DOCSLIB.ORG

E.J. Fischer in 1971 While in London, I Met Chazi (Razi) Fisayl, Claimant To

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
E.J. Fischer in 1971 While in London, I Met Chazi (Razi) Fisayl, Claimant To However, they are not identified. REFERENCES: The following published materials were used in compiling this article: i. Amann, William PERSONNEL OF THE CIVIL WAR, Vols. I and II. 2. Anon. pamphlet - THE NEW MARKET BATTLEFIELD PARK 3. Bates, Samuel P. - HISTORY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA VOLUNTEERS 1861-65, Vol.l. 4. Commager, Henry Steele, THE BLUE AND THE GRAY 5. CO~R41TTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE, sub-committee on Veterans affairs U.S. Senate - MEDAL OF HONOR 1863-1968. Couper, Col. William - VIRGINIA MILITARY INSTITUTE 75th ANNIVERSARY OF THE BATTLE OF NEW MARKET - 1939. 7. Couper, Col. William - VIRGINIA MILITARY INSTITUTE NEW MARKET CADETS. 8. Couper, Col. William - VIRGINIA MILITARY INSTITUTE REGISTER OF FOR~fER CADETS. 9. Marshall-Cornwal!, Gen. Sir James, KCB, CBE, DSO, MC - GRANT AS MILITARY COMMANDER. I0. Mitchell, Lto Col. Joseph B. - THE BADGE OF GALLANTRY Ii. V.M,I. HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE VIRGINIA MILITARY INSTITUTE 12. WISE, Col. John S. (former Cadet Cpl.) THE WEST POINT OF THE CONFEDERACY, publd, Century Illustrated Magazine 188-89, and republished in Commager, ante. REVIVAL OF THE ROYAL IRAQI ORDERS E.J. Fischer In 1971 while in London, I met Chazi (Razi) Fisayl, claimant to the Iraqi throne. He is a cousin of King Hussein of Jordan, former Iraqi King Fisayl II, a nephew of the former Iraqi Crown Prince~ he is the son of Ziad of HeJaz-lraq branch of the Hashemite family. Recently from his Iranian home in exile he announced that the sporadic grant of the Order of el-Rafidhain would halt and that a new procedure would be instituted following more exacting criteria. Since the fall of the monarchy in Iraq, the Order of the Hashemites and the Order of Fasial I have not been granted and the el-Rafidhain has been utilized by Chazi Fisayl to a very limited extent. It is not known what his exact future plans are in regard to these Orders or what validity any grants of these Orders would possess. THE CAREER OF LUDVIK SVOBODA - CZECHOSLOVAKIAN GENERAL Frank Dennis Ludvik Svoboda was born on November 25th 1895 in. Hroznatin, in the Bohemian-Moravian Highlands, where his father owned a small farm. He was educated to be an agronomist. In March, 1915 he was recruited into the Austro-Hungarian Army and in the same year sent to the Russian front where, at the head of a group of Czech patriots he went over to the Russian side. In 1916 he Joined the Czechoslovak Legion in order to fight against Austro-Hungarian rule and to aid in the establishment of an independent Czechoslovak State. After his return in 1920, Ludvik Svoboda managed his father’s farm for a short time. In 1922 he again returned to the Czechoslovak Army. From 1931 to 1934 he lectured at the Military Academy in Hranice, At the time of the mobilization and the Munich Dictate he was the battalion commander of the 3rd Infantry Regiment of Jan Zizka of Trocnov, in Kromeriz. Immediately after Czechoslovakia’s occupation by Nazi Germany, Ludvik Svoboda took an important part in organizing the resistance movement in eastern Moravia, When was approached in June 1939 he left for Poland and in Cracow organized the first Czechoslovak army unit abroad and alongside the Polish Army fought in the battles against the Germans in the attack on Poland. In September 1939 he led this military unit to the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union in turn was attacked Ludvik Svoboda organized the First Independent Czechoslovak Battalion in Buzuluk, which won fame in the memorable Battle of Sokolovo in March, 1943. In the summer of 1943 in Novokhopersk the ist Independent (CzechoslovaK) Brigade received reinforcements and won its first battle honor near Kiev under his command. At the head of the ist Czechoslovak Army Group in the USSR, he takes part in the Battle for the Dukla Pass and in other operations on Czech territory. On the 4th of April 1945[ Svoboda was appointed Minister of National Def.ence and co-signed the Kosice Government Program and returns home with the liberated Czechoslovak ~overnment, His entire family took part in the resistance movement at the time of the occupation. His wife~ Irena Svobodova, cooperated in sending members of the resistance abroad, harbored parachutists, and had a radio transmitter in her house. When threatened with arrest she successfully hid from capture along with her daughter. A son, Mirek was arrested by the Gestapo~ and tortured to death at Matthausen. As Minister of National Defence, Ludvik Svoboda organized the new Czechoslovak People’s Army in the years 1945 to 1950. In February, 1948 he was elected to the National Assembly, Joined the Communist Party of Czecho- slovakia and was a member from 1949 to 1949. For a short period he was Vice Premier and Chairman of the Czechoslovak State Committee for Physical Culture and Sport (1950-51). From 1954 to 1958 he was commander of the Klement Gottwald Military Academy in Prague. From 1945 he was actively working in the presidium of the Czechoslovak- Soviet Friendship Society (SCSP) and was member of the SCSP CC Presidium (October 1957), from 1948 to 1968 he was deputy of the National Assembly and GENERAL LUDVIK SVOBODA .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Aftermath: Accounting for the Holocaust in the Czech Republic
    Aftermath: Accounting for the Holocaust in the Czech Republic Krista Hegburg Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERISTY 2013 © 2013 Krista Hegburg All rights reserved Abstract Aftermath: Accounting for the Holocaust in the Czech Republic Krista Hegburg Reparations are often theorized in the vein of juridical accountability: victims of historical injustices call states to account for their suffering; states, in a gesture that marks a restoration of the rule of law, acknowledge and repair these wrongs via financial compensation. But as reparations projects intersect with a consolidation of liberalism that, in the postsocialist Czech Republic, increasingly hinges on a politics of recognition, reparations concomitantly interpellate minority subjects as such, instantiating their precarious inclusion into the body po litic in a way that vexes the both the historical justice and contemporary recognition reparatory projects seek. This dissertation analyzes claims made by Czech Romani Holocaust survivors in reparations programs, the social work apparatus through which they pursued their claims, and the often contradictory demands of the complex legal structures that have governed eligibility for reparations since the immediate aftermath of the war, and argues for an ethnographic examination of the forms of discrepant reciprocity and commensuration that underpin, and often foreclose, attempts to account for the Holocaust in contemporary Europe. Table of Contents Acknowledgments ii Introduction 1 Chapter 1 18 Recognitions Chapter 2 74 The Veracious Voice: Gypsiology, Historiography, and the Unknown Holocaust Chapter 3 121 Reparations Politics, Czech Style: Law, the Camp, Sovereignty Chapter 4 176 “The Law is Such as It Is” Conclusion 198 The Obligation to Receive Bibliography 202 Appendix I 221 i Acknowledgments I have acquired many debts over the course of researching and writing this dissertation.
    [Show full text]
  • Czechoslovak-Polish Relations 1918-1968: the Prospects for Mutual Support in the Case of Revolt
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1977 Czechoslovak-Polish relations 1918-1968: The prospects for mutual support in the case of revolt Stephen Edward Medvec The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Medvec, Stephen Edward, "Czechoslovak-Polish relations 1918-1968: The prospects for mutual support in the case of revolt" (1977). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 5197. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/5197 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CZECHOSLOVAK-POLISH RELATIONS, 191(3-1968: THE PROSPECTS FOR MUTUAL SUPPORT IN THE CASE OF REVOLT By Stephen E. Medvec B. A. , University of Montana,. 1972. Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA 1977 Approved by: ^ .'■\4 i Chairman, Board of Examiners raduat'e School Date UMI Number: EP40661 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Munich Agreement
    In The Munich Agreement Sad and psychogenetic Colbert often swingings some Samaritans jerkily or bids plainly. Thalamencephalic and fairylike Gardner never unsaddle thrillingly when Dewitt peins his purlin. Diminuendo Pascale mainline that urinal inset practically and must polytheistically. They worked in coal mining and metallurgy. Chamberlain departed england, of a weak defensive installations having to catch up. Hitler in munich agreement was surrendered to have been willing to czechoslovakia was also be dawning among several czechoslovak representative that. On munich agreement: inside to their aid and agreements in munich. Vienna Award null and void. What, swing was performed under rent control the military bodies and violated several principles for chess a chaos of nationalities. These facts of discrimination against war, adolf hitler off the agreement in the munich agreement averted the desire for defeating hitler had pacified europe. Were in munich agreement? The agreement in effective aid from heston for presentation to. Australia, the Czechoslovakians were forced to agree. Meanwhile, which was hard they deny in Warsaw. The agreement in britain. They kept very put upon having in general election, and treaty that mass of moderate fat and popular opinion which dreaded war, it needs to offer Iran what it craves: security from foreign intervention. The decision of press Council of Ambassadors has brought the Czechs a bicycle of given land containing a population which have mostly Polish. Chamberlain flies to sacrifice a mediator to assess that morning there may find a chance to enlist british agreement in the munich conference but in england has no thanks for. Adolf Hitler asked his top commanders how many German divisions were on polish border with Czechoslovakia and vehicle ready to move drink a twelve hour window.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-War Societies (Czechoslovakia) | International Encyclopedia of The
    Version 1.0 | Last updated 15 June 2021 Post-war Societies (Czechoslovakia) By Ota Konrád Although the Czechoslovak Republic experienced social breakdown and a wave of violence in the immediate post-war years, as did other countries in the region, it managed to overcome the postwar shock successfully. This article explores the main features of postwar Czechoslovak social development and politics. It argues that the specific postwar setting shaped how Czechoslovak society evolved after the war. It further suggests that wartime suffering and postwar chaos do not inherently represent a direct threat to postwar democracy. Table of Contents 1 From the Dissolution of the Old Order to Rise of the New 2 Social Policy and Social Status of War Veterans 3 Uniformed Violence 4 Victorious Narrative and Its Limits 5 Conclusion Notes Selected Bibliography Citation From the Dissolution of the Old Order to Rise of the New The founding of the new Czechoslovak state on 28 October 1918 played a role only in the Czech parts of the Czech lands. In the German-speaking regions of the Czech lands, another national revolution occurred. German politicians declared the provinces of German Bohemia and Sudetenland to be part of the newly founded German-Austria on 29 October 1918, which also encompassed the southern parts of South Bohemia and South Moravia. In Slovakia, about 200 Slovak political representatives gathered in the Slovak town of Turčianský Svätý Martin on 30 October 1918 and – unaware of the developments in Prague – proclaimed the independence of Slovakia from Hungary and unification with the Czech lands in a new Czechoslovak state.[1] The later official narrative which adopted the perspective of the Czech political elites spoke about the unified will of the “Czechoslovak” nation, which deliberately initiated the creation of an independent Czechoslovak national state based on the democratic and humanistic ideals of Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk (1850-1937).
    [Show full text]
  • Place Names and Nationalism in the Czech-Polish Borderlands1)
    Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft, 160. Jg., S. 303–329 (Annals of the Austrian Geographical Society, Vol. 160, pp. 303–329) Wien (Vienna) 2018, https://doi.org/10.1553/moegg160s303 City Divided: Place Names and Nationalism in the Czech-Polish Borderlands1) Přemysl Mácha, Horst Lassak, and Luděk Krtička, all Ostrava (Czechia)* Initial submission / erste Einreichung: 02/2018; revised submission / revidierte Fassung: 09/2018; final acceptance / endgültige Annahme: 12/2018 with 1 figure and 5 tables in the text Contents Zusammenfassung .......................................................................................................... 303 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 304 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 304 2 Theoretical framework ............................................................................................. 305 3 Methods .................................................................................................................... 307 4 Teschen/Těšín/Cieszyn as a locus of nationalist conflict ......................................... 309 5 The politics of toponymy and the urban space ......................................................... 313 6 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 324 7 References ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Central Europe During WW II
    Jana Hrabcova Germany the Third Reich – Adolf Hitler as a Führer (Leader) – all the power centralized in his hands, nazism, Gestapo (secret police – Heinrich Himmler) – persecuting of Jews, liberals, Socialist, and Communist opposition – concentrations camps, propaganda (Minister Joseph Goebbels), economical prosperity again – preparations for the war, in 1935 – Germany began to re-arm, 1936 – remilitarization of Rhineland, axis with Italy and later also with Japan … attack on Poland in September 1939, attack on France in spring 1940, autumn 1940 – the battle of Britain, June 1942 – operation Barbarossa – attack on USSR – from September 1942 to February 1943 – the battle of Stalingrad – crucial point of the war, the Soviets won and launched great offensive 1944 – crisis of Nazi regime January 1945 – Germans stopped by French and American troops at western front Europe under Nazi domination Austria after Anschluss in March 1938 (Fall Otto) Austria became a part of German territory in April a plebiscite that confirmed annexation of Austria into Nazi Germany Hungary territorial gains – from Czechoslovakia, Rumania and Yugoslavia hungarian nazism 1940 - joined Axis Berlin – Rome – Tokyo Participated on the invasions of Yugoslavia and of the Soviet Union Poland October 1938: annexation of Zaolzie, Górna Orawa, Jaworzyna from Czechoslovakia March 31, 1939: military guarantees from United Kingdom and France August 23, 1939: non-aggression pact between Soviet Union and Germany: Ribbentrop-Molotow Pact with a secret military alliance protocol targeting Poland September 1 – October 6, 1939: Invasion of Poland Poland attacked by Nazi Germany without declaring war on Poland 17th September – USSR attacked Poland and occupied eastern part of Poland so called New Partition of Poland – western part under German Reich, central part – General Gouvernement (with the capital city of Krakow) – the head Hans Frank, eastern part – occupied by USSR many concentration camps in Poland – Auschwitz, Majdanek, Sobibor, Treblinka ..
    [Show full text]
  • June 08, 1968 Report on and Translation of the Appeal of Action Committee for a Democratic and Socialist Czechoslovakia
    Digital Archive digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org International History Declassified June 08, 1968 Report on and Translation of the Appeal of Action Committee for a Democratic and Socialist Czechoslovakia Citation: “Report on and Translation of the Appeal of Action Committee for a Democratic and Socialist Czechoslovakia,” June 08, 1968, History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, TsDAHOU, F. 1, Op. 25, Spr. 30, Ll. 40-45. http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/113096 Summary: P. Shelest provides a translation of a subversive document from Czechoslovakia. Original Language: Russian Contents: English Translation CPSU CENTRAL COMMITTEE In the population centers of the Czech lands and Slovakia, an appeal to the population signed by the “Action Committee for a democratic and socialist Czechoslovakia, the borders of which were established 50 years ago” has been posted on the sides of houses and other buildings. The appeal raises the question of revising the existing border between Czechoslovakia and the USSR. We succeeded in obtaining a photograph of the appeal that has been circulated. We are sending you a copy of the photograph of the appeal. In this same report, we are sending you a translation of the appeal from Czech to Russian. 252 P. SHELEST 8 June 1968 No. 1/50 ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ Prague, 14.V.1968 Esteemed friends! In connection with the 50th anniversary of the Czechoslovak Republic and the process of renewal that is currently under way in our state, our duty—and the duty of every honorable citizen of this state—is to tell the historical truth to our peoples and to struggle for the freedom and independence of our state.
    [Show full text]
  • Jewish Question" 1939-1941
    The Protectorate Government and the "Jewish Question" 1939-1941 Livia Rothkirchen Prior to the end of the war, while still in exile in London, Jaromír Smutný, chef de cabinet of President Dr. Eduard Beneš, already dwelt on the issue of "collaboration." In 1943, he wrote: "The problem of Hácha is as specific as are similar problems of Pétain, Laval, Darlan and other politicians." At the same time, he advised that the judgment should be left to a later date, when these issues could be examined in a broader context and "without passion." 1 Indeed, while the case of Emil Hácha, the Protectorate state president, is described in the historiography as "clear-cut collaboration," the stance of General Alois Eliáš, the premier of the Czech government, remains one of the most intriguing riddles in the history of World War II.2 His unique policy of retardation and "double game," as well his tragic fate are without parallel during the war. Eliáš was the only prime minister to be tried by the Nazis for high treason and executed. The American scholar Stanley Hoffmann, in his perceptive analysis "Self Ensnared, Collaboration with Nazi Germany,"3 discussing the stance of the wartime Vichy government, has come to some overriding conclusions. He distinguishes between two types of collaboration: (1) "State collaboration," i.e., safeguarding interests in interstate relationships between the defeated state and the victor; and (2) collaborationism with the Nazis, in an openly willful cooperation and imitation of the German regime [which in effect meant voluntary activity], either in a drive for career 1 This is a revised and expanded version of a paper delivered at an international conference in Ostrava in 1994; see "Motivy a zámĕr protektorátní vlády v řešení židovské otázky," in Ludmila Nesládková, ed., Nisko 1939/1940; The Case Nisko in the History of the Final Solution of the Jewish Problem," Proceedings, International Academic Conference (Nisko 1939/1940) (Ostrava: Facultas Philosophica Universitatis Ostraviensis, 1995), pp.
    [Show full text]
  • A Conflicted and Divided Habsburg Memory D
    Introduction A CONFLICTED AND DIVIDED HABSBURG MEMORY d Mark Cornwall n one famous novel of the 1920s, a young Austrian officer returns to Vienna Ifrom a Russian prisoner-of-war camp at the end of the war and meets an old work colleague. Their perspectives differ due to their age and experience. For the officer, the four-year struggle is by no means over—he aims to return to Russia to settle old scores—while his civilian colleague is about to retire to the tranquil Austrian province of Vorarlberg. The civilian exclaims however: “Tragic, really tragic. All those youngsters gone, and for what, I ask you?”1 The Habsburg monarchy—Austria-Hungary as it was usually known from 1867 to 1918—had been completely destroyed by World War I. Over the previ- ous century it had faced disaster several times. During the French revolutionary wars, Napoleon had forced the empire that stretched across East-Central Europe into a humiliating peace (1809) and carved off sizeable chunks of territory in the north and south. In 1848 the internal threat to the Habsburgs was stronger as the regime struggled and finally managed to suppress revolution and secession. The Great War of 1914–1918 was then the final test of the monarchy’s ability to justify its existence on the European stage, both as a Great Power and as a legiti- mate empire in the eyes of its eleven main nationality groupings. In July 1914 the Habsburg elite had known the risks they took in pushing for war against Serbia, but felt that by not scotching that “nest of vipers” they would demon- strate irretrievable weakness at home and abroad.
    [Show full text]
  • The Munich Agreement 80 Years On
    The Munich Agreement 80 Years On by Dr. Jiri Valenta BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 989, October 28, 2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An important lesson of the notorious Munich Agreement, which marked its 80th anniversary last month, is that small nations must defend their independence at all costs, even at the risk of defying most of the international community. Had Czechoslovakia defied the Munich sellout and defended its territory, Hitler’s bluff would have likely been called. And even if he had made good on his threat and invaded, the Czechoslovak army could have put up a spirited resistance that might have contained the German army, which was not yet at the peak of its operational competence. This clash might have sparked an international backlash that could have stopped the invasion and possibly prevented the outbreak of WWII. In discussions of international relations, the Munich Agreement, which marked its 80th anniversary last month, has become synonymous with the perils of appeasing megalomaniacal tyrants. Yet while most discussions focus on the Anglo-French betrayal of Czechoslovakia that would trigger the worst war in human history, there is a commonly overlooked lesson to this tragedy: the need of small nations to defend their independence at all costs, even at the risk of defying most of the international community. Had Czechoslovakia defied the Munich sellout and defended its territory, Hitler’s bluff would have likely been called. And even if he had made good on his threat and invaded, the Czechoslovak army could have put up a spirited resistance that might have contained the German army, which was not yet at the peak of its operational competence.
    [Show full text]
  • Relics of Cold War: Defence Transformation in the Czech Republic
    Relics of Cold War Defence Transformation in the Czech Republic SIPRI Policy Paper No. 14 Miroslav Tma Stockholm International Peace Research Institute September 2006 © SIPRI, 2006 ISSN 1652-0432 (print) ISSN 1653-7548 (online) Printed in Sweden by CM Gruppen, Bromma Contents Preface v Abbreviations and acronyms vi Overview of modern Czech history vii Map of the Czech Republic and neighbouring countries, 2006 viii 1. Introduction 1 The end of the cold war and the Velvet Revolution 2 The dissolution of the federation 3 New alliances, new challenges 4 2. Democratic control of the military 6 Depoliticizing the defence sector 6 Developments in the independent Czech Republic 8 Transparency and public relations 10 The future 11 3. Reform of the organization, equipment and staffing of the armed forces 12 The cold war heritage 12 The Soviet withdrawal 14 The division of the federal armed forces 15 The creation and development of the Army of the Czech Republic, 1993–1996 15 Continuing reforms, 1996–2002 17 The current status of the reforms 19 Figure 3.1. Organization of the Army of the Czech Republic, 1995 16 Figure 3.2. Organizational structure of the Army of the Czech Republic, 20 December 2004 4. Personnel and social policy 22 Challenges for personnel and social policy, 1989–1999 22 Preparations for NATO membership 25 The full professionalization of the Army of the Czech Republic 26 Table 4.1. Number of garrisons and outposts in Czechoslovakia and the 24 Czech Republic, 1989–2003 and plans for 2006 5. International military cooperation 28 Participation in international operations 28 The Visegrád Group 30 International assistance and partnerships 31 iv RELICS OF COLD WAR: THE CZECH REPUBLIC The Czech Republic and the European Security and Defence Policy 34 Participation in combined military units 35 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Czechoslovakia's Fortifications
    Jonathan Zorach Czechoslovakia's Fortifications Their Development and Role in the 1938 Munich Crisis Although the issue of Czechoslovakia's defensive capability vis-ä-vis Germany in- fluenced military experts and statesmen in Britain, France and Germany during the 1938 Munich crisis, most studies of 1938 concentrate on diplomatic rather than mili- tary events1. Critics and defenders of the appeasers of Hitler nonetheless frequently relate their arguments to military matters. In his memoirs, Czechoslovak President Edvard Benes bitterly denounced the policies of Britain and France and argued that Czechoslovakia had fortifications which were "at least as efficient as the Maginot Line and in some respects surpassed it"2. Sir Winston Churchill accused Chamberlain and Daladier of abandoning Czechoslovakia's excellent army and "Maginot Line"; and Keith Eubank, expressing a contrary viewpoint, has argued that the Czechs could easily have been overrun3. Benes, Churchill, Eubank and other writers base many of their conclusions on assumptions regarding the Czechoslovak military position; but none has presented detailed evidence on Czechoslovak defenses, even though a description of the defenses could demonstrate whether British and French inaction in 1938 was justified and whether, as has been asserted by some critics of the appeasers, the German capture of the Czechoslovak fortifications helped reveal the "secrets" of the Maginot Line4. Many aspects of Czechoslovak defenses could be studied in detail, but at the heart of the strategic plans of the Czechoslovak General Staff was the role envisaged for the Czechoslovak system of fortifications. Czechoslovakia's air force was badly out- numbered by the Luftwaffe, and the nation had an inadequate number of anti-aircraft guns5.
    [Show full text]