The authors consider the changes in the conception, organization, ways of spending, and forms of leisure in the Czech Lands from the establishment of the Communist monopoly on power in early 1948 to the second half of the 1950s. (After this point leisure time here began strikingly to change under the infl uence of consumerist trends.) They consider the topic in the context of the dominant ideology and changes in economic, social, and arts policies. The authors take into account gender differences, contrasts between town and country, and special features of social groups. They pay particular attention to leisure amongst young people and children. The authors do not, however, see the Communist takeover of February 1948 as a watershed in the sphere of leisure. Instead, they demonstrate both the continuity and differences between the period of limited democracy, from May 1945 to February 1948, and the years that followed. In some cases, they highlight features that were identical in Nazi German and Communist approaches to leisure activities (the rejection of jazz, ''trash'' (brak) in the arts, and Western infl uences in general). The authors discuss how the Communist regime intervened intensively in the way people chose to spend their free time, in its endeavour to shape a new type of man and woman in the new social conditions. At the same time, particularly in the late 1940s and early 1950s, the State so emphasized the importance of the work of building socialism, that leisure was seen as a ''necessary evil'', since it used up valuable physical and mental energy that would have been better spent on increasing productivity. For the same aims, but also with regard to the idea of somewhatdemocratising the arts, the regime gave preference to activities such as political and vocational self-education as well as the study of selected arts and cultural values. In keeping with the subordination of the individual to the interests of society, collective forms of recreation and the leisure (holidays spent with groups of co-workers, mass group visits to plays, fi lms, concerts, museums, galleries, and, later, Pioneer camps) were given priority. Traditional club activity and individual leisure were seen as ''bourgeois survivals''. Some young people’s non-conformist leisure activities met with suspicion from the authorities or with outright repression. Amongst the models of leisure that the regime held worthy of emulation were the Socialist youth construction projects (stavby mládeže), ''volunteer'' work, and additional instruction or training. The new organizations, such as the Revolutionary Trades Union Movement (Revoluční odborové hnutí - ROH), the Czechoslovak Union of Youth (Československý svaz mládeže - ČSM), and the Union for Co-operation with the Army (Svaz pro spolupráci s armádou - Svazarm), which took the place of the earlier clubs and associations, comported with the new ideology and provided the required forms of leisure. The authorities endeavoured also to support considerably developed and differentiated hobbies, such as making art, playing board games, and collecting. Special facilities were established to run these activities, including the enterprise-based clubs of the ROH, houses of culture (kulturní domy), and people’s educational societies (osvětové besedy). Forms of universally accessible activity, like chess and phillumeny (collecting matchbox labels), were supported, whereas fi nancially more demanding hobbies or those linked to private gain, such as philately or numismatics, were marginalized. A slight retreat from the ideologised conception of leisure came with the so-called ''new course'' of 1953. But more striking changes were made in the second half of the 1950s. These years, which saw shorter working weeks, a higher standard of living than before, and the emergence of consumerist trends, are described by the authors as a period of the planned expansion of leisure and its gradual individualisation.
Social policy in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, from mid-March 1939 to early May 1945, is a key topic in contemporary research on the history of this brief period. The article is concerned with the possible approaches to research with regard to the latest trends in research on National Socialism. It begins with an outline of the historiography of social policy in the Protectorate, which is marked chiefl y by a predominant uniformity of argumentation, a lack of systematic approach to interpretation, and Czech and Czechoslovak historians’ limiting themselves to the ethnically Czech population. Research conducted so far has completely failed to put social policy into the context of social history. The author thus fi rst provides an outline of the social framework, which represents the concept of a Volksgemeinschaft (national/ethnic/racial community), in which ideas about the purpose and function of social policy were formed and implemented. In the next part, she focuses on the defi nition of the term ''social policy'' as understood by Nazi theorists after 1933. In the last part of the article, she seeks to defi ne the new social relations in the CzechGerman environment of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, and suggests possibilities of its analysis in the area of the implementation of social policy. She believes that it will be fruitful to study the implementation of the relevant criteria in the Reich and the Protectorate at the level of discussions among experts, and to research social policy in practice. The author sees the most important aspects of the implementation of social policy as residing in the various motivations of the regime when implementing social policy in relation to different parts of the population, ranging from social exclusion to forms of social protectionism.
In this article, the author traces the changes in the Czechoslovak position in the international Communist movement after the Communist Party took power in Czechoslovakia. She concentrates on the Party’s relations with the Soviet and the Chinese Communists, which from the 1950s onwards represented two competing centres of power in world Communism. She argues that in Czechoslovak foreign policy the Communists subordinated the defence of State interests to the international solidarity of the workers, and, in keeping with that ideological guideline, the tasks of Czechoslovak foreign policy were set mainly according to the Soviet agenda and its vaguely defi ned aims for the international Communist movement. Prague became dependent on Moscow for personnel, information, and material, and lost the ability to act independently in international politics both outside and inside the Soviet bloc. Amongst Prague’s priorities were efforts to achieve the unity of the Soviet system of alliances and, beginning at the latest in 1956, it considered military intervention a suitable instrument in the event of a threat to that system. A comparative analysis of records for the ten years from 1953 to 1962, from the Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic and from the Czechoslovak Communist Party leadership, which are deposited in the National Archive, Prague, demonstrate that Czechoslovak foreign policy was actually formed by way of inter-Party contacts. The Soviet Communists were paramount in the hierarchy; in the eyes of the Czechoslovak Communists, the Soviet position remained unchallenged by any Chinese attempts to provide an alternative to Soviet methods and plans to develop the international Communist movement in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Indeed, at multilateral talks amongst dozens of Communist Parties in Moscow in November 1957 and in 1960, where Chinese objections were discussed, Czechoslovak Communists arrived after having been instructed by their Soviet comrades, and from this position they rejected all Chinese activities, despite Czechoslovak efforts to establish friendly and close ties with their Beijing comrades after 1948. As a result of this linking of Czechoslovak Party and State matters, Czechoslovak-Chinese collaboration ceased in the early 1960s, and the Soviet Union promised to compensate for any damages that thus accrued to the Czechoslovak economy.
The article reviews the research on travelling and tourism in
Czechoslovakia from 1945 till the end of the communist regime in 1989. The attention is paid to three elementary dimensions. The
first part points out some of the limits of existing research which during the last seventy years was formed through the specific discipline of Czech tourism research. Second part is tackling some of the current problems and challenges in the research, particularly the questions connected with relevant sources. The third part
outlines some basic topics, along which the future research on travelling and tourism can be structured. and Článek zahrnuje poznámový aparát pod čarou
This article focuses on the long-term trends in the development of social policy between the First World War and the mid-1950s. The author begins by summarising the main ideas of his own previous articles and books. He emphasises the continuity and discontinuity in the general conception of Czechoslovak social policy in this period. He also considers conceptual questions, particularly those that would help to explain how the basic terms are employed in historical analysis. The article moves between the two poles of the construction of causality - structural explanation and voluntaristic explanation. The content of the article can be aptly summed up in a neat metaphor: from Bismarck by way of Beveridge to Stalin. In personifi ed form, this shortcut expresses the long-term development of Czechoslovak social policy: from an emphasis on principles of merit, characteristic of the traditional German and Austrian social insurance schemes, by way of a considerably more egalitarian national insurance from 1948 (strongly infl uenced by the British system), to the Soviet model of social security, which developed from 1951 to 1956. The article also considers important changes in social legislation in the Czechoslovak Republic in this period, including the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.
Autor využívá recenze knihy srbských historiků Mileho Bjelajace a Gordany Krivokapić-Jovičové Příspěvky k odborné kritice: Srbská historiografie a svět. Vliv jugoslávské krize na zahraniční a domácí historiografii k obecnějšímu zamyšlení nad stavem srbské a postjugoslávské historiografie ve světovém kontextu bádání o nejnovějších dějinách jihoslovanských zemí. Autorská dvojice podle něj zastupuje ten proud v srbském dějepisectví, který se dokázal vymanit z omezení národními dějinami, pozitivistické faktografie a nacionálních stereotypů a patří ve své zemi k úplné špičce. Tematické okruhy jejich knihy tvoří stěžejní problémy srbských a jihoslovanských moderních dějin, jako je vznik, existence a příčiny ztroskotání projektu společného jugoslávského státu. Na nich recenzent ukazuje vývojové trendy národních historiografií bývalé Jugoslávie od státní ideologie jugoslávské jednoty a bratrství přes „novou ortodoxii“ antikomunismu a antijugoslávství po rozpadu společného státu a novou politickou instrumentalizaci za balkánských válek až po současnou pluraliazaci přístupů a otevírání horizontů., In his review of this work, whose title translates as ‘Serbian Historiography and the World: The Influence that the Yugoslav Crisis Has Had on Historiography at Home and Abroad. Contributions to Specialist Criticism’, the reviewer offers more general considerations of the state of Serbian and post-Yugoslav historiography in the international context of research on the contemporary history of the South Slav countries. The two authors of the book, Mile Bjelajac and Gordana Krivokapić-Jović, represent, according to the reviewer, a trend in Serbian historiography, which has been able to free itself from the limitations of national history, positivist assimilation of mere facts, and national stereotypes; they are, in short, among the best historians in their country. The range of topics discussed in this volume cover the key problems of modern Serbian and Yugoslav history, such as the origin, existence, and causes of the demise of the shared state of the South Slavs. The reviewer uses these topic areas to show the trends in the development of the national historiographies of the former Yugoslavia, from the state ideology of Yugoslav unity and brotherhood to the ‘new orthodoxy’ of anti-Communism and anti-Yugoslavism, to the break-up of the shared state and the new instrumentalization of politics during the Yugoslav Wars, to the current pluralization of approaches and the opening up of new horizons., [autor recenze] Ondřej Vojtěchovský., and Obsahuje bibliografii