Talk:1918 occupation of Međimurje

title

Wouldn't "annexation" be a more conventional word for this? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Not entirely sure. The Kingdom of SHS did not formally annex the territory. The proclamation was done by a sort of local government, but everyone involved waited until the Paris Peace Conference produced a solution. Undoubtedly possession of control over a territory makes certian decisions easier.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

This being said, I'm not against either solution, just thought this would be less specific legally.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The word incorporation could also be used, but that also has a separate meaning. I looked for other examples, and it's not immediately clear - there's Austro-Hungarian rule in Bosnia and Herzegovina and November 1918 in Alsace-Lorraine, both of which is actually more generalized. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a native speaker with knowledge in the milhist field could provide advice. Peacemaker67 could you weigh in?--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Yugoslav rule in Međimurje imo would imply a topic span of 70-ish years, November/December 1918 in Međimurje seems vague. In essence, the title should be whatever is normally used by reliable sources to describe the events, but there's so few sources available it's hard to determine any prevailing form. Vuk's article contains an English language summary and it uses the term annexation in the title. For this reason I believe it might be justified to use the same in this article's title - unless it is problematic as e.g. legally imprecise because the KSHS did not formally annex the territory before the Treaty of Trianon awarded it the same. OF course, the comparison with Alsace is further complicated by the fact that France had an established constitution, central government etc unlike KSHS at the time. I was wondering about proper title before moving the article from my sandbox and found no obvious solution. I'm not set on (or against) any particular formulation.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I have found "occupation" to be best in such situations. ie 1918 occupation of Međimurje. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

That's fine by me.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I've mostly seen "pripojenje" (annexation), "zaposjedanje" (occupation) and "oslobođenje" (liberation) used in Croatian sources, while they typically used "okupacija" (occupation) for the Hungarian actions in 1941. Occupation seems like a safe choice, as that was the formal state of affairs from late '18 to mid '20. Should probably split off the pre-Trianon events from the Aftermath section, though. What was the state of the military presence in the region through 1919? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Hm, right. That would change the scope of the article from the military operation carried out in December 1918 (which I intended to cover) to a broader history of events spanning 1918-1920 or thereabout. There's precious little on the 1918 events and I saw virtually nothing on the period until 1920, so I'm not quite sure the change of scope would be feasible.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the title of the article should be the answer to question: "What is the name of the military operations discussed by the article?"--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

If you want to restrict it to the military aspect alone, then "occupation" could still work, though "invasion" also becomes an obvious choice. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'd rather limit the scope for the time being for the above reasons. Oh, I'm fine with "occupation" used in this sense.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:1918 occupation of Međimurje/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 19:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I plan to review the article, please ping me if I forget about it. (t · c) buidhe 19:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• Italian forces followed retreating Austro-Hungarian troops returning home from the Italian Front. Those based in Hungary were returning in trains that travelled through Međimurje, a part of the Hungary's Zala County that was located between the Drava and Mura rivers, and was mostly inhabited by Croats. I'm confused, are "those based in..." Italian or Austro Hungarian troops?
  • I meant the Austro-Hungarian troops normally based in Hungary. I spelled it out in the article now. (T)
• insurrectionists also targeted anyone they perceived as enemies on ethnic grounds I take it the rebels were mostly Croats and the perceived enemies were Hungarian? could you make this clearer based on the sources?
  • Yes, Croats were 90%+ of the population and rebels against the rulers (who happened to be Hungarians) prompted by hunger, repression etc. and added Wilsonian ideas of self-determination into the mix of causes/justifications for the revolt. Added some more context for clarity. Could you take one more look now. (T)
    • That's an improvement but I'm not sure about the sentence Specifically, they targeted Hungarians seeking to drive them out of the region declaring that they wish to remove them on "Wilsonian grounds", implying self-determination of the region. Were the Hungarians trying to drive Croats out of the area, afraid that they were going to separate? Or was it vice versa?
      • The sources indicate that the rebels targeted Hungarians as ethnic group (minority) in the region, without going into much details and wealthy landowners/managers of their estates (looting). The sources also indicate reprisals by the Hungarian troops against rebels as well as civilians they thought were supporting the rebels or guilty of looting - public beatings and listing summary executions of non-Hungarians (Croats and Roma). The sources do not seem to support any claim of Hungarians trying to drive out Croat population from the region, and I don't think that would even be possible in the context of crumbling Hungarian troops, overall lack of security in the immediate postwar period, and having less than 10% of Hungarian population in the region (likely less than 5%). (T)
• I'm confused by the timeline of the revolt. It doesn't make sense that it mostly subsided by 4 November after starting a few days earlier but it took until 12 November to get to the last rebel area.
  • That was poor choice of words. By 4 November violence by the rebels generally stopped since little was left to loot and they were not advancing (or even trying to advance) anywhere. Then they were pushed back by 12 November. (T)
• blaming mercenaries and Hungarian Green Cadres for the violence who is blaming?
  • The source says it was the National Council members without specifying exactly who and it this is stated in a record of the meeting. I assume the record is only a summary. (T)
• I'm confused what's going on with Royal Hungarian Honvéd and the Common Army. Were they on the side of the rebels/attackers or Hungarian state? If the latter why were they invading Yugoslavia?
  • They were returning home after the armistice passing through Varaždin and then Međimurje. No source indicates they took part in the revolt or quelling the rebellion - it's just that some of their weapons were taken (stolen or bought) by the rebels. (T)

Thanks for taking time to review the article. I have tried to address the issues you pointed out above. Could you please take another look at them to see if the changes are satisfactory and bring up any other concerns you might have. Cheers --Tomobe03 (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I reworded the a couple of sentences to clarify who wanted to drive out whom. Could you take another look at them please? --Tomobe03 (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.