Talk:Czechoslovakia/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Czechoslovakia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

WWII

The article implies that Czechoslovakia ceased to exist during the WWII, but exile government was formed in London and Czechoslovakia de iure existed through the war. Also the dates in "infobox" are then wrong in my opinion... --Motionofmind (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Munition Plants

what of the munitions manufacturing in Czech before Hitler invaded? I've heard that they were the 2nd largest mftr in east/west Europe (Vienna is EAST of Prague)? It would certainly justify the invasion...proximity of course being important as well...--dgd

The big armament manufacturer in Czechoslovakia was Skoda.

was it very large? was it in operation before WWII? Skoda eh?

It gets a big laugh so you remember it. It was a significant plant in Plzen (Pilsen), it took a couple of 300 bomber raids. Tanks made at the plant were used by the Germans in 1939-40 and it was "a leading producer of German armaments during World War II". The firm was established in the late C19.

-- Well, the Skoda which is now in Wikipedia mostly mentioned is a different factory. Originally, the Skoda company was located in Plzen. It became a huge machine industry factory before WWII. The Skoda in Mlada Boleslav (originally Laurin-Klement) was overtaken by Skoda Plzen. Nowadays, Skoda Plzen produces for example parts for nuclear power plants, locomotives and a lot other stuff, no cars. The cars are made by Skoda Mlada Boleslav, which has a completely different owner now.

RE:COMMENT:There is a paragraph missing which would say information about the first years of Czechoslovakia. Also a few words about minorities (german and hungarian)should be added. It is very important to understand the situation before these two countries joined the common nation of Czechoslovakia.Thanx. Martin

This page is for the discussion of the improvement of the article, not for discussion of the general subject of said article. Thank you,Silverbeak 15:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the intro paragraph mentioning all the names somewhat ridiculous? --seav 13:33, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)

Public domain resource

Public domain text (dated 1987) on Czechloslovakia can be found at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cstoc.html. --Jia ng

Very interesting (although slightly outdated). I will try to incorporate it into Czechoslovakia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. --Juro

This page is at its 32kB limit. Consider siphoning some off to individual articles (like the lists...) --Jia ng 01:12, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No need to crosspost text - it makes it hard to update. Let's just keep all the history in one place - in the daughter articles. --Jia ng 01:28, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Communist leaders must be together with the presidents and prime ministers (on what ever page), because the Communist leaders were the true leaders (and not the other 2) . That is how Communist countries worked and work. Juro And the short version of history was designed for those who have no time to read the long articles (like with the Brasilia or Rumania articles) or need to find quick info for one of the long articles. Now, nobody will be able to read the history. I will put it back later or create a separate History page if I do not hear a good reason. And where are the presidents now ???????????? Juro

Yes, a history of Czechoslovakia main article should be created, but it should be at most a summary. The history section on this page should be a one page summary, like in wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. A series table needs to be added to the history articles, like in History of Afghanistan, History of Algeria, etc. We could link on the PM and Presidents list pages "See Communist Party of Czechoslovakia for a list of Communist Party leaders". That will be enough. --Jia ng 04:00, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Neutral?

What's with this line in is also possible that the Moon landings were staged on a Hollywood sound stage. Beep, anything is possible -- whether it happened is another matter. Without either further elaboration or sourcing on this remark, it appears to be just an attempt at a backhanded slight against the people who were jailed for dissent. dasnyder 05:28, 18 July 2006

I think that taking atheism as a bad thing isn't neutral but even offensive. If you look at the context ("the country was characterized by the absence of democracy, the promotion of atheism, and relative economic backwardness compared to Western Europe"), the issue of the promotion of atheism is between 'bad' factors.

Apart of that, it isn't even necessary to mention the issue of the promotion of atheism. Many conutries promote religions and it is not explicited nor put as a bad thing.

The sentence does not say that atheism is bad or good. It simply says that atheism was promoted. The promotion of atheism is simply a fact, but it is necessary to mention it because it played an important role in the history of that country. Juro 03:11, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just pay atention to the context, "absence of democracy, the promotion of atheism, and relative economic backwardness". Perhaps you think it is an important fact, but Why then it has to be put between the negative factors?

The text part in question is supposed to be a very quick summary of all the detailed articles, therefore it is written in the simple "X, Y, W" style. If you really have a problem with that, you can put the atheism at the end of the sentence or to a separate sentence. But I still do not see any reason for this. Juro 20:36, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Listen, we have to be realistic. The article is criticizing the communist regime (wether it is explicit or not), and it gives, as one of the "bad" points of Czechoslovakia being communist, the issue with the promotion of atheism.

I believe in any God, and find the reference to atheism not necessary but despective, that's why I'm claiming this article isn't neutral.

comments...

- Carpathian Ruthenia became part of the Ukraine, not the USSR - the country "came under the influence of the Soviet Union"? This phrase does not appear on the pages regarding Italy, France and so forth, thus it is POV and is removed - absence of democracy? There were elections. Removing. Ruy Lopez 02:45, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you believe this is POV, check Poland, "Poland used to be a communist state, but democracy was restored in 1990, after the country became independent from the Soviet Union's sphere of influence."

Slovak version of "Czechoslovakia"

I lived in Czechoslovakia for many years but for the first time when I have seen the "hyphenized" name was in 90's when nationalists were comming to the power in Slovakia. From my point of view, it is quite funny. I don't think that today's Slovaks write it with the hyphen, and I know many Slovaks. It is more a darker and ridiculous short history of this country. It does not seem to me to be very useful information.

You are wrong. It's the codified form since 1990. It must be and is used in newspapers, on TV and at schools when referring to the country in general. Other forms can be used in historical texts only. Also, there is a distinction between československý and česko-slovenský now, the former meaning "referring to Czechoslovakism /anti-Slovakism", the latter meaning "referring to Czechoslovakia" (see for example the Krátky slovník slovenského jazyka of the Academy of sciences on the web) Juro 01:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He is right. The hyphenated version was first used before the creation of Czecho(-)slovakia, but then this use faded away as the country became more and more centralized, and the idea of Czechoslovak ethnicity brought forward. Until the velvet revolution, no one ever thought of using hyphenated version (with the exception of Slovak disidents and WWII years). After the velvet revolutions, as a result of "dash war", hyphenated version was made an official Slovak language name, but the days of Czechoslovakia were already numbered. Today, most Slovaks write (and say) the name without hyphen, since it refers to the historical name, witch was, after all, undoubtedly without hyphen (except of a short period since 1990 etcetera....). Hyphen is used by those people (a lot of them, though) who 1) want to make a point, or 2) try to use "correct" Slovak and use KSSJ as a guide (these are those who refuse to say "hmoždinka" or "kľudne") or 3) have something (whatever) against Czechs.

As for KSSJ, it's trying to be too much prescriptive, not descriptive - I know the authors personally, and believe me, the definitions pertaining to Czecho(-)slovakia are very mild compared with their (linguistic) opinions (now I hope no one of them is reading this :-)).

Some real world evidence (from Slovak National Corpus, as usually): lemma "československý" 5543 times, "česko"+"-"+lemma "slovenský" 2377 times (and a lot of this - I am not going to count how much though - is about Czech-Slovak sport competitions, since most of the texts are from newspapers and there are a lot of sport pages and a lot of matches between Czech Republic and Slovakia).

rado 09:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(1) What you are saying about the KSSJ authors applies equally to the authors of the Duden, Larousse etc. (but maybe not to those of Oxford - but there is always a difference between "normative" continental dictionaries and English language ones), (2) Do not forget that the hyphenated form is used by the newspapers, the TV and in schoolbooks too, so it's not only the KSSJ...Juro 02:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(1) of course. This is a long quarrel among linguists if their role should be more prescriptive or more descriptive. Bad is when politics come in. (2) in fact, the corpus consists mostly (~80%) of newspaper texts originated between 1993 and 2001. rado 08:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Motto

What is the difference between the two mottos?--the Dannycas 22:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The first one is in Czech, while the second one is in Latin. I do not know why. Juro 00:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't know it for sure but there's one possible explanation. Period of 89-92 was period when slovak nationalists came to the power (like "hyphenizing" Czechoslovakia) and "Pravda vítězí" is in czech, in slovak it would probably be "Pravda víťazí". So in latin it would be more neutral.

Because, unlike the name of the country, the motto would not be the same in both languages, and rather then having two mottoes in two languages, the government opted for one latin version. rado 18:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Misleading Intro

First sentence: Czechoslovakia (Czech: Československo, Slovak: Česko-Slovensko/before 1990 Československo) Isn't it strange? From this I understand, that name Česko-Slovensko was oficial name 1990-92 only in Slovak/ia, but it was oficial name of whole Czechoslovakia. I'd propose following sentence: Czechoslovakia (Czech, Slovak: Československo, after 1990 Česko-Slovensko) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.13.78.10 (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2006

This is no better since it gives the idea that Česko-Slovensko was official in both Czech and Slovak. I suggest: Czechoslovakia (Czech and Slovak: Československo; after 1990 — Czech: Československo, Slovak: Česko-Slovensko). However, I am not quite sure if there was indeed an official short name after 1990, the relevant laws are burried somewhere here: http://www.nrsr.sk/dk/ and I have no time to search through that. rado 09:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And I found the relevant laws, from 29 March 1990 here: http://www.mvcr.cz/sbirka/1990/sb019-90.pdf, which mentioned only the change from (ambiguous cs and sk) Československá socialistická republika into (cs) Československá federativní republika and this from 20 April 1990 http://www.mvcr.cz/sbirka/1990/sb021-90.pdf changing (cs) Československá federativní republika into (cs) Česká a Slovenská Federativní Republika and (sk) Česká a Slovenská Federatívna Republika.

No mention about the short name version. There must be some law (perhaps Slovak only from 29 March) I overlooked.... rado 09:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Jan Strasky president?

This information is wrong and misleading. Jan Strasky was not a president - he was not elected in presidential election. As prime minister, he was administering some presidential rights, as Vaclav Havel resigned.

SOMEONE KEEPS CHANGING THE YEAR 1918 TO 2918 AND THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CHANGED TO SAY THE COUNTRY WAS IN AUSTRALIA ETC - SOMEONE HAS STUPIDLY SAVED AND KEEPS UPLOADING A VANDILISED COPY OF THIS ARTICLE TO IRONICALLY STOP ANDALISM- VANDALISM WHICH IS IN RELAITY TRYING TO KEEP REAL FACS AND FIGURES IN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.182.137 (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is the rest of the history?

It seems bizarre to me that there is no article that covers the history of Czechoslovakia continuously from 1918 to 1992. Or, if there is one, there is no link to it on this page! At the very least Czechoslovakia should redirect to an article that covers the full history of that state, including the various different regimes, not to one that only covers a portion of the history. --Russ (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Domino theory unilaterally divided the old Czechoslovakia, s/he provides a rationale on his/her talk page. The Czechoslovakia redirect itself is likely to become a disambiguation page, as there is no need for duplicates of the History of Czechoslovakia series, which incidentally is the series of articles you are looking for. (or it could redirect to it) The link to First Republic of Czechoslovakia) is plainly obvious at the top of the History section, and that article is a part of the History of Czechoslovakia series. Sorry if I lost coherency a while back, I just woke up. :) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 22:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Who has done this??? All the recent changes are wrong and should be reverted.Juro 01:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a bad idea, but it wasn't done very well. Trying to correct things, I've suggested a move at Talk:First Republic of Czechoslovakia. Please voice your opinions there. TheMightyQuill 02:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Republic of Czechoslovakia was Czechoslovakia's name until 1960, not until 1939 and the name does not correspond to the political system, because Communist rule started after WWII. Also, "Czechoslovakia" is a well-defined country that existed from 1918 to 1992 de-iure without any interruptions as a subject of international law, therefore this division is both technically and "legally" wrong. Juro 17:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not wrong, it's just different. The First Republic lasted until 1939. It certainly did not exist during WWII. France existed as a well defined country as well, but there are still separate articles on the different republics. I'm not arguing that Czechoslovakia should have separate articles for different republics (in fact, I would tend to agree with you), just that, whoever did it was not committing an act of vandalism, and that the idea isn't totally ridiculous, or unworthy of debate. DominoTheory deserve a chance to defend the changes. -- TheMightyQuill 19:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Starting over

OK, I've rolled all of this back to where it stood on November 27th, before the unilateral fork decision. Any page move or fork that major should be discussed here on the article's talk page first. There can be a master article that covers the country's entire history, with sub-articles on major periods of government (as exists for Yugoslavia, for example), but there needs to be a single article that covers the country's entire existence. | Mr. Darcy talk 04:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The only problem with the comparison between Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia articles is that there is no History of Yugoslavia article (it just directs to Yugoslavia. There is, on the other hand, a History of Czechoslovakia article separate from this one. If Czechoslovakia is not going to be a simple disambiguation between the different country articles (Republic of Czechoslovakia and Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (and Czecho-Slovakia?), then it should be merged with History of Czechoslovkia rather than being presented as a country article. It's silly in it's current form, being presented as a country in existence for 75years (when it was broken up for 7 years) and only having 2 heads of state during the whole period. The infobox should be removed either way, since it doesn't seem capable of functioning as a country article. - TheMightyQuill 07:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

By no means was I implying that the cleanup work here is done, and I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was swooping in, calling it "fixed," and bailing. A separate History of Czechoslovakia article is an acceptable content fork, given its length, but then the History section here should be a concise 3-4 paragraph summary of the country's history. We may also need to fold some of those other sub-country articles back into this one, and then fork out other sections as appropriate. You seem to have a good handle on how this information is broken up; could you propose something along these lines? The primary goal should be to make this article a summary of all of the high-level info on the country, with sub-articles as needed. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I wasn't accusing you of anything, in fact, I appreciate the work you put into returning things. I'm just trying to figure out what to do with all this. I don't think History of Czechoslovakia is a good content fork, at least, not unless Czechoslovakia is just a disambiguation page, which doesn't seem like a very popular suggestion. What else can be linked from Czechoslovakia? Most of the normal things you include in a country page are ruled out. eg. there's no sense talking about the economy of Czechoslovakia. It was totally different under communism than under capitalism, and so should be divided up and linked to the appropriate country article Republic of Czechoslovakia or Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. We could try to describe the culture of Czechoslovakia, but it might be a little difficult. In my mind, it would be really nice to have separate country articles for at least each of the following section:

Republic of Czechoslovakia should exist separate from this article, and describe all three forms of the republic, from 1918-1938, 1938-39, 45-48, and 1990-1993. Maybe 48-60's "People's Republic" should be included, or maybe it should form a new article. Even this article should eventually be broken up into each separate republic, Czecho-Slovakia etc, to ease navigation . On a related note, this means First Republic of Czechoslovakia needs to be renamed, so go support my move request on that page.
Slovak Republic (1939-1945) and Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia should obviously continue to exist.
Czechoslovak Socialist Republic should also exist.

Each of them can clearly identify a separate crest, form of government, etc etc. But then what's left for Czechoslovakia besides history. As I mentioned Yugoslavia is nothing but a disambig and history rolled together. There's not much else to include. -- TheMightyQuill 19:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand your objection to History of Czechoslovakia. Do you not approve of the forks to the fork? I would agree with that. In other words, Czechoslovakia should be the master article, with a high-level overview of the country's entire history. Then we could either have one long History of Czechoslovakia fork, xor have a series of articles in a sort of "History of Czechoslovakia" series - forking each subsection of the history section here. Not too many sub-articles, though - perhaps the four or five you mentioned. Does that ease your concern? | Mr. Darcy talk 19:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a separate page for the Socialist republic but not the Federal one? I've restored Czech and Slovak Federal Republic as there is no reason to have pages for some eras in the nation's history and not others, even as all of them are available. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That content should be folded into Czechoslovakia or History of Czechoslovakia; it's a one-section stub, not likely to become anything longer. You should have discussed it here prior to reverting my edit, BTW. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, I think the whole content of History of Czechoslovakia should be in this article, just like this article. Afterall, what is "Czechoslovakia" but a history of several connected states over a long period of time? The "Overview" template should have links to each "state" page (Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, etc.) and to each of the pre-existing history sections. It makes sense, as Hexagon mentioned, to have a separate page for each state, to give the statistics, etc, of the country, without the narrative form of a history, even if it covers the same period. I think all the communist-only related material (Society of Communist Czechoslovakia, Resource base of Communist Czechoslovakia, etc) should be trimmed out of this main article as I did already, but Juro recently reverted without discussing (??). - TheMightyQuill 04:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I happen to think that Czechoslovakia just like France or Austria-Hungary was a country, which is more than "a history of several connected states" (and 74 years "a long period of time"?), and it should have an overview article just like any other, dealing not just with its history but also all other aspects a country has.

I also see that Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and Czech and Slovak Federal Republic have been made into redirects; I haven't checked yet if with any loss of information. Here, the correspondence with (sometimes strangely sectioned) historic articles is not smooth as well: while ČSFR basically corresponds with post-Velvet democratic era, ČSSR's 1960 Constitution is just an arbitrary point in its communist regime.

Finally, I really don't see the point for using Republic of Czechoslovakia and not adjectival Czechoslovak Republic: the former might serve a literal translation of "Republika Č/československá" which was used in some contexts early in the "First Republic", but AFAIK Československá republika (which was the official name) was always translated into English with preservation of the word order. --Malyctenar 15:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Another reworking, again without discussion

Would everyone please stop reorganizing these articles without discussion? Thank you. If anyone can revert the merger/redirects of Czechoslovakia: 1948-1968, Czechoslovakia: 1969-1987, Czechoslovakia: 1989-1992, and restore their talk pages, that would be especially great. TheMightyQuill 02:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I realize these articles are a complicated mess, but that's no reason to unilaterally change everything. Hexagon recently created Czechoslovakia: 1948-1989 in order to encompass the entire communist era. I think this is a mistake for a number of reasons. Most importantly, it already exists as History of Communist Czechoslovakia. Also, the article is now over size, whereas it had been broken up into reasonable time periods. Thirdly, as stated above, and elsewhere, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic can exist separately from the history page, similarly to German Democratic Republic & History of the German Democratic Republic or History of Poland (1945–1989) & People's Republic of Poland. Just like any other country (United States and History of the United States) a "country article" shows statistics, flag/crest/motto, population, transportation, etc, whereas the history describes the history in a narrative style. I realize the everything to do with Czechoslovakia is history, but that doesn't mean the two article styles must be merged. - TheMightyQuill 02:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I disagree. Before my merger, we had 4 pages all to do with communist history of ČS, one overlapping the other three. The pages of RČS, ČSSR and ČSFR are misleading as they suggest that these three nations were TOTALLY distinct, that is not so. Just like there isn't a separate country-page for every single phase in the history of Austria-Hungary, there shouldn't be one for CS. Those three pages are totally unnecessary, or perhaps they could only mention that it was the name of the nation during that period. My edit redirected all these names to the relevant period in the nation's history. And there weren't significant enough changes in the régime to warrant separate history pages after the Prague Spring. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The History of the United States has 3 separate articles to deal with 1945-1988. Why shouldn't Czechoslovakia? Merging 1969-89 isn't a bad idea, but the article is too long as it stands now. There's no way to make it smaller except to divide it. I think it makes sense to separate articles stylistically, one narrative, the other country based. Lots of other countries do it. That's what User:Domino theory was attempting to do, but did it poorly. - TheMightyQuill 07:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no need for separate nation pages for ČSR/RČS, ČSSR and ČSFR as they aren't commonly regarded as separate nations, merely different phases in the history of Czechoslovakia. And the history merger was for convenience's sake, I wouldn't find it too horrifying if it were split again (except my change of the 1987-1992 article to 1989-1992, that makes more sense). However I still think more pages for the history section are totally unnecessary. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, would you please stop redirecting the CSSR page until we've finished discussing this? A little patience would go a long way here. It's been like this for a long time, so there's no immediate rush. TheMightyQuill 02:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion on this? I really think that People's Republic of Poland vs. History of Poland (1945–1989), and Soviet Union vs. History of the Soviet Union demonstrate my point clearly. I think it would be rather hard to include all the information from Czechoslovak Socialist Republic into the history article. Not just the statistics either... For instance

are all separate articles about Communist Czechoslovakia, that don't really mesh well with a narrative history article.TheMightyQuill 03:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Having the ČSSR, ČSR/RČS and ČSFR articles as nation-pages is unnecessary, it creates confusion, and suggests that these nations were totally distinct, which isn't true. And any non-nation-page article we could have would be redundant to the history series. I also see no reason why the "communist czechoslovakia" series should be integrated into the history series more then it already is. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 03:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean "more than it already is" ? Most of those communist czechoslovakia articles are not linked from the history article, and have no other page to link to beside the CSSR page. I don't see why it would be more confusing than the other articles I mentioned above. Do you think it's confusing to have a Soviet Union page and a History of the Soviet Union article?

I don't know what you mean by totally distinct. The name and constitution of the country changed. In some of the shifts, the borders changed dramatically. Yes, it's more or less the same place, but each republic was a formally re-organized state. I don't see the problem with recognizing that. The History of Czechoslovakia shows the continuity, but the state pages show the breaks and changes in states. We seem to be at an impass here. I wish more people would comment. - TheMightyQuill 04:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The USSR was a nation totally distinct from today's Russian Federation, it was a union of states, of which Russia only formed one. Czechoslovakia has never been this drastically distinct in any part of it's history, in fact the only distinguishing factors that are being used by the editors here are the political system in use. Why not base nation-pages on population growth then? How does ideological difference set apart Czechoslovakia into several loosely linked states existing over a 75 year period? The answer is - it doesn't. The reorganization, in the way attempted, is a poor attempt at compartmentalizing the history of Czechoslovakia for the reason of separating the democratic Czechoslovakia-s from the socialist Czechoslovakia. While I can't honestly say the Czechoslovak 1948-89 is something I'd like to frame and put on a wall, it forms an integral part of the nation's history and served to develop the national identity and frame-of-mind of Czechs and Slovaks as they stands today.

I wouldn't oppose this split if executed thoughtfully and with care, and more importantly, if Czechoslovakia served as a disambiguation page presenting around a paragraph about each state (and this would be the five Czechoslovakian states, that is 1918-38, 38-39, 45-47, 47-89, and 89-93) with a main-page link accompanying it. If anyone feels up-to such a split, be my guest. Merry Christmas! +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Great. I think your re-ordering of the History pages needed to be done, and I'm not opposed to it in theory, just a little worried about length. The separate state articles should exist simultaneously to show changes in state formation, border changes, etc. -TheMightyQuill 19:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant, there will only be about a paragraph or two on each state, which will be linked to the main nation-page article. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. That's perfect. Now hopefully I can find some time to work on this. - TheMightyQuill 05:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I already have a section above: agree with you completely, but alas, am too busy to participate in lengthy discussions. --Malyctenar 14:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Needs Cite

This needs a proper cite. PMA 11:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Note that the correct adjective form is Czechoslovak, not Czechoslovakian (likewise Slovak, not Slovakian).

I believe both are correct; neither is authoritative. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right, neither is authorative. I'd never heard the word "czechoslovakian" before, but there are almost as many google hits for it as czechoslovak. Still, it might make sense to try for consistency. TheMightyQuill 17:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The OFFICIAL name of both Czechoslovakia and of Slovakia and of all corresponding institutions has always been Czechoslovak/Slovak Republic etc., and all academic sources use Slovak only, the -ian forms are plainly wrong. Juro 02:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Misconception

I think that there is a misconception among a large number of people that Czechoslovakia still exists. I mean, people still refer to other people as being from Czechoslovakia, when the country is not existing any more. If somebody can back me up on this with some sources, please include it in the article. --webkid 00:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Republic of?

I would like to comment on the recent practice of using the form "Republic of X" and related instead of "X Republic" and related on Wikipedia. This is WP:OR. Established sources have always referred to CS by the "X Republic" form, including the CIA and Britannica. Even though R of X sounds better then X R, we must continue using the established norms instead of using better ones, according to WP:NC(CN). +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I just came across this - read it - and thought 'What was this guy smoking?' before I noticed my own sig. :) +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Czech Wikipedian's notice board

You are invited to join Wikipedia:Czech Wikipedian's notice board! The Czech notice board can be used for discussions on Czech-related topics; to plan your Czech-related projects; and ask for, or offer assistance for Czech-related subjects. Editors are encouraged to sign their nickname on the list of active participators. --Thus Spake Anittas 02:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Federal Assembly of Czechoslovakia

Very interesting case - the article doesn't mantion the Federal Assembly of Czechoslovakia.Xx236 09:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

End date: 1992 vs. 1993

Okay, there's been a slow but ongoing edit war and I'd like it to stop. I know I saw a discussion about this somewhere else, but I can't remember the outcome. I believe Czechoslovakia was dissolved on December 31, 1992, and the Czech Republic & Slovakia came into being on January 1, 1993. If that's the case, Czechoslovakia lasted until 1992, not 1993, correct? - TheMightyQuill 06:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well...no. It lasted through 1992; "until" implies it ended at midnight 31 Dec '91... IMHO. Trekphiler 04:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You totally ignored the problem. My choice of wording is irrelevant, and the dates are being changed in the info box. - TheMightyQuill 16:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Bill me

OK, this is stupid. It's not like the country had no economy before the Communists. Some mention of it might be nice. Like, Tatra, for instance? Or the fact Czech car companies were protected by an 8% tariff? See G.N.Georgano, Cars: Early and Vintage, 1886-1930 (London: Grange-Universal, 1985). Trekphiler 04:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

All the info on the economy of Czechoslovakia comes directly from the Library of Congress Country studies, published during the cold war, and interested only in communist Czechoslovakia. If you have more information on the pre-communist period, it would be great if you would expand on the article. - TheMightyQuill 16:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Coats of arms

links to gif files of coats of arms are provided but at a 3rd party server? Are those images sort of (c) protected?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpga (talk • contribs) 18:26, 15 December 2004 (UTC)

Informations to the "Lager Hodolein" near Olomouc ("Olmütz") in 1946

I am looking für the article Dr. Walter Staffa in the german Wikipedia for informations to the Hodolein-camp near Olomouc (in this time called too Olmütz). Which persons where in the camp? Normal members of the german "Wehrmacht", normal people called "Sudetendeutsche", or members of organisations of Konrad Henlein oder NSDAP-members? Any information is warmly welcomed. Please inform me in the german" Wikipedia, under member "Nup". Thanks! Nup (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for help for the article about the far right Dr. "Walter Staffa"; Nürtingen, Germany, and the article "Deutsches Seminar" (a extrem right organisation) and the article "Sudetendeutsche" in the german wikipedia - revisionistic difficulties in case of my edits there

Please help to let win the truth in this articles. Look the german Wikipedia under "Walter Staffa", "Olomouc", "Deutsches Seminar" and "Sudetendeutsche". Look to my edits and my diffulties. Please contact and/or help me, but under the german "Wikipedia", I am there "Nup" too!

Thanks Nup (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The expulsion of 3 million Sudeten Germans after 1945 is a fact and has nothing to do rightwing ideas. 800 years of German culture and history are gone. The Sudetenland is in horrible state, even more 60 years after the ethnic cleansing of the Deutsch Böhmen. The existence of the Benes Decrees is an ongoing shame in Europe for a country which claims to be part of the European value system.--Wurzeln und Flügel (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Eliminating shameless POV promoting Sudeten German secessionism

Preliminary note: astounding that an article of this nature has virtually been abandoned in 2008 -- astounding even though Czechoslovakia did break up 15 years ago.

Some time before 2008, some editor(s) wrote a POV astounding for the arrogance of how blatant it is. Time to delete this crap. Hurmata (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Stub category needed

We need {{Czechoslovakia-stub}}. We have other former country stubs ({{Ottoman-stub}}, {{Soviet-stub}}). Comments? Discuss stub creation proposal at STUBSORT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources needed

"retroactively, there was internationally recognised government, army, international treaties etc"

Can we ask sources about a possibility of a "retroactively" recognised government? Never, in books about international law, I read about this possibility. Instead, in history books, I read that a good history is never made later on.

The situation of Czechoslovakia between 1939 and 1945 is clear:

under international law, Czechoslovakia ceased to exist as a result of the Nazi invasion of March 15. In fact, Czechoslovakia lost all its general international recognition;
de facto, the Protectorate was allowed to retain a limited individuality (if I remember, it continued to be a separate subject in sport activity, as IOC and FIFA). About Slovakia, some States recognized it, other States considered it as a German puppet and consequently didn't recognize it;
under a political (not legal!) point of view, a government-in-exile was recognized by Britain and its Commonwealth. But a government-in-exile isn't a State: nowadays Palestine isn't a UN member, simply because it didn't exercize sovereign power over its land. It is only a political fact: surely relevant, but we are speaking of politics, not of law.--Cusio (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia between 1939 and 1945 have government, Army and was part of Declaration by United Nations in 1942, thus was recognised by 26 gov. Declaration explicitly say about Czechoslovakia, not "governament in exile". In spring 1942 Britain and Free France formally repudiate the Munich Agreement, thus conferring de jure legitimacy on the Beneš government as the continuation of the First Republic. For futher reading see Talmon, Stefan. Recognition of Governments in International Law with particular reference to governments in exile. Oxford University Press 1998.--Yopie (talk) 11:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

* For nullification of Muenich agreement and subsequent acts see for example Peace agreement with Hungary (Paris 10.2.1947) and Agreement between Czechoslovakia and Germany (Prague 11.12.1973)--Yopie (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Three errors in your vision:

US and UK are very important States, but they are not the lords of the world. It is not clear why if they say a thing, and all the rest of the world says another thing (including the League of Nations), Anglo-American position must overthrow the international community position (and please don't cancel it from the page);
as I said you, international law doesn't consider government-in-exile as subject of sovereignty. Palestine signs treaties with the dozens of States which recognize it, but nevertheless international community does not consider it as a State: in fact, Palestine is not allowed to become a UN member;
you misunderstood the meaning of the nullification of a treaty. Saying that Munich Agreement was null and void, means that it lost all its power from then. But to nullify it from 1938 to 1945, a time machine would need. De Gaulle nullified all Vichy's acts when he took power in 1944, but I think that no historian says that...Vichy never existed! A clearer exemple: Mister X, a Czechoslovak citizen living in Komárno, became Hungarian in 1938; in 1944 Mister X stole an apple. Let's imagine that Hungarian laws said that if you steal an apple, you only must pay 100$. Let's imagine that 1937 Czechoslovak laws said that if you steal an apple, you must go to prison. The greengrocer in summer 1945 went to police to accuse Mister X for previous year event. Could Mister X go to prison, because Munich Agreement was nullified? I think the answer is quite obvious, don't you?--Cusio (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you probably student of law in first or second year, right? BTW my LLM thesis is "International war crimes" in department of international public law. So, we can conclude, that Nazi Germany non recognize Czechoslovakia as subject of international law, but UK, US and other 24 allied states, as stated in Declaration by United Nations, that Czechoslovakia de iure exist. Of course, Nazi Germany, imperial Japan and fascist Italy were against, but this opinion we cannot count, because they were defeated. Czechoslovakia was in 1939-45 sovereign state, because have government, citizens, Army and was recognized by other allied states. Of course, "de facto" was CS under unlawful rule of Nazi Germany. You probably don't understood difference between "de iure" and "de facto".

Did you have for your POV any source? Burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds material. Read WP:V first.--Yopie (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, I'm graduated in international law with a thesis about the diplomatic recognition of continental European States during WW2, and I see you do not know the basic principles about sovereignty, about the States as subjects of international law, and generally the principles of ius cogens. No territory, no citizens: how can we speak of a country as your asserted CSK in 1940? And, by the way, I read Talmon's book, and authors agrees with him about the political consequences of governments-in-exile, but the legal consequences are clear too (and, when we use the word legal, or your loved de iure, we are referring to ius cogens). Answer my question you continue to ignore: why Palestine is not a member of UN, even it is recognized many many States?
Let's speak about sources and evidences. I think you will be able to show us your sources about your statements. You say that Czechoslovakia still existed after 1939. Ok, please say us:

the name of the Czechoslovak ambassador in Washington on January 1, 1940;
the name of the Czechoslovak ambassador in Moscow on January 1, 1940;
the list of countries in diplomatic relationship with CSK in 1940, choosing between this neutral States and Organizations: Switzerland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Denmark, Ireland, Holy See, League of Nations, International Olympic Commettee.
You said: "this opinion we cannot count, because they were defeated". Have you ever heard about sentences as "History is written by winners" or (in your loved Latin) "Vae victis"?--Cusio (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, burden of evidence lies with you. As lawyer you must know, that membership in UN is not necessary for sovereignty, and again CZ was founding member of UN and part of Declaration of United Nations. In official pages of the Czech [ http://www.mzv.cz/jnp/cz/o_ministerstvu/organizacni_struktura/ministr/ministri_a_ministerstvo_v_historii/kveten_1945_obnova_diplomacie.html ministry of Foreign Affairs] is explicitly, that during war exist 18 embassies, include UK and US, and there is photography of the President Beneš with foreign Ambassadors. In Moscow was Ambassador Zdeněk Fierlinger. BTW. try your theories in article Luxembourg :-) --Yopie (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you like playing poker, but your bluffs are very poor. I asked you the name of the Czechoslovak ambassadors in 1940, not whenever you want: in 1940! Your link speaks about the situation in 1942 and later (and, however, 18 States are less a third of the 60 independent States of that age: a minority if maths is not an opinion).
But, let's go out from your useless game, and let's seriously speak about international law and the core of the problem. You are right when you say that membership in UN is not necessary for sovereignty. What is necessary then? International law links sovereignty to the effective control of the land. Now, I can answer the question you was not able to answer: Palestine is not member of UN because it is not considered a State by the large majority of international community, because the supreme control of its land is owned by Israel. German invasion and annexation in 1939 led to a classic debellatio, and consequently to the end of Czechoslovak State.
Then, Government Benes in London was a very, very important and positive political fact, I totally agree with you about it, but politics is politics, law is law.--Cusio (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Still same, burden of proof is yours. Did you have reliable sources? Read WP:OR first --Yopie (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Asking sources on this basic principles of international law by someone who says having studied law, is equivalent to someone affirming he had studied maths and asking sources about the fact that substraction is the opposite of addiction. But well, if you want them, I will show you dozens of books. Considering that you didn't give us a sole source about your position (and you can't give them, because the aren't), this game will arrive to an end. Let's see us tomorrow.--Cusio (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh, non-understanding of burden of evidence by someone, who calls himself lawyer is nice :-) You probably don't go to the court? Of course, we don't talk about principles, we talk about reliable and verifiable source, where is explicitly "Czechoslovakia between 1939 and 1945 not exist de iure". And source must be not from neonazis, postfascist or other revisionist.

BTW: You have problem differentiate between declarative theory of statehood and Constitutive theory of statehood. Please read article Sovereign state first, especially last part. And remember Ex injuria jus non oritur. --Yopie (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

See Recognition of governments in international law: with particular reference by Talmon, Recognition in International Law, The reality of international law: essays in honour of Ian Brownlie.

About your "belliregent" theory read The international law of diplomacy: the diplomatic instrument and world.

Because you probably don't understand, what is government-in-exile, simply read International law: a dictionary

Conclusion: All sources say, that Czechoslovakia exist "de iure" between 1939 and 1945 with government in exile and was fully recognised as "de iure" sovereign state.--Yopie (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already said you: you are not a good player of poker. Wiki page about Constitutive theory of statehood clearly says that the constitutive theory is merely a theoretical construct as it has neither been codified by treaty nor widely recognized in international law; your linked Talmon says that nobody recognized CSK before late 1941 (so, your same sources affirm a clear hole in CSK continuity) and, even after 1941, the large majority of the international community saw CSK as defunct (we can surely say that countries as Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland or Vatican City are not known for their fascist history).
I see, your studies of international law was made on text of Metternich, Talleyrand, and other ministries of the Congress of Vienna. No, we are speaking of certainly more modern international law. I suggest you some text where you can study that effectiveness, and not recognition, is the base of statehood.
* about effectiveness as basic principle for statehood

underline: Traditionally, the criteria for statehood have been regarded as resting solely on considerations of effectiveness. Entities with a reasonably defined territory, a permanent population, a more or less stable government and a substantial degree of independence of other States have been treated as States. Other factors, such as permanence, willingness to obey international law, and recognition, have usually been regarded as of rather peripheral importance. To some extent this represents the modern position.
"The existence of a State is a question of fact, not of law. The criterion of statehood is not legitimacy but effectiveness". Israeli Foreign Minister Mr.Eban, 27 July 1948.
Again about effectiveness
Finally, I suggest you J. Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979)"

End of the game. --Cusio (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Cusio Yopie is writing obvious nonsense and with very bad English. Yopie writes things like "All sources say, that Czechoslovakia exist "de iure" between 1939 and 1945 with government in exile and was fully recognised" 1. All sources -nonsense ,2.fully recognised nonsense. As Cusio noted nobody recognised prior to of 1942 so there was no recognition none, whatsoever and even later there was no "full recognition" but a recognition by a minority of states like today's Kosovo. Yopie should go to the Kosovo page and explain how Kosovo is a full state with full recognition there first. Hobartimus (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

End of game? I wouldn't say so. Sorry to interrupt your friendly chatter but I see a few points that need to be clarified before you continue.

The sentence containing the list of all the bodies and states that broke the diplomatic relations with RCS after '38 does indeed need a clear citation and should not be added without one.
Citing an Israeli prime minister on the matters of state recognition is a lame bluff on your side, we all know, that in 1948 Israel was in dire need of such an interpretation, but was hardly an authority in the field.
"International law links sovereignty to the effective control of the land." now that is a very simplistic and somewhat slimmed down summary, as there is no definitive body of 'international law' and the approach you are describing is merely one of the alternatives. a "de facto" status leads to a legal status: it's a basic principle of international law is also not true, it's definitely not a basic and rigid principle of the international law and is under debate even today.
But since we're talking the period almost immediately after Montevideo here, let's assume, that the declaratory principle should be applied. However, there is more to it, than a simple matter of recognition vs. territory control. The demise of Czechoslovakia was due to the Munich agreement and Yopie was right when he claimed, that the treaty was later rendered invalid ab intio [1]. Since the Munich agreement itself was in violation of 'international law' all its corollaries were invalid as well, therefore de iure Czechoslovakia never stopped existing and it was de facto replaced by the Protectorate and Slovak state. Therefore to claim that ". From 1939 to 1945 the state did not have legal existence" is very problematic, since it did not lose the legal existence in the first place.
Moreover, the government in exile fulfilled all the conditions laid down by Montevideo. Territory, population, government and capacity to enter into international relations were all there, although the government did not control the territory at the time (but this was accounted for, see again [2]). Even if we ignore the constitutive princinple altogether, there were two competing claims to statehood of which one was based on an illegal document. This imo concludes that the legal existence of Czechoslovakia was never interrupted. Wladthemlat (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to go into details other than what I said in this discussion. I'd like to just note that it is impossible for Wikipedia to state that two states existed "de iure" on the same territory. As such Wikipedia in general has to make a determination on articles discussing 1939-1945 Slovakia and 1939-1945 CZE and treat one or the other like a non-existant entities in the legal sense and articulate this throughout articles. It is impossible for both states to exist as legally legitimate. (to be more precise for wikipedia to claim both as "de iure" existing entities). Do we agree in this? Hobartimus (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Interwar: By a risky operation Sudetenland "annexed"

As I learned the Sudetenland since long was part of so called "Bohemia", also in times of the Austro- Hungarian Empire Bohemia included the german-speaking parts. So the chechoslovak Rep. did'nt need to annex those parts. True, The Austrian Republic demanded to its former provinces, in this case Bohemia/Český, the transfer of there german- speaking territories. But in fact, after WWI they where weakend to much to enforce its demand. Truly too, that also in the Sudetenland after independence of ČSR were moves to split of and go to Austria. Here the Czechoslovac Troups entered to stop secession. That is very probably the "risky operation" to "annex" the text is speaking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.48.3.24 (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Famous Czech glass buttons

Just wondering what would be the best way of including the information that Czech glass buttons are famous in the button collecting community?--Tyranny Sue (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Česko-Slovensko

Adding the hyphenated spelling as this is now the official form in Slovak, and used consequently throughout Slovak wikipedia. --78.105.144.87 (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

@Wladthemlat: It is irrelevant for how long the name was official, as long as it was the official short form in one of the official languages, you cannot say it's 'false'. Martin --78.105.144.87 (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have done what I was asked for: I supplied three references supporting my edition: an official print of the Czecho-Slovak Federal Parliament, official publication of Ľudovít Štúr Institute of Linguistics, which is the authoritative body for the Slovak language, both of these from 1990; and a contemporary source from the official website of the Slovak Parliament (which existed as a legislative body also in federal Czecho-Slovakia) -- all of them mentioning the name "Česko-Slovensko" in the Slovak language.

There are some more, e.g. a 2007 article in the on-line version of a major Slovak daily newspaper (Czecho-Slovakia Split 15 Years Ago). http://www.sme.sk/c/3616146/cesko-slovensko-sa-rozpadlo-pred-15-rokmi.html

Please feel free to challenge any of them if you do not believe they are 'appropriate'.

Please note I am not claiming anything about the orthography in English (I am using the hyphen only in my private texts on this discussion page); nor I am saing that the hyphenated version is the only correct in Slovak (also). However I believe I am right in saying that the hyphenated version is a correct spelling in one of the official languages of the former republic, and without this mentioning the article will be less accurate.

I hope we can have a civilised discussion with arguments rather than just an edit war. Martin --78.105.144.87 (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record: if you consider nrsr.sk "unreliable", I am not going to argue (although I don't agree completely) -- this is the official website of the Slovak Parliament, but the page itself is for information only and as such has no official sanction.

However, the other reference is absolutely and irrefutably reliable: this is a government-drafted proposal submited to the parliament of the country in question, bearing the signatures of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, who (or their staff) would have known how to spell the name of their country, shouldn't they. The document itself is provided via service of the Czech Parliament so there cannot be any question about its authenticity. I am not re-inserting it myself but maybe someone wants to re-insert it in the future or refer to it: http://www.snemovna.cz/eknih/1990fs/tisky/t0200_00.htm

Martin --78.105.144.87 (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Zakarpattya Oblast

I am sure that it probably was addressed already, however can somebody explain what is up with the Zakarpattya region being shown as a successor state for Czechoslovakia. Why not parts of Silesia that transferred to Poland is shown? It seems like a claim for the territory of Zakarpattya by Czechoslavakia and as if its some kind of independent political entity today. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I found no info whatsoever about Zakarpattya being a successor of Czechoslovakia after its dissolution. What I found however is that Zakarpattya was given to the USSR in 1945, and that is all, no other divisions were made.95.24.4.208 (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

As was already talked here, this is not claim of Zakarpattya/ Carpathian Ruthenia, this is only expression, that this was one of four lands of CZ and was "ceded" to CCCP in 1945. By the way,this land was briefly independent as Carpatho-Ukraine. --Yopie (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Versailles/St. Germain

A common misconception about the creation of Czechoslovakia is that it was created by the Treaty of Versailles. This is because many history books say that Czechoslovakia was created by Versailles. This is in fact correct as this is not the same as saying 'created by the Treaty of Versailles'. In this context, Versailles is short for the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 in its entirety, in which these treaties were created. Note that the Treaty of Versailles dealt with Germany (Prussia) only. The Treaty of St. Germain dealt with Austria and as part of its terms, the new state of Czechoslovakia was created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.217.249 (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Historical confusion

I am thoroughly confused (which is not hard to do) with the history of Czechoslovakia vs Czech Republic. According to the entries in these 2 articles, Czechoslovakia came into being in 1918 and ceased in 1993 when part of it became the Czech Republic:

History of Czechoslovakia
"The creation of Czechoslovakia in 1918 was the culmination of the 19th-century struggle of identity and ethnicity politics."
"On 1 January 1993, the Czech Republic (Czechia) and the Slovak Republic (Slovakia) were simultaneously and peacefully founded."

Czechoslovakia
". . .was a sovereign state in Central Europe which existed from October 1918"
". . .when it declared its independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, until its peaceful dissolution into the Czech Republic and Slovakia on 1 January 1993."

However, in this article, the Czech Republic far pre-dates Czechoslovakia:

Czech Republic
"The Czech state, formerly known as Bohemia, was formed in the late 9th century as a small duchy around Prague. . ."
"From 2013 on, the president will be elected by the public, not the parliament." [This statement implies that it's still in existence today.]

The reason I ask about this is that, while doing genealogy on a branch that came from Suchdol in the 1880s, "Czechoslovakia" and "Czech Republic" are used interchangeably in various documents. I wonder what form I should use, please while entering data into my computer program? I know that history is messy, frequently with eras that bleed and lap over each other, but shouldn't there be consistency between related articles? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

One of the reason for the confusion is, that Czech Republic doesn't have any proper one-word descriptor, the same way French Republic/France has. When we speak about history of France in the Middle ages it totally make sense (and it wouldn't, if we would speak about French Republic lets say in 1222 CE - and that's the analogy). The nation/state of Czech Republic had been part of Czechoslowakia and before of Austria-Hungary and yet before that, we were independent for many long centuries - however we were not a Republic. The names of the country were changing from Duchy to Kingdom, then being occupied still as Kingdom, then we ended up the occupation and joined newly another nation in newly formed Republic (of Czechoslowakia), then it didn't work, so we tended to bring back our long history and to be a Republic for the previous Bohemian state only. The Czechia as one word descriptor didn't catch as accepted label yet. So this is the reason for the mess in labeling a state in passing time.

France (and almosst all European countries) had also different statehood forms along the passing time - French Kingdom, empire, first, second, third and fourth and even French Fifth Republic. Each of the form started in some point in time, and end had its time in some timepoint too, nevertheless the France as entity remained. The Czechia is alike. Czech Republic as a form was created in 1969 and is independent from Czechoslowakia by 1993, nevertheless Czechia, previously known as Kingdom of Bohemia is here from 870 CE. It is important to understand that with being Republic - it is more than having a different name, by Constitution different statehood of a country comes to existence so in a way it begins, yet it preexisted before. --Reo ⁺ 12:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Ukraine

Can someone explain this revert? 1 Carpathian Ruthenia (Carpatho-Ukraine) was in West Ukraine before being absorbed into Czechoslovakia in 1919, and it was then transferred to Soviet Ukraine in 1945 as is now Zakarpattia Oblast. Not sure why it was reverted? Esp. the prose in the intro.--Львівське (говорити) 13:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Because Carpathian Ruthenia was never part of West Ukrainian People's Republic or Ukrainian People's Republic.--Yopie (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Links to help with a update, YOU MUST READ!

Map

This [3] is incorrect. A reliable source is needed to *include* the map not to exclude it. Note there is a note on the image's page "Correctness and neutrality of this map is disputed. See the talk page of this file." so I'm not the only one who's noticed problems. The actual comment is here [4]. "Similar to" is not good enough. The actual map is in the comment linked. This map took some... liberties, with the colors. Volunteer Marek 18:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No map is likely to be perfect--is village X this or that?? The allegation is that it is a POV map designed to aid the German cause. That allegation was the motivation for action and has no been supported by any source. Rjensen (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the editor who wishes to include the map - to provide a reliable source. Also, the allegation is supported, compare the maps provided at the link above. Volunteer Marek 22:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

mistakes

Czechoslovakia was NOT seen as a successor state of the Austrian monarchy, but was a part of the Allies. In late November until 27 December 1918, the Czechoslovak army also managed to conquer/occupy the Province of German Bohemia and the Province of the Sudetenland of German Austria (which accepted the role as successor of the Austrian monarchy). This is important because only the successor states had to pay reparations and because of the fact, that most Germans saw it as betrayal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.166.117.142 (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

They got a bit of Germany in 1918

It is on the map in the 'klapedia' ( Memel) revolt article. Looks like the new state got some of Silesia. So what was this province called, and why did they get it? It went back in 1938 to Germany along with the much larger Sudetenland ; it is not clear if it was returned in 1945 along with the Sudetenland. More info needed. {{subst:unsignedIP|64.129.65.219|06:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Undue weigh?

Yopie misreads the wp:Undue rule. It states, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views." That is, the views of a tiny or fringe minority should not be given disproportionate weight. In the Cold War context the views of the US government and the head of the CIA are indeed a major viewpoint and all the scholars of whatever politics consider the CIA to be one of the most important Cold War agencies. Here we are talking about the analysis made by Dulles, the long-term head of the agency at the height of his power (his brother was then the US Secretary of State). Does Yopie really consider the CIA as a "tiny or fringe minority" ???? He has used the UNDUE tag repeatedly (in History of Czechoslovakia and Czechoslovakia, and called the info "trivia." No other editor supports his deletions of sourced material. In this case the importance of Dulles position was validated and put into context by coverage in a recent scholarly book published by a university press. Yopie has failed to indicate the reasons he thinks the CIA position is a fringe position. The risk is that Yopie is engaging in an edit war expressing his private POV and tries to cover up embarrassing information he does not want Wikipedia readers to learn about. We certainly hope that is not the case but Yopie has merely reverted sourced text over and over again with no explanation for his strange actions. Rjensen (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Modern Day Use?

I don't know if it is worth mentioning but I often, even with people as young as 12 hear people refer to Czechia and Slovakia as Czechoslovakia, maybe mention that it is still erroneously referred too as such? 151.227.229.35 (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Presidents between 1948 and 1989

I have seen this pages and I find out the list of presidents of us ex-republik is incomplete. There are not in the list Klement Gotvald, Antonín Zápotocký, Antonín Novotný, Ludvík Svoboda and Gustáv Husák. I have discover, that here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_Czechoslovakia its the list OK. Can anybody correct it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.231.33.73 (talk) 11:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Territory from Germany

The territory that Czecholovakia got from Germany in the aftermath of WWI had nothing to do with Memel. In 1920 Czechoslovakia got the Hlučín Region from Germany. See the Wikipedia article on the town and region.

I've also tidied up the English in the section on "Origins" and replaced a reference to Middle-Europe by Central Europe, also making it clear that Palacký wanted to protect the Slavic speaking peoples of the region - not simply everyone in Central Europe. Norvo (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

"Slovakia"

The "After 1989" Section says the country divided into the Czech Republic and the "Slovak Republic". Isn't "Slovakia" the more common use in English? I rarely hear anyone refer to Slovakia as the "Slovak Republic". Consensus? (Before I alter it and bring a firestorm of protest) Foreignshore (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Every country (or almost every country!) has a short name and a long name. "Slovakia" is the short name and "Slovak Republic" is the long name of the same country. To say that "Slovakia" is more common is like to say that, just because somebody is called "Peter" much more often than "Peter Novák", their name shouldn't be "Peter Novák". --217.155.37.242 (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

"Ĉeĥoslovakio" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ĉeĥoslovakio. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

The 2020 History Entry

Neither given source^[1]^[2] mentions Czechoslovakia except in a historical context, and there are no assertions that the Polish soldiers thought they were invading Czechoslovakia in modern times. I'm removing this entry and pointedly not speculating on any misguided jocular intentions for its original addition to the article. Leweegee (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Official recognised languages

Why is Vietnamese listed amongst the languages recognised in Czechoslovakia? Adamcoxj0808 (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Upon reading further, vietnamese IS recognised as a minority language, apologies for speaking before doing the research Adamcoxj0808 (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Bias

The bias at the page is visible via particular usage of terms. I suggest using neutral ones because Wikipedia is an independent encyclopedia and such bias damages neutrality. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

"Bias"? that’s all you have to say to justify your reverts? GizzyCatBella🍁 08:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

User talk:GizzyCatBella my edits contain neutral terms, while yours contain strawman. You do the same thing at every article about the particular political view. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yuto is right, GizzyCatBella is pushing hysterical non-neutral language. GizzyCatBella is also denying the role of the Slovak state in the Holocaust of the Jews by removing "and their allies" from the Holocaust sentence. The Slovak state deported the Jews to their death, not the Nazis, The Holocaust in Slovakia.--Iron Thain (talk) 09:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry the page will be restored status quo ante, arguments needed first for a wise discussion.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC))

Can you show the same neutrality for articles related to socialism? The way of language used in particular articles regarding socialist Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia is so biased. --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 07:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Please point by point explain your concerns.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC))

"ŘČS" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ŘČS and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 13#ŘČS until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

[1] ttps://moravskoslezsky.denik.cz/z-regionu/polska-armada-zakazala-pristup-k-ceske-kaplicce-20200606.html

[2] ttps://web.archive.org/web/20200615182945/https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/12/europe/poland-czech-republic-invasion-scli-intl/index.html/

[1]

[2]