Template talk:Czechoslovakia in World War II

Untitled

Interesting, may I suggest inclusion of Battle of the Dukla Pass and writing an article on the Czechoslovakian 1st Army [1] and adding it to the template, too (see the battle's order of battle for other names)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Battle of the Dukla Pass added, thanks for the hint. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This template should be categorized in the template hierarchy.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you know the proper categories please ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Category:Czech navigational boxes is probably one of them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Coat of arms in template

Wouldn't it be better to replace coat of arms of (then non-existent) Czech Republic with small or medium CoA of Czechoslovakia? I believe it's much more appropriate for WWII period, but I'm not sure if I am able to edit templates correctly.--ja_62 (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Done.--ja_62 (talk) 08:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Move

@Buidhe:, the move was made becuase the subject is the govt-in-ex, the state ceased earlier then the event referred.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC))

• No, the template clearly does not just cover the government in exile, it also covers what happened in the Czechoslovak territory. (t · c) buidhe 06:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe:,

not "in the Czechoslovak territory", but in the former Czechoslovak territory, Czechoslovakia did not exist during the time.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC))

@Buidhe:,

could you explain this: ([2]), in which you erronously state in the edit log that accuarately would descibe content? (see my earlier reply).(KIENGIR (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC))

It's inaccurate to imply that the template only covers the government in exile when its coverage is clearly much more broad than that. {{Czechoslovak government in exile}} could be a valid template but it would have very different content, purged of most of what's here. (t · c) buidhe 12:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

"Czechoslovakia did not exist during the time" is nonsense. Sure, it got occupied and split, but the Western Allies did not recognize these illegal acts as valid, and Czechoslovakia continued to exist de jure, represented by its exile government, which was also reflected on western made maps which continued to depict it with its post-Munich borders. Azure94 (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

To add to what I said previously, the fact that Czechoslovakia continued to exist by international law, was the reason why Western countries never recognized an independent Slovak State, or the Bohemian Protectorate. Czechoslovakia was not the only country that continued to be recognized de jure, Poland was in the exact same situation. Sure, it got occupied and dismembered, but the Allies continued to depict it on maps and Polish armies continued to fight on the Western Front. This is why Wikipedia has categories like "Category:Poland in World War II" or even entire articles titled "History of Poland (1939–1945)". Will you demand us to move those pages too, since by your flawed definition, Poland didn't "exist" during WW2 either? Bottom line, it's completely in-line with Wikipedia's mission to have a template that links readers to articles about important WW2 Czechoslovak events and people. Azure94 (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Azure,

unfortunately you don't have an expert knowledge in the subject, what you assert here are fallacious. No, Slovakia proclaimed it's independence and established the Slovak State, with that the country ceased to exist (was not illegal), etc. your so-called "Western Allies" only did not recognize events after the outbreak of WWII, but not before, so there was not any de jure existence in continuation. The government-of exile was established much later, and only sought recognition from the Allies, as is, nothing more. Hence your further conclusions are erroneus about the international law and anything else you falsely believe.

Poland's case is totally different, since it was part of WWII, and the Soviets became part of the Allies after (btw. just Allied recognition is not decisive or binding in general, but the two case is totally different by many other aspects and whereabouts, as these recognitions rapidly changed over time). Consequently your remarks about categories are ignored, since they were based on a false premise.

@Buidhe: (I answer you here, not directly),

I see, could you propose any solution that would solve my concern?(KIENGIR (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC))

Even if you reject Czechoslovak state continuity (which is accepted by the postwar Czechoslovak government, the present governments of Czechia and Slovakia, etc.) then surely Czechoslovakia is also a valid region/area. (t · c) buidhe 22:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe:,

here must be a misundertanding, these are beyond my opinion, these are facts, we have clear date when the Czechoslovakia ceased to exist, as well when the goxt-exile-was formed, also recognition issues are clear (explained), the state was reestablished in 1945, it the so-called "acceptance" of postwar Czechoslovak government or the present governments are irrelevant, they cannot change history back in time. As well you should be aware e.g. how the Allies recurrently changed recognitions over time, even in a contradictive matter, even postwar on entities, territories, etc. Hence, we could speak about only former region/area (however, such region never existed).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC))

• Whether a nation / country "ceased to exist" is not strictly relevant to how Wikipedia covers the period. If it were true, we would not have articles such as History of Poland (1939–1945), The Holocaust in Lithuania, and so on. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:,

it is true that WP is not perfect, but we should tend to it. These examples are not truly akin, as explained above, moreover this is a template. Such country like Czechoslovakia did not exist in this period - and not because of WWII - since it ceased before, however was reestablished after.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC))

It is perfectly correct in terms of historiography to use the names of Czechoslovakia, France, Poland, Yugoslavia, Austria, China, Greece, Romania etc. for the WWII history of countries that were occupied and split under Axis puppet governments. In fact, doing otherwise (i.e. adopting the name of the puppet governments for period naming) is not only imperfect, it is adopting Axis rationale as superior in legitimacy to that of the legal regimes. Place Clichy (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Place Clichy:,

Sorry, no, your mass generalization fails and you even mix up different cases which are not even similar, or has nothing to do with this issue (like you would not have read appropriately the discussion, or would not know in genreal appropriately the WWII situation of these countries overall, etc.). "Czechoslovakia" is not perfectly correct, since it did not exist during world war II, even ceased before, as already explained, consequently it is not part of the "WWII history of countries that were occupied and split under Axis puppet governments". Hence, your last sentence I do not even analize further, since it was based on a false premise (anyway what it coins at first glance seems as well a bit erroneus).(KIENGIR (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC))

That's your opinion. Others argue that there is an interrupted history for these countries that temporarily disappeared or changed form during WWII. Anyway, the template (just like Czechoslovak war history) is not limited to the government-in-exile, so if there was a renaming it should be to a different name. Place Clichy (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Place Clichy:,

what I say is not my opinion per se, they are historical facts, just because good faith ignorance in the topic exist, as a usually rendered common fallacy does not change that (so I am quite surpized why you repeat during WWII, such does not exist in this case). On your last sentence, well that's I asked for a better solution.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC))

Nobody in their right mind would dispute the fact that after March 1939 Czechoslovakia was split between German-annexed Sudetenland, the Protectorate, the Slovak State and Hungary. However they are still all part of Czechoslovakia history, see for instance how that term is used in main article German occupation of Czechoslovakia which covers the entire 1938-45 period. Place Clichy (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Please, either drop this timewasting discussion or open a move request to determine actual consensus for the proposal. (t · c) buidhe 19:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Place Clichy:,

Again a mistake (!), no, the Sudetenland question was settled in 1938 by the Munich agreement, after by the proclamation of the Slovak state the state ceased to exist in March 1939. After, Hungary annexed eastern parts, while the next day the Protectorate was proclaimed following the negotiations with Hácha. The subject was not if it would be part of the Czechslovak history, neither what timeline the cited article covers (in fact the title is misunderstandable and misleading, since Czechoslovakia was not occupied by Germany, but it's another issue). What we are discussing about that such like "Czechoslovakia in World War II" was non-existent. Point.

Buidhe, no reason to step forward without a contructive discussion, why to repeat twice? The error is not on my part, there is not any problem if we are willing to discuss.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC))

This is the last time I answer in this discussion. There's no mistake (!), I wrote that after March 1939 Czechoslovakia was split... (i.e. there was no CS state left on the ground after this date), not that it was split exactly in March 1939. That's pretty irrelevant to this discussion actually, we all agree which state or power held ground when and where. Place Clichy (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Place Clichy:,

you put the Sudetenland case after the date, however the exact term splitting may be arguable, like it would be one general action, which it was not. Yes, we agree after 14 March no CS state has left.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC))