Somehow they managed to miss the German Army massed on the border, preparing to invade Czechoslovakia. This raises questions about Kistler’s powers of observation and his reliability as an observer.

Historians are very interested in the supposed lack of resistance to the Nazis by Czech citizens. Kistler’s account provides some verification of the common view that most Czechs simply did not resist. This is not news to specialists, but does provide further validation of one version of what happened in Prague.

Like many tourists, American or otherwise, Kistler is looking for examples of what he already knows well, what he is comfortable with. One has to ask, therefore, how much he notices that is foreign to him.

Never mind that the Nazis had just occupied the country! This light-hearted explanation of their reasons for leaving seems to indicate that in its early days, the Nazi regime sat lightly on the city.

Small details like this one are often very important to historians, because they show the degree to which daily life is often transformed significantly by events such as a regime change. Imagine what what would happen in America if, overnight, everyone had to drive on the left side of the road.

The chatty tone of this letter makes it seem silly in retrospect. After all, World War II was about to start. This reminds us that great events like war often seem far off to those right in the middle of them.

Notice that, in contrast to Kistler’s letter home, Carr is providing only details of what is happening at the highest levels of government. It is useful to contrast his depiction of events from the governmental perspective with those of Kistler’s from the street level.

We now know that Nazi “protection” meant control. Historians have been very interested to know how well the Slovak leadership understood the implications of their new relationship with Nazi Germany.

This is diplomat-speak. Carr is asking for permission to close down the American embassy in Prague, but cannot say so directly, because that would imply a break in diplomatic relations—a significant step Washington might not be ready to take.

Because this statement was issued at a press conference in Washington, the audience was the American press, not the Czechoslovak people.

By categorizing the Nazi occupation as “temporary,” Welles is implying a challenge. The Nazis certainly did not see this change of regime as temporary. But, notice in the subsequent paragraphs that Welles does not actually make any demands of the Nazis. The United States was still bound by the Neutrality Acts that prevented Washington from taking a more forceful position.

Carr is making it clear to the home office that the situation is much more dire than the State Department or the White House may understand. There is an implied rebuke of his superiors here. In other words, stop asking me to take steps that would be suicidal for Czechs I am in contact with.