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.
At first glance, the Israeli right might be regarded as a sort of monolith. Characterized by intransigence vis-à-vis the great powers (initially the British) and the Arabsalike and with iconic strongmen at the helm, both the post-independence Herut party and its interwar predecessor(s) clearly demonstrated to the outside world what Zionist maximalism stood for, particularly in terms of its political and terriotiral demands. on a closer look, however, many of the sought after parallels between the interwar Zionist right and the post-independence Israeli right are more imagined than real. in fact, not only were the particular groupings made up of different sets of players (often in opposition to each other), but their very worldviews differed, sometimes fundamentally. After all, the paramilitary groups from which the Israeli right developed had self-distanced themselves from any sort of reliance on political means or international guarantees, rejecting the very notions which had stood at the core of interwar Revisionism, the alleged forefather of the Israeli right., Jan Zouplna., and Obsahuje bibliografii