Talk:First Vienna Award

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)

- And the Trianon Treaty was of course whhat Hungarians deserved for their policy in 1790-1918- what is a problem? 84.16.37.74 (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

MAy I ask why can a "mud throwing" stay in the article if it has no ground? like the part->life after...? It needs citation all over! Please only include things if it has a ground! Military regime in the Upper Hungarian territories and so on...--Edipqe (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

It appears to me that most of the information is taken from Ladislav Deáks works, which are considered problematic by Hungarian and Third-Party historians. I would suggest adding information from Gergely Sallai's "Az elso becsi dontes" to the wiki article. 128.97.244.23 (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)LW

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)

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)

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)

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)

MAP

A map is not correct- the Polish occupation of Javorina and parts of Orava is niot shown. 84.16.37.74 (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The First Vienna Award was indeed along the lines of self determination, much moreso than the joke of a border that was drawn after WWI. Indeed all of the border changes done to Hungary between 1938 and 1941 resulted in to date, the fairest frontiers yet seen. Although they were all over-reaches by Hungary, the results were still far better than the borders of 1920 which appear to have been drawn by the blind, deaf, dumb and mute, who unfortunately drew frontiers following WWII which were just as pathetic. That's not saying it was perfectly just, as there was as mentioned Hungarian over reaching with regard to Kosice as well as Levice and its adjunct territory, and that the borders were based on the 1910 Hungarian census which was as skewed as the 1930 Czechoslovak census, as opposed to the pre-Magyarization 1880 census.

Some may point to the 1930 Czechoslovak census to show how 'few' Hungarians there were, however the data is skewed. Between 1920/21 and 1930/31, the Hungarian population of Transylvania increased from 1,305,753 to 1,349,563 or by 3.36%, that of V from 363,450 to 376,176 or by 3.50% and that of Transcarpathia from 111,052 to 116,548 or by 4.95%. However that is in contrast to that of Slovakia which decreased from 650,597 to 585,434 or by 10.02%. Now between 1918 and 1924, 197,000 Hungarians fled Transylvania, 88,000 fled Slovakia, 45,000 fled Vojvodina and 19,000 fled Transcarpathia, which shows that there wasn't anything abnormal going on in Slovakia during the interwar years. Based on that and the average growth rate of 3.5% between 1920 and 1930, the actual number of Hungarians in Slovakia in 1930 was around 670,000, a figure to increase to about 710,000 by 1940. Now the post war population exchange of 75,000 Hungarians for 75,000 Slovaks as well as the 20,000 Hungarians deported to the ethnically cleansed Sudetenland who didn't return to Slovakia and 15,000 Hungarians who were deported as fugitives, would reduce the 710,000 to 600,000, assuming no population growth or loss as a result of WWII. This figure also doesn't take into account any Hungarian additional flight or deportation from Slovakia from 1944-1961 when the next reliable census was conducted.

Call my posting what you will, but it is neither pro Hungarian nor pro Slovak, but pro justice based on non-skewed statistics. Prussia1231 (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

POV problems, no inline citations

I'm asking for inline citations as too many claims seem to be original research here, the article is written from a Slovak point of view. Please use English sources if possible as the topic is controversial and sensitive.
I also added a dubious tag for "because Germans did not want to live as a minority under Hungary". Saying two decades after the Treaty of Trianon that "Slovakia lost its railways, connections etc." is a bit POV, so a neutral reference is needed for that claim. Squash Racket (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

POV problems

This is funny, I am writing a sort of paper about this topic and while this text is mostly quite exact and I also use the sources cited here, but the sources do not seem to be used at many points in this article (maybe they were used originally, but someone has changed the text in the meantime). As a result, in its current form, this is actually a clearly pro-Hungarian (anti-Slovak) article. So I consider the article non-neutral, because of its pro-Hungarian tone. Some sentences would therefore require direct references. To elaborate on this, the article could be even called chauvinist and the Hunagrian opinions here in this article are even worse. I do not care about anybodies opinion, but I do not think that it is ok, when an article like this is edited by people with opinions like those above (Andulka, Squash Racket etc.), who seriously assert that parts of a neighbouring country somehow "naturally" belong to Hungary (I mean, note that they do not even hide their incredible bias). This way any Slovak, Croat, Romanian or Serb could start claiming that "the Hungarians took all their territories from them in the 10th century", so that Hungary is "naturally" theirs and put tags into any Hungary-related article with such an argument. Also, most importantly: legally, the award was - togeher with the Munich Agreement - a violation of international law and for good reasons (because it was the result of pressure etc.) and modern Hungary has accepted this, implying that anybody having problems with the fact that the Award has been declared void and with any results of the award propagates fascism, legally at least. Therefore I think care is necessary in reading parts of the text, in which Hungarian activities concerning this award are depicted as positive or "not so bad". 45rt (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"this is actually a clearly pro-Hungarian (anti-Slovak) article." The article has zero Hungarian references at this point, while several Slovak ones are listed.

The article was created by a Slovak editor.

So I don't understand your frustration. Squash Racket (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And since then it was changed quite a few times so I don´t see your point there. --89.173.16.241 (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The article still has zero Hungarian references, so my almost-year-old comment remains valid. Squash Racket (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Why are there so many paragraphs of "data" that have absolutely no citations? It would seem the entire entry should be scrapped and only rewritten if sources can be obtained because right now it looks biased and without basis. This Juro character has already been banned for anti-Hungarian bias on his entries so why do these remain available? (Strafordbaby (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC))