Talk:List of military occupations

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, "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 Wikipedia" 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 Wikipedia 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/w/index.php?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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)