# Talk:1918 occupation of Međimurje

Wouldn't "annexation" be a more conventional word for this? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Not entirely sure. The Kingdom of SHS did not formally annex the territory. The proclamation was done by a sort of local government, but everyone involved waited until the Paris Peace Conference produced a solution. Undoubtedly possession of control over a territory makes certian decisions easier.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
This being said, I'm not against either solution, just thought this would be less specific legally.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
The word incorporation could also be used, but that also has a separate meaning. I looked for other examples, and it's not immediately clear - there's Austro-Hungarian rule in Bosnia and Herzegovina and November 1918 in Alsace-Lorraine, both of which is actually more generalized. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps a native speaker with knowledge in the milhist field could provide advice. Peacemaker67 could you weigh in?--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Yugoslav rule in Međimurje imo would imply a topic span of 70-ish years, November/December 1918 in Međimurje seems vague. In essence, the title should be whatever is normally used by reliable sources to describe the events, but there's so few sources available it's hard to determine any prevailing form. Vuk's article contains an English language summary and it uses the term annexation in the title. For this reason I believe it might be justified to use the same in this article's title - unless it is problematic as e.g. legally imprecise because the KSHS did not formally annex the territory before the Treaty of Trianon awarded it the same. OF course, the comparison with Alsace is further complicated by the fact that France had an established constitution, central government etc unlike KSHS at the time. I was wondering about proper title before moving the article from my sandbox and found no obvious solution. I'm not set on (or against) any particular formulation.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I have found "occupation" to be best in such situations. ie 1918 occupation of Međimurje. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 09:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
That's fine by me.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I've mostly seen "pripojenje" (annexation), "zaposjedanje" (occupation) and "oslobođenje" (liberation) used in Croatian sources, while they typically used "okupacija" (occupation) for the Hungarian actions in 1941. Occupation seems like a safe choice, as that was the formal state of affairs from late '18 to mid '20. Should probably split off the pre-Trianon events from the Aftermath section, though. What was the state of the military presence in the region through 1919? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Hm, right. That would change the scope of the article from the military operation carried out in December 1918 (which I intended to cover) to a broader history of events spanning 1918-1920 or thereabout. There's precious little on the 1918 events and I saw virtually nothing on the period until 1920, so I'm not quite sure the change of scope would be feasible.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Maybe the title of the article should be the answer to question: "What is the name of the military operations discussed by the article?"--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
If you want to restrict it to the military aspect alone, then "occupation" could still work, though "invasion" also becomes an obvious choice. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I'd rather limit the scope for the time being for the above reasons. Oh, I'm fine with "occupation" used in this sense.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)