«JUL AUG OCT » 6 «2010 2011 2012 » 70 captures 4 Sep 09 - 10 Dec 16

Close Help

Ústav pro soudobé dějiny AV ČR

Ustav pro soudobe dejiny AV CR

• About the Institute
• Institute Organization
• Institute Employees
• Contact

No. I.

Hlavní stránka » pages » Journal Soudobé dějiny » Volume VIII. (2001) » No. I. »

---

Post-war Conflicts and Rivalry in the Soviet Leadership: Soviet History in Recent Publications by Russian Authors, Part II

Michal Reiman

This article, whose first part appeared in Soudobé dějiny 4/2000, is devoted to recent Russian scholarly work on conflicts at the top level of the Soviet leadership, in particular the large book by Yuri N. Zhukov, Tayny Kremlya: Stalin, Molotov, Beria, Malenkov (Moscow, 2000). The reviewer assesses its contribution to the history of the USSR after 1938, particularly the history of how the wave of terror was halted in the late 1930s, and relations at the top level of Soviet power. He also examines Zhukov’s statement that Stalin’s position was weakened after 1948 and that in February 1951 Stalin transferred his power to the ‘triumvirate’ of Malenkov, Beria, and Bulganin. The author discusses Zhukov’s claim that towards the end of the Stalin era relations between Malenkov and Beria were marked by deep antagonism. Zhukov’s method is based on detailed knowledge and documentation of personal decisions of the Soviet leadership, but he tends to ignore other sources. His method of analysis makes it impossible for the reader to distinguish between fact and Zhukov’s own speculation. After World War II, poor health forced Stalin to spend long periods in the south of the country, but those sojourns did not impair his paramount position in Soviet politics; during these periods he initiated far-reaching interventions in Soviet politics. They began by bringing to head relations with the USA in particular and the West in general, and, from February 1951, with the ‘accelerated building of socialism’ in the countries of the Soviet bloc, which within several years was supposed to increase substantially its military potential and ensure its preparedness for war in Europe. At the same time, Stalin tried to buttress his own dominant position in the Soviet leadership. Though in late 1951 and early 1952 he no longer had control over the everyday activity of the Soviet leadership, in which the role of successor fell to Malenkov, he did manage to maintain it over the overall course of policy, retained influence in security matters (for instance in the ‘Mingrel case’, the arrest and trial of Slánský, the liquidation of the Jewish Antifascist Committee, the ‘doctors’ plot’) and also over decision-making on key personnel questions (the 19th Congress of the CPSU in October 1952).

Zhukov does nonetheless manage to provide credible facts that would allow one to describe the relations between Malenkov and Beria as antagonistic. Published documents confirm that collaboration between the two men predominated till late April 1953. Beria’s isolation after Stalin’s death was caused by his radical attempts to rehabilitate Stalin’s victims, interference in the nationalities questions and the discrediting of the official ‘Party’ antisemitism and nationalism. ‘The German Question’ acted like a detonator in the growing conflict. Research into post-1945 Soviet history, of course, is far from complete and Zhukov’s work (like recent publications of documents) enables the discussion to transcend the ideological framework and become chiefly a matter of historical research.

The SED, the PCF, and the Prague Spring

Ulrich Pfeil

The author compares the attitudes of the East-German and French Communists to the Czechoslovak reform process of 1968 and its suppression as a consequence of intervention by the Warsaw Treaty Organization troops. The Socialist Unity Party of Germany (Sozialistische Einheits Partei Deutschlands – SED) led by Walter Ulbricht had, since the Kafka conference in Liblice, Czechoslovakia, 1963, been extremely suspicious of Czechoslovak reform, which it feared might disrupt the stability of the its rule and (together with the Ostpolitik of Chancellor Kiesinger) threaten the foreign-policy position of the GDR. By contrast, the French Communist Party (Parti communiste français – PCF), led by Waldeck Rochet, followed developments in Prague with sympathy, and even tried to act as an intermediary in reducing tensions between Moscow and Prague. Logically, the two parties took opposite positions after 22 August 1968: the French Communists and their central trade-union organization, the CGT, sharply condemned the military intervention, whereas the German Communists and their central trade-union organization, the FDGB, welcomed it.

The author then examines how these conflicts were reflected in relations between the SED (and the FDGB) and the PCF (and the CGT). Their ‘fraternity’ was injured considerably. The Germans tried to look like the top of the class in the East bloc, using their French comrades, and even calling upon rank-and-file PCF members to be disloyal to the Party leadership. When the French, under pressure from Moscow, changed their approach in November 1968, the leadership of the SED and the PCF again tried to publicize their mutual concord. But tensions persisted, especially between the rank-and-file, which the author demonstrates by discussing conflicts during the East-German sojourn of PCF and CGT delegates. Lastly, the author discusses the East-German Communists’ aversion to ‘revisionist’ intellectuals such as Stefan Heym, Roger Garaudy, and Louis Aragon.

The Czech Historikerstreit at the End of the Millennium:
A Tallying Up

František Svátek

The article outlines the chief debates and polemics currently taking place among historians in the Czech Republic and also provides a preliminary assessment of them. The debates were set off by Jaroslav Pánek, Director of the Historical Institute (Academy of Sciences), Prague, in an article entitled ‘Česká historická věda a české historické vědomí: Několik námětů do diskuse’ [Czech historical sciences and Czech historical consciousness], Český časopis historický, vol. 97, no. 2, 1999, pp. 311–20, and the polemical papers given by Martin Nodl, Jan Dobeš, and Pavel Zeman at the Eighth Congress of Czech Historians (in Hradec Králové, September 1999; cf. Jiří Pešek (ed.), VIII. sjezd českých historiků: Hradec Králové 10.–12. září 1999, Prague, 2000). Three historical discussion forums, initiated by a group of historians and other social scientists, constitute its milestones: the first, held in November 1999, was without a particular topic (the contributions were published in a special supplement to the Zpravodaj Historického klubu, vol. 11, no. 1, 2000), the second, in April 2000, was concerned with the ‘legitimization of history’ (see the current number of Soudobé dějiny), and the third, held in February 2001, was on the organization and financing of historical sciences (and will soon be accessible on the internet). The most important contributions from these debates are published on www.clavmon.cz; others appear in the journal Dějiny a současnost; all the contributions from the history forums are on a CD at the Archive of the Academy of Sciences, Prague.

In the first part of the present article the author describes the discussants. They are almost exclusively Prague historians and specialists from related disciplines, most of whom are not from the chief institutions of historical research, but from other institutes involved in the humanities, Charles University, publishing houses, and the editorial boards of journals. (The debates, argues the author, sometimes appear to be a dispute between historians from the Historical Institute of the Academy of Sciences, Prague, and historians from other institutions, who reproach the former for allegedly attempting to appear to be the centre of historical research in the Czech Republic and trying to establish the basic directions, key questions, and therefore the answers to most historical research.) The theorizing historians, philosophers, and sociologists made a much more meaningful impact on the discussion than did historians with a mainly empirical approach. The author has considerable doubts that this is a generational conflict between historians, though it is interpreted as such by many of the discussants. The topic has attracted little attention abroad and is seen here as a dispute between the ‘national’ and ‘European’ approaches to writing history (cf. the articles by Taku Shinohara in Dějiny a současnost, Chad Bryant in the American review History & Memory, and articles by various journalists), corresponding to the division into the ‘Communist establishment’ and the ‘dissident experience’ in the community of historians, which lies beneath the surface.

In the second part of his article, the author characterizes the fundamental themes of the discussion. In his view, what mainly comes to the fore is the dispute between proponents of a ‘national’ a ‘supranational’ (European) conception of Czech historiography, and the dispute about its ‘political servitude’ (‘social utility’, ‘political commitment’) and ‘scholarly qualifications’ (‘detachment’, ‘nonpartisanship’). In reaction to Pánek’s article, voices were also heard at the Second History Forum, which emphatically reject non-scholarly or current social obligations and judging criteria applied to historians and historiography (particularly by Antonín Kostlán). It was a ‘commission from society’, however, that the joint Czech-German Commission of Historians emerged, for example, and joint seminars of historians, politicians, and the like are organized with the aim of defining the ‘national interest’, events that are not unusual in Western Europe. This reluctance, the author believes, is a reaction to the recent period when the historical sciences were bound in service to the Communist régime, and it also reflects a certain illusion; namely, he argues, referring to Shinohara’s article, that the ‘escape from ‘‘politicization’’ or ‘‘servitude’’ to professionalism is a fiction’, for the historian must, after all, ‘choose some political or civil perspective’.

Secondly, the author argues, the discussion of the Czech historians revolves round the burning question of mastery of one’s own past and the legacy of the Communist régime in historiography. In the Czech Republic this problem is not as sharply defined into separate topics as it is, for example, in Germany. Nevertheless, radical critics, such as Nodl, claim, and largely with justification, that ‘no moral catharsis and repentance took place in the circles of Czech historians and that a number of leading positions in the field were filled after November 1989 by people closely connected to the ideology and policies of the Communist régime’ and they demand an uncompromising unity of professional work and civil attitudes. The author quotes a recollection by the historian Petr Čornej concerning the changing of camps (převlékání kabátů) among historians after November 1989, but also points out that the interrelationship of ‘official’ (régime) and ‘unofficial’ (dissident) historiography also took the opposite form, that is to say, a programmatic search for ways to unite the Czech historical community, an effort that was also made by the dissidents. Instead of emotional, ad hominem accusations, he recommends thorough research of the whole hierarchy of the control of scholarship and the concrete responsibility of the leading functionaries for the ‘purges’ and the régime of rigid control of institutions of historical research in the years 1948–89.

A much weaker aspect of the debate, the author maintains, was the topic of methodological analysis of Czech historical sciences in comparison with those elsewhere in the world; the topic of their organization and financing was not discussed till the Third History Forum, and its programme is included in the article. In conclusion the author points out that the debates have contributed little to the profession because they do not, with few exceptions, reflect issues in the wider European context and do not start from the already achieved level of work on problems in the social sciences. Nevertheless, the mere broaching of the questions and in particular their presentation on the internet, which promises to become a standard means of communication for Czech historians, are important.

The Second History Forum:
The Legitimization of History

In this thematic bloc the editors of Soudobé dějiny present the main papers given at the Second History Forum, held at the Academy of Sciences, Prague, on 18 April 2000. Most of the authors amended and expanded their original papers for publication here. The editors of Soudobé dějiny consider it important to examine topics closely connected with the formation of identity and self-reflections on historiography in the Czech Republic after 1989, and believe that the articles published here will contribute to a further refining of opinion.

Remarks by the Organizers

The organizers of the forum (Jaroslava Hausenblasová, Antonín Kostlán, Martin Nodl, Michal Svatoš, Michal Šroněk, and Vladimír Urbánek) emphasize here that the meeting was intended to provide a space for open, civilized, and factual debate on burning questions facing the historical community. They point out that approximately eighty historians from various institutions in the Czech Republic, including French scholars from CEFRES and one from Japan, took part in the forum.

Introductory Remarks

Michal Svatoš

In his remarks the author emphasizes that the organizers of the forum do not represent any single institution, interest group or political orientation; rather, they are led only by the belief that a public discussion on the role of the historian and the position of historiography in Czech society is extremely useful and necessary. The aim of the gathering was to debate how historiography and historians have interpreted previous régimes and legitimized their own, and to explore the extent to which historical knowledge can serve the immediate legitimization of certain conduct by a wide variety of social units.

A Word of Introduction

Antonín Kostlán

In his introduction the moderator of the debate recalls the considerable complexity of the process of the ‘legitimization of history’, the chosen topic of the forum. He points out that it cannot be understood merely as part of the dialogue being carried on by the community of historians on the one hand and the political régime on the other, because it is influenced by a number of other circumstances characteristic of society in a given time and place (for example, the openness of the political régime and its internal differentiation), by the community of historians (its openness, preparedness, and willingness to be loyal to the régime), and by the current level of historiography as an academic discipline.

Thoughts on the Legitimizing Function of History

Miloš Havelka

The debate by Czech historians on the uses and misuses of historical knowledge for the legitimization of political positions and doctrines is entered here by a sociologist and historian of ideas who points out the sociological, ideological, and critical aspects of the discussion. The social and cultural images of reality and social contexts of ‘meaning’, which historians appeal to and upon which their ideas of reducing the complexity of historical matter and perspectives of its interpretation all too often get hung up, emerge, from the point of view of the sociology of knowledge, outside the historical sciences; as such they are ultimately historically, culturally and systemically relative. In connection with the questions of the internal continuity of events and the nature of historical fact, two basic types of possible conception need to be distinguished: the constructivist-pluralistic, whose prototype is the methodology of Max Weber, and the realistic-absolutizing type, of which Hegel is considered to be the representative and which, in its modernized versions, has a tendency to make one of the several possible interpretations of events absolute.

Ethics and Legitimacy in Historical Research

Zdeněk Vašíček

With the results of its work, historiography always, whether actively or passively, legitimates a certain society or part of it. In return, it acquires the legitimization of its own position in society. Among the ways to minimize the danger stemming from this reciprocal relationship are high qualifications, criticism within the community of historians, and continuous reflection on the position of the historian in society – in short, professional ethics.

The Legitimizing Function of Czech Historiography before 1989 and after

Oldřich Tůma

The article is concerned chiefly with the forms and meaning of the legitimizing function which Czech historiography provided to the Communist régime at various stages of its existence, and it points out the fundamental change in relations between the political system and historiography after 1989 – the legitimizing function of historiography in its old form is now out of the question. In conclusion the author comments briefly on the role historiography can play in Czech society’s coming to terms with its Communist past: though it cannot be an instrument of the process, historiography must help to form the background needed for the process to take place.

An Ever Troubled History:
The Image of the First Czechoslovak Republic

Robert Kvaček

Using the example of the First Republic of Czechoslovakia (1918–38) and its demise, which was sealed by the Munich Agreement, the author demonstrates how historiography was drawn into the vortex of political and ideological interests and subordinated to them. Its history and leading actors were, beginning immediately after Munich, interpreted with ulterior motives, whether to legitimize the right-wing of the Second Republic (from 30 September 1938 to 15 March 1939), Beneš’s foreign policy during World War II, or individual political currents after the Liberation (in May 1945). After the Communist takeover of February 1948, the images of the First Republic and the Munich Agreement were tinted mainly with the discrediting of the Beneš wing of the ‘ruling bourgeoisie’ and emphasizing the patriotism of the Communists and the alleged resolve of the Soviet Union to rush to the aid of Czechoslovakia in September 1938. In the 1960s, though historical knowledge was becoming more open and thus contributing to a more independent view of the history of the First Republic, it had, on the one hand, under growing popular demand, to be wary of idealizing it and, on the other, to face the pressures of dogmatic Communists, who resisted its re-assessment. Historiography at this time, however, was to no small degree ‘exonerated’ as a serious discipline in the eyes of society, which is also true of historical reflections on the First Republic.

Legitimacy and Historiography

Vratislav Vaníček

The legitimizing links between the past and the present were originally formulated in myths (for tribes) and epics (for the estates, for example the nobility). Historiography, since Classical Antiquity, has been accompanied by social reflection and humanization, though individual historians have occasionally employed tendentious interpretations in order to ingratiate themselves with the powerful (such as princes, national movements, the state). But only the totalitarian régimes, in a ‘scientific’ and socially complex way, deformed the role of historiography (for instance, by changing ethics or physically replacing the leading group of experts). Czech historiography has been unable to come to terms with this burden, though with its critical attitude and natural perceptiveness it should assist change in post-Communist society and contribute to our understanding of the contemporary world. In this article the author enumerates the obstacles to the proper role of historiography as they appear ten years after the collapse of the Communist régime.

Devil’s Advocate:
Defending the Claim that Historiography Should Eschew Political Servitude

Antonín Kostlán

Referring to the previous development of Czech historiography, particularly during the Communist era and in the decade that followed, the author argues the following three theses:

(a) Historiography is not obliged to concern itself with contemporary politics or to offer its services to them, nor should it do so; (b) in some cases an engagé approach by historiography can pose a direct threat to its own foundations as a scholarly discipline; (c) such is the current situation.

Concluding Remarks

Antonín Kostlán

In his concluding remarks, the moderator points out that the majority of discussants have concentrated chiefly on the issue of the servitude of historiography. He noted that on this point there exists a considerable range of opinion in today’s community of historians, from voices warning against drawing historiography into the service of politics to considerable accommodation. That is related, on the one hand, to ethical positions of historians as citizens and, on the other, to the fact that the vast majority of institutions of historical research in the Czech Republic are closely connected to the state, which is the agency that both operates them and commissions work from them, and it will probably remain in this role for a long time to come.

Two Books about Central Europe

Jan Křen

Henryk Samsonowicz and Jerzy Kłoczowski (eds), Historia Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej, 2 vols. Lublin: Instytut Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej, 2000.

Jiří Vykoukal, Bohuslav Litera, and Miroslav Tejchman, Východ: Vznik, vývoj a rozpad sovětského bloku 1944–1989. Prague: Libri, 2000.

Concerning the Židenický Putsch

Vlastimil Hála

Miloslav Moulis: Vzestup a pád generála Gajdy. Třebíč: Akcent, 2000.

A Book about the Prague Spring and Its Context

Jiří Kunc

Francesco Leoncini and Carla Tonini (eds), Primavera di Praga e dintorni: Alle origini dell’89. San Domenico di Fiesole: Edizioni Cultura della Pace, 2000.

Attitudes of the ‘Creative Intelligentsia’ in Czechoslovakia in the 1970s and 1980s

Lenka Kalinová

Milan Otahal: Podíl tvůrčí inteligence na pádu komunismu: Kruh nezávislé inteligence. Brno: Doplněk, 1999.

Concerning the Red Army and Its Strategic Planning on the Eve of the War with Germany

Michal Reiman

Bohuslav Litera and Jan Wanner, Přeměny Rudé armády a sovětské strategické plány 1931–1941: Dokumenty a materiály. Published in Slovanské historické studie, vol. 26 (2000).

‘The Velvet Revolution’ and the Division of Czechoslovakia through the Lens of Authors in Britain and America

Adéla Gjuričová

Robin H. E. Shepherd: Czechoslovakia: The Velvet Revolution and Beyond. London: Macmillan, 2000.

Eric Stein: Czecho/Slovakia: Ethnic Conflict, Constitutional Fissure, Negotiated Breakup. Michigan: U of Michigan P, 1997.

‘To Stand Your Ground’:
A Little Known Speech by Václav Havel from November 1968

Jarmila Cysařová

The author presents an edition of three documents from sessions of the Coordinating Committee of the Unions of the Creative Intelligentsia, on 22 and 26 November 1968. They are a hitherto unpublished speech by Václav Havel, containing his proposal for a final resolution from the session, the originally adopted text of the resolution based on Havel’s proposal, and the final version of the resolution, which was partly redrafted under pressure from the Czechoslovak political leadership, and ultimately published in the press. The author has provided the documents with extensive historical commentary.

The existence of the Coordinating Committee of the Unions of the Creative Intelligentsia was limited to a single year – from May 1968 to May 1969. Nonetheless, this association, which included writers and artists in film and television, the theatre, composers, fine artists, architects, entertainers and other artists, who were jointed by scholars and journalists, was among the important phenomena of what was by then a nascent civil society. The author, on the basis of a stenographic record of its 22 November 1968 session in the Slovak Centre, Prague, reconstructs the course of the talks, describes the speeches given by its participants, and assesses their importance. These talks, expressing the free-thinking positions of the intellectuals who were present, were fundamentally different from the conclusions of the plenary session of the Central Committee of the CPCz (held on 14–17 November 1968), which, by contrast, represented a visible retreat from the reforms of the ruling Party. The documents illustrate the efforts of CPCz First Secretary Alexander Dubček and other politicians to demonstrate their unity with the ‘culture front’; the meeting between a delegation of the Coordinating Committee and Dubček also took place in this spirit. Scholars, artists, and journalists did not yet want to announce publicly a rupture with the politicians in power who were connected with the reforms of the Prague Spring, and consequently they redrafted the final resolution.

The principal message of Havel’s uncompromising draft was to warn against the policy of ‘the lesser evil’, which, he argued, would lead to inauspicious precedents in modern Czech history, and he also urged the artists to face the pressure of the Brezhnev leadership and its allies with an appeal to the will of the vast majority of the Czechoslovak population. In conclusion, the author refers to other work by Havel from the same period to illustrate the continuity of his clear-cut views as a citizen.

Recalling Gordon Skilling

This section of Soudobé dějiny contains speeches in honour of the late Canadian historian and political scientist H. Gordon Skilling (28 February 1912 – 2 March 2001), given at Innis College, University of Toronto, on 11 May 2001.

The event is described by Linda Maštalířová of the University of Toronto in a report for Soudobé dějiny. The gathering including condolences from Skilling’s friends: President of the Czech Republic Václav Havel, Chairman of the Senate of the Czech Republic Petr Pithart, and Jolana and Miro Kusý of Bratislava; they, too, are reported here by the author.

In his speech Professor Peter Solomon of the University of Toronto underscored two aspects of Skilling’s work: his extraordinary role in establishing the Centre for Russian and East European Studies at Toronto, which became one of the most important centres of its kind in North America, and his remarkable independence of thought, which was expressed in both his unconventional political position and his search for new research approaches, such as the comparative study of Communist systems.

Vilém Prečan, on behalf of the Czech National Committee of Historians, of which he is Chairman, sent a speech recalling Skilling’s close connection with Czechoslovakia and emphasizing his contribution to Czechoslovak historiography, his role in presenting Czechoslovakia to the world and his support for dissidents in their efforts to establish democratic conditions in Czechoslovakia. Prečan concluded by proposing the establishment of a Czecho-Canadian scholarship for young historians from both countries, which would be named after Skilling.

Barbara Falk, a political scientist from Toronto, on a personal note pointed out the human side of Gordon Skilling and recalled the legendary seminar that he had held in his Toronto apartment for many years.

---

• News

• Departments
• Publications
• Archive Resources and Collections
• Projects
• Journal Soudobé dějiny
  • Volume XVII. (2010)
  • Volume XVI. (2009)
  • Volume XV. (2008)
  • Volume XIV. (2007)
  • Volume XIII. (2006)
  • Volume XII. (2005)
  • Volume XI. (2004)
  • Volume X. (2003)
  • Volume IX. (2002)
  • Volume VIII. (2001)
  • Volume VII. (2000)
  • Volume VI. (1999)
  • Volume V. (1998)
  • Volume IV. (1997)
  • Volume III. (1996)
• Library
• ÚSD Partners

• E-shop

 

• Webmail
• Aktuálně ÚSD
• Akademie v centru pozornosti

Current events in picture

ÚSD ze zapojil do 2. ročníku akce Víkend otevřených zahrad. V sobotu 11. června využilo nabídku prohlédnout si dvorkovou zahradu domu U tří růží téměř tisíc návštěvníků.

more...

 © Copyright 2011 Ústav pro soudobé dějiny AV ČR. All rights reserved. Realization Webmint s.r.o.