Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:54:22.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reclaiming Children for the Nation: Germanization, National Ascription, and Democracy in the Bohemian Lands, 1990–1945

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Tara Zahra
Tara Zahra
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In September of 1899 the Czech National Social Party issued a stern warning to parents in Prague as the school enrollment season approached: “Czech parents! Remember that your children are not only your own property, but also the property of the nation. They are the property of all of society and that society has the right to control your conduct!” Czech and German nationalists in the Bohemian lands were hardly alone in claiming that children comprised a precious form of “national property” (nationaler Besitz, národanímajetek) at the turn of the century. In an age of mass politics and nationalist demography, nationalists across Europe obsessed about the quantity and quality of the nation's children. They were, however, unique in their ability to transform this polemical claim into a legal reality. Between 1900–1945, German and Czech nationalist social workers and educational activists in the Bohemian lands attempted to create a political culture in which children belonged to national communities, and in which the nation's rights to educate children often trumped parental rights. In 1905, nationalists gained the legal right to “reclaim” children from the schools of the national enemy in Moravia, a right which they retained until 1938. By the time Ota Filip's father dragged him to the German school in Slezská Ostrava/Schlesisch Ostrau, children had become one of the most precious stakes in the nationalist battle, and a parent's choice of a German or Czech school had become a matter of unprecedented personal, political, moral, and national significance.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , December 2004 , pp. 501 - 543
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Filip, Ota, Der siebente Lebenslauf: Autobiographischer Roman (Munich, 2001), 29–31.Google Scholar

2. České dítě patří do české školy! (Brno, 1899), 6.Google Scholar

3. For examples of how mass political movements mobilized around children in France and Germany see Downs, Laura Lee, Childhood in the Promised Land (Durham, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dickinson, Edward Ross, The Politics of German Child Welfare (Cambridge, 1996)Google Scholar; Fishman, Sarah, The Battle for Children (Cambridge, 2002).Google Scholar

4. Habsburg state officials did participate in alliances with various national movements but remained ideologically “supranational,” and often served as a type of umpire in the event of nation alist conflicts. See Judson, Pieter, Exclusive Revolutionaries (Ann Arbor, 1996)Google Scholar;King, Jeremy, Budweisers into Czechs and Germans (Princeton, 2002)Google Scholar; Stourzh, Gerald, Die Gleichberechtigung der Nationalitäten in der Verfassung und Verwaltung Österreichs, 1848–1918 (Vienna, 1985).Google Scholar

5. On nationalism and the Austrian census, see Brix, Emil, Umgangssprache in Altösterreich zwischen Agitation und Assimilation (Vienna, 1982).Google Scholar

6. See King, Jeremy, “The Nationalization of East Central Europe: Ethnicism, Ethnicity, and Beyond” in Staging the Past: The Politics of Commemoration in Habsburg Central Europe, ed. Bucur, Maria and Wingfield, Nancy (West Lafayette, 2000).Google Scholar

7. I found no records of a case in which a German school board reclaimed a child from a Czech school before 1918. In the interwar period approximately forty out of over three hundred cases which reached the Supreme Administrative Court involved German reclamations, most of which took place in the 1930s.

8. Early Czech revivalists, Peter Bugge has suggested, lacked any “markedly Czech traditions or institutions on which to base the national program, so the mere presence of the Czech language itself became the most evident — in fact, the only means to demonstrate the existence of the Czech nation to the surrounding world.” See Bugge, Peter, “Czech Nation-Building, National Self-Perception and Politics, 1780–1914” (Ph.D. diss., University of Aarhus, 1994), 34–35, 40–44Google Scholar. On the relationship between German liberalism and nationalism in late nineteenth century Austria, see Judson, Pieter, “‘Whether Race or Conviction Should Be the Standard’: National Identity and Liberal Politics in Nineteenth Century Austria,” Austrian History Yearbook 22 (1991): 76–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. For data comparing German and Czech educational and social status see Rom, Adalbert, “Der Bildungsgrad der Bevölkerung Österreichs und seine Entwicklung seit 1880, mit beson derer Berücksichtigung der Sudeten und Karpathenländer,” Statistische Monatsschrift, Neue Folge 40 (1914): 622Google Scholar; Cohen, Gary, Education and Middle-Class Society in Imperial Austria (West Lafayette, 1996), Table 3, 275, and Tables 5–6, 278–79Google Scholar; Burger, Hannelore, Sprachenrecht und Sprachgerechtigkeit in Österreichs Unterrichtsuesen, 1867–1914 (Vienna, 1995), 250–60Google Scholar; Kořalka, Jiří und Crampton, R.J., “Die Tschechen,” in Die Habsburger Monarchie, 1848–1918, ed. Wandrusza, and Urbanitsch, (Vienna, 1980), 3: 509–11.Google Scholar

10. See the call to action against Germanization in the Czech nationalist newspaper Šumavské proudy. “Lide český!” Šumavské proudy, 11 09 1909, 3Google Scholar. See also “Naše matice a německý Schulverein,” Věstník ÚMS (1910): 191.Google Scholar

11. Renner, Karl, An der Wende zweier Zeiten: Lebenserinnerungen (Vienna, 1946), 7, 45, 76.Google Scholar

12. Národní jednota severočeská. Prague, 19 June 1907. Letter to NRČ. č. 2212. Státiní Ústřední Archiv-Praha, (SÚA), Národní rada česká, (NRČ), Carton 508.

13. “Dejte své dětí-jestli je opravdu milujete- vychovati jen v řeci matcřské!” SÚA, NRČ, Carton 509. For more on pedagogical arguments against bilingual education see Burger, , Sprachenrecht, 27–28.Google Scholar

14. For Czech nationalist references to Komenský see České dítko a jazyk německy (Prague, 1882)Google Scholar; Kapras, Jan, Ŕeč materská orgánem školy obecné a znakem národnosti (Prague, 1883)Google Scholar; České dítě patří do české škoty! (Brno, 1899).Google Scholar

15. Kapras, , Řeč mateřská, 9–10.Google Scholar

16. Ibid., 12. For other examples of pedagogical arguments against bilingual education see “Českým rodičům v pošumaví na uváženou!” Sumavské proudy, 11 09 1909, 1–2Google Scholar; “Českému dítěti- česky poručník,” Ochrana dítěte, 25 07 1914, 12.Google Scholar

17. “České dítě patří do české školy,” Národní listy, 13 08 1910Google Scholar. For other references to the criminal tendencies of children subjected to bilingual education see “K zápisům do škol.” Hlas, 6 09 1913, 1Google Scholar; “Českému díteti- český poručník,” Ochrana ditěte, 25 07 1914, 12Google Scholar. All in SÚA, NRČ, Carton 509. Folder Ib České dítě do české školy, 1908–1910.

18. Holek, Heinrich, Unterwegs (Vienna, 1927), 146Google Scholar. For more on Holek, his family, and his national loyalties see Bahm, Karl, “Beyond the Bourgeoisie: Rethinking Nation, Culture, and Modernity in Nineteenth Century Central Europe.” Austrian History Yearbook 29 (1998): 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. “Školské poměry národnostni na Brněnsku,” Menšinový učitel, 1910, 72Google Scholar. The article claimed that five thousand “Czech” children attended German schools in Brno.

20. “Stiny menšin,” Menšinoiý učitel, 1913–1914, 42Google Scholar. Emphasis in the original.

21. Protokol schůze agitačního sboru pro Prahu I.-V SÚA, NRČ, Carton 508. Folder I České dítě do české školy, 1905–1906.

22. These lists can be seen in SÚA, NRČ, Carton 509. Folder la České díté do české školy, 1908; Carton 508, Folder I České dítě do české školy, 1905–1906. Folder Zápisové akce Varia, 1903–04–05–06.

23. Template of letter sent to Czech parents. SÚA, NRČ, Carton 509.

24. Letter from NRČ to Spolku majitelů domů, 7 September 1906; “Zápis o schůzí agitačního sboru pro Prahu VII a VIII.” 3 September 1906; letter from Zeman Vojtěch, úředník banky Slavic, April 1909, all in SÚA, NRČ, Carton 508.

25. Memo from Sekretariát, Českoslovanské sociálně demokratické strany dělnické v Praze to NRČ, 10 August 1909; memo from Svaz českých pokrokových židů pro Čechy a Moravu to NRČ, 20 August 1909, both in SÚA, NRČ, Carton 509.

26. Letter from NRČ to the obecní úřad v Motelech, 11 September 1906; letter to NRČ from the obecní úřad v Řepích, 1 October 1906, both in SÚA, NRČ, Carton 508.

27. Anonymous postcard sent to ÚMŠ, passed on to the Czech National Council. SÚA, NRČ, Carton 508.

28. Cohen, Gary, The Politics of Ethnic Survival (Princeton, 1981), 110.Google Scholar

29. Large estate owners were exempted from this rule, and still retained their own separate (non-national) curia for elections and in the Moravian Diet. For background on the political negotiations leading up to the Compromise and more detailed analysis of its other provisions, see Kelly, Mills, “Last Best Chance or Last Gasp? The Compromise of 1905 and Czech Politics in Moravia,” Austrian History Yearbook 34 (2003): 279–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stourzh, , Gleichberechtigung, 213–28.Google Scholar

30. Stourzh, , Gleichberechtigung, 216, LGBL no. II/1906, Abt. II Paragraph 20.Google Scholar

31. On compromises in the Bukowina and Galicia see Stourzh, , Gleichberechtigung, 230 ffGoogle Scholar. On compromise negotiations in Budweis/Budějovice and Bohemia, see King, , Budweisers, 137–47.Google Scholar

32. Aktenbund II/96 1910 Böhmischer Ortsschulrat in Trebitsch v. Ministeriuni für Kultur und Unterricht (MfKU). Österreichisches Staatsarchiv (ÖstA), Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv (AVA), Verwaltungsgerichtshof (VGH), Carton 305.

33. Bezirkschulrat in Brünn an den böhmischen kk Bezirksschulrat für die Stadt Brünn. Zl. 378 Brünn, 5 February 1913. Moravský zemská archiv, (MZA), Zemská školní rada, (ZŠR), B22 1. Část, Carton 318.

34. Stourzh, , Gleichberechtigung, 199.Google Scholar

35. Aktenbund II/150 1908 z. 6727 ex 1910. SÚA, Správní soudní dvůr (SSD), Carton 82. The full text of this decision is also published in Budwinski, , Erkentnisse des k.k. Venwaltungsgerichtshofes. Jg. 34 1910, Budwinski 7843/A- Erk. 11 12 1910, z. 6727.Google Scholar

36. Budwinski 7843/A- Erk. z. 6727, 11 December 1910, 1735–1744; Beratungsprotokolle vom 22. Juni 1910, in causa no. 6727. SUA, SSD/V, Carton 82. Folder II/150 1908.

37. See Stourzh, , Gleichberechtigung, 176Google Scholar. Steinacker, Wolfgang, Der Begriff der Volkszugehörigkeitsbestimmung im altösterreichischen Nationalitätenrecht (Innsbruck, 1952)Google Scholar. For examples of school conflicts in which the courts upheld profession as the basis for determining national identity before 1910, see Aktenbund II/75 1908, Stadtgemeinde Seestadt und Ortsschulrat in Seestadt v. MfKU, Erkenntnis z. 3410, 1909. ÖstA, AVA, VGH, Carton 300; Budwmski, Erk. z. 6683, 14 January 1905 and z. 11700, 9 June 1906.

38. Budwinski, , Erkenntnisse, 1742.Google Scholar

39. DrIndra, Richard, “Návod, jak reklamovati české dítky z německých škol.” Zákon perkův, právní přiručky pro učitelstvo (Zábřeh, 1913), 43.Google Scholar

40. See surveys of Franz Raus, Franz Roček, Josef Tours, Karl Vojáček, Josef Vostál, Franz Rous, MZA, ZŠR, B22 1. Čast, Carton 329.

41. Ibid.

42. Deutscher Bezirksschulrat in Iglau an Bezirkshauptmannschaft in Trebitsch, 28 April 1912, z. 3896, wegen schleuniger Einvernahme der Kindeseltern und Erhebung für die Frage der nationalen Zugehörigkeit massgebenden Momente, MZA, ZŠR, B22 1. Čast, Carton 329.

43. Hubáček's son was ultimately permitted to remain in the German school. Beschwerde, Josef Hubáček, Hausbesitzer in Hohenstadt. 14 June 1912, 3, SÚA, SSD/V, Carton 89. Folder II/84 1912, with II/114 1912.

44. The full original text of this letter is published in Stourzh, , Gleichberechtigung, 311–16Google Scholar. The original document can be found in Folder II/84 1912, with II/114 1912, SÚA, SSD/V, Carton 89. The court's decision can be found in Budwinski, , Erkenntnisse, z. 9549/A, 19 04 1913.Google Scholar

45. Budwinski, , Erkenntnisse, z. 9549/A, 19 04 1913Google Scholar. For a similar case in which a father was assigned a Czech nationality against his will, see “Zur Beschwerde des böhmischen Ortsschulrates in Königsfeld. Wesentliche publizierte Gründe zum Erk. z. 12601/1912.” SSD/V, Carton 89. Folder II/98 1912 z. 9188 ex 1912.

46. See Aktenbund II/45 1910, Aktenbund II/46 Böhmischer Ortsschulrat in Seelowitz v. MfKU, Erk. 1814. ÖstA, AVA, VGH, Carton 304. For example, in the school district of Třebič/Trebitsch near Jihlava/Iglau 93 out of the 128 children whom the Czech school board attempted to reclaim at the start of the 1911–1912 school year had actually been successfully reclaimed for Czech schools in the fall of 1910, but reenrolled in a German school again in 1911 after brushing up on their German, z. 10881, An den deutschen kk Bezirksschulrat in Iglau-Land, Deutsche Volksschule in Trebitsch Stadt, Schülereinschreibung pro 1911–1912. 17 April 1912, MZA, ZŠR, B22 1. Část, Carton 329.

47. Aktenbund II/115 1911, Böhmischer Ortsschulrat in Komein vs. MfKU, 4 May 1912, Verhandlungsprotokoll, Beratungsprotokoll, and Stížnosi z. 1875, ÖstA, AVA, VGH, Carton 310. See also Getreue Eckart, 1909, 284–85Google Scholar. The Supreme Court also stipulated that while children were contested and their cases made their way through a complicated bureaucracy, they could remain enrolled in the schools originally chosen by their parents. Aktenbund II/108 1910 Böhmischer Ortsschulrat in Königsfeld, z. 10.299, ÖstA, AVA, VGH, Sig. II, Carton 305.

48. Indra, , “Návod,” 49–50Google Scholar; “Oplátky,” Věstník ÚMŠ (1909): 190.Google Scholar

49. Beschwerde des Böhmischen Ortsschulrates in Wall. Meseritcsch v. MfKU, Aufnahme von Schulkindern in die deutschen Volksschulen, 1911–12, AVA, VGH, Sign. II, Carton 311.

50. Protokoll über die am 20. Juli 1911 im Stadthaltereigebäude in Brünn abgehaltene Beratung betreffend die Regelung der Aufnahme der Kinder in die öffentlichen Volkschulen, ÖstA, AVA, MfKU, Mähren in genere, Carton 4625, Sig. 18a, 1909.

51. See Böhmische Ortsschule in Unterkanitz v. MfKU, z. 9546, SÚA, Beschwerde des böhmischen Ortsschulrates in Unterkanitz, Erkentnisse z. 5277, SSD/V Carton 92, z. 765 1914; Beschwerde des böhmischen Ortschulrates in Königsfeld gegen die Entscheidung des MfKU vom 13. Februar 1912, z. 2679, SSD/V Carton 89. Folder II/98 191, z. 8150.

52. See Caplan, Jane and Torpey, John, eds., Documenting Individual Identity: The Development of State Practices in the Modern World (Princeton, 2001)Google Scholar; Aly, Götz and Roth, Karl Heinrich, Die restlose Erfassung: Volkszählen, Identifizieren, Aussondern im Nationalsozialismus (Berlin, 1984)Google Scholar; Scott, James C., Seeing Like a Slate: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (New Haven, 1998)Google Scholar; Stourzh, Gerald, “Ethnic Attribution in Late Imperial Austria: Good Intentions, Evil Consequences,” in The Habsburg Legacy: National Identity in Historical Perspective, ed. Robertson, Ritchie and Timms, Edward (Edinburgh, 1994), 67–83.Google Scholar

53. Masaryk, Thomas Garrigue, “The Problem of Small Nations and States.” (1918), in We Were and We Shall Be: The Czechoslovak Spirit through the Centuries, ed. Munzer, Zdenka (New York, 1941), 153.Google Scholar

54. On nationalist discourses on Czech humanitarian “national character” in interwar Czechoslovakia see Lass, Andrew, “What Are We Like? National Character and the Aesthetics of Distinction in Interwar Czechoslovakia,” in National Character and National Ideology in Interinar Eastern Europe, ed. Verdery, Katherine and Banac, Ivo (New Haven, 1995), 39–65.Google Scholar

55. For more on the influence of local nationalist pressure groups on Czechoslovak educational, language, and land policy in the founding years of the Czechoslovak republic, see Cornwall, Mark, “The Struggle on the Czech-German Language Border, 1880–1940,” in The English Historical Review 109, no. 43 (09 1994)Google Scholar; Kučera, Jaroslav, Minderheit im Nationalstaat: Die Sprachenfrage in den tschechisch-deutschen Beziehungen, 1918–1938 (Munich, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Miller, Daniel, “Colonizing the German and Hungarian Border Areas During the Czechoslovak Land Reform, 1918–1938,” Austrian History Yearbook 34 (2003): 303–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56. Perek, Václav, Ochrana menšin národnostních dle mírových smluv a skutečny poměry v naší republice (Prague, 1922), 17Google Scholar. For similar petitions from local Czech nationalists see also č. 7851, 22 November 1920, SÚA, MŠ, 1918–1951, Carton 376; Memo from předseda NRČ, 12 September 1919, SÚA, NRČ, Carton 187; spis, Pamětní, “Svazu národních jednot a matic o nápravě poměrů v místech národnostně smíšených,” Prague, 20 09 1922, SÚA, MŠ, 1918–1951, Canon 376Google Scholar; Provolání v slovanské Praze, 8 November 1921, SÚA, Národní jednota severočeská, Carton 9.

57. In Bohemia, presumably, parents could still chose between German and Czech schools in the interwar period. While the Lex Perek remained in effect it appears that other aspects of the Moravian Compromise did not.

58. Z. 6962/22, Wolframitz/Olbramovice, SÚA, Nejvyšši spravní soud, (NSS), Carton 857. The court cited both the Treaty of St. Germain and paragraphs 34, 130, 131, and 132 of the Czechoslovak Constitution to support this claim. The Lex Perek was never extended to Bohemia.

59. Z. 18098 Bartošovice/ Partschendorf, Z. 19.594/33, SÚA, NSS, Carton 858. For other cases in which the court elaborates this position on the relationship between language use and nationality, see Z. 3220/23, Z. 6962/22, Z. 9106/22, Z. 3221/23, SÚA, NSS, Carton 857.

60. Z. 78/24, SÚA, NSS, Carton 857. See also Z. 1826/26, Z. 27893/28, Z. 12856/28, Z. 27893/28, SÚA, NSS, Carton 858.

61. Z. 6962/22, SÚA, NSS, Carton 857.

62. For analysis of Czech denunciation during and after the Second World War, see Frommer, Benjamin, National Cleansing: Retribution Against Nazi Collaborators in Post World War II Czecho slovakia (New York, forthcoming)Google Scholar; Bryant, Chad, “Making the Czechs German: Nationality and Nazi Rule in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, 1939–45” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2002).Google Scholar

63. These statistics come from my own survey of 100 random reclamations cases. See the files in the SÚA, NSS, Cartons 857, 858, and 859.

64. This principle was elaborated early on in the following early decisions: Z. 3220/23, Z. 14445/23, Z. 22210/23, Z. 2078/24, Z. 17.227/22, SÚA, NSS, Carton 857.

65. See for example Z. 12703/22, SÚA, NSS, Carton 857. Early on the court rejected reclamations in several of these cases because the Czech father was dead or had abandoned the family.

66. In 1910, Austrian census takers counted 3,291 German-speakers and 54 Czech-speakers in the town. By 1930 the Czechoslovak census registered 2,285 Germans and 972 Czechs. Spezialortsrepertorium von Niederösterreich (Vienna, 1915)Google Scholar; Das Deutschtum in der Tschechoslowakei zwischen beiden Weltkriegen, vol. 1 (Vienna, 1986).Google Scholar

67. All the above parental testimony is from SÚA, NSS, Carton 857. z. 5518/24, Valtice/Feldsberg.

68. Z. 22539/25 Skalice/Skalitz, SUA, NSS, Carton 857. Skalice/Skalitz had 573 Czech resi dents and 39 German residents according to the 1921 census. Pohl, , ed., Orientierungs-Lexikon.Google Scholar

69. Z. 8453/24, SÚA, NSS, Carton 857.

70. Z. 27893/28, SÚA, NSS, Carton 858.

71. Z. 16512/35, SÚA, NSS, Carton 859.

72. Z. 5707/29, SÚA, NSS, Carton 858.

73. Z. 20928/24, SÚA, NSS, Carton 857.

74. Z. 7645/25, SÚA, NSS, Carton 857.

75. Z. 13270/37, SÚA, NSS, Carton 859, also Z. 1269/34. SÚA, NSS, Carton 233.

76. Z. 16046/29, SÚA, NSS, Carton 858.

77. Z. 3834/29, SÚA, NSS, Carton 858.

78. Z. 15.406/35, SÚA, NSS, Carton 859. For parallel examples see Z. 1249/34, Z. 13269/37, SÚA, NSS, Carton 233.

79. In 1920 Czech school officials estimated the school-age population in Hlučin/Hultschin was composed of 6,579 “Moravian-speaking” children, 1,533 bilingual children, and 1,072 German-speaking children. Němečková, Jaroslava, “Vývoj školské problematiky na Hlučínsku v letech 1920–1938 a její politický obsah,” Z dějin českého školství, 1918–1945, ed. Koukal, Ervin (Prague, 1970), 76–83.Google Scholar

80. Němečková, , “Vývoj školské problematiky,” 133, 233–43.Google Scholar

81. “Aufnahme von Kindern aus dem Hultschiner Ländchen in Troppauer Schulen,” Präsidium des Landesschulrates in Brünn Z. 1507 präs./38, Bundesarchiv (B.Archiv), R 1501/127120. For examples of Sudeten German propaganda about Hlučín/Hultschin, see Janosch, Hermann, Das Hultschiner Ländchen (Ratibof, 1930)Google Scholar. Sudeten German parliamentary delegate Josef Slany also wrote a memo on Hlučín/Hultschin in 1938. Germany secretly provided 321,428.45 kč for the purpose of German private instruction in Hlučín/Hultschin in 1931–32, according to a Czech government investigation. In 1935–36, Nazi Germany was reportedly providing 40,000 kč a month to the region for private German instruction. See Nčmečková, , “Vývoj školské problematiky,” 135, 158.Google Scholar

82. “Aufnahme von Kindern aus dem Hultschiner Ländchen in Troppauer Schulen,” Präsidium des Landesschulrates in Brünn z. 1507, präs. 38, B.Archiv, R 1501/127120.

83. Němečková, “Vývoj školské problematiky,” 178.Google Scholar

84. Letter from Růžena Ehrmannová, majitelka soukromé německé mateřské školy v Praze XII, Prague, 6 November 1937; Letter from Josef Čapek, 3 November 1937, Městský školní výbor v Praze, č. 52463, April 1936, all in SÚA, Zemská školní rada, Carton 38.

85. For in-depth analysis of Sudeten German politics leading up to the annexation of the Sudetenland and Sudeten German attitudes toward and participation in the Nazi administration see Zimmerman, Volker, Sudetendeutsche im NS Staat: Politik und Stimmung der Bevölkerung im Reichsgau Sudetenland (Munich, 1999)Google Scholar, and Gebel, Ralf, Heim ins Reich! Konrad Henlein und der Reichsgau Sudetenland (Munich, 1999).Google Scholar

86. For examples, see Keil, Theo, ed., Die deutsche Schule in den Sudetenländern. (Munich, 1967), 469Google Scholar. On kindergartens, and women, working, “Kindergartenarbeit im Sudetenland.” Die Zeit, Prague, 26 06 1940, B.Archiv R 1501/127120Google Scholar; “Zusammenarbeit der Gemeinden und Landkreise mit der NSV zur Förderung der Kindertagesstätten,” 21 03 1941, SÚA, Uřad řisského protektorata (ÚŘP) Carton 269.Google Scholar

87. The Nazis created two generous slush funds for the purpose of “strengthening Germandom” in the Sudetengau and Protectorate: the Borderland Welfare (Grenzlandfürsorge) fund in the Sudetenland and the Volkstumsfond in the Protectorate. For an overview of the projects supported by the Volkstumsfond, see Volkstumsfond 1942, Einzelübersicht, SÚA, ÚŘP, Carton 269. For examples of requests for schools and social welfare programs from Sudeten German officials to rectify alleged interwar “Czechification” and “colonization,” see Memorandum an das Reich und preussische Ministerium des Innern, v. Bürgermeister der Stadt Troppau, October 10, 1938, B.Archiv, R 1501/127120; Grenzlandfürsorge Sudetenland, Regierungsbezirk Karlsbad II/5 2086/39, Karlsbad June 23, 1939, B.Archiv R 1501/127122; Grenzlandfürsorge Sudetenland, Regierungsbezirk Aussig, Ib Volk 101/00, 1 September 1941, B.Archiv R1501/127121; Grenzlandfürsorge Sudetenland, Anträge auf Gewährung von Beihilfen zur Pflege und Förderung des Deutschtums, 1941, B.Archiv R1501/127121.

88. Konrad Henlein himself opposed any plans to “Germanize” Czechs, arguing for complete territorial separation (i.e., expulsion). See Gebel, , Heim ins Reich, 289–326Google Scholar. For Germanization plans outlined by von Neurath and Frank in the fall of 1940, see Král, Václav, Lesson from History: Documents concerning Nazi Policies for Germanization and Extermination in Czechoslovakia (Prague, 1960), Doc. 6, 54–63Google Scholar. For analysis of Germanization policies pursued by the Third Reich, see Bryant, , “Making the Czechs German,” chap. 2–3.Google Scholar

89. On measures to repress Czech education in the Protectorate, see Doležal, Jiří, Česká kultura za protektorátu: školství, písemnictví, kinematographie. (Prague, 1996)Google Scholar; Bryant, , “Making the Czechs German,” chap. 4.Google Scholar

90. In Poland, newly registered Volksdeutsche were classified into four categories based on their “degree” of Germanness. These criteria were circulated in the protectorate but not adopted as official policy. Abschrift des Reichs Führers SS, Reichskommissar für die Festigung des deutschen Volkstums. Erlass über die Überprüfung der Bevölkerung in den eingegliederten Ostgebieten, SÚA, ÚŘP, Carton 520. Doris Bergen has argued that these criteria created an incentive to anti-Semitic violence in the occupied East, as questionable candidates for Germandom could “prove” their “Germanness” through violence against Jews. Bergen, , “The Nazi Concept of Volksdeutsche and the Exacerbation of Anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe, 1939–1945,” Journal of Contemporary History 29, no. 4 (1994): 569–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

91. Judson, , “Whether Race,” 76–95.Google Scholar

92. Ie 5062 IV-39, Berlin, 29 March 1939, SÚA, ÚŘP, Carton 520. For other examples of Sudeten German school officials who relied on profession to draw “racial” distinctions between Germans and Czechs, see Abschrift, Der Reichsprotektor in Böhmen und Mähren, Prague, 1 May 1940, no. EIU 118/40, SÚA, ÚŘP, Carton 508.

93. Aufnahme tschechisch sprechender Kinder in deutsche Schulen, 28 June 1940, SÚA, ÚŘP, Carton 295.

94. Merkblatt für die Begutachtung von Vorhaben eines Besuchs deutscher Schulen durch tschechische Volkszugehörige, SÚA, ÚŘP, Carton 295. On disputes within the administration over the use of “race” or “conviction” as the criterion for Germanization, see Gebel, , Heim ins Reich!, 298–305.Google Scholar

95. Generalreferat für politische Angelegenheiten, an den Herrn Ministerialrat Dr. Mokry, Prague, 12 August 1939, SÚA, ÚŘP, Carton 520; Reichminister des Innern no. VI d 2504/39. Berlin, 14 April 1939, B.Archiv, R 1501/127120, 235.

96. Bryant, Chad, “Either German or Czech: Fixing ationality in Bohemia and Moravia, 1939–1946,” Slavic Review 61, no. 4 (Winter 2002): 688–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

97. Frommer, Benjamin, “Expulsion or Integration: Unmixing Interethnic Marriages in Postwar Czechoslovakia,” East European Politics and Societies 14 (Spring 2000): 387CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; King, , Budweisers, 184Google Scholar; Bryant, , “Making the Czechs German,” chap. 2.Google Scholar

98. “Unterstützung aus Volkstumsmitteln,” 22 09 1942Google Scholar. See also “Irene Jeschuta, Gewährung eine einmalige Beihilfe aus Volkstumsmittel,” 25 09 1942, SÚA, ÚŘP, Carton 269.Google Scholar

99. Letter from Josef Staněk an Stellvertretenden Reichsprotektor Daleuge, Olmütz, 26 September 1942, and to the Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei, 20 November 1942, SÚA, ÚŘP, Carton 269.

100. Letter to Reichsprotektor, Brünn, 13 February 1941, SÚA, ÚŘP, Carton 292.

101. Oberlandrat in Brunn an den Herrn Reichsprotektor in Böhmen und Mähren, 28 May 1941, SÚA, ÚŘP Carton 292. For more on Toušek, see Bryant, , “Making the Czechs German,” chap. 1.Google Scholar

102. Abwanderung von deutschen Volksangehörigen nach dem übrigen Reichsgebiet, 8 August 1940, SÚA, ÚŘP Carton 292.

103. Himmler, to Sollmann, , Tgb. No. 26/31/43g, 06 21, 1943, B.Archiv, NS 19/345Google Scholar. For detailed accounts of this Germanization scheme see memo to SS Standartenführer Dr. Brandt from Deutscher Staatsminister für Böhmen und Mähren, N. St. in IV C35 j/43 g. 13 June 1944, B.Archiv, NS 19/345. This document is also published in Trials of War Criminals before the Nürnberg Military Tribunals (Washington D.C., 1950): 4–5, 1030–32.Google Scholar

104. Memo to SS Standartenführer Dr. Brandt from Deutscher Staatsminister für Böhmen und Mähren, N. St. in IV C-35 j/43 g. 13 June 1944, B. Archiv, NS 19/345.

105. For interpretations based on ideology, see Burleigh, Michael, Germany Turns Eastward: A Study of Ostforschung in the Third Retch (Cambridge, 1988)Google Scholar; Lumans, Valdis O., Himmler's Auxiliaries: The Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle and the German National Minorities of Europe, 1933–1945 (Chapel Hill, 1993)Google Scholar. For accounts of Ostpolitik that privilege pragmatics, see Connelly, John, “Nazis and Slavs: From Racial Theory to Racist Practice,” in Central European History 32 (1999): 1–33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Aly, Götz, Final Solution: Nazi Population Policy and the Murder of the European Jews (London, 1999)Google Scholar. Scholarship on Nazi Ostpolitik has largely borrowed the explanatory framework used to debate the dynamics of the Nazi state and the Holocaust in the 1980s, pitting the “intentions” of Nazi leaders against “functional” improvisation and decision-making (especially wartime economic and political developments). For an overview of these debates see Kershaw, Ian, The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems of Interpretation (London, 1993).Google Scholar

106. “Zahájení školního roku na českých školách,” 09 1940Google Scholar, in Rudé Právo, 1939–45. Ústav marxismu-leninismu, ÚV KSČ. (Prague, 1971), 123Google Scholar. For other examples of the Communist Party's use of nationalist discourses during the Second World War, see also “Připravují velké germanizační tažení,” in Rudé Právo, 1939–45, 1939, 18Google Scholar; “Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei der Tschechoslowakei vom 15 März 1939,” and “Aufruf der illegalen Kommunistischen Partei der Tschechoslowakei an das gesamte tschechische Volk,” both in Die kämpfende Tschechoslowakei: Dokumente über die Widerstandsbewegung des tschechoslowakischen Volkes, 1938–1945, ed. Doležal, Jiř– and Křen, Jan (Prague, 1964)Google Scholar. For secondary accounts, see Frommer, Benjamin, National CleansingGoogle Scholar; Abrams, Bradley, “The Struggle for the Soul of the Nation”: Czech Culture and the Rise of Socialism (Oxford, forthcoming)Google Scholar; Brenner, Christiane, “Politický diskurs české společnosti v letech 1945–1948,” Dèjiny a současnost 21, no. 3 (1999): 41–42.Google Scholar

107. “Germanisace,” V boj: edice ilegálního časopísu (Prague, 1992), 1: 333Google Scholar. See also “Všem našim instruktorům,” Rudé Právo, 1939–1945, 01 1943, 380–81.Google Scholar

108. “Žena má zůstati ženou,” Ženský obzor 7–8 (1939): 1–2.Google Scholar

109. For more on the ways in which Eastern European nationalists used the Nazi occupation to realize their own domestic nationalist ambitions, see Dieckmann, Christoph, Quinckert, Babette, Tönsmayer, Tatjana, eds. Kooperation und Verbrechen: Formen der “Kollaboration” im östlichen Europa, 1939–1945 (Göttingen, 2003)Google Scholar. Many Czech collaborators such as Emil Hácha and Emanuel Moravec fused Czech nationalism with loyalty to the Third Reich from the outset of the occupa tion. See Mastny, Vojtěch, The Czechs Under Nazi Rule: The Failure of National Resistance, 1939–42 (New York, 1971), 23Google Scholar; Bryant, , “Making the Czechs German,” chap. 1, 4.Google Scholar

110. “Národe český!” Večer, 11 18, 1938Google Scholar. Reproduced in Rataj, Jan, O autorítativní národní stát (Prague, 1997), 33Google Scholar. On the Second Republic, see also Procházka, Theodore, The Second Republic: The Disintegration of Post-Munich Czecho-slovakia (October 1938–March 1939) (New York, 1981), 56Google Scholar; On women in the Czech Second Republic and Protectorate, see Feinberg, Melissa, “The Politics of Difference in the Czech Lands After Munich,” East European Politics and Societies 17, no. 2 (05 2003): 202–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Feinberg, , “Dumplings and Domesticity: Women, Collaboration and Resistance in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia,” in Women and War in Central and Eastern Europe, ed. Nancy Wingfield and Maria Bucur (Bloomington, forthcoming).Google Scholar

111. Boberach, Heinz, ed., Meidungen aus dem Reich. Die geheimen Lageberichte des Sicherheitsdienstes der SS (Pawlak, 1984). no. 256, 2 02 1942, 3242.Google Scholar

112. Ibid., no. 192, 9 June 1941, 2387.

113. Ibid., no. 41, 17 January 1940,656.

114. Bryant, , “Making the Czechs German,” chap. 4Google Scholar; Doležal, , Česká kultura, 51Google Scholar; Langhans, Franz, “Die Erziehung zum Reichsgedanken.” Ansprachen und Vorträge (Prague, 1943), 442.Google Scholar

115. Dokument 77. 4 February 1942. “Aus Heydrichs Ansprache an die leitenden Funktionäre der Okkupationsbehörden,” in Deutsche Politik im Protektorat Boehmen und Mähren unter Reinhard Heydrich, ed. Karný, Miroslav, Milotová, Jaroslava, Kárná, Margita. (Berlin, 1997), 231.Google Scholar

116. “Teilnahme an den Abschlussfeierlichkeiten der Woche der tschechischen Jugend in Prag am 8. und 9. 7. 1944,” 14 07 1944, B. Archiv, NS 28Google Scholar; I-K8-A, Kuratorium pro výchovu mládeže v Čechach a na Moravě, SÚA, Kuratorium, Carton 43.

117. “Národem prochazí stav nejistoty,” in Rudé Právo, 1939–1945, 04 1944, no. 5, 507Google Scholar. See also “Kuratorium a česká mládež.” Rudé Právo, 1939–1945, 12 1943, no. 16, 492Google Scholar, and “Český den matek,” Rudé Právo, 1939–1945, 05 1944, no. 6, 516.Google Scholar

118. Rezessionerscheinung, 30 December 1943, SÚA, Kuratorium, Carton 43.

119. Beobachtungen während des Jugendtages, Prague, 20 September 1943, SÚA, Kuratorium, Carton 43.

120. Reich-loyal Czech Nationalism may have been similar in certain respects to the nationalities policies of the former Soviet Union, which sought to promote symbolic markers of national identity in order to domesticate political nationalism. Martin, Terry, The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923–1939 (Ithaca, 2003)Google Scholar; Slezkine, Yuri, “The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism,” in Becoming National: A Reader, ed. Eley, Geoff and Suny, Ronald (Oxford, 1996), 203–39.Google Scholar

121. Bryant, , “Making the Czechs German,” 342.Google Scholar

122. Kuratorium für Jugenderziehung in Böhmen und Mähren, 23 August 1944, B. Archiv, R 58/1003.

123. Ibid.

124. Unser Einfluss auf die ältere Schuljugend, Prague, 21 April 1944, SÚA, Kuratorium, Carton 43.

125. Kuratorium für Jugenderziehung.

126. “Praha- hostitelka,” Národní politika, 30 06 1944Google Scholar. See also “Poznáváme českou mládež,” in Přítomnost, 1 08 1944, in SÚA, Kuratorium, Carton 103.Google Scholar

127. Sicherheitsdienst RF SS SD Leitabschnitt Prag, 8 April 1944, B. Archiv, NS 6/410. The Czech Sokol was a mass, paramilitary Czech nationalist gymnastics association that was banned after the Nazi invasion.

128. “Teilnahme an den Abschlussfeierlichkeiten der Woche der tschechischen Jugend in Prag am 8. und 9. 7. 1944,” 14 07 1944, B. Archiv, NS 28.Google Scholar

129. “Bericht über die Woche der tschechischen Jugend,” Berlin, 17 07 1944, B. Archiv, NS 28.Google Scholar

130. Bryant, , “Making Czechs German,” 341.Google Scholar

131. Ibid.

132. Hlas lidu, a newspaper of the Czech People's Parry in Budějovice/Budweis, cautioned in 1947 “we must not allow ourselves to make Czechs out of Germans, but then again, we must not allow ourselves to make Germans out of Czechs either. Many mixed marriages, and especially the children from those marriages must be examined very carefully, so we do not commit any injustice.” Hlas lidu, 27 06 1945, 3–4Google Scholar. Cited, in King, , Buduweisers, 195Google Scholar. On the dynamics of national ascription during the expulsions see Bryant, , “Either German or Czech,” 683–706Google Scholar; Frommer, Benjamin, “Denouncers and Fraternizers: Gender, Collaboration, and Retribution in Bohemia and Moravia,” in Women and War, ed. Wingfield and BucurGoogle Scholar; King, , Budweisers, 190–202Google Scholar. The presidential decree which stripped Germans ot their citizenship in 1945 simultaneously ruled that citizens who had “become” German during the occupation could remain in Czechoslovakia if issued a certificate of “national reliability” by a District National Committee.

133. Opis, , Ministerstvo vnitra, Prague, 18 04 1946, k č. B-300/2878Google Scholar. “Zjištovaní a přešetřovaní dětí neznámého původu při provádění odsunu Němů.” See also memo from Czech Provincial Commission for Child Welfare in Brno, č. 9,000, December 16, 1945, Memos from Okresní péče o mládež v Novém Jičíně, 18 January 1945 and Medlov, 24 December 1945, č. 1412–45 to Czech Provincial Commission in Brno, 17 January 1946, č. 116/46, all in MZA, Česká zemská komise (ČZK), Carton 153.

134. Some recent examples in English include Bergen, , “The Nazi Concept”Google Scholar; Bergen, Doris, “The Volksdeutsche of Eastern Europe and the Collapse of the Nazi Empire, 1944–45,” in The Impact of Nazism: New Perspectives on the Third Reich and its Legacy, ed. Steinweis, Alan and Rogers, Daniel (Lincoln, 2000), 101–29Google Scholar; Bryant, , “Either German or Czech”Google Scholar; Burleigh, , Germany Turns EastwardGoogle Scholar; Connelly, , “Nazis and Slavs”Google Scholar; Harvey, Elizabeth, Women and the Nazi East: Agents and Witnesses of Germanization (New Haven, 2003)Google Scholar; Liulevicius, Vejas G., War Land on the Eastern Front (New York, 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

135. Aly, , Final SolutionGoogle Scholar; Bartov, Omer, The Eastern Front, 1941–45: German Troops and the Barbarisation of Warfare (New York, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lumans, Valdis O., “A Reassessment of Volksdeutsche and Jews in the Volhynia-Galicia-Narew resettlement,” in The Impact of Nazism, ed. Steinweis, and Rogers, , 81–100Google Scholar; Lumans, , Himmler's AuxiliariesGoogle Scholar; Mommsen, Hans, “Umvolkungspläne des National sozialismus und der Holocaust,” in Die Normalität des Verbrechens, ed. Grabitz, Helge, Bästlein, Klaus, and Tuchel, Johannes (Berlin, 1994).Google Scholar

136. Recent Czech-language literature on this topic continues to promote precisely these myths. See for example Doležal, , Česká kulturaGoogle Scholar; Řehaček, Karel, “České menšinové školství na Stříbsku v letech 1938–1939,” in Historie okupovaného pohraničí, ed. Radvanovský, Zdenék (Ustí nad Labem, 2000).Google Scholar

137. Eagle Glassheim rejects the theory of the “Nazi example” as the primary cause of the expulsions in the Bohemian lands. He situates the expulsions in nineteenth and early twentieth century Czech nationalist mythologies that symbolically cleansed Germans from the Bohemian lands, radicalized under conditions of war. Glassheim, Eagle, “National Mythologies and Ethnic Cleansing: The Expulsion of Czechoslovak Germans in 1945,” Central European History 33, no. 4 (2000): 463–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The assumption that the expulsions represented an “imitation” of Nazi politics rather than an outgrowth of native Czech nationalist political practice is nonetheless still widespread in recent literature on the subject. See Havránek, Jan, “Das tragische Jahrzehnt in Mitteleuropa,” in Nationale Frage und Vertreibung in der Tschechoslowakei und Ungarn, 1938–1948, ed. Plaschka, Richard G. et al. , (Vienna, 1997), xiii–xviiGoogle Scholar; Kurál, Václav, Místo společenství konflikt! Češi a Němci ve velkoněmecké říší a cesta k odstinu, 1938–1945 (Prague, 1994)Google Scholar; Lemberg, Hans, “Die Entwicklung der Pläne für die Aussiedlung der Deutschen aus der Tschechoslowakei,” in Der Weg in die Katastrophe. Deutsch Tschechoslowakische Beziehungen, 1938–1947, ed. Brandes, Detlef and Kurál, Václav (Essen, 1994)Google Scholar; Staněk, Thomas, Verfolgung 1945: Die Stellung der Deutschen in Böhmen, Mähren und Schlesien (Vienna, 2002), 222–28.Google Scholar

138. Recent works that problematize traditional east/west, liberal/illiberal binaries in typologies of nationalism include Eley and Suny, Introduction to Becoming National: A Reader, Weitz, Eric, A Century of Genocide: Utopias of Race and Nation (Princeton, 2003)Google Scholar; Duara, Prasenjit, Rescuing History from the Nation (Chicago, 1996).Google Scholar

139. Historians of Germany and France, for example, have long been interested in continuities and ruptures between the social policy and politics of interwar democracy and subsequent fascist or national socialist developments, as well as the disciplinary potential of progressive social politics and “modernities.” For examples of work linking modernity with genocide and a dystopian welfare state see Peukert, Detlev, “The Genesis of the Final Solution from the Spirit of Science,” in Reevaluating the Third Reich, ed. Caplan, Jane and Childers, Thomas (New York, 1993), 234–52Google Scholar; Bauman, Zygmunt, Modernity and the Holocaust (Ithaca, 1991)Google Scholar. More recent work on interwar social welfare tends to support a somewhat less pessimistic or teleological view. Crew, David, Germans on Welfare. From Weimar to Hitler (New York, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dickinson, , The Politics of German Child WelfareGoogle Scholar; Downs, , ChildhoodGoogle Scholar; Fishman, , The Battle for ChildrenGoogle Scholar; Grossmann, Atina, Reforming Sex: The German Movement for Birth Control & Abortion Reform, 1920–1950 (Oxford, 1995)Google Scholar; Hong, Young-sun, Welfare, Modernity, and the Weimar Welfare State, 1919–1933 (Princeton, 1998).Google Scholar

140. These tensions are at the heart of contemporary political and theoretical debates about issues such as affirmative action, multiculturalism, and feminism. See for example Kymlicka, Will, Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Tlieory of Minority Rights (Oxford, 1995)Google Scholar; Yuval-Davis, Nina, “Women, Citizenship, and Difference,” Feminist Review 57 (1997): 4–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

141. On national democracy in interwar Europe, see Mazower, Mark, Dark Continent: Europe's Twentieth Century (New York, 1999), chaps. 2–4Google Scholar; Brubaker, Rogers, Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe (New York, 1996), chaps. 4–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On interwar under standings of human rights see Arendt, Hannah, “The Nation-State and the Decline of the Rights of ManGoogle Scholar,” in idem, Origins of Totalitarianism (New York, 1951), 275Google Scholar. For more recent scholarship on minority rights and human rights, see Macmillan, Margaret, Peacemakers: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and its Attempt to End War (London, 2001)Google Scholar; Würtenberger, Thomas and Sydow, Gernot, “Versailles und das Völkerrecht,” 35–53Google Scholar, Brandes, Detlef, “Die Tschechoslowakei und die Pariser Vorortvorträge,” 174–93Google Scholar both in Versailles 1919: Ziele-Wirkung-Wahrnehmung, ed. Krumreich, Gerd (Essen, 2001)Google Scholar; Cmiel, Kenneth, “The Recent History of Human Rights,” American Historical Review 109, no. 9 (2004): 117–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lauren, Paul, Evolution of International Human Rights: Visions Seen (Philadelphia, 1998), 98–103Google Scholar. On tensions between individual and collective rights in interwar Austria, Boyer, John W., “Silent War and Bitter Peace: The Revolution of 1918 in Austria,” Austrian History Yearbook 35 (2003): 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

142. On post-World War II concepts of democracy, see Mazower, , Dark Continent, 286–327Google Scholar, Eley, Geoff, Forging Democracy (Oxford, 2002), 299–329.Google Scholar

143. On the importance of parental rights in the nuclear family to postwar German reconstrutcion politics in general, see especially Moeller, Robert, Protecting Motherhood: Women and the Family in the Politics of Postwar West Germany (Berkeley, 1993), 69–70Google Scholar. For contemporary examples of writing that defined Nazi and Communist barbarism through its claims on children, see Mann, Erika, School for Barbarians (New York, 1938)Google Scholar; Brauner, Alfred, Ces enfants ont vécu la guerre (Paris, 1946), 180–99Google Scholar; Bundesministerium für Gesamtdeutschen Fragen, Deutsche Kinder in Stalins Hand (Bonn, 1951), 78Google Scholar; Köhler, Hans, “Erziehung zur UnfreiheitGoogle Scholar,” in idem, Jugend Zwischen Osi Lind West. (Nordhein-Westfallen, 1955), 60Google Scholar. Sudeten German nationalists also attempted to claim victim status by contrasting their own institutions for collective education with the totalitarian, invasive tactics of the Nazis. See for example Keil, , Die deutsche SchuleGoogle Scholar and Burkert, Eduard, “Die Auflösung der sude tendeutschen Jugendbünde und die Einführung der Hitler-Jugend,” in Deutsche Jugend in Böhmen, ed. Becher, Peter (Munich, 1993).Google Scholar