Historický ústav akademie věd České republiky, v. v. i.


ISSN 0862-6111
ročník 110/2012
č. 2/2012
s. 189-400



K pozemkové výbavě české nobility ve starším středověku
(On the Landed Property of Czech Nobility in the Early Middle Ages)
s. 189–233

Around the mid–10th century Boleslav I. united the whole of Bohemia under the rule of one prince. He, thus, established the foundations of the Bohemian medieval state, which had to cope, in the initial stages of its development, with a number of systemic problems, primarily with limited economic opportunities and a lack of a more developed economic market. „The state“ represented by this Prince from the Przemyslid dynasty, therefore, took specific measures to ensure its proper functioning. It relied on the support of a class of „noble Czechs“. By conferring benefices (beneficia) on them, the Prince, entrusted to their care not merely the administration of his castles (civitates, urbes), which formed the backbone of „state“ administration, but also granted them other positions at the Prague court and in the provinces. These comites, nobiles, primates, milites, primores and so on, could not yet base their claims to power on their large landed estates and they relied primarily on their positions at the court and in the provinces. They primarily lived on their share of princely incomes and revenues. In recent times some historians have returned to earlier opinions which claimed that the early nobility in Bohemia and Moravia (10th–12th centuries) had relied on large landed possessions partly acquired, it is said, in the period before the unification of Czech territory. At the same time, it is suggested that there was a partial continuity with the traditional „pre-state“ aristocracy, possibly with the „Bohemian dukes“ (duces Boemanorum), who shared Czech territory in the 9th century and at the beginning of the 10th century (in the year 845 there were at least 14 princes). They disappeared from the stage of history with the Big Bang foundation of a unified „state“. Relatively large land possessions were also supposed to guarantee to these nobles their strong position and influence with regard to the Prince.
The current study questions these views and presents other arguments as to why the possessions of the early nobility could only emerge as a result of princely service and „state“ administration. Principally, larger noble estates could have barely been accommodated there. Early settlement sites covered no more than 15–20% of the area of current Bohemia and the possessions of both the Prince and the Church dominated, with Church posssessions being derived almost exclusively from the princely benefices. If the properties of comites, primates, nobiles, milites and others can be documented, they were limited and dispersed before the mid–12th century. They were usually transferred into the hands of „lay persons“ (Church terminology) from originally all embracing princely ownership of land, often in the form of a gift of land for life (the so-called grant of benefice), the disposal of which was subject to the Prince’s consent. At times, it is pointed out that the early nobility was able to found monasteries, which would have reflected its economic strength, yet these were outright exceptions before the mid–12th century (Sedlec, Podlažice).
Only after the mid–12th century were there better preconditions for the establishment and construction of larger landed estates on the part of the foremost noble families. The Czech Lands and the whole of Central Europe underwent a period of transformation and modernisation, accompanied by urbanisation, the development of exchange and the spread of minted coins. Society underwent changes and the nobility naturally changed also. A mighty wave of colonisation led to the settlement of not merely the hinterland plains and undulating countryside, but in Bohemia it also penetrated as far as the foothills of the border mountains. Foremost noble families put roots down in the newly settled territories and transferred the focus of their property interests there. In these places the conditions were ripe for the establishment of a new kind of dependence structures, the lord on one hand and the serf on the other. At the same time the circulation of chieftains in lucrative positions gradually slowed down. Their material possessions slowly overflowed into a qualitatively new „landed“ nobility (sometimes this is referred to as a so-called „privatisation“). No longer a position or a benefice but one’s landed estate dictated its owner’s influence, power and social status. These tendencies strengthened in the later stages of the 13th century. There appeared huge landed dominia belonging to a number of noble families who flourished in princely service such as the Hrabische family, the Witigonen family, the Markwartinger family. Yet, others, especially the second ranking milites and partially those yeomen who managed to preserve a certain independence, clamoured for better financial security in the newly settled terrritories. The above gave rise to a future lesser nobility. At the same time, the value of an estate held came to be assessed more rationally. It was no longer its area but its profitability, which became the determining criterion, also reflected in price relations (sale, purchase, exchange). In these processes the nobility attained features, which came to characterise it for the remainder of the Middle Ages: large landed ownership and political unification in a common „Land community“ (communitas, in the words of the chronicler Dalimil – a fence), forming a counterbalance to the ruling power.

Nejen v české, ale celé středoevropské historiografii probíhají již od 19. století diskuse o počátcích středověké šlechty. Konkrétně v českých podmínkách jde o to, zda tuto šlechtu spojovat se starou rodovou a kmenovou aristokracií, případně s početnými tak řečenými „knížaty Čechů“ (duces Boemanorum) z 9. a počátku 10. století, anebo taková kontinuita jednoduše neexistuje. Pak by formování této šlechty souviselo až s její vojenskou a správní službou knížeti, dynastii a „státu“, který Přemyslovci stmelili okolo poloviny 10. století. K dalším citlivým bodům současných polemik patří otázka, jakými rysy se přemyslovská nobilita 10.-12. století vyznačovala. Totiž zda tato „raná šlechta“ dlouho žila převážně z podílů na důchodech vybíraných jménem knížete od závislého obyvatelstva, takže její „soukromé“ pozemkové majetky by byly spíše doplňkové povahy, anebo zda se již od samých počátků státního života opírala o své již dost velké a „svobodné“ půdní vlastnictví. K řešení mohou významně napomoci výsledku studia středověkého osídlení, podobně jako již dříve podniknuté sondy do sociální skladby „urozené“ i „neurozené“ populace.

Ever since the 19th century discussions on the origins of medieval nobility have taken place not merely in Czech historiography but also in Central European historiography as a whole. In Czech conditions it, in fact, involves the issue whether this nobility can be linked to the traditional family and tribal aristocracy, possibly with the numerous so-called „Bohemian dukes“ (duces Boemanorum) from the 9th century and the beginnings of the 10th century or whether such a continuity simply does not exist. In that case the formation of this nobility would have to be connected with its later military and administrative services for the Prince, the dynasty and the „state“, which the Przemyslids only united in the mid–10th century. Another sensitive point in contemporary discussions involves the nature of the dominant features of the Przemyslid nobility of the 10th–12th centuries. Namely, whether this „early nobility“ primarily lived, for a long time, on its share of revenues collected in the name of the Prince from dependent inhabitants, so that its „private“ landed estates were merely an additional source of income or whether it relied on its already sufficiently large and „free“ land ownership from the very beginnings of the state. The solution to this question can be significantly assisted by the results of research on medieval settlements, alongside the probes, undertaken earlier, into the social structure of „the noble“ and „non-noble“ population.

Key words: aristocracy, Bohemian State, Middle Ages, monastery, nobility, owner, possession, Przemyslid dynasty, property

Atentát na francouzského krále Jindřicha IV. Politická vražda ve věku konfesionalizace
(The assassination of King Henry IV of France. Political Murder in the Confessional Age)
s. 234–253

Am 14. Mai 1610 wurde König Heinrich IV. von Frankreich bei einer Kutschfahrt durch Paris mitten in der Hauptstadt erdolcht. Der Attentäter François Ravaillac war ein Mann aus dem Volk. Er wurde auf der Stelle gefangen genommen. Von dem obersten Gerichtshof Frankreichs, dem Parlament von Paris, wurde er unter Anwendung der Folter verhört. Die Richter wollten Angaben über Hintermänner und eine Verschwörung erzwingen. Ravaillac bestand jedoch auch unter Folterqualen darauf, als einzelner und auf eine direkte Weisung Gottes gehandelt zu haben. Der König sei dabei gewesen, der katholischen Kirche schwer zu schaden, da er einen Krieg gegen den Papst vorbereitete, dafür mit auswärtigen Protestanten zusammenarbeitete und ohnehin in Frankreich die Ketzer begünstigte. Die Konversion Heinrichs IV. zur katholischen Kirche sei eine Lüge und Tat der Heuchelei gewesen.
„Ravaillacs der Gesinnung nach“ gab es in Frankreich nicht wenige. Diese „guten Katholiken“ glaubten nicht an die Ernsthaftigkeit der Rückkehr Heinrichs von Navarra zur katholischen Kirche, der sich nur durch den Übertritt die allgemeine Anerkennung als König von Frankreich hatte sichern können. Nach dynastischer Erbfolge stand dem Bourbonen der Thron zwar ohnehin zu, nachdem die Linie Valois der Königsdynastie der Kapetinger mit Heinrich III. 1589 ausgestorben war. Aber erst die formelle Konversion eröffnete Heinrich IV. 1592 den Weg zur rituellen Königssalbung und in die Hauptstadt Paris. Mit dem Toleranzedikt von Nantes für die Protestanten beendete er 1598 die Religionskriege, die Frankreich seit 1562 zerrissen und verwüstet hatten. In der Schlussphase hatte sich auf der Seite der katholischen Bürgerkriegspartei auch die europäische Vormacht des Katholizismus, das habsburgische Spanien, in die französischen Religionskriege eingeschaltet. Auch mit Madrid schloss Heinrich IV. 1598 Frieden.
1610 bereitete der König jedoch einen neuen Krieg gegen das Haus Habsburg vor. Er wollte am Niederrhein in den Erbfolgestreit um die Herzogtümer Jülich, Kleve und Berg intervenieren und eine prohabsburgische Lösung verhindern. Die Gegner waren die habsburgischen Höfe in Madrid, Brüssel und Prag. Ein Bündnis suchte der König mit den protestantischen deutschen Reichsständen, die sich in der Union unter Führung der Kurpfalz zusammengeschlossen hatten. Wegen der direkten Nachbarschaft von Jülich und Kleve zu den spanischen Niederlanden und der spanischen Militärstraße von Brüssel nach Mailand war die Konstellation sehr heikel. Angesichts der Kriegsdrohung am Rhein brachte die Ermordung Heinrichs IV. eine unerwartete Wendung. Die Gewinner waren die Habsburger und die katholischen Stände im Heiligen Römischen Reich, die Verlierer die Protestanten in Europa und innerhalb Frankreichs. Die Königinwitwe Maria von Medici änderte sofort die Ausrichtung der französischen Außenpolitik und suchte jetzt das Einvernehmen mit dem katholischen Spanien. Anhänger der Partei der „guten Katholiken“ am Pariser Hof und in ganz Frankreich konnten zufrieden sein. Der Königsmörder Ravaillac, der vor dem Rathaus von Paris grausam hingerichtet wurde, hätte somit sein Ziel einer Änderung der Politik in Frankreich erreicht. War er nun ein verblendeter Fanatiker oder ein Blutzeuge für den katholischen Charakter des Königtums in Frankreich? Als solcher hat er sich wohl selbst bis zu seinem blutigen Ende gesehen.

On the 14th of May 1610 Henry IV of France was stabbed to death. Henri’s assassin, François Ravaillac, was a man of the people. He was arrested on the spot. Before France’s highest court, the Parliament of Paris, he was subjected to interrogation under torture. The judges tried to get him to name his accomplices and admit to a conspiracy. But Ravaillac insisted, that he had acted entirely on his own – and at God’s express orders. The king had been on the point of inflicting serious damage on the Catholic Church, since he was about to launch a war against the Pope and, to this end, was working with foreign Protestants – moreover, he had been treating heretics in France leniently. Henri’s return
to the Catholic fold had been a lie and an act of hypocrisy. In France, people of Ravaillac’s persuasion were not exactly thin on the ground. Styling themselves “good Catholics”, they did not believe in the sincerity of Henri of Navarre’s return to the Church. In 1610 the king was on the verge of launching a new war against the House of Habsburg, having decided to intervene in the disputed succession to the Duchies of Jülich, Cleves and Berg. Determined to forestall a pro-Habsburg outcome, he wanted Düsseldorf, capital of the United Duchies, to be ruled by a Protestant prince as successor to the late Duke of Cleves. This was unacceptable to the Habsburg courts in Madrid, Brussels and Prague. The king was seeking an alliance with the Protestant imperial states (Reichsstände) in Germany, who had united under the leadership of the Palatinate. On account of the close proximity of Jülich and Cleves to the Spanish Netherlands, but also to the Spanish military road leading from Brussels to Milan, the constellation was more than delicate. But owing to Henri’s assassination, the threat of war on the Rhine was unexpectedly defused. The winners were the Habsburgs and the Catholic estates (Reichsstände) in the Holy Roman Empire, the losers the Protestants throughout Europe and in France. Henri’s widow, Marie de’ Medici, now regent, moved swiftly to change the direction of French foreign policy by seeking an understanding with Catholic Spain. For supporters of the party of “good Catholics” at the Paris court and throughout France, this was an outcome they could live with. Thus the regicide Ravaillac died knowing he had achieved his goal of changing French policy. So was he a deluded fanatic or a martyr for the Catholic nature of the monarchy in France? As he met his bloody end, probably he saw himself as being the latter.

Key words: France, regicide, the right to protest, religious wars, confessionalism, the Early Modern Age

Sovětská zahraniční politika a Osmanská říše na přelomu let 1917 a 1918  
(Soviet Foreign Policy and the Ottoman Empire toward the end of 1917 and in early 1918)
s. 254–287

The issue of relationships between the newly founded Soviet Russia and the declining Ottoman Empire during the final stage of World War I is one the blank spaces on the margins of an otherwise well-discussed topic. Negligible interest in this topic is primarily caused by the fact that this was a relatively short and relatively unimportant episode set against the background of much more significant events.
In the period from November 1917 to March 1918 the policy of Soviet Russia towards the Ottoman Empire represented part of a more general problem – namely Soviet policy towards the Four Central Powers. At the beginning of the period under research Soviet Russia was at war with the Ottoman Empire. The Soviet Government therefore considered the conclusion of peace to be its principal problem of policy towards the Ottoman Empire. It was to give Russia space to disseminate revolutionary ideas amongst the Ottoman population. In case these ideas fell onto fertile ground, a revolutionary uprising in the Ottoman Empire (envisaged naturally as one of a generally democratic and anti-imperialist nature, albeit not a proletarian revolution) could contribute to the weakening of the European powers and thus to the final victory of a proletarian revolution in the developed countries of Europe and America.
High expectations and hopes placed on proclamations and peace offers, intentionally targeted to promote revolutionary potential in the countries of the Central Powers (and not merely within them), did not, however, come to fruition in the case of the Ottoman Empire, nor in the case of their allies. Revolutions did not materialise in the above mentioned countries in the period under research. Therefore, during truce talks, which took place shortly after Soviet offers of peace, the Soviet side attempted to ensure favourable conditions for the spread of its propaganda, especially among the troops of the Central Powers.
The questions of a peace settlement between Soviet Russia and the Ottoman Empire became a matter of peripheral importance during the Brest-Litovsk peace talks, which followed. Nevertheless, Soviet foreign policy had to deal with three main problems in her relationship to the Ottoman Empire: 1) the fate of Eastern Anatolia and especially the question of the Armenians there, 2)the recognition of the independence of Persia and the withdrawal of both Ottoman and Soviet troops from there and 3) the question of Ottoman territorial demands in South Caucasus. However, Soviet foreign policy in all these three areas conflicted with the entirely opposing Ottoman views on a future settlement of the above mentioned problems. It was the irony of fate that both countries evoked the idea of national self-determination in order to promote their own demands, yet each of them envisaged its realization in completely different terms. With a view to the overall results of peace talks the Soviet Government failed, at the end, to have her own demands incorporated in the peace treaty. Similar to her situation with Germany and Austria-Hungary, Soviet Russia incurred territorial losses in the case of the Ottoman Empire, also. Thus, the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk came to embody, to a greater degree, the failure of Soviet foreign policy towards the Ottoman Empire.

Text je věnován sovětské zahraniční politice vůči Osmanské říši v letech 1917 a 1918. Po krátkém přehledu dosavadního stavu zkoumání problematiky se autor soustředí na analýzu cílů, které sovětská zahraniční politika ve vztahu k Osmanské říši v uvedeném období sledovala, a problémů, se kterými se při tom musela vyrovnat. Všímá si z tohoto úhlu pohledu jak sovětských mírových nabídek z listopadu 1917, tak zejména sovětských kroků v průběhu mírových rozhovorů v Brest-Litevsku. V závěru autor ukazuje na tři hlavní sporné otázky sovětsko-osmanských vztahů té doby, které se nicméně sovětské zahraniční politice nepodařilo úspěšně překonat.

This study is devoted to Soviet foreign policy towards the Ottoman Empire in the years 1917 and 1918. Following a short survey of contemporary research on these questions, the author focuses upon an analysis of goals which Soviet foreign policy pursued in relation to the Ottoman Empire in the period under research and problems involved with them which it had to face. From this point of view he pays attention to both Soviet peace initiatives from November 1917 and, primarily, to the steps taken by Soviet Russia during the course of peace talks in Brest-Litovsk. In his conclusion the author outlines the three disputed issues of the Soviet-Ottoman relationships at that time, which Soviet foreign policy failed to resolve successfully.

Key words: Soviet Russia, the Ottoman Empire, foreign policy, relationships, World War I, the Peace Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, 1917–1918

Generační revolta v socialistickém táboře v letech 1900–1920
(The Generational Revolt in the Socialist Camp between 1900–1920)
s. 288–317

At first, this study briefly introduces the method of generational approach, in particular with a view to using the canonical texts of the sociologist Karl Mannheim and German historians. The author emphasises the importance of this method for capturing some aspects of social changes and he consequently applies it to the topic of the generational revolt in the socialist camp between the years 1900–1920. According to the author the fundamental outlines of the impact of experience on the generation under research lie in its fight against Austrian militarism and clericalism; in addition World War I and the Bolshevik Revolution also contributed to the extension of this experience within society as a whole. A dogmatic version of Marxism and the class struggle was applied to the above mentioned experience in line with a specific age-related striving for „real socialism“. Relatively small groups of politically involved left-wing youths mobilized the major part of the public in this manner and significantly broadened the range of public discourse. These radical youths attempted, with partial success, to elaborate a concept of a cultural alternative, based on socialist principles, against both the Austrian dynastic conservative state and the inter-war Republican regime and last but not least against the revisionist-minded leadership of the Social Democratic Party. However, the shift from an age-specific revolt to voicing concrete political demands in the context of developments in Bolshevik Russia resulted in the splitting of the generational revolt and thus its consequent collapse around 1920. Yet, the very existence of this alternative vision, promoted by the generation under research, substantially changed the form of contemporary discussion about many social issues and represented a very important part of the changes which Czech society experienced in the period under research.

Text interpretuje společenské změny v českých zemích 1900-1920 z pohledu generačního vývoje s užším zaměřením na prostředí levicové mládeže. Sleduje cestu k vypracování generačního konceptu kulturní alternativy vůči rakouskému militarismu a klerikalismu před rokem 1914 a také důsledky extenze prožitku světové války a rozpadu monarchie na mladé lidi, rozpolcené mezi loajalitou k mladé republice a vizí bolševismu, který se valné části sledované generace jevil být realizací předválečných vizí o svobodnějším světě.

This study interprets social changes in the Czech Lands between the years 1900–1920 from the aspect of generational development, narrowed to an environment of left-wing youth. It traces the path to the elaboration of the generational concept of a cultural alternative to Austrian militarism and clericalism before 1914 and the consequences of the extension of the impact of World War I and the collapse of the Monarchy to young people who were split between loyalty to the young Czechoslovak Republic and a vision of Bolshevism, which in the eyes of the larger part of the generation under research appeared to be the realization of the pre-war visions of a freer world.

Key words: generational method, the socialist youth movement, anti-clericalism, anti-militarism, cultural alternative


Slovník sudetoněmeckých nářečí a jeho historie: K nálezu ztracené kartotéky ke slovníku sudetoněmeckých nářečí
(Dialect Dictionary and its History: About the Discovery of the missing Card File of the Sudeten German Dialects)
s. 318–328

Im vorliegenden Artikel wird über den Fund der seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg verschollenen Kartothek zum Wörterbuch der sudetendeutschen Mundarten berichtet. Die Kartothek wurde zwischen den Jahren 1930 und 1945 an der Deutschen Universität in Prag unter Leitung von Prof. Ernst Schwarz gesammelt und sollte als Basis für das geplante Wörterbuch aller deutschen Mundarten in der damaligen Tschechoslowakei dienen. Nach dem Krieg gingen die Kartothek und andere Materialien verloren. Im Frühjahr 2010 tauchte die Kartothek im Nachlass des tschechischen Germanisten Prof. Emil Skála wieder auf. Im Artikel werden die Schicksalswege der Kartothek rekonstruiert, die Umstände des Fundes, sowie der Fund selbst beschrieben. Es ist auch gelungen, einen Teil der restlichen Materialien zu finden. Abschließend wird ein Ausblick gewagt, welche künftigen Forschungsmöglichkeiten sich durch den Fund ergeben könnten.

This article is a report about the discovery of the original card file of the Sudeten German dialects which was missing since World War II. The dialect card file has been established and collected at the German University in Prague, Czechoslovakia between 1930 and 1945 under the direction of the Bohemian German professor Ernst Schwarz. It was designed to serve as a basis for the first dictionary of German dialects in former Czechoslovakia. The card file and other materials were lost without trace after the War. The card file appeared again in spring 2010 as part of the legacy of the Czech Germanist Emil Skála. The report traces back the fate of the card file and depicts the circumstances of its discovery. Some of the others materials (like dialect maps etc.) were also discovered in another place. Finally it is scrutinized, which future perspectives there might be with regard to the evaluation of the material.

Key words: Sudeten German Dialects, Ernst Schwarz, German University in Prague, Dictionary

Okupace pohraničí a nucená imigrace v letech 1938–1939
(The Occupation of the Border Regions and Forced Emigration between 1938–1939)
s. 329–347

This study draws attention to methodological problems conntected to the study of emigration of the Czech, German and Jewish population from the ceded Czech-Moravian-Silesian border regions of Bohemia and Moravia shortly before the outbreak of World War II. When studying this topic, it is not possible to reduce the population that migrated to a mere group of so-called refugees because a large number of migrants who were fleeing their homes, also comprised civil servants on active service. The study further evaluates the results of earlier historical research. It expands earlier knowledge by the inclusion of newly acquired facts from the archival materials of the Ministry of Interior kept in the National Archives in Prague. Their analysis made it possible to fill in the missing elements of contemporary knowledge on the structure and quantity of refugee streams in the territory of the Second Czechoslovak Republic. Archival documents show that the forced desertion of homes in the border regions affected more than 370 000 inhabitants of all nationalities, the majority of whom were Czech nationals. The movement of inhabitants was not a one-way process. In connection with an expected plebiscite, the holding of which was envisaged by the Munich Agreement, refugees were returning. The inhabitants of the border regions were urged not to move into the Republic. Thereby the Ministerial Council wanted to prevent the flight of citizens from disputed territories and potentially the loss of further territories. Reasons which the refugees stated in questionnaires they completed, were later used to map their motives for deserting their own homes. The analysis showed that economic reasons predominated with the Czechs, whereas the Germans were primarily fleeing for political reasons. Yet, the roots of the flight might have been concealed even in these reasons and the historical reality in this sense could have been multifaceted.

Studie upozornila na metodologické problémy spjaté se studiem imigrace českého, německého a židovského obyvatelstva z odstoupeného česko-moravsko-slezského pohraničí na území Čech a Moravy krátce před druhou světovou válkou. Při studiu problematiky není možné redukovat migrující obyvatelstvo výhradně na skupinu tzv. uprchlíků, neboť velkou část migrantů, kteří opouštěli své domovy, tvořili i státní zaměstnanci v činné službě. Text dále zhodnotil výsledky dřívějších historických výzkumů. Starší poznatky obohatil o nově získaná fakta z archivních materiálů ministerstva vnitra deponovaných v Národním archivu v Praze. Jejich analýza umožnila doplnit chybějící prvky dosavadních znalostí o struktuře a kvantitě uprchlických proudů na území druhé Československé republiky. Archivní materiály ukazují, že nucené opuštění domovů v pohraničí postihlo více než 370 000 obyvatel všech národností, jejichž drtivou většinu tvořili Češi. Pohyb obyvatel nebyl jednostranný. V souvislosti s předpokládaným konáním plebiscitu, jehož konání mnichovská dohoda předpokládala, docházelo ke vracení uprchlíků. Obyvatelé v pohraničí byli vyzýváni, aby se nestěhovali do republiky. Ministerská rada tím chtěla zabránit útěku občanů ze sporných lokalit a případně neztratit další území. Důvody, které uprchlíci vyplnili v rámci dotazníků, sloužily posléze k zmapování jejich pohnutek k opuštění domovů. Z analýzy vyplynulo, že u Čechů převažovaly spíše hospodářské důvody, Němci utíkali především z politických příčin. I v důvodech útěků se mohly příčiny zamlčovat a historická skutečnost mohla mít v tomto směru mnohostrannější obraz.

An analysis of both literature and primary resources shows that the migration stream from the border regions of the Czech Lands in the years 1938–1939 cannot be simply seen as merely involving a group of refugees. An important part of this was a category of civil servants on active service. Previous summary statistics failed to fully take into account family members of active civil servants. Research into statistical data in the National Archives has made it possible to fill in the missing gap in the totality of the migration wave which comprised more than 370 000 individuals of all nationalities, the majority of whom were Czech nationals. The forced return to ceded territories affected more than 7000 people. It was the decision of Jan Syrový´s Government from 1 October 1938 that provided the impetus for their repatriation. In addition to economic and social aspects (namely possibilities of the residual state to provide for refugees at a time of such a huge movement of the populace), the Cabinet’s attitude was also influenced by the development of the international situation and political decisions of the co-alition parties positioned at the background of government activities. In fact, Government envoys attended the Berlin sessions of the International Committee, whose task it was, among other things, to determine plebiscite territories. The Ministerial Council wanted to prevent the flight of the population from disputed localities and potentially the loss of further territories. The inhabitants of the border regions were urged not to emigrate into the Republic.

Key words: Czechoslovakia, Munich 1938, refugees, the border regions, exile



KUTHAN Jiří – ROYT Jan, Katedrála sv. Víta, Václava a Vojtěcha. Svatyně českých patronů a králů
(František Šmahel) s. 348–351

Liber vetustissimus Antiquae Civitatis Pragensis 1310–1518. Ed. PÁTKOVÁ Hana ve spolupráci s Věrou SMOLOVOU a Alešem POŘÍZKOU
(Vladimír Spáčil) s. 351–354

PURŠ Ivo – KARPENKO Vladimír (eds.), Alchymie a Rudolf II. Hledání tajemství přírody ve střední Evropě v 16. a 17. století
(Ivana Čornejová) s. 354–356

PÁLFFY Géza, The Kingdom of Hungary and the Habsburg Monarchy in the Sixteenth Century
(Václav Bůžek – Miroslav Žitný) s. 357–361

VYDRA Zbyněk, Život za cara? Krajní pravice v předrevolučním Rusku
(Alexandr Brummer) s. 361–364

FERIANCOVÁ Alena, (Ne)nájdená bezpečnosť. Československo, Nemecko a úpravy medzinárodného systému v Európe 1922-1926
(Miroslav Šepták) s. 364–368

s. 369–383


Koloman Gajan (7. 11. 1918 – 27. 12. 2011)
(Robert Kvaček)
s. 384–387

Knihy došlé redakci
s. 388

Výtahy z českých časopisů a sborníků
s. 388

Zasláno redakci
s. 400