Recenzent zasazuje knihu do kontextu současného bádání o dějinách Rádia Svobodná Evropa i Tomkovy vlastní historické práce, v níž představuje syntetické vyústění jeho dosavadního zájmu o dané téma. Přínos knihy podle recenzenta spočívá především ve shromáždění a přehledném utřídění bohaté faktografie, v menší míře také v jejích dílčích analýzách. Autor chronologicky sleduje vývoj rozhlasové stanice Svobodná Evropa, zejména její československé redakce, a zjišťuje také účinky jejího vysílání a vzájemnou interakci s domácím publikem za železnou oponou i reakce zdejších politických špiček. Svou prací tak zaplnil citelnou mezeru v české historiografii exilových médií a vytvořil důležitý základ pro další výzkum., The book under review, whose title translates as "The Czechoslovak Service of Radio Free Europe: Its Development and Influence on Czechoslovak History" is considered here in the context of current research on the history of Radio Free Europe and Tomek´s own work in which he presents a synthesis of his long-standing interest in the topic. The reviewer sees the contribution of the book chiefly in its briging rogerger and clearly soriting out a wide range of facts, and, to a lesser extent, its preliminary analyses. The author chronologically traces the development of Radio Free Europe, especially the Czechoslovak service, and also determines the effects of its broadcasts and the interaction with its audience at home behind the Iron Curtain as will aw amongst the top-level Czechoslovak politicians of the time. With this work, he has filled a palpable gap in the Czech historiography of mass media in exile, and has established an important basis for further research., [autor recenze] Petr Orság., and Obsahuje bibliografii a bibliografické odkazy
The Ethnographic Society has been working for more that one hundred years - since 1893. Its original name - Czechoslavonic Ethnographic Society - reflected the tendency of the period towards the Slavonic nations. The society played an important role in the successful presentation of ethnographic materials in the great Czechoslavonic Ethnographic Exhibition in 1895. These materials were aftewards stored in the Ethnographic Museum, opened in 1896 in Prague under the administration of L. Niederle. Since 1922 the collections have been in charge of the National Museum. - The Czechoslavonic Ethnographic Society has been publishing the (Czechoslavonic) Ethnographic Bulletin since 1897 and has been operating its own library. - Till the early 1960 the Czechoslavonic Ethnographic Society was the only voluntary organization in the field of ethnography and folklore studies. In 1956 its name was changed to Czechoslovak Ethnographic Society., Moreover, the other society, which associated especially professional ethnographers, was founded in 1958 under the name Society of Czechoslovak Ethnographers of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. In 1962 both societies merged into the Czechoslovac Ethnographic Society of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences. The subjectivity of the Society and its financial resources were reduced, but both its members and correspondents continued in their work and the Buleltin was published regularly. - Since 1993 (after the split of Czechoslovakia) the Society is called Ethnographic Society. New statutes of the organization were accepted in 1999. The supreme executive body of the Society is formed by the general assembly, the central committee has nine members. The society publishes the Ethnographic Bulletin and Newsletter of the Ethnographic Socety. It also organizes scientific conferences and it evaluates the most outstanding events in the field. It financially supports research activities (even of students). The society has 242 members and 185 correspondents., and Anglický abstrakt s šifrrou (št) uveden na str. 192-13.
Milan Otáhal (1928-2017) byl předním historikem soudobých dějin Československa. V šedesátých letech byl vedoucím oddělení nejnovějších dějin v Historickém ústavu ČSAV, na začátku sedmdesátých let byl z ústavu propuštěn a vyloučen z KSČ. Patřil k prvním signatářům Charty 77 a působil v historickém samizdatu jako nezávislý historik. Od devadesátých let byla jeho vědecká činnost spjata s nově založeným akademickým Ústavem pro soudobé dějiny. Soustředil se v ní především na dějiny protirežimní opozice a společnosti v období 1969 až 1989 a na úlohu studentů a inteligence při změně politických poměrů na konci osmdesátých let. Těmto tématům věnoval řadu faktograficky bohatých a interpretačně osobitých publikací. Autor nekrologu připomíná hlavní badatelské přínosy Milana Otáhala pro poznání a pochopení nejnovějších československých dějin a zdůrazňuje, že patřil k těm historikům, kteří svou dobu nejen intelektuálně reflektovali, ale také intenzivně prožívali a spoluvytvářeli., Milan Otáhal (1928-2017) was a leading historian studying the contemporary history of Czechoslovakia. In the 1960s, he was the head of the Department of Modern History of the Historical Institute of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences; in the early 1970s, he lost his job at the institute and was expelled from the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. He was one of the first signatories of Charter 77 and was active in the historical samizdat as an independent historian. Since 1990 his scientific activity was connected with the newly established Institute for Contemporary History. His main focus was the history of the anti-regime opposition and of the society between 1969 and 1989, and the role if students and intelligentsia in the change of the political situation in the end of the 1980s. He wrote a number of factographically rich and interpretationally distinctive publications on these topics. The author of the obituary mentions principal contributions of Milan Otáhal to the knowledge and understanding of Czechoslovakia´s most recent history, emphasizing that he was a historian who was not only intellectually reflecting the period he was living in, but who was also intensively experiencing and co-creating it., Oldřich Tůma., and Obsahuje bibliografii a bibliografické odkazy
The study aims to present the main theoretical foundation of a new type of Cold War historiography, so-called New Cold War History, the origin of which was significantly contributed to by the work of the Norwegian historian Odd A. Westad. The subject of interest is the analysis of the starting points of this type of research and its comparison with the traditional methods of the history of the Cold War. There is also an outline of its basic development trends and inspirations in the field of cultural and transnational history. In the conclusion, the most important objects of research are described, for which the use of theoretical knowledge of New Cold War History seems appropriate, and there is a basic typology of the primary feature of this new way of researching the Cold War, i.e., the contact of actors through the Iron Curtain.
In this article, the author raises the question of what now, more than twenty years later, the ''stay'' (pobyt, as it was offi cially called), of the Soviet Army in Czechoslovakia means to the inhabitants of the country. How, she asks, is it recalled in the public space and the mass media, and what images are most frequently evoked in this connection? Whereas the Soviet-led intervention by troops of the Warsaw Pact countries in August 1968 holds a lasting place in Czech memory and historiography, the subsequent stay of Soviet troops in the country has far fuzzier contours. Though in this connection the term ''occupation'' (okupace) is regularly used today, there is no simple agreement about its political meaning. In the article, the author seeks to indentify the changes in the communicated meanings of the occupation, when the original nation-wide consensus of its rejection was squeezed out by the reality of offi cially imposed friendship and the ''twinning'' (družba) of Czechoslovak and Soviet towns. Under its façade, by contrast, people developed variously accented and motivated attitudes, such as keeping their distance or being accommodating, the plurality of which has largely survived in the collective memory unchallenged to this day. The author, however, points mainly to the fundamental shift in the perception of the stay of the Soviet Army, which took place after the Changes beginning in mid-November 1989, when, the degradation of the buildings occupied by the Soviets and the land that they stand on, and the gradual rectifi cation of this, have become the main topics, rather than related aspects of political power.
Recenzent nahlíží na první biografii kněze, teologa a církevního reformátora Karla Farského (1880-1927) značně kriticky. Farský se po vzniku Československa zapojil do reformního hnutí v katolické církvi a v roce 1920 založil novou Církev československou (později přejmenovanou na Církev československou husitskou), podle recenzenta však byl složitější a zajímavější osobností, než je z knihy patrné. Autor líčí celý jeho život a soustředí se především na jeho roli při utváření a etablování nové církve, nevěnoval však dostatečnou pozornost řadě důležitých souvisejících témat, a navíc svůj životopis pojal spíše jako hagiografii než jako kritický portrét. Recenzent upozorňuje také na dosti omezenou škálu využitých zdrojů a nezanedbatelné faktografické i textové nedostatky., The reviewer´s opinion of the first biography of priest, theologian and church reformist Karel Farský (1880-1927), titled Dr. Karel Farský: The first pariarch of the Czechoslovak (Hussite) Church, is rather critical. Since the formation of Czechoslovakia, Farský joined the reformist movement within the Catholic Church and established a new Czechoslovak Church (later renamed Czechoslovak Hussite Church) in 1920. However, the reviewer believes Farský was a more complex and interesting personality than the book actually shows. The author depicts Farský´s life in its entirety, concentrating predominantly on his role in the formation and establishment of the new church, but has not paid enough attention to a number of related issues and, in addition, his biography of Farský is a hagiography rather than a critical portrait. The reviewer also notices a fairly limited list of sources and appreciable factual and text deficiencies., and [autor recenze] Marek Šmíd.
his study traces the changing portrayals of Maria Theresa in the writings of the most important Czech historians (F. M. Pelcl, W. W. Tomek, J. Kalousek, B. Rieger, J. Svátek, J. Pekař and J. Prokeš) up until the end of the First Republic. It also considers the works of popular chroniclers, the French historian E. Denis, and school textbooks. The author shows that from the end of the 18th century to the 1930s Czech historiography presented an image of Maria Theresa as an exceptionally capable ruler whose wide-ranging reforms brought considerable progress in many different spheres of life both in Bohemia and the monarchy as a whole. From the outset, however, there was also criticism of various aspects of her policies that were perceived as inimical to the Czech nation. First there was Germanization, especially in the education system; then, from the 1860s, the centralizing tendency of administrative reforms that threatened the (albeit limited) autonomy of the Czech state and opened the door to dualism. This criticism was especially abrasive in the works of J. Kalousek, B. Rieger and J. Svátek. Some even pointed to an actively hostile attitude on the part of the empress towards the Czech Lands. As the proliferation of factual evidence consolidated the positive image of the great monarch, critical assessments became more objective, though they never disappeared altogether. It is worth noting that, with few exceptions, the positive importance of absolutist enlightenment reforms for the emergence of the modern Czech nation-state was often overlooked., Eduard Maur., and Obsahuje bibliografické odkazy