the nationality of all inhabitants of the czech provinces and ...

Foreword
Stories and memories of – often traumatic – past experiences are passed on through
the family to younger generations, the older members of which were children at the
time and the younger members were not even born. The power of family ties, as well
as of shared traditions and received stereotypes helps to keep these events alive in
people’s memory and they are therefore part of our own lives too. But at such they
also come into conflict with the reality they refer to. Alongside scholarship and
political instrumentalisation, this aspect (described as “social memory” by presentday
historiographers) represents the third main level of perception and interpretation
of contemporary history. For this reason our perception of the transfer of the
Germans from Czechoslovakia is permeated by our personal, social, national,
political and possibly also religious awareness. It also depends on our experience, our
knowledge of history and is influenced by a broad range of additional information.
However to have a real understanding of that period it is necessary to know
something of the – albeit far from completed – historical research and to have the
opportunity to work with verified facts and proven linkages. Our text is also marked
by the incompleteness of the research to date. Open issues must be discussed openly
through dialogue based on mutual respect and on specialised methodological and
methodical principles. Such an approach by no means precludes the existence of
different opinions due to generational and professional diversity or resulting from
different approaches and methodological concepts. Our concern is to understand
history, not to stand in judgement on it.
The historical roots of the transfer, that final phase of the “debacle of Czech-
German relations” in the 1930s and 1940s can be traced back quite far into the past.
For that reason our exposition of the transfer starts with its historical roots, its “prehistory”,
dating right back to the 10 th -13 th centuries. However it is not the job of
this publication to trace its roots in an overall context. That would require a
monograph. Therefore we shall solely pay attention to the main factors which
retrospectively provided the ideological weapons for national argumentation in the
modern era. The point is that for a long time the relations between Czechs and
Germans were not determined by the factor of national consciousness. The main
factors were social, legal and cultural relations and later the problem of religious
denomination. Modern national consciousness came into existence only in the course
of the nineteenth century, along with many attitudes to do with identity and values.
That was the birthplace of the unequal conflict of modern times, in which the
German side was stronger and more advanced culturally, socially and politically,
while the Czech side was weaker but developing and asserting its interests with
increasing consistency and success. The fact that the conflict was resolved violently
was due to a combination of circumstances, some of them historically determined,
others fortuitous. As a fact of history it cannot be undone. However, as part of
historical scholarship and of personal and collective historical consciousness it must
be food for reflection on the consequences of “dislocated” events. Just two days prior
to Munich, Karel Čapek reflected on the possible outcome in a sensitive and
poignantly perceptive way and almost prophetically: “… try to concede secretly
another possibility – that that country, which I don’t want to name, is defeated; that
defeat, you can bet your life on it, will be a national catastrophe. Consider that defeat
and its ramifications as a mere possibility and then decide, in the light of conscience
and your love for your country, whether your are for war or peace. It would be your
decision – or your transgression, depending on how you look at it, but it would be a
dreadful decision or transgression, and you, your towns and your villages would bear
the brunt of it.”
Zdeněk Beneš
9