Talk:Sudetenland

Older posts

Areas with predominantly German speaking populations in 1945.

\

They have links in English, too. The entry is barebones right now, and reflects partly the skewed version of what an average American would have learned about the area (meaning, there is a lot of the complexity missing). [Thomas, user] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.85.7 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 1 June 2003 (UTC)

---

I think there should be information included about the period just after the war, when many Sudeten Germans were forced to leave to Germany. Pascal 08:01, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

I've tried to make the article as neutral as I can. For some events which are possible source of conflict I've used words from Czech-German declaration of 1997.

Please correct bad English freely, but please dont revert to "brutal expulsion and murders", use of term "ethnically cleansed" and generaly expressions which are usualy proposed by Sudeten German Landsmannschaft and oposed by Czechs. If radical changes of meaning or expressive words occur, I'm going to place article to NPOV dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.27.192.19 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 7 February 2004 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, "ethnic cleansing" did not occur. Why, only 2,232,544 Germans were forcibly transferred out of Czechoslovakia and 244,000 were allowed to remain. Using the term "ethnic cleansing" probably wouldn't apply until 97% or so of those 244,000 had also been forcibly removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.217.231 (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

1939?????

As far as I understood, the Munich Conference was on September 29, 1938. Mussolini, Daladier, and Chamberlain gave Hitler permission at that conference to occupy the Sudetenland, in exchange for the guarantee that his ambitions were satiated. The Germans occupied the Sudetenland on October 10, 1938... not 1939, as is written in the article. I want a verification before I correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.189.12 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 3 March 2004 (UTC)

the article looks correct, speaking of takeover of the germanpopulated regions in october, and occupation of the rest of the czech country in march. See the map on de:Sudetenland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidod (talk • contribs) 06:33, 23 September 2004 (UTC)

On POV

The latent Czech Nationalism - rampant in this article- is hard to stomach.

I quote: "By the Versailles Treaty, the lands of Bohemia and Moravia became part of the new state of Czechoslovakia. The controversies between the Czechs and the Germans intensified in the 1930s and the German minority (which was actually a majority in the border regions, for which the term Sudetenland was coined), led by the Nazi politician Konrad Henlein, was gradually escalating its demands."

This does not mention the fact, that the second largest ethnicity - the Germans - was not given any choice and forced into this new state, without given the chance to practise their right of self-determination, promised by US President Wilson after WW I. It is disingenuous to say "the controversies between the Czechs and the Germans intensifited in the 1930s..." German was not even made one of the offical languages of the new state, even though there were 3 1/2 million German speakers in the country. Had the German ethnicity been accepted as one of the "official people" of the new state, as equals, they would certainly not have felt as alienated and would not have made them susceptible to the lies and hate of the Nazi demagogues.

Just my 2 cents!

Luke, Pacific Grove, CA, US —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.12.58 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I almost hear Alfred de Zayas (and/or contemporary propaganda) from your words. For more in-depth treatment of the topic, read Germans in Czechoslovakia (1918-1938). It does not make sense to include that article here again.

The relationship was complicated, but the sentece included here is generaly true.

(The Relationship was not complicated the Chech just shot the German dead when they protested Peacefully without arms 1918, so later they came with armes the Chech hat the coice )Johann

The right of self-determination is a nice concept, but if that was noted, it should be also explained the Czech part of the states was created in thousand-year-old boundaries of Bohemia, which was quite reasonable choice. On big part of the territory the population were mixed, many Germans were settled in enclaves etc.

The dissatisfaction of Germans was huge after the creation of Czechoslovakia - but probably mainly because of loosing of priviledged position they had in Austria-Hungary, and because of land reform. But it settled much during 20s. Czechoslovak officials were supporters of minority rigts, most notably Masaryk. I don't know how you understand the meaning of "official language", but Germans were able to use German everywhere from schools (including university) to administration. Their situation was much better that that of Czechs and Slovaks in Austria-Hungary.

It is easy to speculate how would they have felt if..., on the other hand, it can be seen as a poor excuse for supporting Hitler. At the end of the 20s reasonable German parties participaded at the (democratic) governement of Czechoslovakia, and when Hitler took power in Germany, many Germans found temporary refuge in Prague.

--Wikimol 09:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi

I don't know how you understand the meaning of "official language"

I think it's quite obvious if you compare Belgium, where German is an official language while only 1% of the population speaks German.

In Czechoslovakia Czech and Slovak were official languages, while the german speaking population was bigger than the Slovakian one.

Cheers, Rolf (Hessen/Germany/Europe) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.151.209 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, but I still dont understand whats the point?
I don't know how the laws about languages were phrased, but my point was, as I wrote, most Germans were able to speak German all the time, including official communication with authorities, public funded schools, universities etc. I doubt there were claims about Czech and Slovak beeing the first and second language - AFAIK Czech and Slovak were considered forms of one "Czechoslovakian" language, and the same hold for ethnicity.
Certianly, minority rights of Germans in 1919-1938 Czechoslovakia were not protected to the same degree as they probably are in today's Belgium, especially if compared to the size of the minority. Czechoslovakia was not idyllic, but was much better than any state before it or after it on the same territory, and much better than its neighbours.
Btw, if German was in some aspects "not equal" , IMO the reason wasn't something anti-German, but worries it would open a big can of worms - if German, what about Hungarian, Ruthene, Ukrainian, Polish?
--Wikimol 22:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi

I'm not critizising you, it was just about what "official language" means in a NPOV.

If you want my political opinion: Switzerland might be a much more aproriate and older example, where the Francoswiss population has in percentage about the same size as the Germans in Bohemia had. I agree with you that it didn't realy make sense to subdivide such an old region like Bohemia in "ethnically homogene" little nation states even if the majority of the German Bohemians wanted to belong to Austria. But ignoring one quarter of the population in what mainly symbolises a country - the official language - (ignoring that the whole old "KuK" infrastructure and administration was still in German) is IMHO notable.

Do I have a neutral point of view? I think yes, because the way how the huge Russians minorities in baltic countries are excluded nowadays from national symbols like official language is IMHO as well notable! (The difference anyhow is that the Bohemian Germans didn't arrive only 2 Generations before independence.)

>if German, what about Hungarian, Ruthene, Ukrainian, Polish?

well of course it depends how big an ethnic population is and how (and with which intention ;) this ethnic population is defined. After Malta joined the EU, Malteses became official European language - with the paradoxial problem to find 40 interpreters of Maltese in Malta - they mainly use English in official contexts and rarely write their language! Funny isn't it! :)

Cheers Rolf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.167.168.99 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The Necas-letter is missing, in which Benes agreed to the cede territory before the Munich Agreement. The whole article reads like some bad pamphlet from the Czech embassy. In the part about 1919, why historic borders for Bohemia and ethnic borders for annexing Slovakia from Hungary--indeed going even beyond the ethnic Slavic borders by annexing the Magyar-populated Danube Valley. You will note that after World War I, NOT ONE neighbour of this CSR accepted its borders as legitimate, whether Poland, Hungary, Austria or Germany. A subtle minority policy was called for, instead the 50% non-Czechs got Czech oppression. It was not Hitler who destroyed the CSR, it was Benes, Hitler merely pushed on the rotten structure. Indeed Czech elites did it twice, and now Slovakia is independent! (Karpaten1 (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but I have to mark this article as not balanced. Nowhere in the Sudeten Crisis section does the writer present Czechoslovak point of view. The sources which are pro-german are often blatantly imbalanced. For example the Runciman's investigation is quoted at length, but if anyone would make an inquiry into how his investigation has been conducted, he'd quickly find out it was a political sham. We can see plenty of photos of Germans being greeted by liberators, and of German writings on buildings, but nowhere does the article talk about all those brave Germans who escaped into the Sudetenland from Hitler - the anti-fascists, liberals, jews, and so on, nor does it mention that a good deal of Germans turned up en masse when mobilized, and were commended by their commanders for their reliability. The article does not mention that German citizens had the same rights as any other Czechoslovak citizen, and that Hitler's allegations of rampant oppression or even violence against Sudeten Germans were just as made up as the Gleiwitz incident.

This article does not adhere to Wikipedia's balanced point of view standards, and so I mark it as non-neutral. --213.129.140.142 (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The crying woman photo

The photo in this article relates to the Anschluss, not to the cession of Sudetenland. Shouldn't it be removed? Scarlight 14:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Where does this information come from? The photo was moved here from Anschluss because some people claimed that was taken in the Sudetenland. See this source [1]. Martg76 13:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I found this letter to the editor when browsing some old times articles. There's no guarantee that the writer is correct, but here is what he says. http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,792479,00.html

Nov. 12, 1945

Conquerors

"Greeting to Hitler"

Sirs: ... I feel compelled to comment upon the picture captioned "Prague 1939: Greeting to Hitler," which appears in the Oct. 22 issue of TIME.

Contrary to your caption, the locale of this picture is not Prague (as should be apparent from the German-language shop signs in the background), nor was the time 1939. . . . The sobbing woman with arm outstretched in Nazi salute has been consistently interpreted as a symbol of forced obeisance to the German conquerors of Czechoslovakia.

Let us give the devil his due: the picture was snapped by a German press photographer and first appeared in the National Socialist newspaper, Völkischer Beobachter, in the fall of 1938, shortly after the Sudeten "Anschluss." The Nazi explanation was that here were portrayed the intense emotions of joy which swept the Sudeten Germans as Hitler crossed the Czech border at Asch and drove through the streets of the nearby ancient city of Eger, 99% of whose inhabitants were ardently pro-Nazi Sudeten Germans at the time. . . .

Its appearance in TIME is the first instance I have seen wherein this photo has been depicted as showing the reception of Hitler in Prague six months after the Sudeten incident. I suspect that few if any arms were extended, either in joy or grief, on that calamitous day.

EARLE A. CLEVELAND Lieutenant (j.g.) U.S.N.R. San Francisco

TIME'S thanks to Reader Cleveland for 1) correction of what is apparently a widespread error; 2) new proof that sauce for the Nazi goose is sometimes sauce for Allied propaganda.—ED.

Stor stark7 18:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the location and the occasion of the photograph, as well as the emotions being portrayed, are highly disputable, I believe the photograph (striking though it is) should be removed in the absence of clearer evidence. If retained at all, the caption needs to be very heavily qualified. Vilĉjo 00:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Vilĉjo. Olessi 04:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible source: diploma thesis od Sudetenlan demography - maybe of some future use (I haven't read it yet) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimol (talk • contribs) 08:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

How about: Image first appearing in the Nazi propaganda magazine the Völkischer Beobachter, ostensibly depicting a Sudeten German woman in Aš crying tears of joy when Hitler crossed the border in 1938. The image was later also used in Allied wartime propaganda under various headings.

That pretymuch should cover it, don't you think. It includes what the photographer claimed it shows, includes warning that it might be propaganda, and explains why there is confusion about what it means. Of cource, all this depends on the reliability on the letterwriter from 1945 (above). --Stor stark7 19:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that seems reasonable. Though a bit long, it needs to be to cover the options. I have put it in, with only slight changes. Vilĉjo 19:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Controversial photo

I found this on the photo discussion page, and I was actually thinking the same thing:

This is a butchered photo, I've seen copies of the original many times. It would be best to show the whole photo - or another. (in the original, the woman to her right is bravely saluting and there is no weeping like the women pictured here)

On a side note, although a vehicle propaganda, die Deutsche Wochenschau's coverage of the annexation in 1938 paints a pretty good picture of the elation of the Sudeten Germans and certainly makes one wonder how much of an "occupation"" it really was. --Hohns3 16:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The standard cropped image can be found at the National Archives (#78). This webpage shows the original picture, along with other images of the annexation. Olessi 18:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a Time-Life source that, despite it being Time-Life, actually includes the entire photo. The woman to the right is actually on the left and depicted in full. Unfortunately, I am not in contact with a scanner or the book, nor would it be "legal" to post here. Still, I don't think it is scholarly to interpret the photo if it isn't even represented as its whole. I'm not impressed by the fact that it is National Archives, especially since they tampered with it, so I think we should try really hard to track down a usuable copy of the original. I'm still completely in awe with this:
"The tragedy of this Sudeten woman, unable to conceal her misery as she dutifully salutes the triumphant Hitler, is the tragedy of the silent millions who have been `won over' to Hitlerism by the `everlasting use' of ruthless force."
I'm sure Goebbels would be proud. --Hohns3 23:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Poland

Sudetenland also includes part of Poland, region known in German as Glatzer Ländchen and in Polish as Ziemia Kłodzka.
Someone should add this to the whole article. - Norum 04:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What about the Czechs?

The following sentence from the article implies that there were only Germans living in the Sudetenlands - I think that is not true - weren't there any Czechs?

"Already from the 13th century onwards the border regions of Bohemia and Moravia, called Sudetenland in the 20th century, were settled by Germans."

I would like to correct this somohoew or add a disclaimer, or juts change the wording, but too busy right now - and don't want to mess up otherwise decent article...

PH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.103.68.90 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, as was seen on the image, that unfortunetely was removed by a bot, germans were sprincled across all of the Czeck teritory. But, If you read the reference dokument in the links section, from the european university, the fact was the following when Hitler annexed the area:

Germany took 40% of Bohemia Moravia. This area, given the name Sudetengau, had 3,500,000 inhabitants. 2,800,000 Germans and 700,000 Czecks. In what remained of Bohemina Moravia under Czheck control there were 440,000 Germans. No information is given on the number of Czecks.

You'd probably need to cross reference these figures against some other source to verify their accuracy though. Stor stark7 19:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Current situation

Now that the Czech Republic has joined the EU, there is presumably nothing stopping the Sudeten Germans or their descendants settling in this region again. Are any doing so? Adam 04:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No, of course, they didn't. Who wanted to come back and settle in CR, did it soon after Velvet revolution (1989). The rest of them wants only the property or money (but most of Sudeten Germans simply wants to forget the past, without any requests).--Honzula 13:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My grandfather was from Sudetenland. At the time the borders opened, he was getting ready to celebrate his 80th birthday and in assisted living. He wasn't capable of traveling long distances any more, much less moving (and why would he want to, with all his family in the West?). I'm sure he would've loved to see his old homeland one more time before he died, but alas, it didn't work out for him. This probably applies to many folks of his generation. As for his descendents: We were born and grew up in northern Germany, so Sudetenland is foreign to us, a far-away country only featuring in grandpa's homesick tales. We might take a family trip there at some point just to see where he grew up and what those tales were about and see if we can figure out the mountains and churches he painted over the years and the few old scratched photographs he managed to rescue, but that's more like folks from the US traveling to Europe to see where their ancestors came from. - tameeria 18:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The number of czech citizens are known apart of population cenzus (unfortunatelly influenced by policy - Germans cound't be in CS administration). But there is a big misunderstanding: since 13th centure, there was a continual setlement of german speaking people in Bohemia, but in order of a few thousands! There is no evidence of movement of tens of thousands etc. The fact there were over 3milions of german speaking persons in 20th century was done by 1) germanisation during Habsburg era, 2) mostly qualified handycraftsman were invited to improve bohemian "economy", the progress came from german speaking coutries, and hand to hand with progress came the languege. Keep in mind, that the most of German citizens in Sudeten had czech origin names (Dworak, even Henleins mother ... ) and about a third of Wien has slavic names till today... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.83.67.110 (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Czech Government in Exile lobbying for the expulsion of Germans in 1944

I stumbled upon this document Interest of the United States in the transfer of German populations from Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, and Austria, pp. 1227-1327 from November 1944, where the Czech Government states to the U.S that it wants to expell the German population. --Stor stark7 03:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and reasons was simple (mentioned in a,b,c), and you think Czechs can live in peace with Germans after all atrocities in war and pre-war era ? Remember Lidice and Lezaky ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.108.217.125 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So this justifies driving people from the land they had settled for centuries? Do atrocities committed by one side (and it wasn't exactly the SGs that committed these massacres) justify atrocities on the other side. I don't think so.

Benes bears the blame for two things: driving out the Germans of Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia, and for bringing the Czechs under the Soviet heel. Not a very good record. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

But here is one article I very missing (gathering infos and co-autors) - atrocities caused by SG Freicorps in period of pre-Munich treaty (june - september 1938). And this atrocities include murder, terorizing, kindnaping, torturing of Czechoslovaks citizines and soldiers, all caudes by SG. And yes, attrocities caused by one side dont justify another, but is here ane big difference - attrocities caused on Czechs by SG in 1938 have stong support in population, attrocities caused by Czechs on SG have not stong support in population (Czechs only want SG back in Reich, exactly who SG want in 1938, and Czechs give this to his, but without losing of Czechs teritory).
And to Benes - driving og Germans out was blessed on Postam conference and agreed before end of WWII (by all Alies). And blaming this (expeling of Germans) only on Benes is deforming of history. And for communism - comminism was "instaled" in Czechoslovakia as at last state in Europe.
Czert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.108.217.125 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Czert,

First of all, regarding Benes' responsibility for the expulsion: it was he who headed the Czech exile governement that returned to power in 1945 (the same Benese that been quite anti-German in the 1st Republic). The allies share in the blame as they permitted these acts but Benes and his ilk were the driving force. Benes opted for the Soviets because they were much more inclined to yield to him in this.

You also forget that the Communists were part of Benes' post-war government with Mr Gottwald as Prime Minister. That their take over probably couldn't be helped because of the presence of the Red Army is true but there is not denying that Benes handed them CSR on a silver platter (you cannot compare this to Poland, where the non-Communist resistance had been squashed by Nazi Germany under the eyes of the halting Red Army).

As for the Potsdam Conference - it could bless all it wanted to, this still doesn't make the atrocities right.

Just as nothing can make crimes committed by SG freecorps right. There is no doubt that Henlein and his ilk worked towards the destruction of the CSR at least since 1935 - but the bad decisions had already occured during the 1920s.

You say that the Czech population didn't support the horrid anti-German measures, while the "Sudetengermans" supported the free corps' crimes. Any source for that? No - large chunks of the respective groups did not support these acts, others were ambivalent (along the line of "bad, yes, but they had it coming"), and still others rejected these acts. In both cases! I know quite well that were even acts of protection made by Czechs (my grandmother and mother were saved at one instant from a fate worse than expulsion).

So, to sum up: we should report all relevant facts truthfully, neither exploding their importance nor diminishing it, and should desist from any sort of justification and apologetics on either side. That is all that I'm demanding. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

the same Benese that been quite anti-German in the 1st Republic - please, can you say me, any anti-German act of Benes in 1st republick ? And yes Benes lobing for expulsion of Germans, but first person who come with this idea (expeling of all Germans to Germany) was Chamberlain.
To communism in CSR - yes, ist very easy to punish Benes for this, but you forgeting three decisive things - 1. Munich treaty, who destroy any faith in western powers, with only USSR who show will (but only teoretical) to help CSR against Germany. 2. MOst part of Czechs and Moravia lands and complete Slovakia was liberated by Red Army, and as liberators Communist won 1946 election by 42% of votes. And third - without "help" of SG WWII probaly never broke (if yes, then with completly different enemies), and without WWII commies NEVER gain to much support in all Europe, and dont puppet anothers countries in C/E Europe. And to goverment - thanks to Benes,. CSR was ONLY later communist state with allowed London exile governent to return to liberated country.
Yes, attrocities to SG was bad, and nothing can justifi them, but if you look at years 38-45 you understand them. And need to say - nearly all attrocities commit previous nazi-colaborants or communists.
You say, bad thing alleady done in 1920 - but can you say me, yours better options ? With knowning of future is relative easy to say. And bad decisions was which ? (I know not ideal treament of econom crissin in post 1929 in Sudetenland, but let talk only of 1918-1926).
Any source for that? My sources for mass suport for attrocities of Freicorps was mostly memories of sesrvin policemans/soldiers in given time in Sudetenland (e.q. book by Jindrich Marek : Smrt v celnim pasmu - Historicke reportaze o ostraze cs. hranic v letech 1918-1948 (Death in duty? zone - Historical reposrt from guarding of borders in years 1918-48). And for non-mass support for attrocies against SG - relative lov number of incident (compared to numbers of expelled) and later investigation who make proves most of incinents against SG wa provoked or direkly lead by communists (including sabotage of militiry equipment store in Usti who direcly lead to known massacre) and rest go for personals reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.108.217.125 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Death by demonstrations (and off topic discussion)

The german version of this article states that on the 4th of March 1919, 54 germans and 2 czechs were killed by soldiers during the demonstrations following the czech invasion of the Sudetenland.
Can this be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.182.4.206 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but why include this ? If SG do not rebel to result of victors, then was not Czechs goverment forced to send forces to his lost territories and then no causalties at booth sides.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.108.217.125 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The SG wouldn't have rebelled if it would have been allowed them to choose their own fate as it had been allowed to the Czechs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.182.2.14 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

BUT don´t forged sudeteland was part of historics land of Bohemia kindrom (regia Bohemica). SG only colonized previosly unpopulated areas, this not give them "home teritory" or "new Germany". Calling of SG for independed state is simmilar to annexing part of US to Mexico only due to strong Mexican population in borders. All SG have similiar rights to Czechs including freedom of using German speak (in Czechoslovakia constitution in all law districts with more than 20% of German minority must clerk speak of booth langues Czechs/German) and rights of German minority in CSR was incomparable (much better) to rights of Czechs/Slovaks (and other minorities) under Austria-Hungaria empire.

Biggest reason for rebeling of SG was lost dominance over Czechs and when knowning end of soverginity is inevitable, then trying luck with defeated Germany.

To be clear - Czech was anexed by AH empire as indepednet nation 298 years ago . SG was not anexed by Czechs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.108.217.125 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop this game of putting forth balances and justifications. You are entitled to your interpretation but facts are facts-
BTW, just to spin forth your argument: the SGs rebelled against the (Czech) government you say, but didn't the Czechs rebell against the (Habsburg) government, against the King of Bohemia.
And references to the laws is fine and proper but you know as well as I that there was no real equality among the ethnic groups of the CSR. That's not to say that the SG were angels or did not made mistakes - they made big blunders, especially re the language issue.
The way I see it is: the post-1919 government had to chose between two options: either revive the old Bohemian Kingdom, thereby claiming its entire terrtitory but necessarily resulting in a bi(multi)national state , or opting for a Czech nation state, claiming preponderance for the Czechs but thereby respecting the right to self-determination of the parts not settled by Czechs, i.e. the so-called Sudetenland. There still would remain a German minority (Iglau and Brünn) but it would at least be consistent. But the government wanted to have its cake and eat it too, creating a Czech-dominated nation state in the boundaries of the old Kingdom. (Oh and BTW, why include Slovakia at all - they never were part of Bohemia, nor was it ethnically Czech, not to speak of the parts settled by Hungarians).
And finally: could all of you please sign your posts, typing four tildes (~).
Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point Str1977, but is here one difference - Czechs rebeled against own king with blessing of victors of WWI, SG have no support for his rebelion agains CSR by victors (and victor is who create post war settlement). Reason to create state in historical borders was simple - to have self-suficient state (in term of resources) and dont lose vital par of industry (40% of total industry output of year 1920, in laters years this amount droping due to industrialization of Slovakia/Rhutenia and others parts of Bohemia ) without Sudetanland independence of CSR will be imposible (forced to be dependent on Germany, for inspiration you can look at outcome of Munich treaty to Czechoslovak industry). And yes, Czechs goverment know future CSR will be multilangual state, and for this reason study constitution and experiences of USA and Switzerland. And Switzerland model of multilangual state for CSR will be ideal, but have big flaw - all minorities must want cooperate in new state, and SG refusing this until 1926 by order by prezident of Germany to SG to cooperate.

Yes, I know Slovaks (Slovakia) was not part of regia Bohemica, but want independe too, and Czechs was much closer than Poles or Romanians (staying with Hungarian opresors was imposible) and indepedned state for Slovaks and (later) Carpaians Ruthenians was unpractical. Creating common state for Czechs, Slovaks and Carpatian Ruthenians was based more on practical reasons to have strong state preventing future ocupation by forgein state (with artificaly created Czechoslovak nationality ) with equality to all than all others reasons. (BTW can anyone post here (any other) reason to give SG indepence instead of repeating - Indepednce was gives to Czechs, SG deserves it too)

Czert aka 194.108.217.125 14:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Czert,
What is your "one difference" supposed to prove? Are you suggesting that "might is right"? Just because one rebellion was supported by the Allies and the other was not doesn't make either of them right. Or what do you think about the Munich agreement? After all, the Allies supported it.
Historical borders are fine and dandy but that argument is meaningless as soon as one tries to build a nation state based on ethnical homogenity. You cannot have you cake and eat it too. The "Sudetenlands" were not Czech lands ... they were lands under the Bohemian crown and lands owned by various Bohemian subjects, many of which happened to be ethnically German.
As for economic reasons - yes, sure Mr Benes wouldn't want to do without the economic centres placed in the "Sudetenlands". But that's not a proper argument (unless you say "might is right"). Note that no one cared that Austria would be deprived of almost its entire economy by the secession of Bohemia and Hungary.
I myself would have advocated a binational state in the historical borders - but that is not what Mr Benes wanted and in 1919 that was not what the SGs wanted. But if you claim the right to self-determination for the Czechs you cannot legitimately deny it to the Germans. If neither wants to cooperate, the proper solution would have been that of secession of the German-populated areas. (And I am saying that in awareness that this would still have left minorities in the lurch: Czechs in the border regions, Germans in the centre).
Germans at first were not bent on compromise, but when have Mr Massaryk and Mr Benes wanted compromise in 1919? They had the secession of the SGs crushed by force ... do you think the SGs after that would immediately turned around for a compromise (not that they were asked back then). The land reform favouring Czechs also did not facilitate such a compromise. In the mid-twenties they were a couple of attempts of trying to integrate them into the political systems - a noble and sensible building up of trust - but on the whole, politics were dominated by a cartell of Czech parties.
All in all, if you raise your points to illustrate the motives of the Czech government using his advantage in power to pursue its interest, you are right. But don't preach a sermon that makes these points into valid arguments why all these policies were good, acceptable, moral, justifiable. "Might is right" is exactly the argument that Hitler used in 1938 (and also in 1939) - in this case Mr Benes reaped in 1938 what he had sown in 1918, as much as Mr Goldstücker may complain about it.Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Mayby "Might is right" is not best appochach at all, but noone invent something better. Ask someone of French in Alssase-Loriene to be part of Germany, after Franco-prussian war ? NO. (and vice versa in 1918).If you lok at history it is victor who determine post-war borders, not looser and Czechoslovakia was member of victors states, and AH in loosed side.And you are saying ethnical borders are more than historical borders or internatioanl agreements ? And why Germans dont want indepence for Czechs under AH (based on ethnics borders) and "instantly invent" this after creating of Czechoslavika ? Or is here not equality for all ?

To Munich - by words (I thing) of Winston Churchill : It is greatest shame in history of your nation, that we sign this deal. And to make long story short - before Munich have ben tenzions between Czechs and Germans (I dont count fueling by nazis), but after Minich all Czechs wiev all Germans as enemyies and traitors. Munich agreement unrepairable harm Czechs-Germans relations. Yes, I known examples of Germans who remain loayal to Czechoslovakia after Munich, but have very though life - by his "gennosen" have ben treated as traitor of German race, and by Czechs was treated as traitor of Czechoslovakia state.

As I said earlier - attemps to join sudetenland to Austria (or Germany) is simmiliar to (teoreticaly) attempt join parts of US to Mexico based only on stong Mexican community in area. Yes, etnical Germans owns property and lands, but only in terms of private ownership, not in terms of own country. Or better - you thing if you buy e.q. 100 acres of land in - e.q. Germany - you have right to create own state and declare indepedence over Germany ? Try this in real life, but dont be supried if your contry will not ben acknowled by Germany (or other states) and this will be violating of Germans law,and you may have future problems with this. OR another example - you thing if Chinese in China town (part of NY) will declare indepence and instal own (communist) goverment US will not act aggainst this ?

The 3 million Germans in the Sudetenland were in favor of joining that land with Germany in 1919. Most of present day Austria was in favor of joining with Germany in 1919. How wide is your historical knowledge????

If yours goal is independet Czechoslovakia, you cant perform this without Sudetenland, in any other case, Czechoslovakia will be puppet of Austria/Germany - depends on who will have sudetenland. And to Austria - victors have interest for workins Austria economy - for paying war reparations, but cant prefer Austria economics interest over interest of own members of alliance (losing south Tyrol to Italy, in Czechoslovakia lost only earlier annexed lands). BTW Czechoslovakia paying war reparations to allies as succesor of AH.

I myself would have advocated a binational state in the historical borders - you mean something simmiliar to US type of goverment ? But if you claim the right to self-determination for the Czechs you cannot legitimately deny it to the Germans. Hmmm, right for self determination based on historical and etnical borders are different (not only in terms of "public opinion"), then compare only RTSD based on etnics borders - SG and Slovaks, and you can see differences too, Slovaks dont move to another (independet or anexxed) country, they stal in the same place fo all time (if you dont count Great moving of nations). And former colonist (but this is not based on etnics borders) gain indepence only if WIN war (or by peacefully deal) with his former colonial ruler (indepence of US in war against UK ... etc)

They had the secession of the SGs crushed by force ...You are thinging if peoplers in Rhur area (yes, I know only teorecital example, but I thing best fit for this case) want independe or show will to join France/Belgium - Germany say, lets them go and not act by force ? If you thing Germans will act peacefully, then please explain this.

The land reform favouring Czechs ... yes, only 3,5% of seized land to germans was returned back to Germans hand, but this have deeply reasons and not anti-German politic. Reason why germasn war richest in future Czechoslovakia was simple - AH favor Germans over Czechs (If you thing this is basen on skill of G , then why not are germans richest in e.q France ? - in given time), and land ferorm was attemp to rectify (hope for correct word) historical injustice. BTW not solved land reform (or better very slow progres) was one of reasons in staring of Spain civil war.

politics were dominated by a cartell of Czech parties - but is here any reason why is this injustice ? In these terms works truly democracy, not pseudo-democacy of AH (e.q. for one representant in parliament of AH, Czech representant need 51 000 votes, German reprezentant only 41 000), and by counting of peoples in 1921 - 13 613 172 inhabitants totall - Czechs 6 850 000 (51%) 1 910 000 Slovaks (14,5%), 3 123 000 Germans (23,4%) 745 000 Hungaryans (5,3%), 461 000 Rusians and Ukrainians (3,4%) 180 000 Jews (1,3%), 75 000 Poles (0,5%) and others (0,6%).

This clearly shows Germans have no voting power to change anything without cooperatin with Czechs and others (but have accustomed (HFCW) to rule to Czechs and others - again, you can look at languague law in AH and Czechoslovakia). And if you study composition of population in AH, you discover "bad thing" ruling of Germans (and later Hungarians) was based on minority ruling msjority, and this hapen for long time.

With regards Czert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.108.217.125 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why everybody is showing the settlement of Bohemia and Moravia in 19th or 20th century? The name Sudetenland is only slightly over 100 years old!!! Before the Germans came, most parts of the Czech lands were already settled by the Czechs and Moravians! We were in the country before the Germans! The result of the giant germanization of the Slavic countries by the Habsburgs was the increased percentage of the Germans up to over 30%. But this was the status of the recent time, not the the original one and not the present one! Lies, lies, only lies!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LJM (talk • contribs) 18:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The number of expelled Germans totalled 3 million of the 3.2 million Germans of Czechoslovakia[citation needed]. On the fact request that has been given here, I found a source that claims the left-wing czechs massacred thousands and over two million were deported. (The Yalta betrayal : data on the decline and fall of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, p. 262), but no specific figure of 3 million. Still, one should bear in mind that the figure given was a reflection on the event prior to its finalization.--72.94.87.243 00:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the unsigned user's comment directly above mine...German settlement in the 19th and 20th centuries is completely different from the German tribal settlement over 1000 years ago. Calling these regions a "country" - "your" country, no less - reveals obvious ignorance on your behalf. They were "Slavic" countries? Oh really now? With full confidence, I'm guessing you also know nothing Slavic migration and settlement into the land you blather about being "yours".--72.94.87.243 00:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The borders of czech state as it were, were always on the mountains, not in inlands and it is so already from 9th century. In the middleages were invited german craftsmen which settled mainly in boarder among czech population. Then after lost 30year war in 1648, and return to stato quo of 1627, began forced germanization of czech population. New independence was only to thanks of many patriots through 19th and begining 20th century. Austria was torn to Austria-Hungary due to nationalism. Same was in the czech lands. The so called sudeten germens itselfs wanted go to the "reich", so their wish was fullfilled in 1945. Our people had enough of those, who bragged and wanted to torn state to pieces. As a victorious state Czechoslovakia had full right to do so. Yes, there were crimes against expelled, but before you make another comment like you didn't that, please look at your history and tell that your nation didn't anything like this before. Especially americans can proud on what they did to their natives. I think we czech don't have problems with foreigners, only with troublemakers and that sudetengerman during fist republic certainly were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.183.15 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

WHAT AN AMAZING HISTORICAL MEMORY YOU HAVE!! Please reveal how many "czech population" lived in 1627 in what came to later be called the Sudetenland. 3 million or so? (or was that a somewhat extremely smaller increment?) And then the Germans started showing up???? What an amazing story !!!

"As a victorious state CZ had full right to deport 3 million Germans having a 400 year or so ethnic history there"??: That's as good a definition of ethnic cleansing as one might find. The Human Rights Convention/Pronouncements in Helsinki in mid-1970s reject such "victor's justice"/generalized ethnic guilt by ethnic membership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.217.231 (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding, "The borders of czech state as it were, were always on the mountains": Don't you mean the boundaries of Bohemia?

30%

Wasn't Sudetenland designated as any region with an over-30% German minority, so quite a few, if not all, of the regions actually contained Czechoslovak majority? I think I heard that somewhere, but I can't remember where. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 05:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

there was really about 3 millions of german speaking inhabitants in CS, 1/2 a million in cities outside of "Sudeten", so it seems logical... --David Baca

coat of arms

The so called "Sudetenland coat of arms" displayed in this article is in fact the coat of arms of Sudetengerman's movement and was designed in jully 1950 in Germany. Because this article don't describe the history after 1950 I suggest to remove this picture!--Honzula 13:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free, Be bold, I did say time-period unknown. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I move it to "Sudetendeutsche Landsmannschaft" article - please, control if it's OK, before this one will be deleted.--Honzula 14:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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. Please post your comments at Talk:German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia#Photo:_Tears_of_joy.2C_tears_of_sadness NOT here. - TheMightyQuill 03:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "some sources for ignorants"

How come none of the given sources provide any page references? If you have actually read the works surely you can provide page references for where the provided sources state that:

• 1 Lord Runciman was a quote "faithful appeaser" end-quote.

and

• 2 "His mission failed because, on Hitler's command, Sudeten German Party refused all conciliating proposals."

The speed with which you provided the names of the books, but without being able to provide page references, is in my eyes suspicious.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 20:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

For me is for ever suspicious everybody, who refers the web site denying holocaust (Richard know, what I'm talking about). For me more is credible to refer some books -if you read any- than find some sentences by Google and use them without thinking! --Honzula 03:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite fascinating to see you reveal your blatant POV pushing so clearly. And please forgive me for saying so openly, but your English is so poor it's quite frankly rather difficult to follow exactly what it is you're trying to get across. Are you perhaps calling Richard a holocaust denier? Tsk tsk, bad Honzula. What on earth has the topic of holocaust denial to do with the sources you provided "for ignorants" as you called them. Poor ignorants by the way, if I was one of them I'd have gotten quite peeved with your little joke by now. Now, the information that I provided was published in the book Várdy, Steven Béla and Tooly, T. Hunt: "Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe". Columbia University Press, (2003) ISBN 0-88033-995-0 and was provided with proper page references, since I actually had read the source that I provided. I feel the urge to let you know that your little sentence about reading books and Google was rather amusing. I read lots of books. How about you? Lets go through what happened shall we.

• 1 Richard moved the information I had provided in the expulsions article over to the Sudetenland article.[2]

• 2 You obviously did not like some of the information, information that I have to admit is not flattering for Czech POV pushers.[3]

• 3 Being a tireless worker against vandalism ;-) I reinserted the paragraph [4]

• 4 Now, I can only assume this, but I guess that once you realized the paragraph was not simply going to be permitted to disappear, you proceeded to modify it according to your POV. Despite the fact that the paragraph described the situation for the Sudetenland Germans over a period of several years, you began by moving it from the section "Within the Czechoslovak Republic (1918-1938)" to the section "Sudeten Crisis and German annexation", and although you in your explanation pretended that you were just moving the paragraph "Runciman's mission moved where it belongs", I do believe I can see quite a lot of heavy duty POV statements inserted. Naturally all of your claims were inserted unsourced. [5]

• 5 I then immediately challenged you to provide sources for some of your statements, and after an hour you provided the "ignorants sources", however without any page references, making it highly unlikely that you actually read the books you claim say those things.[6]

• 6 Meanwhile, remembering what you said about reading books and Google, isn't it odd that shortly before providing the book "sources", you managed to insert an un-sourced Churchill quote into into the appeasement article [7]. Funnily enough the same type of quote one sees if one does a Google search on Runciman and appeaser[8] What a truly astonishing coincidence. Good thing there were people there who could correct it and provide a source[9]

--Stor stark7 ^Talk 21:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Sudetenland"

So called "Sudetenland" is only German and teleologic denomination of geographically roughly determinated territory of Czech state. It has never been official, not even unofficial, not even after occupation of the rest of Czechoslovakia by Nazis in 1939. It was only a political and tactical product of Hitler´s intention of Third reich expansion.--Jan Blanicky 18:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Informations to the "Lager Hodolein" near Olomouc ("Olmütz") in 1946

I am looking für the article Dr. Walter Staffa in the german Wikipedia (See:~http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Staffa) for informations to the Hodolein-camp near Olomouc (in this time called too "Olmütz"). Which persons where in the camp? Normal members of the german "Wehrmacht", normal people called "Sudetendeutsche", or members of organisations of Konrad Henlein oder NSDAP-members? Dr. Walter Staffa is a far right, former in the "Sudetendeutsche Landsmannschaft" und in the "Witikobund", leader of the extrem right "Deutsches Seminar". See here*http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Seminar

I want to proof what he said about the "Lager Hodolein" near "Olmütz".

Any information is warmly welcomed. Please inform me only in the german" Wikipedia, under member "Nup".

Just klick here: *http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Nup

Thank ou in advice!

Nup (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Informations to Dr. Walter Staffa, since 1946 in Germany, born * 7. September 1917 in Kromeriz (then Kremsier / Österreich-Ungarn), active for the "sudetendeutsche Sache" in "Sudetendeutsche Landsmannschaft and the Far right oranzation "Deutsches Seminar" in Germany

I am writing and editing under some difficulties (in the moment application to wipe it away) and some other actions, see

• http://de.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sudetendeutsche_Landsmannschaft&diff=next&oldid=39516818

the article Dr. Walter Staffa in the german Wikipedia (See:~http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Staffa) for informations about Dr. Walter Staffa, a high member of the "Sudetendeutsche Landsmannschaft" in Germany, but a Far Right too.

Even I'm looking for informations about the so called Hodolein-camp near Olomouc (in this time called too "Olmütz"). Which persons where in the camp? Normal members of the german "Wehrmacht", normal people called "Sudetendeutsche", or members of organisations of Konrad Henlein oder NSDAP-members? Dr. Walter Staffa is a far right, former in the "Sudetendeutsche Landsmannschaft" und in the "Witikobund", leader of the extrem right "Deutsches Seminar". See here*http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsches_Seminar

I want to proof what he said about the "Lager Hodolein" near "Olmütz".

Any information is warmly welcomed. Please inform me only in the german" Wikipedia, under member "Nup".

Just klick here: *http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Nup

Nup (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What about Poland and Hungary after annexation?

What about Poland and Hungary? Did they not also both take (relatively small) sections of Czechoslovakia for themselves in 1938? Seems to me relevant, for a fuller (and thus more honest) picture of the period. Historian932 (talk) 03:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Runciman

According to Time Magazine, "CZECHOSLOVAKIA: Pax Runciman" Monday, Aug. 15, 1938[10], the first day of Lord Runciman's program included 20-minute meetings with President Eduard Benes and Premier Milan Hodza; two lengthy conferences with "henchmen" (as the article calls them) of Henlein; and, next day lunch with Dr. & Mme Benes; a short conference at his hotel with non-Nazi Czech Germans.

It is obvious from the use of the word "henchmen" that this article is not exactly unbiased, but it does seem to show that the statement in the article that, and I quote "Lord Runciman has however conducted his investigation in a rather peculiar manner, by directly meeting the Sudeten Germans from Henlein's SdP, and asking them what are their biggest grievances. During his entire mission, Lord Runciman did not contact the Czechoslovak side even once" is just plain wrong. Currently I am reading through some of the UK Cabinet papers of the time up to Munich, and including the Runciman period, and I will see if I can find more detailed information.

For those of you who are interested, I am currently reading the relevant documents available from the National Archive website in the UK.

Conclusions[11] Memoranda[12]

The files are large, but interesting. Kuitan (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I am just now reading the Conclusions of the Cabinet meeting of 17th September, 1938 which Lord Runciman attended. It is very clear that he had met with, and had discussed many things with the Benes and others in Government. I have yet to find confirmation of Chamberlain's view that Runciman had in fact srtablished some influence in the country, and that he was respected for his impartiality Cabinet Conclusions 39 (38) p 1. Runciman's presentation is summarised in pages 2 to 6 of the same document, and includes assessments of the members of the Czechoslovakian Government, and of the Sudeten Germans - including some who did NOT want to be absorbed into the Reich - that he had met, outlines of four specific plans which could be looked at in dealing with the future of the region. Runciman admits that he had not immediately understood the relationship between the Sudeten Germans and Berlin (page 7) to change this section, simply to correct the mistake about Runciman, and to examine the things that Had been discussed would take a whole section.

The Document can be found as part of cab-23-95.pdf which can be found at the Conclusions link I give above.

Kuitan (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hitler and Chamberlain meetings.

The article says:

British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met with Adolf Hitler in Berchtesgaden on 15 September and agreed to the cession of the Sudetenland. Three days later, French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier did the same. No Czechoslovak representative was invited to these discussions.

This account is problematic. According to Neville Chamberlain's account no decision was made after the first meeting, no decision COULD be made after the first meeting. [CC 39(38) p 15 ]

Kuitan (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)