This article is concerned with the memory and commemoration of acts of armed force which were committed as part of the civilian resistance to the Communist régime in its ‘founding period’ after February 1948. It focuses on how memory is constituted around this minority form of anti-Communist resistance, particularly by means of memorial sites in the process of their formation in the period before the Changes that began in mid-November 1989 and also afterwards. In the fi rst part of the article, the author looks at armed confl icts at the edge of the Iron Curtain, that is, on the western borders of Communist Czechoslovakia. She seeks to demonstrate that the way of looking at border crossings by people fl eeing to the West is still considerably infl uenced by the memory and commemorative activities of veterans of the former border guards, amongst whom dominates the image of these refugees as internal enemies of the State. The second part of the article isdevoted to instances of so-called ''political murder'', that is, acts of violence against Communist politicians, which are connected particularly with villages. Most of these stories are gradually being forgotten; society does not want to recall them. An exception, however, is the memory of the sad events in the village of Babice, in the Bohemian-Moravian uplands, in 1951, which has repeatedly been used by politicians. In the third part of the article, the author considers the social discourse about the ethical dimension of armed anti-Communist resistance, which is almost exclusively focused on the atypical case of the group led by the Mašín brothers, and the process of forming the memory of the three resistances (the fi rst, against Austria-Hungary during the Great War; the second, against the German occupying forces during the Second World War; and the third, against the Communist régime during the Cold War). She describes the commemorative activities of the Confederation of Political Prisoners as part of the strategy to bolster the social standing of the third, anti-Communist resistance, and she points to certain analogies between the unchallenged memories of political prisoners and the memories of the former border guards in contemporary historiography. and Překlad: Lucia Faltinova
The Treaty on Friendship, Mutual Assistance and Postwar Cooperation between the Czechoslovak Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics signed on 12 December 1943 in Moscow had a fundamental impact on the orientation of Czechoslovak foreign policy at the end of the war and in the years that followed. At the same time, the lengthy negotiations in 1943, which ultimately resulted in signing the treaty in question, were one of the few moments during the war when Czechoslovakia became the object of an opinion clash between the Great Powers. In this study, which is based primarily on British and US documents (some of which have not been used before), the author analyses in detail the role of the Czechoslovak-Soviet treaty project in the policies of the two Western powers until the signing of the document, before assessing the impact of the treaty in concern on Czechoslovakia’s relations with the United Kingdom and the United States at the end of the war. He points out that neither the British nor the Americans were prepared to conclude a similar treaty with Czechoslovakia since both Western powers wanted the international security system to be based on foundations different from those which had repeatedly failed during the previous three decades. However, the signing of the Czechoslovak-Soviet Treaty dramatically reduced any chance for a federative or confederative arrangement in the region of Central Europe, as well as hopes for a multilateral treaty of alliance ensuring security in this region. For this reason, it was accepted without enthusiasm both in London and in Washington.
This was the Opening Address at ''Fateful Eights in Czech History: Historical Anniversaries of 2008 and Their Signifi cance for the Czech Republic Today'', an international conference organized by the Czech Embassy in Washington, held at the George Washington University, Washington, D.C., on 23-24 October 2008. In this essay the author provides a basic overview of twentieth-century Czech history, weighing the gains and losses, the victories and defeats, the ups and downs of the Czechs, the Czech nation, Czech society, on the way from gaining independence in a democratic state to loosing it, and the German occupation, to the renewal of Czechoslovak independence and the destruction of democracy under the Communist regime, to the failed attempt at the reform of that regime, and the victory of the democratic revolution - all marked by the historical milestones of the years 1918, 1938/39, 1945-48, 1968, and 1989 - as well as the author’s refl ections on the long-term changes in the mentality of the country.
This article presents an analysis of Czechoslovak political history of the fi rst half of the 1970s and the question of who would succeed General Ludvík Svoboda (1895-1979) as Czechoslovak President. The emphasis is on the role of Gustáv Husák (1913-1991), who emerged from the political crisis of 1968-69 as the most powerful actor, and was, at the 14th Congress of the Czechoslovak Communist Party, confi rmed as General Secretary of the Party. Using Soviet archives, the author points to differences between the individual members of the Party leadership, and particularly to the lack of unity amongst the so-called ''healthy forces''. According to him, it is fair to talk about the disintegration of this bloc, which had been formed during the Prague Spring, into several smaller groups. The secretary of the Central Committee of the Czechoslovak Communist Party, Vasil Biľak (1917-2014), was, in consequence of this and Soviet pressure, forced to abandon any ambitions tostand at the head of the Party, and had to be satisfi ed, instead, with the position of Number Two in the Party. The Soviet leadership derived social stability in Czechoslovakia from the fi rmness of the Czechoslovak Communist Party leadership, and in particular counted on the collaboration of Husák and Biľak, and it made this clear to both men. Svoboda’s failing health prevented him from properly discharging his duties as President of Czechoslovakia, but he did not even try to hold on to the presidency, even though, in the interest of political stability, he was confi rmed in offi ce in March 1973, and remained something of a temporary solution. The article does not seek to challenge or confi rm the hypothesis that he was forced to step down in May 1975; although, in any event, Svoboda was in no condition to have taken this step himself. Husák’s efforts to become President kept running up against the question of the accumulation of offi ces and also the Czech-Slovak national factor, even though, thanks to centrist Czechoslovak policy and support from Moscow, he succeeded in achieving a ‘peculiar unity’ over this question in the CPCz leadership, so that on 29 May 1975 he became the fi rst, and also the last, Czechoslovak President who was a Slovak. In Czech eyes, however, he remained a Slovak who had, after August 1968, considerably participated in the unfortunate re-imposition of hard-line Communism known as ''normalization'', whereas for the Slovak nation he increasingly became a turncoat, a ''Prague Slovak''.
This article evaluates once more the historiographic and literary images of John of Bohemia and his son Charles IV in Italian texts from the 14th and early 15th centuries. What we find is a peculiar mixture of criticism and apotheosis, sometimes stated by the same authors, depending on the point in time they were writing, and of course the expectations of their potential readers. While John of Bohemia faced overwhelming expectations from Dante after the death of his father, he was branded a naïve yet greedy papal mercenary from the beginning of his Italian Expedition in the early 1330s. His son was more successful in avoiding negative stereotypes and harsh criticisms during his Italian expeditions in his youth, as well as in 1354/55 and 1368/69. In the end, however, even chroniclers that are traditionally considered to have had a positive view of the Luxemburg king and emperor harshly rejected his political actions in Italy. Most of the time, this is connected with the financial interests all foreign monarchs had when establishing temporary rulerships in Italian cities, and the monetary pressures this bore on their citizens; the worn-out cliché, both of contemporaries and historical researchers, that labelled foreign, Central European monarchs as barbaric intruders, could hardly be confirmed. Charles and his father are blamed for being unable to solve the structural problems of Italian and Imperial politics.
The Czech ''Silesian identity'', obvious throughout the twentieth century, was based on a mixture of strong regional, even local, patriotism, which was determined by historical developments. This patriotism developed on the ethnically mixed territory of Czech Silesia (formerly Austrian Silesia). After the Second World War, this phenomenon was quickly revived, but unlike in the pre-war period, it took a clearly Czech national form. The territorial factor, by contrast, receded into the background. Behind this activity and new interpretation stood intellectual circles and institutions in Opava, some leading fi gures from Ostrava, and the Silesian Cultural Institute in Prague. In addition to cultural-educational activity, their efforts were concentratedon claiming some border areas of Polish and German Silesia as being historically Czech, and also on ensuring the distinctive administrative status of the territory of Silesia in Czechoslovakia, the seed of which they saw in the Ostrava branch of the Moravian National Committee (Zemský národní výbor) in Brno. During the Communist regime, according to the authors, the top state authorities showed an intentional lack of interest in the problems of Silesia when solving related economic and other questions. A consequence of this was a ''silencing of the offi cial sources'' about Silesia. In the 1950s, the ''Silesian-ness'' was condemned as a form of ''bourgeois nationalism'' and was identifi ed with the period of Czech-Polish national friction in the region. From the administrative point of view, Silesia was dissolved in the Ostrava area, later in the North Moravian Region, and was recalled practically only by artistic expressions of an ''Old Silesian-ness'', such as folklore and museum exhibitions. Silesian organizations and societies were, with few exceptions, dissolved or renamed and the newly established Silesian Research Institute in Opava had to orient its historical research chiefl y to the labour movement. The works of the poet Petr Bezruč (born Vladimír Vašek, 1867-1958) and his collection of verses, Slezské písně (Silesian Songs), presented a problem because of their questionable depiction of Silesian identity, and the publication of the complete collection led to disputes in cultural policy. The Ostrava-based arts and politics periodical Červený květ (Red Flower), which repeatedly included debates about regionalism, began to be published in the mid-1950s. At the end of the decade, however, the Communist Party launched a campaign against parochialism (lokálpatriotismus), which was refl ected also in the condemnation of publications seeking to exonerate the poems and ideas of Óndra Łysohorsky (born Ervín Goj, 1905-1989), who during the war promoted the theory of a ''Lach nation.'' In the 1960s, the local authorities and fi gures of Opava again began to emphasize the role of their town as a regional centre. During the Prague Spring of 1968, there were calls for the restoration of Silesian self-government, but that remained more or less limited to the Opava region, and consequently some ''Silesian'' cultural initiatives from this period were of greater importance.
The present article aims to resume the present-day state of knowledge and the possibilities for future research of the problem of widows and widowhood in the village society of the Early Modern Era and the first half of the nineteenth century. The text focuses especially in sketching the fields of interest that arise out of the study of widowhood in connection with the discourse of the times, the legislation and the demographic development., Markéta Skořepová., and Obsahuje bibliografii
An international conference, Victory over fascism in 1945: its significance for peoples of the CIS and the world, took place in Moscow on April 8, 2010. The motto was: We won together. It was organized by the Intergovernmental Foundation for Educational, Scientific and Cultural Cooperation. This was part of the action plan and preparations for the celebration of the 65th anniversary of the Victory in the 1941-1945 Great Patriotic War. Assisting were the Russian Education and Science Ministry and the Russian Academy of Sciences. and Jan Němeček.