Autor provádí shrnující komparaci disentu v Československu a Německé demokratické republice v sedmdesátých a osmdesátých letech minulého století, poukazuje na jeho afinity a odlišnosti v obou zemích a nabízí jejich zdůvodnění. Upozorňuje na asymetrie srovnávaných případů, které se týkají rozsahu a povahy pramenného materiálu, stavu a dosažených výsledků historického bádání a užívané terminologie, a upřesňuje pojem disentu, s nímž pracuje. Konstatuje, že disent v českých zemích, zrozený z porážky pražského jara 1968, se diferencoval do reformněkomunistického, křesťanského, liberálního, kulturního a sublkulturního proudu, přičemž tato pluralita byla propojena a zastřešena založením Charty 77 a posléze se rozvíjela i do dalších občanských iniciativ. Na Slovensku, kde Charta 77 nezakotvila, se disent profiloval nábožensky, národně a od poloviny osmdesátých let ekologicky. V NDR zaznívaly v sedmdesátých letech ojedinělé hlasy marxistického disentu a socialistická orientace byla vlastní i nezávislým občanským iniciativám vzniklým v osmdesátých letech, které se vyvíjely v podobě mírového hnutí na půdě evangelické církve. Východoněmecký disent se narozdíl od českého a slovenského vyznačoval relativní generační a ideovou homogenitou, nedisponoval mezinárodně uznávanými intelektuálními autoritami symbolizujícími občanský protest, byl jen slabě programově zakotven a svou legitimizaci neodvozoval z diskurzu lidských práv, ale rétoriky antimilitarismu. Pro odlišnou povahu disentu v NDR byly klíčovými faktory paralelní existence Spolkové republiky a z toho plynoucí masový rozsah emigrace, rozdílné postavení církví a vztah k národní tradici zatížený nacistickým dědictvím, jenž neumožnil názorovou konfrontaci o dějinách, jako tomu bylo v Československu., b1_In this article the author has undertaken a summarizing comparison of dissidents and dissent in Czechoslovakia and East Germany in the 1970s and 1980s, pointing out their similarities and differences, which he endeavours to explain. He points out the asymmetry of the cases he compares, which stems from the nature and scope of the source material, the current state of historical research, and the results that have been achieved, as well as the terminology used. He also offers a more precise definition of dissent and dissidents, which he then employs. He also reminds his reader how dissent and dissidents in the Bohemian Lands, which arose after the defeat of the 1968 Prague Spring reform movement, separated into Reform- -Communist, Christian, liberal, cultural, and sub-culture branches. This pluralism was linked together by the establishment of an umbrella organization, Charter 77, eventually also developing into other groups (občanské iniciativy) of Czechoslovak citizens seeking to act independently of Party and State control. In Slovakia, where Charter 77 never really took root, dissent was expressed in religious, national, and, from the mid-1980s, environmentalist terms. In East Germany in the 1970s, voices of Marxist dissent were sporadically heard and the socialist orientation was also particular to the independent alternative movements (Bürgerinitiative) that emerged in the 1980s and developed as a peace movement in the Protestant Church. East German dissent and dissidents, unlike Czech and Slovak, were characterized by some generational and ideological homogeneity. They did not have at their disposal internationally recognized intellectual authorities who would symbolize civil protest. And they lacked a programme that would help them to put down roots. They derived their legitimacy from the rhetoric of antimilitarism rather than from human-rights discourse., b2_ Of key importance to the different nature of the dissident movement in East Germany were the existence of another German state next door and, related to that, the massive defection to West Germany, the different status of the churches, and the attitude towards a national tradition burdened with the legacy of Nazism, which, unlike in Czechoslovakia, severely hampered the expression of different points of view about the past., and Jan Pauer.
Původní verze tohoto článku vyšla pod názvem ''Dissidentes Gedenken: Unabhängiges Holocaustgedenken in der DDR und der Volksrepublik Polen'' ve sborníku pod redakcí Petera Hallamy a Stephana Stacha Gegengeschichte: Zweiter Weltkrieg und Holocaust im ostmitteleuropäischen Dissens (Leipzig, Leipziger Universitätsverlag 2015, s. 207-236). Autor pojednává o vzpomínkových akcích konaných u příležitosti dnů památky obětí holokaustu - takzvané křišťálové noci z 9. listopadu 1938 v Německé demokratické republice a povstání ve varšavském ghettu z 19. dubna 1943 v Polské lidové republice - pořádaných příslušníky disentu v obou zemích v osmdesátých letech minulého století. Tyto vzpomínkové akce měly dvojí význam - na jedné straně byly pokusem vznikající občanské společnosti protestovat formou vlastní interpretace dějin proti metanarativům produkovaným režimem státního socialismu, zároveň pak byly součástí politického boje opozičních hnutí proti vládnoucí moci. Autor ze vzájemné komparace těchto událostí v obou zemích vyvozuje, že přes všechny odlišnosti tvořily často přehlížený, nicméně důležitý přínos k historické paměti v Polsku a NDR, a navíc podněcovaly tamní společnosti k přemítání o významu holokaustu., This is a Czech translation of ''Dissidentes Gedenken: Unabhängiges Holocaustgedenken in der DDR und der Volksrepublik Polen'', in Peter Hallama and Stephan Stach (eds.), Gegengeschichte: Zweiter Weltkrieg und Holocaust im ostmitteleuropäischen Dissens (Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag 2015, pp. 207-36). The article is concerned with commemoration ceremonies on Holocaust Memorial Days - the ''Kristallnacht'' of 9 November 1938 in the German Democratic Republic and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 19 April 1943 in the Polish People´s Republic - organized by dissidents in both countries in the 1980s. These commemorations were both an attempt by emerging civil society to reclaim interpretations of history which were different from the master narratives produced by the State-Socialist regimes and were also part of the oppostion movements´ political struggle with their governments. In a comparison of these events, the author concludes that despite all their differences they constituted an often overlooked but important contribution to public memory in Poland and Easter Germany and also motivated the two societies to reflect on the meaning of the Shoah., Stephan Stach ; Z němčiny přeložil Petr Dvořáček., and Obsahuje bibliografii a bibliografické odkazy
During the so-called normalization era between 1969 and 1989, samizdat articles and books played a significant role in the resistance. They were copied by hand, unofficially distributed at home, and smuggled out of the country. Once outside, the texts were published in magazines and broadcast on foreign radio. As a result, people in Czechoslovakia were able to hear the illegal texts from foreign broadcasts. It was mainly women who performed the tasks of copying and distributing these materials, even though such activities were illegal in Czechoslovakia at the time. Yet, the activities of women are less well known than those performed by men during the same period, despite the fact that the activities women were engaged in were more dangerous than the men’s activities. The same can be said of the women in exile who helped in these illegal activities, because as yet they have gained little recognition inside or outside the country. Women’s demands and issues were not included in Charter 77 and other civic declarations. Czech women emphasised human rights and the interests of the majority rather than particular women’s issues. The incentive to notice the role of women in the resistance movement originated mainly among women in the West. Czech women did not differentiate themselves along gender lines., Jiřina Šiklová., Obsahuje bibliografii, and Anglické resumé
This study deals with the grey zone phenomenon in the context of literary life under late Communist rule during the 1970s and 1980s in Czechoslovakia. The aim of this text is to attempt to trace, using the method of historical reconstruction, how the concept of the grey zone was understood in Czech and Slovak society before 1989, especially in texts and discussions on dissent and exile that reflected the reality of normalization. These texts show that awarenesss of the grey zone played an essential role in the thinking of dissident and émigré authors, as it challenged bipolar schemes and blackand- white images of social reality in the Czechoslovakia of the time. However, this conception of the grey zone often contradicts today’s journalistic and specialist approaches, which tend to classify the grey zone as a silent or passive majority. This study shows that the definition of what we now call the grey zone was much broader.