Talk:Slovak National Uprising

Repetition

In several cases, the article goes over the same facts two, or even three, times. I did a quick copy edit, but someone may want to give this a more thorough going over. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:17, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Weak citation

One section seems to me to be particularly in need of some citation. In the section The Uprising begins, we have:

Since the end of the war, great controversy has persisted over the role the Soviets played in the uprising.

So far so good, if borne out.

Supporters of the Soviet Union claimed the Soviet Army liberated Slovakia and strongly supported the uprising. Most history written since the war was written either by the communists who took control of Czechoslovakia in 1948 or by fascist supporters of Jozef Tiso who managed to escape Slovakia after the fall of the puppet state in 1945.

Likely enough, though some citations would be nice.

Evidence is emerging from previously-closed secret state archives…

Here's where we start to get in trouble. "Evidence" doesn't "emerge" on its own. Whose research is being cited here? What documents from what archives?

…that the Soviets under Stalin's orders deliberately withheld promised support for the Slovak Army during the uprising in order to bleed any democratic forces and open the way for "Bolshevization" of Czechoslovakia after the war.

Note that there are three claims here: a claim that support was withheld, a claim that this was deliberate, and a claim of a particular motivation. Even the first should get a citation; each successive claim more so, as it goes deeper into the realm of motivation.

And so forth: "…Further evidence is emerging…[unnamed] Supporters of this latter version of history… They ([unnamed]) further cite [unspecified] recently-released [as of when] communiques between Churchill and Roosevelt regarding Stalin's refusal…

Jmabel | Talk 04:17, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Just a remark: I am not an expert on this uprising, but the statement that new information has been found recently from previously-closed archives is totally new to me. It would be very helpful, indeed, if the contributor could cite some sources or be more precise...I am afraid, however, that he was one of those IPs that we will never see again. Juro 19:35, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

If there are no citations forthcoming, I am going to feel free to edit this "mercilessly". -- Jmabel | Talk 21:23, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm largely cutting it. FWIW, here's the passage I cut; if someone can back this with citations, great, and something like this would then belong in the article:

Since the end of the war, great controversy has persisted over the role the Soviets played in the uprising. Supporters of the Soviet Union claimed the Soviet Army liberated Slovakia and strongly supported the uprising. Most history written since the war was written either by the communists who took control of Czechoslovakia in 1948 or by fascist supporters of Jozef Tiso who managed to escape Slovakia after the fall of the puppet state in 1945. Evidence is emerging from previously-closed secret state archives that the Soviets under Stalin's orders deliberately withheld promised support for the Slovak Army during the uprising in order to bleed any democratic forces and open the way for "Bolshevization" of Czechoslovakia after the war. This is supported in part by the fact that the vast majority of transports to Slovakia from the Soviets carrying arms and combatants were intended only for the Soviet-controlled partisans, whose aim and mission often conflicted with the insurrectional Slovak Army and its political leadership under Dr. Eduard Beneš in London. Further evidence is emerging that the Soviets sent dozens of transports filled with political commissars to attach to fighting partisan units during the uprising thereby setting the stage for reorganization of the political landscape in Czechoslovakia, which was promised to Stalin by Churchill and Roosevelt to remain in the Soviet "sphere of influence" during and after the war. Supporters of this latter version of history cite Soviet actions in the Warsaw Uprising that occurred nearly the same time as the Slovak uprising. They further cite recently-released communiques between Churchill and Roosevelt regarding Stalin's refusal to allow allied assistance to the resistance fighters in Warsaw and how Roosevelt refused to act against Stalin or without his approval.

Barring citation, I have reduced this merely to

Controversy persists over whether the Soviets gave wholehearted support to the uprising, or limited their support in order to "bleed" democratic forces and open the way for "Bolshevization" of Czechoslovakia after the war. Czechoslovakia was promised to Stalin by Churchill and Roosevelt to remain in the Soviet "sphere of influence" during and after the war.

Jmabel | Talk 06:56, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Essentially the same edit was restored yesterday, still without citation. I have reverted it again. If these claims have a basis, provide citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should talk to the IP directly on "its" talk page...Juro 03:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to do so. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The whole paragraph about the controversy over the Soviet support to the uprising is unnecessary because it is not supported by any cited or well-known evidence. Stalin had not been concerned by the regimes in Eastern Europe (except Poland) until 1945 and Western leaders started their discussions about the political control of the liberated territories (Poland again) only in February 1945. Even the infamous Churchill’s plan to delineate spheres of influence (October 1944) did not include Czechoslovakia, whose government was perfectly acceptable to both sides. That is why Soviets retreated so quickly after the war. Consequently, I propose the removal of the “Controversy persists…” paragraph. If there will be no objections raised in one month, I will do it.Tankred 22:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Since there was no citation added, I removed the "Controversy persist..." paragraph. The reasons are explained above.Tankred 20:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 87.197.176.72

I reverted the last edits by 87.197.176.72 because I see them as pure vandalism. For example, 87.197.176.72 changed the word "uprising", which is a good description of what happened in 1944, into "riots", the "anti-Nazi resistance movement" into "pro-czech underground and communist movement", and the "Czechoslovakian government in exile" into the "puppet personal dicatorship". In addition to POV pushing, those edits were written in poor English (e.g. "tarror", "autoritarian", "to restore of sth."). 87.197.176.72 also added a link to a website of a political party, which has been recently declared by a Slovak court to attempt destruction of the democratic regime in Slovakia. I think this link, included in the main text by the way, shows whose POV the IP tried to push. Tankred 12:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Second paragraph

I took the freedom to change the second paragraph. I think that now it better depicts the "controversy".

Good job. Tankred 19:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Agency

From the article: "…an armed insurrection organized by the Slovaks…" What does it even mean to say that an ethnicity organized an insurrection? - Jmabel | Talk 00:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I have fixed that. Tankred 21:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Some misunderstanding of Slovak National Uprising in en.wiki

1) most of Slovak histography regards that Casus belli of uprising was more complicated, then "Nazi influence in Slovakia" as it is in said in article. Uprising (as struggle of 1st Czechoslovak Army in Slovakia, that was the official name of the insurrence army) started after the German troops crossed Slovak borders on West and Northwest. Nazi troops were ordered to occupate Slovak republic after growing activity of partisain movement in Slovakia, that started to harm German supply and logistic roots of Army Group Nord Ukrajine fighting in Eastern Carpathians, Southern Poland and Eastern Hungary. In addition: Slovak partisan groups were mostly (but not in overall) organized or led by Soviet officers, that had little or no evidence about preparation of uprising. Mainly because cooperation between anti-nazi officers of Slovak army and Soviets (including soviet partisans) was unadequate. Only on 2 August 1944 Slovak He 111 with cpt. Mikuláš Ferjenčík (representative of anti-nazi resistence in Slovak army) and Karol Šmidke (representative of Slovak communist party) secretly flew to meet with Soviet side in Vinnitsa (Ukrajine). But plane was damaged by AAA fire and forced to land in field few kilometers behind Soviet lines. When finaly Slovak negotiatiors meet the Soviet officials, the negotiations were slow.

2) Insurrence 1st Czechoslovak Army in Slovakia can't be defined as Slovak Republic (1939-1945) as it is in Infobox. Even though the leaders of insurrence army were Slovaks, they opposed the regime of Slovak republic, which became German puppet. They knew that existence of independent Slovak state is impossible after defeat of Nazi Germany and relied on reconstruction of Czechoslovak republic. --91.127.14.155 09:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A mistake

The infobox in the article lists "Hermann Höfle" as the commander of the SS units tasked to counter-strike the SNU, with a wikilink to SS-Sturmbannführer Hermann Höfle (*1911 - †1962), notorious for his role in the "Operation Reinhard" (and the telegraph he sent to the RSHA revealing the numbers of victims of the "Operation" during july - december 1942); in fact, the commander of the SS units sent to suppress the Uprising was not SS-StBF H. Höfle (a rank comparable to a major) but SS-Obergruppenführer und General der Waffen-SS Hermann Höffle (obviously an SS-general and a general of the W-SS at that time; *1898 - †1947 (executed in Bratislava, Czechoslovakia)); though their names are easy to confuse, they were nevertheless two different persons. Because of this, I'll abolish the wikilink to the StBF H. Höfle article.--84.163.87.242 (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Air forces

Someone should add that this uprising was supported by 21 fighter aicrafts La-5FN , those were operating from airfield Zolna (near Banska Bystrica) . It was a part of : http://www.czechpatriots.com/csmu/corp-1airregiment.php They were a part of cs. forces in Soviet Union , they send too an airborne brigade: http://www.czechpatriots.com/csmu/corp-2brigade.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.28.82.39 (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Added.--Pelex (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Fate Leaders Insurgency

The infobox lists Golian and Viest as having been killed in action. Both however seem to have been captured and executed at a much later date. I propose we have the infobox correctly display this. D(r)ead End (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

English

Don't like the english in "In the post-war period, many political entities attempted to "hijack" the uprising to their credit mainly the Communists." One could change it to "... to their credit, and among these, in particular the Communists." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masonmilan (talk • contribs) 07:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistencies with article on Dukla Pass

This article seems to blame the Soviets for the failure of the uprising: "instead of adhering to the agreed plan, on 30 August Colonel Talský and the entire eastern Slovak Air Force flew to a prearranged landing zone in Poland to join the Soviet Army, and abandoned the two divisions at Prešov. The two divisions, left in chaos and without leadership, were quickly disarmed on the afternoon of 30 August without a single shot. Consequently, the uprising commenced prematurely and lost a crucial component of their plan, as well as the two most heavily armed divisions," and "The main military objectives were not achieved due to the bad timing of the uprising and lack of cooperation by Soviet partisans." In the Battle of the Dukla Pass article, however, it says: "The Slovak National Uprising was mostly crushed by the time Soviet units secured Slovak territories; one of the main reasons for it was that the German resistance in the Dukla Pass was much heavier than expected. Another factor was that the Slovak insurgent forces failed to secure the other side of the pass, as planned by the Slovak and Soviet commanders during early preparations." So, which was it? Did the Soviets purposefully betray the Slovaks, sabotaging the plan to seize the other side of the pass by withdrawing leadership and support? Or did the Slovak insurgent forces fail to secure the pass, preventing a rapid Soviet advance that might have saved the uprising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.172.106 (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Translation of the excellent German article

Hi folks, in view of the upcoming SNP anniversary on 29 August, I would like to translate the excellent article from the German Wikipedia into English here. The German article already takes into account all the major sources available in English, alongside authoritative German and Slovak research. Does anyone have an objection to this? Best regards, --3mnaPashkan (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• 3mnaPashkan Would be a great improvement. The enwiki article is currently in poor shape as you can tell—I never had the time to fix it up unfortunately. (t · c) buidhe 20:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I have finally finished the translation! I will upload the translation tomorrow for the 80th anniversary :) Best regards, --3mnaPashkan (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)