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

SLOVANSKÝ PŘEHLED
2010
ročník 96
č. 1–2

ČLÁNKY

Josef ŠAUR
Ke kořenům ruského liberalismu
[To the Roots of Russian Liberalism]
s. 3–36

The article focuses on explanation of political thinking in the 18th century Russia, which preceded the 19th and 20th century Russian liberalism. Russian liberalism has stood on the edge of researchers' interest in Russian political thinking up to now. The article thus attempts to fill in this white spot. It is divided into two sections. The first sections focuses on certain difficulties connected with clarification of the term Russian liberalism (or more precisely liberalism in Russia) and the problematic spots in its existing research, i.e. the heterogeneous periodicity of Russian liberalism, the problematic specification of the term "liberal" in the Russian milieu and the fluctuation of liberalism in Russia from positive to pejorative nuances. The second section follows viewpoints of political thinkers and the development of public political life in the 18th century Russia, which was followed by Russian liberalism in the 19th and 20th century. We pay attention to political ideas and standpoints of I. T. Pososhkov, D. M. Golicyn and V. N. Tatishchev and their attempts to weaken the tsarist power in 1730. We analyse the rise and advance of public movement and West European political thinkers' influence on the Russian political activity in the second half of the 18th century. The study traces the share of Czarina Catherine II on forming the social movement. Next, we analyse constitutionals projects of N. I. Panin, P. I. Panin and D. I. Fonvizin and ideas of S. J. Desnickij, A. N. Radishchev and other thinkers and Russian state officials.
Key words: Russia, 18th century, liberalism, constitutionalism, the Enlightenment

Karel SVOBODA
Zahraniční politika Mikuláše I. v kontextu hospodářské situace impéria
[Foreign Policy of Nicolas I in Relation to the Empire's Economical Situation]
s. 27–40

The Russian economy was in a very difficult situation in the 1830's. Very limited resources that were undermined by the ineffective agriculture were decimated by a series of unfavourable events on the international and domestic level. Russia had to challenge not only war expenses in Prussia and Turkey, preparation for a potential counter-revolution war in France and Belgium and a military in¬tervention in Poland, but also revolts, cholera, bad crops and a constant support of agriculture.
Nicolas I and his ministers had to tackle numerous, often contradictive problems regarding in¬dustrial growth. On the one hand, Russia needed significant modernisation of its industrial platform; on the other hand, Nicolas and his financial minister Kankrin were deeply concerned with consequences rising from too rapid industrialisation. While the czar was more concerned with social impacts connected with the growth of proletariat, the financial minister feared over-production which would unfavourably affect economical stability. Despite this, there was a moderate advance of industry thanks to advancement of technical education, industrial exhibitions, etc. 
The public treasury went through a difficult time too, together with the industry. The financial minister had to act with great caution because financing active public policy required continuously growing amounts of money. Thanks to his skilful policy based on utilizing domestic and foreign borrowings and careful monitoring of pubic expenditures, Russia realised five foreign loans amounting to 165 million roubles in 1828–1832. In this moment, Kankrin came into conflict with the czar himself; he managed to discourage him from certain foreign political schemes, mainly those that did not directly involve paramount Russian interests. In the most sensitive issues, however, the power aspect prevailed over the financial aspects.
Key words: Russia, Nicholas I, Poland, economics, military expenses

Eva IRMANOVÁ
Maďarsko a trianonská mírová smlouva (Devadesát let od jejího podepsání)
[Hungary and the Trianon Peace Treaty (Ninety Years since its Signature)]
s. 41–64

A peace conference, which started its discussions on 18th January 1919, was to end the Great War and prevent repetition of this conflagration in the future. Hungary, as a defeated nation, was not invited to the conference. What is more, its prospects were affected by absence of an organ which would deal solely with Hungarian borders and other issues directly involving Hungary. At the same time, the long cease-fire period produced a fact that the situation which was based on forceful military solutions continued with its own power. Czechoslovakia, Rumania and Yugoslavia submitted their demands to Hungary at the peace conference. The issue regarding state borders first appeared at the conference on 31st January and concerned a Rumanian-Yugoslavian debate on Banat. Czechoslovak requirements were put forth by the foreign minister Edvard Beneš. The suggested border line openly recognised the presence of several Hungarian enclaves. The most important factors favouring the suggested borders were of economical, political and strategic nature. When territorial demands against Hungary were submitted to the Supreme Council, they were discussed in individual commissions that dealt with particular modifications of Wilson's principles. The Supreme Council definitively determined the borders between Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Rumania on 13th June 1919. The Hungarian delegation arrived in Paris in January 1920 to hear the conditions of the peace treaty. A speech involving Hungarian demands was delivered by Albert Apponyi. He demanded complete preservation of Hungarian integrity, which prematurely disabled the Hungarian negotiating positions.  This tactic epitomised the future policies of integral revision which became a priority of all Hungarian governments in the interwar period.
Key words: Hungary, peace treaty, Paris Conference 1919

Bohuslav LITERA
Konfliktní spojenectví. Vztahy Ruska, Evropské unie a tranzitních zemí v energetice
[A Conflicting Alliance.  Relations between Russia, the European Union and the Transit Countries in the Power Industry]
s. 67–85

The study traces several main courses in analyses of relations between Russia and the EU in the energy sphere. It emphasizes the high level of their mutual interconnection and dependency because approximately 20 per cent of the European Union's consumption is covered by Russian imports. About 30 per cent of oil import comes from Russia and Russian oil represents about 15 per cent of total EU consumption. From the Russian perspective it is important that an overwhelming majority of gas (over 90 per cent) goes to the EU and the same is true about oil. With regard to the high role of power industry and its export in the Russian economy, it can be said that Russia is financially dependent on export of gas and oil to the EU.
We have also analysed the main problems of Russian – EU relations including Russia’s attitude towards the Energy Charter and the other measures introduced by the EU. As a contrast, we outline Russian counter proposals protecting the exporters' (i.e. Russia's) interests against interventions from the third countries through which the pipelines lead. This is why the author has paid particular attention to this hitherto unexplored matter. It concerns Russian relations with the transit countries, particularly Belorussia and the Ukraine and several oil and gas crises which caused failures of energy supplies in Europe. He has analysed in detail the last crisis from early 2009 which was very specific due to the intra-Ukrainian rivalry between V. Yushchenko and the Prime Minister J. Tymoshenko.
The crisis lasted for a mere few days, but its course and consequences greatly accentuated the issue of energy safety. Both the EU and Russia intend to tackle this problem by diversification of imports (EU), diversification of new pipeline routes and a certain transformation of excessive orientation from Europe to the Pacific zone (in case of Russia).
Key words: European Union, Russia, energy


MATERIÁLY A DOKUMENTY

Ladislav HLADKÝ – David BLAŽEK
Přehled historického vývoje česko-slovinských vztahů
[Historical Outline of Czech-Slovene Relations]
s. 87–107

The Slovenes coexisted with the Czechs in the Habsburg Monarchy for several centuries. Particularly during the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century, the more developed Czechs significantly helped, and even served as examples to, the Slovenes economically and culturally. For example, the help that Josef Dobrovský, founder of Czech Slavic studies, provided to Slovene scholars at the beginning of the 19th century is praised in Slovenia up to the present day. Other Czechs went down in Slo¬vene history: Josef Ressel, world-renowned inventor of the ship propeller, who in the 19th century helped cultivate forests in Slovenia’s Coastal Karst region and in many places in Carniola; Czech builders Jan Vladimír Hráský and Josef Hudec, who built many spectacular buildings in the centre of Ljubljana; and Professor Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, who at the turn of the 20th century ideologically influenced many Slovene students at the university in Prague.
Intensive trade and cultural relations continued between Czechs and Slovenes during the period between the World Wars. Many noteworthy Slovenes worked in what was then Czechoslovakia: architect Josip Plečnik was entrusted with reconstructions of Prague Castle by President Masaryk; Professor of South-Slavic Literature Matija Murko lectured at Charles University in Prague; Professor of Psychology Mihajlo Rostohar taught at Masaryk University in Brno; and Oton Berkopec was a lecturer of the Slovene language for many years at the university in Prague. Berkopec, together with Czech translator František Bernhart, greatly endeavoured to have cultural exchange, primarily in literature, continue between Czechs and Slovenes even after World War II, i.e. during socialist Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.
Czech-Slovene relations took on a new form after the fall of Communist regimes in Central Europe at the beginning of the 1990s; when, among other things, the independent Republic of Slovenia and the Czech Republic came into being. Economic collaboration is at the hub of current Czech-Slovene relations. Mutual cultural relations are also at a traditionally good level.
Key words: Czech-Slovene relations, history, Slovene studies

František ŠÍSTEK
Vztahy českých zemí s Černou Horou od počátku 19. století po současnost
[Relations Between the Czech Lands and Montenegro since the Beginning of the 19th Century until Present]
s. 109–132

The nascent Czech intellectual elite first noticed the existence of Montenegro and the Montenegrins in the beginning of the 19th century. This interest was closely linked with the ideology of Slavic kinship during the entire period preceding WWI. Due to limited influence of Czech patriotic elites on foreign-policy making of the Habsburg monarchy, there was no possibility for the development of proper political links with the independent Montenegrin monarchy before 1918. Until the territorial expansion of the country in 1878, there were practically no towns and even roads in Montenegro. The small principality therefore rarely attracted immigrants, professionals or businessmen from abroad. Despite that, the few Czechs who settled in Montenegro prior to WWI, mostly as experts invited directly by the state administration, often managed to play a pioneering role in the oveall modernization and “Europeanization” of the country (especially in the fields of diplomacy, music and arts). Since the closing years of the 19th century, Czech musicologists, botanists, geo¬graphers and speleologists also contributed to scientific research of Montenegro.
Extensive production of predominantly romantic representations of Montenegro and Montenegrins in Czech press, literature and arts was certainly the most dominant segment of mutual relations before the simultaneous establishment of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. In the predominant discourse of Czech intellectuals, Montenegro was often conceived as a living museum whose inhabitants managed to preserve the ancient Slavic mentality, culture and patriarchal social order that other Slavs had lost under foreign dominance and in the process of modernization and industrialization. The geopolitical situation of Montenegro, characterized by constant low-scale warfare against the Turks and quest for international recognition of the country´s independence before 1878, further enriched the images of the Montenegrins by elements that were regarded as exotic by Central Europeans of the time. The image of the Montenegrins included the “high” ideals of Slavic brotherhood, defence of freedom and national independence as well as romantic, Orientalist and erotic elements enthusiastically consumed by general public.
In the period between the two world wars, Czechs became de facto the ruling nation of the new Czechoslovak Republic, while Montenegro lost all elements of political autonomy and played a similarly marginal role in the political, cultural and economic life of new Yugoslavia. The romantic interest in all things Montenegrin quickly faded in the Czech lands after 1918. Since the end of WWII until the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, relations between the Czech lands and Montenegro were greatly limited by the Cold War division of Europe and the uneasy, limited and carefully controlled relations between Communist Czechoslovakia, a faithful vassal of Moscow for most of the period, and the significantly more liberal Titoist Yugoslavia. However, even throughout the Communist period, Czechs have greatly contributed to the development of tourist industry on the Adriatic coast of Montenegro.
Bilateral contacts between the Czech Republic and the Republic of Montenegro were initiated in the end of the 1990s, as the Montenegrin political leadership distanced itself from the regime of Slobodan Milošević and embarked on a pro-Western, pro-independence course. After the proclamation of Montenegro´s independence in 2006, standard diplomatic relations between the two countries were smoothly established.
Key words: Balkans, History, Czech-Montenegrin Relations, Image of the Other

Filip ŠISLER
Česko-rumunské vztahy v průběhu staletí
[Czech-Rumanian Relations over the Centuries]

s. 133–160

The article comments on the development of Czech-Rumanian relations from the middle ages to present time. Besides political and diplomatic relations, it deals with economical and cultural contacts between both nations throughout historical events or in relation to significant persons. The first important chapter of mutual relations is undoubtedly marked by the Hussites' residence. The Hussites settled down in Rumania due to favourable religious circumstances and helped the local princes in their wars against the Turks. During the reign of Rudolf II in the early 17th century, the Prince Michal Chrabrý arrived in Prague where he received financial support for his wars against the Turks. During the 19th century, the Czech-Rumanian relations were realised mainly through contacts and partnership of the Czech and Rumanian politicians within Austria-Hungary. At that time, the first translations of Rumanian literature into Czech and the first travellers' testimony on the situation in the Rumanian lands appeared. The philosopher and teacher Jan Urban Jarník was a significant propagator of bilateral dealings. The abbot Metod Zavoral established a military hospital at the Strahov monastery and personally visited the injured Rumanian soldiers. Diplomatic relations between the Czechoslovak Republic and Rumania were established in 1919, after resolving border disputes on the Carpathian Ruthenian territory. Mutual dealings with significant trade activities based on the Little Entente developed in the interwar period. Supplies of goods from the Czechoslovak Republic to Rumania were particularly important. The diplomatic relations were interrupted during World War II, but the Rumanian army had a significant role in liberating Czechoslovakia at the end of the conflict. Restoration of political relations started in 1945 and culminated in May 1947 by elevating both diplomatic representations to embassies. After 1949, po¬li¬tical and economical relations operated within the COMECON (RVHP) and, after 1955, military relations operated within the Warsaw Pact. The Rumanian leader Nicolae Ceauşescu refused to participate in the invasion of "friendly armies" to Czechoslovakia in August 1968 due to his effort to maintain a policy independent of the USSR. After the fall of communism, the Czech-Rumanian relations acquired a new dimension. We should mention the successful penetration of Czech companies to the Rumanian market (e.g. ČEZ and Zentiva) and bilateral collaboration in culture and education. Most recently, mutual relations of both countries have been developing within the EU and NATO. A separate chapter is dedicated to the history of Czech settlement in Rumanian Banat and description of our countrymen's current situation.
Key words: Czech lands, the Czechoslovak Republic, Rumania, Little Entente, diplomatic relations, economical and cultural collaboration

Jiří PLACHÝ
Československý podíl na spojenecké pomoci při výstavbě jugoslávských jednotek v letech 1944–1945. Příspěvek k československo-jugoslávským vztahům
[The Share of Czechoslovakia in an Allied Aid during Creation of the Yugoslav Troops in 1944–19045. Report on the Czechoslovak-Yugoslavian Relations]
s. 161–167

Western allies started supporting Yugoslavian partisans led by Josip Broz Tito at the end of 1942. Then, in May 1944, the British made it clear that they regarded Tito's partisans as the only representation of the Yugoslav national resistance. On 7th July 1944, the king Petar II was forced to appoint a new exile government with two ministers delegated by Tito's movement. At the end of September 1944, Tito replaced D. Mihailović as the supreme commander of the Yugoslav armed forces. As a result, the king issued a proclamation to the monarchist troops at home and abroad to surrender to the liberating army in September 1944. The fact that Czechoslovak exiled politicians assisted the Western allies' in matter is little known. After the defeat of Yugoslavia in 1941, it was decided that no independent Yugoslav units should be organised in Great Britain. The War Office approached the Czechoslovak Ministry of National Defence with a request to train Yugoslav citizens in the Czechoslovak army. At the same time, however, a similar offer arrived from the Polish soldiers. The conflict was solved in a compromise: Yugoslavians from the British Isles joined the Poles and overseas recruits joined Czechoslovak units (this, however, probably occurred in a single case in 1943). The situation dramatically changed after the Normandy invasion. Hundreds of German soldiers coming from multinational territories annexed by Germany were taken prisoners of war by the allies. Among them, there were many Slovenians who joined the Yugoslavian army. The Yugoslav Army Depot was officially established within the Czechoslovak units. At least 2,340 Yugoslav soldiers, who were sent to Italy in several transports and then to Tito's units in their own country, passed through the depot by the end of the war (until June 1945).
Key words: Yugoslav foreign army in the Middle East, National Liberal Army of Yugoslavia, prisoners of war, The Czechoslovak army in Great Britain


RECENZE, POZNÁMKY, ZPRÁVY

Anti SELART
Livland und die Rus´ im 13. Jahrhundert
(Dana Picková)
s. 169–173

O česko-slovensko-makedonských kulturních stycích
(Ivan Dorovský)
s. 173–182

Libor MARTINEK
Identita v literatuře českého Těšínska. Vybrané problémy (studie)
(Lucie Kněžourková)
s. 183–186

Pawel JAWORSKI
Marzyciele i oportuniści. Stosunki polsko-szwedskie w latach 1939–1945
(Pavol Jakubec)
s. 186–191

Munevera HADŽIŠEHOVIĆ
Muslimanka u Titovoj Jugoslaviji
(Jan Pelikán)
s. 191–197

Čechoslovački diplomatski dokumenty za Makedonija 1939–1975. Kniga 3.
(Jana Burešová)
s. 197–198

Martina BEČVÁŘOVÁ
České kořeny bulharské matematiky
(Marcel Černý)
s. 199–205

Ľubica HARBUĽOVÁ (ed.)
Migrácia obyvateľov východnej Európy na územie Slovenska a Čiech (prvá polovica 20. storočia)
(Michal Roman)
s. 205–209


KRONIKA



Jiří FRIEDL
Kampania Polska 1939. Polityka – Społeczeństwo – Kultura
s. 209–210

Pavol JAKUBEC
Medzinárodná konferencia „Slovensko-poľské vzťahy 1937–1947“
s. 211–213

Marija PRAGEROVÁ
Konference mladých slavistů 2009
s. 213–216


LIDÉ A DOBA



Dalibor VÁCHA
Čechoslováci v Dobrudži. Sonda do každodenního života a vnímání vojáků na polozapomenuté frontě první světové války
[The Czechoslovaks in Dobrudja A Probe into the Soldiers' Everyday Lives and Sentiments on the Half-Forgotten World War I Front]
s. 217–240

The essay uncovers certain circumstances of one, not much remembered battlefield of the Great War in which Czechoslovak volunteers appeared. In 1916, two exile organizations (Czech and Serbian) were in a dissimilar position in Russia. While the Serbs enjoyed a greater support from their "hosts" and recruitment into their military units went smoothly, the Czechs (or more precisely Czechoslovaks) faced problems which escalated in a serious delay of the recruiting activity. There is no wonder that some Czechs and Slovaks, annoyed with long waiting in POW camps preferred to enrol in Serbian volunteer units. The Czechoslovaks' enrolment in Serbian units was motivated by potential tangible possessions and ranking advancement (they had to join the Czech unit as common soldiers).
In the end, a sizeable group of the Czechs (including officers) appeared in the Serbian volunteer division, which had formed in Odessa. In August 1917, the Serbian volunteer division together with Russian troops invaded Dobrudja to help the Rumanian allies in their fight against the Bulgarians. The Bulgarians, however, were joined by German troops and the Dobrudja offensive soon lost its initiative. In the final stages of fighting the Serbians retreated and tried to escape the advancing enemy with hasty marches and at great losses. The essay concludes with a description of the Czechs' attempts to leave Odessa for the Czechoslovak brigade and analyses positions which these Serbian division veterans reached in Czechoslovak units in Russia, Italy and France.
The essay does not concentrate on fact documentation, but on the adventurous campaign as it was seen through the eyes of individual soldiers and through the optics of military everydayness. Personal sources, i.e. published diaries, memories and the so-called legionary literature – a specific kind of Czechoslovak war novel with strong autobiographic features, served as the chief material.
Key words: Czechoslovak legions, World War I, Serbia, everydayness