Talk:Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia

message: I split Prague Spring and created this page, because there was no opposition. But :User:Dominik92 has raised the point that having both "soviet" and "1968" in the article title might be redundant, unless you count the end of WWII, but even that doesn't apply because Czechoslovakia didn't exist. I was also thinking that, although clearly orchestrated by the Soviets, it wasn't a uniquely soviet led invasion... Would  Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia be a clear and accurate alternative? Technically, not all the WP invaded, but it was a WP invasion... - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the most frequently used name in English sources outside Wikipedia? Tankred (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We can do it like Soviet invasion of Poland, which is a disambig to Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) (note: no brackets never mind, there are) and the other one, with Czechoslovakia, I would suggest a) Invasion of Czechoslovakia 1968 which sounds kind of dumb or Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, with a link to the liberation. Alternatively Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia as Mighty has suggested since calling it Soviet invasion might be slightly POV in saying that the USSR controlled the Warsaw Pact.--The Dominator (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree that your version is more accurate, but Wikipedia naming convention guidelines say that we should use the most common title, and a person that is only very vaguely familiar with the subject matter would be more likely to search for Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, however, we shouldn't sacrifice accuracy so I agree that we should move to your title, redirect "Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia" there and there is also this disambiguation page for lazy typers: Soviet invasion. The Dominator (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that the consensus in Wikipedia to date is that the Russian intervention in Crimea is to be called the "2014 Crimean crisis".  Accordingly should not the Czech operation also be called the "1968 Czechoslovakia crisis"? Either both were invasions, or neitherRoyalcourtier (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: They were quite different in method and purpose. The Soviets/Warsaw Pact really did invade in 1968 with a large army, and Russia did not do so in 2014. Rjensen (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name? 

message: Polish wiki claims that this operation was codenamed Operation Danube (:pl:Operation Dunaj). Ru interwiki seems to confirm it, with the article named :ru:Операция «Дунай».--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  21:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that the consensus in Wikipedia to date is that the Russian intervention in Crimea is to be called the "2014 Crimean crisis".  Accordingly should not the Czech operation also be called the "1968 Czechoslovakia crisis"? Either both were invasions, or neitherRoyalcourtier (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: They were quite different in method and purpose. The Soviets/Warsaw Pact really did invade in 1968 with a large army, and Russia did not do so in 2014. Rjensen (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Operation Danube

message: Given that the 40th anniversary is coming up - could this article be developed to appear on the front page on the due date? (Kite=flying). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Prague Spring article has a better chance as it is a GA, and it is my first priority, and I'll start improving this one after Prague Spring is a FA, if you want to work on it, feel free, personally I'd use Prague Spring as it is an overview article and this is more of a daughter article. The Dominator (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Anniversary

message: I distinctly remember BBC footage at the time of the Prague Spring showing flowers being strewn before the Tanks and a woman handing Daffodils to a Tank Commander.
1 Tank had its gun barrel stuffed with flowers.
As this lead me to conclude, as a mere teenager, that Dubcek was somewhat a hero, I hope that this can be confirmed or denied, and feel sure someone must have access to such imagery.Tonybroomfield (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imagery 

message: Is this a good idea? Can the Czechoslovak military, which was voluntary not-mobilized, be considered a "beligerent" ? Can Dubcek be considered a "commander" ? These boxes are definitely useful in most military situations, but here it seems to give a false impression that there was open military fighting between these countries. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I think it should be removed. The DominatorTalkEdits 22:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military Conflict Infobox? 

message: The articles mentions that the Soviets agreed to withdraw their forces, but says nothing about whether they actually did. Is there any source that states there were no Soviet troops in CS on August 19? Causantin (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Warsaw Pact forces (primarily Soviet) were helding military manouvers in Czechoslovakia in early summer 1968, prior to the invasion itself. There were some issues about as the soviet command hesitated to withdraw these troops after the manouvers were over, but they withdrew in the end of July - early August that year. Soon, a portion of them came back along with reinforcements.--84.163.115.157 (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet forces in CS before August 20? 

message: The article states that approx. 200,000 troops invaded, although  this resource states that approximately 500,000 did so.  Any other sources corroborate either figure?  
BWH76 (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of invading troops

message: The reference for 108 dead is  this website, which is a collaboration of Czech Television, Czech Radio, the Czech Archive of Security Forces, and the national Military History Archive.  Each of the 108 dead is profiled on the site, with specific cause of death listed.  
On the other hand, the figure of 72 dead was referenced using  this site, which is a travel guide.  
72 does not hold up to scrutiny; 108 documented deaths validated by the above-listed sources does.  
BWH76 (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Number dead

message: Why is there a POV tag on this article? I can see reasons for some of the 'cite' tags, but I don't see POV.84.112.111.175 (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: BWH76 added the tag with the edit comment "adding NPOV tag- I'm going through this incredulously. many of these "facts" are sourced with low-reliability sources. I'm working on cleanup, but this article shouldnt now be considered neutral)". I'd agree that  might have been more appropriate, but maybe there's more to it. BWH? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You two are right - I was hasty about adding this tag.  Pieces of the article appear/appeared like nationalistic propaganda to me (Soviet troops withdrawing from Czechoslovakia; the level of participation of East German troops) and I jumped to a perhaps wrong-headed conclusion.  I'm removing the tag, adding the refimprove tag as suggested by TheMightyQuill, and will continue to work on this article.  BWH76 (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Tag

message: In century XX1, the invarion is discuted as comparison with recent events
"We've seen this movie before, in Prague and Budapest," said John McCain, referring to the Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Hungary in 1956..."
-- see Michael Dobbs. "'We Are All Georgians'? Not So Fast."
Washington Post, August 17, 2008,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/14/AR2008081401360$"Gori is the same as Prague in '68 or Budapest in '56. They are inva
and occupying Georgia just as they have done in the past."
Ben Judah. War of the Words.
The New Republic, Wednesday, August 27, 2008
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1676f847-f5b1-4840-945d-693314a3cb17
Picture of demonstration September 1, 2008 is available at http://www.flickr.com/photos/saver_ag/2753126195/ ,  or http://pics.livejournal.com/nik_sud/pic/000e586d
Some surprisingly valid comparsions have been made in the mainstream media between the invasion of Czechoslovakia 40 years ago today by Russia and that country's recent activity in Georgia.
Power Politics and Czechoslovakia.
http://socialismoryourmoneyback.blogspot.com/2008/08/power-politics-and-czechoslovakia.html
. This should be mentioned in the article. dima (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of that invasion in century XXI 

message: My, people, stop using words like "States", "Soviets", "Zionists" and other like that in WP articles to designate independent states and their governments. FeelSunny (talk) 08:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Soviets" 

message: "4 KIA" - actually there were no Hungarian soldiers killed in action, there was one traffic accident, one heart attack and two suicides ...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.125.56 (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hungarian Casulties 

message: I added images from the US State department of the invasion and aftermath to Commons. I only added one to the article, because I did not want to flood it with images. Feel free to pick and choose from commons:Category:Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 19:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: I suggest we retitle this article: Background to the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia. Why? Because there is little or no new information here compared to the section on the Prague Spring. Apart from the episode at the airport, the article doesn't describe the operational invasion at all, which, under its present title, I think it should. Where did the WP troops cross the border, what units were involved, what routes did they take, who occupied where, what incidents were there, how did the fatalities occur. On all these points: zero information. Sorry, but poor show. Maelli (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What map? This wasn´t a military conflict in the first place. Soviet paratroopers took control of Prague and Bratislava airport the night WP armies crossed the borders and Soviet tanks advanced without any major delay. They had problem with protesting population and civil disobedience after they arrived to various cities, killed several civilians while protesters were able to throw several motolov coctails, rocks, stones and stuff at soldiers, killing several of them but that is all. Majority of those Soviet "KIAs" were due to accidents on other non-violent events, not rioting. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retitle 

message: Shouldn't this be listed under "Armed conflicts involving the Soviet Union"?--68.8.14.28 (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: "...but Dubček and Špaček, suspicious of Kolder, adjusted the agenda..."
who is the Špaček referenced in this sentence? This is the only occurrence of the name in this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.206.122 (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Failure of the plot"-- Špaček 

message: Is there anything known about why the suicide rate was apparently so high in Polish troops compared to the Russians? Was this a general phenomenon or did it occur in the invasion only? --Kraligor (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe because Poles had a conscience? My grandmother was telling there was a difference between nations. Polish troops were polite, tried not to bother much and camped on the field behind the town while Russians were Russians and they were staying inside the town. --Jx (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suicides? 

message: Is it appropriate to call this an invasion? The very similar Russian intervention in Crimea is not called an invasion.122.59.167.152 (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The intervention in Crimea is also an invasion. However pro-Putin editors - some at least FSB employees - have blocked that being called an invasion.Royalcourtier (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invasion? 

message: Would it not be more correct to entitle as 'USSR Stability Operations - Czechoslovakia'? If NATO does 'stability operations', why not the USSR and now Russia? Was it so different from stability operations in Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc? A close friend of over 15 years is Czech and I know the history from immediate second-hand, it was not pretty. Does that justify a Wikipedia entry showing such a NATO bias?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.139.120.68 (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If you like you can call it Second liberation of Czechoslovakia by Russians as we do here as joke. The first one was the real one in 1945. But actually in May 1945 western Allies were moving faster than Russians but there was a deal between USA and USSR that the main part of Czechoslovakia would be liberated by Russians and that's why Patton had to stop and wait in Pilsen and was not allowed to move forward to Prague. --Jx (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename or retitle 

message: There is some discussion of background, and more on the repercussions, but nothing on the invasion itself. Curious omission, I would have thought.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omission of details of invasion 

message: i suspect this page were full of biased view as the inclusion material largely one sided sources without Ahendra (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  biased view 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090817200255/http://soviethistory.org/index.php?action=L2&SubjectID=1968czechoslovakia&Year=1968 to http://soviethistory.org/index.php?action=L2&SubjectID=1968czechoslovakia&Year=1968
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014010026/http://library.thinkquest.org/C001155/documents/doc41.htm to http://library.thinkquest.org/C001155/documents/doc41.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012132901/http://yale.edu/annals/sakharov/documents_frames/Sakharov_008.htm to http://www.yale.edu/annals/sakharov/documents_frames/Sakharov_008.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925213521/http://www.mzv.sk/servlet/content?MT=%2FApp%2FWCM%2Fmain.nsf%2Fvw_ByID%2FID_C0B1D004B5A332B2C1257627003301E7_EN&OpenDocument=Y&LANG=EN&TG=BlankMaster&URL=%2FApp%2FWCM%2FAktualit.nsf%2F%28vw_ByID%29%2FID_4E6407DFBF0FFE00C1257E570023F671 to http://www.mzv.sk/servlet/content?MT=%2FApp%2FWCM%2Fmain.nsf%2Fvw_ByID%2FID_C0B1D004B5A332B2C1257627003301E7_EN&OpenDocument=Y&LANG=EN&TG=BlankMaster&URL=%2FApp%2FWCM%2FAktualit.nsf%2F%28vw_ByID%29%2FID_4E6407DFBF0FFE00C1257E570023F671
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: In Soviet-Russia-occupied Poland it was not just the heroic Mr Siwiec who was against the invasion of Czechoslovakia, but Polish university students and broad masses of Polish society. The vast majority of Poles were hostile to Soviet Russia and its occupation of Poland. They didn't consider the Polish People's Army as truly their own army but as Soviet Russia's obedient stooges. The Polish People's Army along with the Soviet Russian army sitting in Poland guarded Soviet Russia's reign over Poland. And was used to put down anti-Communist protests by the Poles, killing many of them. By belittling Poland and praising Romanians as having been allegedly more anti-invasion than Poles, the author of the entry 1) hopes to pit Poles and Romanians against each other; 2) he or she promotes hate against Poland and falsifies history, doesn't he or she? I wonder who he or she is and of what nation? I suspect I know  but there are brutal sanctions at present for mentioning the name of the little "nation" I've got in mind. I'm sure the censorship will eventually pass away and we shall talk of the history of Communist tyranny as it really is. Including the said little "nation's" humongous role in it.
By making prominent the message it was "the Warsaw Pact" rather than SOVIET RUSSIA that allegedly invaded Czechoslovakia, the author whitewashes Soviet Russia. And makes another hate propaganda jab at the Poles, Warsaw being their capital, doesn't he or she? Saying it was the Warsaw Pact that invaded Czechoslovakia rather than the Soviet Union or Soviet Russia is like saying it was "the Rome Axis," not Nazi Germany, that invaded Soviet Russia in 1941.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.103.220.185 (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "WARSAW PACT" OR SOVIET RUSSIA? FALSIFICATION OF HISTORY GOES ON 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The first paragraphs are too long, there is another page explaining the background. Much more would be needed to the military events. Kapeter77 (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long 

message: This article on neutral European states and the Lisbon treaty mentions that the Warsaw Pact actually planned an invasion of Austria as well, but did not carry it out. However, it gives no source for this statement, but instead a link to a sales listing for the book "Marschmusik für Glockenspiel". 1968: Österreich am Rande des Krieges" by Kurt Tozzer and Guenther Kallinger. Obviously this article is not a good enough source to include this information here by itself, but does anyone know anything more about this - does anyone have this book by Tozzer and Kallinger or any other sources that discussed this supposed planned invasion of Austria? FOARP (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here after reading a source that linked to the ECFR article, and I am also disappointed that this article says nothing about Austria. --Error (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invasion of Austria? 

message: I've pared this back, but the background section is very strange - it jumps way ahead in the narrative and then suddenly we jump back to Dubcek's rise to power. It also doesn't really give much of the background that a reader actually needs (e.g. what was destalinization exactly? How was the Czech Communist party structured at this point? What were the backgrounds of the key actors? You'd think there'd be some mention of the invasion of Hungary, too...) Furius (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion