Talk:Slovak Republic (1939–1945)

The fate of Slovak Holocaust Victims.

Most of the Slovak Jews, deported to Poland in 1942 were in fact murdered in the Operation Reinhard death camps Belzec and Sobibór; smaller groups were deported also to Auschwitz and its subsidiary camps. Most of the victims gassed immediately upon arrival perished however in the Action Reinhard death camps; there were whole transports, usualy of 1.000 victims per train, that were doomed to certain death, because in Belzec and Sobibór, no selections of labor-able and labor-unfit people were conducted, as is known from Auschwitz later; instead, the whole transports were gassed at once immediately upon arrival, sometimes with an exception of a few dozens of young, strong men who were temporary preserved from death to be forced to conduct the horrible tasks of a jewish Sonderkommando in the death camp. It is worth mention, that the Slovak State Government actually paid the Third Reich 100, or 500 (I'm not sure about the exact sum, it was either a 100 or 500,--) Reichsmark for every jewish person, deported from Slovak territory into Nazi-Occupied territories in this early stage of deportations, which is a particularly awful aspect of the Slovak Holocaust. I'm not aware of any other Government anywhere, that would pay the Third Reich for disposing of their own jewish people. Later, in summer and autumn 1944, most of the further deportees were transferred to Auschwitz-Complex camps and selectioned into those doomed to be gassed immediately and those forced to labor in the concentration camps.--84.163.127.40 10:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Slovak government paid the Nazis for the VOCATIONAL retraining of Jewish deportees (assumed to be resettled in a reservation around Lublin), not for extermination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.144.72 (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

After Tuka managed to settle an agreement with German diplomatic and SS officials, that none of the Jews will ever return. You mean this was ment to be a vocational retraining? Of women, elderly and children, which constitued a significant proportion of 1942 deportations? And that SS-Sturmbannführer Dieter Wisliceny, directly negotiating with Tuka in late 1941/early 1942 was making any misconceptions that the Jews would not be deported to concentration camps and settled in countryside in the east instead? Not even going to mention the treatment of imprisoned Jews in slovak transitory concentration camps (like that in Sered or Nitra, heard of it?) before their deportation by the auxiliary Hlinka Guards. These men (HGs in ranks of soldiers, NCOs and middle-level officiers) knew, what is going to happen with the deportees. So, and their direct and indirect superiors, e.g. Sano Mach didn't, yes? Well...--84.163.112.206 (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

German occupation commanders

As discussed ([[1]]) already in the Slovak National Uprising article discussion, SS-StbF Hermann Höfle wasn't in charge of the troops suppressing the SNU and occupying thereafter the territory. It was SS-OgruF and General of the Waffen-SS Hermann Höffle (whose name is obviously easily confused with the former). I therefore change the wikilink (article about SS-OgruF H. Höffle doesn't exist to date, nevertheless). Cheers.--84.163.112.206 (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The Coat of Arms of the first Slovak Republic

Please, everyone and whoever: I changed the link to the coat of arms' picture used on the slovak version site, but its colours are different (more bright). I do not dare to change the flag's link also. Instead I'm asking some skillfull well-doer: please, try to alternate the picture! As you can see, it really IS a DIFFERENT coat of arms... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.213.138.3 (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong anthem of Slovak Republic

Oficial anthem was not ,,Nad tatrou sa blýska", but panslavic Samuel Tomasik´s song - ,,Hej Slováci" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.40.34.174 (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No, though this is a common belief, the official anthem was "Nad tatrou sa blýska". "Hej Slováci" was generally favored by the leaders, but it was unofficial. As it says in Hey Slovaks: "In Slovakia, the song 'Hey, Slovaks' has been considered the unofficial song of the Slovaks throughout its modern history, especially at times of revolutions. Although after the First World War the song 'Nad Tatrou sa blýska' became the official Slovak anthem in Czechoslovakia and then again in 1993 in the independent Slovak Republic, 'Hey Slovaks' is still considered a 'second' anthem by many (usually more nationalist) people. Contrary to popular assumptions, however, it was not the official anthem of the wartime Slovak Republic (1939–1945), but it was greatly favored by the ruling party (Slovakia's official anthem remained 'Nad Tatrou sa blýska' during that period)." This is confirmed by what I have been able to find in sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

'Recognition' by Britain

Slovakia was not recognised officially by United Kingdom - only consular relations were established on May 4 1939 - i.e. only de facto recognition, not de iure. Backing 'British recognition' by this is pure falsification of history.--195.113.8.138 (talk) 08:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The text of the consul's letter asks for HIS recognition by the Slovak Government, not the other way around. I'm removing this text. 24.218.159.19 (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

slovensky stat/slovak state

the whole page should be called Slovak State as this was the first official name of the country. moreover, everybody knows this short-lived country under this name and this is much more widely used than first slovak republic. "slovak republic" is definitely related to the current country, not the WWII one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusoft (talk • contribs) 00:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Official name was Slovak Republic, not Slovak state. --EllsworthSK (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The section Name.

As it stands this is very badly written since it implies that they named the republic in 1939 in anticipation of the country that exist today. 88.90.43.140 (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The article Slovakia during World War II seems to cover basically the same scope of topics and events, and the same time period chronologically, as this article. Not sure why it has its own article; maybe someone could argue for why they're separate? It seems that Slovak participation in/activities during WWII should be comprehensively covered in a discussion of a Slovak state and government that came about primarily as a result of German intervention, as this article purports to be. Incidentally, the Slovakia during World War II article suffers from a total lack of references and generally poor quality, both of which could be rectified through the process of merging it into this article. smf (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support merge. Gobonobo ^{T C} 15:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support It does make sense.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
• Makes sense to me. I came here looking for the WWII article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.44.139.216 (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support merge. I took a crack at making sense of the Slovakia during World War II but it is in pretty bad shape and seems to be actually wrong in some places. I am not an expert on this topic, though I can do research - help would be great.--MLKLewis (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose (sort of). Ideally, these should be two articles, one about the state of Slovakia from 39-45 and one about the history of the period. In reality, the article on the state has no history section and is not particularly long so the current (small and rather weak) history article would fit in fine. —  AjaxSmack  02:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. I oppose the merger because I feel that there should be two separate articles on Slovakia during World War II, one as a summary of the country and discussing the country's structure during that time like the currency and government set-up (Slovak Republic (1939-1945)) and the other article for a more detailed history on the country and its role during WWII (Slovakia during World War II). Buspirtraz (talk) 09:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. 99.229.41.79 (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Obviously there should be two articles. --JaviP96 17:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. An article about a historical polity should not be merged with an article which is part of a series on the history of a present-day state. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, but... some material should be swapped between the two articles. The section "Slovak Military" should be stubbish in this article -- the subsection "Slovak forces during the campaign against the Soviet Union" is now larger than the similar section in the Slovakia during World War II and should be moved there, for instance. Slovakia during World War II should be mainly military history with just enough background to make sense, and this article vice versa. Herostratus (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

So what's the deal?

See Talk:Field Army Bernolák#Wrong? Herostratus (talk) 03:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Declare independence from what exactly?

For a non-historian, this article does not immediately make clear precisely what the Slovaks centered in their rear-view mirror. Their half of the Czecho-Slovakia union? Their purported leanings toward Hungary? Ominous influence from Poland? It really wouldn't hurt this account to treat "declare independence" as taking a specific object. Had Quebec left Canada, it wouldn't have done so by declaring independence; it would have done so by declaring sovereignty. I'm not so clear on this mushy concept of "independence" that the terms should be left implicit. — MaxEnt 01:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)