Kniha líčí životy necelých dvou stovek jugoslávských politických emigrantů, kteří se po roztržce mezi Sovětským svazem a Jugoslávií v roce 1948 natrvalo usadili v Československu, aby manifestovali svou věrnost Stalinovi a odpor k Josipu Brozi Titovi. Recenzent oceňuje, že autor do hloubky ukazuje mikrokosmos jejich prostředí, připomínající ghetto, a zpřítomňuje ideologií a vášněmi nasáklou atmosféru zakladatelské fáze komunistického režimu. Z perspektivy „jugoslávského problému“ přitom nasvětluje některé vztahy a mechanismy fungování komunistické diktatury v Československu, a právě tento druhý rozměr podle recenzenta povyšuje práci na zřetelně nadstandardní úroveň. Za jedinou výraznější slabinu pokládá chybějící teoretické zakotvení výkladu., This publication considers the lives of almost 200 Yugoslav political exiles, who, after the rift between the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia in 1948, settled permanently in Czechoslovakia, where they could manifest their loyalty to Stalin and opposition to Josip Broz Tito. The reviewer appreciates that depth with which the author discusses the microcosm these exiles lived in, which in some respects resembled a ghetto, and he presents a vivid picture of the ideology and the atmosphere, fraught with passion, of the founding phase of the Communist régimes. Considering the ‘Yugoslav Question’, he casts light on some relations and mechanisms in the operation of the Communist dictatorship in Czechoslovakia, and it is this second dimension, according to the reviewer, which elevates the work clearly above the usual standards. One of the marked weak points, according the reviewer, is the absence of a theoretical basis of the interpretation., [autor recenze] Přemysl Houda., and Obsahuje bibliografii
The study deals with the development and instrumentalization of the Handlová strike (1940) in the historiography before 1989. In the paper, I will provide the situation that preceded the strike and then the analysis of its process. It will also be necessary to determine who initiated the strike and what role the illegal communist movement played in it. I am going to compare the forms of instrumentalization with some of the claims made by historiography after 1989. In the context of instrumentalization of a strike, several questions arise. Was this a significant historiographic milestone? For what purpose was it used? Who and why was he the maintainer of his instrumentalization? How much influence had the communists during the strike?