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

ročník XCV
č. 1


Velmocenské záměry carského Ruska v předvečer „Velké války“ (leden – červen 1914) [Power Schemes of the Tsarist Russia on the Eve of the Great War (January – June 1914)]
s. 1–18

Before the outbreak of World War I, international tension escalated and distrust between European powers, which were divided into two antagonist formations, increased. Great Britain, France and Russia formed the Entente Powers, while Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy formed the Central Powers. The Ottoman Empire stayed somewhat isolated; both powers waged a secret persistent war over the empire, which Turkey skilfully turned into its advantage. The tsarist Russia observed Turkey’s advance with traditional distrust, because it did not give up its strategic scheme of extending its control over Germany in the Baltic nations, over Austria-Hungary on the west border, control of the Balkans and, subsequently, over Bosporus and Dardanelles, which would secure a free passage from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean Sea, the Middle East and Persia. A firm position in the west was to facilitate further expansion of Russia into Asia Minor as far as the British India and in Far East into China and Japan. The mutual distrust escalated in 1914 and some of the ruling circles in Vienna and St. Petersburg regarded war in Europe as the only way out of the growing crisis of international relationship and internal problems of both conservative royalistic powers. Their problems were caused by expansion of national, liberal democratic and revolutionary movements. Austria-Hungary and Russia both made efforts to prevent formation of a hostile bloc in the Balkans and a potential deceit by their current allies. By waging a war, they intended to put the other members of the Entente and Central Powers before an accomplished fact and subsequently prevent revolutionary changes in Europe.
Key Words: History of the 20th Century, Politics, International Relations

Pomacká menšina v Řecku
[The Pomak Minority of Greece]
s. 19–35

The article deals with the position of Pomaks – Slavic speaking Muslims – in Greece since 1919 when the region where Pomaks live was annected by Greece. Greece doesn’t officially recognize Pomaks as an ethnic minority and Pomaks’ cultural and religious rights are protected only by their membership in the Western Thrace Muslim Minority, consisting of Pomaks, Turks and Roma people. Despite that fact the Greek State attempted to create a specific Pomak policy in past, especially in years after the Cyprus Crisis of 1974. Appart from Pomaks-state relations, the position of Pomaks within the Muslim Minority is also analysed in the article, with special focus on the Greek Turks’ turkifying campaign that seems to have succeeded in case of vast majority of Greek Pomaks.
Key Words: Pomaks, Greece, Western Thrace, ethnic minorities, Muslim minorities

István JANEK
Maďarský pohled na angažování se kardinála Józsefa Mindszentyho v řešení otázky československých Maďarů v letech 1945–1947
[The Hungarians’ View of Cardinal József Mindszenty’s Involvement in Solving the Czechoslovak Hungarians’ Issue between 1945 and 1947]
s. 37–57

In 1945, the Czechoslovak leaders decided to expatriate Hungarian and German minorities from Czechoslovakia. Cardinal Mindszenty invested all his ethical authority into protests against violations of human rights in both Czechoslovakia and Hungary. In his protests, he attempted to influence representatives of Hungarian and foreign governments and secure their support for the Hungarian issue. Mindszenty argued before various competent forums that the principle of collective guilt was unjust and caused harm to innocent people. He demanded decency and impartial justice for the Czechoslovak Hungarians. Mindszenty pointed out that the church always raised its voice when God's laws, both written and verbal, were broken. He defended the Christians regardless of their origin, nationality, religion or social status. He was most concerned with the fate of Czechoslovak Hungarians. However, he only reached limited results in a few sporadic cases and the expatriation, replacement of citizens and re- Slavonicisation were not terminated in spite of his various proposals.
Key Words: Hungarian Minority in Czechoslovakia, Expatriation, Violation of Human Rights, Protests, Cardinal Mindszenty


Svobodná vůle národa? Komunisté a odtržení Podkarpatské Rusi 1944–1945
[Free Will of the Nation? The Communists and Separation of Carpathian Ruthenia between 1944 and 1945]
s. 59–71

The study examines the communists’ share in separation of Carpathian Ruthenia from the Czechoslovak Republic between 1944 and 1945. It publishes a report of the Communist MP Josef Krosnář to the Department of International Information VKS(b). Krosnář was dispatched from Moscow to Carpathian Ruthenia in 1944 to work there for the party.  His reports suggest that the communists, led by Ivan Turjanica, did not initiate Carpathian Ruthenia’s separation movement, but favoured a policy of its autonomy within Czechoslovakia until late October 1944. They only adapted themselves to the situation after the movement increased and assumed leading roles, which brought all the political authority in the liberated territory of Carpathian Ruthenia to their hands. They took power in the newly created national committees and the supreme organ, the National Committee of Carpathian Ruthenia.
Key Words: Carpathian Ruthenia, Communist Movement


Slavomír HORÁK
Rusko a Střední Asie po rozpadu SSSR
(Bohuslav Litera)
s. 73–74

Augsburski Kościół Ewangelicki w czechosłowackiej części Ślaska Cieszyńskiego w latach 1945–1950
(Jiří Friedl)
s. 74–75

Lásky slávnych spisovateľov
(Любов славетних письменникiв у листах i в життi. Автор-упорядник Вiтольд Кирилюк)
(Mikuláš Nevrlý)
s. 75–77

Ritmovi nemira
(Jan Pelikán)
s. 77–80

Slovo o ruskej a ukrajinskej emigrácii v Prešove
(Michal Roman)
s. 80–81

František ŠÍSTEK
Černá Hora
(Petr Prokš)
s. 81–82

Religious Dissent between the Modern and the National – Nazarenes in Hungary and Serbia 1850–1914
(Samuel Beneš)
s. 83–85

Protestantske zajednice u Jugoslaviji. Drušstveni i politički aspekti delovanja
(Samuel Beneš)
s. 86–88

Jan ČERNÝ (ed.)
Novostrašecká kronika Václava Preinheltra z let 1801–1834 a další písmácké texty z přelomu 18. a 19. století
(David Hubený)
s. 88–91

Mechlis. Fanatický přisluhovač Stalinovy krutovlády v sovětském Rusku
(David Hubený)
s. 91–93


Ladislav HLADKÝ – Radomír VLČEK
Životní jubileum Zdeňka Šimečka
[The Life Jubilee of Zdeněk Šimečka]
s. 127–128

Jaroslav PÁNEK
Historik polského parlamentarismu Jan Seredyka (1928–2008)
[Jan Seredyka (1928–2008) – The Historian of Polish Parlamentarism]
s. 129–131

Československo a krize demokracie ve střední Evropě ve 30. a 40. letech XX. století. Hledání východisek
[Czechoslovakia and the Crisis of Democracy in Central Europe in the 30´s and the 40´s of the 20th Century. Looking for Ways Out]
s. 131–141

Nansenovskije čtenija 2008 – inspirativní pohledy na ruskou emigraci
[Nansenovskiye chteniya (Nansen´s Reading) 2008 – Inspirational Views on the Russian Emigration]
s. 141–142


Strasti a slasti Konstantina Jirečka na počátku jeho pobytu v Bulharsku (130 let od Jirečkova příchodu do Bulharska)
[Delights and Sufferings of Konstantin Jireček at the Beginning of his Stay in Bulgaria (130 Years since Jireček’s Arrival in Bulgaria)]
s. 143–151

From the correspondence and diary entries of K. Jireček it is clear that the beginning of his stay in post-war Bulgaria, where he participated in restoration of Bulgarian educational system and scholarship between 1879 and 1884, were gruesome. He had to overcome not only harsh physical conditions, but also his inner disapproval with some political and religious circumstances and waged a war against bureaucracy. Although he had many friends in Bulgaria, enjoyed a good relationship with the country and had merit in post-war Bulgarian education, he viewed many issues with his inborn scepticism and pessimism.
Key Words: K. Jireček, Bulgaria, Czech-Bulgarian relations