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

roč. 19, 2011, č. 2



Co všechno se skrývá pod termínem sekularizace? Krátká bilance pro historiky
[What does “secularization” actually mean? A brief review for historians]
s. 1–14

Motivace k sociální adaptaci, akulturaci a obecně kulturnímu vzestupu v českých zemích
v 19. a 20. století – k vývoji kvality populace
[Motivations for Social Adaptation, Acculturation and Common Cultural Increase in the Czech Lands in the 19th and 20th Centuries – toward the Quality of Population]
s. 15–43

Bohuslav LITERA
Rudá armáda a problém loajality za občanské války v Rusku
[The Red Army and the loyalty problem during the civil war in Russia (1917–1920)]
s. 45–70

Martin VAŠŠ
Slovenská otázka v Československej republike (1918–1938)
[The Slovak question in the Czechoslovak Republic (1918–1938)]
s. 71–117

Československo-lotyšská společnost v letech 1925–1941
[Czechoslovak-Latvian Society in 1925–1941]
s. 119–147

Foreign Office, britské vyslanectví v Praze a sudetoněmecká otázka v roce 1936
[Foreign Office, British Legacy in Prague and Sudeten German Issue in 1936]
s. 149–182

Národnostní problematika v Československu očima americké diplomacie (1933–1938)
[The ethnic problems of Czechoslovakia through the eyes of American diplomacy
s. 183–218


Harm-Hinrich BRANDT
Verwaltung als Verfassung – Verwaltung und Verfassung? Zum historischen Ort des „Neoabsolutismus“ in der Geschichte Österreichs
[Government as constitution – government and constitution?]
s. 219–231

Die Habsburgermonarchie 1848–1918 IX: Soziale Strukturen, 1. Teilband: Von der feudal-agrarischen zur bürgerlich-industriellen Gesellschaft, hrg. von Helmut Rumpler und Peter Urbanitsch, Redaktion Ulrike Harmat (Wien: ÖAW 2010)
[The Habsburg Monarchy 1848–1918 IX: Social structures, Part I: From the feudal-agrarian to a civil-industrial society, by Helmut Rumpler and Peter Urbanitsch, edited by Ulrike Harmat (Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences 2010)]
s. 233–241


Vzpomínka na Václava Kurala (25. 6. 1928 – 25. 6. 2011)
[The Memory for Václav Kural]
(Jindřich Dejmek)
s. 243–247

Vzpomínka na Zdeňka Kárníka (25. 6. 1931 – 30. 9. 2011)
[The Memory for Zdeněk Kárník]
(Josef Harna)
s. 247–250


Střední východ, studená válka a osudy doktrín
Jan WANNER, Ve stínu studené války. Střední východ v letech Eisenhowerovy doktríny
1956–1960, Praha 2011, 568 s. ISBN 978-80-7422-094-4.
(Bohuslav Litera)
s. 251–255

Jan BÍLEK – Helena KOKEŠOVÁ – Vlasta QUAGLIATOVÁ (eds.), Korespondence T. G. Masaryk – Antonín Rezek, Praha, Masarykův ústav a Archiv AV ČR, v. v. i. 2011, 148 s. ISBN 978-80-86495-69-9.
(Petr Prokš)
s. 255–256

Původní slovenská publikace k poznání zahraniční politiky a mezinárodního postavení Československa v letech 1922–1926
Alena FERIANCOVÁ, (Ne)nájdená bezpečnosť. Československo, Nemecko a úpra¬¬vy medzinárodného systému v Európe 1922–1926, Nitra, Univerzita Konštan¬tí¬na Filozofa 2010, 287 s. ISBN 978-80-8094-689-0.
(Petr Prokš)
s. 256–260

Nová slovenská publikace o dějinách Židů na Slovensku
Ješajahu Andrej JELÍNEK, Dávidova hviezda pod Tatrami. Židia na Slovensku v 20. storočí, Praha, Vydavateľstvo Jána Mlynárika 2009, 491 s. ISBN 978-80-904134-3-6.
(Zlatica Zudová-Lešková)
s. 260–263


What does “secularization” actually mean? A brief review for historians

A number of secularization “paradigms” have been developed by sociologists and religionists. Each of them, however, covers only a part of this fully almost ungraspable social process because they derive from different points of viewing religion. From these heterogeneous secularization paradigms or concepts obviously follows that particularly in the 19th century, mostly between the 1848/49 Revolution and the First World War, this was not an easy, unambiguous or straight process. Secularization was rather a sort of struggle between the supporters of different opinions, such as the liberals and the ultramontane Catholics. Obviously, the “results” of secularization largely differed, as in Europe very different forms of State-to-Church relations were chosen. As a result, a wide range of intellectual macroanalytical (sociological) legacy of the secularization process is available. Therefore, the specific course of the process cannot be ignored, and neither can be the fact that religious experiencing, organizing and thinking have not disappeared yet – and probably will never disappear – from the modern and postmodern world, although due to the growing significance of rational roles in society and the economization of everyday life they have largely withdrawn from the public space, or from the regular – both real and symbolic – content of that space. The struggle for power between the State and the Church in Christian-Jewish communities ended a long time ago and no one will probably dare to question the victory of the State (States) over the Church in the public space. This has been primarily achieved owing to the antiauthoritarian feelings of the emancipated, better educated and more mobile society, and also owing to the Church (Catholic in this country) itself. However, the costs of that victory will remain an onerous question forever.
Key words: History, 19th and 20th century, Europe, Church, religion, paradigm, secularization

Motivations for Social Adaptation, Acculturation and Cultural Increase in the Czech Lands in the 19th and 20th Centuries – toward the Development of Quality of Population

The preponderance of material interests over the social and personal cultivation in the lower and the lower middleclass can be explained by constant material misery of these social groups during the both followed centuries. The standard of living of the whole society increased slowly, but just the lower and the lower middleclass were comprehended by the both world wars and by the „great crisis“ of the thirties: „common people“ prefered material welfare more than social consense and personal perfectness. Social barriers led to difficult receiping of new progressive patterns. The consequence of simple work was simple life of the lower and the lower middleclass and their effort for simple hedonisme. Common egoisme could grew as the consequence of new possibilities done by technical and economical progress.
Key words: History, 19th and 20th centuries, Czech Lands, quality of population, motivations for cultural increase

Bohuslav LITERA
The Red Army and the loyalty problem during the civil war in Russia (1917–1920)

A specific feature of the civil war in Russia in the years 1917–1920 consisted in the fact that the original loyalties had disappeared. The Tsar had officially abdicated and the Russian population, primarily soldiers, was relieved of the official commitments to him as Commander in Chief. The new Provisional Government was rapidly losing its initial legitimacy, which was not only due to the existence of two parallel governments where the power of Soviets was steadily increasing, but also owing to a number of its own actions that nobody could sanction. The main reason, however, was the step taken by the government that absolutely ignored the prevailing opinion of soldiers and common people. While the overwhelming majority of soldiers, due to the huge losses at war, insufficient supply and total indifference to their fate, were requiring peace, the Provisional Government ordered an offensive against the Central Powers’ armies in summer 1917. The rapid decline of the Provisional Government regime was proved by the total failure of the attack that was intended to support Russia’s Entente Allies, by the conflicts existing within the Government camp, and also by the fact that at the moment of the Bolshevist revolution the Provisional Government had only some small and unreliable military units for its defense. The paradigm of loyalty during the Russian civil war exhibited an infinite variety of aspects and motives, but it was quite often reduced under the circumstances down to the basic problem of self-preservation, particularly in the case of people who failed to have strong ideological and political motivation.  In extreme cases the decision was reduced to a mere choice between loyalty and physical destruction.  In the wide range of other alternatives the attitudes and loyalty of men were determined by the particular situation and motives, the most important of which was probably the wish to survive. Nevertheless, we should be aware of the fact that the Bolshevists made very cleverly use of the fact that they came to power without any relation to the governing classes of population (in fact their program was aimed against them) and as representatives of the poorest people. This made it possible for them to take measures intended to stimulate the loyalty of population. In the army, the “honey and whip“ method was applied in graded way in order to ensure or extort the loyalty of Red Army officers and soldiers.
Key words: History, 20th century, Russia, Civil War, Bolshevist regime, loyalty

Martin VAŠŠ
The Slovak question in the Czechoslovak Republic (1918–1938)

The Slovak question during the First Czechoslovak Republic appears to be a structured problem incorporating national, constitutional, economic, social, cultural and geopolitical segments. The national segment consisted mainly in the dilemma of either Czechoslovak national unity or Slovak specificity. The most important phenomenon that pushed the Slovak question in the 1930s to a higher quality level was the completion of the process of formation of the Slovak nation as a modern political entity. The main factors of this phenomenon consisted in positive consequences of the acceptance of democratic and civil principles by the Slovak community. Slovaks’ maturing into a modern political nation can be best seen in the fact that while the national awakening in the 1920s was limited to the nation’s political élite, in the 1930s the Slovak national and civil consciousness was spreading both horizontally and vertically. In the latter decade, the Slovak nation developed into a political entity, beyond the mere ethnic and linguistic features as it had been the case before. As to the geopolitical segment, Slovakia’s role as a geopolitical phenomenon was increasing, particularly in the 1930s when the Nazis came to power in Germany. Within the social segment of the Slovak question the social problems (namely unemployment and the presence of Czech workers) emerged as an important source of anti-Czech nationalism. As to the cultural segment, the Slovak intellectual élite (with some minor exceptions) definitely rejected the attempts of applying the theory of Czechoslovak national unity to Slovak science and culture.  The economic aspect meant that Slovakia wanted to equal Bohemia and Moravia in their economic level. An analysis of the Slovak political élite’s approaches to the Slovak question shows that in the 1930s actually all Slovak political bodies were dissatisfied with Slovakia’s position within the Czechoslovak Republic. As a result, primarily in the 1930s, the Slovak question became a much hotter problem compared to the previous period, mainly due to the fact that in that period of time the process of formation of the Slovak nation as a modern political entity objectively culminated and the dynamism of its formation increased.
Key words: History, Slovak question, First Czechoslovak Republic, 1920s, 1930s, Czechoslovak national unity, specificity of the Slovak nation,  national, constitutional, economic, social, cultural and geopolitical segments of the Slovak question, autonomy, regionalism, centralism, democracy, Slovak political, economic and cultural élite

Czechoslovak-Latvian Society in 1925–1941

The Czech interest in the Baltic countries, including Latvia, brought about the creation of the Czechoslovak-Latvian Society in 1925. The Society, in spite of being a sort of relic of the 19th century love for clubs and associations, was also a response to the new organization of Europe after World War I. The emergence of a number of independent countries in 1918, including Czechoslovakia and Latvia, made it possible to establish direct contacts between these two countries. Czechoslovak diplomacy was well aware of Latvia’s strategic position in the Baltic Region because of its most advanced industry in that area.  The possibility of close military contacts was also discussed. Czechoslovakia, in turn, appeared to be Latvia’s useful ally in the heart of Europe due to its highly advanced economy, respectable level of education and abundant cultural life. Such contacts were also favored in view of Czechoslovakia’s close alliance with the victorious Entente Powers, particularly with France, which is what Latvia also strived for. Therefore, the emergence of an association or club to develop non-political, purely cultural and social contacts between the two countries seems almost natural. The idea of Czechoslovak-Latvian Society was supported by a number of political and business groups, which helped its development. The Society was created on the initiative of Eduards Krasts, Latvia’s consul in Prague, and helped develop cultural and economic relations between the two countries, particularly during the first decade of its existence. Then, its activities declined as a result of the political development in Latvia and of the aggravating international position of Czechoslovakia. The occupation of Bohemia and Moravia, the outbreak of World War II and the occupation of Latvia by the Soviet Army put an end to the Society’s existence at the turn of the year 1940. In spite of its short life the Society could significantly contribute to the mutual understanding and relations between Czechoslovakia and Latvia.
Key words: History, 20th century, Czechoslovakia, Latvia, Baltic countries, international relations

Foreign Office, British Legacy in Prague and Sudeten German Issue in 1936

At the end of World War I and in the 1920’s, Great Britain and its Foreign Office had a rather optimistic view of relations between Czechs and Germans in Czechoslovakia. The situation only changed in the following decade. The British Foreign Office began increasingly lean toward the opinion that the successor states, including Czechoslovakia, did not contribute to the establishment of peace and stability in Central Europe. Reports from the British legation in Prague, mostly marked by their Germanophile orientation and negative perspective on the Czechoslovak government’s policy toward the German minority, played an important role in the Foreign Office’s perception of the Sudeten German issue. Adolf Hitler’s accession to power in 1933 did not change London’s efforts to achieve agreement with Berlin. However, according to the responsible British politicians, a more permanent reconciliation with Germany was only possible if some injustices done, in Britain’s view, after 1918 were remedied. With respect to Central Europe, this meant an increased interest by the Foreign Office in ethnic situation in the Czechoslovak Republic, particularly after the formation of the Sudeten German Party in April 1935. The perception of the Sudeten German issue by the British legacy in Prague was clearly unfavourable for the Czechoslovak Republic in 1936. In terms of a wider context of British foreign policy, agreement with Berlin became one of the basic foreign political axioms in 1936, especially after German occupation of the Rhineland in March. At the end of 1936, leading representatives of the British Foreign Office came to the conclusion that the key to solve the German-Czech argument was an agreement between Sudeten Germans and the Czechoslovak government. In their opinion, a path to such an agreement had to be grounded in a pressure on Prague to accommodate the German minority. The Foreign Office was afraid that Sudeten Germans would otherwise radicalize in their effort to join Germany, which would consequently threaten peaceful arrangement in Central Europe. British politicians thus convinced themselves that the situation could only be saved by a positive approach to the German minority.Martin
Key words: History, 20th century, Great Britain, Czechoslovakia, Sudeten Germans

The ethnic problems of Czechoslovakia through the eyes of American diplomacy

The American Embassy in Prague closely monitored the political develop-ment in Czechoslovakia as of the late 1920s and in its reports analyzed the main hot issues. Apart from the aggravated international political situation in the region, the economic depression and the growth of autonomist trends in Slovakia the American diplomats saw the ethnic problems as the most important ones, particularly the relations between Czechs and Germans and the Czechoslovak-Hungarian problem. The attitude of the German speaking population to the Czechoslovak Republic and to the luring by Nazi Germany was considered by the State Department as of 1934 as “a problem of utmost importance for the current and future development in the Central European region”. The Americans were particularly interested in the personal features and political views of the leader of the Sudeten German Party, Konrad Henlein, and they considered the rejection of Nazi and separatist requirements by the German minority as a necessary precondition of preserving the integrity of the Czechoslovak State; this, however, failed to happen.  Reports sent by U.S. charge d’affaires a. i. J. Webb Benton and later by Ambassador Wilbur Carr informed in detail about the events leading to the Czechoslovak crisis in 1938. As the information submitted by American diplomats was based on interviews with Czechoslovak politicians (particularly with Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk and Edvard Beneš) as well as with members of the German minority coming from “all its layers”, and also on their visits to the border areas, it provides an analytical view “from outside”. This source, however, has failed so far to be used for research into this problem.
Keywords: History, 20th century, Czechoslovakia, Czechoslovak-American relations, minorities, Sudeten Germans

Harm-Hinrich BRANDT
Government as constitution – government and constitution? On the historical role of “neoabsolutism” in the history of Austria

The period of “neoabsolutism” in Austria, i.e., the historical phase from 1852 till 1859/60, has been intensely studied in recent decades. The researchers agree (unlike the conclusions of the previous liberal historiography) that the period in question was not a mere return to the monarchist absolutism of pre-Revolution type, but that after the defeat of the Revolution and after the abandonment of the virtual constitution policy between 1849 and 1851, in the subsequent neoabso¬lutistic period of time the suspended projects of administrative, social and economic modernization continued, naturally with some modifications. Less explained is the question to what extent the monarchist-bureaucratic state administration system was ready as of 1852 to admit some elements of society’s participation in administrative decisions. In my opinion, the aim of “absolutism” was to (provisionally) close the officially “settled”, but in fact unsolved political conflicts, such as, in particular, the Hungarian and the Italian questions. In general, however, the “Spring of Nations” was “closed”. Actually, the requirements of agrarian and social revision by the aristocracy that had been deprived of its political rights played a role that was far from being insignificant.  On the other hand, however, an opposite opinion can be arrived at and the situation can be diagnosed so that raising the “lid” of the closure released the disintegration forces in their cumulative mixture of traditional particularism of the Crown Lands and modern nationalism. This would mean that the classic European paradigm of state genesis does not apply here and the Habsburg Monarchy should be viewed as a “phenomenon sui generis”.  In order to make more progress in this particular question it will be necessary to examine to what extent the social integration went beyond the limits of the traditional court-oriented élite (aristocracy, army, court, bureaucracy) and whether the local leading classes and “nationalities” in the Crown Lands showed readiness not only to accept the existence of the large state, but also to positively integrate in it. Therefore, the “neoabsolutism” viewed from the historical perspective is a multifaceted phenomenon and it is desirable to discuss the results of research achieved until now as well as the existing views once again in a sort of “Habsburg Discourse” and try to draw some conclusions.  The great importance of that phase for the further development of the Habsburg Monarchy will certainly justify such intellectual endeavor.
Keywords: History, 19th century, Habsburg Monarchy, neoabsolutism

The Habsburg Monarchy 1848–1918 IX: Social structures, Part I: From the feudal-agrarian to a civil-industrial society

The map volume „Die Habsburgermonarchie 1848–1918 IX: Soziale Strukturen, 2. Teilband: Die Gesellschaft der Habsburgermonarchie im Kartenbild. Verwaltungs-, Sozial- und Infrastrukturen. Nach dem Zensus von 1910, bearbeitet von Helmut Rumpler und Martin Seger“ (The Habsburg Monarchy 1848–1918 IX: Social structures, Part 2: The Habsburg Monarchy’s society reflected in maps. Administrative and social structures, infrastructures. Based on the 1910 census, edited by Helmut Rumpler and Martin Seger) published in spring 2010 provides a sort of snapshot of the social structures in the Habsburg Monarchy on the eve of the First World War. In the introductory part, general structural conditions of the Industrial Revolution are explained, such as the interrelation of technology and social transformation, the role of the education reform, and the rapid construction of an efficient communication system serving the exchange of ideas and goods, and thus the way to a knowledge-based society as a precondition of successful modernization. The central aspect of social transformation is the rapid development of population, which was very different within the Monarchy. A description of the social structures would be incomplete if we failed to take into consideration also the efforts either to integrate the emerging social tensions into system-related ideas, or to accept the social and political challenge and try to ease the social crisis of Modern Era by political negotiations. The spread of nationalism has already been mentioned here. The multiple forms of what is referred to as “Life Reform” on the one hand and the anti-Semitism on the other provide two totally different responses, quite incomparable in their effects, to the social transformation and to the follow-up problems. Chapter V of the study contains two papers dealing with the socially critical discourses on and the theoretical concepts of solution to the “social question” in Cisleithania and with their political implementation in Hungary, while in Chapter VI, which is the last one, the statistical foundations of social history of the Habsburg Monarchy are discussed.
Keywords: History, 19th and 20th centuries, Habsburg Monarchy, social history