The study deals with political activities of the Soviet Army in Czechoslovakia after the intervention on August 21, 1968, and its sympathizers from the ranks of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. The authoress examines the topic in the early stage of the so-called normalization (until the spring of 1970), focusing on the local level; however, she sets her research into a broader period context and derives general conclusions from its results. Although the offi cial agreement on the temporary stay of Soviet troops in the territory of Czechoslovakia declared that the Soviet Army should not interfere with domestic affairs of the Czechoslovak state, the Soviet leadership kept devising plans how to make use of the presence of Soviet troops for political purposes. Soviet offi cers participated in the dissemination of Soviet propaganda, established contacts with local anti-reform party offi cials, spoke at their forums, complained about hostile attitudes of Czechoslovak political bodies, and thus kept pressing for a legitimization of the political arrangements. The authoress shows that local pro-Soviet activists, who had maintained contacts with the Soviet Army from the very beginning and been taking over its political agenda, were playing a crucial role in the success of these efforts. In line with Soviet intentions, they were implementing the normalization process ''from below'',initiating purges in various organs, demanding the dismissal of offi cials protesting against presence of the Soviet Army, participating in the subsequent political vetting. They were actively pushing through a change of the offi cial approach to the Soviet Army and helped break its boycott by the Czechoslovak society, which had initially been almost unanimous. In doing so, they were making use of their personal contacts to organize manifestation ''friendship'' meetings and visits of Soviet soldiers to Czechoslovak schools and factories. The authoress analyzes the reasons of the attitude of these activists, most of whom came from the ranks of ''old'' (pre-war) and ''distinguished'' members of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, and illustrates the development outlined above by specifi c examples. By way of conclusion, she notes that, although different forms of the CzechoslovakSoviet ''friendship'' since 1968 are often viewed as mere formalistic acts without any deeper meaning at the level of ''lived'' experience, they were, from the viewpoint of the Soviet policy, well thought-out and centrally planned propagandistic activities which contributed to the promotion of the Soviet interpretation of the Prague Spring and the Soviet invasion and discredited its opponents. and Přeložila Blanka Medková
V roce 1964 obdržel polský básník Zbigniew Herbert vízum pro cestu do Řecka. O své cestě pojednává v pěti esejích věnovaných antickému Řecku, které vycházely v letech 1965–1973, dříve, než byly vydány posmrtně v souboru názvem Labyrint u moře (2000). Proč se Herbert zajímá v páté eseji, jež vznikla v roce 1969, o revoltu na ostrově Samos proti athénské hegemonii? Díky tomuto tématu může promlouvat o současnosti (pražské jaro a jeho potlačení) a cenzuře: návrat prostřednictvím minulosti, explicitní a implicitní analogie. Disidentský básník také navrhuje politickou analýzu sovětské totality a pohrává si s dvojsmysly. Ale toto gesto angažovanosti ve prospěch odporu Čechoslováků musí být chápáno v perspektivě širšího rámce historického výzkumu dané doby a reflexe dějin vítězi. and In 1964 Polish poet Zbigniew Herbert obtained his visa for Greece. This trip was the basis for five essays devoted to ancient Greece that were published between 1965 and 1973, before being gathered in a posthumous collection, The Labyrinth by the Sea (2000). In the fifth essay, written in 1969, Herbert interested in the episode about the Revolt of Samos against Athenian hegemony. Why this particular interest? This subject allows him to speak about the present (the Prague Spring) and its repression by-passing censorship: the detour in the past as well as the process of explicit and especially implicit analogy. The dissident poet also proposes a political analysis of Soviet totalitarianism, playing on a series of double meanings. But this commitment supporting the revolt of the Czechoslovaks must be put into perspective in the broader context of the historical research of his time and his reflection on how the victors write history.
The aim of this text is a summary of the conceptual work of Czechoslovak institutions in the field of cultural relations with France in the years 1960–1968. Based on the analysis of the most basic conceptual materials from those years, the author tries to evaluate the development and changes of the official concept of cultural policy of Czechoslovakia to France in the Novotny regime and during the Prague Spring and its ideological and other background as well as the real impact on the actual conduct of cultural relations.
The French Communists’ offi cial reactions to the Soviet-led military intervention by fi ve Warsaw Pact countries in Czechoslovakia in August 1968 are generally considered to mark the fi rst time in history that the French Communist Party decided not to show public support for an international operation by the Soviet Union. As the author demonstrates with an analysis of records from the Archive of the French Communist Party and the central Czechoslovak archives, French Communist support for the Czechoslovak reform movement was not exactly straightforward; nor was subsequent French Communist condemnation of the August military intervention consistent. The French Communist Party leaders’ attitude to Alexander Dubček (1921-1992) and the Prague Spring can, according to the author, be reasonably described as limited support, which did not go beyond the limits of friendship with the Soviet Union. The diplomatic activity of the General Secretary of the French Communist Party, Waldeck Rochet (1905-1983), also stemmed from this attitude: in July 1968, he tried, unsuccessfully, to act as a broker between Prague and Moscow and thus prevent the military intervention. By contrast, amongst French Communist intellectuals, like Roger Garaudy (1913-2012) and Louis Aragon (1897-1982), sympathies for the Prague Spring were much more visible. In contrast to the enthusiasm with which these intellectuals welcomed ‘Socialism with a human face’ in Czechoslovak, however, were the impressions of the French Communist Party rank-and-fi le who had experienced the Prague Spring in person - they perceived it as a threat to Socialism and were unpleasantly surprised by manifestations of Czech and Slovak idealization of the West. Although the French Communist Party initially ''condemned'' the intervention in Czechoslovakia, the next day its leaders moderated their negative response, expressing ''disagreement''. Ultimately, this position had no real infl uence on the French Party’s relations with the Soviet Union. Indeed, according to the author, it would be more accurate to talk of a certain buttressing of those relations, since it turned out that they could be further developed regardless of the French Party’s not agreeing with the intervention. The attitude of the French Communist Party leadership after August 1968 was therefore of a dual nature: the Party declared that it stuck to its original position of disagreement with the intervention, but that was not really manifested in their politics in practice: in fact, they maintained friendly relations with both the Soviet Communists and the
''normalized'' Czechoslovak Communist Party. But not all French Communists agreed with this stance. For many French Communist intellectuals, the offi cial condemnation was insuffi cient, and they appealed for greater solidarity with occupied Czechoslovakia. Nor amongst the rank-and-fi le of the French Communist Party was opinion unanimous; probably many members agreed with the intervention in Czechoslovakia.
The Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia caused thousands of people fleeing the country to the West. In spite of hard times at the beginning of the immigration, most of the refugees have been able to accommodate to the new conditions and build up a career and new life. This study deals with the Czech communities in Austria and Switzerland after 1968. The author uses the content analysis of the periodical press and recorded interviews to describe the Remembrance Culture of members of the communities. The main research question of the paper is whether the year 1968 (which is the milestone in the Czech history) plays any role in collective consciousness of the Czech exile.
The year 1968 was a milestone in the history of the Communist Party of Greece (KKE), which was celebrating the 50th anniversary of its establishment. This paper will analyse the peculiarities of the division of 1968 and its impact on the Greek left, especially on the life of Greek refugees in Czechoslovakia. The paper is based primarily on materials available in the National Archives of Prague and also in the archives of the refugee newspaper Agonistis. The article highlights in chronological order the reactions of the KKE and the Czechoslovak leadership to the news of the military coup in Greece, focusing chiefly on those reactions caused by the split of the KKE in conjunction with the changes brought about by the Prague Spring and its violent repression.