Talk:1948 Czechoslovak coup d'état

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

New article or spin off?[edit]

Was this article started from scratch or was it spun off from somewhere else? --Irpen 22:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Either way, it's a great article. Good work people. - TheMightyQuill 23:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I began it from scratch. TheMightyQuill, I thank you for your praise. Biruitorul 23:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I was just asking. --Irpen 04:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's obvious this page was invented from scratch. Invented by someone who belongs to the Joseph Goebbles school of historical interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.111.179 (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"Waaaaa! Socialism is BAD and Capitalism is GOOD! Says angry 'Murikan man-child[edit]

This article should be read by all Communists who still believe that the former Stalinist Eastern Europe was great. This coup d'état of 1948 in Czechoslovakia shows how evil the Stalinists were. Stalinism has no respect for Democracy, nor for Human rights.

I see this article as something all Communists should read, to see how evil some people were who called them self communists. Democracy ( Democracy in the whole picture ) is a system which is the best at the moment for the human race. Its not the best, but a lest the less worst of all government types.

--UDSS (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

To the windbag who wrote the above tosh: how old are you? 10? 12? You have an infantile understanding of the history of CZ, and the bloviating against socialism is very boring and most unconvincing. I get so sick of conservatives who demonize socialism using phony "socialism is evil" bromides. Go back to playing computer games on your Sony Playstation, and let the adults do the talking here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.72.160 (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

The fact that some people who call themselves Communist are evil signifies nothing, Ngo Dinh Diem called himself Democratic and look at his offences against humanity. Are you going to reject your own political beliefs because a foreign dictator bastardized your values for his own political advancement? No, of course not. And neither will they. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.73.9 (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This article confirms the fact that the people who write and control these pages have one agenda only - demonize anything to do with communists by spreading fascist and neo-conservative tripe about "Stalinism", and apologize for any people or organizations who led former socialist countries into barbarous capitalism from 1989 onwards. There is absolutely no attempt to be balanced, neutral or objective, which is what one would hope for from an encyclopaedia-type source. The revolution in 1948 was not a "coup" - it had mass support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.111.179 (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above comment: if you carefully read how this so-called "coup" transpired, it in fact was not a "coup" at all. A coup, by definition is a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government. And this did not happen here. Benes in fact realized the Communists had broad support all over the country and decided to cooperate with them in forming the new government. This is not to say that there were machinations by the KSC to gain power, but both sides were doing this kind of political maeuvering. Look at how GW Bush took office in the US 2000 election: it is easily much worse and more corrupt takeover of office by a right wing supreme court decree, which anointed Bush president and deliberately halted the vote recount in Florida, knowing full well in advance that allowing the recount to happen would make Bush the loser. My point in bringing up the Bush 2000 "victory" shows how American elections are even more corrupt than what happened in CZ in 1948! Yes, of course the communism in CZ had many major flaws, such as no freedom of movement across borders, forced labor, no freedom of the press, etc. But to call how the KSC came into power a "coup" is to fall into the trap of western capitalist propaganda narrative, where anything socialist is immediately branded "Stalinism"; to lie and deny the fact that there were millions of Czechs who wanted communism in CZ at that time, and to re-write history for the gain of western capitalist narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.72.160 (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

POV[edit]

I think this is a good informative article. I'm not an expert in the field, but as the commenter above demonstrates, the article tends to manipulate a reader's emotions: a potentially "positive" outcome slips away and is destroyed by the Soviets and communists. Phrases like this one in the "Impact" section only exacerbate the problem of this article:

For the second time in a decade, Western eyes saw Czech independence and democracy snuffed out by a totalitarian dictatorship intent on dominating a small and decent country[13]–at least the Soviets assisted, although it was Czech communists who had done most of the "dirty work".

"Small and decent" is a sentimental description for an encyclopedia article. This "dirty work" apparently also included the 1946 elections, in which as is noted the KSC won by quite a large plurality. Who were these people? Why did they vote for a communist party? What was so bad in their country that they actively voted for a political system that would radically change their society? These questions are unanswered here and mostly unanswered in the KSC article. Clearly this election is a *key* moment because it laid the groundwork for a more parliamentary-style coup as opposed to a proletarian revolution or a purely military coup. Who were these communist voters? One of the key moments to potentially describe this situation in this article is this:

However, by the summer of 1947 the KSČ had alienated whole blocs of potential voters: the activities of the Ministry of Interior and police were acutely offensive to many citizens; farmers objected to talk of collectivization, and some workers were angry at communist demands that they increase output without being given higher wages. The general expectation was that the communists would be soundly defeated in the May 1948 elections.

These are massive claims to be making and my suspicion is that this is inserted to emphasize the Russian's involvement and lessen the culpability of the average Czech citizen. There are many footnotes in this article but there is no footnote to backup these significant claims. And these claims do not jive with the description of "massive communist-led demonstrations" and "a speech before 100,000" a few paragraphs below.

Again, I think this is a good informative article, the influence of the Soviets is well documented here, especially because most of the Reference books seem to be by Americans. Hindsight is 20/20, but this article needs more emphasis given to the communist Czech citizen who was clearly dissatisfied with the status quo and provided the feet in the street.Guavas (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say the whole article is caracterized by POV. Like:

Although Czechoslovakia's industrial growth of 170 percent between 1948 and 1957 was impressive, it was far exceeded by that of Japan (300 percent) and the Federal Republic of Germany (almost 300 percent) and more than equaled by Austria and Greece.

Can't they at least have that...? It's not a very neutral way of putting it. I think a comparison between potential of industrial growth in a certain political system would require a lot more substance. For example you have different starting points, and it's a big difference if you receive help like for example the Marshall Plan. Vic242 (talk) 09:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Where in the article did you see that? I can't find it. - Biruitorul Talk 16:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Problematic Title[edit]

The title and the content of this article are rather partisan misrepresentations of history. There is considerable scholarship from Czechoslovakia showing that the events of February 1948 constituted a popular revolution. It is quite bizarre to call the palace coup against Milos Jakes in November 1989 a revolution while misrepresenting the February Revolution of 1948 in which millions of workers went out on strike as a putsch. RZimmerwald (talk) 04:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to bring some sources backing up your claim, and we can discuss. Biruitorul Talk 13:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
FYI, RZimmerwald unilaterally renamed the article on the attempted 1924 Stalin-led coup in Estonia as a popular uprising—I believe this is part of a wider attempt at misconstruing history. —PētersV (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think RZimmerwald's opinions on Estonia in 1924 is really relevant to the subject, but I would still like to say that it's not uncommon to have different views on more than one historical event. However I don't think this is the place for a more general discussion on history. I would like to add that I agree with RZimmerwald that the title signals a certain POV. Vic242 (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick search of google books cionfirme that the term "coup" is commonly applicable to the event. Although there was no force used directly (unlike, e.g., frequent South American coups), the threat of the force was real. Therefore it is commonly called "coup" (by opponents; and of course a more positive term is used by supporters), despite the situation was formally handled by parliamentary means. Lovok Sovok (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The influence of the Red Army[edit]

One thing I have noted in this article is that the fact that the Soviet Red Army troops were on Czechoslovak soil from the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945 trough the 1948 coup is not clearly mentioned, but it seems like this was the crucial factor behind the Communist takeover. As an example, Finland was under extreme Soviet economic influence and political pressure (it even had a powerful Finnish Communist Party) immediately after World War II, but it did not become a Communist state. Finland kept its parliamentary, multi-party system and had no Soviet troops on its territory.--MaGioZal (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oddly enough, it seems that there were no Soviet troops on Czechoslovak soil at that point either (source:'Austria, Germany, and the Cold War: from the Anschluss to the State Treaty' by Rolf Steininger (2008), p.82.)--91.148.159.4 (talk) 05:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Belligerents[edit]

Czechoslovak Government (with link to president Edvard Benes...) vs Communist Party of Czechoslovakia? Strange... Wasn´t Klement Gottwald prime minister of this very government? So he leaded coup against himself... (at least in this wikibox)Pavlor (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Wasn´t Klement Gottwald prime minister of this very government? So he leaded coup against himself... It's called an auto-coup. Marx himself wrote a book with a title referencing an auto-coup by one Louis Napoleon, who in your words, "leaded coup against himself." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.249.32 (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)