This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Of all these, the only one rightfully termed an "occupation" is the Soviet one, so this page should simply be a redirect to Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia in my opinion. K issL 11:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't think I said anything ambiguous, but it seems some clarification is needed. The point is simply that an occupation of a part of a country is not an occupation of THE country. Thus, in reference to 1939, it is fine to talk about the German occupation of Bohemia and Moravia, but not of Czechoslovakia. (Similarly, in reference to 1919, no one talks about a "Romanian occupation of Hungary", although the Romanian army actually advanced up to and beyond Budapest.) You are right that the 1944 occupation does fit in the list; at the time I made my comment it was not yet listed. Additionally, the case of the Hungarian "occupation" of southern Slovakia is different from all the others in that it was justified by a kind of treaty that had been signed by all parties. Some people might say that the First Vienna Award was obviously forced on the Czechoslovak delegation, but then so was Trianon on the Hungarians, and yet you wouldn't call the corresponding military actions an "occupation of Hungary", would you? K issL 15:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia is a redirect, so you'd be making a double redirect. - TheMightyQuill 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Of all these, the only one rightfully termed an "occupation" is the Soviet one, so this page should simply be a redirect to Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia in my opinion. K issL 11:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't think I said anything ambiguous, but it seems some clarification is needed. The point is simply that an occupation of a part of a country is not an occupation of THE country. Thus, in reference to 1939, it is fine to talk about the German occupation of Bohemia and Moravia, but not of Czechoslovakia. (Similarly, in reference to 1919, no one talks about a "Romanian occupation of Hungary", although the Romanian army actually advanced up to and beyond Budapest.) You are right that the 1944 occupation does fit in the list; at the time I made my comment it was not yet listed. Additionally, the case of the Hungarian "occupation" of southern Slovakia is different from all the others in that it was justified by a kind of treaty that had been signed by all parties. Some people might say that the First Vienna Award was obviously forced on the Czechoslovak delegation, but then so was Trianon on the Hungarians, and yet you wouldn't call the corresponding military actions an "occupation of Hungary", would you? K issL 15:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia is a redirect, so you'd be making a double redirect. - TheMightyQuill 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)