Talk:Occupation of Czechoslovakia (1938–1945)

Seeking information

I'm seeking confirmation that the Czechs in 1938 were a major mftcr of arms... anyone point to a source? My father Herbert Otto Altar who was born in the according region said that the Czechs were major weapons manufacturers and the Krupps factories were on Czech soil and the Czech armament industry was delivered to Nazi Germany by the Treaty of Munich.

Found it http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust5.htm

(both of the previous unsigned remarks appear to be by User:DennisDaniels

You also might want to look at our own article on Škoda. -- Jmabel 08:20, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Czechs in interwar period was major mftcr of arms - in years 1935-38 was flating from 3place to first and again to 3 and later to 5 place in value of exported arms in world market. And not only Skoda was major manufacturer - Praga (division of CKD), Zbrojovka Brno, Tatra, Avia, Letov etc. was important manufaturers in Czechoslovakia and in europe- scale important too.

Relevant or not?

The following was recently cut: "(The Soviet troops, however, came back in 1968 (see Prague Spring) and were withdrawn only in the early 1990s)." The editor who cut this remarked, "End of the War - Deleted reference to the later Soviet occupation; events twenty years after the war aren't relevant to this article." That seems wrong-headed to me. It seems relevant because, given the ease with which the Soviet Union re-occupied Czechoslovakia, and given that the re-occupation lasted decades, in some ways the withdrawal can be seen more as an interruption in military occupation than the genuine end of it. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC) I am seeking information on what happened to Czech nationals, especially dissidents and Jews when Hitler's government took over the Sudeten territories after October 1, 1938, and after Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia after March 15, 1939. --Ronald —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.193.89 (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Operation Anthropoid

I´ve entered internal links to the Operation Antropoid. It was probably the most important event during the occupation and there was no mention about it. User:Szalas

• Certainly welcome; however, your sentence "It was so due to the success of the Operation Anthropoid too," makes almost no sense in the context where you placed it, what was "so"? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The Operation Anthropoid was something like proof - that Czechs are allies and that they are fighting against Hitler. The success of the operation was very well accepted between the allies. The situation about the status of Czechoslovakia, Benes and so... was very complicated that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Szalas (talk • contribs) 5 Nov 2005
    • I'll edit to make the meaning clearer. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

To what extent was the objective of Anthropoid to provoke generalized German/Nazi reprisals against the Czech population and thereby rekindle active in-country resistance to the German/Nazi presence? I believe, but don't have the cites at my fingertips, that Heydrich's stick-and-carrot policies had largely eliminated active Czech resistance in-country in the months leading up to his assassination. In strategic terms, what did the lives of a few thousand Czech civilians matter to the Czech government-in-exile safe in England -- let alone the English -- if Heydrich's pacification policies were undone and Czech industrial productivity decreased? Perhaps an objective historian has the cites at hand. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC))

Holocaust?

Is there a reason the holocaust was not mentioned here? The transfer of Czech Jews & Roma to Auschwitz? Was this omitted for a specific reason or just forgotten? -- TheMightyQuill 14:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly should be mentioned here, and there should also be an article History of the Jews in Czechoslovakia (with redirects from History of the Jews in the Czech Republic and [[History of the Jews in Slovakia). - Jmabel | Talk 17:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the Red Cross (Arolsen)which had representatives at Auschwitz, the total number of deaths in Auschwitz is 53,000 who died of old age, diseases (typhus, tuberculosis etc) and most died near the end of the war as a result of allied destruction of Germany's food production and transport. These were the same causes of death suffered by people outside the camp/s. A few years ago the final commemoration at Auschwitz was attended by people in their seventies who had been born there (about 3,000 were born in the maternity ward there.) According to the crematorium death books, the majority of people who died in Auschwitz were Catholics but the Pope said nothing during his visit recently.

When the Russians approached the camp the Germans gave inmates the choice to be liberated by the Russians but 150,000 chose to voluntarily follow the German guards into Germany. In 1947 the Russians built the gas crematorium which is shown to tourists (complete with fingernail scratches on concrete).

During the trial of guard Hanning, recently, witness Leon Schwarzbaum noted the awful sell of roasting human flesh emanating from the crematorium chimneys. He was mistaken - the crematorium only had one chimney. He was probably describing the modern multi-chimneyed camp Kitchen near the camp's entrance, as it produced his lunch. It's a common mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.123 (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

allies?

Allies of World War II says that Czechoslovakia declared war on December 16, 1941 which is backed up by [1] and [2] "on all countries that are in a state of war with Great Britain, theUnited States, or the USSR". Huh? That means they declared war on Germany? How is this possible since they were right in the middle of German occupied Europe? --Astrokey44 16:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It is probably referring to the Czechoslovak government-in-exile. radek 21:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Which, in fact, would have been the only "government of Czechoslovakia" at the time: The rest was broken up into things like The Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, Slovakia, and the (annexed) Sudetenland. - Jmabel | Talk 00:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Page name

Unlike all other German occupations during World War II (excluding the Anschluss with Austria), this one started before the war, so having a page name of German occupation of Czechoslovakia in World War II was misleading. --Philip Baird Shearer 02:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

there´s a question when started the war. For the West it was after invasion of Poland. For Czechs it was after Nazis invaded their country. It was the first Nazi invasion of some country and it was in 1939. It was the begining of WWII.

I think the current name is fine. If there's a better way to say it, I'm all ears, but something is necessary to differentiate this from the 1968 occupation. -- TheMightyQuill 10:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

How about Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely appropriate: Czechoslovakia was occupied by a country's army, not by a party. Seems to me that the current title is better than that. - Jmabel | Talk 01:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

But the popular title of that country is "Nazi Germany". +Hexagon1 ^(t) 11:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and there would be nothing wrong with Nazi German occupation of Czechoslovakia, but since there was only one German occupation of Czechoslovakia, I don't see a need for that. - Jmabel | Talk 22:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I do, the word Germany will stir up connotations of today's Germany, a nation that bears little resemblance to the "Großdeutsches Reich" of the 30s and 40s, whereas 'Nazi occupation' or 'Nazi Germany's occupation' clearly do. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 06:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The page name is misleading because Germany only occupied the western part of Czechoslovakia, what is today Czechia (the Czech Republic) and what Germans called the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia during their occupation. Slovakia declared independence from Czechoslovakia one day before the German occupation on March 14, 1939, became an ally of Germany and was not occupied by Germany. See: Slovak Republic (1939–45)--Geog25 (talk) 03:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

POV

"Prague residents viewed German occupation of the city as a catastrophe." Doubtless many did. Doubtless others were happy about it. An odd statement for us to make without citation, in any case. - Jmabel | Talk 05:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought the caption could help understand the picture, but if you disagree with it, feel free to rephrase it. --Irpen 06:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

References To The Sudetenland

Forget all the posts above about what should be mentioned or left out or rephrased. What worries me is that no one has noticed the one historical inaccuracy about the Sudetenland.

There are references to the Sudetenland here that say the land was to be "returned" to Germany. To my understanding the Sudetenland was never part of Germany and had always been a part of Bohemia? In history King charles of Bohemia invited "german speaking peoples" to farm the sudeten region, note, I say German speaking people because Germany didnt exist at that time. I think it is a wide misconception that people think the Sudeteland was taken from the Germans to form Czechoslovakia in 1919, it wasnt. It has always been part of Bohemia. - alcz

German settlers were called into the country by Slavic rulers in the 12th century and 3millions were expelled 1945 according to the Benes Decrees. Benes wanted an ethnically cleaned state.--92.224.205.58 (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You responsibly raised the point in Talk and no one responded. Be Bold and make the edit. - TheMightyQuill 01:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

This all gets so tricky. The Sudetenland has, indeed, always been part of Bohemia, but that is neither here nor there on whether it was part of "Germany". Prior to 1848, "Germany" was a rather amorphous region, not even a would-be state. From the 1620 Habsburg ascendancy in Bohemia into the early 19th century, the Sudetenland in particular and, to some extent, Bohemia as a whole (certainly the towns) was steadily and increasingly Germanized under the Habsburgs; Certainly, in 1848, the German National Assembly in Frankfurt saw all of the former Bohemia as part of the Großdeutschland they were trying to create. While some view Czechoslovakia as a successor state to the kingdom of Bohemia, that seems to me no less of a stretch than seeing the Sudetenland as a historic part of "Germany".

I'm not advocating for the German nationalist view here, just pointing out that the Czech nationalist view also has its problems. - Jmabel | Talk 07:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the solid explanation Jmabel. I think the word "returned" was in question, and certainly doesn't fit well. As in other articles, I think using the word "transfered" helps avoid any national POV one way or the other. - TheMightyQuill 08:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Germany did not occoupy,it liberated historic german lands

Wrong Germany liberated historic german lands (all part of historic Germany aka the first Reich from 843 till 1807, part of the German Bund from 1815 till 1866). Czechoslovakia or to be more precise Czechia had not existeded as a state before 1919. It was a illigitmate creation ( a puppet state) of the allied war winners to split Greater Germany into 2 parts Deutsches Reich and Austria (strategy Cordon sanitaire (international relations)). This was done by bringing ultra nationalist right wing czech movements to power. The Czechs were nothing more than a ethnical minority inside german lands. No more, no less. It was Germanys legitimate right to reconqour these strategic and historic core territories.--2003:E5:3F04:9200:D52:3105:4E7:436E (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Haha, is that a joke? Czechs lived in this area since the 7th century, it was part of the first Slavic political units like Samo's Empire (7th century) and Great Moravia (9th century), the first Czech independent state Duchy of Bohemia originated in the 9th century. Even though it joined the Holy Roman Empire after 1004, this was just an union of multi-ethnic independent territories, the Duchy raised to the Kingdom of Bohemia in 1198 (1212) and Bohemian kings were exempt from all future obligations to the Holy Roman Empire except for participation in the imperial councils. The Germans came to the Czech border areas as migrants from the 13th century, but they never had a majority in the kingdom.

Although the kingdom since the 17th century gradually came under domination of the House of Habsburg, here we are talking about Austria, and not Germany. The Bohemian Kingdom existed until 1918. After 300 years, in 1918 the state regained status of the fully free independent state. After more than a thousand years of existence of this state, Germany invaded the area and forcibly ended its independence, there was bloody terror and entire villages were burned, another aim was Generalplan Ost, a plan for the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Slavic people in Eastern Europe. Thank God, the Germans lost the war. Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Well if you start with the 7th century. Who lived before in these lands. Czechs? No it was for 1500 years inhabitad by german tribes. And no there was never a czech national state before 1918. Bohemia and Moravia where since 801 depended territory of frankonion empire.

The growth of Frankish power, 481–814, showing Francia as it originally was after the crumbling of the Western Roman Empire. It was located northeasterly of that during the time of Constantine the Great.

After the death of charles the great the land was in 843 divided (Treaty of Verdun) between his 3 sons. The east frankonion empire under Ludwig the german inherited also the eastern dependent territory. In 1008 these territorys where incorporated into the first German Reich (Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation). These situation lasted till 1807 (Napoleon). From 1815 till 1866 Bohemia and Moravia where part of the German Confederation. From 1866 till 1918 Bohemia and Moravia where only part.of austria. Only between 1918 and 1938 was a czech national state existing. These state had no tradition because it was not existing before. Nearly 40 % of the population was german speaking. A independet foreign policy of a czech state (independet from the emporer) was not known for more than a 1000 years.

And another failure in your text. Citation: Although the kingdom since the 17th century gradually came under domination of the House of Habsburg, here we are talking about Austria, and not Germany . Well Austria was for the most time in history part of germany. Austrian kings (Habsburg) ruled as emporers for more 600 years over Germany. Vienna was for the most time the de facto capital of Germany. Only after the rise of prussia and the Hohenzollern dynasty to the emprial throne the power shifted from Vienna to Berlin.

And another failure: Bohemia and Moravia where not part of the General Plan Ost (there is no variant known who included czechs). The policy towards the czechs with some exceptions was relativly soft (absolutly not comparable to russia or poland). The Nazi policy in the Protectorat was focused on a process of gradual assimilation). Because they viewed the most czechs as at least partly of germanic descend. Thats why the occupation policy was completly different to Poland or Russia. Also there was nearly no active resisstance (beside agents flown in by the british, see assasination of Heydrich) or the heros of the last days who started an uprise only 2 days before WW2 ended).The number of ethnic czechs killed was one of the lowest in all european countries which were involved in WW2. More than 90 % of the Nazi victims in Bohemia and Moravia where Jews not Czechs. A lot of local czechs assisted the Nazis in the holocaust (they were knowing who was a jew or not in thier towns). The most of the jews tradionally spoke Yiddish not czech. A German dialect mixed with hebrew words. Those who perpetrated thier General Plan West where the czechs past 1945 who expulsed 3.6 Million Germans and murded 350.000 german civilians.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E5:3F3A:3B00:54F7:DB9E:75CF:F224 (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

You sound like Putin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.23.6.193 (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Learn the difference between germanic and alemani tribes.
The Czech state was formed in the 9th century under the Great Moravian Empire and is one of the oldest states in Central Europe. The Czech Kingdom of Bohemia and Magraviate of Moravia were historical lands (Crown of Saint Václav - in Latin Wenceslas), they existed with strong kings of House of Přemyslid. Official name was Čechy (or more correctly Cžechy) - in Latin Bohemia. As a kingdom she antedates the Germans kingdoms, not excepting Saxony, Bavaria and Prussia, but also Austria, Poland and Hungary. German immigrants have known very well where they settled from the very beginning. They were a minority in the Czech Kingdom, not a nation, and most countries in Europe have minorities - not least Germany.

In 1526, the Austrian Duke Ferdinand was elected and crowned the Czech King when the Turks was at the gates of Vienna. The following year, he was elected Hungarian King. The Habsburgs were crowned as Hungarian and Czech kings, the last one was Karl I in 1916. During the Habsburg misrule of the Czech Lands, the Czech language was removed from public administration and higher education. Czechs and Jews were forced to express themselves in German. With the same right, the Czechs left the Habsburgs in 1918.

Photo: Tears of joy, tears of sadness

Whatever your interpretation of the image, it doesn't make sense to have two copies 1. Image:Anschlusstears.gif and 2. Image:Prague 1939 tragic greeting.jpg? Does anyone have a preference, the darker or the lighter? I think I prefer #1, the darker of the two. I'm going to direct the question on other talk pages here. - TheMightyQuill 03:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Map

I think it's really important to include a map here of "amputated" Czecho-Slovakia before March 15 to give a sense of how shrunken and vulnerable it was, preferably with neighboring countries visible. Brutannica 09:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Prague liberation 1945 konev.jpg

Image:Prague liberation 1945 konev.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Not very clear.

I had a difficult time going through this and trying to find out when Germany actually "officially" occupies Germany.

Page name

Occupation of Czechoslovakia by Nazi Germany or German occupation of Czechoslovakia? Why "Nazi Germany" in the page name and not just "Germany"?

As there is no other article on German occupation of Czechoslovakia there is no need for disambiguation by state and it is not usual to include the state's name when describing an occupation for example when France occupied parts of Germany after the First and Second World Wars one does not usually include which French republic was doing the occupation in the title of the article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The logic of having Nazi in the title would suggest that the title of the article would be "Occupation of the territory of the Second Republic of Czechoslovakia by Nazi Germany" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, there was no other german occupation of Czechoslovakia. Nonetheless, I don't see why adding "Nazi" for clarity is such a problem. No one has suggested including "Second Republic" or "territory" so that's a silly argument. I was going to say it was also parallel with the other articles, but you've since renamed them. With other countries (like Poland?) the occupation by Nazi Germany was not the only occupation by Germany. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

With other articles, you've had to include "During World War Two" which is longer and klunkier, and doesn't apply to this article, so a standard can't be set. "Nazi Germany" applies equally to all of these related occupations, so is better standard. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above about "Second Republic of Czechoslovakia" the logic for France (which it seems is partially occupying or partially occupied by Germany ever other week) would be to include the name of the French state if the German state is to be mentioned. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I read your comment, but it's irrelevant. No one has suggested including "Second Republic of Czechoslovakia" in the article. There were definitely no other occupations of Czechoslovakia by Nazi Germany, and there is no possible standard to set by including it. There are, however, an enormous number of articles about occupations by Nazi Germany, and some of them clearly need some kind of disambiguation. To properly disambiguate the others (ie. France) AND standardize the titles nicely, using "Nazi Germany" is ideal and causes no harm. Your "crystal balling" that people will try to further disambiguate the title is ridiculous. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Simply because you include the term "Nazi" in the title of "Occupation of France" doesn't mean you must include "Third Republic of France" or whatever. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to your suggestion on my talk page, that "Third Reich" would be equally valid - That's an argument you'd have to take up with the people at Nazi Germany. It's totally irrelevant to this issue. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The page Italian-occupied France is not under Occupation of France by Fascist Italy and I see no reason why it should be. Should all occupations but under the names of the states and not the common English names for those nations. Should the occupied nations be described as the territory of the state under occupation? Names of articles should be under common English names and those names should not be preemptively disambiguated. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting ALL occupations be put under the names of the states. In most cases, it's isn't necessary, and no one is suggesting it is. As I've already said, in this case, including "Nazi" allows for standardization of the article titles and for disambiguation where it is needed. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I still do not understand why you think it is desirable to mention the name of one sate and not the other particularly when it is not necessary for disambiguation. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh... I thought I had made that clear. I want to mention the name, not just in this article, but in several, to standardize the names of all the occupations by Germany during World War II. I would be just as happy with German occupation of Czechoslovakia in WWII (like the other articles you've recently renamed) but it wouldn't be factually accurate in this article, since the German occupation began before world war two. So the choices are:

a) factually accurate, but not standardizing the names (German occupation of Czechoslovakia and German occupation of Czechoslovakia in WWII)

b) standardizing the names with "in WWII" but not factually accurate for this article

c) standardizing the names with "Nazi Germany" and still factually accurate for all articles.

Option C seems like the best to me, and I don't see what the harm is. Aside from worrying about the unlikely chance that someone will want to include "Czechoslovak Second Republic" in the title, I don't understand why you think it is so awful to have "Nazi Germany" in the title. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to create a set of articles, the occupations were not homogeneous and were very different in detail. Nazi Germany is not needed in this case and it contains a perceived POV as mentioned by Hexagon1 in an earlier section. Clearly this occupation started well before World War II ("Peace in out time") and as Czechoslovakia was not invaded by Germany more than once there is no need to include the name of the German regime, if Czechoslovakia had not been military occupied by the Soviets there would be no need to include Germany in the title just as there is no need to include Germany in the Channel Islands article. The use of Operational names is discouraged by the Military history project for the sensible reasons as laid out in WMHSG:Naming conventions (Operational codenames) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Hexagon1 suggested the title Nazi German occupation of Czechoslovakia. There were differences between occupations by Nazi Germany, but they were all quite similar: all done within a fairly short period of time, all part of the same thrust of expansion, and certainly all very much connected. I think it's worth standardizing the names. You disagree. That's where the debate lies. Since no one else has weighed in at this point, I'm not going to argue any further for now. It's obviously not a crisis to include "Nazi" I just think it's preferable. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Occupation of czechia would be more precise because Slowakia became an independet state and was not occupied by Germany. Actionally it became a german ally. See Slovakia history. Therfore a better pagename would be: Occupation of Czechia (1939-1945)--2003:E5:3F3A:3B00:54F7:DB9E:75CF:F224 (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Munich agreement.jpg

The image Image:Munich agreement.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Prague liberation 1945 tanks barricades.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Replaced Munich agreement.jpg with Image:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-R69173, Münchener Abkommen, Staatschefs.jpg, from the German Federal Archive. Lars T. (talk) 18:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sudetes now

"The invasion of czechoslovakia is referenced in discussions of many invasions, why would these be included" ... Hello. In databases, Sudetes are mentioned either in the adverticements of the ski resorts (noted in the article sudetes), or in connection of German occupation of Czechoslovakia with military conflicts in this century. Can anybody justify the removal http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia&diff=240490345&oldid=240378379 of references from the article? dima (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Problems: title of article, etc.

Ok, first of all the title of this article is false.

First, parts of "Czechoslovakia" went to Poland and parts went to Hungary. So there are three occupations

Then, the Germans did not "occupy" Slovakia, a part of Czechoslovakia, so again, another reason why it is false.

That is the biggest issue. The other is the tone, which I tried to fix up. There were also some very heavy opinion bits. This article is slanted from the side that the problems the Sudeten germans were having were "problems". I do not know enough about this myself, but I think when 97% of the sudeten public votes for the "occupier" (to borrow a term from the article) something is up.

Also, this article makes no mention of Polish or Hungarian interests in Czechoslovakia. I seem to recall that Poland's interests were very strong. This article is written from a very specifically German angle, meaning it focuses on the German interaction with Czech...and with a very anti-German perspective. Is there an article on the breakup of Czechoslovakia on Wikipedia or is this it? I would say "German occupation of Czechoslovakia" is an inaccurate title to begin with (for the reasons above), and secondly, this article isn't really about German occupation after all. It is about the breakup of Czech. mostly, with an emphasis on the German interactions and actions that went along with/pushed for it...--Npovshark (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually this is already included in the article and discussed. For example the map indicates which portion of Czechoslovakia went to whom. The occupation - and subsequent events - are also discussed. The tone is mostly NPOV and if Nazi Germany doesn't come out looking good, well, it's because it was the Nazi Germany and it did occupy another country.radek (talk) 02:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Pardon. A better phrase would be "the text", not "the article". As it is, the text makes very little mention of other claims or interests aside from the German ones, and before I touched the article, it also had a very innacurate statement about about German minorities in Poland and Hungary, when it really should say Polish and Hungarian minorities in Czechoslovakia.

Read my comments again. This has very little to do with NS Germany "looking good"...but rather, an inaccurate portrayal of events. The most challenging question is why "German occupation of Czechoslovakia"? Such an article should only cover the area that was immediately taken by NS Germany, then. Also, this is problematic because for the Sudeten Germans, how can they be "occupied" by the Germans? This makes as much sense as saying Austria was occupied by the Germans, or the Germans occupied Austria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npovshark (talk • contribs) 13:30, 5 April 2009

I think the term German occupation of Czechoslovakia is the correct one to use for this article, and is the one under which most English speaking readers would search. Sudeten Germans can not be occupied by anyone, but the regions in which the Sudeten Germans lived can have been occupied and or annexed. --PBS (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

absolutely not. Because, as I said, this article is about the dissolution of Czech republic, not the areas that came under German control. It is completely misleading and merely reflects the same idiot inaccuracies that "most English speakers would search", which does not mean it is good. By searching German occupation of Czechoslovakia, by the way, the correct topic would surely come up. Let us not pander to Mr. Ignoramus...or his deceiver, Mr. Polish propagandist. --88.73.196.199 (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't irk me on this, Mr. "That is extreme pov" I pointed out what was clearly wrong with this article: off-topic commentary which is extreme, accidental distortion of details and the fact that this article is about things it is not purported to discuss.

The outlandish "and that is why czechoslovakia was great" quote at the end of the page is just the epitamy of all that is wrong with this article and I have since fixed...it has nothing to do with the article. There were other errors splattered throughout. It pisses me off to no end that I have taken the time to try to fix what is wrong and you just click away with your revert button and say it is "extreme pov". What is wrong with you? --88.73.196.199 (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

...some 'minority demands' served as pretext for hitler is standard view in literature)

is a piss-pour way to validate your reversions, considering this view is still presented in the article and I do not disagree with this.--88.73.196.199 (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Anon 88.73.196.199. First you REALLY need to watch incivility here. Calling people "morons" and other names is not the way to discuss and article or summarize your edits. Second, "Occupation" is the term used in most scholarly sources and changing it to something else is POV pushing. If you want to remove the word "occupation" from the article itself then first you need to take the whole matter to "Request Move" and ask for the whole article to be moved to something other than "Occupation". The role of Poland and Hungary in the affairs is already mentioned in a proper context. No need to POV it.radek (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please list your complaints here. I'm not even going to bother discussing the current version, it is absolutely atrocious.--88.73.196.199 (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the article for a week. Sort out your problems on the talk page in a civilised manner. 88.73.196.199 if you are going to contribute regularly to Wikipedia please create an account. If you continue to use uncivil language I will block your account and set the permission on this article so that IP addresses can not edit it. --PBS (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Anon, my complaint with your version is simply that you are pushing a Nazi-apologist version of history (this happens periodically on this and other Germany/Eastern Europe countries related articles). Specifically you wish to portray the matter as Hitler intervening in Czechoslovakia only to protect the oppressed German minority (and no other motives) and Czechoslovakia as "breaking up" rather than being "occupied". I'm going to leave the first one alone for now because I think that interpretation is pretty clearly wrong. So about the semantics of the word "occupation": I hope everyone can agree that Nazi Germany occupied the Sudetenland. The Czech portion of Czechoslovakia, after a war and threatened German invasion, was turned into the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, an entity administered by the Third Reich. Much like the General Government it was occupied. When it comes to the Republic of Slovakia it's a little bit less of an occupation. But the fact that it was forced to declare its independence (in effect, breaking up CZSL) under duress by Hitler and war with Hungary and that it subsequently became a puppet state of Nazi Germany means that this was close enough, for most historians to refer to the entire episode as "German occupation of Czechoslovakia". Which what is found in the sources (remember: verifiability), what the historical consensus is, what the title of the article is, and what is found in the text.radek (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what you identify as point 1 (Hitler intervening in Czech. only to protect the oppressed German minority) is not at all what I suggested. In all honestly, I think what you object to is that I made no effort to denounce the possibility that he was interested in only the German minority, which is something nobody can be sure of.

The point is Hitler did x and situation y was the platform which allowed him to do x. That is all we know and that is as distant from the subject as one can be, which is what I took into consideration in my version. Sorry if this sounds "Nazi-apologist" to you, but I am not guided by an interest in preserving versions which do not sound sympathetic to one side or another, I am interested in neutral tone and a lack of pov-pushing from either side, and any movement away from the current version is going to sound considerably-less critical, because the current version reads like it was written by the Czechs.

Following the Anschluss of Nazi Germany and Austria in March 1938, Nazi leader Adolf Hitler's next target for annexation was Czechoslovakia.

First of all, this is a very aggressive way of writing what I have suggested in my own version. Of course, you probably do not see this because your considerations are for a view that is less favorable to the Nazis, and not necessarily the presence of neutral voice. Still, I will try to explain. The first problem is that the current version uses tunnel vision as a weapon, using a historical narrative to put the transfer of the Sudetenland in a context which immediately renders an opinion favorable to the author's opinion (which reflects yours). Think about how different the opening sentence would be if I set the time and place with "after the Sudeten Germans created the SdP and made an appeal to Hitler" instead of "following the Anschluß of Nazi Germany". BOTH versions are pov-pushing, because setting the time and place can be a tactic of weasel-wording.

Note how the article jumps right into "Hitler did such and such beforehand" and immediately seeks to de-legitimize the complaints of the SdP-joining persons, overlook any actual problems in Czech ("alleged") and even go on to justify Czechoslovakia - not in tone, but in actual verbatim of the author's opinion...this comes later in the article, we'll get to that another day.

So back to the intro - Hitler never "annexed" Czechoslovakia, and to say this was his next target for annexation is laughable. Slovakia was not administered by the Third Reich, and pointing to the way Slovakia operated AMIDST A STATE OF WAR, after already appealing to Germany for protexction, does not change what the situation was in 1938. In 1938, Hitler -- whether for his own advantage or not -- made an appeal to the international powers and spoke on behalf of the Sudeten Germans...as well as other minorities in the name of nation-state (ethnostate) interests (Poland and Hungary) -- the article attempts to explain this, but the author so hung up on discrediting the Germans that he seems to have made a Freudian error and accidently typed "German minorities in Hungary and Poland" - lol - when it should actually say "Hungarian and Polish minorities in Czechoslovakia". That this has stood uncorrected by you is a testement to your lack of knowledge about the subject and concern for only a certain, large-scope point of view which vilifies the Germans.

"The dissolution of Czechoslovakia" is the most searched term, even with all the wikipedia satellite articles which borrow from this article's "German occupation of czechoslovakia". This article is not about the "German occupation of Czechoslovakia"...I would recomment a change to "dissolution of Czechoslovakia".--88.73.214.11 (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Their incorporation into Nazi Germany would leave the rest of Czechoslovakia powerless to resist subsequent occupation.[5] What is quoted here is the well-documented opinion of the Czechs who, before Sudetenland was absorbed, argued that giving Germany control of Sudetenland would leave Czechoslovakia powerless to defend itself. We cannot say for sure whether this is true because Czechoslovakia never had the chance to defend itself. It was not the incorporation of the Sudeten peoples which prevented Czechoslovakia from defending itself, it was the decision by British government to prevent the Czechs from defending themselves.

compare the two versions:

In 1938, Germany's leader, Adolf Hitler made himself the prime spokesman for the ethnic Germans living in Czechoslovakia. He took their concerns to an international audience but also lobbied for the bulk of Czechoslovakia's German-populated regions, the country's northern and western border regions, the Sudetenland, to be incorporated into Germany. This triggered the "Sudeten Crisis", which ended in the annexation of the Sudetenland. The crisis destabilized Czechoslovakia, and Hitler orchestrated its breakup shortly thereafter.

Following the Anschluss of Nazi Germany and Austria in March 1938, Nazi leader Adolf Hitler's next target for annexation was Czechoslovakia. His pretext was the alleged privations suffered by ethnic German populations living in Czechoslovakia's northern and western border regions, known collectively as the Sudetenland. Their incorporation into Nazi Germany would leave the rest of Czechoslovakia powerless to resist subsequent occupation.

References

Source?

35 Divisions? How could Germany invade if they had 35 Divisions?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.182.9.41 (talk) 08:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

References or Sources for Czech industry moved to Austria during occupation

Czechoslovakia also had other major manufacturing companies. Entire steel and chemical factories were moved from Czechoslovakia and reassembled in Linz, Austria which incidentally remains a heavily industrialized sector of the country.

This is not clear as the region around Linz has a history of industrialisation prior to the formation of the Republics of Austria and Czechoslovakia post ww1. The article in its current format suggests that Czech industry had developed independently, when in reality much of the industry of that region had developed and the infrastructure been integrated during the Austrian and later Austro-Hungarian Empires. So references would be in order, as the NAZIs also built heavily in the region, especially heavy industry such as steel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.75.14.246 (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Czech industry, or more correctly industry in Czech lands, was developped independently - no state intervention, minor relationships to 'Greater Fatherland' industry.

Nazis heavily building in occupied Czechoslovakia? Steel industry? Did they? Really? Any refs? (May be they developped aircraft and weapons production, but certainly not the steel production)

--78.128.177.35 (talk) 03:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Extent of coverage of the postwar expulsions

I'd like to ask user Lars T. not to remove reference again. Especially when he replaces it with reference which gives exactly the same set of final data (this time in German) as the previous reference did (both are referring to the same pres release by a joint Czech-German comittee of historians from December 17 1996); whilst adding designation as 'minimal' number of killed. (30.000 mentioned later in the reference is the maximum possible summation estimate, when the possibility of entry data incompleteness would be taken into account.) It's not particularly easy to assume good faith in such circumstances. --ja_62 (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine, keep the source - just don't misquote it. Both sources give these numbers as the absolute minimum. And why the quote from a Blog is supposed to be better than the actual full text of the press release is beyond me. Lars T. (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't misquote it - you did. And you've also removed templates asking for the citation explanation, without any explanation.

Not the absolute minimum. 18.889 deaths (including suicides) is the most reliable number known today, while 30.000 is given as maximum number possible, if the [possible] incompleteness of the records or their [possible] unreliablity would be taken into account. I can translate you the full quotation, if you don't believe me. --ja_62 (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

p.s.:Fronta.cz is a World War II oriented webpage, though I have to admit, that to someone who does not understand Czech, the 'Answers' section would probably look a bit like a blog. --ja_62 (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ja 62, because these numbers are "official", as Committee was backed by both governments. Estimates by some German politicians as 200.000 are based on difference between German speaking persons in 1939 and 1946, and of course this difference include German speaking Jews (killed by Nazis) and fallen soldiers. --Yopie (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I believe that, for the sake of verifiability, we can perhaps specify that the numbers given by the joint Committee are referring to "number of confirmed deaths, with some possibility that due to incompleteness (or some distortion) of original records the actual number of people killed could had beeen more, up to maximum of 30,000 victims" - which is, I believe, very close to the original meaning of the Committee statement. What I did not like was when the confirmed number of killed was labeled as the 'absolute minimum' - which is certainly one possible legitimate interpretation of the data, but perhaps a bit misleading one. --ja_62 (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Come on Yopi, that isn't exactly my area of expertise and I by general rule personally refrain from interfere outside that but "It has long been known that German civilians fell victim to Czech excesses immediately following the Nazi surrender at the end of World War II." http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,698060,00.html it has always been a common notion universally accepted outside the czech official propaganda, and as a czech you should know that very well, I presume Cunibertus (talk) 10:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC) The expulsion of the Sudeten Germans was "ethnic cleansing" of the worst kind.--92.224.204.66 (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the humankind witnessed the "worst kind of ethnic cleansing" from hands of Germans during WW2. Expulsion was very, very far from the "worst kind". Nevertheless crimes commited in its course were terrible. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• This article is about German occupation of Czechoslovakia not about Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia. So, I shortened parts about Expulsion, because there is special article about it. Manual of Style says, that: Where an article is long, and has lots of subtopics with their own articles, try to balance parts of the main page.--Yopie (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

For background info, I am neither German nor Czech nor Slovak. However, I did create Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia and Expulsion of Germans from Poland a couple years ago when I was much more active in editing the set of articles related to the expulsion. I have not been involved in editing those articles in the last couple of years although they remain on my watchlist which is how I got here today . I have reverted Yopie's truncation of the edits made by Lars T. I think the section still needs a lot of work but Yopie's edit truncated the section to the point where it omitted key facts about the expulsion.

We must have a section that discusses the expulsion because it is, if you will, the epilogue to the story of the occupation. There are those who claim that, if the occupation hadn't happened, the expulsions wouldn't have happened either.

I left in most of the debate about statistics although I have mixed feelings about that. Most of the details of the debate should be presented in the article Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia. However, we need some statistics to communicate the scale of the "human tragedy". Perhaps we can work to distill the statistics text down to the essentials.

--Richard S (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Dear Richard, you probably missed the point. Problem is, that the article is about German occupation of Czechoslovakia not about Expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia and there is dedicated article about this expulsion. Do you know rule about forking? Please read WP:CFORK. (And WP:OWNER too). At firs I thinked, that we can settle some compromise between "short" and "long" version, but with your clear and blatant forking this seems hard.BTW You also "revived" long-time unsourced statements, which is generally unacceptable. --Yopie (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Let's make one thing clear: I did not add anything in my edits, I merely reverted the edits by Yopie. Edits that removed sourced material with the explanation that they were unsourced. Lars T. (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

@Yopie - Firstly, I know what WP:OWN says. It says that I don't own the article. Guess what, neither do you. Decisions at Wikipedia are made by consensus. If you don't agree with me, get other editors involved in the discussion. Consult WP:DR. If we cannot reach agreement, the next step is a RFC.

I actually agree with you that this article is about the occupation and not about the expulsions. However, the expulsions are relevant because they are fairly closely linked to the occupation. Were it not for the German occupation, the expulsions would have been much harder to get support for both within Czechoslovakia and in the international community. I'm not saying that there weren't nationalist and irredentist sentiments prior to Munich. However, up until then, it was a problem that did not demand an immediate and drastic solution.

The Nazi occupation changed the minds of most of the resistance groups in the Czechoslovakian government-in-exile or, to the extent that their minds were already made up, it deepened their conviction. The Benes decrees were promulgated by the Czechoslovakian government-in-exile which got the agreement of the Big Three at Potsdam for the expulsions. The drive for a permanent solution to "the German problem" arose after the reprisals for the Heydrich assassination during the occupation. The expulsions are the epilogue or denouement of the occupation story. The question therefore is not about whether we discuss the expulsions but about how much to say about them and what exactly to say.

Secondly, I think you have a mistaken idea of what a POV fork is. If I create a new article titled German liberation of Czechoslovakia that has a pro-Nazi view of the occupation, that would be a POV fork. What we are debating is neither a content fork nor a POV fork and your misuse of those terms only serves to obscure the issues at hand.

Thirdly, I don't know how much of the text restored by Lars T. was written by him and how much was text written by someone else and simply restored by him. However, IMO, it was highly POV and aimed at indicting the Czechoslovak government and people for the expulsions which were described in highly emotive POV language that was suggestive of a war crime. I am not in favor of such language because it is emotive rather than factual and objective. Of course, it's tragic that innocent people died during the expulsions. However, this is not the article to get into an extended discussion of those issues.

I have tried to strike a more NPOV tone in what I wrote. If I have failed to hit the "NPOV sweet spot", I am open to discussing how to make the language more NPOV. However, blanket reversions of good-faith edits is often detrimental to the objective of writing an encyclopedic article.

Yopie, please take a step back, take a deep breath and repeat the words "Richard is not Lars T." Then re-read what I wrote in the article and what I wrote above. Then take another deep breath and repeat the words "I don't own the article". Finally, consider what specifically you don't like about what I wrote in the article and explain your concerns here.

I think you'll find I'm open to reason and compromise if you'll only stop reverting my edits.

(@Lars T. - forgive me if I am attributing to you the highly POV text that you restored after Yopie deleted it. I don't know if you wrote it or not. I also don't have the patience to go figure it out. Just ignore my criticisms if they don't apply to you.)

--Richard S (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Many articles about the (Sudeten)Germans and the Benes Decrees in Wikipedia are written by Czech nationalists. German Wikiadmins have neutralized them after their misuse by the Norwegian racist Anders Breivik. Breivik cited Wikipedia when talking about "ethnic cleansing" and the similarity of Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia and Muslims in Europe. Wiki is now under the control of German media.--92.229.15.38 (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Kobylisy Shooting Range

Kobylisy Shooting Range needs to be added in my opinion. After the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich. Many Czechs where killed here. Thank you Casurgis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.32.254.145 (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Invasion

Why isn't there a separate section on the German-Hungarian invasion of 15 March 1939? This is of more that trivial significance!Royalcourtier (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Popular culture references

Would this be the right place to put information on popular culture references to the events described here? There's a comic which starts with those events, Hansi: The Girl Who Loved The Swastika. Sofia Lucifairy (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hitler explained his reasons for entering Czechoslovakia

A better understanding of Hitler's reasons for invading Czechoslovakia is contained in his comprehensive speech 'Der Fuehrer antwortet Roosevelt", aka "Hitler's reply to Roosevelt".

Hitler notes that Benes had stated that Czechoslovakia would be used as an aerodrome to attack German cities. He also entirely listed the armaments found there and that he was forced to occupy the rest of Czechoslovakia.

Consider also that Poland, with the world's largest military (1.7 million troops) attacked Czechoslovakia in March 1939 before Poland attacked Germany six months later.

Moreover, Germany had complained on dozens of occasions to the League of Nations about the approx. 60,000 Germans who had been murdered in Poland (the territory granted by the Treaties of Versailles that passed through German)y and/or had their property seized. Poland had often threatened to overun Germany (see Rydz-Smigly "Germany will have a war whether it wants it or not!"). Sefton Delmer interviewed Hitler in 1993 about 'rule by emergency decree'. Hitler responded that he regarded rule by emergency degree to be criminal and that it should only be used in dire necessity. Delmer asked for an example and Hitler responded with "Invasion by Poland", indicating that such a threat was known as early as 1933. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.123 (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on German occupation 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/20110722002252/http://www.tschechien-portal.info/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=134 to http://www.tschechien-portal.info/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=134

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

pretext

re intro:

the alleged privations suffered by the ethnic German population

Whichever section goes into most detail about this, I think the phrase should have an internal section-link to. Would this be the first demands for Sudeten autonomy part? ScratchMarshall (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

That would be right. Under the Karlsbad programe of 24 April 1938, the Sudetenland would had a wide-ranging autonomy had the Karlsbad programe being passed into law. Contrary to what most people think, it was only on 12th of September 1938 that Hitler demanded that the Sudetenland "go home to the Reich". Before then, it was only autonomy that was being demanded. This apparent bit of moderation masks a sinister purpose. Czechoslovakia was allied to France, thus meaning that a German invasion of Czechoslovakia would had forced France to declare war. The only way that Britain would had been involved was if the League of Nations declared this aggression, but the UK was a veto-holding member of the League Council, so the British delegation would had vetoed that. However, from the British viewpoint, it was believed that in a Franco-German war that the Reich would win, and that allowing Germany to knock out France would alter the balance of power too much in Germany's favor. That is why the British got involved in the crisis after they first failed to pressure the French into renouncing their alliance with Czechoslovakia. From Hitler's viewpoint, only asking for autonomy was supposed to show how reasonable he was, which was intended to convince the British that Czechoslovakia was not fighting for and they should pressure the French to renounce the Franco-Czechoslovak alliance. The French refused to renounce the alliance while the British finally pressured Benes in early September 1938 to grant the autonomy, which forced Hitler to raise the ante. A.S. Brown (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Kremnička massacre victims 1945.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Legie - slavnostní nástup.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

End of war section - statement "...They suffered relatively little from the war. ""

In the "End of War" section, this statement currently exists at the end of the 2nd paragraph:

"Except for the brutalities of the German occupation in Bohemia and Moravia (after the August 1944 Slovak National Uprising also in Slovakia), They suffered relatively little from the war. "

Issues:

1. There's no source for this statement.

2. It is unclear who is being referenced by the "They" here - all Czechslovaks?

3. What is the metric being used to determine the suffering was "relatively little"?

Tagryn (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's not clear who should be the subject, Slovaks, or even Allied troops? I support removal if not clarified.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC))

Given no clarification or change was provided by statement's author, sentence has been removed. Tagryn (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hungarian majority in Carpathian Ruthenia

The line in question "Furthermore, by the First Vienna Award, Hungary received the southern territories of Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenia, which was largely inhabited by Hungarians." I don't believe that's very accurate. Hungarians were numerous there yes, but they didn't make up a majority there or anything. It's called Ruthenian Carpathia for a reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.50.254 (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 28 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

---

German occupation of Czechoslovakia → Occupation of Czechoslovakia (1938–1945) – This article does not just cover the German occupation but also the Polish and Hungarian occupation of parts of Czechoslovakia, as the lead suggests. The article title should be altered to reflect what it actually covers. (t · c) buidhe 02:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The date is to differentiate from Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia. (t · c) buidhe 02:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

What would say about rejigging this article into dismemberment of Czechoslovakia (or something) and leaving the occupation regimes to their own articles? Srnec (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

But the occupation regimes didn't just vary by the occupier. The German occupation of the Sudetenland (1938) was very different from occupation of Bohemia and Moravia (1939), which was different from Slovakia or Carpathian Ruthenia (1944). Different context, different timing, different legal frameworks etc. even though technically it was the same occupier (Germany). I'm not necessarily opposed to your proposal—distinguishing between the territorial partition and the occupation regimes—but I think it would mean covering each regime in its own article, eg.: German occupation of the Sudetenland, Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, German occupation of Slovakia (currently a redirect), etc. (t · c) buidhe 04:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Given what you say, though, doesn't covering each occupation regime in its own article make the most sense? Why lump the Slovak annexation and the German protectorate over Slovakia into a single article called "Occupation of Czechoslovakia"? We do need an article of some kind, I agree, to gather all the sub-articles together. Besides the ones you mention, we also have Carpathian Ruthenia during World War II and deep coverage at Zaolzie. Srnec (talk) 14:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Srnec Putting them together makes the most sense based on the general principle of "start broad, break more specific articles out when necessary". Also I think readers in general are more likely to be asking questions like "what was happening in Czechoslovakia during WWII" - we need somewhere broad and obvious for them to start. -- asilvering (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Czech Republic has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Czech Republic has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Former countries has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Germany has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRECISE. BilledMammal (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Also, the lead needs to be retooled a bit to make that clearer (the first sentence appears to make it clear that the article is about occupation/annexation by Germany, but the second paragraph confuses that). -- asilvering (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unreliable sources

A recurring problem around here is that editors who are suffering from a severe case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it will arbitrarily declare a source that says something that they don't like to be unreliable and then delete everything that uses that source. Of course, there might be unreliable sources, but I feel that a discussion on the talk page is always warranted rather just saying this source is unreliable in an edit summary. This is my own rule, but if an editor thinks that a source is unreliable it is up to him or her to prove that source is unreliable rather than just asserting that source is unreliable. I'm following my own rule here. The following sentence is wrong on two counts: "However, Hitler's interpreter Paul Schmidt, who was present during the meeting, in his memoirs denied such turbulent scenes ever taking place with the Czechoslovak President.".

First, Schmidt's memoirs are very unreliable as a source. For an instance, in June 1941, just before the launch of Operation Barbarossa, the dictator of Romania, Ion Antonescu, visited Adolf Hitler at the Berghof high up in the Bavarian Alps. Hitler spoke no language other than his native German. Antonescu by contrast besides for his native Romanian was also fluent in French. The Kingdom of Romania was a very Francophile country, and fluency in French was de rigueur for Romanian elites. As such, Antonescu spoke in French which Schmidt translated into German while Hitler spoke in German, which Schmidt translated into French. During that particular summit, Hitler was quite clear on this point that he wanted Operation Barbarossa to be a "war of extermination" against the "Judeo-Bolsheviks" to his own words, and he expected the Romanian forces taking part in Operation Barbarossa do likewise. Antonescu was extremely anti-Semitic consented to this request. Depending on which historian you go by, Romanian soldiers, policemen and gendarmes killed between 200, 000-800, 000 Jews in what is now Moldova and Ukraine. One would never know any of this from reading Schmidt's memoirs, where he gives the entirely misleading impression that the Hitler-Antonescu summit was only concerned about military and economic questions. The Israeli historian Jean Ancel in his 2011 The History of the Holocaust in Romania really takes Schmidt to task for this, saying that he lied quite a bit in his memoirs about what he translated at that meeting. Likewise, the American historian Gerhard Weinberg in his 1980 The Foreign Policy of Hitler's Germany Starting World War Two 1937-1939 points that there numerous cases of Schmidt in his memoirs fabricating entire episodes, always with the aim of making himself look good. Schmidt's memoirs cannot be used as a source.

Second, Schultze-Rhonhof's book 1939 - the War that Had Many Fathers is also not reliable. Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof is not a historian, but rather a very nationalistic former Bundswehr general. The thesis of his book is spelled out by its title, namely that all of the great powers were equally responsible for World War Two. Seen in Schultze-Rhonhof's way of thinking, the war was not a war of conquest and aggression on the part of Germany. Rather, the "war guilt" to use Schultze-Rhonhof's term is equally shared as all of the powers concerned were equally culpable in his view. This is not to put it mildly the mainstream historical viewpoint, which overwhelmingly holds it was Germany that was responsible for the war by invading Poland. This is not the place to discuss the merits of Schultze-Rhonhof's book, but his book is really distorting history by making out that in the Danzig crisis that all the Reich wanted was the return of the Free City of Danzig, and it was Poland that was more responsible for the war by blocking the return of the Free City. In March 1939, both Ribbentrop and Weizsäcker gave orders to Count Hans-Adolf von Moltke, the German ambassador in Warsaw, that he was under no conditions to actually negotiate with the Poles because both Ribbentrop and Weizsäcker were afraid that Poles might actually agree to the return of the Free City, which would rob Germany of the pretext for invading Poland. These are fairly well known facts, and anyone looking for confirmation of what I am saying, just consult the relevant chapters in Weinberg's book. Along these lines, there were serious problems with the introduction, which claimed that Hacha asked Hitler to take over his country out of the fear of a Hungarian invasion. What the article does not tell the reader is that it was the Germans who incited the Hungarians in March 1939 to invade, telling Admiral Horthy that could have more of the lands lost under the Treaty of Trianon if he would be kind enough to invade Czecho-Slovakia on behalf of Germany. Anyhow, Hungary was an economically backward nation with almost no tanks, anti-tank guns or artillery with the majority of the Hungarian soldiers being armed with ancient, rusting rifles left over from World War One. The claim that Hacha asked Hitler to occupy his country is not referenced, but it certainly sounds like something from Schultze-Rhonhof's book.

Finally, there are numerous reliable sources that do state that Hacha was bullied quite brutally during his visit to the Reich Chancellery on 15 March 1939. Schmidt may deny that, but he had a vested interest in downplaying the sort of people he was serving. Schmidt is notable only for being Hitler's interpreter, which places him an uncomfortable position. On one hand, his memoirs promise an inside look at what it was like be by Hitler's side and be part of his inner circle. On the other hand, Schmidt wanted to distance himself from all the bad things like war and genocide that were caused by Hitler. Just like Albert Speer who did the same thing in his memoirs Inside the Third Reich, Schmidt had to do a careful balancing act, trying to tell the reader that he was a very important person because he was part of Hitler's inner circle while at the same time disclaiming any involvement in anything nasty that went on. For all these reasons, I feel that neither Schmidt nor Schultze-Rhonhof are reliable and should not be used as sources. Thank you for your time. --A.S. Brown (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

German Wikipedia describes Schultze-Rhonhof as historical revisionist. Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

A Czech journalist extensively quoted Schmidt in 2007. [3] Xx236 (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

From Emil Hácha: "Historian Jean Ancel noted that Schmidt's memoirs are not a reliable source of information as he consistently downplayed and ignored the criminal policies of the Nazi regime as well as his own role in them." Xx236 (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

References

The name

The name 'Occupation of Czechoslovakia' is not referenced and defined. Which exactly land was 'occupied', the whole Czechoslovakia, Czechia or Protectorate? Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

15-16 March, controversial paragraph

The last paragaraph describes historical problems, so should be moved rather to pre-history. It is unsourced and badly needs references. Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Fake Elections

Citation: On 4 December 1938, there were elections in Reichsgau Sudetenland, in which 97.32% of the adult population voted for the National Socialist Party.

These where not free elections results of 97,32 % are very unrealistic.

About 500,000 Sudeten Germans joined the National Socialist Party, which was 17.34% of the German population in Sudetenland (the average National Socialist Party participation in Nazi Germany was 7.85%). This means the Sudetenland was the most pro-Nazi region in Nazi Germany. Because of their knowledge of the Czech language, many Sudeten Germans were employed in the administration of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and in Nazi organizations such as the Gestapo. The most notable was Karl Hermann Frank, the SS and police general and Secretary of State in the Protectorate.

This whole text part sounds like a justification for the ethnical cleansings the czechs perpetrated on 3,6 Millionen Sudetengermans (more than 350.000 german cilians were murdered in that process) past 1945. The intention is clear. Yes there was a high number of Nazi party members but for other reasons. The background was the massive discrimination of the Sudenten germans in the many years before 1938. 2003:E5:3F3A:3B00:54F7:DB9E:75CF:F224 (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

In May 1938 there were elections in democratic Czechoslovakia, in which 87% of Sudeten Germans voted for the Nazi Henlein Party. These where free democratic elections. Consequently the Sudeten Germans automatically took responsibility for the misdeeds of Nazism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.23.6.193 (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

7th largest economy in the WORLD in 1938?

There is a quote that says the following:

"At the time, Czechoslovakia had the world's 7th largest economy and Czechoslovakia had easily the most modern, developed, and industrialized economy in Eastern Europe".

The former phrase beggars belief, and the citation is an 80 page entry in a book, rather than a specific page. I am wondering if the author of the statement in wikipedia misinterpreted the citation. Here's why this seems wrong. Nations which clearly and unarguably had a larger economy than Czechoslovakia in 1938 were:

1) USA

2) USSR

3) Germany

4) UK

5) Japan

6) France

7) Italy

So is the number "7th" wrong? Does economy size need to be qualified with per capita or something else? 2603:7000:A600:A59:201E:D53D:B868:763C (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)