Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The paper examines the ways in which Russians and Germans have been depicted in the recollections on the German occupation of Bohemia and Moravia. It is based on a set of 22 interviews with the participants recalling their own wartime experiences or the stories told in their family. Using content analysis, the paper establishes a negative image of Russians and a rather positive image of Germans across the generations of participants. The study further explores the possible reasons for this “reversal of poles” in contrast to the interpretations of Russians and Germans before the fall of Communism in 1989. The reasons are sought in three areas: the sympathy of Czechs towards the Germans and their antipathy towards the Russians (constantly revealed in public surveys ever since 1989); heavily anti-Communist interpretation of history (or the official memory); and the influence of collective European memory that no longer understands the Germans as the enemy. The study ponders over the mutual influence of individual, family and official memory as a complex process of continuous negotiation about history under the influence of contemporary needs.
EN
Otakar Vávra is one of the most interesting directors of the European cinema, and not only because of his perennial professional activity that lasted over 80 years. His formula for creativity consisted in adapting the native literature, in using films to artistically comment on the world, in treating the cinema as a segment of the whole culture, and not as its exclusive centre. The director’s project had to include the 20th-century politics, which tossed Czechoslovakia back and forth from democracy to totalitarianism. After the Munich Agreement or Munich Diktat (September, 1938) Czechoslovakia broke up and what was left was transformed into the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and the Slovak Republic. The Czech cinematography became then a kind of chessboard, a confrontation area for various film directors’ and producers’ ambitions, for directives of the Protector’s Office (Reichsprotektor), for the expectations of the Czechs who collaborated with the Germans, for the courage and meanness of different people. Such were the circumstances under which Otakar Vávra made 12 films; and he was in touch both with conspiring professionals who were building the foundations for the future post-war cinematography (Vladislav Vančura) and with collaborating Barandov dictators (Miloš Havel). In his films appeared German dignitaries’ favourites (Lída Baarová, Adina Mandlová) and victims of the Nazi terror (Anna Letenská). Vávra’s films made during the Protectorate (and all of them have survived) and watched now may be interpreted in numerous ways; one of them is the biographical perspective.
EN
Taking into account previous experiences related to the investigation of occupation systems of the Axis powers during World War II, and in particular the dominant role of the Third Reich, it seems that there are large gaps in this area and the status of those studies can be considered largely insufficient. The weakness of the existing studies is their reduction to the occupation policy and formal structures, i.e. they are rather fragmentary. Only rarely do they take into consideration comparative documentation which shows the holistic development of organizational structures of invader’s administration along with its entire experience and collective functioning mechanisms as well as the demonstration of its effectiveness. This article is an attempt to determine whether and to what extent the exercise of occupation or other forms of governance by the Third Reich under Hitler’s rule over other territories or nations constituted a political and legal system, what were different types of governance over individual territories and conquered populations in a specific legal, socio-economic and political situation. It should be noted, however, that the term “occupation” used commonly in the political history of that period is not sufficient to properly describe this phenomenon in the language of law. It is too general and inadequate to the legal status of the territories occupied or controlled by Germany, including those illegally annexed (such as “eingegliederte Ostgebiete” [annexed Eastern territories] in Poland), those that have been politically subordinated with the deprivation of peoples living there of their sovereign political power (such as the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia), as well as those which were only forcibly incorporated into the orbit of influence of the Third Reich but with the maintenance of satellite governments (e.g. Slovakia).
PL
Uwzględniając dotychczasowe doświadczenia w badaniach nad systemami okupacji krajów Osi w trakcie II wojny światowej a szczególnie dominującej III Rzeszy niemieckiej, wydaje się, że występują w tym zakresie duże braki a stan tych badań można uznać za daleko niewystarczający. Słabością istniejących badań jest ograniczenie się do polityki okupacyjnej i struktur formalnych, czyli ich pewna wycinkowość. Rzadko uwzględnia się w nich dokumentacje porównawczą, ukazującą całościowe kształtowanie się struktur organizacyjnych zarządów okupacyjnych z uwzględnieniem całokształtu doświadczenia oraz zbiorczego mechanizmu funkcjonowania, przy wykazaniu także jego efektywności. Celem niniejszego artykułu jest, próba ustalenia, czy i o ile wypełnianie okupacji lub innych form władztwa przez III Rzeszę hitlerowską nad innymi terytoriami państwowymi czy narodami stanowiło system polityczno-prawny, jak kształtowały się różne postacie władania nad poszczególnymi terytoriami i wobec podbitej ludności w określonej sytuacji prawnej, społeczno-gospodarczej i politycznej. Należy przy tym podkreślić, że pojęcie „okupacja” używane powszechnie w historii politycznej tego okresu, nie wystarczy do poprawnego opisu zjawiska w języku nauki prawa. Jest ono zbyt ogólne i prawnicze nieadekwatne do stanu prawnego ziem zajętych lub kontrolowanych przez Niemcy i to zarówno tych anektowanych w sposób bezprawny (takich jak „eingegliederte Ostgebiete” w Polsce) jak i tych które zostały podporządkowane politycznie z pozbawieniem zamieszkałych tam narodów ich suwerennej władzy politycznej (takich jak Protektorat Czech i Moraw) i wreszcie tych, które zostały jedynie włączone przymusowo w orbitę wpływów III Rzeszy z utrzymaniem w nich rządów satelickich (np. Słowacja).
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.