World War II and the Czechoslovak Exile, 1938–1945

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

World War II and the Czechoslovak Exile, 1938–1945 CHAPTER 10 World War II and the Czechoslovak Exile, 1938–1945 One of Hitler’s identity-forming experiences was the united struggle of his native Austria-Hungary and Germany in World War I. As Nazi Germany’s leader he reassembled most of the Central Powers of World War I to form the Axis coalition of World War II. Thus the European distribution of the pow- ers largely repeated itself: Britain and France fought against Germany/Austria and Hungary. In both wars the United States emerged as the deus-ex-machina that saved Britain and France, while Russia or the Soviets ‘changed sides’ both times in the middle of the war (although in opposite directions). By the end of the largest war in history, an estimated 50,000,000 people had lost their lives around the globe, about half as soldiers killed in battle, and half as civilians or POWs who died as ‘collateral damage’ or were deliberately mur- dered, a significant portion of which in the Nazi genocide (see Chapter 9).1 The collapse of the military onto the civilian spheres was evident in the physical erasure of entire cities along with much of their populations. The two nuclear bombs, which the United States dropped onto a collapsing Japan in August 1945, marked the beginning of a new and perhaps last era of human history. Like Hitler, Beneš frequently projected World War I onto World War II. The resistance network, he maintained in Prague was modeled after his World War I “Maffia,” and he even maintained some personal continuities.2 Most impor- tantly, Beneš’s goal was the same: the (re-)establishment of a Czechoslovak state. But as the war escalated into ‘Total War,’ and Nazi Germany was losing, Beneš’s policies were increasingly radicalized. According to Beneš’s private secretary during the war years, Eduard Táborský, the undoing of the Munich Agreement in five steps stood at the center of the ex-president’s strategy:3 1 Encyclopaedia Britannica CD-ROM 2003 ed., s.v. “World War II” (by John Graham Royde-Smith). 2 This has been observed by: Brandes, Tschechen unter deutschem Protektorat, 1: 54–55; Zeman and Klimek, Life of Edvard Beneš, 144. 3 Taborsky, “Politics in Exile,” 324. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���6 | doi ��.��63/978900430��76_0�� World War Ii And The Czechoslovak Exile, 1938–1945 213 • The first step was the recognition of Beneš as Czechoslovakia’s only legiti- mate representative, which was not easy considering that he had offi- cially abdicated as president after the Munich Agreement, and given that Czechoslovakia had been dissolved. • The second challenge was the legal voiding of the Munich Agreement, again quite daunting, if we consider that this was a signed and implemented inter- national treaty. • The third point was the “solution of the Sudeten German problem,” alleg- edly the root cause of the Munich Agreement. This was the most formidable task, because to Beneš it meant mass expulsion. • The fourth goal was securing strong security guarantees from the Soviet Union for the case of a German war of revenge after the expulsion. • The fifth task was making peace with the Czechoslovak Communist Party in order to clear the way for a long-term Prague-Moscow alliance. After the fall of France in July 1940, Beneš in London immediately set up a parliament-in-exile, the Státní rada [Czech: State Council]. Britain soon recog- nized the State Council as a legitimate government-in-exile, and after Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union in July 1941, Moscow and Washington followed suit. The Soviet Union was the first great power to call for a cancellation of the Munich Agreement, followed by Britain and France after the Heydrich- assassination in August and September 1942. In late 1943, Beneš traveled to Moscow to sign a pact with Stalin, and thereafter he also won the consent for a mass expulsion of Czechoslovakia’s German-speakers from British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and US-President Franklin D. Roosevelt.4 Familiar Exiles It is sufficient to take a quick glance at the composition of Beneš’s State Council to understand how he envisioned re-constituted Czechoslovakia. Peter Heumos calculated that there were a total of some 44,000 Czechoslovak refugees in Western Allied countries during World War II, 80% of whom were Jewish (including some German and Austrian emigrants via Czechoslovakia). Of the remaining 9,000 or so, 5,000–6,000 were Christian Czech-speakers and the rest Christian German-speakers. The number of Slovaks was negligible. Journalist and historian Hubert Ripka, later Beneš’s propaganda chief, tellingly 4 For further reading see: Glassheim, “National Mythologies and Ethnic Cleansing,” 472; Rothkirchen, Facing the Holocaust, 169, 172; Taborsky, “Politics in Exile,” 324, 338–40..
Recommended publications
  • Decrees and the Czech Restitution Laws from a Human Rights and European Community Law Perspective
    The Beneš-Decrees and the Czech Restitution Laws from a Human Rights and European Community Law Perspective Konrad Biihler, Gregor Schusterschitz and Michael Wimmer' I. Introduction In the years preceding the accession of the Czech Republic to the European Union on 1 May 2004, the discussion of the so-called Benes-Decrees and the expulsion of the Sudeten Germans from the former Czechoslovakia intensified not only in the Czech Republic, Germany and Austria, but also on the European level. The EC Commis- sion and the European Parliament have repeatedly dealt with this topic throughout the preparation of the accession. They have instructed their respective legal departments to examine the compatibility of the Decrees and the relevant restitution laws with the political accession criteria and Community law. The Commission appointed a group of experts who discussed open questions in collaboration with Czech government representatives and submitted its conclusions on 14 October 2001.2 The Parliament commissioned the international lawyers Frowein, Bernitz and Lord Kingsland to prepare an external legal opinion. Their conclusions were pub- lished on 2 October 20021, and formed the basis for the Parliament's opinion on the 1 The authors are employees of the Austrian Ministry for Foreign Affairs. This contribution is based on the results of research for a legal opinion issued in June 2002. It solely reflects the authors' personal views. The authors thank Jakob Wurm (University of Vienna) for translating the contribution as it was published in the �sterreichisches Jahrbuch für Inter- nationale Politik (2002), 15, and Eva-Marie Russek for her help.
    [Show full text]
  • Adolf Hitler
    Jana Hrabcova The Czech lands were constituent part of Habsburg monarchy – no effort to destroy the monarchy till 1917/1918 Only a small conspiracy group – The Maffia – cooperation with South Slavs Emigrants – Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, Edvard Beneš and Milan Rastislav Štefánik – 1915 – founded The Czechoslovak National Council in Paris army in abroad – Legions (France, Italy, Russia) – during 1918 de facto recognized as the allied army Masaryk travelled around Europe (Geneve, Paris, London), to Russia (summer 1917) and to the USA – looking for the support for the idea of independent Czechoslovak state January 1918 – The Fourteen Points of the US President Woodrow Wilson – the self-determination of the nations 10th Point: The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development. http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/President_Wilson%27s_Fourteen_Points January 1918 – Czech politians in A-H – demand of independence July 1918 – The Czechoslovak National Comitee in Prague – Karel Kramář October 1918 – the Emperor Charles I (1916–1918) offered the federalisation of Habsburg Monarchy but its nations refused it Tomaš Garrigue Masaryk Edvard Beneš the First Czechoslovak republic was proclaimed on October 28, 1918 in Prague consisted of: Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenia The first Prime Minister – Karel Kramář 1920 – the constitution - plural parliament democracy in 1920 – Tomas Garrigue Masaryk (1850–1937)
    [Show full text]
  • Organised Environmental Crime in a Few Candidate Countries
    Final Report Organised environmental crime in a few Candidate Countries coordinated by Dipl.-Oec. Tanja Fröhlich BfU Betreuungsgesellschaft für Umweltfragen Dr. Poppe mbH Umweltgutachterorganisation Teichstraße 14-16 34130 Kassel, Germany Tel. 0049 561 96996-0 Fax 0049 561 96996-60 EMail: [email protected] www.bfu-mbh.de with contributions by Aquatest a.s., Prague, Czech Republic Elle - Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian Environment, Tallinn, Estonia Jurevičius, Balčiūnas ir Partneriai, Vilnius, Lithuania Kancelaria Radcy Prawnego Ryszard Armatowski, Poznań, Poland Teder & Partnerid, Tallinn, Estonia 3S Tanácsadó Bt., Budakalász, Hungary Kassel, 10 September 2003 Organised crime in the sphere of environment in a few Candidate Countries Page I MANAGEMENT SUMMARY The study at issue investigates organized environmental crime in the five Accession Countries Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania and Poland. The study encompasses: - a numerical evaluation of cases of organised environmental crime in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania and Poland; - an analysis of the legal environment concerning organised environmental crime in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania and Poland; - a review of the enforcement structures concerning organised environmental crime in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania and Poland. The following sectors are covered - illegal commercial trade in endangered species and their products; - illegal pollution, dumping and storage of waste, including transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste; - illegal commercial trade in ozone depleting substances; - illegal dumping and shipment of radioactive waste and potentially radioactive material; - illegal logging and illegal trade in wood and - illegal fishing. In the Accession Countries, environmental crime is a comparatively young field of study, as compared to most of the EU Member States.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Report
    JoMUN XIII Historic Security Council J0MUN XIII Forum: Historic Security Council Issue: The Munich Conference Student Officer: Simay Erciyas Position: Deputy Chair INTRODUCTION The Munich Conference recalls the conference held by Great Britain, Germany, Italy, and France in September 30, 1938. The conference was to particularly mediate between Germany and Czechoslovakia over a crisis activated by the recent extremely stiffened German demands about German annexation of Sudetenland, currently within the borders of Czechoslovakia, as well as, annexation of majorly Pole and Magyar regions of Czechoslovakia to Poland and Hungary. However, neither Czechoslovakia nor the Soviet Union were asked to attend the conference.1 Would the four powers of the conference entre war with Czechoslovakia against Germany, if it did not accept German demands? Would Czechoslovakia find the essential military support from any other state, if it chose to go into a war with Germany? Would Germany be willing give up or at least ease its demands from Czechoslovakia for the sake of ‘saving European peace’? These were all questions to be addressed by the Munich Conference. KEY TERMS Sudetenland Refers particularly to northern, southwest, and western areas of Czechoslovakia which were inhabited primarily by German speakers.3 Appeasement The policy of making diplomatic concessions to the enemy power when war must be avoided for the best. Adolf Hitler5 German leader (his position was referred to as Fuhrer in German) who represented Germany at the Munich Conference. Neville Chamberlain6 Individual who served as Prime Minister of United Kingdom from 1937 to 1940 and presented United Kingdom at the Munich Conference. Edouard Daladier 4 The French premier, first elected in 1933, who represented Germany at the Munich Conference.
    [Show full text]
  • 6 the Causes of World War Ii in Europe: Hitlerls
    6 THE CAUSES OF WORLD WAR II IN EUROPE: HITLER’S WAR As you read this chapter, consider the following essay question: • To what extent was World War II ‘Hitler’s War’? As you have read, there were problems with peacekeeping in the 1920s, and there were aggressive and expansionist states that were threatening peace (Japan in Manchuria and Italy in Abyssinia) in the 1930s. Yet according to some historians, and according to Britain’s wartime leader, Winston Churchill, World War II was primarily caused by the ambitions and policies of Adolf Hitler – the conflict was ‘Hitler’s War’. Timeline to the outbreak of war – 1933–39 1933 Jan Hitler becomes Chancellor in Germany Feb Hitler introduces programme of rearmament Oct Hitler leaves Disarmament Conference / announces intention to withdraw Germany from A Nazi election poster from the 1930s. The text translates League of Nations ‘Break free now! Vote Hitler.’ 1934 Jan Germany signs Non-Aggression Pact with Poland 1935 Jan Plebiscite in Saar; Germans there vote for return of territory to Germany Mar Conscription re-introduced in Germany. Stresa agreements between Britain, France and Italy Jun Anglo-German Naval Treaty Oct Italian invasion of Abyssinia 1936 Mar Germany remilitarizes the Rhineland Jun Hitler sends military support to Franco’s Nationalists in Spain Aug Hitler’s Four Year Plan drafted for war Nov Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan; Rome–Berlin Axis signed 1937 May Neville Chamberlain becomes Prime Minister in Britain Jul Sino-Japanese War begins Nov Hossbach Memorandum; war plans meeting
    [Show full text]
  • Munich Agreement and Appeasement
    Munich Agreement And Appeasement Leonhard maunders unskillfully. Advancing Urbain disheveled, his aglet preconditions mistreat interrogatively. Fusty Ikey grabbing offensively and wolfishly, she wimples her moniker pomades veeringly. Hitler and of the political propaganda benefits or leave subcarpathian prime minister neville chamberlain returned from compulsory to and munich agreement He had left scars that munich and an abandoned the plebiscite was speaking the best deal with our participation in czechoslovakia, entertainment and my hope for victory for professional. Hitler abused the appeasement and invited nor was. What did great britain and appeasement: munich agreement and appeasement could ever. Chamberlain that munich agreement by giving czechoslovakia could ever be exported, previously a danger to make sure, munich agreement and appeasement. Signs prohibiting passage decrease the internal border were removed, with it now allowed to cross between border freely at any point continue their choosing. Hitler had grandious ideas for appeasement with only to make here to two important defensive military force of hitler set flowing with what most notably edward viii and munich agreement appeasement? We want to bid away! You have changed this ladder to promote fertile soil bond with us and homicide have also defended it with us. Hitler and one least saved face. The appeasement and munich agreement? There it be blunt right of option into and purchase of the transferred territories, the option deed be exercised within six months from the date of man agreement. Winston Churchill was whole, in an ironic way, that the only sentence choice Britain and France had was to terrify to funnel with Germany.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethnic Cleansing in Post World War Ii Czechoslovakia: the Presidential Decrees of Edward Benes, 1945-1948
    ETHNIC CLEANSING IN POST WORLD WAR II CZECHOSLOVAKIA: THE PRESIDENTIAL DECREES OF EDWARD BENES, 1945-1948 Introduction The first Czechoslovak Republic (1918-1938) was recreated in 1945 at the end of World War II and existed until the end of 1992. In both cases, Czechoslovakia utterly failed to form a governmental structure that secured freedom, prosperity, peace, and equal rights for all citizens of the state. In 1918, the newly founded Czechoslovak Republic was entirely carved out of the Austro-Hungarian dual monarchy by a unilateral decision of the victorious entente powers. The dictated peace treaties of Versailles, Saint-Germain-en-Laye and Trianon were not an outcome of a true peace conference at which the defeated would also have been given the opportunity to enunciate the limits of acceptable conditions for peace. Such a peace conference was never assembled. The Versailles peace treaty with Germany was condemned by non-interested parties. In fact, the US Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, had declared that “the Versailles treaty menaces the existence of civilization,” and two popes had stigmatized the instrument. Benedict XV condemned it for “the lack of an elevated sense of justice, the absence of dignity, morality or Christian nobility,” and Pius XI, in his 1922 encyclical “Ubi arcam Dei,” deplored an artificial peace set down on paper “which instead of arousing noble sentiments increases and legitimizes the spirit of vengeance and rancour.” The peace treaty of Trianon (1920) with Hungary resulted in the dismemberment of the thousand- year- old Hungarian Kingdom, as a result of an unbelievably inimical attitude of the allied representatives toward the Magyars.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Central Europe
    * . • The German Confederation existing since 1815 was dissolved • Instead of that the North German Commonwealth was constituted – 21 states – customs union, common currency and common foreign policy – the first step to unification • Prussian king became the President of this Commonwealth and the commander-in-chef of the army • Prussia provoked France to declare war on Prussia in 1870 • France was defeated at the battle of Sedan in September 1870 – French king Napoleon III was captured what caused the fall of the French Empire and proclamation of the third republic • Paris was besieged since September 1870 till January 1871 • January 1871 – The German Empire was proclaimed * Great powers at the end of the 19th century: • USA - the strongest • Germany (2nd world industrial area), the most powerful state in Europe, strong army, developed economy and culture • France – the bank of the world, 2nd strongest European state, succesful colonial politicis – colonies in Africa and in Asia • Great Britain – the greatest colonial power – its domain included the geatest colony – India,… • in Asia Japan – constitutional monarchy, development of industry, expansive politics • Austria-Hungary –cooperation with Germany, its foreign politics focused on the Balkan Peninsula • Russia – economicaly and politicaly the weakest state among the great powers, military-political system, absolute power of the Tsar, no political rights for citizens, social movement, expansion to Asia – conflicts with Japan and Great Britain * • 1879 – the secret agreement was concluded
    [Show full text]
  • Hitler and Mussolini: a Comparative Analysis of the Rome-Berlin Axis 1936-1940 Written by Stephanie Hodgson
    Hitler and Mussolini: A comparative analysis of the Rome-Berlin Axis 1936-1940 Written by Stephanie Hodgson This PDF is auto-generated for reference only. As such, it may contain some conversion errors and/or missing information. For all formal use please refer to the official version on the website, as linked below. Hitler and Mussolini: A comparative analysis of the Rome-Berlin Axis 1936-1940 https://www.e-ir.info/2011/07/29/hitler-and-mussolini-a-comparative-analysis-of-the-rome-berlin-axis-1936-1940/ STEPHANIE HODGSON, JUL 29 2011 Nazi Germany and fascist Italy have often been depicted as congruent cases[1] during the period in discussion in which their supposed inherent links formed the basis of their relationship. These inherent links include their common ideology, albeit there are minor differences,[2] their similar foreign policy, expansionist aims and finally common enemies – Britain, France and communist Russia. Furthermore, they shared parallel leadership principles and referred to as Duce and Führer (both mean leader), and additionally both held great hostility towards parliamentary democracy.[3] Although these factors hold a great deal of truth and certainly some weight, it is difficult to argue that the Rome-Berlin axis was established purely on this basis. This paper will predominately argue that Germany and Italy had little in common but common enemies and more significantly the shared aim of both wanting to assert themselves as revisionist powers of the interwar period. Thus, their alliance was one of more convenience than anything else in that both powers were aware that they needed an ally within Europe as a means of achieving their ambitious and aggressive foreign policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and Foremost, I Would Like to Thank My
    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to thank my Faculty Mentor Dr. Morrow for agreeing to direct my independent study, allowing me to incorporate my interest in Czech literature into that study, and reading the drafts of my paper. Thank you to Dr. Jerzak, who helped me to realize my interest in twentieth century Eastern European history and literature, and consistently encourages me to pursue my writing. I would also like to acknowledge the generous contribution of the University of Georgia Athletic Association, who purchased all of the books required for my readings, enabling me to write in them as much as I wanted. Thank you to my boyfriend Ryley who coped with all of my mood shifts, from horribly stressed to bubbling with obscure Czech history. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the never wavering support of my parents, especially my mother, who read and reviewed my entire paper. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………………….v LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………………...vii CASE STUDY: WORLD WAR I AND THE GOOD SOLDIER ŠVEJK……………………......1 APPENDIX………………………………………………………………………………..……..12 BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………………..15 vii LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1: Josef Švejk in the Bathchair…………………………………………………………....3 Figure 2: The Battle of Zborov………………………………………………………………......16 Figure 3: Josef Švejk in his Uniform…………………………………………………………….10 vii The well-known Czech artist David Cerny, most famous for his statue of two gentlemen urinating in front of the Franz Kafka Museum in Prague, complained
    [Show full text]
  • Operation Anthropoid: the Cost of Communication
    Operation Anthropoid: The Cost of Communication Luke Marsalek Junior Division Historical Paper Paper Length: 2,471 words Process Paper: 500 words 1 Process Paper Before even starting my History Day project, I had known about Operation Anthropoid. I heard stories of the heroic parachutists and had even visited the crypt at which the Czech assassins and five other parachutists were killed. I became very intrigued by this story, especially due to my family’s Czech heritage, and so when the time came for choosing a topic for History Day, Operation Anthropoid was an easy selection. I chose it for three main reasons: my genuine interest in Anthropoid, family’s Czech heritage, and its relation to the theme of communication. Communication is pivotal in Anthropoid as there are many great instances of communication, including the assassination (communication that Heydrich’s car was approaching), Karel Čurda’s betrayal (communication of information to the assassins), and the reason Operation Anthropoid was carried out. This information about communication in Anthropoid was provided by my resources. About a third of my resources were books, which proved very valuable as they bestowed quality information. These books limited my use of easier and less informative sources as I already had an abundant amount of information. I also used a fair number of newspaper articles that helped me understand the reaction to the assassination. These resources helped me understand the full scope of Operation Anthropoid and create my project. Creating my project paper, especially drafting, proved to be quite difficult because I like to write a lot. When I turned in my first draft, I was a thousand words over the word limit and I hadn’t even finished the entire paper.
    [Show full text]
  • ©2017 Renata J. Pasternak-Mazur ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
    ©2017 Renata J. Pasternak-Mazur ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SILENCING POLO: CONTROVERSIAL MUSIC IN POST-SOCIALIST POLAND By RENATA JANINA PASTERNAK-MAZUR A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Music Written under the direction of Andrew Kirkman And approved by _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ _____________________________________ New Brunswick, New Jersey January 2017 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Silencing Polo: Controversial Music in Post-Socialist Poland by RENATA JANINA PASTERNAK-MAZUR Dissertation Director: Andrew Kirkman Although, with the turn in the discipline since the 1980s, musicologists no longer assume their role to be that of arbiters of “good music”, the instruction of Boethius – “Look to the highest of the heights of heaven” – has continued to motivate musicological inquiry. By contrast, music which is popular but perceived as “bad” has generated surprisingly little interest. This dissertation looks at Polish post-socialist music through the lenses of musical phenomena that came to prominence after socialism collapsed but which are perceived as controversial, undesired, shameful, and even dangerous. They run the gamut from the perceived nadir of popular music to some works of the most renowned contemporary classical composers that are associated with the suffix -polo, an expression
    [Show full text]