There was published a pamphlet called Aké bude Slovensko o sto rokov? (1920), [What will Slovakia be like in 100 years?] just a century ago. It offered a vision of Slovak national state's future – the state flourishing with social welfare, scientific and technological progress and moral maturity of citizens. Adaptation of "happy national home" idea for future, written by engineer Jozef Dohnány (1873 – 1947), carries marks characteristics for utopias. The conference paper approaches to Dohnány's vision as to a branch of modern dynamic utopic phenomenon, creating a communication space, especially in the 19.th and 20.th century, for expressing desires and ideals, testing possibilities of mental borders and calling for social or political mobilization in favour of achievement realistic, or even unrealistic aims. The paper uses interdisciplinary interpretative approach for analysis of Dohnány vision's ideological structure, compares it in relation to More's prototype of utopia and refers to representations of "period's presence" in utopic genre.
The Croatian society is still coping with traumatizing events (World War II and civil war) and memories of them. The politics of memory, articulated by Tudjman´s strategy of generational and memory reconciliation of the society in the early 1990s, led to the relativization and even promotion of the pro-fascist Ustashe regime, and simultaneously to the marginalization and stigmatization of narratives relating to the role of national liberation struggle within multi-ethnic partisan movement. This also included members of local Czech minority. The study shows how - despite this - the narratives concerning the partisan resistance are still alive in family memory, and they form, through generational transmission, a value alternative to the contemporary nationally-oriented state ideology as well as to the cultural presentation of Czech minority. Family memory works as an autonomous ”intimate space/area” of expatriates in Croatia, which is based on searching for a generational value continuities in the period of post-communist social uncertainties.
When the nationalities of the multiethnic Austrian Empire began to demand national self-determination "on their own territory“, they
started the struggle for the national "Besitzstand“. The great nations like the Magyars, Czechs, Poles and Croats claimed for their historical "Staatsrecht“. The Austrian governments answered with the concept of national autonomy in national homogeneous districts on the basis of the existing historical "Kreise“. Palacky on the Krensierer Reichstag, Stadion in the Reichsverfassung of 1849, Ernest von Körber in the context of his deliberations to solve the "Bohemian question“ presented concepts for realization. When the
governments of Stürgkh, Clam Martinic and Seidler/Hussarek declarated the "Kreisordnung“ for Bohemia, there was no chance for acceptance, because the question of the settlement of a Czechoslovak State was decided., Článek zahrnuje poznámkový aparát pod čarou, and V křestním jméně pod názvem je chybně napsáno Helmt místo správného Helmut
The article examines the Slovene “progressive” political parties,
treated as the interwar heirs to the 19th century national liberal traditions, and puts forward references to similar parties from the Czech political context. It demonstrates how the dominant position of political Catholicism within the Slovene political landscape also largely determined the ideological profile and political behavior of the main opposing camp. Pronounced “anti-clerical” orientation was thus essential for Slovene (post-)liberals, marking an important difference to their counterparts in the more secularized Czech context. On other hand the appeal to the national idea remained central for both the Slovene and the Czech interwar national liberal heirs. The specificities of progressives’ national politics are discussed in the second section, where it is indicated that the complexities of their Yugoslavist course, being based not
merely on pragmatic considerations, had mostly different underpinnings than the Czechoslovakist conceptions had in the Czech (post-)liberal politics. and Článek zahrnuje poznámkový aparát pod čarou
This article aims to investigate the viewpoint of the
Austro-German liberal movement - both ideologically and practically - towards the arguments for Bohemian state rights made by the conservative Bohemian Great Landowners and Czech political parties in the period from 1861 to 1879. The February Patent of 1861 is a convenient starting point because it reintroduced representative bodies to the Habsburg Monarchy and facilitatedthe development of modern democratic politics. The 1879 parliamentary election is this article’s end point since it constituted a significant turning point in Austrian and Bohemian politics. The Austro-German liberals lost the majority in central parliament while the conservative Bohemian Great Landowners and Czech parties attended parliament after a sixteen-year absence, joining the conservative-Slav coalition supporting the government.
The principal argument is that while the Austro-German liberals (particularly the Bohemian-German faction) were generally opposed to Bohemian state rights, this must be qualifi ed by the genuine desire for compromise (under certain conditions), considerable tactical fl exibility and the wider Imperial context. Chronologically, the article focuses on key parliamentary debates to
illustrate the changing relations: the fluid 1860s, the crucial period from 1867 to 1871 (when there was a real possibility of Bohemian state rights) through to the turning point of 1879. and Článek zahrnuje poznámkový aparát pod čarou
This study analyzes the political turnaround of the Croatian Communist leadership, which in December 1989 decided to organize free, pluralistic elections that guided Croatia towards a pluralistic political system. It analyzes in detail the course of the 11th Congress of the Communist party of Croatia, which led to this fundamental change and promoted further developments. The attention is also paid to the domestic political developments in Croatia during the month that followed, when difficulties and concerns — both inside and outside the ruling circles — appeared in connection with the sudden democratization. and Předkládaná studie analyzuje politický obrat chorvatského komunistického vedení, které v prosinci 1989 rozhodlo o uspořádání svobodných vícestranických voleb a tím o dalším směřování Chorvatska směrem k pluralitnímu politickému systému. Podrobně je rozebírán průběh XI. sjezdu Svazu komunistů Chorvatska, v jehož průběhu byla tato zásadní změna současného kurzu prosazena a dále rozvedena. Ústřední pozornost je pak věnována vnitropolitickému vývoji Chorvatska během následujícího měsíce, kdy se mimo jiné projevily i těžkosti a obavy spojené s náhlou demokratizací, a to nejen ze strany vládnoucích kruhů.
The article provides a comparison of two monuments - one of
František Palacký in Prague and the second of Theodor Mommsen in Berlin. Both men were the key historians of their nations in the 19th century. Palacký has offered a master-narrative of Czech national past in his famous book The History of Czech Nation in Bohemia and Moravia and set the main structures of narrating Czech history for two centuries. Theodor Mommsen has become
a worldwide known historian due to his extraordinary History of Rome, for which he has obtained Nobel Price for Literature in 1903. Monuments of these historians were built at the beginning of the 20th century (Palacký’s in 1912, Mommsen’s in 1909). The paper focuses on structural similarities between the monuments, especially in the area of collective memory. Using the theory of
Maurice Halbwachs formulated just before World War II the essay points out that there is a fundamental connection between memory and space. The essay argues that there is no significant structural difference between Palacký’s and Mommsen’s monument in terms of shaping the collective memory. and Článek zahrnuje poznámkový aparát pod čarou
The article presents a historical overview of research into Germanic mythology. It introduces the most notable scholars and thinkers in this field, as well as the dominant approaches to the issue within various periods of the research. It also shows the intellectual trajectories, by which old Germanic cultures in general and Germanic mythologies in particular became an ideological matter for nationalistic movements within various Germanic countries. The discovery of Tacit's Germania in 1451 represented an initial impulse for deeper research into "lost" pre-Christian cultural heritage, especially in Germanic countries. Scholarly interest generally began at the earliest in Scandinavia, where both Icelandic Eddas and Norse sagas became objects of study from as early as the 17th century. In Germanspeaking countries, studies in this field began to flourish only in the 18th century, fed by the complex processes associated with the formation of national identities. Later, from the 19th century onward until WWII, Germany became the main centre of Germanic studies, which corresponded with the growth of radical nationalism within the country. In the post-war period, research into the topic diminished for two decades, hand-in-hand with the process of "denazification". Its resurrection in the 1960s and 1970s occurred most notably among Anglo-Saxon scholars, who occupied leading positions in the field at least until the end of the 20th century. This historical review of research into Germanic mythology clearly demonstrates how the political climate influences both the academic discourse and choice of research issues – and, therefore, how interpretations of the past can smoothly turn into "the politics projected into the past".
Historical state rights are characteristics of a few empires. Legally,
they drew on the tradition of former estates’ orders and contained privileges of estates or a County with regard to the Emperor. In the second half of the 19th century, however, this legal argument gave way for interpretations that were genuinely political. Historiography has often interpreted this shift as an exclusively nationalist one. Taking the Austrian Bohemian Lands and Czech nationalism as an example, this paper shows how the more complex the discourse was, in which history was transformed into political claims. In the realm of the Habsburg Monarchy, state rights legitimized so
different ideas as feudal-estates’ orders, historic federalism or nation states. These political programs had conservative,
national-liberal and even democratic implications combined with integrationist or separationist policies. and Článek zahrnuje poznámkový aparát pod čarou