Artur PATEK
Z úvah nad hospodářským obrazem Spiše ve druhé polovině 19. století (do roku 1914) [Economic view of Scepus in the second half of the 19th century (until 1914)]..  /1–10/ Scepus was one of the most developed regions in Slovakia and had good conditions to his growth (e.c. important trade routes; resources – iron, copper, mercury, manganese, silver, granite, dolomite, limestone, etc.; mining and metallurgic traditions). Most of the people were farmers but Scepus was important industrial country too. In this region approximately 1/3 of workpeople of the whole northern Hungary were employed. Northern Scepus had the agricultural and shephards’ nature. Agriculture was under-developed and people rather lived in poverty. The further to the south the more population worked in industry, craft and trade. Here were the main cities (Spišská Nová Ves, Levoča, Kežmarok, Gelnica, Smolník) and the majority of industrial works (mines, steelworks, etc.).

Attila SIMON
Etnické aspekty kolonizácie na južnom Slovensku v období prvej republiky [Ethnic Aspects of Colonization of Southern Slovakia in the Period of the First Czech Republic]..  /11–24/ Agrarian reform and colonization of the Czechoslovak borderlands were among the most important instruments of Czech and Slovak nation-building. The main principles of the colonization were formulated in the circles of the Committee for Agrarian Reform of the revolutionary National Assembly, in the Administrative Committee of the State Land Registry, and in the Czechoslovak National Council. Since the fertile areas near the Danube were more suitable for that purpose than the mountain Czech borderlands, it was decided that Southern Slovakia becomes the core lands of the planned colonization. The colonization, beginning in 1921, was divided into the two phases – in 1921–1923 new colonists were coming and in 1923-1929 their influx culminated. Basically, the colonization, headed by the State Land Registry and the Department for Colonization was private or state-organized, and the latter was also controlled by the State Land Registry. Although the colonization of Southern Slovakia was a margin from the Prague´s point of view, its development resulted in sharp conflicts not only between the government and Magyár political representation in Slovakia but also between the Slovak autonomists and Prague centralists. Thousands of colonists were supposed to settle in the mentioned areas to contribute to the change of the ethnic profile of the area and to strengthen the southern border as well. However, the colonization did not achieve expected outcomes – by the end of the 1930s only 130 colonies were established with slightly over 3000 families inhabited. The reasons of a partial failure rested in insufficient financial support and decelerating impacts of the competency conflicts between Slovak institutions and central authorities in Prague.

Petr NOVÁK
Československo a příprava sevreské mírové smlouvy [Czechoslovakia and the Preparation of the Sevres Peace Treaty]..  /25–43/ The paper focuses on one of the byways of the history of Czechoslovak participation in the Peace conference in 1929–1920, namely on the activities of the Czechoslovak diplomacy during the preparations of the Sevres Peace Treaty with the Ottoman Empire. Czechoslovakia was involved in this affair from the beginning of 1920 because of the two reasons – the participation on profits of the conditions of capitulation, and the interests in the future development of Eastern Thrace, Istanbul and the Straits. While in the first case the Czechoslovak approach was motivated by economic interests the second one reflected Czechoslovak political interests in the Balkans. In the first case the Czechoslovak diplomacy was trying to influence the situation by several particular steps and probes while in the latter limited itself to the passive perception of the coming events. Respecting the interests of powers in this region Prague would have hardly been able to behave in a different way. The Czechoslovak participation in the conditions of capitulation was not so much delicate as concerning the relations between the allies. Czechoslovakia could submit its demands, mainly the wish of full-fledged participation in the privileges of the conditions of capitulation. Besides of the status of the allied state Czechoslovakia could also use the previous participation of its citizens in the mentioned privileges from the times when it was the part of Austro-Hungary. After preliminary probes in January and February 1920 Czechoslovakia submitted its demands to the Peace conference. The powers were willing to accept them and in April of 1920 Czechoslovak Republic became one of the signatories of the peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire. Czechoslovak delegates took part in the ceremony when the Turkish delegates were handed over the Peace treaty conditions in May 1920 and in the ceremony of the signature of the Peace treaty in August. The paper does not omit the broader context of the Peace treaty and attends to brief outline of the echoes of the negotiated Peace treaty with the Ottoman Empire in the Czechoslovak newspapers.

Piotr PAŁYS
Polská vláda a lužická otázka v letech 1945–1949 [Polish Government and the Question of Lusatia in 1945–1949]..  /45–55/ The representatives of the national movement of Lusatian Serbs established their first contacts to Poland by the end of 1945. This initiative was accepted in Warsaw and first emissaries of Lusatian Serbs appeared in Poland in 1946. At the same time several dozens of Lusatian Serbs were released from the POW camps located on the Polish territory, twenty Lusatian Serbs came to Polish universities and the Polish government financially supported the cultural centers of Lusatian Serbs. The Serbs transferred to Germany along with other Germans were allowed to return and the first classes of the gymnasium for Lusatian Serbs were opened in Zgorzelec. New organizations like the Polish Western Union, the Slavonic Committee, and the Academic Union of the Friends of Lusatia (Proluz) started to propagate the Lusatian Serbs. However, in the sphere of diplomacy, Warsaw was rather modest and except of the expressed sympathies and probes of its Czechoslovak and Soviet partners did not intend to resolve the Lusatian question. In the end of 1945 the Polish government withdrew its unofficial „support of rightful demands” and started to „eliminate” the movement supporting the Lusatian Serbs and operating from 1945 on the Polish territory. The border conflicts determining substantially the Czechoslovak-Polish relations were influencing the effort to reach the consensus in the Lusatian question. Prague and Warsaw were dissociating from the Lusatian question declaring the readiness to support the partner only in the case of its appearance in the Lusatian matter. Even the attempts of the Czech and Polish adherents to Lusatian Serbs to start the Czech-Polish cooperation in this field could not change the whole situation.

Ladislav HLADKÝ
Bosna a Hercegovina – deset let po Daytonu [Bosnia and Hercegovina – Ten Years After Dayton]..  /57–77/ The paper reports the political and social development in Bosnia and Hercegovina in 1995–2005 and records certain successes in the process of the postwar stabilization and reconstruction of Bosnia like pacification of the situation by military troops of IFOR/SFOR/EUFOR, reconstruction of infrastructure, building-up of the political and administrative system, establishment of common currency and state symbols, and gradual integration of Bosnia and Hercegovina to international organizations. The paper also demonstrates the number of persistent problems like insufficient economy, high level of corruption, complicated return of refugees, the impact of nationalist parties on political and public life. The author concludes with discussions on current development in Bosnia and Hercegovina and on reform of so called Dayton Constitution, and the problems related to Bosnian effort to open the talks on the EU-accession.


MATERIÁLY A DOKUMENTY

Mikuláš NEVRLÝ – Michal ROMAN
Slovenská ukrajinistika v rokoch 2000–2005 [The Slovak Ukrainian Studies in 2000–2005]..  /79–85/


RECENZE, POZNÁMKY, ZPRÁVY

Josef KOLEJKA
Bakuninovo evropanství.. (Vladimír Goněc)  /87–88/

Vesna MIKOLIĆ
Jezik v zrcalu kultur; jezikovna sporazumevalna zmožnost in (med)etnična ozaveščenost v Slovenski Istri.. (Leoš Šatava)  /88–90/

Rüdiger ALTE
Die Außenpolitik der Tschechoslovakei und die Entwicklung der internationalen Beziehungen 1946–1947.. (Petr Prokš)  /90–94/

Václav HORČIČKA
Rakousko-uherská politika vůči sovětskému Rusku v letech 1917–1918.. (Petr Prokš)  /94–96/

Georgi N. NIKOLOV
Centralizăm i regionalizăm v rannosrednovekovna Bălgarija (kraja na VII – načaloto na XI v.).. (Lubomíra Havlíková)  /96–99/

Petr Petrovič TOLOČKO
Kočevyje narody stepej i Kijevskaja Rus´.. (Michal Téra)  /99–102/

L. I. KORMYČ – D. S. ŠELEST
Hromadski objednannja ta polityčni partiji sučasnoji Ukrajiny: Navčalne vydannja.. (Viktoria Stepanyuk)  /102–106/

Jochanan PETROVSKIJ-ŠTERN
Jevreji v russkoj armii.. (Zbyněk Vydra)  /106–110/

Balázs ABLONCZY
Teleki Pál.. (Robert Pejša)  /110–119/

Zdeněk JIRÁSEK – Andrzej MAŁKIEWICZ
Polska i Czechosłowacja w dobie stalinizmu (1948–1956). Studium porównawcze.. (Jiří Friedl)  /119–121/
Několik slov k recenzi Michala Téry na práci Drška Václav – Picková Dana: Dějiny středověké Evropy.. (Dana Picková)  /121–122/
„Aby se zdálo, že se něco děje.“ – Odpověď na recenzi pana Michala Téry (Slovanský přehled 90, 2005, č. 3, s. 296–298).. (Václav Drška)  /123–126/


KRONIKA

Václav VEBER
Vladislav Moulis odešel (29. 8. 1931–30. 1. 2006) [Vladislav Moulis Left for Ever (Aug. 29, 1931–Jan. 20, 2006)]..  /127–130/

Emil VORÁČEK
Vladimír Konstantinovič Volkov (1930-2005)..  /130–133/

Jiří FRIEDL – Jan NĚMEČEK
K životnímu jubileu prof. Michała Pułaského [To Life-Jubilee of Prof. Michal Pułaski]..  /133–136/

Vladimír GONĚC
K jubileu Richarda Pražáka [To Jubilee of Richard Pražák]..  /136–138/

Anastázia LUKÁČOVÁ
Konference o ukrajinské kulturní emigraci v meziválečném Československu [The Conference On the Ukrainian Cultural Emigration in Inter-War Czechoslovakia]..  /138–140/

Anna ČADKOVÁ
Antisemitismus ve střední Evropě na přelomu 19. a 20. století. Protižidovské stereotypy v křesťanské společnosti [Anti-semitism in Central Europe at the Turn of the 19th and 20th Centuries. Anti-Jewish Stereotypes in Christian Society]..  /140/

Emil VORÁČEK – Milan HLAVAČKA – Jan NĚMEČEK
„Evropa náš společný dům“ [„Europe Our Common House“]..  /140–147/

Jan NĚMEČEK
Prezidentské dekrety v Berlíně [Dekretes of President in Berlin]..  /148/


LIDÉ A DOBA

Martin MAREK
Informačně-propagační cesta referenta Exportního ústavu československého Vincence Symona do Sovětského svazu [The Informative and Advertising Trip of the Czechoslovak Export Institute Officer Vincenc Symon to the Soviet Union]..  /149–160/