Talk:Slovakization/Archive 2

Statistic

About "share (percentage) of Hungarians decreased extremely fast from over 30% in 1910 to 10% today" must say, that this need "hard numbers", purified with difference between old census question "what language you talk" and new "what nationality you feel". Of course, share of Slavs fall sharply between 907 and 1200, so I thing, that was product of magyarization :-D.--Yopie (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any hard numbers for 907 - 1200 ? The hard numbers are from the relevant censuses, census numbers are freely available in a huge number of places, did you look for the census numbers? You probably have at least the Czechoslovak census numbers. Can you check say 1950 census so we can compare? At this pace of decrease if a population had 99% they would disappear completely in 99->33->11->4->1 four iterations (120-200 years depending on level of brutality). Hobartimus (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The 1910 census is unreliable and should be deleted anyway. Wladthemlat (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds is the 1910 census "unreliable"? Officials in the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy were rather noted for their accuracy. On the other hand, the subsequent Czechoslovak censuses artificially creating the so-called "Czechoslovak" nation and registering Jewish people separately despite their overwhelmingly Hungarian affiliation should be rather questioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.50.73.80 (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind expressing your view on the accuracy of austrian censuses here as well? Thank you. Wladthemlat (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

nation part in čaplovič sentence

I will make this as clear as I can. I have a problem with bolded part of this sentence According to Dušan Čaplovič the word and the association is against the sovereignty of Slovakia, only one nation lives in the territory of the Republic of Slovakia (the Slovak nation), furthermore the word is fascist, it is familiar with the German Lebensraum, and Hungarians use it in this ideology. Reasons - first of all the whole context of the sentence is riddicilious what makes me think that it was created by someone. Second - the sources are all Hungarians, while the english source leads to blank page so I would ask some of our hungarian members, which care so deeply about it, to make some quick translation of their sources (only this part, I don´t want translation of whole page). Third - according to this source [[1]], which is bytheway primal source, that thing abotu nation was mentioned in official reason of MINISTRY OF CULTURE (not Čaplovič) which said that in Slovakia there is only one nation and several national minorities, not several nations. See: "Právnikovi sa nepozdáva ani ďalšia výčitka ministerstva, ktoré tvrdí, že na Slovensku je len jeden národ, a nie národy. Aj preto musela Čerťanská žiadosť prepísať."

"The lawyer don´t understand to the next accusation of the ministry, which claims that in Slovakia there is only one nation and not nations. And because of that, among other things, they have to re-write their application."

We can argue if it is retarded or not (it is), but putting the words which Čaplovič haven´t said to his mouth is really not what this page is about. Or at least I hope so. --EllsworthSK (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read the archives. Thank you.--B@xter⁹ 19:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I did and you, please, read what I post before you start having some good time by posting warnings. I just gave you a source from reliable media which says something completely different than what is written in the article and what you do is revert the edit, post the warning and as your answer you write "read the archive". Are you serious? --EllsworthSK (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bytheway, thank you. Thanks to your response I checked the sources in google trnaslator (better than nothing). All one of them are not even mentioning about Čaplovič saying that thing. In fact only two of them are mentioning the "one nation" thing and that only as the official reason of the ministry of culture. So I´m going to delete it and I assume that no objections are going to be raised from your side. Hope I´m wrong, I would love to hear your explanation. --EllsworthSK (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not notice your post here (b4 the warning). Please read he english translation (google translate) of the first Hungarian reference (A belügyminisztérium mellett kifogásolta a Kárpát-medence kifejezés használatát Dusan Caplovic is. A miniszterelnök-helyettes a Szlovák Televízió egyik múlt heti műsorában azt állította, a magyar politikusok ezzel helyettesítik az "élettér" kifejezést, mely a nácik által használt Lebensraum magyar megfelelője. "Igen, Lebensraum, erről beszélek, csak nem akartam egyenesen kimondani. (…) Amikor az élettér szó hangzik el, megint valahol a 20. század '30-as éveiben érzem magam… - reagált egyik vitapartnere szavaira Caplovic. - Ezért harcolok én a Kárpát-medence kifejezés ellen, mivel a kollégáim gyakran azt mondják: már nem használjuk a Felvidék megnevezést, már a Kárpát-medence kifejezést használjuk.") after that sentence.--B@xter⁹ 20:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearence and I apologize for harsh tone, but I couldn´t understood the reason for warning. Hopefully, you understand.

I read the sentence and the translation states:

The Ministry of the Interior objected to the Carpathian Basin by use of the term also Dusan Caplovic. The Deputy Prime Minister of the Slovak Television program of one of last week claimed that the Hungarian politicians with a substitute for "living space" in which the Nazis used by the Hungarian equivalent of Lebensraum. "Yes, Lebensraum, talking about, but I would not even say it. (...) When the word sounds like a place to live again, somewhere in the 20th century as '30 years ... I feel - reacted to the words of a debating partner Caplovic. - That's why I fight for the Carpathian Basin, the term, since my colleagues often say: no longer use the name of the Highlands, is in the Carpathian Basin is used. "

As I mentioned before, my only problem is with one nation part of the sentence used in article, not the whole sentence. And that part is not presented in what you posted here. Maybe I´m blind, but I just can´t see anything about one nation in one of the sources used, yet I see it in 2 sources as quotation of Ministry of Culture. --EllsworthSK (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I should have read yor history comment before the revert. BTW I wanted to remove the warning, but as I see you already did it. That sentence ("Szlovákiában az alkotmány szerint csak egy nemzet él" [According to the constitution, only one nation lives in Slovakia]) is mentionedhere. The English one is a dead link.--B@xter⁹ 20:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Let´s just forget about it. Now, I was talking about the Čaplovič quotation and as I see you haven´t returned it back so I guess it´s settled. About the preambul of Constitution, I have a feeling that it is mentioned somewhere in the article (not sure about it though), but just to make it clear - the Preambule states that :"We, the Slovak People, Bearing in mind ...., Together with members of national minorities and ethnic groups living in the Slovak Republic ... we, the citizens of the Slovak Republic, have, herewith and by our representatives, adopted this Constitution: [2]. And as I see it the dispute has been resolved. --EllsworthSK (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Dexner article

Let´s make this short: According to a 1948 poll conducted among the Slovak population 55% were for resettlement (deportation) of the Hungarians, 24% said "don't know", 21% were against.[31] Under slogans for the struggle with class enemies, the process of dispersing dense Hungarian settlements continued in 1948 and 1949.[31] By October 1949 preparations were made to deport 600 Hungarian families.[31]

Hungarians remaining in Slovakia were subjected to extremely heavy pressure to assimilate.[31] including the forced enrollment of Hungarian children in Slovak schools.[31]

After Communistic party of Czechoslovakia seized power in 1948, under pressure from USSR which did not need conflict between two countries in it's zone of interest, the course began to change. In Septermber 1948 Czechoslovak goverment deceided to return the deported Hungarian families from Czech borderlands back to South Slovakia, in October 1948 the parliament passed the law about return of citizienship to Hungarians, which were citiziens of Czechoslovakia before 1. november 1938 and in November 1948 Slovak National Council passed the regulation according to which the property of Hungarians peasants was not included in state confiscation of property. The civil rights were revoked, the Hungarians start taking places in state administration, Hungarian radio broadcast was renewed, the cultural organization of Hungarians in Czechoslovakia was eastablished etc.

First of all, Vladimír Draxler is a historician and well known publicist with specialization on Czechoslovak history of 20th century. I don´t think that anyone here will disagree with me if I call him as reliable source.

Second - to the point. The main points of my edit are

1. Change of Czechoslovak viewpoint on Hungarian minority after seize of power by Czechoslovak comunistic party, under supervision of USSR.

2. Presentation of facts which proov this assumption (return of Hungarians from borderlands home, returned citizienship, partiall compensation, Hungarian radio broadcast, communistic regime is giving Hungarians peasants same property rights as to other peasons, although the property of most of the population was confiscated etc.)

Only these two points, nothing less, nothing more.

Baxter9 thinks that there two contradicts with each other. I disagree.

According to a 1948 poll conducted among the Slovak population 55% were for resettlement (deportation) of the Hungarians, 24% said "don't know", 21% were against

This is presenting the viewpoint of Slovak population (bytheway I would be interested if non-hugnarian minorities were included in this pool and when exactly in 48 was this pool conducted. If it was before February or after, that is not said) which is completely irrelevant as after seizore of power by communists, Czechoslovakia became dictatorship.

Under slogans for the struggle with class enemies, the process of dispersing dense Hungarian settlements continued in 1948 and 1949.

This is probably what Baxter is reffering to. However, since Baxter obviously posses the source book, I would like to ask you which settlements were dispersing since there are tons of sources which says when the deportations and confiscations ended, how many Hungarians were compensated and what is more important when Slovaks from Hungary stopped coming (those were the people to which was given the property of the deported Hungarians and which settled on this land). This statement contradicts with next to everything what can be found about resettlemnt of Hungarians, plus it does not even mention about return of Hungarians from ex-Sudetlands which were returning to their original villages. If needed I don´t have a problem with providing other sources than Dexners article.

By October 1949 preparations were made to deport 600 Hungarian families.

I´m sorry, but I can´t call this anything else but riddicolious. In 1948 new Constitution was accepted and the talks between Hungary and Czechoslovakia started in 1948, Štrb protocol was only end at all of this. At 5 March 1946 all decreets, including the decree nr. 5/1945 which we are talking about, were revoked by temporary National Council. And plese notice what month is Rieber talking about. In july, the same year, Štrb protocol was signed what completely contradicts to his assumption. I would ask Bentex for translation of whole passage which is dealing with this because I have a hard time believing that someone like mr. Rieber which is well-known and accepted historician would wrote something like this without giving any proper sources.

Hungarians remaining in Slovakia were subjected to extremely heavy pressure to assimilate.[31] including the forced enrollment of Hungarian children in Slovak schools.

As was stated 2 times in this article, this refferes to pre-48 (to be exact pre-46) era, therefore I have no idea why is it in stub that deal with post 1948 situation.

As I see, only problem is with 1st point, which can be considered as sort of POV that has to be solved. This can be done if Baxter9 will provide what I asked for. The second point that states with exact moments in history does not contradict with anything already stated in this article. --EllsworthSK (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

First, Vladimír Draxler is not a verifiable third-party source.

Second - to the point:

1. Change of Czechoslovak viewpoint on Hungarian minority after seize of power by Czechoslovak comunistic party, under supervision of USSR.

From J. Rieber (Reliable and verifiable third party source) clearly proves that the deportation/and destruction of the Hingarian minoritie continued b4 and/after the "election" of the Czechoslovak comunistic party, but after the "election" "it was portrayed in 'class colors', to camouflage its true goals": "Czech and Slovak ruling circles still maintained the hope that they would manage to deport the Hungarians from Slovakia...summer 1948...resettlement of Hungarians 55% respondents answered yes, 21% answered no, 24% answered dont know" "the process of dispersing dense Hungarian settlements Hungarian settlemets continued in 1948 and 1949, despite the adoption by the Czechoslovak government on 28 October 1948...In 1949, Soviet diplomats reported from Bratislava that already preparations for resettling some part of the Hungarian population from Southern Slovakia to Czech territory are well under way...by the October 1949, preparations had benn made to deport 600 Hungarian families....Hungarian children were being forcibly enrolled in Slovak schools (1949 and after)"

You have your answers. (I hope)

Also, your arguments ("completely irrelevant","I´m sorry, but I can´t call this anything else but riddicolious.") prove nothing.--B@xter⁹ 10:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

First, as I recall, I called him relieble source only. And that he is, I never said nothing more.

As you wish. Than your source contradict the statement of previously used third party source [3] (nr.29)

The Communist Party in Soviet-occupied Hungary intermittently took over the reigns of government through intimidation and political purges of opponents and so the Czech-Slovak-Hungarian antagonism became an embarrassment for Moscow over the years.

The dilemma for Moscow was that the newly founded regimes in the “peoples democracies” had to build socialism in common partnership, as the often-repeated refrain went in the Soviet-dominated capitals of East-Central Europe.

With the disappearance of Benes from the political scene, the Czechoslovak government issued decree No. 76/1948 on April 13, 1948, allowing those Germans and Hungarians still living in Czechoslovakia, to reinstate the Czechoslovak citizenship that had been revoked by decree No. 33/1945. The Slovakian Commissioner of the Interior also revoked the latter decree by issuing decree No. 287/1948. A year later, Hungarians were allowed to send their children to Hungarian schools, which had been reopened for the first time since 1945.

This contradict with most of what you used as argument for deletion of Dexners stub and also it contradist with most of things that Rieber states in his book (notice that I asked for the source of Riebers accusations wich you haven´t provided).

If you say that 1 + 1 is equal to 3, it is riddicolious althought this argument prooves nothing. Riebers sources are in direct violation with what was written hundreds times over, even by Hungarian historicians. There are numerous sources which prooves that in 1948 Czechoslovak assembly allowed Hungarian childs to be send to the Hungarian schools and yet, Rieber claims complete opposite. Štrb protocol is, among other things, dealing with deportations of Hungarian population and states that it will no longer be subject of any talks and that Hungarian and Czechoslovak side has dealt with this and put it behind. Yet Rieber, as the first one, claims about planned deportaions of 500 Hungarian families in 1949. These two events completely onctradicts with each other and one has to be blind to not see this. So excuse me for not trusting what he wrote, maybe when you will provide some sources which Rieber used (they have to be written in that book) I will chagne my opinion, but not before. --EllsworthSK (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

From your edit: "in October 1948 the parliament passed the law about return of citizienship to Hungarians, which were citiziens of Czechoslovakia before". Thats ok. (Please note, that this is already mentioned in the article) Rieber doesnt say that the Czechoslovak citizenship was not granted to the Hungarians in 1948. "the course began to change" From Rieber: "the deportation/and assimilation of the Hingarian minoritie continued from 1948 but "it was portrayed in 'class colors' (as kulaks and bourgeoise), to camouflage its true goals" (it was not so harsh), which caused tensions between Slovakia and Hungary (See Rákosi's letter). "A year later, Hungarians were allowed to send their children to Hungarian schools, which had been reopened for the first time since 1945" is ok, it is referenced (I never removed it). Rieber say that "Hungarians remaining in Slovakia were szbjected to extremely heavy pressure to assimilate. Reports reached the Soviet consulate in bratislava that the Hungarian Cultural Society in Slovakia had complained to the representative for school affairs in the Slovak government that Hungarian children were being forcibly enrolled in Slovak schools." The problem here is this sentence ("Czechoslovak goverment deceided to return the deported Hungarian families from Czech borderlands back to South Slovakia"), which is not supported with verifable thirs-party reference.--B@xter⁹ 13:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me join the discussion as well. First, Baxter9 thanks for all the additions to the article, especially some sourced ones. Just keep up the good work ;) I was really surprised about some of the facts since myself didn't know a LOT of them (e.g. that quote from Stalin and didn't know either that Benes has performes such obvious and open hate speech against Hungarians and Germans). You're also right about the fact that the Czechoslovak government in fact did NOT do anything about the Hungarians deported to the (formerly German) Czech borderlands. The Hungarians have just returned themselves. Unfortunately many of them have found out that in the meanwhile hid family was "evicted" to Hungary and his properties were confiscated. I'm sure I've read about this somewhere a long time ago so I'll try to google up some sources to back it up as well. I'm also 100% sure that I've read something about the enrollment into the Slovak schools. It was a recollection of someone who "fled" to Hungary afterwards, something like: "we didn't speak Slovak at all, which meant that we couldn't understand a word from what the teacher said. This has obviously made him very angry. He was just shouting at us most of the time or beating us with a stick. We just knew that when he pointed at someone and said "pod sem" (we learned that it means "come here" very early) that he's in trouble." This is about what I can recollect from the text, I know it was (obviously) written in Hungarian, but that's about it. I'll definitely look it up though for the convenience of EllsworthSK and his comr....I mean friends (so that you don't have to bother with RVs stating it's unsourced etc.). I've also received a few cites from a friend of mine regarding the Slovak nationalist history books but I'll reuse that elsewhere :P CoolKoon (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear CoolKoon, thank you for your remarks. The article is based upon reliable, modern English sources, so I hope there wont be any edit war here. However, the article still needs to be improved. Feel free (both of you and of course and of course everyone) to contribute to it. As you, I was also really surprised about some of the facts when I read these books (How Benes hated the Hungarians and Germans, Stalin's role [he also said "numbers dont count"] Frightening...he was talking about lives. Millions of lives. I am planning to create another part(s), so the situation after the election in October 1948 (and later) will be represented there. If you have acces to reliable sources, (I prefer English ones) please dont hesitate, show them :). --B@xter⁹ 12:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

false image

I do not understand why you have the wrong picture in there. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Accelerated assimilation

The source does not say Slovakization = accelerated assimilation of non-Slovaks. This interpretation is biased and funny. That book says As a result of accelerated assimilation (Slovakization) the proportion of Germans and Ruthenians also decreased significantly. which can be rephrased to As a result of accelerated Slovakization the proportion of Germans and Ruthenians also decreased significantly (the supplementary information between parantheses refers just to the term assimilation - the exact type of assimilation that took place it the Slovakization). The Slovakization of Germans and Ruthenian is said to be accelerated, the word Slovakization itself does not imply that the process was fast or slow lol Slovslov (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice try, dear dubious editor (see Special:Contributions/Slovslov), but your reformulation does not seem correct. (Voluntary) assimilation in itself is a normal process, there is no problem with that, why should it be called something else? The problem starts when a state wants to accelerate or enforce assimilation, for example, through social pressure and coercive policies [4][5][6][7]. This is the process what is called "Slovakization" (with respect to Slovakia and earlier Czechoslovakia), and it is not the same as the normal, natural assimilation process. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

According to the book, the Slovakization was accelerated in interwar period, but the term also refers to post-WWII period Slovslov (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the term also refers to the post-WWII period, the Slovakization did not stop after WWII. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"X - ization" does not necessary imply that the process of conversion to X was made by force. Read other similar articles (for instance Russification: "voluntarily or not"). See Google Boks results for "voluntary Slovakization". That is not an oxymoron. Slovslov (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

New map

Do you have a new map of the census results from 2011? Let us have the latest one done. 2QW4 (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I see nobody is interested to have the latest census here..That's odd. Because it shows how Hungarians from Slovakia are fewer.2QW4 (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)