Academic literature on the topic 'Prague Uprising'

In 1618, members of the Bohemian estates threw Habsburg officials out of a window of the Prague castle. The Prague defenestration, which has been viewed as the catalyst for the outbreak of the Thirty Years’ War, is one of the best known acts of uprising in early modern Europe. Less well known is an earlier popular uprising that took place below the castle in the Old and New Cities of Prague on Carnival Tuesday, 15 February 1611. In the midst of a bizarre diplomatic and military episode during which foreign troops led by the Bishop of Passau invaded the city, mobs plundered cloisters and monasteries and, in a few cases, threw members of religious orders from church towers.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) kept close track of developments in Czechoslovakia throughout 1968, but the alliance did not pursue a coherent policy toward the uprising. A close examination of NATO actions from January 1968 until the invasion on 20–21 August helps explain why a coordinated approach never materialized. Certain structural features of the alliance and a host of domestic and external distractions precluded a joint response. NATO members worked individually rather than collectively to avert Soviet military action through quiet diplomacy, but these efforts made almost no difference.

The article deals with complex and controversial issues related to the uprising and liberation of Prague in May 1945. Interpretation of the events became acute and caused lively discussions in connection with the demolition of the monument to Marshal I. V. Konev on April 3, 2020 by the order of the local municipality. The Czech Republic is also discussing the idea of «perpetuating the role of other liberators» of the capital – soldiers of the ROA division, which for two days (May 6-7) provided assistance to the rebels. Using new documents from the Central archive of the Ministry of defense of the Russian Federation, the author draws a conclusion about the limited influence of the Vlasov units. They, indeed, brought confusion to the German ranks, but early in the morning of May 8, they themselves left Prague on a rapid march. After that, fighting and negotiations between the rebels and the German command continued. The article emphasizes that the main goal of the Soviet military operation from 6 to 11 May 1945 was the defeat of the German Army Group Center. The liberation of Prague was only part of a powerful offensive by three Soviet fronts. Heavy battles for Prague did not happen, but the entry of Soviet tanks into the Czech capital and the subsequent jubilation of local residents became a symbol of the end of the war in Europe. The author concludes that the demolition of monuments to Soviet soldiers and commanders is a manifestation of internal political struggle in the countries where it occurs, and the Czech Republic is only one of these examples.

The purpose of the article is to analyze the representation’s report of the Western Ukrainian People’s Republic in Prague on the attitude of the president of Czechoslovakia T. G. Masaryk to the Ukrainian question. The research methodology is based on the research principles of historicism, scientificity, objectivity, general scientific methods (source analysis, historical and logical) and special historical methods (narrative and problem-chronological). The scientific novelty of the work is that the article on the basis of archival and published materials, in particular, the letters of the heads of the representation of the Western Ukrainian People's Republic in Prague to the foreign ministers of the state, analyzes the attitude of the first president of Czechoslovakia to the Ukrainian question. Conclusions. Masaryk’s attitude to the Ukrainian question is considered in the context of establishing relations between Czechoslovakia and the Western Ukrainian People’s Republic in late 1918 – early 1919, the desire of ones in 1920-1923 to gain the support of Prague in ensuring the recognition of the Entente countries the independence of this state, discussion of the case of assisting for Ukrainian emigrants in Czechoslovakia. In the article were noted the changes in the position of the Czechoslovak president in the Ukrainian question. In his work «New Europe» (1918), he supported the idea of the uniting of the Dnieper region, Eastern Galicia and Bukovina considering it necessary to preserve it as part of the federal democratic Russian state. In early 1919 president of the Czechoslovak Republic was ready to recognize the independence of the Ukrainian People’s Republic, which was revived during the anti-Hetman uprising. But made the final decision dependent on the position of the Entente states at the peace conference in Paris. The coverage of the perception of the Ukrainian question by T. G. Masaryk in 1920-1921 by the representatives of the Western Ukrainian People’s Republic in Prague testifies to his return to the concept set forth in the work «New Europe». Reports from representatives of the Western Ukrainian People’s Republic allow a more complete study of the circumstances that made it impossible for it to gain political support from Czechoslovakia. Given this, as well as the issues of the Czechoslovak Republic’s policy in Transcarpathia and on emigration were raised in the reports of the representation, these documents are an important source for studying the history of Czechoslovak-Ukrainian relations.

The purpose of the article is to analyze the representation’s report of the Western Ukrainian People’s Republic in Prague on the attitude of the president of Czechoslovakia T. G. Masaryk to the Ukrainian question. The research methodology is based on the research principles of historicism, scientificity, objectivity, general scientific methods (source analysis, historical and logical) and special historical methods (narrative and problem-chronological). The scientific novelty of the work is that the article on the basis of archival and published materials, in particular, the letters of the heads of the representation of the Western Ukrainian People's Republic in Prague to the foreign ministers of the state, analyzes the attitude of the first president of Czechoslovakia to the Ukrainian question. Conclusions. Masaryk’s attitude to the Ukrainian question is considered in the context of establishing relations between Czechoslovakia and the Western Ukrainian People’s Republic in late 1918 – early 1919, the desire of ones in 1920-1923 to gain the support of Prague in ensuring the recognition of the Entente countries the independence of this state, discussion of the case of assisting for Ukrainian emigrants in Czechoslovakia. In the article were noted the changes in the position of the Czechoslovak president in the Ukrainian question. In his work «New Europe» (1918), he supported the idea of the uniting of the Dnieper region, Eastern Galicia and Bukovina considering it necessary to preserve it as part of the federal democratic Russian state. In early 1919 president of the Czechoslovak Republic was ready to recognize the independence of the Ukrainian People’s Republic, which was revived during the anti-Hetman uprising. But made the final decision dependent on the position of the Entente states at the peace conference in Paris. The coverage of the perception of the Ukrainian question by T. G. Masaryk in 1920-1921 by the representatives of the Western Ukrainian People’s Republic in Prague testifies to his return to the concept set forth in the work «New Europe». Reports from representatives of the Western Ukrainian People’s Republic allow a more complete study of the circumstances that made it impossible for it to gain political support from Czechoslovakia. Given this, as well as the issues of the Czechoslovak Republic’s policy in Transcarpathia and on emigration were raised in the reports of the representation, these documents are an important source for studying the history of Czechoslovak-Ukrainian relations.

The National Museum started increasingly to engage in exhibitions devoted to twentieth-century history, subsequent to the foundation of the Department of modern Czech history. Until then, it had left this subject area to the Party museums in Prague. Individual exhibitions were particularly devoted to anniversaries marking the emergence of KSČ (the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia), the Slovak national uprising, the end of the War, the year 1948 and building socialism. They varied in standard, and were based on ideas from the document “Lessons from the evolution of the crisis in the party and society after the 13th KSČ congress of 1970” and on the associated museological methodologies. However, at the same time they were conceived in a manner that reflected the acquisition conception of the Department, and sought to present political as well as cultural, economic and social topics. They also endeavoured to portray everyday life. All these exhibitions may thus be considered a preparatory stage that culminated in the permanent exhibition on the history of the twentieth century.

Abstract Lieutenant colonel Karol Cigáň (1921-2005), head of the cryptographic unit of the Czechoslovak Ministry of National Defence in the period 1949-1958 was after discharging from this position in Prague relocated to an insignificant and substandard command position at a district military administration in Slovakia. His cryptographic experience was of no use in his new position. To profit from his previous experience as a high qualified cryptographer he started to study the accessible literature and archive materials about the usage of the Czechoslovak cipher systems during the WWII. The result of this his activity were some manuscripts where he deciphered and analyzed some Czechoslovak military wireless telegrams. His critical analysis and his conclusions did not meet an understanding or a positive response of historians and were nor accepted for publication. He had no other chance as to send them to archives. Unfortunately only one (in two copies) and a collection of small notes survived. The aim of this paper is to make decisive technical parts of manuscript [K. Cigáň: Impacts of the decryption of the cipher system of the Czechoslovak Ministry of Defence in London from the years 1940-1945 on the resistance movement. Archive of the Slovak National Uprising, Banská Bystrica, Slovakia, Document collection (Fond) V, manuscript no. S36/90, 46 pp.] about the usage of the socalled STP cipher accessible. Thereby we complement the paper [Š. Porubský: STP cipher of the Czechoslovak in-exile Ministry of Defence in London during WWII, in: Proc. of EuroHCC’17, 3rd European Historical Ciphers Colloq., Smolenice Castle, Slovakia, 2017 (J. von zur Gathen et al., eds.), Slovak Univ. of Technology in Bratislava, 2017, pp. 47-66] where the part of this manuscript containing Cigáň’s method for solving STP cipher which he calls “mathematical” is published. To put Cigáň’s analysis and comment into their historical framework we briefly outline the history of Czechoslovak military intelligence activities with emphasis on their cryptological component.

During the early post-war years (1944–1948), the newly established communist regimes in Eastern Europe followed the Soviet example. They honoured figures and events from their respective national pasts, and celebrated holidays dedicated to anti-fascist resistance and popular uprisings, which they presented as forerunners of the new, bright and prosperous “democratic” era. Hungarian communists celebrated 15 March and commemorated 6 October, both recalling the national struggle for independence in 1848; they celebrated a martyr cult of fallen communists presented as national heroes, and “nationalized” socialist holidays, such as May Day. In the centenary of 1848 they linked national with social demands. In the “struggle for the soul of the nation,” Czech communists also extensively celebrated anniversaries and centenaries, especially in 1948, which saw the 600th anniversary of the founding of Prague's Charles University, the 100th anniversaries of the first All-Slav Congress (held in Prague) and the revolution of 1848, the 30th anniversary of the founding of an independent Czechoslovakia, and the 10th anniversary of the Munich Accords. National holidays related to anti-fascist resistance movements were celebrated in Croatia, Slovenia, and Macedonia; dates related to the overthrow of fascism, implying the transition to the new era, were celebrated in Romania, Albania, and Bulgaria.

The International American Studies Association is dismayed to see the explosion of anger, bitterness and desperation that has been triggered by yet another senseless, cruel and wanton act of racialized violence in the United States. We stand in solidarity with and support the ongoing struggle by African Americans, indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, migrants and the marginalized against the racialized violence perpetrated against them. As scholars of the United States, we see the killing of George Floyd and many before them as acts on the continuum of the history of the powerful committing racialized violence against the powerless in the United States from before the birth of that country to the here and now of the present day. This continuum stretches from the transatlantic slave trade, the genocide of the indigenous population, the denial of rights and liberties to women, through the exploitation of American workers, slavery and Jim Crow, to the exclusion and inhumane treatment of the same migrants who make a profit for American corporations and keep prices low for the U.S. consumer. As scholars of the United States, we are acutely aware of how racialized violence is systemic, of how it has been woven into the fabric of U.S. society and cultures by the powerful, and of how the struggle against it has produced some of the greatest contributions of U.S. society to world culture and heritage. The desperate rebellion of the powerless against racialized violence by the powerful is in turn propagandized as unreasonable or malicious. It is neither. It is an uprising to defend their own lives, their last resort after waiting for generations for justice and equal treatment from law enforcement, law makers, and the courts. In too many instances, those in power have answered such uprisings with deadly force—and in every instance, they have had alternatives to this response. We are calling on those in power and the people with the guns in the United States now to exercise their choices and choose an alternative to deadly force as a response to the struggle against racialized violence. You have the power and the weapons—you have a choice to do the right thing and make peace. We are calling on U.S. law makers to listen and address the issues of injustice and racialized violence through systemic reform that remakes the very fabric of the United States justice system, including independent accountability oversight for law enforcement. We are calling on our IASA members and Americanists around the world to redouble their efforts at teaching their students and educating the public of the truth about the struggle against racialized violence in the United States. We are calling on our IASA members and Americanists around the world to become allies in the struggle against racialized violence in the United States and in their home societies by publicizing scholarship on the truth, by listening to and amplifying the voices of black people, ethnic minorities and the marginalized, and supporting them in this struggle on their own terms. We are calling on all fellow scholarly associations to explore all the ways in which they can put pressure with those in power at all levels in the United States to do the right thing and end racialized violence. There will be no peace in our hearts and souls until justice is done and racialized violence is ended—until all of us are able “to breathe free.” Dr Manpreet Kaur Kang, President of the International American Studies Association, Professor of English and Dean, School of Humanities & Social Sciences, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, India;Dr Jennifer Frost, President of the Australian and New Zealand American Studies Association, Associate Professor of History, University of Auckland, New Zealand;Dr S. Bilge Mutluay Çetintaş, Associate Professor, Department of American Culture and Literature, Hacettepe University, Turkey;Dr Gabriela Vargas-Cetina, Professor of Anthropology, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mexico;Dr Paweł Jędrzejko, Associate Professor of American Literature, University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland;Dr Marietta Messmer, Associate Professor of American Studies, University of Groningen, The Netherlands;Dr Kryštof Kozák, Department of North American Studies, Charles University, Prague;Dr Giorgio Mariani, Professor of English and American Languages and Literatures, Department of European, American and Intercultural Studies, Università “Sapienza” of Rome;Dr György Tóth, Lecturer, History, Heritage and Politics, University of Stirling, Scotland, United Kingdom;Dr Manuel Broncano, Professor of American Literature and Director of English, Spanish, and Translation, Texas A&M International University, Laredo, USA;Dr Jiaying Cai, Lecturer at the School of English Studies, Shanghai International Studies University, China;Dr Alessandro Buffa, Secretary, Center for Postcolonial and Gender Studies, University of Naples L’Orientale, Italy;

The Prague uprising signified the end of the Second World War in Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. As the Soviet and American armies progressed through the country towards Prague and the war was apparently soon to come to an end, Czechoslovaks themselves wanted to take part in the resistance against the Nazi oppression. The uprising was also a turning point for the succesful liberation of Prague. After the Czechoslovak communist party seized power in February 1948, the way the public perceived the uprising had to be changed to fit the party's interpretation, purposely overlooking the contribution of any non-communist resistence. This ideologically suitable interpretation had to be accepted even by the main leader of the uprising. The aforementioned interpretation can still be seen in historiographic books, even those published after the Velvet Revolution. Interpretation of the same event with the targeted use of words and phrases allows for different sounds and thus influences the reader. Targeted use of historical events can achieve the long-term prevalence of rumors, the refutation of which is a necessity and the work of historians. On the example of key moments of the uprising, such as its spontaneous beginning, the involvement of The Russian Liberation Army or the surrender of German troops...

Bibliographic record: Michal MACHÁČEK: Gustáv Husák. A Political Biography with Special Emphasis on Czech-Slovak Relations in 20th Century, PhD. thesis, The Faculty of Arts at Charles University 2017, 476pp. [784 standard pages]. Abstract The dissertation thesis discusses public activities, thoughts and the political life of JUDr. Gustáv Husák, CSc. (1913-1991), who was involved in the Czech-Slovak public space for sixty years with a significant footprint even today. The text is based on a thorough research and is chronologically structured, intertwined with thematic areas, however an analytical approach prevails. The first chapter focuses on Husák's youth, the factors that led him to the communist movement, and his early activism. This is followed by a portrayal of the Husák's activities during the Second World War, his role in the resistance, participation in a propaganda trip to the Nazi conquered Ukraine, and his vision of Slovakia as a republic of the Soviet Union. His later involvement in the Slovak National Uprising provided the legitimacy of his later political career in the post-war era, when he successfully led the struggle for the communist monopoly of political power in Czechoslovakia and attempts to present the Communist Party of Slovakia as a national party. Next two chapters show the origins...

Communist East Germany’s demolition of Leipzig’s intact medieval University Church in May 1968 was an act widely decried as “cultural barbarism”. Although overshadowed by the crackdown on Prague Spring mere weeks later, the willful destruction of this historic landmark on a central site called Karl Marx Square represents an essential turning point in relations between the Communist authorities and the “people” they claimed to serve. As the largest case of East German protest between the 1953 Uprising and 1989 Revolution, this intimate local trauma exhibits how the inner workings of a “dictatorial” system operated more broadly and exposes the often gray and overlapping lines between State and citizenry. Through deep analysis of untapped periodicals and archives, it introduces a broad cast of characters who helped make the demolition possible and restores the voices of ordinary citizens who dared in the name of culture, humanism, and civic pride to protest what they saw as an inconceivable tragedy. In this city that later started the 1989 Revolution triggering the fall of the Berlin Wall, residents from every social background desperately hoped to convince their leaders to step back from the brink. But as the dust cleared in 1968, they saw with all finality that their voices meant nothing, that the DDR was a sham democracy awash with utopian rhetoric that had no connection with their everyday lives. If Communism died in Prague in 1968, it had already died in Leipzig just weeks before, with repercussions that still haunt today’s politics of memory.