Talk:First Vienna Award

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a WikiProject related to the nations of Eastern Europe.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Europe may be able to help!

Contents 1 Copy edit 2 Sources 3 Second Vienna Arbitration? 4 Propose Featured-Article candidacy 5 disputed neutrality 6 Lost infrastructure + removed POV statements

[edit] Copy edit

I'm attempting a general copy edit. I can see that I may have quite a few questions, so I'll put them here. Juro, I take it this article is basically yours, so if you can answer that would be appreciated. -- Jmabel 00:43, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

• In the section "Before the negotiations", first paragraph: "Hungary, on the other hand..." The "other hand" compared to what? (JM)
  • This was an edit of a professor in the German encyclopedia and I just have translated it. You can delete it. I suppose it was supposed to mean "and now you will find out what Hungary wanted as opposed to Germany". (Juro)
    • So is this article mostly a translation from the German-language wikipedia? If so, then just like any other source on a non-trivial article we should state that. (JM)

• In that same paragraph: can I assume that "Subcarpathia" here refers to what in English is known as "Transcarpathia"? The geography seems right. (JM)

See Subcarpathia. The "province" was called Subcarpathia (Karpatalja) in Hungary till 1919/1920, then Subcarpathia(n Rus) (Podkarpatska Rus) in Czechoslovakia 1919-1938, then Carpathian Ukraine from November 1938 to March 1939 when the province was autonomous within Czechoslovakia, then,I suppose, again Subcarpathia when it was reconquered by Hungary 1939-1945, and since it is part of the Soviet Union/Ukraine it is called Transcarpathia. Obviously, Subcarpathia is the correct name if you are in Europe, Transcarpathia is the correct name if you are in the Ukraine.

Now, if you read the rest of the text, in one place it says that Subcarpathia was renamed Carpathian-Ukraine and from there, I have used (I hope at least) the names as they were used during the respective periods.

If you want to avoid this confusion of names, you could rename both Subcarpathia and Carpatho-Ukraine "Carpathian Ruthenia", which is a name that has never been used officially so that it is "always correct". Juro 01:46, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think that since we are writing in English, we should probably use mostly "Carpathian Ruthenia" or "Transcarpathia" except when specifically referring to what it was called at a particular time. Looks like Wikipedia's main article on the region is Carpathian Ruthenia. -- Jmabel 04:54, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Or maybe we word more carefully to make it clear we are using names relevant to the period... -- Jmabel 06:30, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

• "...presented a plan prepared by the Hungarian government in Poland (Warsaw)..." I guess that this means either to say (1) "... presented (in Warsaw, Poland) a plan prepared by the Hungarian government..." or (2) "...presented a plan prepared in Warsaw, Poland by the Hungarian government". As it is, it implies that there was a Hungarian government in Poland. Does it mean (1) or (2)? Or something else that I'm missing? -- Jmabel 06:39, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

• • (1) of course :) Juro 13:03, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Juro, thanks for your continuing help. More questions follow; sorry there are so many, but I'm trying to avoid accidentally changing rather than clarifying meanings: -- Jmabel 04:11, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

• "Based on the negotiations provisions of the Munich Agreement, Hungary required negotiations with Czechoslovakia as early as on 1 October." This is a little confusing. I'm guessing it means one of the following less ambiguous statements:
  • "Invoking the negotiations provisions of the Munich Agreement, Hungary demanded that Czechoslovakia begin negotiations by October 1."
  • "Invoking the negotiations provisions of the Munich Agreement, Hungary demanded as early as October 1 that Czechoslovakia begin negotiations." - (Juro:) this one
  • or does it mean something else?

• "The Hungarian delegation, on the other hand, consisted of experienced persons and the Hungarian government discussed the negotiations on 8 October." Is something intended here that I'm missing, or should this simply be "The Hungarian delegation, on the other hand, consisted of experienced persons. The Hungarian government discussed the negotiations on 8 October." - (Juro:) the point is that they were experienced and in addition their government had discussed the whole thing - as opposed to the Czechoslovak/Slovak government which did not manage to discuss anything prior to the negotiations.

• "In 1930, this territory (except in Subcarpathia) comprised 550,000 Magyars and 432,000 Slovaks, and 23% of the total population of Slovakia, on 12,124 km²." Am I correct in reading that the territory whose borders we've just described is partly in Slocakia, partly in Subcarpathia? Why do we then give a figure only for the part outside Subcarpathia? And how large a portion of the territory in question would be inside Subcarpathia? Without that for comparison, it's hard to tell whether the numbers here are for most of the territory in question, half of it, or what. - (Juro:) the problem here is that since Transcarpathia is now part of the Ukraine and Transcarpathia's proportion in the arbitration territories was rather small (15% I guess), the Ukrainians do not care much about this topis, so that I was only able to find these numbers. (I will try once again). The alternative is to leave out the sentence, but why not add these numbers at least?

• "However, since a common Polish-German frontier would mean a kind of encirclement of Germany..." I'm guessing this means to say "However, since a common Polish-Hungarian frontier would mean a kind of encirclement of Germany..." Right? - yes, of course

• "...Czechoslovakia offered to Hungary the cession of 11,300 (9606 km² in Slovakia) in southern Slovakia and Subcarpathia, except for Bratislava, Nitra and Košice, on October 22 (the so-called Third Territorial Offer)." Again I want to make sure I understand this correctly before I edit. Would it be accurate to say "...Czechoslovakia made the so-called Third Territorial Offer on October 22: they offered to cede Hungary a territory of 9,606 km² in southern Slovakia plus 1,694 km² in Subcarpathia; Czechoslovakia would retain Bratislava, Nitra and Košice." - (Juro:) yes, I am sorry for the rather complicated formulation, but it arose because when writing the article, I was constantly adding information to the original text, so that the result might be somewhat overloaded.

• "In the meantime, the U.K. and France had proclaimed their disinterest, but readiness to participate in a four-power conference if such would arise." Can you paraphrase what you mean here by "disinterest"? "Disinterest" means not having a stake in something -- e.g. "we submitted our dispute to a disinterested party" -- and I suspect that's not what you meant to convey, but "uninterest" doesn't make sense here, either. - (Juro:) all English dictionaries I have say that disinterest(edness) means either: (1) indifference, apathy, unconcern, uninterestedness (2)unselfishness, (3) impartiality. As (only) the Oxford-Hachette says for (1) " utiliser de préférence uninterested", maybe uniterestedness would be better.

• (I've already slightly edited this slightly for grammar, but there's an issue I'm less sure of.) "...Czechoslovakia and Hungary officially asked Germany and Italy for an arbitration award, and they declared in advance that they would submit to it." Is it important that this say "arbitration award" rather I'd like to reword it as "...Czechoslovakia and Hungary officially asked Germany and Italy to arbitrate, and they declared in advance that they would abide by the results of the arbitration." Is that in any way inaccurate? - (Juro:) no, it is accurate (but the second part of the sentence you have changed stems from an English text)

Jmabel 04:11, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC) / Juro 13:24, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks again. I've incorporated this, except for one where I'm still unclear on the intent: sentence with "...disinterested...": "In the meantime, the U.K. and France had proclaimed their disinterest, but readiness to participate in a four-power conference if such would arise." What were the U.K. and France disinterested / uninterested in? The result? The means of achieving it? I still don't get it, and I guess its not just the one word. -- Jmabel 19:51, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, now I got your problem. They were uninterested an the arbitration, but presumably would participate in a big Munich-like conference and agreement.

• "Eastern Slovakia and many towns in southern Slovakia lost a railway connection to the remaining world." What exactly did they lose a connection to? Obviously not literally the world. The rest of what remained legally Slovakia? -- Jmabel 02:03, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

(1) Eastern and southern Slovakia was connected to the rest of Slovakia only through lines (a line?) passing the annexed territories and the border was closed, so that it was literally cut off from the rest of the world in terms of transport. There were not as many railway tracks as there are today at that time. (2) Slovakia remained part of Czechoslovakia, but soon after, in March 1939, Slovakia became independent.

• "30,000 Czechs and Slovaks had to leave the town during the same month." I presume "...were forced to leave..." Any chance of more detail on this? e.g. was that the total Czwchand Slovak population of the town in question, if not who was chosen to leave, etc.

The details I could find: "As early as from 9 November 15000 Czechs and Slovaks left the town, and after 10 November approximately the same number."

and according to the last nationwide census of 1930, Kosice had 70232 inhabitants, out of which 60.2 % (that is 42 334) Slovaks and Czechs, implying that some 12000 Slovaks and Czechs remained thare (the number of the remaining Czechs being rather negligible, I assume).

• "...the Hungarian authorities increased compulsory education from 6 to 8 years at least." Trying to follow this: I take it that 6 years was the normal minimum in Hungary, but they agreed to require 8 in the annexed territories. What had been the previous law in the annexed territories, 8 years or something even more?

Hungary had 6 years, Czechoslovakia 8 years. After protests from the annexed territories Hungary increased at least the compulsory education from 6 to 8 years for whole Hungary (as I understood the source which I do not have here now). The other protests were rejected because the Hungarian finance minister said: "Since it is not Hungary that was annexed to Slovakia (Upper Hungary)... we will not adopt the principles of Czechoslovak law".

• the parenthetical remark "they were led by the military" is unclear. Does it simply mean that "the territories were ruled by the military"? - yes, directly by the military.

• is a Realschule like a British secondary modern? or is it a vocational school? or what?

it was a kind of secondary school (general education, around 3 years, age somehere between 10 and 15), the schools do not exist since 1948 anymore, so I do not know the details.

• "... and 862 out of 1119 Slovak teachers expelled." Does "expelled" here simply mean "fired" or were they actually banished from the territory?

one source says "fired" another source says "expelled", thus I assume that they were fired and some of them also expelled among those who were generally expelled.

• "...because the (sc. non-Magyar) nationalities have lost more lives." I'm guessing this should just be "...because the [non-Magyars] nationalities have lost more lives."

sc. stand for "scilicet" in Latin and means "namely", it is used in scientific quotes to show what was meant even though it was not said explicitely; at that time, Hungarians used the term nationalities in the sense Non-Magyar nation(anlitie)s

(JM:) We don't use it in English: I don't recall ever seeing it. The usual convention is just to put implied words in square brackets.

• "Rightlessness" isn't an English word. Do you mean "lawlessness", "deprivation of rights", or "injustice"? The second seems to make the most sense, but the first would be an English-German false cognate.

This sentence has no special meaning, it is supposed to mean lack of rule of law or something like that.

So I'm through it all. Really good article, hope I've been of assistance in making it clearer; I'll jump on these few remaining issues pretty much as soon as I get answers. -- Jmabel 03:17, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

This page is totally biased towards the Slovak side and talks only about atrocities committed by Hungarians, and does everything to conceal the fact that those territories ceded were predominantly Hungarian and still are nowadays. There is no telling about the Treaty of Trianon, or the Benes decrees, according to which the Hungarians are collectively treated as war criminals and this bill is still in effect! "in which 68,407 Magyars were resettled to Hungary in exchange for Slovaks resettled to Czechoslovakia" - so exactly how many Slovaks were "exchanged" for those 100 thousands Hungarians? and under what circumstances were the Hungarians driven out of the country? Gabor

(1) No, the page is biased towards the other side. A standard Slovak text does not look like this. Many things have been left out. (2) You have not read the article, because what you are critizing as "missing" actually IS in the article (although what happened after WWII is a consequence of the WWII and not directly of the award itself, nevertheless the article contains these things). (3) Are you suggesting that Slovakia, which lost 1/3 of its territory, commited attrocities? Where, on the Moon? Juro 18:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Leave it to them. Mr Juro, Slovak POV-pusher spreads his lies all over this miserable project. That's why people should read studies and encycopaedias written by experts, not chauvinist wannabe historians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.56.50.209 (talk • contribs) 21 Nov 2005.

Writing anonymously does not provide a free pass on Wikipedia:No personal attacks. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I just linked this to the German-language wikipedia article. I notice that article gives no indication of sources/references (nor is the topic taken up on its talk page). Juro, you were obviously majorly involved in the German-language article: can you give some indication what you've been using for reference? Given that there are things like precise percentages from censuses, obviously someone has been doing some serious research. -- Jmabel 01:50, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that it is relatively long ago that I have written the original version, furthermore I have used quite many sources, various encyclopedias etc. , some passages are simply from books in the library, and some passages are not from me. But I will add the most important sources, of course.

And thank you for help and patience.

Juro 02:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's been a pleasure. -- Jmabel 04:31, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Second Vienna Arbitration?

When and in what circumstances was the Second Vienna Arbitration? Would mention of it be helpful in this article? logologist 08:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you have overlooked the Vienna Award article...Juro 16:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Propose Featured-Article candidacy

Thank you for the opportunity of editing this interesting article without interruption. I suggest that it be retitled to the somewhat more familiar "First Vienna Award" and be proposed for Featured Article Candidacy. The article appears to be thoroughly researched, seems to have the ring of truth, reads well, is neutral, touches on an important but largely unfamiliar topic, and thus will add something substantial to readers' sum of knowledge. logologist 11:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] disputed neutrality

• It has no hungarian references, only from the other side(s).

• Benes decrees are not mentioned.

• Panslavism also not mentioned, just magyarization

• Many declared different ethnic identities after the border shifted, because belonging to the minority nation implied significant disadvantages: in particular, in terms of schooling and access to civil service positions in both states.

• There is no mention of a proposal of an autonomous Slovakia within Hungary during WWI, wich they denied.

• Subcarpatia was renamed to Carpatho-Ukraine on March 15, 1939.

• the Munich Agreement ignored Poland's requests

--VinceB 11:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't think there is any requirement—at all—that sources be of a particular nationality, just that they be accurate and (when taken together) reasonably impartial. But if you think that particular, relevant sources with a different perspective have been ignored, please bring them forward. I'll admit that I would prefer that they not be sources written only in Hungarian and never translated into any other language, because almost no non-Hungarian here can read Hungarian, but I'm sure that if you are intellectually honest in your use of those sources that should not be a problem.
2. The Beneš decrees should be linked, and there might even be reason for a paragraph about them, but since they entirely post-date the Vienna Awards, there would be more reason to mention the First Vienna Award in the article on the Beneš decrees than vice versa.
3. What about Panslavism do you think has bearing on the matter?
4. Not sure where you are going with your remark on ethnic identities. Yes, this tends to happen when borders shift, but mainly with people of mixed ancestry or culture (pretty hard to claim to be a Hungarian if all you speak is Czech and German).
5. With your remark on proposal of an autonomous Slovakia within Hungary during WWI: "w[h]ich they denied" is so ambiguous I can't even guess what you mean. The referent of "they" is unclear and "denied" can mean either "refused to agree to" or "refused to admit had occurred".
6. On minor factual issues (date of renaming Subcarpathia), please, just cite a reference and modify.
7. Poland's requests: no idea what you are referring to.

-- Jmabel | Talk 18:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

i wouldn't go as far as claiming disputed neutrality, i have read the article and i don't find it pro-slovak. but i find your comment about hungarian non-translated sources amusing in the light that the majority of both the referenced slovak and polish sources are in --- slovak and polish... hungarian references would simply add more credibility and would be a nice counterweight to the slavic sources, alas there are none. ps. reading hungarian is easy, understanding is harder :)

-- Minusf (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lost infrastructure + removed POV statements

Slovakia lost 21% of its territory, 20% of its industry, over 30% of its arable land, 27% of its power stations, 28% of its extractable iron ore, over 50% of its vineyards, 35% of its swine and 930 km of railway tracks. Eastern Slovakia lost its central town (Košice). Eastern Slovakia and many towns in southern Slovakia lost their railway connections to the rest of the world, because their only railway lines ran through the annexed territories and the border was closed. Carpathian Ruthenia was deprived of its two principal towns, Uzhhorod and Munkachevo, and of all of its fertile lands.

This is strong POV, I would say that most (if not all) the infrastructure "lost" came from former Kingdom of Hungary, built by the taxes from the Kingdom, so emphasizing the losses here are dubious, especially about unconnected railways: everybody knows that the railway system (the most startegic at that time) were built in logic of the Kingdom, which was cut off from Hungary after Trianon, in order to make difficult any defence of Hungary.

We have to also emphasize, that this Award was widely accepted in Europe before WWII, as this was in line with Wilson's peace proposals. Any Slovak should admit that Trianon took too many territories from Hungary, so this award was quite in line with justice. Of course, Hungarian side was too greedy to stop at negotiations, -- but did the Czech-Slovak army stop at Trianon border in 1920 ??? I think it is quite "egal". So this is why I have modified the source article. Please revert with care :) Abdulka (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)