoslovakia was NOT seen as a successor state of the Austrian monarchy, but was a part of the Allies. In late November until 27 December 1918, the Czechoslovak army also managed to conquer/occupy the Province of German Bohemia and the Province of the Sudetenland of German Austria (which accepted the role as successor of the Austrian monarchy). This is important because only the successor states had to pay reparations and because of the fact, that most Germans saw it as betrayal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.117.142 ( talk) 22:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
It is on the map in the 'klapedia' ( Memel) revolt article. Looks like the new state got some of Silesia. So what was this province called, and why did they get it? It went back in 1938 to Germany along with the much larger Sudetenland ; it is not clear if it was returned in 1945 along with the Sudetenland. More info needed. {{subst:unsignedIP|64.129.65.219|06:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Yopie misreads the wp:Undue rule. It states, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views." That is, the views of a tiny or fringe minority should not be given disproportionate weight. In the Cold War context the views of the US government and the head of the CIA are indeed a major viewpoint and all the scholars of whatever politics consider the CIA to be one of the most important Cold War agencies. Here we are talking about the analysis made by Dulles, the long-term head of the agency at the height of his power (his brother was then the US Secretary of State). Does Yopie really consider the CIA as a "tiny or fringe minority" ???? He has used the UNDUE tag repeatedly (in History of Czechoslovakia and Czechoslovakia, and called the info "trivia." No other editor supports his deletions of sourced material. In this case the importance of Dulles position was validated and put into context by coverage in a recent scholarly book published by a university press. Yopie has failed to indicate the reasons he thinks the CIA position is a fringe position. The risk is that Yopie is engaging in an edit war expressing his private POV and tries to cover up embarrassing information he does not want Wikipedia readers to learn about. We certainly hope that is not the case but Yopie has merely reverted sourced text over and over again with no explanation for his strange actions. Rjensen ( talk) 16:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if it is worth mentioning but I often, even with people as young as 12 hear people refer to Czechia and Slovakia as Czechoslovakia, maybe mention that it is still erroneously referred too as such? 151.227.229.35 ( talk) 06:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I have seen this pages and I find out the list of presidents of us ex-republik is incomplete. There are not in the list Klement Gotvald, Antonín Zápotocký, Antonín Novotný, Ludvík Svoboda and Gustáv Husák. I have discover, that here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_Czechoslovakia its the list OK. Can anybody correct it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.231.33.73 ( talk) 11:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The territory that Czecholovakia got from Germany in the aftermath of WWI had nothing to do with Memel. In 1920 Czechoslovakia got the Hlučín Region from Germany. See the Wikipedia article on the town and region.
I've also tidied up the English in the section on "Origins" and replaced a reference to Middle-Europe by Central Europe, also making it clear that Palacký wanted to protect the Slavic speaking peoples of the region - not simply everyone in Central Europe. Norvo ( talk) 23:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The "After 1989" Section says the country divided into the Czech Republic and the "Slovak Republic". Isn't "Slovakia" the more common use in English? I rarely hear anyone refer to Slovakia as the "Slovak Republic". Consensus? (Before I alter it and bring a firestorm of protest) Foreignshore ( talk) 15:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ĉeĥoslovakio. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 22:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Neither given source [1] [2] mentions Czechoslovakia except in a historical context, and there are no assertions that the Polish soldiers thought they were invading Czechoslovakia in modern times. I'm removing this entry and pointedly not speculating on any misguided jocular intentions for its original addition to the article. Leweegee ( talk) 01:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
References
Why is Vietnamese listed amongst the languages recognised in Czechoslovakia? Adamcoxj0808 ( talk) 22:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Upon reading further, vietnamese IS recognised as a minority language, apologies for speaking before doing the research Adamcoxj0808 ( talk) 22:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The article implies that Czechoslovakia ceased to exist during the WWII, but exile government was formed in London and Czechoslovakia de iure existed through the war. Also the dates in "infobox" are then wrong in my opinion... -- Motionofmind ( talk) 15:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
what of the munitions manufacturing in Czech before Hitler invaded? I've heard that they were the 2nd largest mftr in east/west Europe (Vienna is EAST of Prague)? It would certainly justify the invasion...proximity of course being important as well...--dgd
The big armament manufacturer in Czechoslovakia was Skoda.
RE:COMMENT:There is a paragraph missing which would say information about the first years of Czechoslovakia. Also a few words about minorities (german and hungarian)should be added. It is very important to understand the situation before these two countries joined the common nation of Czechoslovakia.Thanx. Martin
This page is for the discussion of the improvement of the article, not for discussion of the general subject of said article. Thank you, Silverbeak 15:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the intro paragraph mentioning all the names somewhat ridiculous? -- seav 13:33, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)
Public domain text (dated 1987) on Czechloslovakia can be found at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cstoc.html. -- Jia ng
Very interesting (although slightly outdated). I will try to incorporate it into Czechoslovakia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. -- Juro
This page is at its 32kB limit. Consider siphoning some off to individual articles (like the lists...) -- Jia ng 01:12, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
No need to crosspost text - it makes it hard to update. Let's just keep all the history in one place - in the daughter articles. -- Jia ng 01:28, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The Communist leaders must be together with the presidents and prime ministers (on what ever page), because the Communist leaders were the true leaders (and not the other 2) . That is how Communist countries worked and work. Juro And the short version of history was designed for those who have no time to read the long articles (like with the Brasilia or Rumania articles) or need to find quick info for one of the long articles. Now, nobody will be able to read the history. I will put it back later or create a separate History page if I do not hear a good reason. And where are the presidents now ???????????? Juro
Yes, a history of Czechoslovakia main article should be created, but it should be at most a summary. The history section on this page should be a one page summary, like in wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. A series table needs to be added to the history articles, like in History of Afghanistan, History of Algeria, etc. We could link on the PM and Presidents list pages "See Communist Party of Czechoslovakia for a list of Communist Party leaders". That will be enough. -- Jia ng 04:00, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
What's with this line in is also possible that the Moon landings were staged on a Hollywood sound stage. Beep, anything is possible -- whether it happened is another matter. Without either further elaboration or sourcing on this remark, it appears to be just an attempt at a backhanded slight against the people who were jailed for dissent. dasnyder 05:28, 18 July 2006
I think that taking atheism as a bad thing isn't neutral but even offensive. If you look at the context ("the country was characterized by the absence of democracy, the promotion of atheism, and relative economic backwardness compared to Western Europe"), the issue of the promotion of atheism is between 'bad' factors.
Apart of that, it isn't even necessary to mention the issue of the promotion of atheism. Many conutries promote religions and it is not explicited nor put as a bad thing.
The sentence does not say that atheism is bad or good. It simply says that atheism was promoted. The promotion of atheism is simply a fact, but it is necessary to mention it because it played an important role in the history of that country. Juro 03:11, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Carpathian Ruthenia became part of the Ukraine, not the USSR - the country "came under the influence of the Soviet Union"? This phrase does not appear on the pages regarding Italy, France and so forth, thus it is POV and is removed - absence of democracy? There were elections. Removing. Ruy Lopez 02:45, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I lived in Czechoslovakia for many years but for the first time when I have seen the "hyphenized" name was in 90's when nationalists were comming to the power in Slovakia. From my point of view, it is quite funny. I don't think that today's Slovaks write it with the hyphen, and I know many Slovaks. It is more a darker and ridiculous short history of this country. It does not seem to me to be very useful information.
You are wrong. It's the codified form since 1990. It must be and is used in newspapers, on TV and at schools when referring to the country in general. Other forms can be used in historical texts only. Also, there is a distinction between československý and česko-slovenský now, the former meaning "referring to Czechoslovakism /anti-Slovakism", the latter meaning "referring to Czechoslovakia" (see for example the Krátky slovník slovenského jazyka of the Academy of sciences on the web) Juro 01:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(1) What you are saying about the KSSJ authors applies equally to the authors of the Duden, Larousse etc. (but maybe not to those of Oxford - but there is always a difference between "normative" continental dictionaries and English language ones), (2) Do not forget that the hyphenated form is used by the newspapers, the TV and in schoolbooks too, so it's not only the KSSJ... Juro 02:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What is the difference between the two mottos?-- the Dannycas 22:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The first one is in Czech, while the second one is in Latin. I do not know why. Juro 00:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
First sentence: Czechoslovakia (Czech: Československo, Slovak: Česko-Slovensko/before 1990 Československo) Isn't it strange? From this I understand, that name Česko-Slovensko was oficial name 1990-92 only in Slovak/ia, but it was oficial name of whole Czechoslovakia. I'd propose following sentence: Czechoslovakia (Czech, Slovak: Československo, after 1990 Česko-Slovensko) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.13.78.10 ( talk) 18:51, 19 July 2006
This information is wrong and misleading. Jan Strasky was not a president - he was not elected in presidential election. As prime minister, he was administering some presidential rights, as Vaclav Havel resigned.
SOMEONE KEEPS CHANGING THE YEAR 1918 TO 2918 AND THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CHANGED TO SAY THE COUNTRY WAS IN AUSTRALIA ETC - SOMEONE HAS STUPIDLY SAVED AND KEEPS UPLOADING A VANDILISED COPY OF THIS ARTICLE TO IRONICALLY STOP ANDALISM- VANDALISM WHICH IS IN RELAITY TRYING TO KEEP REAL FACS AND FIGURES IN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.182.137 ( talk) 23:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems bizarre to me that there is no article that covers the history of Czechoslovakia continuously from 1918 to 1992. Or, if there is one, there is no link to it on this page! At the very least Czechoslovakia should redirect to an article that covers the full history of that state, including the various different regimes, not to one that only covers a portion of the history. -- Russ (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The Republic of Czechoslovakia was Czechoslovakia's name until 1960, not until 1939 and the name does not correspond to the political system, because Communist rule started after WWII. Also, "Czechoslovakia" is a well-defined country that existed from 1918 to 1992 de-iure without any interruptions as a subject of international law, therefore this division is both technically and "legally" wrong. Juro 17:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've rolled all of this back to where it stood on November 27th, before the unilateral fork decision. Any page move or fork that major should be discussed here on the article's talk page first. There can be a master article that covers the country's entire history, with sub-articles on major periods of government (as exists for Yugoslavia, for example), but there needs to be a single article that covers the country's entire existence. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
By no means was I implying that the cleanup work here is done, and I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was swooping in, calling it "fixed," and bailing. A separate History of Czechoslovakia article is an acceptable content fork, given its length, but then the History section here should be a concise 3-4 paragraph summary of the country's history. We may also need to fold some of those other sub-country articles back into this one, and then fork out other sections as appropriate. You seem to have a good handle on how this information is broken up; could you propose something along these lines? The primary goal should be to make this article a summary of all of the high-level info on the country, with sub-articles as needed. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is there a separate page for the Socialist republic but not the Federal one? I've restored Czech and Slovak Federal Republic as there is no reason to have pages for some eras in the nation's history and not others, even as all of them are available. + Hexagon1 ( t) 08:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I happen to think that Czechoslovakia just like France or Austria-Hungary was a country, which is more than "a history of several connected states" (and 74 years "a long period of time"?), and it should have an overview article just like any other, dealing not just with its history but also all other aspects a country has.
I also see that Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and Czech and Slovak Federal Republic have been made into redirects; I haven't checked yet if with any loss of information. Here, the correspondence with (sometimes strangely sectioned) historic articles is not smooth as well: while ČSFR basically corresponds with post-Velvet democratic era, ČSSR's 1960 Constitution is just an arbitrary point in its communist regime.
Finally, I really don't see the point for using Republic of Czechoslovakia and not adjectival Czechoslovak Republic: the former might serve a literal translation of "Republika Č/československá" which was used in some contexts early in the "First Republic", but AFAIK Československá republika (which was the official name) was always translated into English with preservation of the word order. -- Malyctenar 15:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Would everyone please stop reorganizing these articles without discussion? Thank you. If anyone can revert the merger/redirects of Czechoslovakia: 1948-1968, Czechoslovakia: 1969-1987, Czechoslovakia: 1989-1992, and restore their talk pages, that would be especially great. TheMightyQuill 02:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I realize these articles are a complicated mess, but that's no reason to unilaterally change everything. Hexagon recently created Czechoslovakia: 1948-1989 in order to encompass the entire communist era. I think this is a mistake for a number of reasons. Most importantly, it already exists as History of Communist Czechoslovakia. Also, the article is now over size, whereas it had been broken up into reasonable time periods. Thirdly, as stated above, and elsewhere, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic can exist separately from the history page, similarly to German Democratic Republic & History of the German Democratic Republic or History of Poland (1945–1989) & People's Republic of Poland. Just like any other country ( United States and History of the United States) a "country article" shows statistics, flag/crest/motto, population, transportation, etc, whereas the history describes the history in a narrative style. I realize the everything to do with Czechoslovakia is history, but that doesn't mean the two article styles must be merged. - TheMightyQuill 02:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The History of the United States has 3 separate articles to deal with 1945-1988. Why shouldn't Czechoslovakia? Merging 1969-89 isn't a bad idea, but the article is too long as it stands now. There's no way to make it smaller except to divide it. I think it makes sense to separate articles stylistically, one narrative, the other country based. Lots of other countries do it. That's what User:Domino theory was attempting to do, but did it poorly. - TheMightyQuill 07:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, would you please stop redirecting the CSSR page until we've finished discussing this? A little patience would go a long way here. It's been like this for a long time, so there's no immediate rush. TheMightyQuill 02:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone else have an opinion on this? I really think that People's Republic of Poland vs. History of Poland (1945–1989), and Soviet Union vs. History of the Soviet Union demonstrate my point clearly. I think it would be rather hard to include all the information from Czechoslovak Socialist Republic into the history article. Not just the statistics either... For instance
are all separate articles about Communist Czechoslovakia, that don't really mesh well with a narrative history article. TheMightyQuill 03:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean "more than it already is" ? Most of those communist czechoslovakia articles are not linked from the history article, and have no other page to link to beside the CSSR page. I don't see why it would be more confusing than the other articles I mentioned above. Do you think it's confusing to have a Soviet Union page and a History of the Soviet Union article?
I don't know what you mean by totally distinct. The name and constitution of the country changed. In some of the shifts, the borders changed dramatically. Yes, it's more or less the same place, but each republic was a formally re-organized state. I don't see the problem with recognizing that. The History of Czechoslovakia shows the continuity, but the state pages show the breaks and changes in states. We seem to be at an impass here. I wish more people would comment. - TheMightyQuill 04:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Great. I think your re-ordering of the History pages needed to be done, and I'm not opposed to it in theory, just a little worried about length. The separate state articles should exist simultaneously to show changes in state formation, border changes, etc. - TheMightyQuill 19:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. That's perfect. Now hopefully I can find some time to work on this. - TheMightyQuill 05:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
This needs a proper cite.
PMA
11:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Note that the correct adjective form is Czechoslovak, not Czechoslovakian (likewise Slovak, not Slovakian).
You're right, neither is authorative. I'd never heard the word "czechoslovakian" before, but there are almost as many google hits for it as czechoslovak. Still, it might make sense to try for consistency. TheMightyQuill 17:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The OFFICIAL name of both Czechoslovakia and of Slovakia and of all corresponding institutions has always been Czechoslovak/Slovak Republic etc., and all academic sources use Slovak only, the -ian forms are plainly wrong. Juro 02:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that there is a misconception among a large number of people that Czechoslovakia still exists. I mean, people still refer to other people as being from Czechoslovakia, when the country is not existing any more. If somebody can back me up on this with some sources, please include it in the article. -- webkid 00:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to comment on the recent practice of using the form "Republic of X" and related instead of "X Republic" and related on Wikipedia. This is WP:OR. Established sources have always referred to CS by the "X Republic" form, including the CIA and Britannica. Even though R of X sounds better then X R, we must continue using the established norms instead of using better ones, according to WP:NC(CN). + Hexagon1 ( t) 07:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
You are invited to join Wikipedia:Czech Wikipedian's notice board! The Czech notice board can be used for discussions on Czech-related topics; to plan your Czech-related projects; and ask for, or offer assistance for Czech-related subjects. Editors are encouraged to sign their nickname on the list of active participators. -- Thus Spake Anittas 02:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Very interesting case - the article doesn't mantion the Federal Assembly of Czechoslovakia. Xx236 09:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, there's been a slow but ongoing edit war and I'd like it to stop. I know I saw a discussion about this somewhere else, but I can't remember the outcome. I believe Czechoslovakia was dissolved on December 31, 1992, and the Czech Republic & Slovakia came into being on January 1, 1993. If that's the case, Czechoslovakia lasted until 1992, not 1993, correct? - TheMightyQuill 06:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, this is stupid. It's not like the country had no economy before the Communists. Some mention of it might be nice. Like, Tatra, for instance? Or the fact Czech car companies were protected by an 8% tariff? See G.N.Georgano, Cars: Early and Vintage, 1886-1930 (London: Grange-Universal, 1985). Trekphiler 04:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
links to gif files of coats of arms are provided but at a 3rd party server? Are those images sort of (c) protected?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpga ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 15 December 2004 (UTC)
I am looking für the article Dr. Walter Staffa in the german Wikipedia for informations to the Hodolein-camp near Olomouc (in this time called too Olmütz). Which persons where in the camp? Normal members of the german "Wehrmacht", normal people called "Sudetendeutsche", or members of organisations of Konrad Henlein oder NSDAP-members? Any information is warmly welcomed. Please inform me in the german" Wikipedia, under member "Nup". Thanks! Nup ( talk) 10:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Please help to let win the truth in this articles. Look the german Wikipedia under "Walter Staffa", "Olomouc", "Deutsches Seminar" and "Sudetendeutsche". Look to my edits and my diffulties. Please contact and/or help me, but under the german "Wikipedia", I am there "Nup" too!
Thanks Nup ( talk) 10:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The expulsion of 3 million Sudeten Germans after 1945 is a fact and has nothing to do rightwing ideas. 800 years of German culture and history are gone. The Sudetenland is in horrible state, even more 60 years after the ethnic cleansing of the Deutsch Böhmen. The existence of the Benes Decrees is an ongoing shame in Europe for a country which claims to be part of the European value system.-- Wurzeln und Flügel ( talk) 21:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Preliminary note: astounding that an article of this nature has virtually been abandoned in 2008 -- astounding even though Czechoslovakia did break up 15 years ago.
Some time before 2008, some editor(s) wrote a POV astounding for the arrogance of how blatant it is. Time to delete this crap. Hurmata ( talk) 08:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
We need {{ Czechoslovakia-stub}}. We have other former country stubs ({{ Ottoman-stub}}, {{ Soviet-stub}}). Comments? Discuss stub creation proposal at STUBSORT. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
"retroactively, there was internationally recognised government, army, international treaties etc"
Can we ask sources about a possibility of a "retroactively" recognised government? Never, in books about international law, I read about this possibility. Instead, in history books, I read that a good history is never made later on.
The situation of Czechoslovakia between 1939 and 1945 is clear:
Three errors in your vision:
Did you have for your POV any source? Burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds material. Read WP:V first.-- Yopie ( talk) 17:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you, I'm graduated in international law with a thesis about the diplomatic recognition of continental European States during WW2, and I see you do not know the basic principles about sovereignty, about the States as subjects of international law, and generally the principles of
ius cogens. No territory, no citizens: how can we speak of a country as your asserted CSK in 1940? And, by the way, I read Talmon's book, and authors agrees with him about the political consequences of governments-in-exile, but the legal consequences are clear too (and, when we use the word legal, or your loved de iure, we are referring to ius cogens). Answer my question you continue to ignore: why Palestine is not a member of UN, even it is recognized many many States?
Let's speak about sources and evidences. I think you will be able to show us your sources about your statements. You say that Czechoslovakia still existed after 1939. Ok, please say us:
I think you like playing poker, but your bluffs are very poor. I asked you the name of the Czechoslovak ambassadors in 1940, not whenever you want: in 1940! Your link speaks about the situation in 1942 and later (and, however, 18 States are less a third of the 60 independent States of that age: a minority if maths is not an opinion).
But, let's go out from your useless game, and let's seriously speak about
international law and the core of the problem. You are right when you say that membership in UN is not necessary for sovereignty. What is necessary then? International law links sovereignty to the effective control of the land. Now, I can answer the question you was not able to answer: Palestine is not member of UN because it is not considered a State by the large majority of international community, because the supreme control of its land is owned by Israel. German invasion and annexation in 1939 led to a classic debellatio, and consequently to the end of Czechoslovak State.
Then, Government Benes in London was a very, very important and positive political fact, I totally agree with you about it, but politics is politics, law is law.--
Cusio (
talk)
22:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Asking sources on this basic principles of international law by someone who says having studied law, is equivalent to someone affirming he had studied maths and asking sources about the fact that substraction is the opposite of addiction. But well, if you want them, I will show you dozens of books. Considering that you didn't give us a sole source about your position (and you can't give them, because the aren't), this game will arrive to an end. Let's see us tomorrow.-- Cusio ( talk) 00:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
BTW: You have problem differentiate between declarative theory of statehood and Constitutive theory of statehood. Please read article Sovereign state first, especially last part. And remember Ex injuria jus non oritur. -- Yopie ( talk) 00:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
About your "belliregent" theory read The international law of diplomacy: the diplomatic instrument and world.
Because you probably don't understand, what is government-in-exile, simply read International law: a dictionary
I've already said you: you are not a good player of poker. Wiki page about Constitutive theory of statehood clearly says that the constitutive theory is merely a theoretical construct as it has neither been codified by treaty nor widely recognized in international law; your linked Talmon says that nobody recognized CSK before late 1941 (so, your same sources affirm a clear hole in CSK continuity) and, even after 1941, the large majority of the international community saw CSK as defunct (we can surely say that countries as Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland or Vatican City are not known for their fascist history).
I see, your studies of international law was made on text of Metternich, Talleyrand, and other ministries of the
Congress of Vienna. No, we are speaking of certainly more modern international law. I suggest you some text where you can study that effectiveness, and not recognition, is the base of statehood.
*
about effectiveness as basic principle for statehood
End of the game. -- Cusio ( talk) 01:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
As I learned the Sudetenland since long was part of so called "Bohemia", also in times of the Austro- Hungarian Empire Bohemia included the german-speaking parts. So the chechoslovak Rep. did'nt need to annex those parts. True, The Austrian Republic demanded to its former provinces, in this case Bohemia/Český, the transfer of there german- speaking territories. But in fact, after WWI they where weakend to much to enforce its demand. Truly too, that also in the Sudetenland after independence of ČSR were moves to split of and go to Austria. Here the Czechoslovac Troups entered to stop secession. That is very probably the "risky operation" to "annex" the text is speaking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.48.3.24 ( talk) 19:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering what would be the best way of including the information that Czech glass buttons are famous in the button collecting community?-- Tyranny Sue ( talk) 02:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Adding the hyphenated spelling as this is now the official form in Slovak, and used consequently throughout Slovak wikipedia. -- 78.105.144.87 ( talk) 03:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
@Wladthemlat: It is irrelevant for how long the name was official, as long as it was the official short form in one of the official languages, you cannot say it's 'false'. Martin -- 78.105.144.87 ( talk) 17:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I have done what I was asked for: I supplied three references supporting my edition: an official print of the Czecho-Slovak Federal Parliament, official publication of Ľudovít Štúr Institute of Linguistics, which is the authoritative body for the Slovak language, both of these from 1990; and a contemporary source from the official website of the Slovak Parliament (which existed as a legislative body also in federal Czecho-Slovakia) -- all of them mentioning the name "Česko-Slovensko" in the Slovak language.
There are some more, e.g. a 2007 article in the on-line version of a major Slovak daily newspaper (Czecho-Slovakia Split 15 Years Ago). http://www.sme.sk/c/3616146/cesko-slovensko-sa-rozpadlo-pred-15-rokmi.html
Please feel free to challenge any of them if you do not believe they are 'appropriate'.
Please note I am not claiming anything about the orthography in English (I am using the hyphen only in my private texts on this discussion page); nor I am saing that the hyphenated version is the only correct in Slovak (also). However I believe I am right in saying that the hyphenated version is a correct spelling in one of the official languages of the former republic, and without this mentioning the article will be less accurate.
I hope we can have a civilised discussion with arguments rather than just an edit war. Martin -- 78.105.144.87 ( talk) 23:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record: if you consider nrsr.sk "unreliable", I am not going to argue (although I don't agree completely) -- this is the official website of the Slovak Parliament, but the page itself is for information only and as such has no official sanction.
However, the other reference is absolutely and irrefutably reliable: this is a government-drafted proposal submited to the parliament of the country in question, bearing the signatures of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, who (or their staff) would have known how to spell the name of their country, shouldn't they. The document itself is provided via service of the Czech Parliament so there cannot be any question about its authenticity. I am not re-inserting it myself but maybe someone wants to re-insert it in the future or refer to it: http://www.snemovna.cz/eknih/1990fs/tisky/t0200_00.htm
Martin -- 78.105.144.87 ( talk) 22:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I am sure that it probably was addressed already, however can somebody explain what is up with the Zakarpattya region being shown as a successor state for Czechoslovakia. Why not parts of Silesia that transferred to Poland is shown? It seems like a claim for the territory of Zakarpattya by Czechoslavakia and as if its some kind of independent political entity today. Aleksandr Grigoryev ( talk) 02:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I found no info whatsoever about Zakarpattya being a successor of Czechoslovakia after its dissolution. What I found however is that Zakarpattya was given to the USSR in 1945, and that is all, no other divisions were made. 95.24.4.208 ( talk) 12:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
A common misconception about the creation of Czechoslovakia is that it was created by the Treaty of Versailles. This is because many history books say that Czechoslovakia was created by Versailles. This is in fact correct as this is not the same as saying 'created by the Treaty of Versailles'. In this context, Versailles is short for the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 in its entirety, in which these treaties were created. Note that the Treaty of Versailles dealt with Germany (Prussia) only. The Treaty of St. Germain dealt with Austria and as part of its terms, the new state of Czechoslovakia was created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.217.249 ( talk) 13:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I am thoroughly confused (which is not hard to do) with the history of Czechoslovakia vs Czech Republic. According to the entries in these 2 articles, Czechoslovakia came into being in 1918 and ceased in 1993 when part of it became the Czech Republic:
History of Czechoslovakia
"The creation of Czechoslovakia in 1918 was the culmination of the 19th-century struggle of identity and ethnicity politics."
"On 1 January 1993, the Czech Republic (Czechia) and the Slovak Republic (Slovakia) were simultaneously and peacefully founded."
Czechoslovakia
". . .was a sovereign state in Central Europe which existed from October 1918"
". . .when it declared its independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, until its peaceful dissolution into the Czech Republic and Slovakia on 1 January 1993."
However, in this article, the Czech Republic far pre-dates Czechoslovakia:
Czech Republic
"The Czech state, formerly known as Bohemia, was formed in the late 9th century as a small duchy around Prague. . ."
"From 2013 on, the president will be elected by the public, not the parliament." [This statement implies that it's still in existence today.]
The reason I ask about this is that, while doing genealogy on a branch that came from Suchdol in the 1880s, "Czechoslovakia" and "Czech Republic" are used interchangeably in various documents. I wonder what form I should use, please while entering data into my computer program? I know that history is messy, frequently with eras that bleed and lap over each other, but shouldn't there be consistency between related articles? Thank you, Wordreader ( talk) 04:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Can someone explain this revert? 1 Carpathian Ruthenia ( Carpatho-Ukraine) was in West Ukraine before being absorbed into Czechoslovakia in 1919, and it was then transferred to Soviet Ukraine in 1945 as is now Zakarpattia Oblast. Not sure why it was reverted? Esp. the prose in the intro.-- Львівське ( говорити) 13:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
http://www.czso.cz/sldb2011/eng/redakce.nsf/i/the_first_czechoslovak_population_census_1921 http://www1.ceses.cuni.cz/benacek/hist%20kniha2.pdf /info/en/?search=Events_preceding_World_War_II_in_Europe http://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/1938/tschechoslowakei/fall-gruen-30-05-1938.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Czech_resistance_to_Nazi_occupation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pankr%C3%A1c_Prison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Franti%C5%A1ek http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Balab%C3%A1n http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karel_Kuttelwascher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobylisy_Shooting_Range http://www.rarenewspapers.com/view/575513?list_url=%2Flist%3Fq%255Bdate_range_end%255D%3D2013-08-03%2525q%255Bdate_range_start%255D%3D1500-01-01%2525q%255Bquery%255D%3Dczechoslovakia%2B1938%2525q%255Bsearch_method%255D%3DAll%2BWords http://www.friedenberger.org/friedenberger_org/images/friedenberger/graf_oestl_fri/13d_ostsiedlung_fri.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Czechoslovak_Partisan_Brigade_of_Jan_%C5%BDi%C5%BEka http://www.wehrmacht-history.com/timeline/1938-wwii-timeline.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938 http://www.bautzen.de/aboutbautzen.asp?mid=142&iid=177 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bautzen http://www.bautzen.de/aboutbautzen.asp?mid=138&iid=183 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krkono%C5%A1e /info/en/?search=Ore_Mountains_(Central_Europe) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissen http://www.sachsen.de/en/276.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dervan /info/en/?search=Sorbs http://www.landschaftsmuseum.de/Seiten/Lexikon/Slawen_Vikingnet.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost /info/en/?search=Ostsiedlung /info/en/?search=Germanization /info/en/?search=Treaty_of_Versailles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Anthropoid http://www.outsideprague.com/lidice/lidice.html http://www.thelocal.de/national/20121011-45485.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidice http://www.zchor.org/lidice1.htm http://www.rarenewspapers.com/view/561263?imagelist=1 http://www.worldisround.com/articles/361658/text.html http://www.terezin.cz/en/index.asp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Kings_(Czech_antinazi_resistance) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Daluege http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Hermann_Frank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_von_Neurath http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le%C5%BE%C3%A1ky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lety_concentration_camp http://blog.aktualne.centrum.cz/blogy/adrian-wheeler.php?itemid=12828 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Letensk%C3%A1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Kude%C5%99%C3%ADkov%C3%A1 /info/en/?search=Anglo-German_Naval_Agreement http://www.pamatnik-terezin.cz/en/history-collection-research/historical-overview/the-litomerice-forced-labour-camp?lang=en /info/en/?search=Anthony_Eden http://www.ianchamberlain.net.au/script/03-Parliamentary%20Chamberlains.pdf http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SSchristie.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PReden.htm http://www.timelines.ws/countries/CZECHOSLOVAKIA.HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryanisation http://www.digital-guide.cz/en/realie/important-events/assassination-of-reinhard-heydrich/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Czaj%C3%A1nek%27s_barracks http://www.lidice.cz/obec/historie/Pe%C4%8Dk%C3%A1rna/10e.html http://www.lidice.cz/obec/historie/Pe%C4%8Dk%C3%A1rna/01e.html /info/en/?search=Bavaria_Slavica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavarian_Geographer http://www.mittelbayerische.de/index.cfm?pid=10008&pk=833339 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flednitz http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rauher_Kulm_(Oberpfalz) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bajuvarian /info/en/?search=Boleslaw_I_of_Poland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boleslaus_I_of_Poland http://www.mzv.cz/tripoli/en/general_information_about_the_czech/history/index.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carantania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_IV,_Holy_Roman_Emperor /info/en/?search=Chronicon_Slavorum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_resistance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czech_resistance_to_Nazi_occupation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_Air_Force http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?138192-Czechoslovak-army-1918-1938 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_border_fortifications http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:85mm_kan%C3%B3n_vz._44/59 http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Czechoslovak_border_fortification_before_World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovak_Legions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovakia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Czechoslovakia http://search.seznam.cz/?q=czechoslovakia+may+21st+1938&aq=&oq=&sourceid=szn-HP&thru= http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~pv/munich/czdoc04.html http://www.carrollquigley.net/misc/Quigley_explains_how_Germany_conquered_Czechoslovakia.htm http://www.ns-archiv.de/krieg/1938/tschechoslowakei/fall-gruen-20-05-1938.php http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWbenes.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SSchristie.htm /info/en/?search=Elbe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franti%C5%A1ek_R._Kraus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franti%C5%A1ek_Moravec http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_around_650.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_Gr%C3%BCn_(Czechoslovakia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Eben-Emael /info/en/?search=Germania_Slavica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Fu%C4%8D%C3%ADk_(journalist) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Opletal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karel_Pavl%C3%ADk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milada_Hor%C3%A1kov%C3%A1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations /info/en/?search=Locarno_Treaty /info/en/?search=List_of_Medieval_Slavic_tribes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Lusatia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_Sorbian /info/en/?search=Lusatia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lusatian_culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miliduch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obrana_n%C3%A1roda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oda_of_Meissen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Th%C3%BCmmel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alois_Eli%C3%A1%C5%A1 /info/en/?search=Remilitarisation_of_the_Rhineland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_II,_German_Emperor http://search.seznam.cz/?q=prague+nazi+gestapo&count=10&pId=bZiKzokJOAfbdamkCbjJ&from=20 http://www.radio.cz/en/section/curraffrs/czech-police-investigate-forgotten-atrocities-by-nazis-from-final-days-of-ww-ii http://www.radio.cz/en/section/panorama/czechoslovakia-island-of-democracy-and-refuge-between-the-wars http://www.radio.cz/en/section/special/heroes-or-cowards-czechs-in-world-war-ii /info/en/?search=Free_State_of_Saxony http://www.czech.cz/en/Discover-CZ/Facts-about-the-Czech-Republic/History/The-Second-World-War http://ukrhistory.tripod.com/page-18.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendish_Crusade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_of_%C4%8Ce%C5%A1ov http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DDwObXDG5o /info/en/?search=Stresa_front http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/bank-of-england/10213988/Never-mind-the-Czech-gold-the-Nazis-stole....html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wielbark_culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avar_March — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.7.158 ( talk) 16:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
This [3] is incorrect. A reliable source is needed to *include* the map not to exclude it. Note there is a note on the image's page "Correctness and neutrality of this map is disputed. See the talk page of this file." so I'm not the only one who's noticed problems. The actual comment is here [4]. "Similar to" is not good enough. The actual map is in the comment linked. This map took some... liberties, with the colors. Volunteer Marek 18:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Czechoslovakia was NOT seen as a successor state of the Austrian monarchy, but was a part of the Allies. In late November until 27 December 1918, the Czechoslovak army also managed to conquer/occupy the Province of German Bohemia and the Province of the Sudetenland of German Austria (which accepted the role as successor of the Austrian monarchy). This is important because only the successor states had to pay reparations and because of the fact, that most Germans saw it as betrayal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.117.142 ( talk) 22:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
It is on the map in the 'klapedia' ( Memel) revolt article. Looks like the new state got some of Silesia. So what was this province called, and why did they get it? It went back in 1938 to Germany along with the much larger Sudetenland ; it is not clear if it was returned in 1945 along with the Sudetenland. More info needed. {{subst:unsignedIP|64.129.65.219|06:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Yopie misreads the wp:Undue rule. It states, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views." That is, the views of a tiny or fringe minority should not be given disproportionate weight. In the Cold War context the views of the US government and the head of the CIA are indeed a major viewpoint and all the scholars of whatever politics consider the CIA to be one of the most important Cold War agencies. Here we are talking about the analysis made by Dulles, the long-term head of the agency at the height of his power (his brother was then the US Secretary of State). Does Yopie really consider the CIA as a "tiny or fringe minority" ???? He has used the UNDUE tag repeatedly (in History of Czechoslovakia and Czechoslovakia, and called the info "trivia." No other editor supports his deletions of sourced material. In this case the importance of Dulles position was validated and put into context by coverage in a recent scholarly book published by a university press. Yopie has failed to indicate the reasons he thinks the CIA position is a fringe position. The risk is that Yopie is engaging in an edit war expressing his private POV and tries to cover up embarrassing information he does not want Wikipedia readers to learn about. We certainly hope that is not the case but Yopie has merely reverted sourced text over and over again with no explanation for his strange actions. Rjensen ( talk) 16:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if it is worth mentioning but I often, even with people as young as 12 hear people refer to Czechia and Slovakia as Czechoslovakia, maybe mention that it is still erroneously referred too as such? 151.227.229.35 ( talk) 06:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
I have seen this pages and I find out the list of presidents of us ex-republik is incomplete. There are not in the list Klement Gotvald, Antonín Zápotocký, Antonín Novotný, Ludvík Svoboda and Gustáv Husák. I have discover, that here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_Czechoslovakia its the list OK. Can anybody correct it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.231.33.73 ( talk) 11:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The territory that Czecholovakia got from Germany in the aftermath of WWI had nothing to do with Memel. In 1920 Czechoslovakia got the Hlučín Region from Germany. See the Wikipedia article on the town and region.
I've also tidied up the English in the section on "Origins" and replaced a reference to Middle-Europe by Central Europe, also making it clear that Palacký wanted to protect the Slavic speaking peoples of the region - not simply everyone in Central Europe. Norvo ( talk) 23:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The "After 1989" Section says the country divided into the Czech Republic and the "Slovak Republic". Isn't "Slovakia" the more common use in English? I rarely hear anyone refer to Slovakia as the "Slovak Republic". Consensus? (Before I alter it and bring a firestorm of protest) Foreignshore ( talk) 15:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ĉeĥoslovakio. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 22:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Neither given source [1] [2] mentions Czechoslovakia except in a historical context, and there are no assertions that the Polish soldiers thought they were invading Czechoslovakia in modern times. I'm removing this entry and pointedly not speculating on any misguided jocular intentions for its original addition to the article. Leweegee ( talk) 01:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
References
Why is Vietnamese listed amongst the languages recognised in Czechoslovakia? Adamcoxj0808 ( talk) 22:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Upon reading further, vietnamese IS recognised as a minority language, apologies for speaking before doing the research Adamcoxj0808 ( talk) 22:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)