Talk:List of military occupations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OrionNimrod (talk | contribs) at 21:24, 10 January 2025 (→Ruthenia: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:24, 10 January 2025 by OrionNimrod (talk | contribs) (→Ruthenia: Reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of military occupations article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is rated List-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: National

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

List of military occupations received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

To-do list for List of military occupations: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2018-12-06

There are no active tasks for this page

Golan Heights and East Jerusalem

The Israeli military does not control those areas (Israel itself does, like Tel Aviv). As such, there is no claim to these areas being occupied militarily. To quote the Misplaced Pages page for "military occupation": "Military occupation... is temporary hostile control exerted by a ruling power's military apparatus over a sovereign territory that is outside of the legal boundaries of that ruling power's own sovereign territory" A3811 (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Please don't remove sourced content without giving a valid reason (the above doesn't qualify). M.Bitton (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The sources are being misused. None of the source on the matter mention military occupation! There are no valid sources for military occupation in E Jlm A3811 (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@A3811: See Al Jazeera - “During the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel occupied the Golan Heights. It currently controls 1,200sq km (463sq miles) of the western part of the region. Almost immediately after the Israeli military occupied it, Israeli settlements began to grow. Today, more than 30 Israeli settlements are in the area, where more than 25,000 Jewish Israelis live.” + The New York Times “The Golan Heights Annexed By Israel In Abrupt Move”. There are sources. So, yes, there are valid sources for the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights, which is the title of a Misplaced Pages article as well. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter that source does not refer to military occupation. Military occupation is, according to Misplaced Pages, "hostile control exerted by a ruling power's military apparatus over a sovereign territory that is outside of the legal boundaries of that ruling power's own sovereign territory". However, the Golan is in the sovereign territory of Israel since its annexation. There are no source referring to it as military occupation - simply put, it is not.

Same goes for E Jlm A3811 (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@A3811: Foreign Policy: "Syrians in the Golan continue to live under Israeli military occupation as well." Source right there. Also, I am concerned that you stated the sources above "does not refer to military occupation" and that "There are no source referring to it as military occupation". I just listed one directly stating that. But more concerning is that the New York Times source above states "The area had been held under military occupation since Israel captured it from Syria in the 1967 war." As you have now directly claimed that sentence does not actually refer to military occupation, I would like you to explain what The New York Times meant with that sentence. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The NYT article was written in 1981. The Golan was indeed held under military occupation, (as the article states) from 1967, until 1981 - when it was annexed (the event the article is reporting). Since it was annexed it is of course not under military occupation. The sovereign is the State of Israel, it's not occupied by the IDF A3811 (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

"according to Misplaced Pages" is not a policy-based argument. Also, please read WP:NOTADVOCACY. Statements like "the Golan is in the sovereign territory of Israel since its annexation" presents the particular view of the Israeli government as if it is an objective fact. There is no policy-based reason for Misplaced Pages editors to do that on talk pages. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Not done As you have given no policy-based reasons to remove the information, it shall not be removed from the article, as secondary reliable sources, as listed above, stated it is a military occupation. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Which secondary reliable sources? You claimed a NYT article - which refered to military occupation of the Golan until 1981! Since then it is in Israel's sovereign territory - yes, objectively. The Israeli law defined that the Israeli law and sovereignty apply to the Golan. Just like the US deifined that American law applies to California, Alaska etc. The other source is an opinion article (and outdated - US recognized Golan).

But again, the main point is that is doesn't fit the definiton of military occupation! The criteria for inclusion here is "temporary hostile control exerted by a ruling power's military apparatus over a sovereign territory that is outside of the legal boundaries of that ruling power's own sovereign territory".

The Israeli control is not temporary - is has been defined in law. Is it also not controled by a "military apparatus" - it is under Israeli sovereignty, enforced by civil Law.

Legally speaking, the Golan is the same as Tel Aviv

Please respond to these remarks. Also see the discussion on the talk page for "Military occupation". A3811 (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@A3811: I'm new to this discussion:

The "temporary" attribute in some definitions of military occupation reflects the international desire to see an end to vestiges of military conflict. When a nation internationally recognized as being in military occupation of a territory claims to annex that territory, the international response is often to deem the annexation unacceptable, the occupation ongoing, and an acceptable end to the conflict still pending. (Exception: India's 1961 annexation of Goa and other districts.) Related: some prefer the term "provisional" over "temporary".
The "military" attribute reflects the means of enforcing effective control. The key is that the occupant continually "exercises the functions of government" (GCIV, Art 6). Local police maintaining control after an annexation that is not widely recognized could be viewed by the international community as performing a military role, despite where the organization fits in an org chart.
Different people have used international law to reach many different conclusions, including the legality of defensive conquest in 1967, but I haven't seen your arguments in reliable sources. However straightforward it might seem to apply international legal definitions to specific cases, doing so on your own without reliable sources is original research.

Dotyoyo (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Historical occupation: Kursk

Ukrainian occupation of parts of Kursk Oblast (incl. Sudzha) is still ongoing so it should not be listed under "Historical Occupation." It is listed under "Ongoing Occupation" anyway. Redbeansoup (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. Beshogur (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Redbeansoup (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Ruthenia

User:OrionNimrod Your arguments strengths lay only in their own words. Sources, such as, but not limited to 1985 Eastern European Quarterly, Hungarian And Soviet Efforts To Possess Ruthenia, 1938–1945 by Peter Pastor in "the Historian", "Lessons from a Natural Experiment in Carpathian Ukraine" -Keith Darden Yale University, "Contribution to the Background of the Ethnic Conflicts in the Carpathian Basin' Károly Kocsis 1994 Geo Journal, and numerous other. Even a lazy ass google search brings, Britanica, Reproduced from the Collections of the Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, an interview with a Holocaust Survivor, and since its actually uncontroversial it wouldn't be hard to keep going. Do you happen you happen to have sources for your original research?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Serialjoepsycho

First Vienna Award

I can say the same: Time machine logic? If I have a wife, if I divorce 10 years later, then I sexual abused my wife many years long and my children are illegal just because the divorce treaty makes null the previous marriage treaty? OrionNimrod (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Is that to say you don't have a source?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

There is an article about it itself: First Vienna Award, lets talk about first Czechoslovakia and not about that 1 day lived Carpatho Ukraine. There are 2 rows in the chart. Czechoslovakia signed the treaty in 1938 which reverted back the Hungarian majority regions to Hungary which regions were part of Hungary for more than 1000 years long before Czechoslovakia established and got that land after the World War I in 1920 only for 18 years. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The article itself in the lead say this definition: "As currently understood in international law, "military occupation" is the effective military control by a power of a territory outside of said power's recognized sovereign territory."

This user put that Carpatho Ukraine thing in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_military_occupations&diff=prev&oldid=963296202

"Ukraine signed a treaty with Austria and Germany", so in this case he deleted because it was a treaty.

Regarding the 1939 annexation of the remaining part of Transcarpathia (which was also part of Hungary for more than 1000 years): Carpatho-Ukraine was not an internationally recognized state, so we could not violate its "recognized sovereign territory" as the article claim that definiton. OrionNimrod (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

So the article itself the First Vienna Award is a Misplaced Pages article and specifically not a reliable source and I listed multiple sources above that discuss the situation with Carpathian Ruthenia as an occupation. You notably haven't provided a source at all. You instead provided your own original research. The 1985 East European Quarterly article Carpatho-Ukraine: A people in search of their identity by Ivan Rudnytsky, discusses "Hitler's authorization for the occupation of Carpatho-Ukraine by Hungary.." And it's wikipedia policy that defines inclusion criteria. And your use of we "so we could not violate" sounds alot like WP:RGW you are trying to right a great wrong. So, reliable sources suggest these two areas were occupied by Hungary, you haven't provided any source, wikipedia is not WP:NOTSOURCE a reliable source. You are using your own original research and not based on reliable sources, but you can't use original research WP:NOR. And Misplaced Pages is not a forum, so lets not talk about "Greater Hungary".-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Serialjoepsycho,

did you notice that I removed 2 rows? You talk about only Carpatho-Ruthenia. I talk now about the first row:

I talk about this treaty in 1938 and not about Carpatho Ruthenia in 1939 but I now talk about southern area of Czechoslovakia: there are plenty of sources in this long article: First Vienna Award

I talk about the purple area: File:Territorial gains of Hungary 1938-41 en.svg

The Vienna Award got those purple areas to Hungary: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Czechoslovak-history/The-breakup-of-the-republic#ref468716

This List of military occupations article says: "As currently understood in international law, "military occupation" is the effective military control by a power of a territory outside of said power's recognized sovereign territory."

The First Vienna Award was a treaty signed by many parties including Czechoslovakia. Signed 2 November 1938 and AFTER Hungarian troops entered 5-10 November 1938. Which means the signed reaty recognized the border changes, so how can fit this event to this article which claim an exact definition? OrionNimrod (talk) 12:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I've discussed both Carpatho-Ruthenia and Carpatho-Ukraine above, so yes I noticed you removed two rows since I discussed them both which goes to show you are taking part in a discussion without actually reading anything that has been typed. Sources say that this was an occupation and you haven't provided a source that provides an alternative perspective. You have provided your own original research in. If you could find (and you can't) a source for your perspective these entries would still stay because reliable sources say that this was an occupation. The First Vienna Award is a treaty that carries zero weight as the Nazi's and their Hungarian collaborators lost the war and that treaty was declared null and void, but none of that actually matters because it is the view of multiple reliable sources that this was an Occupation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The first row is about Czechoslovakia, of course Hungarian troops occupied the region after the signed treaty. Like Czech and Romanian troops occupied Hungarian regions earlier, even before any treaty, it seems those are not in the list...

That is not my original research to see what is the article say itself, that we list here only not legal military occupations. In 1938 it was no any WW2 when the treaty was signed, and your time machine logic is weird. OrionNimrod (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

You are arguing that something should be removed because something else is not on the list? I'm sure everything will be on the list by the completion deadline of the article WP:DEADLINE. There's nothing to debate and this isn't a forum. If you are suggesting that something shouldn't be included because it is a "legal military occupation" then I have to go. Competence is Required WP:CIR to edit Misplaced Pages. I refer you again to the multiple sources above. Rudnytsky alone would be good enough for inclusion but the view that this was an occupation is prominent and quite a bit more widespread than just him.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Please show me any source that occupation of Czechoslovakia southern area by Hungary (purple 1938 File:Territorial gains of Hungary 1938-41 en.svg) was not by after Czechoslovakia signed the treaty about the new borders. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Czechoslovak-history/The-breakup-of-the-republic#ref468716 By the Vienna Award (Nov. 2, 1938), Hungary was granted one-quarter of Slovak and Ruthenian territories.

https://hi-storylessons.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Hungary’s-territory-is-revised-after-the-First-Vienna-Award-November-2-1938.pdf Meanwhile, as a part of the agreement known as the First Vienna Award, on November 2, 1938, an arbitration award made by the German and Italian foreign ministers at the Munich conference returned the southern part of Slovakia’s highland regions to Hungary.

https://kisebbsegkutato.tk.hu/uploads/files/olvasoszoba/intezetikiadvanyok/Minority_hungarian_communities.pdf The situation prompted Hungary to press for Great-Power support for its territorial objectives, where possible seeking peaceful, diplomatic means of attaining them, although this was only successful for the predominantly Hungarian-inhabited parts of Czechoslovakia, recovered in the autumn of 1938

The territory granted to Hungary by the First Vienna Award was occupied in the first half of November 1938. After twenty years of Czechoslovak rule, the “return” was greeted by most of the population of former Upper Hungary with euphoria, as an act of historical justice.

Britain and France endorsed the First Vienna Award, with some reservations, although they had played no part in arbitrating it OrionNimrod (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

So what you are saying is WP:IDHT. I've already listed off multiple high quality sources above, such as Rudnytsky. They all say, that this was an occupation. Your sources offer nothing to the discussion. You are basically arguing the legitimacy of the First Vienna Award, which is original research and horse shit. The Nazi's and their collaborators lost and in the Treaty of Paris, the very First Vienna Award you are so vigorously defending was declared null and void. The Treaty of Paris having a legal effect and the First Vienna Award lacking all legitimacy. That doesn't even matter because it goes back to what the sources say, its an occupation. Axis 0, Allied 1. THE NAZI's lost.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually you showed something about 1939 Carpatho Ukraine thing not about the 1938 Vienna Award regarding the purple region which is separately in the list. So you say when Czecoslovakia signed the treaty to give back areas to Hungary they had a time machine and they knew that treaty is not legal because many years later an another treaty changed that? OrionNimrod (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

This will be my last response to any WP:IDHT. I have provided multiple sources about that discussed multiple sources above that discuss both Carpatho-Ruthenia and Carpatho-Ukraine as being under occupation by Hungary during World War II. And because the sources are reliable, the entries belong. There's nothing to even to discuss after that. However you feel the need to discuss how Hungary in active participation with a hostile Nazi Germany got the territory thru treaty. And when the bad guys, Hungary, lost the treaty was declared null and void. Hungarian irredentism or Greater Hungary was chopped off at its feet and the land it took was returned. If you want to go dig thru the treaty of Paris, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1946, Paris Peace Conference: Documents, Volume IV, a really dig into why Czechoslovakia reasoning was to create a full nullity to where nothing of it was ever legal. Maybe it was in respect to the many Czechoslovak, Soviet, or Ukrainian Insurgent Army Partisans that went around kicking Hungarian and Nazi ass but that's just speculation and as irrelevant as discussing the First Vienna Award which is Fully Null and Void. But to say this again for the umpteenth time, Because reliable sources say it was occupied by Hungary it should be included. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

Border changes by the Vienna Award got international recognition in that time when it was signed by Czechoslovakia and Hungary. I provided also sources, while your argument is the "occupation" word.

The article should be consistent with its own definition, or if it is not, then every single territorial change ever made is a military occupation. Every country naturally keeps its own territory under military occupation, those occupations listed here which are contrary to international recognition.

You still keep talk about Carpatho Ukraine in 1939, why? I talk about First Vienna Award and the purple southern areas.

You wants to project a future event (1947) back into the past (1938), which violates the laws of modern physics. OrionNimrod (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:CIR -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Serialjoepsycho,

WP:CIR I can see that by your side: inconsistency in the article own definition + time machine + I talk about the Vienna Award and purple areas in 1938 while you keep talking about the blue areas in 1939.

It seems you does not understand that a future event cannot change the past in time.

You quoted this source: https://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/Transcarpathia-in-Czechoslovakia "In November Hungary occupied a strip of territory including the Carpatho-Ukrainian capital of Uzhhorod" = Vienna Award in November 1938

I quote the same source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Czechoslovak-history/The-breakup-of-the-republic "By the Vienna Award (Nov. 2, 1938), Hungary was granted one-quarter of Slovak and Ruthenian territories."

"Granted" = That occupation happened after signing a treaty which changed the border, which means this occupation event does not fit in the article.

(Follow your logic you can add that Czechoslovakia occupied Transcarpathia in 1920 because of Treaty of Trianon granted that area, and after WW2 Soviet Union annexed that area by new treaty, so the previous treaty became null regarding that area, but this would be also not fit in the article because of the above reasons.) OrionNimrod (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

My logic: Reliable sources say it was an occupation so it belongs. Your argument: WP:IJDLT and original research. There's you and then there is Ivan Rudnytsky. There's you and there's Raz Segal discussing how the occupation was viewed in 38 and 39 in 'Becoming Bystanders: Carpatho-Ruthenians, Jews, and the Politics of Narcissism in Subcarpathian Rus'. The evidence for it being an occupation is great and the evidence against doesn't stand at all without your own personal original research.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Serialjoepsycho, do you aware that your source (Britannica) (not really my personal source) say that occupation was because of the treaty? Do you aware that article is listing occupations which is not recognized borders? WP:CIR

Hammond Map Map from USA map makers 1938 Map title: "showing new frontiers after conference" It shows the ceded Czechoslovakia areas by treaties including the Vienna Award (Czechoslovakia territories to Germany, to Poland, to Hungary) (perhaps Poland also occupied not legally Czechoslovakia by your logic?) = those were international recognized legal border changes.

Another USA map from National Geographic Magazin from 1939 It shows pre WW2 recognized borders. We can cleary see the regions which was granted to Hungary by Vienna Award (areas above Danube which is purple in the above vector map)

French map from 1939-40 Again we can see Hungarian borders as in the recognized treaty. While we can see it clearly make color difference Polish area which was occupied by Germany in war.

OrionNimrod (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Segal's was from 2010 and Rudnytsky's from 1985. And that's not even to go thru every other source being clear that the position it was an occupation. Two sources. The maps don't offer any argument, they are primary sources and it's your personal argument that stands out which is original research. Meanwhile Segal is respected historian known for writing about the holocaust in Carpathian Ruthenia, a secondary source, and it's his position that this was an occupation. And Rudnytsky is a Ukrainian historian who published that article in a peer reviewed magazine, also a secondary source, its position was that Carpatho-Ukraine was occupied. The fact is its not hard to find a reliable source that suggests this was a case of occupation. You can't offer a position that isn't simply original research. Meanwhile, "...so we could not violate its "recognized sovereign territory"...", your comments betray you as being here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Not that you are actually reading a damn thing, WP:NOTLEAD Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought or original research. You don't even actually make a good argument. "Blah blah blah time machine, blah blah blah, my interpretation of these primary sources and my synthesis of those sources means".. Losing the war has consequences. In this case the "Nullity" Czechoslovakia requested was granted. The First Vienna award was declared null and void, and as such has no legal effect. But to get back on topic, what matters is what the sources say. This conversation is over, good bye. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Serialjoepsycho,

You did not show any source from Segal/Rudnytsky, please link them.

I see you still talk about the blue regions (Carpatho-Ukraine), do you understand that I talk about the purple regions: Yes or No? WP:CIR

Why do you ignore your own Brittanica source? (not really my thought and not my original research) Which say "By the Vienna Award (Nov. 2, 1938), Hungary was granted one-quarter of Slovak and Ruthenian territories". https://www.britannica.com/topic/Czechoslovak-history/The-breakup-of-the-republic#ref468716

Of course Hungary occupied the purple area after the new border treaty was signed in 1938 and the occupation process was recognized by the legal border change. The article own definition: listing only occupations which areas was outside the occupier recognized sovereign territory. And that purple area territory change was recognized by treaty, that is why Hungary occupied it.

You keep refering 1947 Paris treaty which cancelled the 1938 Vienna Award, yes everybody know that treaty changed the previous one, but that is your the time machine logic, a future event in 1947 cannot change the past what was in 1938, because in 1938 the Vienna treaty was valid and legal.

Quotes from New York Times and Times (not really my thought and not my original research): "reunited Hungary" + "new borders" + "returned territory to Hungary" + "new frontiers does full justice" + "general readjustment of borders" + "Hungary receives territory by Vienna Award " + "ceded territories"

OrionNimrod (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not required to link the sources, nor am I inclined to do so WP:PAYWALL. I gave you the author, title, and publications of multiple sources. The fact is there are secondary sources that say this was an occupation vs the sources that fully require your commentary, which is original research. Segal/2010-Rudnytsky/1985 describe it in their own words as an occupation, both the listing you tried to delete. You are trying to delete them because you are a biased SPA here on Misplaced Pages to right the great wrongs for Hungary. WP:IJDLT isn't removal criteria.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk)

Your time machine argument is bullshit and shows your fundamental lack of knowledge of international law. Each country is an individual actor and they can decide what they recognize or choose not to recognize. But here's the kicker, Hungary signed the treaty of Paris in 1947. The specifically agreed to it and they agreed to it fully without reservations. They recognized that the First Vienna Award was null, void, and without legal effect. Stop pining me, you don't have a damn thing to say that's worth my time.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Serialjoepsycho, you say a source, I asked that source, you cannot and even do not want to show that source (even that source not in the article), which means we have only your own words. Misplaced Pages is based on reliable academic sources Misplaced Pages:Attribution + Misplaced Pages:No original research.

While I provided many sources, even your sources (Britannica) which clearly say Hungary was granted that land by treaty. Why do you ignore deliberately those sources? Of course it was an occupation by Hungary, after when the treaty was signed, so it does not mean anything if you obsessed with the "occupation" word, as article own definition says we list here occupations on areas which was outside recognized borders of the occupiers. Please show me your source which say it was not a recognized area in 1938 which was occupied by Hungary in 1938. Do not need repeat your time machine with Paris treaty 1947 which cancelled the previous Vienna Award, Vienna Award borders changes happened in 1938 and not in the future. When Hungary signed the actual 1947 treaty then Hungarian administration was not there anymore as the lands which granted by Vienna treaty was reverted, but it does not change the fact that in 1938 the area was recognized Hungarian land by the actual treaty. OrionNimrod (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: