OBSAH • CONTENT
STUDIE • STUDIES
Family businesses and their roots in Central European society in the 19th century
[Family businesses and their roots in Central European society in the 19th century]
Nacionální diskurz v předbřeznových Čechách (1830‒1848)
[National discourse in pre-revolutionary Bohemia (1830‒1848)]
Francouzská okupace Ancony v roce 1832 a její ohlas v Evropě
[France’s occupation of Ancona in 1832 and its reception in Europe]
Moravský zemský zákoník (1848‒1948)
[Moravian Provincial Code (1848‒1948)]
Bloudící kněz, nebo církevní reformátor? K životnímu dílu Bohumila Zahradníka Brodského (1862−1939)
[Wandering priest, or Church reformer? The life’s work of Bohumil Zahradník Brodský (1862−1939)]
Benešův prezidentský protikandidát. Politický profil profesora Bohumila Němce (1873‒1966)
[Beneš’s presidential rival. A political profile of Professor Bohumil Němec (1873‒1966)]
Osobnost Osvalda Závodského (1910–1954) s důrazem na jeho účast v občanské válce ve Španělsku
[Osvald Závodský (1910–1954), his personality and his engagement in the Spanish Civil War]
V zemi klokanů proti srpu a kladivu. Protikomunistický exil v Austrálii v první fázi studené války
[In the Land of Kangaroos against the hammer and sickle. Anti-communist exile in Australia during the first phase of the Cold War]
Československo a revoluce v Portugalsku. (Československo-portugalské vztahy v letech 1974‒1976)
[Czechoslovakia and the revolution in Portugal. (Czechoslovak-Portuguese relations between 1974 and 1976)]
MATERIÁLY • MATERIALS
Zpráva Jiřího S. Hájka o jeho diplomatické aktivitě po 21. srpnu 1968
[Jiří S Hájek’s report on his diplomatic activity after 21 August 1968]
KRONIKA • CHRONICLE
Volby 1946 a Československo (souvislosti, prognózy, fakta, následky)
Vědecká konference, Brno 31. května – 1. června 2016
[The 1946 Election and Czechoslovakia (context, prognosis, facts, consequences) Science conference, Brno 31 May ‒ 1 June 2016]
Čtvrtá mezinárodní doktorandská konference v Brně
[Fourth International Doctoral Conference in Brno]
RECENZE • REVIEWS
Marek ŠMÍD, Vatikán a první světová válka – Proměny zahraniční politiky
Svatého stolce v letech 1914‒1918, Brno, CDK 2016, 127 s. ISBN 978-80-7325-
Michal STEHLÍK, Slovensko: Země probuzená, 1918‒1938, Praha, Academia
2015. ISBN 978-80-200-2405-3, 193 s.
Jánosról Esterházy. A közép-európai dialógus jegyében. O Jánosovi Ester-házym.
V duchu stredoeurópského dialogu. Zoltán Zilizi (zost.), Nitra 2016, 262 s.
Critical edition of Hitler’s Mein Kampf
Christian HARTMANN ‒ Thomas VORDERMAYER ‒ Othmar PLÖCKIN-GER ‒ Roman TÖPPEL (eds.), Hitler, Mein Kampf. Eine kritische Edition, Institut für Zeitgeschichte München-Berlin, I-II, München 2016, 1968 s.
Alberto TRONCHIN, Spravedlivý riskuje. Karel Weirich, český novinář
a zachránce Židů v Itálii, Kostelní Vydří, Karmelitánské nakladatelství 2015,
přeložila Helena Tůmová, edice Osudy – svazek 59, 144 s.
Robert KVAČEK – Josef TOMEŠ a kol. (eds.), Jiří Havelka: Dvojí život:
vzpomínky protektorátního ministra, Masarykův ústav a Archiv AV ČR –
Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, Praha 2015, 295 s.
Deník Rivky Lipszycové: nalezený v roce 1945 Rudou armádou v Osvětimi, poprvé vydaný v roce 2014 v San Francisku (editovala a úvod napsala Alexandra Zapruderová), Praha, Práh 2016, 178 s.
Family businesses and their roots in Central European society in the 19th Century
The history of family businesses is currently a particularly progressive discipline of economic and social history. It has been factually and methodologically developed in particular in countries with a significant tradition of family businesses (Germany, the USA and also Italy, Spain and Norway). Researching family businesses is becoming more attractive in Western historiography, because it closely links up economic and social processes, but also the history of mindset, such as in the introduction of new technologies or gender standards of the age. This study is the first attempt in Czech historiography at outlining certain methodical and methodological bases for research into the history of family businesses. It focuses on illuminating certain methodological options for defining family companies and their typology according to internal distribution of power and mutual (not just family) relations within the businesses. It expands this typology with a proposal for an external materially chronological framework for enterprise within Central Europe over the last hundred and fifty years. The linked appendix endeavours to apply this typology to four family businesses which operated within the Czech lands and Czechoslovakia. Specifically, it looks at four major ‘family’ businesses in the Czech lands whose operations encompassed the whole of the Habsburg Empire territory: ‘Lederer’ – producers of branded molasses-based alcohol; ‘Lanna’ – road, railway and water transport planning and construction; ‘Klein’ – road and railway planning and construction; and ‘Ringhoffer’ – railway vehicles (carriages for personal and freight transport). Their business activities were important not just for the development of the economy, finance and modern infrastructure, but also impacted on social, cultural and political life through various foundations and grants. There were a large number of ‘family’ businesses like these in the Czech lands, and now their successors are endeavouring to build on this original tradition.
Keywords: History, 19th and 20th centuries, Habsburg Empire, Czech lands, Czechoslovakia, enterprise, family businesses
National discourse in pre-revolutionary Bohemia (1830‒1848)
During the period of nationalisation and politicisation of public life in Austria, wellbeing began to be generally perceived as corresponding to national wellbeing above all. The materialist direction of the modern age, along with the nationalist liberal ideas of the first half of the 19th century created the ideal of a state and social order based on a national principle. In the Czech-German discussions underway, the language issue played a central role. As such, the demand for language equality between Czech and German elements of society became the focus of all efforts and concepts formed which aimed to formulate a more specific national programme. In this case, the issue of language brought with it the wider issue not just of cultural and scientific development, but over time also matters of expanding the economic and political influence of different national movements, occupying top positions in society, the growth in prestige of their representatives, and also issues of the power roles of particular groups towards other societies on the chessboard of wider political events. The original relatively inclusive perception of society in Bohemia (in German in Böhmen, i.e. böhmisch) in the period of nationalisation gradually split into a society of Czech (in German tschechisch) and German ethnicity. Looking at the issue of Czech-German relations in pre-revolutionary Bohemia from the perspective of unequal social development of society, social emancipation and education within civil society, as well as the role of individuals in the modernising society, can bring a new understanding of the conflict-ridden outcome of Czech-German relations in the revolution of 1848 and subsequent decades. This looks at Czech society from the perspective of the general transformation of the social order, securing equal and free development of individuals striving to improve their current living conditions and gain lasting positions within the society they were a part of. From this perspective, a key role is played not by Czechs or Germany, but rather man as citizen. In this sense, we can ask how much nationalism and national rhetoric overlaps, or entirely conceals, the problematic issues of general development and the stagnation of society, and what role the national issue plays within a society made up of different minorities or nationalities.
Keywords: History, 19th century, Austria, 1848 Revolution, absolutism, liberalism, nationalism
France’s occupation of Ancona in 1832 and its reception in Europe
In February 1832, French units captured the Papal city of Ancona. This event was of extraordinary importance for the history of international relations in the pre-1848 period, because the incident represented a flagrant breach of international law: the occupation occurred against the Pope’s will and furthermore at a period of peace between France and the Papal States. The true reason behind the French expedition, which the government in Paris did not attempt to conceal, was France’s unwillingness to allow Austria to intervene alone in the Papal States at this time, even if it had been invited. The arrival of French soldiers in Ancona aroused much concern throughout Europe. Russia, Prussia and Austria officially condemned the act as an attack on the sovereignty of the Papal States, and most smaller countries concurred with this assessment. The whole incident was also subjected to sharp criticism in Great Britain, although the Liberal government in London refused to condemn the occupation as it wanted to keep friendly relations with France. This benevolent stance in the end allowed the Paris cabinet to legalise the occupation through a treaty with the Pope of 16 April 1832, on which basis French troops remained within the city until December 1838. The occupation of Ancona had not just short-term, but also long-term, consequences. The fact that one of the Great Powers had abused its power to act against a small state, and furthermore the other powers had not effectively intervened against this illegal act, or had even formally consented to it, led representatives of ‘second tier’ states and a large section of European society to the conviction that it was no longer possible to rely on European powers acting fairly, and that the European system of states in the form created at the Congress of Vienna did not provide sufficient protection against the egotistical and aggressive behaviour of these powers. This widespread opinion meant there was great concern that the ‘Anconade’ of 1832 would reoccur, and there was also geopolitical discussion on Europe’s future form, and the relations between individual states. This debate was particularly strong amongst Italian and German nationalists.
Keywords: History, 19th century, France, Austria, Papal States, Ancona, Anconade, Périer, Metternich, European system of states, international law, 1832, pre-1848 period
Moravian Provincial Code (1848‒1948)
The primary objective of this paper was to substantiate the issuance of the official Moravian provincial collection of laws (statute book) which was formed subsequent to 1848 from a mainly law history and comparative perspective, over the whole of its duration until 1948. The official Moravian collection of laws was an integral part of the law of the Austrian monarchy and the Czechoslovak state from 1850 until 1948, i.e. almost one whole century. Regulations were proclaimed in it which came into force and effect from its issuance. It was a part of Austrian, and subsequently Czechoslovak, law. It was based on the same constitutional, legal and official authority as other provincial collections of laws within the monarchy, and introduced the principle of formal publicity at the level of the Margraviate of Moravia subsequent to 1848. Finally, it is important to stress, from the perspective of the basic principle of an obligation to have knowledge of the legal system, that even today regulations enacted in this provincial collection of laws may be a part of current Czech Republic law.
Keywords: History, 19th and 20th centuries, Moravia, publication of law, provincial codes, collection of law, legal acts, application of law
Wandering priest, or Church reformer? The life’s work of Bohumil Zahradník Brodský (1862−1939)
Although the figure of priest and writer, Bohumil Zadradník-Brodský is not unknown within Czech historiography, there has as yet been a lack of a deeper investigation of his character and an assessment of his life efforts. He came from the large family of a gardener, and his younger brother Isidor is also well-known, a Premonstratensian common priest, deputy of the Imperial Council in Vienna and later also a minister in the first government of the Czechoslovak Republic in 1918. Following his secondary studies in Německý Brod (Deutschbrod, today’s Havlíčkův Brod) (1874‒1882), he studied at the priests’ theological school in Hradec Králové, and was ordained a priest in the Roman Catholic Church in 1886. Following episodes as a chaplain in Zruč nad Sázavou and Ledeč nad Sázavou, he became parish priest in 1889 in Ouběnice where he spent the following thirty years of his life. Besides his pastoral work remote from the centre of events, he took to writing and public information and political work in the Agrarian Party. He was also a very hard-working and popular author of stories and novels in which he tried to capture the changes in society at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Although he was not popular amongst literary critics, his readers loved his stories and novels as light reading. Zahradník’s public work in Ouběnice included a wide range of activities. He intervened in local politics, worked in organisations and gave people a model of exemplary work in agricultural fields such as grower, fruit farmer, beekeeper, and a promoter of modern technology and agricultural equipment. He helped to improve rural life in a number of fields. He was an opponent of ultramontanism and Austro-Catholicism in Church life in the Habsburg Monarchy. His confident manner, violation of celibacy and endeavours to satisfy his personal ambition in Church circles labelled him as a controversial priest. Subsequent to the social and legal changes brought about by the end of the First World War and the establishment of an independent Czechoslovakia, he became involved in the Catholic clergy reform movement. In November 1918, he organised a poll amongst the clergy aiming to ascertain its opinion on the extent of Church reforms. In 1920, he co-founded the national Czechoslovak Church and promoted its doctrinal links to the Orthodox Church.
Keywords: History, 19th and 20th centuries, Austria-Hungary, Czechoslovakia, ultramontanism, Austro-Catholicism, church reform, Catholic Church, Czechoslovak Church, Orthodox, Bohumil Zahradník-Brodský
Beneš’s presidential rival. A political profile of Professor Bohumil Němec (1873‒1966)
Professor Bohumil Němec (1873–1966) was one of the greatest and most all-round Czech scientists of the 20th century, and he received significant international recognition. The extent of his work included political activities. As a member of a generation which had completed secondary education and begun higher education studies at the beginning of the 1890s, he was soon caught up in the ideological and political turbulence in Czech society at the time. He became a proponent and active participant in the progressive movement which demanded a rigorous opposition to the Austrian government and the Habsburg dynasty, the restoration of the Czech state within the monarchy, wide political democratisation, social reforms and getting the labour force involved in the national struggle. These beliefs led him in 1907 to join the liberal Young Czech Party. Following the establishment of the Czechoslovak Republic, in which he was actively involved both politically and organisationally, he was a member of the Czechoslovak National Democracy Party, which he represented between 1918 and 1920 in the Revolutionary National Assembly, and between 1920 and 1929 as a senator in the National Assembly. Amongst Czechoslovak politicians of the 1920s, he was great advocate and friend of Dr Karel Kramář, while he took a critical stance towards ‘the Castle’ – T G Masaryk and Edvard Beneš. At the turn of the 1920s and 1930s, he declared himself a member of Czechoslovak National Democracy’s integral nationalist wing and over time moved closer to the right wing of the Agrarian Party. Němec’s political career peaked in December 1935 when he was proposed as a candidate for the office of President of the Republic by the Agrarian right-wing against Edvard Beneš. He accepted this candidature on condition he acquired the necessary support of all Czech and Slovak non-socialist parties. Over the few days of his presidential candidature, he behaved with all seriousness and resisted the campaign of his opponents honestly and courageously. His character, the international repute of his scientific work, his extensive educational and publishing activities and finally the above described political engagement meant that he was an honourable candidate for the office of President, although he lacked Masaryk and Beneš’s experience in foreign policy and experience of statesmanship. He did not seek out self-fulfilment, fame or advantage in his political engagement. He instead perceived this above all as a service to his nation, which was of key importance for his generation. In contrast to his scientific work, it brought him a lot of stress, inconvenience and undeserved attacks, but here he nevertheless demonstrated integrity of opinion and strong character. As a result, he is one of the major figures of Czech and Czechoslovak political history.
Keywords: History, 19th and 20th centuries, Austria-Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bohumil Němec, politician, Czechoslovak national democracy, Castle
Osvald Závodský (1910–1954), his personality and his engagement in the Spanish Civil War
Osvald Závodský was born in the industrial Ostrava Region on the 27th of October in 1910. He was influenced by the Communist movement since his youth, and he started to be actively involved in the Komsomol youth movement soon after he had finished the military service. Following the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War, he decided to leave Czechoslovakia and volunteer at the side of the Republican Army against the Nationalists. He arrived to Spain at the turn of 1937, and as a member of the international brigade of T. G. Masaryk, and later also the newly organized 129th Interbrigade, he took part in fights in Aragon, Estremadura and Levanta. After the defeat of the Republic, he left to France together with other members of international brigades and he was interned in the camps in Argelés sur Mer and in Gurs. He enlisted the First Infantry Division of the Czechoslovak Army in France. After the capitulation of France, he stayed in the Free Zone and joined the illegal resistance movement within the FTP – MOI. He was disclosed and apprehended by the Gestapo in December 1942; afterwards he was imprisoned in the concentration camp in Mauthausen. Following its liberation in May 1945, he became involved in activities of the Czechoslovak National Committee in France. He returned to his homeland in August of the same year. He worked within the inner security structures of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, namely in the Department of Registration which, in fact, represented an internal intelligence agency of the Party. At the Ministry of the Interior he worked in the State Security; as its director since 1950. On the ground of his function, it is beyond doubt that he was then involved in the lawfulness violation. However, he lost his position at the beginning of 1951; he was arrested, put to prison, and convicted as a leader of a secret service conspiracy within one of the show trials. He was condemned to death in the end of 1953, and executed on the 19th of March in the following year. His remains were buried in a mass grave in the Praha – Ďáblice Cemetery. He was rehabilitated in the 1960s; the presidium of the Supreme Court acquitted him of the accusation and his sentence was fully annulled on 29 May 1963.
Keywords: History, 20th century, Czechoslovakia, Spanish civil war 1936–1939, international brigades, State security
In the Land of Kangaroos against the hammer and sickle. Anti-communist exile in Australia during the first phase of the Cold War
Czechoslovak exile in Australia subsequent to February 1948 cannot be investigated without putting it within a wider framework and providing an overview of other national groups from Central, Eastern and South-Eastern Europe from behind the Iron Curtain, who also settled in the continent. Over 180 000 people from various countries of origin took it upon themselves to find their fortune on the other side of the world. In the second half of the 1940s, the vast majority of these were political refugees, exiles who refused to live under communist domination or who faced persecution. In many cases, however, they also included people with a problematic past, if not direct war criminals. The wars in Korea and French Indochina, Sukarno’s regime in Indonesia and Mao China’s ambitions for power did not bring favourable prospects at the beginning of the 1950s. Not even the distance and a certain isolation in Australia’s international affairs would necessarily offer reliable protection. On the contrary; the Soviet Union saw it as a possible springboard for the further global spread of communism. Exiles were very sensitive to this threat, and there was no way they were going to allow Marxist ideology to penetrate further into Australian society. They founded societies and international organisations with clear anti-communist focus, published printed matter, and held demonstrations and commemorations. Czechoslovak post-coup exiles in Australia also founded their own anti-communist organisations, but also became members of an international exile grouping, in which they met up with Poles, Hungarians, members of Baltic countries and other European nations sharing a similar fate. This grouping was also used by certain Australian politicians fighting the expanding influence of the Soviet Union and communism within Australia. During the 1950s in particular, groups of international exiles such as the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc of Nations, the Assembly of Captive European Nations and the United Council of Migrants from Communist Dominated Europe in Australia attracted the attention of the Australian public both through their relentless struggle against communist ideology, but also due to the problematic past of some of their representatives. Compared to the campaign against communism in which exiles from behind the Iron Curtain were involved in Western Europe, and the United States of America in particular, the course of events in Australia during the same first decade of the Cold War remains as yet a less familiar chapter of history.
Keywords: History, 20th century, Australia, ABN, ACEN, anti-communism, ASIO, Second World War, emigration, exile, Communist Party of Australia, Labour Party, Liberal Party, Nazism, espionage
Czechoslovakia and the revolution in Portugal. (Czechoslovak-Portuguese relations between 1974 and 1976)
The Portuguese military coup on the 25th of April 1974 finished the longest authoritarian regime in Western Europe. The social and political development including socialist experiments and struggles about the future shape of Portugal attracted the world’s attention to the country in the years 1974‒1976. At the time of the cold war both superpowers tried to promote their interests in Portugal. Czechoslovakia as a communist state and a loyal partner of the Soviet Union despite its own priorities in other parts of the world did not hesitate to support the Portuguese development towards socialism and to strengthen the position of the Portuguese Communist Party. In the short period after the military coup Czechoslovakia re-established diplomatic relations and tried to deepen economic and other contacts with this state. Its main objective was to strengthen ties between Portugal and the Eastern Bloc and to support the position of the Portuguese Communist Party as a leading force in the state. The Communist Parties’ cooperation, a specific part of the Czechoslovak foreign policy during the communist regime, played an important role in the whole process of the re-establishment of the political and economic contacts with Portugal.
Keywords: History, the 20th century, Portugal, Revolution, Czechoslovak foreign policy, 1974
Jiří S Hájek’s report on his diplomatic activity after 21 August 1968
This materials provides a commented printing of a previously unpublished secret report by ČSSR Minister for Foreign Affairs during the Prague Spring period of 1968, Jiří S Hájek, who prepared it for the needs of the ministry heads (and also party circles) following his return to Prague from his dramatic trip to New York and Geneva after the occupation of Czechoslovakia by the armies of the Warsaw Pact. When the invasion occurred on 21 August, Hájek was in Yugoslavia on a holiday, as were three other members of O Černík’s government. Following the occupation, and also thanks to the anti-occupation stance of the Central Committee and most of the Prague government, he travelled via Vienna to New York where the UN Security Council had been convened. Here, as early as 21 August, the ČSSR’s provisional delegate to the UN, J Mužík, had spoken out against the armies’ invasion. Upon his arrival in New York on 24 August, Minister Hájek supported this stance, thus significantly helping to dismantle the Soviet lies that it was the Czechoslovak government which had invited the armies of the Warsaw Pact to its country. At the same time, however, in order not to exacerbate the already present tension between the East and West, he stressed that the ČSSR would remain an ally of the USSR and would act on the basis of its commitments as a Soviet ally. In subsequent days, Hájek no longer pursued further discussions of the Czechoslovak cause in the Council; on the contrary, in the spirit of the instructions of President L Svoboda (who was at the time holding negotiations with Brezhnev on dealing with the crisis further) he left New York and travelled to Geneva for UN negotiations on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. From there, he returned to Prague at the beginning of September, where he was, however, immediately forced to resign from his ministerial role. He was able to work in the Academy of Sciences for a certain period, where amongst other matters he worked on the issue of UN development; in 1976 he was sacked, immediately following which he became involved in opposition activities against the so-called normalisation regime, and at the beginning of 1977 he become one of the first three spokespeople of Charter 77.
Keywords: History, 20th century, Czechoslovak diplomacy, 1968 Prague Spring, Soviet occupation, Jiří S. Hájek, UN