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

č. 14/2006



Vývoj pražské německé techniky (1863-1945)
[History of the German Polytechnic in Prague (1863-1945)]
s. 5

První světová válka a velmocenské plány Rakousko-Uherska (1914-1918)
[World War I and the expansionist plans of Austro-Hungary (1914-1918)]
s. 51

Grenzziehung in Mitteleuropa 1918/1919. Die politische und militärische Konfrontation um die staatliche Zugehörigkeit Deutsch-Südmährens
[Delimitation of state borders in Central Europe 1918/1919. Political and military conflict over German-populated southern Moravia]
s. 81

Robert PEJŠA
Autonomie Podkarpatské Rusi jako politicko-právní problém v prvních letech existence Československé republiky 1919-1921
[Autonomy of Ruthenia as a political and legal problem in the first years of existence of the Czechoslovak Republic 1919-1921]
s. 125


Úvod [Preface]
s. 179

Les nouveaux courants de l'historiographie française sur 1848
[New trends in the French historiography of the year 1848]
s. 183

Kolik bylo revolucí v roce 1848 ve střední Evropě?
[How many revolutions were there actually in Central Europe in 1848?]
s. 189

Slovenské povstanie 1848/49 v uhorskom a európskom kontexte
[The Slovak Uprising of 1848/49 in the Hungarian and European context]
s. 199

Počátky liberální parlamentní politické kultury v českých zemích
[The beginnings of liberal parliament-based political culture in Bohemia and Moravia]
s. 207

Prejavy diskontinuity v strednej Európe počas rokov 1848/49
[Manifestations of discontinuity in Central Europe in 1848/49]
s. 215

Aristokratická matka a revoluce. Anna Berta z Lobkovic v dopisech dceři Zdeňce
[An aristocratic mother and the Revolution. Anna Berta of Lobkovicz in letters to her daughter Zdeňka]
s. 231

Die Revolution 1848 und die Frage der wirtschaftlichen Union Böhmens mit Deutschland
[The revolution of 1848 and the question of Bohemia's economic union with Germany]
s. 243

Rod v revolúcii a revolúcia v tradíciách rodu. K stratégii správania sa a tvorbe historického mýtu
[A family in the revolution and the revolution in a family tradition. Strategy of action and creation of a historical myth]
s. 253

Catherine HOREL
Un Concept révolutionnaire: Le fédéralisme centre-européen en 1848-1849
[Revolution concept: Central European federalism 1848-1849]
s. 269

Konec revoluce 1848-1849 a společnost v Čechách (Několik úvah o dramatické společenské změně)
[End of the revolution of 1848-1849 and Bohemia's society (Some reflections on the dramatic social change)]
s. 281

Politisches Wochenblatt - mluvčí moravské šlechty v roce 1848
[Politisches Wochenblatt - a speaker of the Moravian nobility in 1848]
s. 289

Konzervativní poučení z revoluce: Politická kariéra J. A. Helferta
[A conservative lesson drawn from the revolution: Political career of J. A. Helfert]
s. 309

Náboženská symbolika v komunikaci české společnosti v revoluci 1848/49
[Religious symbolism in the communication of Czech society during the revolution of 1848/49]
s. 323

Magdaléna POKORNÁ
Veřejné mínění po porážce revoluce. Vytváření - podoba - sledování
[Public opinion after the defeat of the revolution. Evolution - manifestation - monitoring]
s. 333



History of the German Polytechnic in Prague (1863-1945)

From 1869 to 1939, there were two technical colleges in Prague, independent of each other: one Czech and one German, the latter existing until 1945. For practical reasons, the two schools shared a common library, which in 1932 became the basic element of today's State Technical Library. In 1879, both schools obtained the right to be called "College".
The splitting of the Prague Polytechnic into the Czech and the German schools was the result of two processes that were strongly influencing the evolution of technical education in the territory of today's Czech Republic in the latter half of the 19th century: 1) national emancipation of both the Czech nation and of the very active German minority in Bohemia and Moravia; 2) deepening separation of particular technical professions, which continued in the 20th century.
Between the two world wars, the German Technical College in Prague retained the status of state school with German as the teaching language. In 1931, on the occasion of the 125th anniversary of the foundation of Prague Polytechnic, the Czechoslovak government promised to build a new campus for the German school. Its Institute of Electrical Engineering ranked among the best-equipped laboratories in the country. The joint library continued to serve both the Czech and the German Technical Colleges.
A sad and final chapter in the history of the German Technical College in Prague was the period after the Munich Agreement until spring 1948. The school, politically "purged", was deprived of many important elements of academic autonomy and was subordinated to the newly appointed Curator of German Higher Education in Prague, which brought about a number of competence disputes. In spite of the reduced number of students and teachers, the school existed until the end of the war and then, together with all German higher education facilities in Czechoslovakia, was closed by the President's Decree in October 1945. In spite of that, the existence of the German Technical College in Prague constitutes an important and integral part of the history of technical education in the Czech Republic and of the history of the Czech Technical University in Prague.

World War I and the expansionist plans of Austro-Hungary (1914-1918)

The prewar expansionist plans of Austro-Hungary were mostly aiming at the Balkans, primarily against Serbia, which, however, was shielded by Russia. There was also a conflict of Vienna's and Petersburg's interests in Poland, Galicia and Ukraine. The war plans of the Austro-Hungarian Army were prepared accordingly, relying on Germany as its ally, because a war against Serbia brought about the danger of war with Russia. After the outbreak of the war the political and military authorities in Vienna started immediately preparing a political and territorial expansion of the Habsburg Empire. Their goals were aimed at annexing Poland and some parts of Ukraine, reducing Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and Rumania, expelling Italy from the East coast of the Adriatic Sea, and at controlling the West Balkans. However, these goals were neutralized by the rapid disintegration of the Habsburg Monarchy at the turn of October and November 1918. As a result, quite new political and national conditions suddenly appeared in Central Europe and in the Balkans.

Delimitation of state borders in Central Europe 1918/1919. Political and military conflict over German-populated southern Moravia

After the creation of Czechoslovakia, the Provisional Government in Prague had no general plan of how to occupy the areas with German population in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia. In the initial period of the new country's existence, local commanders on their own initiative occupied railway stations and public buildings or confiscated food and agricultural products. Local Czechoslovak authorities tried to use economic blockade as a tool to support military actions and make the enemy surrender. Very soon it became clear that the question of state borders would be settled according to the requirements of the government in Prague that was politically backed by the victorious Entente Powers. That meant a confirmation of the historical borders of Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia, including the areas with German population. The German population in southern Moravia opposed these efforts hoping for a military support from Vienna, whose ability to intervene was, however, considerably reduced. The government in Vienna wanted to avoid the danger of a new war with the Entente Powers, and therefore refused to intervene in southern Moravia now controlled by the new Czechoslovak authorities. The question of state borders was finally solved at the Peace Conference in favor of the Czechoslovak Republic.

Robert PEJŠA
Autonomy of Ruthenia as a political and legal problem in the first years of existence of the Czechoslovak Republic 1919-1921

During the whole period of Ruthenia's existence within Czechoslovakia the question of its legal status was rather a theoretical legal problem related, in particular, to the interpretation of the word "autonomy" used in the peace agreements, in the Constitution, and in the regulations issued by the Czechoslovak Government. Less theoretical, however, was the question of participation of Ruthenians in the political and executive power in the territory of Ruthenia. The Czechoslovak Government, which at the initial stage (1919) logically stressed the necessity of provisional administrative and military control of the territory, came more and more into conflict with the Ruthenian requirements after 1920. Ruthenia's representatives prepared several proposals reflecting their ideas as to the autonomous status of Ruthenia within Czechoslovakia. An important complication was particularly the fact that the Czechoslovak government responded rather coolly to those proposals and that the Ruthenian initiatives were only little taken into consideration. Due to the cool position of the Czechoslovak government the requirement of immediate autonomy became the only major item uniting all political groups in Ruthenia. As a result, the government was then unable to adequately respond to the growing requirements of the Ruthenians, its reactions were rather hasty, regarding the Ruthenians and their representatives in general as autonomists undermining the interests of the Czechoslovak state. The General Statute failed to be a long-term sustainable solution; the Constitution and, in particular, the Ruthenian Autonomy Act was in practice never implemented.


A regular meeting of the Commission of Czech, Slovak and French Historians was held in Prague on February 10 and 11, 2005 in cooperation of the CEFRES, the Historical Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, and the Historical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences. Within the event, in accordance with the established tradition, a scientific symposium was held in the ceremonial rooms of the Lanna House for which the Czech organizers had chosen the topic New views of the revolution of 1848/1849. The important international scientific meeting was held under the auspices of the Institute of History of the Czech Academy of Sciences; Milan Hlavačka, head of the Institute's History of the 19th Century Department, was responsible for the scientific program and was charged with organization-related matters, and he also chaired over some sections of the meeting. Both foreign delegations were, as usual, headed by the chairmen of the respective Commission sections: the French section by Professor Bernard Michel (University Paris I - Sorbonne), and the Slovak section by Dušan Kováč from the Historical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences.
The time that - as the poet says - "drew the curtain and changed the world" has inspired a number of valuable, unusual, and sometimes even provoking contributions. All speakers tried to show fresh, new-structured views of the traditional questions, such as the cause, the course and the consequence of the first (and until now the only) Europe-wide revolution; some contributions dealt with other topics, less frequent in Czech historiography: symbolism of the revolution, political culture of the revolution, non-political (gender-related, generation-related) aspects, revolution as a stimulus to rebuilding and occupying the public space. After the welcoming speeches by Christian Lequesne, Director of CEFRES, by Bernard Michel and by Svatava Raková, Director of the Institute of History of the Czech Academy of Sciences, the scientific part of the meeting was opened by Jiří Kořalka, who in his contribution bearing a provocative title How many revolutions were there actually in Central Europe in 1848? presented an overall view of the topic stressing the necessity to distinguish between the notions "revolution", "revolutionary wave", and "revolutionary reform". Dušan Škvarna (Philosophical Faculty, Komenský University, Bratislava) dealt with an equally broad field of research in his paper Continuity and discontinuity of the 1948/49 revolution in Central Europe. Jiří Štaif (Philosophical Faculty, Charles University, Prague) focused in his contribution End of the revolution of 1848/1849 and Bohemia's society on the variable consequences of the revolutionary events. In his biographical study An aristocrat and the revolution of 1848 Eduard Mikušek (District Archives Litoměřice, Žitenice branch) demonstrated the possibility of applying the gender approach by analyzing the attitude of a noblewoman, Anna Berta of Lobkowicz, to the revolution. Another "non-political" aspect of the revolution was dealt with by Roman Holec (Philosophical Faculty, Komenský University, Bratislava) in his paper entitled The strategy of action and the creation of a historical myth demonstrated on the example of the Pechy family showing the totally different, generation-motivated positions of individual members of a Hungarian aristocratic family. Rudolf Kučera (Philosophical Faculty, Charles University Prague), analyzing the metamorphoses of Josef Alexander Helvert's political career, showed how the revolution strengthened the conservative orientation of some politicians. The impact of the revolution on the modernization of state administration was discussed by Magdaléna Pokorná (Historical Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Philosophical Faculty of Charles University Prague) in her study Public opinion in Bohemia and Moravia in 1848/49: evolution - manifestation - monitoring, stating that the system of confidential police agents was not meant as a tool of open repression, but was primarily used to monitor the opinion of the population witnessing the democratization process in society. The next section of the meeting was opened by Jan Randák (Philosophical Faculty, Charles University Prague), who analyzed the revolutionary atmosphere in his contribution Religious symbolism and communication in Czech society during the revolution of 1848/1849. The revolution in Moravia was discussed by Pavel Cibulka (Historical Institute, Czech Academy of Sciences Brno), who examined its reflection in the magazine Politisches Wochenblatt and, in particular, the positions of its editors as shown in the political ideas of Petr Chlumecký and Otto von Hingenau. Constitutional questions were discussed by Catherine Horel of the Sorbonne in Paris in her paper Les projets de fédération en 1848/1849. The European dimension of the Hungarian revolution was stressed by Dušan Kováč (Historical Institute, Slovak Academy of Sciences Bratislava) in his paper The Slovak uprising of 1848/1849 in the Hungarian and European context. An exclusively historiographical paper was presented by Alain Soubigou of the Sorbonne in Paris; Les nouveaux courants de l'historiographie française sur 1848 are represented, in his opinion, by Maurice Agulhone, Gérard Noiriel and Bernard Michel and their works. Two different worlds, before and after the revolution, from the point of view of the liberal political culture were outlined by the Symposium coordinator Milan Hlavačka (Historical Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Philosophical Faculty of Charles University in Prague) in his paper The revolution of 1848/1849 and the beginnings of the liberal political culture in Bohemia and Moravia.
Closing the first day of the event Jan Němeček, head of the 20th Century History Department in the Historical Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, presented the latest result of systematic collective editing work - the publication Czechoslovak-French relations in diplomatic negotiations 1940-1945, adding the history of the edition, describing the technical difficulties accompanying its preparation, and outlining its potential benefits; both the presentation and the book proved to be of great interest, particularly to the French delegates, and a lively discussion followed.