Talk:Occupation of Czechoslovakia (1938–1945)

message: The following was recently cut: "(The Soviet troops, however, came back in 1968 (see Prague Spring) and were withdrawn only in the early 1990s)."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)
thread_title: Relevant or not?

message: 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)
thread_title: Operation Anthropoid

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Holocaust? 

message: Allies of World War II says that Czechoslovakia declared war on December 16, 1941 which is backed up by  and  "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  allies? 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  POV 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  References To The Sudetenland 

message: 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)
thread_title: Photo: Tears of joy, tears of sadness

message: 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)
thread_title: Map

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

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Munich agreement.jpg

message: "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                                      
                                         
BBC Monitoring:
Lithuania's main daily urges policymakers to boost country's national
security. Lituanica, September 1, 2008
http://irzikevicius.wordpress.com/
Dick Morris,
Eileen McGann. HITLER INVADED SUDETENLAND; NOW PUTIN INVADES SOUTH OSSETIA.
Baltimore reporter, September 20th 2008	,  Vol 1. No. 25.
http://www.baltimorereporter.com/?p=5636
Kate Connolly. Obama adviser compares Putin to Hitler. Guardian, Tuesday August 12 2008;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/12/georgia
from the article? dima (talk) 01:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sudetes now 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Source? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Kobylisy Shooting Range  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Invasion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Popular culture references 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hitler explained his reasons for entering Czechoslovakia 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: pretext

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Given no clarification or change was provided by statement's author, sentence has been removed. Tagryn (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of war section - statement "...They suffered relatively little from the war. "" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hungarian majority in Carpathian Ruthenia 

message: :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)
replies: text: German occupation of Czechoslovakia →  – 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)

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

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

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

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

text: Note: WikiProject Germany has been notified of this discussion. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 28 February 2022 

message: 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.Schultze-Rhonhof, 1939 - the War that Had Many Fathers p. 231". 
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)
replies: text: German Wikipedia describes Schultze-Rhonhof as historical revisionist. Xx236 (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

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

text: 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.Ancel, Jean The History of the Holocaust in Romania, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2011 page 214." Xx236 (talk) 08:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreliable sources

message: 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)
thread_title:  The name 

message: 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)
thread_title:  15-16 March, controversial paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fake Elections 

message: 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)
thread_title:  7th largest economy in the WORLD in 1938?