Talk:Polish–Czechoslovak War

Name of the article #2

This article should be called Czechoslovak-Polish War. Czechoslovakia started it by sending soldiers over the border and killing Poles. The country that starts the war gets mentioned first in the name of the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tandrasz (talk • contribs) 11:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Polish historiography

How is this war known in the Polish historiography? Is it known as the war at all? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Polish agitation leaflet

Czech agitation leaflet

• the Polish war memorials in the gallery seem to talk of it as a war. -- Esemono (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• and in the Poland a historical Atlas by Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski it is called the the Czechoslovak war of Cieszyn; Czechoslovak invasion [of Poland] in violation of a local agreement -- Esemono (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Polish sources are not unified in the classification. As was pointed above, some call it a "war" or "invasion". Classification simply as "conflict" occur most often I think. The conflict itself is not much known in Poland and Poland fought "real" wars in the East at that time, so this conflict is quite small and insignificant compared to them. - Darwinek (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Name of the article

Why is the article named Poland-Czechoslovakia war please? Given the name of the similar Polish–Lithuanian War or any other war in which Poland was involved (the Polish–Ukrainian War, the Polish–Russian wars, the Polish–Swedish wars, the Polish–Ottoman wars, etc.) I would expect the article to be named Polish–Czechoslovak War rathen than what is the current name.--Civilization Project (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, there should be some naming conventions about that. Try to search for them at Wikipedia:Naming conventions. - Darwinek (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It appears there is no specific naming convention for wars. But there is a general consistency rule which says that "Similar articles generally should share similar terms.". Therefore the proposed name (Polish–Czechoslovak War) appears to be more in line with naming conventions than the current one.--Civilization Project (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I've moved the article. - Darwinek (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So we are now concocting names for conflicts out of nothing?

This should be called whatever it was called in English language print media and diplomatic circles in 1920.

You can't expect every conflict to have a name in Mongolian already, but there should be a pre-existing English name for a European event of this sort.

Varlaam (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

B-class review

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 01:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Historical Background

The background does not account for several facts. Firstly the population of that region was uder heavy influence of Polish propaganda by that time. Moreover in violation of international agreement Polish leaders in that region started provocations against Czech speaking locals. Historicly speaking even at the end of the war the area was part of the Bohemia kingdom or to be precise of the Lands of the Czech Crown. What I don't understand that even if the coal region around Karvina is quite small in comparison to Polish one it is realy stressed the article. The major reason for this intervention was Bohumin railroad as the only connection between Czech lands and Slovakia by that time. When it became clear that this area won't stay neutral and the transport of troops to Slovakia surrounded by not that friendly states (Hungary, Poland) could become almost imposible the Czech leaders decided to solve this by force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.176.87.142 (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Informations about Czech war crimes against Poles (e.g. Stonava crime, 26 January 1919), are not included, as well. I do agree that this article is not complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.51.66.123 (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

But it also does not include Polish crimes against Czechs.--AnkaElektro (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sudetenland was created in 1938 and thrown at Hitler’s feet in exchange for «Peace in our time». See any Encyclopedia or atlas. Sudetenland and the polish General Government were created at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:2020:32B:EB2D:50BD:9B5E:F5B0:B8B (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

neutrality of the toponyms

Why the polish version of the disputed territory (cziecin) is used in the article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EFD2:6450:A915:2E94:62CD:F8EB (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no "cziecin" in the article whatsoever.--Darwinek (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I wrote: The Czechs argument was that the Poles were not local but an incoming population and that the indigenous population had been Czech - just like the Sudeten Germans, the Poles were immigrants attracted to employment in the mines.

Does Darwinek erase this referenced text because it anoys him??

--Posp68 (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Cherry-picking references to fit your own worldview violates WP:NPOV. Besides you have first insterted the claim that Poles were immigrants without any reference at all, here. Now to the meritum. Poles were not immigrants to Cieszyn Silesia same as Sudeten Germans were not immigrants to Sudetes. Both ethnic groups were/are autochtonic to the respective areas. The economic immigration of Poles from Galicia was directed to Ostrava coal basin, not Cieszyn Silesia. Germans on the other hand came to populate Sudetes centuries ago, on the invitation of Bohemian kings. Only hardline Czech nationalists call Sudeten Germas immigrants. You are not an immigrant if you came to the region centuries ago. - Darwinek (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Cieszyn Silesia linguistic map from 1855

The immigration began in earnest in 1880s. D_T_G (PL) 18:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Blatant nosense. German immigrants have known very well where they settled from the very beginning. They arrived to the Czech Lands in every century, including many since 1850. Once more: Does Darwinek erase the text because it annoys him?? NPOV rules require all major viewpoints and this certainly qualifies. It was the viewpoints of the Czechoslovak Government.--Posp68 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Coal mining timeline

@Posp68:, can you please cite here what exactly Prazmowska says in her book about the immigrants coming to work in the mines throughout the 18th century? The coal mines and their boom occurred in 19th century, not 18th.--Darwinek (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The linguistic border between Polish-speakers (concio Polonica) and Moravian-speakers (concio Moravica) was already attested by the post-reformation bishopric visitators in the mid-to-late-17th century, made by bishops from Breslau, who wanted to recognize the situation also in the far-flung outskirts of their bishopric, in order to plan how to best counter-reform. They were honest to the fault: if the priest was a drunkard, they would note it in the report. These reports were not known in the early 20th century, when the myth of the "polonized Moravians" began to be propagated by some Czechs - which is now refuted by most modern Czech historians, although there are still some that cling to that narration. According to another modern CZECH historian Milan Myška the WHOLE coal mining industry of Karvina-Ostrava, including Moravian Ostrava, employed in the year 1850 only 2500 miners - the working force was still easily supported by the local population. In 1851 the Austrian officials categorized 77,8% of the local inhabitants as Poles, not even Polish-speakers, but simply Poles, similarly de:Karl von Czoernig-Czernhausen - see the map from 1855 above. The later periods are of course more complicated and another story, but in 1919 the pre-1848 period was barely in the living memory. D_T_G (PL) 08:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

To make it short (The Czechoslovak viewpoint)
1. Poland was in border conflict by four states (Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Germany and Russia)
It was the settlement of the Polish eastern and western frontier which was to create most difficulty the latter starting The Second World War.
Accross western Europe and in Germany workers and trade unions protested against Polish "agression".
2. Těšín (the disputed area) was part of the historic Czech lands of Bohemian Crown - Crown of Saint Wenceslaus (born Václav).
3. Těšín was occupied by Polish troops and being run by a Polish National Council.
4. The Poles were not local but an incoming population. They were immigrants attracted to employment in coal mines throughout the 18th and 19th century.
5. The indigenous population had been Czech.
6. The Allies decided in the Spa Conference in 1920 in favour of The Czechoslovak Republic.
7. Since the article mentions Sudetenland: Germany did not have a territorial claim on Czechoslovakia. The Sudetenland was created in 1938 and was never part of the German.
8. On 23 September 1938, the Czechoslovakian military mobilized to defend against Nazi Germany.
9. Czechoslovak General Ludvík Krejčí reported that 'Our army will in about two days' time be in full condition to withstand an attack even by all Germany's forces together, provided Poland does not move against us' - Ref.: Czechoslovakia Crossroads and Crises, 1918-88 by Norman Stone and Edvard Strouhal. Page 109. ISBN 978-1-349-10646-2
10. On 27 September, seeing that Czechoslovakia was in dire straits with Nazi troops readying to invade, Half-fascist Poland gave an ultimatum to the Democratic Czechoslovak government demanding that Czechoslovakia hand over Těšín district, denied to Poland by the Spa Conference in 1920. In the meantime any German claims to the Polish Corridor and large parts of Prussia as well as half of Silesia were played down - the price of cooperation from Warsaw. The Polish ultimatum finally decided Beneš, according to his own account, to abadon any idea of resisting the Munich Settlement.
11. Poland did act like vultures - to quote Winston Churchill.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.214.96.114 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC) 

--Posp68 (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

To make it short: a viewpoint of a modern Czech historian, much more moderate and neutral to boot: The Czechoslovak-Polish War of January 1919 – a brief clash with lasting consequences. D_T_G (PL) 17:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

This very diplomatic, polite and sympathetic Czech historian confirms point 2 and consequently point 3 in the list above. He further confirms point 6 and point 10.

Points 1, 4, 5 , 7, 8 and 9 are historical facts.--Posp68 (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Previously they were Czech point of views and now they are absolute facts. Well, for one - the points 4 and 5 are for me as a descendant of an indigenous Polish lutheran family an utter lie, you don't know the local intricacies at all. D_T_G (PL) 06:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Czech point of views and historic facts are no contradiction. 2001:2020:32B:EB2D:50BD:9B5E:F5B0:B8B (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

You are a good man and I respect your view and apologize. The result was that the Polish claim was rejected and Czechoslovakia retained the region.
Poland was embarking on a policy of confrontation not only with the Paris negotiators but also with the Soviet regime, Germany, Lithuania and Czechoslovakia.
"Poland's participation in the annexation of Czechoslovakia in 1938 was not only an error, but above all a sin", Polish President Kaczynski told an audience of world leaders, including Prime Minister Putin and Chacellor Merkel on September 1. 2009.--Posp68 (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Czechoslovak Flag

New to Wikipedia-- The flags in the imagebox are technically historically accurate, but due to being the same, make it confusing to look at. Should the Czechoslovak flag be changed to the more well-known post-1920 version for clarity? SigmaGrigma (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)