I removed the redirect. As I understand it, template discussion links are suppose to link only to the discussion about the template, not to another articles discussion page. Remember 13:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A diff., for context. - Ev 12:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Dojarca: can you explain the edits? I'm sure a couple of guys will have something to comment about them.. --Pudeo⺮ 15:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A diff., for context. - Ev 12:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia was deleted , Estonian SSR, Lithuanian SSR, Finnish Democratic Republic are not articles about occupation, so the links are misleading. What constitutes an occupation is disputabl, so we should keep only historically existed zones of occupation here. And please refrain from occusations in Stalinism this is offensive behavor.--Dojarca 01:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course Soviet Union did not occupy any parts of Finland in 1950, nor Russia does occupy now because Finland has signed Paris Peace treaties, 1947. But, USSR did occupy parts of Finland indeed as part of Finnish Democratic Republic during the 1939-1940 war. The puppet regime consisted only of parts occupied from Finland, and Finland had not ceded any of those parts to USSR. When Finland actually ceded the areas (thus not occupation anymore), it was already a part of Karelian ASSR. The articles are of unrecognised occupated states, relevant I'd say. --Pudeo⺮ 11:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have redirected Soviet occupation of Finland to Finnish Democratic Republic. --Pudeo⺮ 11:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the USSR occupied parts of Finland. But we do not have an article about the occupation. In my view the Finnish Democratic Republic does not belong to this template, it existed after the occupation as well... Although if you have another opinion, please share your considerations.--Dojarca 07:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No, you have some misunderstanding there. Finnish Democratic Republic was merely a client state, or rather a puppet government for occupation. See:

• Winter War: November 30, 1939 - March 13, 1940
• Finnish Democratic Republic: December 1, 1939 - March 12, 1940

So they quit it because they did not need to occupy the territories anymore, instead they annexed the areas to Karelo-Finnish SSR, after Finland had ceded them in the Moscow Peace Treaty. But as seen, Soviet occupation of Finnish areas is a very short period in the Finnish history, but if this article is supposed to list all occupations, then this should be included too. But I don't see anything controversial in this occupation because a state of war existed between Soviet Union and Finland. Finland on the other hand occupied Russian territories 1941-1944, although it did not establish any puppet government or state. But that's war, different case than the rest, except Afghanistan.--Pudeo⺮ 20:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it may be even very disrespectful to refer it as "Soviet occupation of Finland", because only less than 10% of Finland's area was occupied by the Soviet Union. Therefore I'd strongy suggest re-adding Finland to the template, but as [[Finnish Democratic Republic|Finnish Karelia]] --Pudeo⺮ 20:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well. Your arguments are reasonable. But don't you think it would be better with redirect to the Winter War rather than the FDR? If occupation existed it was a part of the war and performed by the Red Army and the FDR was surely not an occupation administration (although it was a puppet government). Just for comparison: American occupation of Iraq should be better redirected to the invasion rather than post-invasion Iraqi government. Note also the concerns poited out by Mikka below.--Dojarca 20:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Timeline, for context (all times UTC):

9 September 2007 : template created by Digwuren as "Soviet occupation".

4 October 2007 : nominated for deletion by Dojarca (diff.).

21:01, 14 October 2007 : TfD for "Soviet occupation" closed as "Keep / no consensus. [...] If there are problems with specific links on the template, then they should be discussed on the template talk page / removed from the template."

An edit-war follows over the name and scope of the template. Compare the two versions.

• 01:16, 15 October : moved to "Soviet zones of occupation" by Dojarca.

  15:22, 15 October : Pudeo starts the thread above on the Finnish case.

• 18:11, 15 October : moved to "Soviet occupations" by Martintg (To fit with the template title).
• 01:04, 16 October : moved to "Soviet zones of occupation" by Dojarca.

  06:09, 16 October : Martintg objects to Dojarca's move at AN/I.

  22:55, 16 October : Martintg objects to Dojarca's move at AN.

• 05:31, 17 October : moved to "Soviet occupations" by Keegan (move without consensus).
• 05:34, 17 October : moved back to the original "Soviet occupation" by Keegan (whoops).
• 07:22, 17 October : moved to "Soviet occupation zones" by Dojarca (soviet occupation zones).

  07:49, 17 October : Sander Säde complains about Dojarca's move at AN.

  08:12, 17 October : article Soviet occupations nominated for deletion by Dojarca (AfD).

• 08:15, 17 October : protected by DrKiernan (Edit war. Discuss it on the talk page.).

So far, only Pudeo & Dojarca have discussed the issue on this talk page. Again, for clarity, here's the comparison between the two versions. - Regards, Ev 12:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a bone to pick in this fight, I was reverted a move that was done without consensus. Once such a bold action is challenged, it should be discussed before reverting again. The closure of the TfD did not say to move the title of the template, nor was there a requested move filed. There are better ways of handling this than saying Wikipedia is not a democracy and promoting unilateralism. Work it out amongst yourselves, I have nothing else to contribute to this debate. Keegan^talk 18:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that DrKiernan construes your revert, as a totally uninvolved admin, as edit warring. However for what it is worth, it should be noted that DrKiernan had actually voted to delete in the TfD. DrKiernan's actions here have effectively rewarded this kind of non-concensual out-of-process behaviour. Martintg 18:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You know full well that I am not accusing Keegan of edit-warring, and you know full well that you moved the page yourself without discussing it. Stop your jibes at me, please. DrKiernan 09:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So who are you accusing of edit warring? I only moved the template once, to fit in with the original title, and Keegan also moved the template once to return it to the original title. Dojarca moved the template three times after he lost the TfD debate. What I see here is one editor engaging in WP:POINTy behaviour just hours after losing a TfD. There is a clear process for controversial moves, and it is clearly controversial judging by the reaction. Therefore I ask you to return the template back to the original title and invite Dojarca to follow the process. Martintg 11:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am merely following policy. It is not up to the protecting admin to re-arrange pages in an edit war. I've already told you what the protection policy says. By moving the page around I would be involving myself in the dispute. That is not for me to do. You have to discuss it and come to an agreement or consensus.

You should be discussing reasons why the page should be moved not attacking administrators for doing their job. DrKiernan 11:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

what is there to discuss?, I don't think the page should be moved, that's why I asked you to restore it back to the original. You claim there was an "edit war", yet you also state you were not accusing Keegan of edit-warring, who only moved the template once, as did I, so obviously you are not accusing me of edit warring either. As Keegan mentions above, the closure of the TfD did not say to move the title of the template, nor was there a requested move filed, the initial move was done without concensus, so moving the template back to its original title as both Keegan an I attempted was entirely proper, and therefore can in no way be seen as "edit warring". Martintg 12:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the ultimate point is that I did the prudent thing, DrKiernan did the prudent thing in a good faith attempt to prevent a move war, and neither one of us chose to wheel-war because we both know this will be worked out. It's all good as far as admin accountability goes, Marintg. Keegan^talk 04:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there really a significant difference between the names? I prefer so to soz but only because it is shorter.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Piotrus. Why is that "zones" needed there, ie. what does it add to a simple navigational template? -- Sander Säde 05:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I see a significant difference, on two counts:

First, for our readers the template would be easier to read, understand & use if it reflects the scope & terminology of the main article with which it's supposed to work (Soviet occupations, currently up for deletion).

Second, a combination of the words "Soviet", "occupation" & "zone" immediately brings to mind a very especific subject, the Soviet occupation zone. Thus, following the principle of least astonishment, a template with the plural "zones" would only be appropriate if it's restricted to the former & similar subjects (i.e. Allied-administered Austria, Allied occupation of Korea & Occupation of Japan - that is, the planned but not implemented division of Japan, plus the issue of the Kuril Islands and Sakhalin).

In any case, I think that the validity, name and scope of the main Soviet occupations article should be discussed in the corresponding talk page & AfD, and this template, instead of being treated as a sepparate issue, should merely follow whatever arrangement is agreed there. - Best regards, Ev 01:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I already made myself clear that atleast Finland should be added to the template again. I also edited the Finland section in Soviet occupations to make things more clear. Why the template does not link to Soviet occupations in the title? That's very silly and (intentionally?) un-useful. So, why do we need to remove Afghanistan too? You see, it was a war, occupation is a natural thing between countries which have a state of war. Are you doubting it? I would think occupations in wars are way less controversial than the situation with Soviet satellite states during the Cold War. Also, as it seems there are references for the term Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia in the main article, so why to remove it here? You should resolve the content dispute in the main article, not operate this template. So I'd say the "one man edit war"'s edits were very useless. OK, change hammer and sickle to Soviet flag. (the name Soviet occupation zones is incorrect, it only refers to zone'd Austria and Germany). Otherwise, please restore the former version. --Pudeo⺮ 22:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop original research. The template is a navigational tool. If you have an article specifically says "Occulation of X by the Soviet Union", then add it here. We don't have Occupation of California by the United States, Occupation of TExts by the United States and so on. This has long been a normal history of countries: grabbing pieces of each other. Of course those whose parts were grabbed cry dearly, but when they themselves grab something they try to justify this. there are plenty of terms that describe various forceful actions: annexation, intervention, invasion, irredentism, etc. I don't think it is reasonable to have templates for each of them. `'Míkka 16:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources about the [Occupation of California by the United States]], then I invite you to create such an article. Martintg 18:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"Occupation" is not a subjective term: either Soviets forcefully had their military in some other country's territory, or they didn't. If I or anyone else has sources indicating they had, what's the problem? --Pudeo⺮ 11:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well while I agree that there was an occupation of (a portion) of Finland, it is not so certain for Afghanistan. The USSR helped one side in the civil war there. Regarding occupation of Finlind do you insist it should necessary point to FDR? Occupation is usually performad by military (in this case by the Red Army), so it would be better to be linked to the Winter War in my view as we do not have an article cpecific about the occupation and military administration during the Winter War (probably because it is not so notable).--Dojarca 19:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If you doubt the Soviets occupied Afghanistan, here is a book published called Afghanistan: First Five Years of Soviet Occupation. Martintg 23:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it is point of view of enemies of the USSR in the cold war. It cannot be considered neutral.--Dojarca 23:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that case, english Wikipedia is written in the language of the enemies of the USSR in the Cold War, is hosted on servers located on the territory of the enemies of the USSR in the Cold War, in fact Jimbo Wales and the paid staff of his Wikipedia organisation are citizens of the enemies of the USSR during the Cold War, and are paid in the currency of the enemies of the USSR in the Cold War. Martintg 00:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This is a fact. But official policy of Wikipedia is neutrality. Jimbo Wales said it many times.--Dojarca 10:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The result of this AfD was an emphatic Keep. Can we now move this template back to Soviet occupations please, since the template was created as a companion to the article. Martintg 01:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there seems to be strong consensus (ie everybody but Dojarca) to name the template Soviet occupations. -- Sander Säde 03:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Where do you see such "consensus"?--Dojarca 19:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me make you a table:

So, looks pretty clear-cut to me. -- Sander Säde 05:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, Dojarca mentioned moving the template as an alternative to deletion in his TfD nomination, but nobody agreed to it, and the outcome was Keep/No concensus, not Move. So there was never any concensus for Dojarca's original move. Martintg 22:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well it is only your company of POV-pusers with predictable position (except Pudeo). Wikipedia is not a democracty.--Dojarca 23:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of your uncivil personal view, there was no concensus for your unilateral move. Martintg 00:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not "democracty". Nor is it anarchy. And one more uncivil comment from you, Dojarca, and I think we need to apply a certain ArbCom decision. -- Sander Säde 04:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Sander Sade, threatening a fellow editor is the least productive method of communication. So as ganging up to bomb him drawing pretty tables. --Irpen 05:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't know who that "Sander Sade" is, so sorry. But apparently you accept incivilities toward others when it comes from an user that you approve - and you expect me to do the same. No, sorry, I don't like incivilities - and I don't plan to lie down and accept them. And how are my actions "ganging up to bomb him drawing pretty tables"? He said there is no consensus. I demonstrated that he is the only user supporting his version of the template. Please stay within acceptable behavioral limits in Wikipedia, Irpen. -- Sander Säde 05:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(copied here from WP:ANI:) You guys are having move wars about names of templates??? Take a slap with a wet trout, everyone. Did it ever occur to any of you that a move war about a template is the most idiotically futile thing you could possibly do? The names of templates are invisible, they are never supposed to be displayed in an article! The template can be named just anything, it will never make any difference to the normal reader. I'm tempted to move the miserable thing to {{iopilkshfiziewrlkdjfdlauoer}}, just to drive home the point.

If you must edit-war, please go and edit-war about something more important. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact some uers like Martintg justify the template's caption on the basis of its name.--Dojarca 07:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Despite obvious consensus (no one supports his changes and viewpoint) he keeps pushing his POV. What shall we do about it? He sees nothing wrong in his actions whatsoever. I am out of good faith and ideas. -- Sander Säde 08:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Who pushes POV here is you, not me. Neutrality should be enforced in Wikipedia.--Dojarca 07:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So where is the POV? You've been crying that all the time - and yet you haven't managed to bring any sources to support your point of view while others have literally dozens of sources. How about some verifiable, independent sources before you start accusing other editors? -- Sander Säde 07:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Reminds me of evolution-creationism topics all over again. Creationists crying "POV! POV!" and try to delete everything about evolution - while "evolutionists" give and give sources, slowly, carefully and tirelessly explain evolution, worldwide and scientific views - and Wikipedia rules. And all the time new creationists prop up on Wikipedia with moronic views and statements. -- Sander Säde 07:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It is you who delete any sources from articles which do not confirm with your point of view, claiming that you have "consensus" on not to include the source.--Dojarca 08:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Care to give an example? Or just empty words again as always? -- Sander Säde 08:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In every article you claim you have consensus. Any arguments rejected based on no rules other than that "you have consensus"--Dojarca 10:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the great omnipotent "everywhere" argument, without any actual diffs as usual. How nice. I wish I had a dollar for every time this has been said and those users have then failed to come up with any actual evidence - I could retire and go to some tropical island every winter. -- Sander Säde 10:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are Austria and Germany listed under "Allies", with a link to Allies of World War II? Also, why put those two countries in a separate row from Europe?? None of this make sense to me. Maybe we should have Eastern Europe and Western Europe as row-headers (besides Asia)? Also, where to fit Finland in all this? I think this is a useful template, but we need to rethink those headers — any better ideas on what to do? Turgidson (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

can be mentioned in this template events before II World War e.g. Occupation of Ukraine? --Riwnodennyk ✉ 15:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Super Dromaeosaurus,

Could you explain this edit? Transcarpathia was annexed by Hungary in 1939. Carpatho-Ukraine

The region remained under Hungarian control until the end of World War II in Europe, the Soviet troops entered the region, it was occupied and annexed by the Soviet Union. OrionNimrod (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hungary's annexation was illegitimate. It held no legal basis and was recognized as such in the Paris Peace Treaties. Just like we give no legitimacy in Wikipedia to modern Russian claims over Ukraine, Georgia or Moldova, to give a widely-known example, so should we not give legitimacy to past claims that broke international law. There's an alternative, which is to list Transcarpathia separately like we do for Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina though. Super Ψ Dro 20:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Super Dromaeosaurus,

Southern Transcarpathia was annexed by the First Vienna Award, Czechoslovakia cease to exist after the German occupation. It established a separate Slovak Republic (1939–1945) state and Transcarpathia was not part of it. You can see many areas moved and many states changed during that period. Germans acknowledged the annexation, legal basis was the pre Trianon historical land. You can see on international maps, that region is part of Hungary, and the Soviets occupied from Hungary not from Czechoslovakia which did not exist at that time when Soviets entered there. Soviets refused the Czechoslovak claims on that area.

OrionNimrod (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of the Vienna Awards. They were nullified with the Paris Peace Treaties. So Transcarpathia was legally part of Czechoslovakia when it was occupied. Or at least that's the legal interpretation we should apply since the signing of the treaties. So did the Allies and Russians occupy Austria even though it was part of Nazi Germany at the time yet it is listed separately here. Super Ψ Dro 21:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Super Dromaeosaurus,

I do not exactly understand this time machine logic.

First Vienna Award was in 1938 and the southern Transcarpathia was legally recognized as part of Hungary (Signatories Hungary Czechoslovakia Germany Italy), so Czechoslovakia signed it. Soviets occupied Transcarpathia in 1944-45 when Czechoslovakia did not exist at all, how can be Transcarpathia part of Czechoslovakia when it did not exist at at the moment when the Soviets occupied it from Hungarian troops? It was the Slovak Republic (1939–1945), do you think this Slovak state did not exist or the Slovak state was not a legally state? Also today Czechoslovakia does not exist. Anyway it is fact a separate Slovak state existed in that period. Paris Peace Treaties was in 1947 in the future 2 years after the Soviet occupation. I do not understand your logic, how future things can erase the past events? Yes Paris Peace Treaties nullified the decision of the Vienna Awards, but the real events happened in the past in 1938, 1939, 1944... before 1947, WW2 also fact, and when the Soviets occupied Transcarpathia at that time it was part of Hungary. So when the Soviets occupied the region the Paris Treaty did not exist, it was just the future. Following your logic, because Treaty of Trianon moved Transcarpathia to Czechoslovakia in 1920 does it mean that it was not legally part of Hungary retroactively 900-1920 because nullified it? Or a person lived in Transcarpathian in 1500, then he would have been know that he is not part of Hungary legally because of the future 420 years later a treaty nullified it? OrionNimrod (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm just talking about international law. Trianon did not explicitly nullify the legality of Hungarian rule over Transcarpathia in the past, but the Paris Peace Treaties did specifically nullify both Vienna Awards. Today we treat more recent cases like these according to international law. Thus, maps will show Crimea as part of Ukraine for example.

There's also the moral aspect. I do not agree with including Transcarpathia as part of Hungary, it was invaded in a time space in which there were a set of laws which were broken. Again, Austria is listed separately from Germany. Why should Transcarpathia be listed as part of Hungary? And yes, per international law, the Slovak Republic was illegitimate. Super Ψ Dro 22:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Super,

I am not aware that the Paris Peace Treaties, 1947 would erase the history. It reverted the decision of the Vienna Awards, and plus more Hungarian villages moved to Czecoslovakia. But the First Vienna Award were legally treaties signed even by Czecoslovakia. Also the Munich Agreement was signed by England and France also, it was legally. By the Vienna Award southern Transcarpathia was reverted back to Hungary legally by international law, it was mostly Hungarian populated if we want to see the moral aspect. Also you can see in all international maps those regions and the other annexed ones part of Hungary. How possible to show on contemporary and historical maps those regions as part of Hungary if those regions was “not part” of it? Example:

I do not understand how possible to ignore 10 years event, the topic is the “Soviet occupation”. When Czecoslovakia reestablished after WW2 then Transcarpathia was already occupied by the Soviets, Czecoslovakia claimed the land but the Soviets refused it. The fact it was occupied from Hungary not from the non existent Czecoslovakia at the time of the Soviet occupation. Why do Transcarpathia listed as part of Czecoslovakia if physically was not part of it when the Soviet occupation happened? And southern Transcarpathia was legally part of Hungary.

Please check out the infobox of these articles, the consistency between articles:

Carpatho-Ukraine: Preceded by Czechoslovakia / Succeeded by Hungary

Carpathian Ruthenia during World War II: Succeeded by Zakarpattia Oblast

Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946): Succeeded by Soviet Union (only Transcarpathia can be that part)

By the way nationalist Hungarians like to provocate Slovaks with this "I am older than Slovakia" refering that Slovakia established in 1993. Which means they will be not happy saying independent Slovakia did not exist during WW2.

“There's also the moral aspect. I do not agree with including Transcarpathia as part of Hungary, it was invaded in a time space in which there were a set of laws which were broken.”

Moral? Set of laws broken? Justice?

You are right, please lets see this from Hungarian perspective, Hungary was invaded many times by many others and many set of laws broken.

On 9 December 1917, the Armistice of Focsani was an agreement that ended the hostilities between Romania and the Central Powers. On 7 May 1918, Romania signed the Treaty of Bucharest, so Romania was out of the war. The Hungarian army was disarmed on 2 November 1918, on 3 November 1918, Austria-Hungary signed the armistice. On 10 November 1918, one day before the German armistice, Romania re-entered the war and sent a war message to Hungary again (first in 1916), however, Hungary was out of the war already, it was clearly the violation of international law to attack a capitulated and disarmed country. The Czechs and the Serbs also attacked the disarmed Hungary from other directions, on 5 November 1918, the Serbian army, with the help of the French army, crossed the southern borders. The invader Romanian, Czech, and Serb forces many times violated the demarcation lines, which were deep in the territory of Hungary. And it was also a brutal plundering of Hungary by Romanian soldiers. About this: USA Major General Harry Hill Bandholtz - An Undiplomatic Diary:

2/3 of 1000 years historical Hungarian lands was detached from Hungary with 1/3 of ethnic Hungarian population because the new borders did not follow the ethnic borders. Treaty of Trianon called Hungary as Dictate of Trianon. Hungary offered democratic referendums about the disputed borders for minorities, however the political leaders of those minorities refused the idea of democratic referendums regarding disputed territories at the Paris peace conference. Nobody asked the residents, there were no referendums (only one in Sopron forced by fight). Hungary was not allowed to participate in the peace conference, when the negotiation was ended just the Hungarian country was forced to sign the dictate under the shadow of weapons, behind the military presence of the Entente. The Hungarian diplomats were accompanied by guards. It was big inhumanity, denying all legal and all human things from Hungarians (who lived their ancient homeland with their cities which was built by their ancestors) who moved to newly created (Czecoslovakia, Yugoslavia) hostile countries. You know well not only the Romanian, Slovak, Serb populated regions were detached from Hungary, but many full Hungarian populated regions total 1/3 ot ethnic Hungarians from the total Hungarians. Many Hungarian cities and families were cut in half. Also it is well known that treaty caused vast amount of suffering and suppress to the Hungarians who was forced to live in an another country. You know well until today there are many ethnic conflict regarding this.

You know well Romania wanted to extend his border to the Tisza river, that region (from today's Romanian border to the Tisza river) was full Hungarian populated with many million Hungarians, but it was not a moral problem to demand it, and for example many full Hungarian populated cities like Oradea (only 10km from today border) was attached to Romania, what do you think about the moral aspect of it? And the Czech leader Benes wanted to move the full half part of the today west Hungary to Czechoslovakia to make an ally corridor to Yugoslavia, and Yugoslavia wanted more south areas from Hungary. Even Austria who also was the loser side of WW1 claimed and got territories from west Hungary. Btw the Czech land was also part of Austria-Hungary, part of the Central Powers.

Romania’s entry into World War 1, 27 August 1916. Detail from Proclamation of King Ferdinand of Romania:

“In our moral energy and our valour lie the means of giving him back his birthright of a great and free Romania from the Tisza to the Black Sea, and to prosper in peace in accordance with our customs and our hopes and dreams.”

When Romanians occupied Budapest, Romania also demanded that Hungary must hand over all its munitions, go to war so that Romania can obtain the Banat region from Serbia. Both Romania and Serbia wanted the full Banat region, they could not agree on the peace conference. Clemenceau the prime minister of France suggested if they are not able to agree it will be a plebiscite. Then the Romanians and Serbs agreed immediately because they knew if it will be a plebiscite, then they will get much less territory.

I would quote many non-Hungarian authors, I choose this: I quote what the Prime Minister of Italy (Francesco Saverio Nitti 1919-1920) wrote, and Italy was an enemy nation of Hungary in World War 1:

Peaceless Europe by Francesco Saverio Nitti

"Hungary has undergone the greatest occupation of her territories and her wealth. This poor great country, which saved both civilization and Christianity, has been treated with a bitterness which nothing can explain except the desire of greed of those surrounding her, and the fact that the weaker people, seeing the stronger overcome, wish and insist that she shall be reduced to impotence. Nothing, in fact, can justify the measures of violence and the depredations committed in Magyar territory. What was the Rumanian occupation of Hungary: a systematic rapine and the systematic destruction for a long time hidden, and the stern reproach which Lloyd George addressed in London to the Premier of Rumania was perfectly justified. After the War everyone wanted some sacrifice from Hungary, and no one dared to say a word of peace or goodwill for her. When I tried it was too late. The victors hated Hungary for her proud defence. The adherents of Socialism do not love her because she had to resist, under more than difficult conditions, internal and external Bolshevism. The international financiers hate her because of the violences committed against the Jews. So Hungary suffers all the injustices without defence, all the miseries without help, and all the intrigues without resistance. Before the War Hungary had an area almost equal to that of Italy, 282,870 square kilometres, with a population of 18,264,533 inhabitants. The Treaty of Trianon reduced her territory to 91,114 kilometres -- that is, 32.3 per cent. -- and the population to 7,481,954, or 41 per cent. It was not sufficient to cut off from Hungary the populations which were not ethnically Magyar. Without any reason 1,084,447 Magyars have been handed over to Czeko-Slovakia, 457,597 to Jugo-Slavia, 1,704,851 to Rumania. Also other nuclei of population have been detached without reason."

Basically the harsh treaties after WW1 caused the WW2, those one created Hitler, the Nazis, the Holocaust and the suffering for the folk of Europe. Czecoslovakia, and Yugoslavia was an artificial countries, Czecoslovakia collapsed and we could see the many suffering and bloody conflict which caused the break up of Yugoslavia, and even today there are still a conflict in Kosovo. Czechoslovakian was a multi-ethnic prison state where the Germans and Hungarians were second class suppressed population. Czechoslovakia had in 1920 1,7 million Slovaks and 3,1 million Germans. In that multi-ethnic state, the German population was almost double than the Slovak population. By the First Vienna Award Hungary got back only the Hungarian majority areas, it followed much better the ethnic borders so this treaty was fairer than the treaty of Trianon.

Could you tell me any moral aspect and reason why do Czechoslovakia got Transcarpathia which was part of Hungary 1000 years long? In Transcarpathia it was almost zero Slovak and zero Czech population. What was the moral aspect that Czech land annexted that region very far from the Czech lands?

A moral aspect example:

Hungary was a German ally during World War 2 and the Germans asked Hungary to allow the German army to attack Poland from the territory of Hungary. Nonetheless Pál Teleki, the Hungarian prime minister said "I would rather explode all the railway track in my country than undertake any military action/aggression against Poland" “Psychologically impossible for Hungarians”. When Germany occupied Poland then Hungary opened its border for the Polish refugees and Hungary supported them. There were Polish schools and organizations in Hungary until the occupation of Hungary by Nazi German forces on 12 March 1944. Hungary did not attack Poland, meantime Slovakia attacked Poland together with the Germans, and when World War 2 ended Slovakia was rewarded nonetheless and got more Hungarian territories...

What do you think about the moral aspect of the Benes decrees?

The Beneš decrees collectively punished many million ethnic German and Hungarian minorities by expropriation and deportation to Germany, Austria, and Hungary. Many Hungarian families who lived there a centuries-long lost their property and were expelled from their homes. Czechoslovakia gave their houses to Slovaks.

I do not know in history when the Hungarians would have done this with Czech or Slovak peoples: https://hungarytoday.hu/long-shadows-benes-decrees-ethnic-discrimination-hungarians-czechoslovakia-25353/ OrionNimrod (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

This message is way too long and I can see it has a lot of unrelated elements. As I said I also offer a compromise to include Transcarpathia separately from any other country as it is done with Bessarabia and Bukovina, since it appears you do not understand my rationale regarding international law. I do not wish to discuss aspects such as what borders for X country would be fair in Wikipedia. Super Ψ Dro 17:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The first part is related to the topic, contemporary maps and linked articles which use Transcarpathia annexed from Hungary, and by international law Vienna Awards were legally. My reaction was about the "moral aspect" in the second part. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

With that I meant I oppose the land grabs that took place in World War II reminiscent of the times of today. Again, for cases such as Crimea or Nagorno-Karabakh, in Wikipedia we show their legal owners and not their de facto owners. From 1940 to 1944/47, Hungary was the legal owner of Transcarpathia, but the agreements that made it like that were legally nullified so from 1947 our intepretation should be that Hungary never owned Transcarpathia legally. The same would be the case of Romania with Transnistria, or of Germany with Austria.

Though for the real moral aspect it would be hard to justify Rusyns coming under Hungarian rule, even if it'd make perfect sense to annex the southern villages of the region. Super Ψ Dro 18:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The Hungarian annexation of Transcarpathia was before WW2, it started 1st of September 1939.

We need go forward in the past to understand WW2. If you see the longest part, the Hungarian reaction, all of this was the consequence of the irredentist Czech politics, the conflict started by them, not Hungary attacked the CZech people to occupy foreign land but inverse. If Czechs occupy Hungarian lands it is ok? But if Hungarian took back to respond the Czech agression is wrong? It is also considered a land grabbing that Transcarpathia was attached to the artificial Czecoslovakia in 1920 where no Slovaks and no Czech population lived very far from Czech lands where the Czech state and Czech people had zero history. The First Vienna Award was before WW2 and it was legally, Czecoslovakia signed it. I know Paris treary reverted their decisions, but they were legally at their time.

'Though for the real moral aspect it would be hard to justify Rusyns coming under Hungarian rule', you can tell the same regarding Rusyns coming under the Czech rule. But comparing with the Czechs, that Ruthenians historically lived in the Kingdom of Hungary for 1000 years very far from the Czech lands.

If you like the Ukraine-Russian example, first the Czech lands attacked Hungary then Hungary made small a counterwar for respond, like Ukrainians responded to the Russian aggression. Ukrainians did not say thanks for the Russian agression, why do you expect at that time Hungarians would have been say thanks for the Czecoslovak occupation? I think the double standard moral is not fair, Hungarians at that time tried to protect get back their ancient land, which had zero Czech history. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)