Talk:Munich Agreement/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

IP edit

Dear IP,

please understand the corresponding section in the lead is about the time of the creation Czechoslovakia, hence a newly created state cannot be liberated if it did not exist before.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC))

Happily, a Czech state did exist before.
The Czech state was formerd in the 9th. century under the Great Moravian Empire and is one of the oldest states in Central Europe.
The Czech Kingdom of Bohemia and Margraviate of Moravia were historical lands (Crown of Saint Vaclav), they existed with strong kings of House of Premyslid.
As a kingdom she antendates the Germans Kingdoms, not excepting Saxony, Bavaria and Prussia.
Sudeten Germans arrived to the Czech lands in every century, including many since 1850. They have known very well where they settled from the very beginning. Posp68 (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't what this has to do with the issue.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC))

It's very easy. Czech and Slovaks lands were liberated on the ground of historical rights. On 10 January 1917 the Allies stated their war aims publicly. The statement included as one of their aims "the liberation of Italians, of Slavs, of Roumanians and of Czechoslovaks from foreign domination". Posp68 (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry,

this is POV and OR, since Czechoslovakia included large Hungarian lands, as well Ruthenian lands, similarly the Allied viewpoint is just one point of view, considering "foreign" domination is as well controversial, while a Czechoslovak nation did not even exist, etc., on the other hand historical rights of other nations living there have been completely ignored. No consensus for such type of additions.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2020 (UTC))

Sudeten Germans were a minority - not a nation and most countries in Europe have minorities.
Slovakia is not Hungary and Ruthenia joined voluntarily.
The Allies stated their war aims publicly. The statement included as one of their aims "the liberation of Italiens, of Slavs, of Roumanians and of Czechoslovaks from foreign domination".
This Allied sitation based on source can never be POV and OR.
NPOV rules require all major viewpoints and this certainly qualifies.
It was the viewpoint of the Allies and is consequently far more important than your personal opinion view or POV.
--Posp68 (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Your first sentence is incorrect, as it implies being a minority would not have a national affilitaion...Sudeten Germans were Germans, which are a nation, similarly the fact there are minorities in Europe does not change anything on the validity of the issues I pinpointed.

The territory of present-day Slovakia was part of Hungary and was a historic Hungarian territory as well, Ruthenian's voluntary join was filled with the circumstances of the really arguable and controversial contract(s) carried out with American subjects, or the fact other aspiration were not confirmed by the Allies, so they had in reality no other choice, but a dictated/controlled one.

I don't see why you found necessary to repeat the allied aim, and what would change in the situation if it is public or not. But yes, the Allied aim in war conditions are anyway may be treated as a point of interest, having a source for this does not mean it could not be POV, it is heavily that (to say nothing of war are largely served by any means ideologies aims that may be one-sided or subjective), you are confusing here the things. OR is what you did.

As well per NPOV rules we should remain neutral, that means we neutrally word our sentences, not by just one point of view, or not any point of view which does not share consensus.

Thank you for reinforcing it is the viewpoint of the Allies; on the other hand I don't know why you mention the possible importance of my personal opinion or POV, since it was not the subject of the discussion.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Liberation of Czechoslovakia from foreign domination was one of the Allies aims. Yes or No? Only Yes or No, please.
Does Kingir erase this Allied aim because it anoys him?
--Posp68 (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, Liberation of Czechoslovakia... could not be an Allied aim, since Czechoslovakia came into existence only later...henceforth, I could not erase something that did not exist...(KIENGIR (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC))

Dear Kingier, On 10 January 1917 the Allied stated their war aims publicly. The statement included as one of their aims: "the liberation of Italians, of Slavs, of Roumanians and of Czehoslovaks from foreign domination".
Reference: Czechoslovakia Crossroad and Crises, Norman Stone, isbn 978-1-349-10646-2, page 67.
Vienna became frantic after the issuance of the Allied statement of war aims which would dissolve the Habsburg empire into its original parts.
The Czechs already had their own lands and Slovaks were not Hungarians from Asia.--Posp68 (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Dear Posp68,

why do you think it is necessary to repeat something the third time, when we already discussed this? Who said Slovaks would be Hungarians from Asia? Please mind that WP is not a forum...(KIENGIR (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC))

Who said: The territory of present-day Slovakia was part of Hungary and was a historic Hungarian territory as well. Slovaks were liberated from foreign domination by The Allies,, like Roumanians, Ruthenians,...--Posp68 (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Funny when Slavic speaking people call Hungarians as "Asians" despite they have higher ratio of mongoloid (Asian) genetic admixture than Hungarians. (Just see Y DNA and autosomal researches)--Liltender (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm from Norway and speak Norwegian. Hungarians are from Asia.

Genetically, there is surprisingly little difference between Czechs and Germans.--Posp68 (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you a guest worker or guest worker descendant who lives in Norway? Anyhow, northern Germanic people (incl. Norway) contain serious mongoloid admixture: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml It is often visible on their look. No wonder, that epicanthic fold slanted eyes are not rare in Norway.--Liltender (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what this has to do with the issue, my pedigree goes back to Norwegian King Harald Håråde, year 1066. What does your pedigree look like?--Posp68 (talk) 12:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It is clear who and what said anyway, since it is written down. However liberation is in this context is POV, as it has been discussed also. Anyway, all European nations' ancestors once came from Asia, this discussion does not lead anywhere.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2020 (UTC))

The Allies called it liberation, and that is not POV--Posp68 (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

But yes, the Allied point of view.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC))

Of course, and they were undoubtedly right--Posp68 (talk) 12:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This is your perosnal opinion, nothing more.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC))

It is my opinion and The Allies' opinion, but it is only the latter that matters--Posp68 (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I was talking about this: "they were undoubtedly right".(KIENGIR (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC))

Of course, the Slovaks were liberated--Posp68 (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, this is your POV.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Croats, Romanians, Serbs and Slovaks were liberated by The Allies. It has nothing to do with me, ask them.--Posp68 (talk) 16:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

This discussion leads to nowhere, I understand your opinion, but this page is not a forum.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC))

The same sentence twice

Posp68, you have changed the first paragraph so that it now contains two versions of the exact same sentence (bolded in the quote below), than reverted me when I removed one:

Czechoslovakia was created in 1918 after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire at the end of World War I. The historical Czech lands of Bohemia and Moravia retained its historical boundaries. The Treaty of Saint-Germain recognized the independence of Czechoslovakia that included three million German-speaking people, 24% of the total population of the country. The Germans lived mostly in border regions of the historical Czech lands of Bohemia and Moravia for which they coined the new name Sudetenland, which bordered on Germany and the newly-created country of Austria. The entire German-speaking area was within the borders of the lands of Bohemia and Moravia.

This is unnecessary. My preference is for the second version, obviously, though your objection to the use of the name "Sudetenland" in the next sentence after the name "Sudetenland" and removal of the adjective "historical" to describe the borders in the second sentence, which seems to be part of what you're after, is used is fairly nonsensical.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

In fact, the sentence immediately before the last one also says more or less the same thing too.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The historical Czech lands retained its historical boundaries. The history of the Czech lands did not start in 1918.--Posp68 (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Removed the sentence, see edit log for clarification, inconsistent.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2020 (UTC))

Historical boundaries are a crucial piece of information.--Posp68 (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Please wp:indent your replies. The information about "historical boundaries" is still said in two sentences right after each other following your last edit. Do we need to write that the historical boundaries of Bohemia and Moravia were maintained in multiple sentence in a single paragraph???--Ermenrich (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Anon Posp68 and his IP addresses blocked for 1 week!

The actions of anon Posp68 drove me off editing wikipedia and made me realize how vulnerable it is to persistent actions by an anonymous entity. If your edits have been reversed or bastardized by Posp68 or one of their IP addresses, now is your opportunity to improve the article - Posp68 has been banned until 26 June. Tandrasz (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

To Emmerich, I have read "View history", and I am not posp68, but I must say that one does not need references to claim that Czechoslovakia would have been under attack from all sides if Germany, Poland and Hungary had attacked Czechoslovakia.

Quack quack, wp:DUCK. How many IPs that geolocate to Norway and also are quite bad at formatting their edits do you think edit this article?--Ermenrich (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Permanently blocked, now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.51.247 (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Zaolzie Legion attack on the evening of the 23-24 September

Presently the only source in this article describing the attack is Goldstein and Lukes, which describes it thus:

"On 23-24 September, orders were given to the so-called 'Battle Units' of Trans-Olza Poles and to the 'Trans-Olza Legion' made up of volunteers being assembled from all over the country to cross into that territory and attack Czech strong points. However, the few that did so were repulsed by well-prepared Czech troops and retreated into Poland"

There is no mention of an attack by the actual Polish army here. Who the commands came from is not described (judging by the previous sentence discussing the Polish government, it appears to have come from them, but Goldstein & Lukes does not explicitly state this). It is a simple matter of accuracy, and by no means an excuse for Poland's actions, that the attack was by volunteers/irregulars, not by the Polish army itself. Saying that the actual Polish army attacked requires a source saying so. The Baliszewski reference cited in the same paragraph does not describe this attack at all, and so does not provide basis for the claim that it was the Polish army that attacked. FOARP (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Zaolzie legion was directly subordinate to army command. The original plan was to fill its ranks only with Poles with Czechoslovak citizenship (same as in case of Freikorps), however there were too few so they started accepting Polish citizens too. All of the officers were regular Polish army officers (unlike in case of Freikorps, where there were no Wehrmacht soldiers neither officers). Also, while there was effort in Germany to equip the Freikorps with weapons from Austrian stockpile (and avoid fielding Wehrmacht's weaponry), the Zaolzie Legion had full Polish army equipment.

So even though they were a stand-alone unit, they were part of Polish armed forces. Claiming otherwise makes about as much sense as claiming that French Foreign Legion is not part of French armed forces.

There were about 60.000 Polish soldiers moved towards the border, some 35.000 of them part of the taskforce created with aim of invading Zaolzie. There were around 2.000 within this taskforce that were part of the Zaolzie Legion.

Had the 2.000 succeeded, the rest of the 35.000 would follow and move in after them. Unfortunately for the Poles at the same moment when Warszaw gave order to attack, a decision was made in Prague to prepare border lines into full battle readiness - and that primarily to face German invasion, but included also Polish part of the border. The Polish forces expected to get through easy and encounter perhaps a few police officers at the border - with the forts being empty. Instead they ran into fully manned and equipped military fortification. I'll add sources. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

FOARP - please read upon the issue before introducing further changes, such as your latest:

grouped its army units]] near its common border with Czechoslovakia and also instigated generally unsuccesful sabotage on 23 September

You are confusing actions undertaken by Komitet Siedmiu on 22 September within Czechoslovakia with cross-border attack undertaken by Zaolzie Legion as inherent part of Polish military on 23 September. Those were two different attacks, so please do not change it in the lead any more. You can add details about the terror attacks on 22 September into text of the article further below. They were important geopolitically, however the 60.000 soldiers on the border, of which 2.000 in the Zaolzie Legion tried to invade, is the more important part, that is why it is in the lead. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

You can explain it further in the article, but in the introduction you need to be more concise without being unnecessarily confusing Marcelus (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Cimmerian praetor - I didn't make the edit that you are criticising above, that was Marcelus. You seem to be editing the article based on information in sources not currently present in the article. If you want to include this please add these sources in so they can be assessed.

Goldstein & Lukes describes the Zaolzie legion as a volunteer organisation, and it seems to have been some kind of formation of irregulars that the Poles could use in deniable fashion. For the record Goldstein & Lukes seems to describe both an attack on Czech strong points and some kind of failed uprising, but on very small scale. I don't think it is accurate to describe it only as sabotage either, since G&L describe an attack on strong points. This isn't making excuses for the Polish government, simply accuracy about the scale/nature of the attack - saying "the Polish army attacked" gives the inaccurate impression that an all-out attack was launched by the Polish army, which simply isn't the case. In fact from the description of G&L not even most of the Zaolzie legion took part in the attack. FOARP (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Why was this source deleted https://historia.uwazamrze.pl/artykul/1149147/prawda-o-zaolziu from DARIUSZ BALISZEWSKI??

Dariusz Baliszewski (14 April 1946 – 10 August 2020[1]) was a Polish historian, journalist and writer. Author of television show "Rewizja nadzwyczajna", he was a common author of historical articles to one of the biggest Polish magazines, Wprost. He specialized in Polish 20th century history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dariusz_Baliszewski — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.164.149 (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that article is particular reliable to be honest - I mean it ends with the (controversial) claim that Benes was a Soviet agent. But more to the point it doesn't say anything about the Polish actions in the Munich crisis that (better) sources also say (e.g., Goldstein & Lukes) and literally says nothing about a Polish army attack. FOARP (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Cimmerian praetor - You're presently repeatedly trying to re-add the Baliszewski reference. My questions are 1) what do you think it says in terms of the Polish army that Goldstein and Lukes does not say - please quote the relevant part if possible, and 2) whether you are OK with the other things the Baliszewski reference says (e.g., that Benes was a Soviet agent)? FOARP (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Těšín was part of the historic Czech lands of Bohemian Crown - Crown of Saint Václav. Ref. Leslie, R. F. : The History of Poland, Cambridge University Press, 1980, p. 4. This should be mentioned on this article. Okay?

Two opportunities to improve

Great article. Truly. I've read till the "Polish and Hungarian actions" not included. Only two compound sentences seem to lack sense, the ones based on references [18] and [25] respectively.Szozdakosvi (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)