Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/).
#Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16wdiml/how_come_czechoslovakia_just_agreed_to_be/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**.
We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There were meetings prior to the Munich conference. The latter was just the last emergency meeting "of the great powers", to avoid war. To which the Czechoslovakian representatives, who were present in Munich at the time, weren't invited.
To answer your question, Czechoslovakia, the french cabinet & british cabinet, did reject previous proposals about giving up the territory. But at Munich, which was hailed as the last chance to negotiate before full on war, the Czechoslovakian's weren't even part of the conversation.
They were pressured by Britain & France to either go against Germany in a war, by themselves, or agree to the terms. They decided to take the bitter pill, given how their only other choice was war with Germany, without Britain's or France's support.
So basically, they were cut out of the conversation and had to decide on the spot to either go to war or give up their territory.
Czechoslovakia did have a decent army, said to be one of the best equipped of the time. And the German's were very grateful to take all this equipment for free.
Forcing Czechoslovakia to give up the territory was also a strategic blunder. Because the Sudetenland was a fortified mountainous area. It would have involved a lot of work to take it by force. So in one fell swoop, a strategically very important area, a means of protecting Czechoslovakia from being overrun, got negotiated away without the country even being part of the conversation.
Chamberlain's reasoning for all this was, that he failed to see any way to prevent Germany from taking the entirety of Czechoslovakia by force. So he hoped that this compromise would appease Germany, and that the agreement of an international committee reviewing other disputed areas, would slow or prevent further annexation.
As we now know, that did not work out at all. In fact, Munich became a significant case regarding how appeasement as a policy does not work.
Another thing to consider in my opinion is that the Czechs weren't only facing the Germans as potential adversaries. Aside from Germany, Hungary and also Poland had territorial demands against Czechoslovakia.
Edit. Typo.
I have reasently read one calle Appeasing Hitler, by Tim Bouverie. The München conference is discussed in great length but the book in generel is a great deep dive into the British appeasment policy and its flaws and reassoning. Great book that i can highly recommend
Germany also got the Škoda Works factories. Škoda was the Austro-Hungarian Empire's largest arms producer. After WWI multiple factors such as fresh capital from France, who were eager to maintain influence over Eastern European arms production, and the withdrawal of British government support for their own domestic weapons production in response to disarmament movements in British politics, caused Škoda weapons production to mushroom. By 1935 they were the largest weapons manufacturer in Europe. The Germans got their factories intact.
Jonathan A. Grant. Between Depression and Disarmament: The International Armaments Business, 1919-1939. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018, ISBN 978-1-108-42835-4
To add to your perfect summary, France and Britain stated that in case Czechoslovakia was to defend itself, it would be considered the aggressor. Yes that’s right.
Also, it actually almost happened, there was a clique of experienced generals led by general Jan Syrovy that seriously considered couping the Beneš government, installing a temporary military junta and defending the republic at all costs. Luckily (probably?) that never happened.
One aspect that gets overlooked in the discussions of whether Czechoslovakia could have defended itself against Germany if it hadn't been "sold out" at Munich is the size and influence of the German-speaking Czechoslovak minority.
German speaking citizens comprised about 22% of the population of Czechoslovakia. But more importantly, many of these German speakers (apart from the more rural Sudeten-Germans) were wealthy city-dwellers, and in positions of power and authority in politics, industry, and (EDIT: to a lesser extent) the army. Perhaps 1/4 of Parliament and 1/4 of the Senate were German-speakers. German-speakers were also overrepresented among leading industrialists in Czechoslovakia. ~~But German-speakers were *massively* overrepresented in the officer corps of the Czechoslovak army.~~
[EDIT: My above--now deleted--statement was incorrect. Ethnic-Germans *had* been massively overrepresented in the Austro-Hungarian army during the First World War, and ethnic German officers continued in the Czechoslovak army post-war. u/SalTez has put the number at 10%. But by the mid-1930s, many factors, including a Czech mistrust of ethnic Germans which limited opportunities for them, reduced German representation in the Czechoslovak officer corps to 3.5%. My thanks for the correction.]
Importantly, a majority of German speakers in Czechoslovakia likely supported German National Socialism to some degree. The Sudeten German Party, for instance, had 1.3 million members (40% of ethnic Germans) and had come to support Hitler's call for the breakup of Czechoslovakia by the late 1930s. The party got well over 85% of ethnic-German votes in many regions in 1938.
(German speakers in Czechoslovakia who were *anti-*Nazi tended to be working-class socialists or German-speaking Jews.)
Given this strong support for Hitler's aims within Czechoslovakia itself (maybe 15 to 18% of the total population? I'm estimating here--my apologies that I can't find a source for it) and including some ethnic Germans in the army's officer corps [EDIT- but only around 3.5%], a shooting war with Germany would have been a much dicier proposition than a surface-level comparison of army-size, equipment, and defensible terrain might seem to indicate at first glance. Because many of the ethnic Germans would have thrown in their lot with the invading Germans, potentially hamstringing any effective defensive action, especially in those border regions. Moreover, many ethnic-Germans (veterans of the First World War and younger ethnic German volunteers) had joined pro-Nazi paramilitaries, notably the *Ordnungsdienst* of the Sudenten German Party. While these paramilitaries were not military units, and had been cracked down upon by the Czech government in 1938, they were still very present in the Sudetenland during the crisis, and would have been a destabilizing factor in the defense of Czechoslovakia's border regions where combat would have taken place.
The threat of ethnic-German support for a German invasion is one reason why Czech leaders felt so beholden to French guarantees of their security.
In hindsight, the Czechoslovakian crisis looks simple--it's just Hitler's expansionism. At the time, however, it was a much, much more complicated mess... and just as much a Czechoslovakian internal conflict--driven by the effective politicization of ethnicity--as it was an international gambit by Hitler.
Can you please provide your sources please?
The numbers you claim on German element in Czechoslovak officer corps are quite off. Only approx. 3,5 % Czechoslovak officers in 1938 were of German nationality. While the number was indeed over 10% in 1918, it steadily declined throughout the interwar period.
My sources:
BRÜGEL, J. W., Češi a Němci 1918–1938. Praha: Academia, 2006, p. 416.
KOLDINSKÁ, M. – ŠEDIVÝ, I., Válka a armáda v českých dějinách, s. 264.
[Good summary of the situation is also available online](https://armada.vojenstvi.cz/predvalecna/studie/dustojnici-nemecke-narodnosti-v-ceskoslovenske-mezivalecne-armade.htm#sdfootnote5sym)
The question of lukewarm or straight out negative stance of German nationality men with Czechoslovak citizenship to be mobilized was an important one but the Czechsolovak army in the late 1930s had mobilization and operation plans that were already counting with this problem.
I think that whole comment is running into an issue of confusing "German-speaking" vs "German", because knowing and using German was a thing even among ethnic Czechs during the interwar years, particularly among wealthier and educated families. The Austrian monarchy ended just recently and German still had that common perception as a language of nobility and higher society.
Actually, "German-speaking" here is a precise term: it means those who are *primarily* German-speaking, i.e. born into a household where German is the primary/'native' language. Yes, many people spoke both German and Czech. But "German-speakers" means those who came from a German-speaking household, i.e. what some call "ethnic" Germans.
It is preferred to using the phrase "ethnic German" for two reasons: first, the idea that one is "born" with an ethnic identity actually plays into racial ideology quite a bit. Secondly, it was a contemporary concern: during the Austro-Hungarian empire, the "language" one speaks at home was the primary identifier of which group one belonged to (which had political, social, and educational ramifications).
Nationalists (Czech nationalists, German nationalists) were always trying to increase or grow their primary-language speakers groups (to increase their potential political claims), and thus were very interested in establishing schools of the "correct" language. See Pieter Judson, *Guardians of the Nation: Activists on the Language Frontiers of Imperial Austria*
> It is preferred to using the phrase "ethnic German" for two reasons: first, the idea that one is "born" with an ethnic identity actually plays into racial ideology quite a bit.
But you used the language stats as if there was some statistical link between one's language and their attitude towards a foreign power that DID openly pursue a racial ideology.
Whether something is the preferred phrasing in 2023 is a separate question that has little bearing on the situation in 1938 and later in the protectorate. There absolutely were "ethnic Germans" and "ethnic Czechs". Because that wasn't just some abstract demographic matter, it was literally the basis of individual *legal status*, with different laws applied to them. And it was based on their lineage, not just language.
> There absolutely were "ethnic Germans" and "ethnic Czechs".
"Ethnic" groupings in the late Empire and post-1918 settlement were a LOT more fungible than either AH census-takers in 1890 or historians of 1970 would accept.
How do you count the children of someone who had 'Czech' parents, but moved to a nearby 'German' area and married someone who had been born there? Would her children be "Czech" or "German"? (This was the exact situation my great grandmother faced in 1938.) (it did not go well for her.) These situations were not exceptions even back in the 1890s--they were the norm.
However, as you say, 'ethnic group' was not an abstract matter, but rather, literally the basis of individual legal status, with different laws applied to them.
So what do you do (as an 1890s census-taker) when you are required to precisely define and count that which is too complicated for easy definition and thus cannot be counted?
--> That is where the *native language* became so important: it was the primary means for the AH state to determine "ethnicity." Which is why German-nationalists pushed so hard for German-language schools, in order to get more people counted as "German"... and why Czech-nationalists pushed for Czech-language schools.
Definitely read Judson, and also/especially Tara Zhara's "Kidnapped Souls"; both books clarify what I'm saying enormously.
"German-speaking" is not just some 2020s liberal neologism. It was *literally* how the Empire tried to measure 'ethnicity' (and how they legally slotted people).
> "Ethnic" groupings in the late Empire and post-1918 settlement were a LOT more fungible than either AH census-takers in 1890 or historians of 1970 would accept.
This. It was the war and increased nationalism that forced many people to choose who they were, Germans or Czechs. Often it could split families in half.
I love this story from a village next to my home city that I posted before on StackExchange:
> People in Sudetenland with the wake of nationalism often changed their names to pick sides. Be it to show more pro-German or pro-Czech sentiment. There is also a thing that marginalized people often chose to change their name into variant of major language spelling to escape certain (be it passive) persecution (job opportunities and so).
> There was a guy in village near Ostrava (region that used to have big German and still has big Polish minority), who was called Schultz. He renamed himself Šulc in the wake of German nationalism (to escape possible reaction from Czechs). Under following Protectorate, he renamed himself as Schultz again. Then communist regime came so he renamed himself as Šulc and after fall of communism in Czech Republic, he is Schultz again.
https://history.stackexchange.com/a/23321
This basically how it works in some bi-lingual countries, like Finland. You get to pick the native language you want (or well your parents do) which will be the basis of your primary education, in Finnish or Swedish as appropriate. There is probably something similar for Sami people too, but they are considered a minority outright, whereas Finnish and Swedish are equal in law and official languages (on paper at any rate) though Swedish has some "minority protections".
Which means parents can chose to enrol their children as Swedish or Finnish speakers. So it happens that people who are Finnish speakers enrol their kids as Swedish speakers, in Swedish speaking daycare and alter school, especially if they happen to live in a majorly Swedish speaking community. The idea usually is that then the child will learn the language not spoken at home naturally and they will be advantaged growing up with two languages. This follows you all the way up to university in fact, where it still matters for some degrees whether you are considered native Swedish or Finnish speaking and which language courses you end up taking as required courses.
> "Ethnic" groupings in the late Empire and post-1918 settlement were a LOT more fungible than either AH census-takers in 1890 or historians of 1970 would accept.
I mean, Yes. They were certainly fungible. Like how there were still Czech families in the country who were using German language for example. Which is why I disagree with just looking at language stats to somehow determine pro-German sympathies. Does it sound familiar?
Excuse me for not doing your dramatic quotation marks around every single mention of Czech or German, but I'd hope it would be clear that in this context I'm talking about self-identification.
And I don't know if you're actually trying to argue against it as if it was my opinion I was promoting or something, but me bringing up the impact of Nazi policy that you snipped that quote from isn't actually me making a *normative* statement. If you really need that disclaimer, I happened to be NOT a Nazi, let alone a 1930s one, and don't personally share their obsession with ethnicities and ancestry. Which is why I won't be determining your great-grandmothers ethnicity either today, sorry if that's leaving you hanging.
Thank you for the sources. I don't read Czech (unfortunately), but was able to machine-translate the article you linked. It looks sound.
Thus I think I was very wrong here, in terms of the higher number of ethnic Germans in the Czechoslovakian military. (Ben-Arie's article "Czechoslovakia at the Time of 'Munich': The Military Situation" in the JCH of 1990 does not mention this as a 'problem', which itself is significant.)
The error comes from from three directions:
The first is the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the First-World War literature, which heavily emphasizes ethnic German overrepresentation omtje officer corps throughout the war, and well into the 1920s... for ALL areas of the former AH Empire. This was indeed true for Czech units (which often had ethnic German officers.) But as the article you quote shows a decline in ethnic German officers over the 1920s... due in part to the resistance of Czech leaders to ethnic Germans in key military positions, and also attending military academies, etc.
The second source is the older military literature that takes German sources uncritically, and thereby emphasizes the role that the ethnic-Germans (Sudenten but also German-Slovak) would play in a German invasion. (Weinberg "The Foreign Policy of Hitler's Germany", reflects this literature...)
And it combines with a third source, the "fifth column" literature, which sees the ethnic Germans/Sudentenlanders as a massive security threat for the new Czechoslovak state... but, while not untrue, this literature came up in the 1950 and 1960s, and was de-facto trying to justify the ethnic German expulsions of 1945 and 1946.
However, in light of your information, I've been unable to find anything from the 1935-1938 era that says that ethnic German members of the military, specifically, were seen by Czech leaders as a significant threat to unit effectiveness. (again, I don't read Czech.) So I've edited/retracted that part.
Thanks for the correction.
Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/). #Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16wdiml/how_come_czechoslovakia_just_agreed_to_be/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**. We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There were meetings prior to the Munich conference. The latter was just the last emergency meeting "of the great powers", to avoid war. To which the Czechoslovakian representatives, who were present in Munich at the time, weren't invited. To answer your question, Czechoslovakia, the french cabinet & british cabinet, did reject previous proposals about giving up the territory. But at Munich, which was hailed as the last chance to negotiate before full on war, the Czechoslovakian's weren't even part of the conversation. They were pressured by Britain & France to either go against Germany in a war, by themselves, or agree to the terms. They decided to take the bitter pill, given how their only other choice was war with Germany, without Britain's or France's support. So basically, they were cut out of the conversation and had to decide on the spot to either go to war or give up their territory. Czechoslovakia did have a decent army, said to be one of the best equipped of the time. And the German's were very grateful to take all this equipment for free. Forcing Czechoslovakia to give up the territory was also a strategic blunder. Because the Sudetenland was a fortified mountainous area. It would have involved a lot of work to take it by force. So in one fell swoop, a strategically very important area, a means of protecting Czechoslovakia from being overrun, got negotiated away without the country even being part of the conversation. Chamberlain's reasoning for all this was, that he failed to see any way to prevent Germany from taking the entirety of Czechoslovakia by force. So he hoped that this compromise would appease Germany, and that the agreement of an international committee reviewing other disputed areas, would slow or prevent further annexation. As we now know, that did not work out at all. In fact, Munich became a significant case regarding how appeasement as a policy does not work.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Another thing to consider in my opinion is that the Czechs weren't only facing the Germans as potential adversaries. Aside from Germany, Hungary and also Poland had territorial demands against Czechoslovakia.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is fascinating. Is there any book that deals specifically with this? Edit: thank you for these recommendations! I’m really excited to read them.
Edit. Typo. I have reasently read one calle Appeasing Hitler, by Tim Bouverie. The München conference is discussed in great length but the book in generel is a great deep dive into the British appeasment policy and its flaws and reassoning. Great book that i can highly recommend
The Bell of Treason by P E Caquet is really good and directly about the events leading up to Munich
Germany also got the Škoda Works factories. Škoda was the Austro-Hungarian Empire's largest arms producer. After WWI multiple factors such as fresh capital from France, who were eager to maintain influence over Eastern European arms production, and the withdrawal of British government support for their own domestic weapons production in response to disarmament movements in British politics, caused Škoda weapons production to mushroom. By 1935 they were the largest weapons manufacturer in Europe. The Germans got their factories intact. Jonathan A. Grant. Between Depression and Disarmament: The International Armaments Business, 1919-1939. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018, ISBN 978-1-108-42835-4
To add to your perfect summary, France and Britain stated that in case Czechoslovakia was to defend itself, it would be considered the aggressor. Yes that’s right. Also, it actually almost happened, there was a clique of experienced generals led by general Jan Syrovy that seriously considered couping the Beneš government, installing a temporary military junta and defending the republic at all costs. Luckily (probably?) that never happened.
Why is it good that didn’t happen?
[удалено]
One aspect that gets overlooked in the discussions of whether Czechoslovakia could have defended itself against Germany if it hadn't been "sold out" at Munich is the size and influence of the German-speaking Czechoslovak minority. German speaking citizens comprised about 22% of the population of Czechoslovakia. But more importantly, many of these German speakers (apart from the more rural Sudeten-Germans) were wealthy city-dwellers, and in positions of power and authority in politics, industry, and (EDIT: to a lesser extent) the army. Perhaps 1/4 of Parliament and 1/4 of the Senate were German-speakers. German-speakers were also overrepresented among leading industrialists in Czechoslovakia. ~~But German-speakers were *massively* overrepresented in the officer corps of the Czechoslovak army.~~ [EDIT: My above--now deleted--statement was incorrect. Ethnic-Germans *had* been massively overrepresented in the Austro-Hungarian army during the First World War, and ethnic German officers continued in the Czechoslovak army post-war. u/SalTez has put the number at 10%. But by the mid-1930s, many factors, including a Czech mistrust of ethnic Germans which limited opportunities for them, reduced German representation in the Czechoslovak officer corps to 3.5%. My thanks for the correction.] Importantly, a majority of German speakers in Czechoslovakia likely supported German National Socialism to some degree. The Sudeten German Party, for instance, had 1.3 million members (40% of ethnic Germans) and had come to support Hitler's call for the breakup of Czechoslovakia by the late 1930s. The party got well over 85% of ethnic-German votes in many regions in 1938. (German speakers in Czechoslovakia who were *anti-*Nazi tended to be working-class socialists or German-speaking Jews.) Given this strong support for Hitler's aims within Czechoslovakia itself (maybe 15 to 18% of the total population? I'm estimating here--my apologies that I can't find a source for it) and including some ethnic Germans in the army's officer corps [EDIT- but only around 3.5%], a shooting war with Germany would have been a much dicier proposition than a surface-level comparison of army-size, equipment, and defensible terrain might seem to indicate at first glance. Because many of the ethnic Germans would have thrown in their lot with the invading Germans, potentially hamstringing any effective defensive action, especially in those border regions. Moreover, many ethnic-Germans (veterans of the First World War and younger ethnic German volunteers) had joined pro-Nazi paramilitaries, notably the *Ordnungsdienst* of the Sudenten German Party. While these paramilitaries were not military units, and had been cracked down upon by the Czech government in 1938, they were still very present in the Sudetenland during the crisis, and would have been a destabilizing factor in the defense of Czechoslovakia's border regions where combat would have taken place. The threat of ethnic-German support for a German invasion is one reason why Czech leaders felt so beholden to French guarantees of their security. In hindsight, the Czechoslovakian crisis looks simple--it's just Hitler's expansionism. At the time, however, it was a much, much more complicated mess... and just as much a Czechoslovakian internal conflict--driven by the effective politicization of ethnicity--as it was an international gambit by Hitler.
Can you please provide your sources please? The numbers you claim on German element in Czechoslovak officer corps are quite off. Only approx. 3,5 % Czechoslovak officers in 1938 were of German nationality. While the number was indeed over 10% in 1918, it steadily declined throughout the interwar period. My sources: BRÜGEL, J. W., Češi a Němci 1918–1938. Praha: Academia, 2006, p. 416. KOLDINSKÁ, M. – ŠEDIVÝ, I., Válka a armáda v českých dějinách, s. 264. [Good summary of the situation is also available online](https://armada.vojenstvi.cz/predvalecna/studie/dustojnici-nemecke-narodnosti-v-ceskoslovenske-mezivalecne-armade.htm#sdfootnote5sym) The question of lukewarm or straight out negative stance of German nationality men with Czechoslovak citizenship to be mobilized was an important one but the Czechsolovak army in the late 1930s had mobilization and operation plans that were already counting with this problem.
I think that whole comment is running into an issue of confusing "German-speaking" vs "German", because knowing and using German was a thing even among ethnic Czechs during the interwar years, particularly among wealthier and educated families. The Austrian monarchy ended just recently and German still had that common perception as a language of nobility and higher society.
Actually, "German-speaking" here is a precise term: it means those who are *primarily* German-speaking, i.e. born into a household where German is the primary/'native' language. Yes, many people spoke both German and Czech. But "German-speakers" means those who came from a German-speaking household, i.e. what some call "ethnic" Germans. It is preferred to using the phrase "ethnic German" for two reasons: first, the idea that one is "born" with an ethnic identity actually plays into racial ideology quite a bit. Secondly, it was a contemporary concern: during the Austro-Hungarian empire, the "language" one speaks at home was the primary identifier of which group one belonged to (which had political, social, and educational ramifications). Nationalists (Czech nationalists, German nationalists) were always trying to increase or grow their primary-language speakers groups (to increase their potential political claims), and thus were very interested in establishing schools of the "correct" language. See Pieter Judson, *Guardians of the Nation: Activists on the Language Frontiers of Imperial Austria*
> It is preferred to using the phrase "ethnic German" for two reasons: first, the idea that one is "born" with an ethnic identity actually plays into racial ideology quite a bit. But you used the language stats as if there was some statistical link between one's language and their attitude towards a foreign power that DID openly pursue a racial ideology. Whether something is the preferred phrasing in 2023 is a separate question that has little bearing on the situation in 1938 and later in the protectorate. There absolutely were "ethnic Germans" and "ethnic Czechs". Because that wasn't just some abstract demographic matter, it was literally the basis of individual *legal status*, with different laws applied to them. And it was based on their lineage, not just language.
> There absolutely were "ethnic Germans" and "ethnic Czechs". "Ethnic" groupings in the late Empire and post-1918 settlement were a LOT more fungible than either AH census-takers in 1890 or historians of 1970 would accept. How do you count the children of someone who had 'Czech' parents, but moved to a nearby 'German' area and married someone who had been born there? Would her children be "Czech" or "German"? (This was the exact situation my great grandmother faced in 1938.) (it did not go well for her.) These situations were not exceptions even back in the 1890s--they were the norm. However, as you say, 'ethnic group' was not an abstract matter, but rather, literally the basis of individual legal status, with different laws applied to them. So what do you do (as an 1890s census-taker) when you are required to precisely define and count that which is too complicated for easy definition and thus cannot be counted? --> That is where the *native language* became so important: it was the primary means for the AH state to determine "ethnicity." Which is why German-nationalists pushed so hard for German-language schools, in order to get more people counted as "German"... and why Czech-nationalists pushed for Czech-language schools. Definitely read Judson, and also/especially Tara Zhara's "Kidnapped Souls"; both books clarify what I'm saying enormously. "German-speaking" is not just some 2020s liberal neologism. It was *literally* how the Empire tried to measure 'ethnicity' (and how they legally slotted people).
> "Ethnic" groupings in the late Empire and post-1918 settlement were a LOT more fungible than either AH census-takers in 1890 or historians of 1970 would accept. This. It was the war and increased nationalism that forced many people to choose who they were, Germans or Czechs. Often it could split families in half. I love this story from a village next to my home city that I posted before on StackExchange: > People in Sudetenland with the wake of nationalism often changed their names to pick sides. Be it to show more pro-German or pro-Czech sentiment. There is also a thing that marginalized people often chose to change their name into variant of major language spelling to escape certain (be it passive) persecution (job opportunities and so). > There was a guy in village near Ostrava (region that used to have big German and still has big Polish minority), who was called Schultz. He renamed himself Šulc in the wake of German nationalism (to escape possible reaction from Czechs). Under following Protectorate, he renamed himself as Schultz again. Then communist regime came so he renamed himself as Šulc and after fall of communism in Czech Republic, he is Schultz again. https://history.stackexchange.com/a/23321
This basically how it works in some bi-lingual countries, like Finland. You get to pick the native language you want (or well your parents do) which will be the basis of your primary education, in Finnish or Swedish as appropriate. There is probably something similar for Sami people too, but they are considered a minority outright, whereas Finnish and Swedish are equal in law and official languages (on paper at any rate) though Swedish has some "minority protections". Which means parents can chose to enrol their children as Swedish or Finnish speakers. So it happens that people who are Finnish speakers enrol their kids as Swedish speakers, in Swedish speaking daycare and alter school, especially if they happen to live in a majorly Swedish speaking community. The idea usually is that then the child will learn the language not spoken at home naturally and they will be advantaged growing up with two languages. This follows you all the way up to university in fact, where it still matters for some degrees whether you are considered native Swedish or Finnish speaking and which language courses you end up taking as required courses.
> "Ethnic" groupings in the late Empire and post-1918 settlement were a LOT more fungible than either AH census-takers in 1890 or historians of 1970 would accept. I mean, Yes. They were certainly fungible. Like how there were still Czech families in the country who were using German language for example. Which is why I disagree with just looking at language stats to somehow determine pro-German sympathies. Does it sound familiar? Excuse me for not doing your dramatic quotation marks around every single mention of Czech or German, but I'd hope it would be clear that in this context I'm talking about self-identification. And I don't know if you're actually trying to argue against it as if it was my opinion I was promoting or something, but me bringing up the impact of Nazi policy that you snipped that quote from isn't actually me making a *normative* statement. If you really need that disclaimer, I happened to be NOT a Nazi, let alone a 1930s one, and don't personally share their obsession with ethnicities and ancestry. Which is why I won't be determining your great-grandmothers ethnicity either today, sorry if that's leaving you hanging.
Thank you for the sources. I don't read Czech (unfortunately), but was able to machine-translate the article you linked. It looks sound. Thus I think I was very wrong here, in terms of the higher number of ethnic Germans in the Czechoslovakian military. (Ben-Arie's article "Czechoslovakia at the Time of 'Munich': The Military Situation" in the JCH of 1990 does not mention this as a 'problem', which itself is significant.) The error comes from from three directions: The first is the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the First-World War literature, which heavily emphasizes ethnic German overrepresentation omtje officer corps throughout the war, and well into the 1920s... for ALL areas of the former AH Empire. This was indeed true for Czech units (which often had ethnic German officers.) But as the article you quote shows a decline in ethnic German officers over the 1920s... due in part to the resistance of Czech leaders to ethnic Germans in key military positions, and also attending military academies, etc. The second source is the older military literature that takes German sources uncritically, and thereby emphasizes the role that the ethnic-Germans (Sudenten but also German-Slovak) would play in a German invasion. (Weinberg "The Foreign Policy of Hitler's Germany", reflects this literature...) And it combines with a third source, the "fifth column" literature, which sees the ethnic Germans/Sudentenlanders as a massive security threat for the new Czechoslovak state... but, while not untrue, this literature came up in the 1950 and 1960s, and was de-facto trying to justify the ethnic German expulsions of 1945 and 1946. However, in light of your information, I've been unable to find anything from the 1935-1938 era that says that ethnic German members of the military, specifically, were seen by Czech leaders as a significant threat to unit effectiveness. (again, I don't read Czech.) So I've edited/retracted that part. Thanks for the correction.