[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Accordingly, the Chapter 7: The Shift in Sensibilities and Generations 143party maintained an ambiguous middle ground on the issues of October 28thand the interwar republic generally.For example, Jan Van%1Å‚k argued in theparty daily Právo lidu that while Czechs shouldremain conscious that the First Republic did not fulfill all the hopes 1918 gaveus.[it] would be gross ingratitude if we were uncritically and indiscriminatelyto condemn all that the First Republic gave us and what October 28th meant forus during the era of the First Republic, which had many positive qualities.16In this way the party could proclaim its dissatisfaction with the whole of theinterwar republic, while remaining free to reprove criticisms of it.Nonetheless, the National Socialists Petr Zenkl also saw the social con-tent of May 5th as the harmonious complement to our first, national revo-lution. This formulation was echoed in the comments of many other lead-ing democratic socialists, and represented almost an official line for them.17A National Front statement in 1945 proclaimed August 29th (the holidaycommemorating the Slovak National Uprising of 1944) and May 5th the suc-cessors to October 28th.Eduard Bass similarly saw springtime s May 5th asthe natural complement to autumn s October 28th.18 The leading NationalSocialist ideologist Otakar Machotka also saw the two holidays as organi-cally linked in logical unity.[as] two sides of the same coin. 19 This argu-ment also found resonance among both Evangelicals, who were broadlysympathetic to communist viewpoints, and Roman Catholics, who were op-posed to the communists.The Evangelical Church s Kostnické jiskry pro-claimed that the original national revolution [of 1918] reached its heightshere in the social revolution, and the People s Party daily Lidová demokra-cie asked whether the nation could want anything more than what October28, 1918 brought, what August 29th hallowed, and what May 9th con-firmed. 20 This strategy clearly recalls the attempt by noncommunists tomaintain some degree of respect for the interwar republic by stressing itspostwar successor s ties to it.However, the National Front proclamation also stressed that Czechoslovak independence has a secure foundation only in the social and economic lib-eration of the people. 21 This statement represented the left-wing side of thecompromise proclamation and is a formulation that left open the path for thefuture.Zenkl, the victim of one of the harshest Communist Party slandercampaigns of the period, called attention to the social side of postwar de-velopments in a fashion similar to that of communist intellectuals.Writing inthe National Socialists Svobodné slovo, he argued that The political freedominstituted on October 28, 1918, and renewed by the revolution of May 5,1945, has already been completed on October 28, 1945, by the idea of eco-nomic and social freedom. 22 Taken as a whole, these views represent an at-tempt to integrate the experience of the national and democratic revolution into the historical traditions of the Czech nation enshrined in the semantic 144 Part II: The Interpretation and Reinterpretation of Czech Historycoding of October 28th.In reading these statements, it becomes clear thatnoncommunists emphasized the regaining of lost freedom rather than therevolutionary changes accompanying the uprising.Democratic leaders sawthe revolutionary phase of the postwar period as completed, and theyviewed May 5th and October 28, 1945, in the past tense as having con-firmed or completed the work of October 28, 1918.The noncommunisthistorian Jaroslav Werstadt tried to bring the two dates even closer, notingthe similarities between them.He pointed out that they were both born fromresistance movements abroad, relied primarily on domestic forces, occurredspontaneously from below, from the people.earlier than the politicalleadership planned, and both represented the closing act and general sym-bol of our liberation struggle rather than its deciding moment. 23Communist critics viewed May 5th less as a completion or fulfillment ofthe tasks given the nation by October 28, 1918, than as a corrective to the mistakes made at the inception of the First Republic.Albert Pra~ák, the lit-erary historian who had served as chairman of the Czech National Councilthat had directed the uprising, pointed out that the fundamental meaning ofthe two holidays was the same: the freedom of the state and nation. Nonetheless, he termed May 5th the uncompromising and radical correc-tion, the magnificent corrective of October 28th.He contrasted the cele-bratory demonstrations and German capitulation of Independence Daywith the revolutionary character and the German defeat [in] a day of fight-ing of May 5th and condemned the First Republic for failing to followthrough on the socialist and nationalizing plans of its first days.24 These sen-timents were echoed by the Communist Party Central Committee memberVilém Nový, who, like other Communists, faulted October 28, 1918, for fail-ing to satisfy the social and socialist desires of the working class and al-lowing the ruling class to curtail the democratic rights of the people. Forthis reason, May 5th had corrected the mistakes, insufficiencies, and half-heartedness of October 28, 1918, and given it a deeper, more popular[lidov%1Å‚jaí], and more democratic character. 25The politically astute Peroutka attempted to rebuff these criticisms by de-fending October 28th as the greatest symbol of our independence. He wasforced to concede that in 1918 the greatest of our social traditions did notshow themselves, but maintained that the moderate pace of social reformwas not the fault of October 28th but rather of later developments and theEuropean context as a whole.He condemned all attempts to place the socialquestion in opposition to the heritage of October 28th, arguing that for himthe holiday was in no way tied to a definite economic system.We place nocapitalist mark upon it. He expressed confidence that the patriotism and so-cialism represented by October 28th and May 5th need not be mutually an-tagonistic but could be reconciled in the new republic as two colors on thesame banner. 26 Chapter 7: The Shift in Sensibilities and Generations 145In considering communist and noncommunist intellectuals views ofCzechoslovak Independence Day, it seems that neither side s interpretationwas strong enough in itself to be politically valuable, although the commu-nists were able to diminish significantly the holiday s traditional meaningthrough dilution.The communist link to the Russian Revolution, and theirstress on the social-revolutionary potential of Czech society in 1918, failed tofind the resonance their interpretations of other events had achieved.Nonetheless, they were able to draw on the enthusiasm among intellectualsand the broader public alike for the nationalizations, the Two-Year Plan, andthe expulsion of the Sudeten Germans to raise competing understandings ofprecisely what was being celebrated [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl centka.pev.pl
.Accordingly, the Chapter 7: The Shift in Sensibilities and Generations 143party maintained an ambiguous middle ground on the issues of October 28thand the interwar republic generally.For example, Jan Van%1Å‚k argued in theparty daily Právo lidu that while Czechs shouldremain conscious that the First Republic did not fulfill all the hopes 1918 gaveus.[it] would be gross ingratitude if we were uncritically and indiscriminatelyto condemn all that the First Republic gave us and what October 28th meant forus during the era of the First Republic, which had many positive qualities.16In this way the party could proclaim its dissatisfaction with the whole of theinterwar republic, while remaining free to reprove criticisms of it.Nonetheless, the National Socialists Petr Zenkl also saw the social con-tent of May 5th as the harmonious complement to our first, national revo-lution. This formulation was echoed in the comments of many other lead-ing democratic socialists, and represented almost an official line for them.17A National Front statement in 1945 proclaimed August 29th (the holidaycommemorating the Slovak National Uprising of 1944) and May 5th the suc-cessors to October 28th.Eduard Bass similarly saw springtime s May 5th asthe natural complement to autumn s October 28th.18 The leading NationalSocialist ideologist Otakar Machotka also saw the two holidays as organi-cally linked in logical unity.[as] two sides of the same coin. 19 This argu-ment also found resonance among both Evangelicals, who were broadlysympathetic to communist viewpoints, and Roman Catholics, who were op-posed to the communists.The Evangelical Church s Kostnické jiskry pro-claimed that the original national revolution [of 1918] reached its heightshere in the social revolution, and the People s Party daily Lidová demokra-cie asked whether the nation could want anything more than what October28, 1918 brought, what August 29th hallowed, and what May 9th con-firmed. 20 This strategy clearly recalls the attempt by noncommunists tomaintain some degree of respect for the interwar republic by stressing itspostwar successor s ties to it.However, the National Front proclamation also stressed that Czechoslovak independence has a secure foundation only in the social and economic lib-eration of the people. 21 This statement represented the left-wing side of thecompromise proclamation and is a formulation that left open the path for thefuture.Zenkl, the victim of one of the harshest Communist Party slandercampaigns of the period, called attention to the social side of postwar de-velopments in a fashion similar to that of communist intellectuals.Writing inthe National Socialists Svobodné slovo, he argued that The political freedominstituted on October 28, 1918, and renewed by the revolution of May 5,1945, has already been completed on October 28, 1945, by the idea of eco-nomic and social freedom. 22 Taken as a whole, these views represent an at-tempt to integrate the experience of the national and democratic revolution into the historical traditions of the Czech nation enshrined in the semantic 144 Part II: The Interpretation and Reinterpretation of Czech Historycoding of October 28th.In reading these statements, it becomes clear thatnoncommunists emphasized the regaining of lost freedom rather than therevolutionary changes accompanying the uprising.Democratic leaders sawthe revolutionary phase of the postwar period as completed, and theyviewed May 5th and October 28, 1945, in the past tense as having con-firmed or completed the work of October 28, 1918.The noncommunisthistorian Jaroslav Werstadt tried to bring the two dates even closer, notingthe similarities between them.He pointed out that they were both born fromresistance movements abroad, relied primarily on domestic forces, occurredspontaneously from below, from the people.earlier than the politicalleadership planned, and both represented the closing act and general sym-bol of our liberation struggle rather than its deciding moment. 23Communist critics viewed May 5th less as a completion or fulfillment ofthe tasks given the nation by October 28, 1918, than as a corrective to the mistakes made at the inception of the First Republic.Albert Pra~ák, the lit-erary historian who had served as chairman of the Czech National Councilthat had directed the uprising, pointed out that the fundamental meaning ofthe two holidays was the same: the freedom of the state and nation. Nonetheless, he termed May 5th the uncompromising and radical correc-tion, the magnificent corrective of October 28th.He contrasted the cele-bratory demonstrations and German capitulation of Independence Daywith the revolutionary character and the German defeat [in] a day of fight-ing of May 5th and condemned the First Republic for failing to followthrough on the socialist and nationalizing plans of its first days.24 These sen-timents were echoed by the Communist Party Central Committee memberVilém Nový, who, like other Communists, faulted October 28, 1918, for fail-ing to satisfy the social and socialist desires of the working class and al-lowing the ruling class to curtail the democratic rights of the people. Forthis reason, May 5th had corrected the mistakes, insufficiencies, and half-heartedness of October 28, 1918, and given it a deeper, more popular[lidov%1Å‚jaí], and more democratic character. 25The politically astute Peroutka attempted to rebuff these criticisms by de-fending October 28th as the greatest symbol of our independence. He wasforced to concede that in 1918 the greatest of our social traditions did notshow themselves, but maintained that the moderate pace of social reformwas not the fault of October 28th but rather of later developments and theEuropean context as a whole.He condemned all attempts to place the socialquestion in opposition to the heritage of October 28th, arguing that for himthe holiday was in no way tied to a definite economic system.We place nocapitalist mark upon it. He expressed confidence that the patriotism and so-cialism represented by October 28th and May 5th need not be mutually an-tagonistic but could be reconciled in the new republic as two colors on thesame banner. 26 Chapter 7: The Shift in Sensibilities and Generations 145In considering communist and noncommunist intellectuals views ofCzechoslovak Independence Day, it seems that neither side s interpretationwas strong enough in itself to be politically valuable, although the commu-nists were able to diminish significantly the holiday s traditional meaningthrough dilution.The communist link to the Russian Revolution, and theirstress on the social-revolutionary potential of Czech society in 1918, failed tofind the resonance their interpretations of other events had achieved.Nonetheless, they were able to draw on the enthusiasm among intellectualsand the broader public alike for the nationalizations, the Two-Year Plan, andthe expulsion of the Sudeten Germans to raise competing understandings ofprecisely what was being celebrated [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]