No. IV.

This was the Opening Address at ‘Fateful Eights in Czech History:
Historical Anniversaries of 2008 and Their Significance for the Czech Republic Today’, an international conference organized by the Czech Embassy in Washington, held at George Washington University, Washington, D.C., on 23–24 October 2008. In this essay the author provides a basic overview of twentieth-century Czech history, weighing the gains and losses, the victories and defeats, the ups and downs of the Czechs, the Czech nation, Czech society, on the way from gaining independence in a democratic state to losing it, and the German occupation, to the renewal of Czechoslovak independence and the destruction of democracy under a Communist régime, to the failed attempt at the reform of that régime, and the victory of the democratic revolution – all marked by the historical milestones of the years 1918, 1938/39, 1945–48, 1968, and 1989 – as well as the author’s reflections on the long-term changes in the mentality of the country.

The Turning-point between ‘Totalitarianism’ and ‘Democracy’:
Hypothetical Outcomes to Events in Czechoslovakia in 1989

Jiří Suk

The consideration of hypothetical alternatives to historical development in clearly established general conditions are, the author believes, a natural part of historical thinking. In this article he looks at the ‘Velvet Revolution’, that short period from the collapse of the Communist régime to the pushing through of a democracy in Czechoslovakia in November and December 1989, which for him becomes the space for such hypothetical reflections. In the historical records he seeks the key junctures in developments, and tries to outline the directions or paths that the political actors and members of the public could have set out on, but did not. In each case he starts from the assumption that one important factor of the previous events has changed. First of all, he asks whether a possibility of fundamental change had begun to emerge even before 17 November 1989, and he seeks to answer the question with regard to the influence of Gorbachev’s perestroika. He calls the Reform Communists, who had been expelled from the Party, the legitimate potential Czechoslovak actors of perestroika. These Communists were based around the Klub pro socialistickou přestavbu Obroda (Renewal, the Club for Socialist Restructuring), and sought to continue the ideals of the ‘Prague Spring’ of 1968. Like every other potential opposition group, however, they were kept down by the ‘normalization’ régime. In circumstances in which the Soviet Union, of its own accord, was ceasing to intervene directly in the affairs of the other Soviet bloc states (which in Czechoslovakia meant the petrification of the ‘conservative’ structures of power), the reformists’ chances were, the author argues, very limited. He then considers the fundamental interpretations, which emerged in the 1990s, of the Velvet Revolution as a conspiracy.
The core of the article is a consideration of the probability, the concrete forms, and possible consequences of six possible outcomes of developments: (i) after the brutal police action against the demonstrators on Národní třída, Prague, on 17 November 1989, the would not have led to the spreading of the false report about the killing of a student named Martin Šmíd which mobilized the Czechoslovak public; (ii) the leadership of the Czechoslovak Communist Party would have tended to some kind of violent solution to the crisis with the help of the army on the ‘Chinese model’; (iii) in the revolutionary days the existing Communist leadership would have joined forces with the former reform Communists with the aim of preserving a Socialist régime; (iv) in December 1989 the Civic Forum would not have managed to get the Federal Assembly to elect Václav Havel President of Czechoslovakia, and in the following months the president would have been elected by popular vote from amongst several candidates, as had been proposed by the Communist Party; (v) the Civic Forum and the Public Against Violence as the revolutionary representatives would have rejected the compromise solution of handing over power at ‘Round Table’ negotiations, and would instead have dictated the terms and conditions of the victory, including the introduction of a plurality electoral system; (vi) the political actors of the ‘Velvet Revolution’ would, in the first month, have effectively concentrated on the problem of coming to terms with the Communist past, which, in the form of uncompromising anticommunism, began from January 1990 onwards to convulse the political scene, and remains a sore point to this day.

A Forum on Totalitarianism in Czech History

By Way of Introduction

In this introduction to the block of essays in the international discussion that follows, Milan Drápala explains that the ‘Forum on Totalitarianism in Czech History’ is a project that was jointly initiated by the editors of the Munich-based periodical Bohemia and the Prague-based Soudobé dějiny. The results of this project are now being published in parallel in the latest issues of these two periodicals. The aim is to inspire a constructive discussion on the natures and contexts of the régimes and the historical continuities from the end of the first Czechoslovak Republic in 1938 onwards, and the usefulness of the totalitarianism concept for the interpretation of this period of Czech history. Miloš Havelka’s article serves as the starting point.

Comparing the Incomparable:
Was There a Totalitarian Era in Contemporary Czech History?

Miloš Havelka

This article seeks to illustrate some particular problems that arise whenever the concept of totalitarianism is applied to Czech history. The article aims in particular to broaden the scope of the discussion, by introducing sociological and demographic aspects into a perspective usually limited strictly to political factors.
Taking issue with the common application of the term ‘totalitarian’ to the period from 1938 to 1989, the author emphasizes the scope of change that Czech society experienced up to 1956, and he looks for an internal commonality extending over the whole period. He argues that the number of changes that altered the ethnic, demographic, social, and political stratification of Czech society between 1938 and 1956, in contrast to what is implied by the ‘democratic tradition’ so frequently being claimed for the First Republic, led to a ‘totalitarian mindset’ that worked in favour of the dictatorships of the times. The principal prerequisite, he argues, is the exploitation of mass dynamics (as described by Hannah Arendt), which was achieved by those in power consciously manipulating social structures from 1938 to 1956.

The Changing Concept of Totalitarianism in the Course of the Twentieth Century

Clemens Vollnhals

The term ‘totalitarianism’ was coined in Italy by members of the opposition to Mussolini’s Fascist dictatorship. It was used as a catchword in order to point out the novel nature of that dictatorship. A second line of tradition, aiming at conceptualizing the term, was a consequence of Social Democratic forces in Germany taking issue with Lenin’s Bolshevist dictatorship. From the mid-1930s onwards, the term came to be used in comparative analyses of Fascism, National Socialism, and Communism. The classical definition of the concept of totalitarianism was then proposed by Carl J. Friedrich, who drew up a list of criteria in 1953. Hannah Arendt, by contrast, offered a rather historical-philosophical approach. Both explanations consider mass terror to be a central factor, which means that, strictly speaking, developments in the Soviet Union after Stalin’s death are not covered by the term. More recent definitions, however, emphasize the absolute pre-eminence of politics and total control as principal features of totalitarian rule. This makes it possible to distinguish between modern dictatorships based on ideology and authoritarian dictatorships.

The Possibilities and Limits of a Paradigm:
The Theory of Totalitarianism Applied to State Socialism in East-central Europe

Bianca Hoenig

The theory of totalitarianism experienced a kind of boom after the collapse of the ‘Iron Curtain,’ predominantly in the countries formerly in the Eastern bloc and also in connection with attempts by those countries to come to terms with their Socialist past. Whereas this concept is frequently criticized, particularly in the West, it has been broad accepted throughout Eastern Europe to this very day. Considering results of research on Poland, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany, the author here analyses how the theory of totalitarianism is being applied and what this produces. The literature examined is divided into studies devoted to the claims used to justify totalitarian rule and those devoted to totalitarian rule in reality, with the focus being on questions pertaining to the normative force of science, the possibilities of explaining dynamics of governmental power, and to people involved in the changes observed. All these factors demonstrate that the theory of totalitarianism is of limited value for the historical evaluation of State Socialism in East-central Europe, though as a phenomenon of contemporary history it does merit attention.

Unexpected Parallels:
Currents below the Surface

Jan Dobeš

This contribution deals with the tendencies that evolved in Czech society during the mid-1930s and exerted a hidden influence in the years that followed. The cornerstones of modern Czech society since its formation in the nineteenth century were unsettled even before the Second World War broke out. Previously unknown features began to evolve in the political system, its economy, social relations, the public’s views on the arts and sciences, and the atmosphere in society generally. The dramatic course of events that was framed by the betrayal at Munich, the Second Republic, the imposition of the German Protectorate and Occupation, Liberation, and, lastly, the Communist takeover of February 1948, accelerated this development.
The author’s aim is to demonstrate that beneath the surface of all these separate political developments there is a continual process of change at work. Even though the various régimes of this period manifested considerable differences externally, research reveals surprising internal similarities amongst them. In spite of these new qualities it seems inappropriate to call the period ‘totalitarian’ according to the criteria of the classic theory of totalitarianism.

Totalitarian Traditions in Czech Politics

Jan Holzer

Prompted by Havelka’s having raised the question of a totalitarian era in the Bohemian Lands after 1939, the author of the present contribution asks why Communist rule was so easily established in Czechoslovakia. He does not question that this system was indeed totalitarian. The fact that Czech society did not offer much resistance to Communism and that its retrospective view of the Communist era is not altogether negative is, according to Holzer, accounted for by a specifically Czech traditional conception of politics. Holzer identifies a tendency, which emerged in the nineteenth century, to conceive politics as the realization of certain moral and national imperatives and to reject an openly negotiated compromise between conflicting social interests, favouring national unity instead. Moreover, Czech society twice – after 1918 and after the 1945–48 period – radically altered its system of values and perceptions. The author proposes a scholarly, interdisciplinary evaluation of Czech political tradition, arguing that there is no alternative if one wishes to prevent a return to totalitarian rule.

On the Advantages and Disadvantages of the Concept of Totalitarianism, with Earlier Approaches Taken into Account

Bedřich Loewenstein

This article assesses Miloš Havelka’s hypothesis of a totalitarian era in Czech history from four different points of view. First it examines the use of the term ‘totalitarianism’ in post-war Czech political discourse. Among other things, the author points out that the term was used only rhetorically, polemically, and temporarily applied, particularly when someone or something was termed ‘Fascist.’ The second point concerns the prevalent contemporary conception of a totalitarian continuity in Czech society after the Munich crisis. In this context the author points out that émigré literature, as long as emotional strength is complemented by a degree of self-criticism, offers valuable insights. The third part examines the degree to which the concept of totalitarianism, which came to be accepted from the 1950s onwards, is applicable to Czech society. When applied to the 1950s, also taking into account the concept of a ‘political religion’, the answer is that it is indeed applicable. The last part of article takes a critical look at the attempts to de-totalize (de-Stalinize) society in the 1960s. In a digression, this part offers an interpretation of the efforts at research into the Fascism of this period, which reveal that an irrational animosity to civilization is common to both totalitarian systems.

1969–89: Are We in Need of a Concept or Do We Simply Lack the Will to Understand?
Petr Pithart

The author is convinced that neither ‘totalitarian’ nor ‘authoritarian’ sufficiently describe Czechoslovakia after 1969. The fact that Czechs do not know quite how to classify the ‘normalization’ régime is interpreted here not only as constituting a problem for the culture of remembrance, but also as the cause of many wrong decisions having been made concerning the future orientation of the transformation policy in the 1990s, with exponents of the thesis of a totalitarian régime supposing that the Socialist state had been excessively strong, and demanding that the scope of governmental action be considerably restricted, and with representatives of the idea that following the ‘Prague Spring’ there had been a rather authoritarian régime in Czechoslovakia, underestimating, on the other hand, the degree to which social structures had been destroyed. Both sides advocated that economic transformation should be carried out as quickly as possible, while neglecting the proper establishment of the rule of law. This shortcoming made it possible for actors of the grey and black markets to maintain control of their capital into period after the change in régimes. They were even able to safeguard their assets by legal means, and often even to make them grow. The result is that society has lost much of its trust in the new democracy.

Totalitarianism as Theory and as Czech ‘Totáč’

Jan Pauer

Miloš Havelka’s attempt to characterize the years 1939 to 1956 as a ‘totalitarian period’ in Czech history raises a number of questions. Both the wide range of approaches to conceptualizing totalitarianism and the large number of historical phenomena make it unlikely that one can justifiably claim that there was an ‘internal commonality’ for this period. Theories of totalitarianism can be usefully applied in comparisons of dictatorial régimes rather than in the definition of historical periods. In the context of the Czech discourse on totalitarianism, which largely limits itself to Communist dictatorship, Havelka, by taking into account National Socialist rule as well, provides an important impulse, which could lead to some light being shed on the links between the two kinds of dictatorship. Petr Pithart’s claim about the consequences the transformation after 1989 may have for a misinterpretation of totalitarian dictatorship is less relevant to the economic transformation than to the widespread social pathologies that constitute a cornerstone of dictatorial rule.

State Socialism was More than a Political Relationship of Rulers and Ruled:
Remarks on Theoretical Shortcomings of the Totalitarianism Concept

Dieter Segert

The author advocates the view that social and political history should join forces to research State Socialist systems. His central point is that focusing solely on the relationship between rulers and ruled, typical of the standard concept of totalitarianism, obscures the reasons for both stability and change in these systems. In order to understand the phenomena, one must comprehend which social groups viewed their interests as protected by the Socialist order. The fact that Socialist systems could not exist without being considered legitimate by relevant parts of society is demonstrated, among other things, by attempts at reform that were inspired both ‘from above’ and by parts of the critical, but loyal intelligentsia. Last but not least, the continuity of élites after 1989 demonstrates the importance of taking into account a social reality which may very well deviate from the relationships of power being proclaimed: in the late period of State Socialism, informal relationships of power and property had long since been established, and could easily be carried over into the period after the changes.

Some Remarks on Miloš Havelka’s Reflections

Marína Zavacká

In her brief commentary to Miloš Havelka’s study, the author argues that the discussion of the crisis of Czech democracy since the 1930s ought to take long-term continuities into consideration to a greater extent than it has so far. Although xenophobic and anti-pluralist tendencies were marginalized in the First Republic with state interests being the main consideration for this course of action, they were nonetheless on the spectrum of political thought, and were connected with political ambitions of their own. The fact that post-Liberation Czech society was susceptible to nationalist politics exploiting social demagoguery was therefore not an abrupt breach of tradition, but rather a return to another, parallel line of tradition. Moreover, the radicalism of post-war Czech society was not altogether out of step with the contemporary European mainstream.

Totalitarianism and Post-Totalitarianism in the Czech Republic

Milan Znoj and Jiří Koubek

This article traces the changes in interpretations of the concept of totalitarianism in various ideological contexts since the concept emerged in the 1920s. The authors argue that if one discounts claims of a purely ideological nature, only two periods in twentieth-century Czech history were truly totalitarian: the ‘Protectorate’ (1939–45) and the first few years of Communist rule, that is, from 1948 to 1953. Concerning the post-Stalinist period, the authors suggest that the concept of post-totalitarianism proposed by Juan Linz should be applied. This would make it possible, on the one hand, to distinguish between the goals that the system claimed to be putting into practice, and the reality prevailing in society. It would thus describe, for example, the changing importance of ideology and mass mobilization; on the other hand, the model offers a differentiated terminology for the early, mature, and, ultimately, ‘frozen’ stages of post-totalitarianism during the period of ‘normalization’.

Reviews

Czechoslovakia in Brussels:
Two Views of Expo 58

Martin Franc

Benešová, Emilie, and Karolina Šimůnková. Expo 58: Příběh československé účasti na Světové výstavě v Bruselu. Prague: Národní archiv, 2008, 165 pp.;
Kramerová, Daniela, and Vanda Skálová (eds). Bruselský sen: Československá účast na Světové výstavě Expo 58 v Bruselu a životní styl 1. poloviny 60. let. Prague: Arbor Vitae, 2008, 371 pp.

This review compares two works that were published to accompany an exhibition marking the fiftieth anniversary of the extraordinarily successful Czechoslovak pavilion at the 1958 World’s Fair in Brussels. The reviewer finds both volumes to be successful and useful. Whereas the first book precisely documents the preparations, organization, and appearance of the Czechoslovak pavilion and accompanying events, the second publication, with superb graphic design, charts out the consequences of the ‘Brussels phenomenon’ in various branches of the arts and fashion in Czechoslovakia.

The Czechoslovak Communist Party and ‘Normalization’ at the Prague Faculty of Arts

Pavel Urbášek

Volná, Katka, Jakub Jareš, Matěj Spurný, and Klára Pinerová (eds). Prověřená fakulta: KSČ na Filozofické fakultě UK v letech 1969–1989. Edice dokumentů. Prague: Ústav pro soudobé dějiny, 2009, 308 pp.

This publication comprises almost a hundred documents and four original essays on the ‘purges’, the admissions process, ‘cadre work’, and ideological extracurricular activities at the Faculty of Law, Charles University, from the beginning of restored hard-line Communism in the late 1960s to the end of the Communist régime in late 1989. The reviewer notes that the volume is a well-conceived and largely successful attempt at charting out the activities of the Czechoslovak Communist Party at the Law Faculty in this period. It is, however, or at least one hopes, only the first step towards a full description, deeper analysis, and interpretation.

Discussion

A Reply to Vít Smetana

Piotr M. Majewski

The author takes issue with Vít Smetana’s arguments against his review of Smetana’s In the Shadow of Munich: British Policy towards Czechoslovakia from Endorsement to the Renunciation of the Munich Agreement, 1938–1942, (Prague: Karolinum, 2008). The review, entitled ‘Mnichov, Británie a pokus o revizi českého pohledu’ (The Munich Agreement, Great Britain, and an Attempt to Revise the Czech View), is published in Soudobé dějiny, vol. 16 (2009), no. 1, pp. 174–76. Smetana’s response to the review, entitled ‘Mnichov? A ‘pokus’ o jakou revizi? Stíny v recenzi Piotra M. Majewského’ (Munich, an ‘Attempt’ at Revision? Of What? Shadows in Piotr M. Majewski’s Review), is published in Soudobé dějiny, vol. 16, nos 2–3, pp. 444–55.

A Letter from Vladimír Kolmistr Concerning Miroslav Dolejší

In this letter, Vladimír Kolmistr reacts to Prokop Tomek’s article ‘Tragický případ Miroslava Dolejšího a Eubena Vrby’ (The Tragic Case of Miroslav Dolejší and Eugen Vrba), which was published in the previous issue of Soudobé dějiny (vol. 16, nos 2–3, pp. 419–430), and to the document that is published immediately after the article (pp. 431–435). The document is a record of a class meeting in 1950, at which Dolejší was expelled from secondary school in the town of Kladno, at the initiative of Kolmistr, a functionary of the Czechoslovak Youth Organization. Dolejší was later imprisoned for many years, whereas Kolmistr went on to become a Reform Communist.

Chronicle

The Corporative State:
The Idea and Its History

This is Miroslav Šepták’s report of a small conference called ‘The Corporative State: The Idea and Its History’, organized by the Legal History Centre of the History Institute, at the Academy of Sciences, and the Law Faculty of Charles University, in collaboration with the Masaryk Institute and Archive, also at the Academy of Sciences, on 4 November 2009.

Ústav pro soudobé dějiny AV ČR

No. IV.

Obrazové aktuality